Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 86 / Thursday, May 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 60335240. 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 the consensus safety standard CSA/UL
60335289 committee included representatives from fire service which concluded that the proposed label requirements replicated from UL/CSA
60335240 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 60335289
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 603352
89 standard but notes that this is a different UL standard from the one
VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:29 May 05, 2021

Jkt 253001

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 60335289 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 60335289
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 EPAs approach in other prior SNAP
rules.
Comment: Daikin stated that the UL
Standard was drafted under a consensus process and requested that EPAs 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 EPAs 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 60335240
standard, which provides different requirements for equipment with A2L
refrigerants compared to equipment with A3 refrigerants. They indicated that treating A2 sic and A3

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

24465

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, EPAs 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 60335240 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 HFC32 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.

E:FRFM06MYR2.SGM

06MYR2