
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 216 (Monday, November 9, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69457-69558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26946]



[[Page 69457]]

Vol. 80

Monday,

No. 216

November 9, 2015

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





40 CFR Part 82





Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Update to the Refrigerant Management 
Requirements Under the Clean Air Act; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 69458]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0453; FRL-9933-48-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS51


Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Update to the Refrigerant 
Management Requirements Under the Clean Air Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act prohibits the knowing release of ozone-
depleting and substitute refrigerants during the course of maintaining, 
servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances or industrial process 
refrigeration. The existing regulations require that persons servicing 
or disposing of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment observe 
certain service practices that reduce emissions of ozone-depleting 
refrigerant. This proposed rule would update those existing 
requirements as well as extend them, as appropriate, to non-ozone-
depleting substitute refrigerants, such as hydrofluorocarbons. The 
proposed updates include strengthening leak repair requirements, 
establishing recordkeeping requirements for the disposal of appliances 
containing five to 50 pounds of refrigerant, changes to the technician 
certification program, and changes for improved readability, 
compliance, and restructuring of the requirements. As a result, this 
action would reduce emissions of ozone-depleting substances and gases 
with high global warming potentials.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 8, 2016. Any 
party requesting a public hearing must notify the contact listed below 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time 
on November 16, 2015. If a public hearing is requested, the hearing 
will be held on or around November 24, 2015. If a hearing is held, it 
will take place at EPA headquarters in Washington, DC. EPA will post a 
notice on our Web site, www.epa.gov/ozone/strathome.html, announcing 
further information should a hearing take place.
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the 
information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your 
comments on or before December 9, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0453, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. EPA 
may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit 
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the 
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish 
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents 
located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full 
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luke Hall-Jordan, Stratospheric 
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 6205T, 
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number 
(202) 343-9591; email address hall-jordan.luke@epa.gov. You may also 
visit www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608 for further information about 
refrigerant management, other Stratospheric Ozone Protection 
regulations, the science of ozone layer depletion, and related topics.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What action is the Agency taking?
    C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
    D. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?
II. Background
    A. What are ozone-depleting substances?
    B. What is the National Recycling and Emission Reduction 
Program?
    C. What developments have occurred since EPA first established 
the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program?
    D. What are the goals of this proposed rule?
    E. Stakeholder Engagement
    F. What are the major changes EPA is proposing?
III. The Clean Air Act and EPA's Authority for the Proposed 
Revisions
IV. The Proposed Rule
    A. Proposed Changes to the Definitions in Section 82.152
    B. Proposed Changes to the Venting Prohibition in Section 
82.154(a)
    C. Proposed Changes to the Refrigerant and Appliance Sales 
Restrictions in Section 82.154
    D. Proposed Changes to the Evacuation Requirements in Section 
82.156
    E. Proposed Changes to the Safe Disposal Provisions in Section 
82.156(f)
    F. Proposed Changes to Leak Repair Requirements in Section 
82.156(i)
    G. Proposed Changes to the Standards for Recovery and/or 
Recycling Equipment in Section 82.158
    H. Proposed Changes for Equipment Testing Organizations in 
Section 82.160
    I. Proposed Changes to the Technician Certification Requirements 
in Section 82.161
    J. Proposed Changes to the Technician Certification Program 
Requirements in Section 82.161
    K. Proposed Changes to the Reclamation Requirements in Section 
82.164
    L. Proposed Changes to the Recordkeeping and Reporting 
Requirements in Section 82.166
    M. Proposed Effective and Compliance Dates
V. Economic Analysis
VI. Possible Future Changes to Subpart F
    A. Appliance Maintenance and Leak Repair
    B. Refrigerant Reclamation
    C. Safe Disposal of Small Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-Like 
Appliances
    D. Technician Certification
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 and 1 CFR 
part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

List of Acronyms

AHEF--Atmospheric and Health Effects Framework model
AHRI--Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
ARI--Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (now AHRI)
ASHRAE--American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
CAA--Clean Air Act
CARB--California Air Resources Board
CBI--Confidential business information

[[Page 69459]]

CFC--Chlorofluorocarbon
CO2--Carbon dioxide
GHG--Greenhouse gas
GWP--Global warming potential
HCFC--Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC--Hydrofluorocarbon
HFO--Hydrofluoroolefin
IPCC--Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IPR--Industrial process refrigeration
MMTCO2eq--Million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
MVAC--Motor vehicle air conditioner
NAICS--North American Industry Classification System
ODP--Ozone depletion potential
ODS--Ozone-depleting substance
PFC--Perfluorocarbon
RMP--Refrigerant Management Program
SCAQMD--South Coast Air Quality Management District
SNAP--Significant New Alternatives Policy
UL--Underwriters Laboratories

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action 
include those who own, operate, maintain, service, repair, recycle or 
dispose of refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances and 
refrigerants, as well as entities that manufacture or sell 
refrigerants, products and services for the refrigeration and air-
conditioning industry. Regulated entities include, but are not limited 
to, the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  North American
                                     Industry
           Category               Classification   Examples of regulated
                                  System (NAICS)          entities
                                       Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial Process              111, 11251,        Owners or operators
 Refrigeration (IPR).            11511, 21111,      of refrigeration
                                 2211, 2212,        equipment used in
                                 2213, 311, 3121,   agriculture and crop
                                 3221, 3222,        production, oil and
                                 32311, 32411,      gas extraction, ice
                                 3251, 32512,       rinks, and the
                                 3252, 3253,        manufacture of
                                 32541, 3256,       frozen food, dairy
                                 3259, 3261,        products, food and
                                 3262, 3324,        beverages, ice,
                                 3328, 33324,       petrochemicals,
                                 33341, 33361,      chemicals,
                                 3341, 3344,        machinery, medical
                                 3345, 3346,        equipment, plastics,
                                 3364, 33911,       paper, and
                                 339999.            electronics.
Commercial Refrigeration......  42374, 42393,      Owners or operators
                                 42399, 4242,       of refrigerated
                                 4244, 42459,       warehousing and
                                 42469, 42481,      storage facilities,
                                 42493, 4451,       supermarkets,
                                 4452, 45291,       grocery stores,
                                 48422, 4885,       warehouse clubs,
                                 4931, 49312,       supercenters,
                                 72231.             convenience stores,
                                                    and refrigerated
                                                    transport.
Comfort Cooling...............  45211, 45299,      Owners or operators
                                 453998, 512,       of air-conditioning
                                 522, 524, 531,     equipment used in
                                 5417, 551, 561,    the following:
                                 6111, 6112,        Hospitals, office
                                 6113, 61151,       buildings, colleges
                                 622, 7121,         and universities,
                                 71394, 721, 722,   metropolitan transit
                                 813, 92.           authorities, real
                                                    estate rental &
                                                    leased properties,
                                                    lodging and food
                                                    services, property
                                                    management, schools,
                                                    and public
                                                    administration or
                                                    other public
                                                    institutions.
Plumbing, Heating, and Air-     238220, 81131,     Plumbing, heating,
 Conditioning Contractors.       811412.            and air-conditioning
                                                    contractors, and
                                                    refrigerant recovery
                                                    contractors.
Manufacturers and Distributors  325120, 441310,    Automotive parts and
 of Small Cans of Refrigerant.   447110.            accessories stores
                                                    and industrial gas
                                                    manufacturers.
Reclaimers....................  325120, 423930,    Industrial gas
                                 424690, 562920,    manufacturers,
                                 562212.            recyclable material
                                                    merchant
                                                    wholesalers,
                                                    materials recovery
                                                    facilities, solid
                                                    waste landfills, and
                                                    other chemical and
                                                    allied products
                                                    merchant
                                                    wholesalers.
Disposers and Recyclers of      423990, 562212,    Materials recovery
 Appliances.                     562920.            facilities, solid
                                                    waste landfills, and
                                                    other miscellaneous
                                                    durable goods
                                                    merchant
                                                    wholesalers.
Refrigerant Wholesalers.......  325120, 42,        Industrial gas
                                 424690.            manufacturers, other
                                                    chemical and allied
                                                    products merchant
                                                    wholesalers,
                                                    wholesale trade.
Certifying Organizations......  541380...........  Environmental test
                                                    laboratories and
                                                    services.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding the types of entities that could 
potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not 
listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether your 
facility, company, business organization, or other entity is regulated 
by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria 
contained in section 608 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) as 
amended and this proposed rule. 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.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    The existing regulations require that persons servicing or 
disposing of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment observe 
certain service practices that reduce emissions of ozone-depleting 
refrigerant. Specifically, these provisions include: Requiring that 
technicians be certified to work on appliances; restricting the sale of 
refrigerant to certified technicians; specifying the proper evacuation 
levels before opening up an appliance; requiring the use of certified 
refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment; requiring the 
maintenance and repair of appliances that meet certain size and leak 
rate thresholds; requiring that ozone-depleting refrigerants be removed 
from appliances prior to disposal; requiring that air-conditioning and 
refrigeration equipment be provided with a servicing aperture or 
process stub to facilitate refrigerant recovery; requiring that 
refrigerant reclaimers be certified in order to reclaim and sell used 
refrigerant; and establishing standards for technician certification 
programs, recovery equipment, and quality of reclaimed refrigerant.
    This rule proposes to update the existing requirements in 40 CFR 
part 82, subpart F (subpart F) that currently apply to ozone-depleting 
refrigerants and then extend those requirements, as

[[Page 69460]]

appropriate, to non-ozone-depleting substitute refrigerants, including 
but not limited to hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons 
(PFCs). This rule would also streamline the regulations to improve 
clarity.

C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    EPA is proposing these revisions to the National Recycling and 
Emission Reduction Program found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F under the 
authority of section 608 of the CAA. More detail on EPA's authority for 
this action is provided in the following sections. To summarize 
briefly, section 608(a) requires EPA to promulgate regulations 
regarding the use and disposal of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) that 
reduce the use and emissions of such substances to the lowest 
achievable level, and to maximize the recapturing and recycling of such 
substances. Section 608(c) prohibits any person from knowingly venting, 
releasing, or disposing into the environment any ozone-depleting or 
substitute refrigerant in the course of maintaining, servicing, 
repairing, or disposing of air-conditioning or refrigeration appliances 
or industrial process refrigeration (IPR). In addition, EPA's authority 
for this rulemaking is supplemented by section 301(a) which provides 
authority to ``prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out 
[the EPA Administrator's] functions under this Act'' and section 114 
which provides authority for the EPA Administrator to require 
recordkeeping and reporting in carrying out any provision of the CAA 
(with certain exceptions that do not apply here).

D. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?

    The revisions proposed here would require certain businesses to 
take actions that would have financial costs, such as conducting leak 
inspections, repairing leaks, and keeping records. The Agency has 
performed an analysis to estimate the impact on the entire United 
States economy associated with the proposed regulatory changes. Total 
incremental compliance costs associated with this proposed rule are 
estimated to be $63 million per year in 2014 dollars. Total annual 
operating savings associated with reduced refrigerant use are estimated 
to be $52 million; thus incremental compliance costs and refrigerant 
savings combined are estimated to be approximately $11 million. A more 
detailed description of the results of the analysis and the methods 
used can be found in the technical support document, Analysis of the 
Economic Impact and Benefits of Proposed Revisions to the National 
Recycling and Emission Reduction Program.
    The proposed update and revisions to the requirements under section 
608 would significantly reduce emissions of refrigerants and thus 
ameliorate the harm they would cause to the environment. EPA estimates 
that the proposed revisions will prevent damage to the stratospheric 
ozone layer by reducing emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants by 
approximately 116 metric tons per year, weighted by the ozone-depletion 
potential (ODP) of the gases emitted. Avoided emissions of ozone-
depleting refrigerants and non-ozone-depleting substitutes will also 
safeguard Earth's climate because most of these refrigerants are potent 
greenhouse gases. Weighted by their global warming potentials (GWP),\1\ 
EPA estimates that the proposed revisions will prevent annual emissions 
of greenhouse gases equivalent to 7.5 million metric tons of carbon 
dioxide (MMTCO2eq). The reductions in emissions of GHGs and 
ODS have benefits for human health and the environment, which have been 
discussed at length in prior EPA rulemakings including the Endangerment 
and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases (74 FR 66496, 
66517, 66539) and in section II.D of this preamble. Details of the 
benefits and the methods used to estimate them are discussed later in 
this preamble and in the technical support document referenced above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Unless otherwise stated, GWPs stated in this document are 
100-year integrated GWPs, relative to a GWP of 1 for carbon dioxide, 
as reported in IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment 
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, 
S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor 
and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This document is accessible at 
www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html. For 
blends of multiple compounds, we are weighting the GWP of each 
component by mass percentage in the blend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA anticipates further benefits including emissions reductions 
associated with enhanced recordkeeping provisions, and emissions 
reductions following from consistent standards for ODS- and substitute-
containing appliances. These additional benefits have not been 
quantified. There may be additional energy savings due to leak repair, 
which also have not been quantified.

II. Background

A. What are ozone-depleting substances?

    The stratospheric ozone layer protects life on Earth from the sun's 
harmful radiation. This natural shield has gradually been depleted by 
man-made chemicals. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were discovered in the 
1970s to deplete the stratospheric ozone layer. CFCs and other class I 
ODS like methyl chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, and halons were used 
as refrigerants, solvents, foam blowing agents, fire suppression agents 
and in other smaller applications. Class I ODS have been phased out 
though they may still be reclaimed from existing appliances and reused. 
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), class II ODS with lower potential to 
deplete the ozone layer than class I substances, are currently being 
phased out. All of these compounds have atmospheric lifetimes long 
enough to allow them to be transported by winds into the stratosphere. 
Because they release chlorine or bromine when they break down, they 
damage the protective ozone layer.
    The initial concern about the ozone layer in the 1970s led to a ban 
on the use of CFCs as aerosol propellants in several countries, 
including the United States. In 1985, the Vienna Convention on the 
Protection of the Ozone Layer was adopted to formalize international 
cooperation on this issue. Additional efforts resulted in the adoption 
of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in 
1987. Today, all countries recognized by the United Nations have 
ratified the Montreal Protocol and have agreed to phase out the 
production of ODS.

B. What is the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program?

    Section 608 of the CAA requires EPA to establish a comprehensive 
refrigerant management program to limit emissions of ozone-depleting 
refrigerants. Section 608 also prohibits the knowing release or 
disposal of ozone-depleting refrigerant and their substitutes during 
the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of air-conditioning and 
refrigeration appliances or IPR. Section 608 is described in greater 
detail in Section III of this proposal below.
    EPA first issued regulations under section 608 of the CAA on May 
14, 1993 (58 FR 28660, ``1993 Rule''), to establish the national 
refrigerant management program for ozone-depleting refrigerants 
recovered during the maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of air-
conditioning and refrigeration appliances. Together with the

[[Page 69461]]

prohibition on venting during the maintenance, service, repair, or 
disposal of class I and class II ODS (January 22, 1991; 56 FR 2420), 
these regulations were intended to substantially reduce the use and 
emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants.
    The regulations require that persons servicing air-conditioning and 
refrigeration equipment containing an ozone-depleting refrigerant 
observe certain practices that reduce emissions. They also established 
refrigerant recovery equipment requirements, reclamation certification 
requirements, technician certification requirements, and restricted the 
sale of refrigerant to certified technicians. In addition, they 
required that ODS be removed from appliances prior to disposal, and 
that all air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment using an ODS be 
provided with a servicing aperture or process stub to facilitate 
refrigerant recovery.
    The 1993 Rule also established a requirement to repair leaking 
appliances containing 50 or more pounds of ODS refrigerant. The rule 
set an annual leak rate of 35 percent for commercial refrigeration 
appliances and IPR and 15 percent for comfort cooling appliances. If 
the applicable leak rate is exceeded, the appliance must be repaired 
within 30 days.
    EPA revised these regulations through subsequent rulemakings 
published on August 19, 1994 (59 FR 42950), November 9, 1994 (59 FR 
55912), August 8, 1995 (60 FR 40420), July 24, 2003 (68 FR 43786), 
March 12, 2004 (69 FR 11946), and January 11, 2005 (70 FR 1972). EPA 
has also issued proposed rules to revise the regulations in subpart F 
on June 11, 1998 (63 FR 32044) and December 15, 2010 (75 FR 78558), 
elements of which were not finalized and which EPA is re-proposing in 
this rule.
    The August 19, 1994, rule amended specific definitions, required 
practices, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements, as well as 
adopted industry standards for reclaimed ODS refrigerants.
    The November 9, 1994, rule clarified the conditions under which 
technician certification programs were grandfathered, allowing 
technicians who had participated in voluntary technician training and 
certification programs prior to the publication of the 1993 Rule to 
receive formal certification. The rule also clarified the scope of the 
technician certification requirement and provided a limited exemption 
from certification requirements for apprentices.
    The August 8, 1995, rule was issued in response to a settlement 
agreement between EPA and the Chemical Manufacturers Association to 
give additional flexibility to repair or retrofit IPR appliances 
containing ODS. In that rule, EPA allowed owners or operators 
additional time beyond 30 days to complete repairs to address leaks and 
more than one year to retrofit appliances where certain conditions 
applied (i.e., equipment located in areas subject to radiological 
contamination, unavailability of necessary parts, or adherence to local 
or State laws hinder immediate repairs). EPA also clarified that purged 
refrigerants that have been captured and destroyed can be excluded from 
the leak rate calculations.
    The July 24, 2003, rule finalized portions of a proposed rulemaking 
(61 FR 7858; February 29, 1996) that amended the recordkeeping aspects 
of the section 608 technician certification program, refined aspects of 
the refrigerant sales restriction, adopted updated versions of ARI 
Standards 700 \2\ and 740,\3\ amended several definitions, and set 
forth procedures for the revocation and/or suspension of approval to 
certify technicians and refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment 
and revocation and/or suspension procedures for certification as a 
refrigerant reclaimer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute Standard 
700, Specification for Fluorocarbons and Other Refrigerants, 
contains standards for the reclamation of used refrigerants.
    \3\ The Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute Standard 
740, Performance Rating of Refrigerant Recovery Equipment and 
Recovery/Recycling Equipment, contains standards for the equipment 
used to recover refrigerant from air-conditioning and refrigeration 
appliances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The March 12, 2004, rule exempted from the venting prohibition of 
section 608(c)(2) specific non-ozone-depleting substances that the 
Agency found did not pose a threat to the environment (69 FR 11946). 
The rule notably did not exempt HFC and PFC refrigerants from the 
venting prohibition. The rule also clarified that EPA regulations 
affecting the handling and sales of ozone-depleting refrigerants are 
applicable to blends that contain an ODS.
    The January 11, 2005, rule clarified that the leak repair 
requirements apply to any refrigerant blend that contains an ODS (70 FR 
1927). The rule amended the required practices and associated 
reporting/recordkeeping requirements. It also clarified certain leak 
repair requirements.
    In December 2010 (75 FR 78558, December 15, 2010, ``proposed 2010 
Leak Repair Rule''), EPA proposed changes to the leak repair 
requirements. EPA's intent in that proposal was to create a streamlined 
set of leak repair requirements that are applicable to all types of 
appliances containing 50 or more pounds of ozone-depleting refrigerant. 
The rule also proposed to reduce the applicable leak repair rates. EPA 
did not finalize that rule. Today's rulemaking re-proposes many of the 
concepts contained in the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule. Through 
today's action, EPA is withdrawing the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule.
    Finally, on May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29682), and April 10, 2015 (80 FR 
19453), EPA expanded the list of refrigerants that are exempt from the 
CAA venting prohibition in specific end uses. The 2014 final rule 
exempted the following from the venting prohibition:

--Isobutane (R-600a) and R-441A in household refrigerators, freezers, 
and combination refrigerators and freezers;
--Propane (R-290) in retail food refrigerators and freezers (stand-
alone units only). The 2015 final rule added the following to the list 
of refrigerants exempt from the venting prohibition:
--Isobutane (R-600a) and R-441A in retail food refrigerators and 
freezers (stand-alone units only);
--Propane (R-290) in household refrigerators, freezers, and combination 
refrigerators and freezers;
--Ethane (R-170) in very low temperature refrigeration equipment and 
equipment for non-mechanical heat transfer;
--R-441A, propane, and isobutane in vending machines; and
--Propane and R-441A in self-contained room air conditioners for 
residential and light commercial air-conditioning and heat pumps.

C. What developments have occurred since EPA first established the 
National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program?

1. Phaseout of CFCs and HCFCs
    In 1993 when EPA established the refrigerant management 
requirements of subpart F, CFCs and HCFCs were the most commonly used 
refrigerants, depending on the specific application. Just six months 
prior, in November 1992, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 
accelerated the phaseout schedule for CFCs through the Copenhagen 
Amendment so that there would be a complete phaseout by 1996. The 
Copenhagen Amendment also created for the first time a phaseout 
schedule for HCFCs. The schedule for HCFCs was later amended and today 
calls for a 35 percent reduction in production and consumption from 
each Article 2 Party's (developed country's)

[[Page 69462]]

cap by 2004, followed by a 75 percent reduction by 2010, a 90 percent 
reduction by 2015, a 99.5 percent reduction by 2020, and a total 
phaseout in 2030. From 2020 to 2030, production and consumption at only 
0.5 percent of baseline is allowed solely for servicing existing air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment.
    The United States chose to implement the Montreal Protocol phaseout 
schedule on a chemical-by-chemical basis. In 1993, as authorized by 
section 606 of the CAA, EPA established a phaseout schedule that 
eliminated HCFC-141b first and would greatly restrict HCFC-142b and 
HCFC-22 next, due to their high ozone depletion potentials (ODPs), 
followed by restrictions on all other HCFCs and ultimately a complete 
phaseout (58 FR 15014, March 18, 1993, and 58 FR 65018, December 10, 
1993). EPA continues to issue allowances for the production and 
consumption of HCFCs that have not yet been phased out. The allowance 
levels reflect not only phaseout schedules but also use restrictions 
under section 605(a) of the CAA. The phaseout schedule and allowance 
levels can be found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart A.
    Much as EPA established the refrigerant management program shortly 
before the CFC phaseout, today's proposal to update those regulations 
closely precedes the phaseout of HCFCs. The reasons for encouraging a 
viable CFC recycling program support the same approach for HCFCs. The 
1993 Rule discussed a 1990 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking 
regarding a national CFC recycling program. As the 1993 Rule discussed, 
that 1990 notice emphasized that recycling is important because it 
would allow the continued use of equipment requiring CFCs for service 
past the year in which CFC production is phased out, thereby 
eliminating or deferring the cost of early retirement or retrofit of 
such equipment. Because of the continued use of these substances in 
existing equipment, recycling can serve as a useful bridge to 
alternative products while minimizing disruption of the current capital 
stock of equipment. (92 FR 28661).
    More than twenty years later, with the experience gained through 
the phaseout of CFCs, reducing emissions of HCFCs and maximizing their 
recovery and reclamation remains just as important for ensuring the 
continued viability of the current stock of equipment. The transition 
out of CFC and now HCFC refrigerants is one reason that it is important 
to update the refrigerant management regulations in subpart F.
2. Use of Non-ODS Alternatives
    The universe of available refrigerants has expanded dramatically 
since EPA first established the refrigerant management regulations in 
subpart F. Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program 
(CAA section 612), EPA identifies substitutes that pose lower overall 
risks to human health and the environment and must prohibit the use of 
substitutes for which there are other available or potentially 
available alternatives posing lower overall risk to human health and 
the environment for the same use. Thus, EPA's SNAP program does not 
provide a static list of alternatives but instead evolves the list as 
the EPA makes decisions informed by our overall understanding of the 
environmental and human health impacts as well as our current knowledge 
about available substitutes. Under SNAP, EPA has reviewed over 400 
substitutes in the refrigeration and air-conditioning; fire 
suppression; foam blowing; solvent cleaning; aerosols; adhesives, 
coatings, and inks; sterilants; and tobacco expansion sectors. To date, 
SNAP has issued 30 notices and 20 rulemakings listing alternatives as 
acceptable, acceptable subject to use conditions, acceptable subject to 
narrowed use limits, or unacceptable for those various end-uses.
    On April 10, 2015, the SNAP Program listed as acceptable, subject 
to use conditions, three hydrocarbons, one hydrocarbon blend, and HFC-
32 as substitute refrigerants in a number of refrigeration and air-
conditioning end-uses (80 FR 19454). The SNAP program has also recently 
listed a number of additional refrigerant options, including blends of 
hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs) and HFCs that have lower global warming 
potentials (GWPs) (October 21, 2014, 79 FR 62863; July 20, 2015, 80 FR 
42870), and continues to review information and issue rulemakings and 
notices to provide additional refrigerant options, including 
hydrocarbons and low-GWP HFOs.
    Due to the change in the suite of acceptable refrigerants available 
for some end-uses, EPA anticipates that the relative amounts of 
different refrigerants in stocks in the United States will change, and 
thus that the universe of refrigerants subject to the refrigerant 
management program will continue to evolve. The diversity of 
refrigerants and the potential for cross contamination are two reasons 
why it is important to clarify how all refrigerants should be handled 
under the refrigerant management regulations in subpart F.
3. Increased Attention to HFCs as Climate Pollutants
    By greatly reducing emissions of CFCs and HCFCs, domestic and 
international efforts to protect the ozone layer have also helped to 
protect global climate as these ODS are also potent GHGs. However, 
HFCs, which are the predominant class of compounds being used as 
replacements for ODS, also can have high GWPs. As their use has 
increased, concern has grown over the environmental damage caused by 
heat trapped in the atmosphere by HFCs.
    On December 7, 2009, (74 FR 66496) the Administrator issued an 
Endangerment Finding regarding GHGs under section 202(a) of the CAA. As 
part of this finding, EPA concluded that the current and projected 
concentrations of six key well-mixed GHGs in the atmosphere--carbon 
dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide 
(N2O), HFCs, PFCs, and sulfur hexafluoride 
(SF6)--endanger both the health and welfare of current and 
future generations. While this finding was made specifically for the 
purposes of section 202(a) of the CAA, EPA is cognizant of the global 
climate risks generally discussed in the finding in its work to reduce 
emissions of HFCs and other GHGs.
i. Climate Action Plan
    In June 2013, the President announced the Climate Action Plan.\4\ 
Among the many actions called for, the Climate Action Plan outlined a 
set of measures to address HFCs. The Climate Action Plan states: ``to 
reduce emissions of HFCs, the United States can and will lead both 
through international diplomacy as well as domestic actions.'' Part of 
the international diplomacy is the Amendment to the Montreal Protocol 
discussed below. The Climate Action Plan also directed EPA to use its 
authority through the SNAP program ``to encourage private sector 
investment in low-emissions technology by identifying and approving 
climate-friendly chemicals while prohibiting certain uses of the most 
harmful chemical alternatives.'' In July 2015, EPA finalized a rule 
that changed the listing status for certain substitutes previously 
listed as acceptable under the SNAP program (80 FR 42870). That rule 
changed the status for certain HFCs and HCFCs for various end-uses in 
the aerosols, refrigeration and air-conditioning, and foam blowing 
sectors. EPA made these changes based on information showing that other

[[Page 69463]]

substitutes are available for the same uses that pose lower risk 
overall to human health and the environment. A copy of the Climate 
Action Plan is available in the docket to this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The President's Climate Action Plan, 2013, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minimizing the emissions and maximizing the recovery and reuse of 
HFC refrigerants is consistent with the Climate Action Plan. EPA 
estimates that the proposed revisions will prevent annual emissions of 
refrigerant equivalent to 7.5 MMTCO2eq. Of this amount 3.7 
MMTCO2eq are due to HFCs and 3.8 MMTCO2eq are due 
to ODS. The significant environmental benefit to be gained by more 
clearly addressing HFC refrigerants is another reason why it is 
important to update the refrigerant management regulations in subpart 
F.
ii. Trends in HFC Use and Future Projections
    Although HFCs represent a small fraction of current GHG emissions 
by weight, their warming impact per kilogram is very strong. For 
example, the most commonly used HFC, HFC-134a, has a GWP of 1,430, 
which means it traps that many times as much heat per kilogram as 
carbon dioxide does over 100 years. HFC emissions are projected to 
increase substantially and at an increasing rate over the next several 
decades if their production is left uncontrolled. In the United States, 
emissions of HFCs are increasing more quickly than those of any other 
GHG, and globally they are increasing 10-15% annually. At that rate, 
emissions are projected to double by 2020 and triple by 2030.
    HFCs are also rapidly accumulating in the atmosphere. The 
atmospheric concentration of HFC-134a has increased by about 10% per 
year from 2006 to 2012, and the concentrations of HFC-143a and HFC-125, 
which are components of commonly-used refrigerant blends, have risen 
over 13% and 16% per year from 2007-2011, respectively. Annual global 
emissions of HFCs are projected to rise to about 6,400 to 9,900 
MMTCO2eq in 2050, which is comparable to the drop in annual 
GHG emissions of ODS of 8,000 MMTCO2eq between 1988 and 2010 
(UNEP, 2011). As these emissions accumulate in the atmosphere, the HFCs 
change the balance between energy entering the Earth's climate from the 
sun and energy escaping the Earth into space; the change in the net 
rate at which energy enters the atmosphere is called radiative forcing. 
By 2050, the buildup of HFCs in the atmosphere is projected to increase 
radiative forcing by up to 0.4 W m-2. This may be as much as 
one-fifth to one-quarter of the expected increase in radiative forcing 
due to the buildup of CO2 since 2000, according to the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) Special Report on 
Emissions Scenarios. To appreciate the significance of the projected 
HFC emissions within the context of all GHGs, HFCs would be equivalent 
to 5 to 12 percent of the CO2 emissions in 2050 based on the 
IPCC's highest CO2 emissions scenario and equivalent to 27 
to 69 percent of CO2 emissions based on the IPCC's lowest 
CO2 emissions pathway.
iii. Montreal Protocol Amendments
    For the past six years, the United States, Canada, and Mexico have 
proposed an amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase down the 
production and consumption of HFCs. The United States seeks adoption of 
an amendment that is acceptable to all parties. Global benefits of the 
amendment proposal would yield significant reductions of over 90 
gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) through 2050. 
In 2015, a number of Parties to the Montreal Protocol have also 
proposed amendments to phase down global production and consumption of 
HFCs. These proposals were introduced by the Federated States of 
Micronesia on behalf of a group on Island States; the European Union; 
and India.
4. Petition From the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy
    On January 31, 2014, the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric 
Policy (the Alliance) petitioned the Agency to initiate a rulemaking to 
extend the section 608 refrigerant management regulations to HFCs and 
other substitute refrigerants. The petition advocates for consistent 
refrigerant management regulations that apply the same rules for ozone-
depleting and non-ozone-depleting refrigerants. It argues that 
extending the section 608 requirements to HFCs ``would increase the 
environmental benefits already realized from the section 608 
regulations, through reduced HFC emissions, and would complement the 
United States' goal of a global phase down in HFC production and 
consumption.'' The Alliance cites sections 608(c)(2) and 301(a) of the 
CAA as authority for these changes. A copy of the petition is included 
in the docket for this rulemaking.
    While EPA is not proposing this action solely as a result of the 
Alliance petition, the proposed extension of the National Recycling and 
Emission Reduction Program to HFCs and other non-exempt substitutes, if 
finalized, would constitute the Agency's response to the petition.

D. What are the goals of this proposed rule?

    The Agency has three goals for this rulemaking. The first is to 
protect the stratospheric ozone layer by reducing emissions of ODS. The 
second is to protect the climate system by reducing emissions of other 
refrigerant gases with high GWPs. This includes ODS refrigerants and 
many substitutes, including HFCs, that EPA has not already exempted 
from the CAA statutory venting prohibition. Since many substitutes have 
a high GWP, some as high as 10,000, reducing emissions of ODS 
substitutes will reduce emissions of highly potent GHGs. While the 
current regulations in subpart F contain some provisions implementing 
the venting prohibition for substitutes for ODS, such as a general 
prohibition on the knowing release of such substances, with certain 
enumerated exceptions, they do not have any other specific use and 
handling requirements for ODS substitutes. As explained in more detail 
below, EPA is proposing to revise subpart F to include such provisions 
to help more fully and effectively implement the venting prohibition in 
section 608(c) of the CAA. Finally, EPA is proposing changes to the 
regulations in subpart F to improve their effectiveness, including 
increasing compliance and enforceability both for ODS and ODS 
substitutes.
1. Protecting the Stratospheric Ozone Layer
    The proposed changes would reduce the use and emission of ODS, 
maximize the recapture and recycling of such substances, and further 
implement the prohibition on knowingly venting or releasing ODS 
refrigerants during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of 
appliances. EPA estimates that this proposal will result in annual 
reductions in emissions of approximately 116 ODP-weighted metric tons. 
A separate support document Analysis of the Economic Impact and 
Benefits of Proposed Revisions to the National Recycling and Emission 
Reduction Program contains a full discussion of the benefits and is 
available in the docket.
    Stratospheric ozone depletion decreases the atmosphere's ability to 
protect life on the Earth's surface from the sun's UV radiation. The 
links between stratospheric ozone depletion and public health are well 
established. The Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion, prepared by 
the Scientific

[[Page 69464]]

Assessment Panel to the Montreal Protocol, and Environmental Effects of 
Ozone Depletion and its Interactions with Climate Change, prepared by 
the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel to the Montreal Protocol 
provide comprehensive information regarding the links between emissions 
of ODS, ozone layer depletion, UV radiation, and human health effects. 
Both documents are available in the docket for this rule. Adverse 
health effects associated with exposure to UV radiation include skin 
cancer, cataracts, and immune suppression.
    The most common forms of skin cancer are strongly associated with 
UV radiation, and UV exposure is the most preventable cause of skin 
cancer (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Surgeon 
General's Call to Action to Prevent Skin Cancer. Washington, DC: U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General; 
2014). Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United 
States, with more than 3.5 million new cases diagnosed annually 
(American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts and Figures, 2015). The number 
of new cases of melanoma, the most serious form of skin cancer, has 
been increasing. Rates for new cases of melanoma have been rising on 
average 1.4% each year over the last 10 years (National Cancer 
Institute, SEER Stat Fact Sheets: Melanoma of the Skin, available at 
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/melan.html, accessed May 5, 
2015). In 2015, it is estimated that 70,000 Americans will be diagnosed 
with melanoma and almost 10,000 will die from the disease (American 
Cancer Society, Cancers Facts and Figures, 2015).
    Non-melanoma skin cancers are less deadly than melanomas. 
Nevertheless, left untreated, they can spread, causing disfigurement 
and more serious health problems. There are two primary types of non-
melanoma skin cancers. Basal cell carcinomas are the most common type 
of skin cancer tumors. Basal cell carcinoma grows slowly, and rarely 
spreads to other parts of the body. It can, however, penetrate to the 
bone and cause considerable damage. Squamous cell carcinomas are tumors 
that may appear as nodules or as red, scaly patches. This cancer can 
develop into large masses and can spread to other parts of the body.
    Other UV-related skin disorders include actinic keratoses and 
premature aging of the skin. Actinic keratoses are skin growths that 
occur on body areas exposed to the sun. The face, hands, forearms, and 
neck are especially susceptible to this type of lesion. Although 
premalignant, actinic keratoses are a risk factor for squamous cell 
carcinoma. Chronic exposure to the sun also causes premature aging, 
which over time can make the skin become thick, wrinkled, and leathery.
    Research has shown that UV radiation increases the likelihood of 
certain cataracts. (Taylor, H.R., et al., 1988. Effect of ultraviolet 
radiation on cataract formation, New England Journal of Medicine, 319, 
1429-33; West, S. et al., 2005. Model of Risk of Cortical Cataract in 
the US Population with Exposure to Increased Ultraviolet Radiation due 
to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion, American Journal of Epidemiology, 
162, 1080-1088.) Cataracts are a form of eye damage in which a loss of 
transparency in the lens of the eye clouds vision. If left untreated, 
cataracts can lead to blindness. Although curable with modern eye 
surgery, cataracts diminish the eyesight of millions of Americans. 
Other kinds of eye damage caused by UV radiation include pterygium 
(i.e., tissue growth that can block vision), skin cancer around the 
eyes, and degeneration of the macula (i.e., the part of the retina 
where visual perception is most acute).
    Policies protecting the stratospheric ozone layer have been 
effective in preventing these diseases and protecting the health of the 
American people. EPA uses its Atmospheric and Health Effects Framework 
(AHEF) model to estimate the benefits of ODS emissions reductions by 
modeling the number of cases of skin cancer and the number of deaths in 
Americans born between 1890 and 2100 given different ODS emissions 
scenarios. By comparing the health effects in a scenario without the 
Montreal Protocol to one with the treaty's controls, EPA estimates that 
the Montreal Protocol will prevent over 283 million cases of skin 
cancer in the United States. Americans will also suffer more than 45 
million fewer cataracts and one million fewer deaths from skin cancer 
due to the treaty's protections, compared with a world with no policy 
controls. This analysis, found in the EPA document Updating Ozone 
Calculations and Emissions Profiles for Use in the Atmospheric and 
Health Effects Framework Model is in the docket.
2. Reducing Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
    The second goal of this proposed rule is to reduce the emission of 
GHGs that contribute to climate change. Many refrigerants, including 
ODS and substitutes for ODS, are potent GHGs, having GWPs thousands of 
times higher than that of carbon dioxide (CO2), which has a 
GWP of one. For example, R-404A, a commonly used HFC refrigerant blend, 
has a GWP of 3,922. Other common HFC refrigerants, with their GWPs, 
include R-134a (1,430), R-410A (2,088), R-407A (2,107), and R-507A 
(3,985). Explicit and more stringent standards for the use, recovery, 
and recycling of these substitute refrigerants during maintenance, 
servicing, repair, or disposal of appliances will lead to fewer 
emissions of these high-GWP chemicals. EPA estimates that the proposed 
changes will reduce GWP-weighted emissions by approximately 7.5 
MMTCO2eq per year
    GHGs cause climate change by trapping heat on Earth. The Earth is 
constantly receiving energy from the sun in the form of radiation, 
including visible light, infrared, ultraviolet, and other forms of 
energy. At the same time, energy is radiating away into space, mostly 
as infrared radiation. Over long periods of time, the amount of energy 
arriving on Earth and the amount leaving into space have been about the 
same, and so the environment has generally not gotten much warmer or 
much colder very quickly. However, the increase of GHGs in the 
atmosphere has changed this balance, because these gases do not block 
most of the forms of radiation coming to Earth from the sun, but they 
do absorb or scatter the radiation trying to leave Earth into space, 
trapping some of it on Earth. Thus, more energy comes into the Earth's 
climate system than leaves it, and the atmosphere, oceans, and land 
become warmer, just like the inside of a greenhouse. While parts of the 
Earth get warmer and colder from day to day with weather, from month to 
month with the seasons, from year to year due to large scale phenomena 
like El Ni[ntilde]o, or even decade to decade as sunspots come and go, 
the trapping of heat by GHGs raises the average temperature over the 
whole globe over and above these natural fluctuations, over a 
relatively short timeframe. The increase in the total heat energy in 
the climate system does not simply make the environment warmer; because 
water and air with more heat energy in them move more, atmospheric and 
sea currents change, and winds increase. Because warm water expands and 
glaciers melt, sea level rises, and because evaporation increases with 
more energy, rainfall and flooding can increase in some areas even as 
other areas face increased risk of drought and wildfire due to changes 
in wind patterns. For more information on GHGs and climate change in 
the

[[Page 69465]]

United States, visit www.epa.gov/climatechange.
3. Improving Rule Effectiveness
    EPA's third goal of this proposed rule is to improve the clarity 
and effectiveness of the regulations in subpart F. Achieving the health 
and environmental benefits of these rules depends on widespread 
compliance.
    EPA has begun an initiative to improve the effectiveness of its 
rules called ``Next Generation Compliance.'' This is an integrated 
strategy designed to bring together the best thinking from inside and 
outside EPA on how to structure regulations and permits, combined with 
new monitoring and information technology, expanded transparency, and 
innovative enforcement. The vision for this initiative is to better 
motivate the regulated community to comply with environmental laws and 
inform the public about their performance. Most importantly, this 
initiative will help ensure that all Americans are protected from 
significant risks to human health and the environment and have access 
to information that allows them to more fully engage in environmental 
protection efforts.
    The Agency has identified several interconnected components in the 
Office of Enforcement and Compliance's 2014-2017 strategic plan for 
Next Generation Compliance that can improve the effectiveness of rules:
     Effective Regulations: Design regulations that are clear, 
as easy to implement as possible, and that contain self-reinforcing 
drivers. For example, where possible, design regulations such that 
regulated facilities can take steps to monitor their own performance to 
prevent violations, or be certified by an independent 3rd party.
     Advanced Monitoring: Use advanced monitoring technology 
for the government, industry, and the public to more easily find 
information on pollutant discharges/emissions, environmental 
conditions, and noncompliance.
     Electronic Reporting: Implement electronic systems to make 
reporting easier, more efficient, and less costly. For the user, these 
systems offer speed, convenience, expanded information choices, and 
filing capabilities. For government, they offer the ability to increase 
transparency, improve our ability to spot pollution and compliance 
issues, and respond quickly to emerging problems.
     Transparency: Make the information we have today more 
accessible, and make new information obtained from advanced monitoring 
and electronic reporting publicly available.
     Innovative Enforcement: Use Next Generation Compliance 
principles and tools in enforcement planning and cases.
    The National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program under section 
608 of the CAA has incorporated compliance principles similar to those 
under this initiative since its inception. There are numerous self-
reinforcing requirements, including the refrigerant sales restriction. 
By requiring anyone purchasing an ODS refrigerant to be certified, EPA 
effectively enforces the requirement that anyone maintaining, 
servicing, repairing, and disposing of an appliance be certified 
(excluding those disposing of small appliances, MVACs and MVAC-like 
appliances).
    Another Next Generation Compliance principle that has been in the 
608 refrigerant management program since the beginning is third party 
certification. These rules require certification of refrigerant 
recovery equipment by independent third parties (i.e., UL and AHRI). 
Third party certifiers verify that recovery equipment meets the 
required minimum standards. Additionally, this ensures that technicians 
who use these devices to recover refrigerant are also using equipment 
that will meet the minimum refrigerant evacuation requirements if used 
following the manufacturer's instructions.
    The Agency and industry have more than 20 years of experience 
implementing and operating under these regulations. Through that 
experience, it has become clear that there are sections of the 
regulations that could be improved or be clarified. This proposal 
attempts to clarify and simplify where possible.
    One way that EPA seeks to provide simplicity and clarity to the 
regulated community, the public, and state, local, and Tribal 
governments is to treat ODS and substitute refrigerants similarly where 
it is appropriate to do so. EPA is therefore proposing to extend the 
existing requirements, as amended, to HFCs and other substitutes, as 
appropriate. In addition, EPA is proposing to revise many provisions of 
the regulations for clarity and to restructure the regulations to make 
it easier to find requirements for different affected entities. EPA is 
grouping the recordkeeping and reporting requirements closer to where 
the requirements are listed and removing outdated or unnecessary 
requirements. These proposed changes will extend to ODS substitutes 
those requirements that align with Next Generation Compliance 
principles and make it easier for the regulated community to understand 
what refrigerants are covered and what the requirements are, making it 
easier to comply with the regulation.
    For each of the changes proposed in this notice, EPA solicits 
comments on the following:
     Implementation of the proposal: What challenges are 
anticipated in implementing or complying with the proposed rule? What 
steps might we consider to minimize those challenges?
     The clarity of the proposal: Is there anything that is 
unclear about what the proposed rule is asking the regulated community 
to do? When responding to this questions, commenters should describe 
what is confusing about the proposal, not what they do not like.
     The design of the rule: Is the proposed rule designed in a 
way to maximize the environmental benefits for the implementation 
effort required? Are there alternate approaches to features of this 
rule that would achieve the same environmental benefits or maximize the 
environmental benefits but would be easier to implement? If so, please 
explain or describe those approaches.
     The clarity of the regulatory text: Are any of the terms, 
definitions, or specific requirements in the regulatory language 
unclear or confusing? Which ones and what is confusing about them?
     The need for a comprehensive compliance guide or other 
compliance tools: What tools (brochures, videos, etc.) could EPA 
reasonably develop to aid the regulated community in complying with the 
rule?
     Incentives for going above and beyond compliance: What 
changes could EPA make to the proposed rule that would encourage 
environmental performance beyond the minimum requirements of the rule?
     Monitoring, measurement, and reporting: Are the monitoring 
requirements designed and sufficiently explained to ensure that 
regulated parties are fully aware of their performance, and to trigger 
action in the case of actual or potential noncompliance? Can monitoring 
data or other information about performance be made easily available to 
regulators and/or to the public in ways that would be useful and 
meaningful?

E. Stakeholder Engagement

    EPA conducted extensive outreach to stakeholders affected by the 
refrigerant management regulations under section 608 of the CAA. In 
November 2014, EPA hosted an open meeting in Washington, DC, to discuss 
the Agency's goals and solicit feedback from stakeholders. More than 50 
participants attended the meeting. To facilitate stakeholder

[[Page 69466]]

preparation for the meeting, EPA widely distributed a concept note that 
provided an update on progress to implement the President's Climate 
Action Plan and laid out questions the Agency was considering as it was 
developing this proposed rule. The slides from the presentation, the 
concept note, and a summary of the comments are included in the docket.
    After the November stakeholder meeting, EPA held approximately 50 
meetings with individual businesses, trade associations, and 
environmental organizations. The Agency also attended several 
conferences and association meetings to provide information, solicit 
input, and answer questions. A full list of meetings and conferences is 
included in the docket.
    Finally, EPA reviewed past feedback on the proposed 2010 Leak 
Repair Rule to amend the leak repair regulations. A summary of comments 
received on the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule is included in the 
docket. EPA also reviewed comments on the 1998 proposal to extend the 
full suite of refrigerant management requirements under subpart F to 
HFCs and PFCs and is including a copy of those comments it reviewed 
from that proposal in the docket. EPA notes that the Agency is not 
treating comments on either of these prior proposals as comments on 
this rule. Therefore, to be formally considered as comments on this 
proposal, stakeholders must provide comments specifically to today's 
action even if the concepts proposed are the same or similar to those 
contained in comments on actions that the Agency has proposed 
previously.

F. What are the major changes EPA is proposing?

    EPA is proposing numerous changes to the National Recycling and 
Emission Reduction Program. Some of these changes are intended to 
strengthen the existing program, in particular by requiring a number of 
industry best practices. Others are intended to extend, as appropriate, 
the regulations to HFCs and other substitutes for ODS. Still other 
changes are meant to improve the effectiveness of the regulations. This 
section briefly introduces the reader to the major proposed changes. 
The reader can find detailed discussions of all of the proposals in 
Section IV of this notice.
1. Extend the Regulations To Cover Substitute Refrigerants
    Section 608(c)(1) of the CAA, effective July 1, 1992, makes it 
``unlawful for any person, in the course of maintaining, servicing, 
repairing, or disposing of an appliance or industrial process 
refrigeration, to knowingly vent or otherwise knowingly release or 
dispose of any class I or class II substance used as a refrigerant in 
such appliance (or industrial process refrigeration) in a manner which 
permits such substance to enter the environment.'' This provision 
excludes ``de minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to 
recapture and recycle or safely dispose of such substances'' from the 
prohibition. Section 608(c)(2) extends the provisions of paragraph 
(c)(1) to substitutes for ODS refrigerants, effective November 15, 
1995. Collectively, this self-effectuating prohibition, commonly 
referred to as the ``venting prohibition,'' is a central component of 
EPA's refrigerant management program.
    EPA's current regulations at Sec.  82.154(a) incorporate the 
venting prohibition, as well as the de minimis exemption. Then, the 
last sentence in Sec.  82.154(a)(2) provides that ``refrigerant 
releases shall be considered de minimis only if they occur when'' (1) 
following the required practices in Sec.  82.156, (2) using certified 
recovery and/or recycling equipment that meet the requirements of Sec.  
82.158, and (3) technicians are certified under the requirements in 
Sec.  82.161; or when following the requirements of subpart B. In 
effect, consistent with the second sentence of section 608(c)(1), under 
these regulations EPA has defined de minimis releases of refrigerants 
during maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance 
as those that occur when the refrigerant management regulations at 40 
CFR part 82, subpart F or subpart B are followed. The term refrigerant 
is defined in Sec.  82.152 for purposes of this subpart to mean any 
substance consisting in part or whole of a class I or class II ODS that 
is used for heat transfer purposes and provides a cooling effect. The 
term does not include substitute substances such as HFCs or ammonia, 
among others. Under these regulations, if someone maintaining, 
servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance or IPR releases a 
class I or class II refrigerant in the course of following these 
requirements, they would not be in violation of the venting 
prohibition, but all other releases of ODS refrigerants during such 
activities would violate the venting prohibition.
    While the conditions for the application of the de minimis 
exemption has been clearly elaborated on in the regulations for class I 
and class II refrigerants, and while the regulations expressly state 
what practices or measures can be employed to qualify for it, the 
regulations are less clear for substitute refrigerants like HFCs. 
Section 82.154(a)(2) states that ``[d]e minimis releases associated 
with good faith attempts to recycle or recover . . . non-exempt 
substitutes are not subject to this prohibition'' but does not provide 
any guidance about what constitutes such a ``good faith attempt.'' In 
contrast to ODS refrigerants, the regulations do not contain provisions 
for non-exempt substitute refrigerants to establish that releases that 
occur when following certain regulatory requirements are de minimis. 
Accordingly, regulated entities are left without clear guidance on how 
to abide by the venting prohibition as it relates to non-exempt 
substitutes.
    Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to extend requirements of 
the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program to non-exempt 
substitutes and to clarify that the actions required to qualify for the 
de minimis exemption for non-exempt substitute refrigerants are the 
same as those for ODS refrigerants. As some release of substitute 
refrigerants is inevitable during the maintenance, servicing, repair, 
and disposal of appliances, these changes would give regulatory 
certainty to the many stakeholders that are already properly recovering 
substitute refrigerants during these activities, and would likely 
require only minimal if any change in business practices for them. 
These changes would also give stakeholders that are not following such 
practices for substitute refrigerants additional incentive to do so 
because it would describe how the venting prohibition applies to 
substitute refrigerants.
2. Strengthen Leak Repair Requirements
    This proposal would strengthen the requirement to repair leaking 
appliances containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant, currently at 
Sec.  82.156(i), to reduce emissions of ODS. Additionally, EPA is 
proposing to extend the amended requirements to HFCs and other 
substitutes to reduce emissions. The Agency also is aiming to make the 
requirements more proactive at preventing leaks by requiring industry 
best practices (i.e., leak inspections).
    EPA is proposing to lower applicable leak rates from their current 
levels of 35 percent for commercial refrigeration appliances and IPR 
and 15 percent for comfort cooling appliances to 20 percent and 10 
percent, respectively. Based on stakeholder input and data collected by 
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and other sources, these 
levels are reasonable and will result in leaks being repaired

[[Page 69467]]

sooner than under the current approach. This is especially true for 
appliances containing substitute refrigerants, which are not currently 
covered by the leak repair provisions.
    Some systems are leaking considerable amounts of refrigerant 
despite requirements to repair or retrofit leaking appliances. Based on 
feedback from CARB and a review of its data, EPA is proposing to create 
a two-year leak limit. Under this proposal, appliances containing 50 or 
more pounds of ODS or substitute refrigerant would not be allowed to 
leak more than 75 percent of the appliance's full charge in each of two 
consecutive 12-month periods. The CARB data indicate that few 
appliances leak above this level in any given year, and that these 
appliances are responsible for a large proportion of emissions. This 
requirement would likely affect few appliances, but would encourage 
owners or operators of appliances to more comprehensively repair or 
retire them when leaking such a substantial amount of refrigerant for 
two consecutive years.
    EPA is also proposing to require periodic leak inspections to help 
identify leaks earlier. Regular leak inspections are widely recognized 
as a best practice to minimize refrigerant emissions. Under this 
proposal, all appliances with a full charge of 50 or more pounds of ODS 
or substitute refrigerant would have to conduct annual leak inspections 
to determine if the appliance is leaking. Commercial refrigeration 
appliances and IPR with a full charge of 500 or more pounds of ODS or 
substitute refrigerant would be required to conduct a leak inspection 
every three months. Alternatively, owners or operators can forgo 
periodic leak inspections by installing automatic leak detection 
systems and having it inspected and calibrated annually.
3. Extend the Sales Restriction to Substitute Refrigerants, With an 
Exception for Small Cans of MVAC Refrigerant
    The existing regulations restrict the sale of ODS refrigerant to 
certified technicians. EPA is proposing to extend the sales restriction 
to substitute refrigerant sold in the United States. Due to the large 
do-it-yourself (DIY) community that have long serviced their personal 
MVACs, EPA has considered less costly ways to avoid restricting the 
sale of MVAC refrigerants to certified technicians while still reducing 
releases of non-exempt refrigerants. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
exempt the sale of small cans (two pounds or less) of substitute 
refrigerant for the servicing of MVACs if the cans have a self-sealing 
valve. Self-sealing valves have been successful in reducing emissions 
during servicing in California where they are currently required.
4. Establish Recordkeeping for Appliances Containing Five to 50 Pounds 
of ODS and Substitute Refrigerant
    The existing regulations have recordkeeping requirements for the 
disposal of appliances that contain 5 pounds or less of ODS refrigerant 
and those that contain 50 or more pounds of ODS refrigerant. As 
discussed above, EPA is proposing to extend those current recordkeeping 
requirements to appliances containing substitutes. In addition, EPA is 
proposing to require that technicians, or the company employing 
technicians, keep records of the amount of ODS and substitute 
refrigerant recovered when disposing of appliances that fall in the gap 
between those two size categories. EPA is also proposing to require 
recordkeeping documenting the quantity of ODS and substitute 
refrigerant transferred for reclamation or destruction that was 
recovered from those mid-sized appliances. Based on feedback from 
stakeholders when developing this rule, these records are often already 
maintained by contractors that are properly recovering refrigerant. 
Some stakeholders that adhere to the proper evacuation requirements 
have encouraged EPA to enforce against HVACR contractors that simply 
vent the refrigerant. These proposed records would improve compliance 
with the venting prohibition and facilitate enforcement against 
technicians who disregard the recovery requirements.
5. Update the Technician Certification Program
    Under the existing regulations, technicians must be certified in 
order to work on appliances in a manner that could release ODS 
refrigerants to the environment. EPA is proposing to extend those 
requirements to appliances containing non-exempt substitutes. Because 
the questions on the certification exam are over twenty years old and 
because EPA is proposing to revise the existing program though this 
rule, EPA is planning to update and develop new questions for use to 
certify technicians.
    EPA is also proposing to require that certifying organizations 
publish lists or create online databases of technicians that they 
certify. In addition to providing transparency to technicians' 
customers and refrigerant distributors and wholesalers, this 
requirement would also make it easier for technicians to replace lost 
credentials. The amount of time spent by technicians trying to identify 
the organization that certified them is significant. EPA and certifying 
programs also spend a significant amount of time helping technicians 
who have lost their certification card. Published lists or online 
databases of certified technicians would help make this process more 
efficient.
6. Improving Readability and Compliance and Restructuring the 
Requirements
    EPA is proposing to make extensive revisions to the regulations in 
subpart F to more clearly state the requirements of the National 
Recycling and Emission Reduction Program and to remove potentially 
ambiguous language. These proposed edits will improve compliance among 
the regulated community and facilitate enforcement by EPA.
    First, EPA is proposing edits that would apply the principles of 
plain writing, based on guidance from the Office of the Federal 
Register. For example, EPA is proposing to add subheadings and plain 
English terms where appropriate. EPA's intent with many of these edits 
is to improve readability, not change the content. For edits that are 
substantive, EPA discusses these proposed changes in this preamble.
    Second, EPA is proposing to divide Sec.  82.156 ``Required 
Practices'' into three sections based on the topic. This proposal would 
create a new Sec.  82.155 for provisions related to the safe disposal 
of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances. Section 82.156 
would be amended to contain provisions related to the proper evacuation 
of refrigerant from appliances. This proposal would also create a new 
Sec.  82.157 for provisions related to leak repair. EPA is also 
proposing to remove most of Sec.  82.166, which currently contains the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for subpart F, and move 
specific recordkeeping and reporting provisions to the sections 
relevant to each record.
    Third, EPA is proposing to remove unnecessary content such as 
provisions that have expired, definitions that simply restate the 
regulatory provisions, and definitions to terms that are no longer 
used. The rule would also combine and streamline repetitive text. Along 
those lines, this proposal would merge tables 2 and 3 in Sec.  82.158 
into a single table.
    EPA is providing a red-line version of the regulatory text in the 
docket that

[[Page 69468]]

shows the edits to the current regulations to allow the reader to 
identify the specific proposed changes. EPA solicits comments generally 
on how to simplify and clarify the requirements in subpart F. Aside 
from the specific substantive changes discussed in this notice, EPA's 
intent is not to alter or reopen the substantive content of these 
regulations. Therefore, EPA also requests comments on the specific 
proposed edits to the regulatory text to make sure that they do not 
unintentionally change the underlying meanings or requirements of the 
rule.

III. The Clean Air Act and EPA's Authority for the Proposed Revisions

    This section contains a summary of the relevant CAA provisions and 
a general description of how EPA interprets them to authorize the 
proposed revisions in this notice. More specific discussions of EPA's 
authority for certain revisions are included in further detail in the 
sections describing the corresponding revisions.
    Section 608 of the CAA requires EPA to establish a comprehensive 
program to limit emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. Section 608 
also prohibits the knowing release or disposal of ozone-depleting 
refrigerants and their substitutes during the maintenance, service, 
repair, or disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration appliances or 
IPR. Section 608 is divided into three subsections.
    Section 608(a) requires EPA to promulgate regulations establishing 
standards and requirements for the use and disposal of class I and 
class II substances during the maintenance, service, repair, or 
disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration appliances or IPR 
containing ODS. Such regulations shall include requirements to reduce 
the use and emission of ODS to the lowest achievable level, and to 
maximize the recapture and recycling of such substances. Section 608(a) 
further provides that ``such regulations may include requirements to 
use alternative substances (including substances which are not class I 
or class II substances) or to minimize use of class I or class II 
substances, or to promote the use of safe alternatives pursuant to 
section [612] or any combination of the foregoing.''
    Section 608(b) requires that the regulations issued pursuant to 
subsection (a) contain requirements for the safe disposal of class I 
and class II substances, including requirements that such substances 
shall be removed from such appliances, machines, or other goods prior 
to the disposal of such items or their delivery for recycling.
    Section 608(c) establishes a self-effectuating prohibition, 
commonly called the ``venting prohibition,'' that generally speaking, 
makes it unlawful to knowingly release ODS and substitute refrigerants 
into the environment while servicing or disposing of air-conditioning 
or refrigeration equipment. More specifically, section 608(c)(1), 
effective July 1, 1992, makes it unlawful for any person in the course 
of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance or 
IPR to knowingly vent, release, or dispose of any ODS used as a 
refrigerant in such equipment in a manner that permits that substance 
to enter the environment. The statute exempts from this prohibition 
``[d]e minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to 
recapture and recycle or safely dispose'' of such a substance. Section 
608(c)(2) extends the provisions of (c)(1), including the prohibition 
on venting to substitutes for class I and class II refrigerants, 
effective November 15, 1995, unless the Administrator determines that 
such venting, release, or disposal ``does not pose a threat to the 
environment.'' EPA has determined through prior rulemakings that 
specific substances do not pose a threat to the environment when 
vented, released, or disposed of and has exempted those specific 
substitutes from the venting prohibition. The full list of substitutes 
that EPA has exempted from this prohibition is at Sec.  82.154(a).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA is using the term ``non-exempt substitute'' in this 
notice to refer to substitute refrigerants that have not been 
exempted from the venting prohibition under CAA section 608(c)(2) 
and 40 CFR 82.154(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 14, 1993, EPA published regulations implementing subsections 
(a), (b), and (c)(1) for ODS (58 FR 28660). These regulations include 
evacuation requirements for appliances being serviced or disposed of, 
standards and testing requirements for recovery and/or recycling 
equipment, certification requirements for technicians, purity standards 
and testing requirements for used refrigerant sold to a new owner, 
certification requirements for refrigerant reclaimers, leak repair 
requirements, and requirements for the safe disposal of appliances that 
enter the waste stream with the charge intact. This rule also stated 
that the Agency interprets ``de minimis'' to mean releases that occur 
while the recycling and recovery requirements of regulations under 
sections 608 and 609 are followed.
    Section 608 of the CAA provides the primary statutory basis for the 
standards and requirements proposed in these regulations. The statutory 
standards under section 608(a) against which the regulations concerning 
the use and disposal of ozone-depleting substances are to be measured 
is whether they ``reduce the use and emission of such substances to the 
lowest achievable level'' and ``maximize the recapture and recycling of 
such substances.'' In the context of recycling, these standards are 
complementary, i.e., maximizing recycling will also mean reducing the 
use and emission of these substances to the lowest achievable level. 
These standards also bear a relationship to the de minimis releases 
permitted in section 608(c). In other words, emissions that occur while 
complying with EPA's recovery and recycling requirements, which result 
in the lowest achievable level of emissions, are considered de minimis.
    The phrase ``lowest achievable level'' as used in section 608(a)(3) 
is not clear on its face as to whether economic factors should be 
considered in determining what is the ``lowest achievable level.'' 
Title VI does not further explain or define the term nor does it 
expressly state whether economic factors may or must be considered. 
Thus, EPA has discretion to adopt a reasonable interpretation. EPA has 
previously interpreted this phrase to allow the consideration of 
economic factors. See 58 FR 28659, 28667 (May 14, 1993). EPA is not 
proposing to change that interpretation and has considered economic as 
well as technological factors in the development of this proposed rule. 
This is consistent with the statement made on the floor of the House of 
Representatives by Representative Ralph Hall shortly before passage of 
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 that ``[i]n promulgating 
regulations [under section 608] the Administrator shall take into 
account the extent to which emissions reductions can be achieved, the 
costs and benefits of implementing available controls, and the time 
before which certain uses may no longer rely on the covered 
substances'' (Cong Rec H 12907 (Oct 26, 1990)).
    The phrase ``de minimis releases associated with good faith 
attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of any such 
substance'' as used in section 608(c)(1) and as applied to substitutes 
through section 608(c)(2) is similarly not clear on its face as to 
whether economic factors may be considered in determining what is de 
minimis. Title VI does not further address this issue. Thus, EPA has 
discretion to adopt a reasonable interpretation. EPA interprets this 
phrase to allow the consideration of economic factors. The Senate 
Manager's

[[Page 69469]]

Statement for the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 indicates that ``the 
exception is included to account for the fact that in the course of 
properly using recapture and recycling equipment, it may not be 
possible to prevent some small amount of leakage'' (Cong. Rec. S 16948 
(Oct. 27, 1990)). EPA does not read this statement as expressing an 
intent that the Agency consider only technological factors in setting 
standards for recapture and recycling equipment and the proper use of 
such equipment. Rather, EPA understands it as meaning that once those 
standards are set, only the small amount of emissions that cannot be 
prevented by following such standards should be exempted.
    Because the statutory language does not dictate a particular means 
of taking economic factors into account, if at all, EPA has discretion 
to adopt a reasonable means. In developing this proposed rule, EPA has 
not applied a strict cost-benefit test, but rather has focused 
primarily on the state of air conditioning and refrigeration best 
practices and recovery technology, while also giving consideration to 
costs and benefits. The fact that industry has identified and uses 
these best practices indicates they are at least reasonable from a cost 
perspective. As discussed in the appliance maintenance and leak repair 
section (section VI.F of this preamble), EPA considered what is 
achievable from a technical perspective, while also considering the 
costs of the proposed requirements and the benefits from those changes 
when determining whether to establish new requirements. See the 
technical support document in the docket for sensitivity analyses 
conducted on various options.
    Generally, the proposed requirements reflect the performance of the 
lowest-emitting equipment and practices in each sector under commonly 
encountered conditions in the field, taking into account that the 
variability of those conditions is significant in each air-conditioning 
and refrigeration sector. For example, some appliances generally have 
more leaks than others. An industrial process refrigeration appliance 
can have thousands of pounds of refrigerant running through miles of 
piping, resulting in numerous opportunities for leaks to occur, whereas 
a household refrigerator typically has about one pound of refrigerant 
in a hermetically sealed refrigerant loop that rarely leaks. EPA has 
proposed requirements that reflect that difference.
    EPA also considered costs in many specific aspects of this 
proposal. For example, EPA considered the costs of extending the 
refrigerant sales restriction to small cans of non-exempt substitutes 
used for MVAC servicing. Based on those considerations, EPA decided to 
propose requiring manufacturers install self-sealing valves on small 
cans rather than limiting the sale of small cans to certified 
technicians only. Finally, EPA relied heavily on the existing program 
and requirements already in place for ODS refrigerants rather than 
developing a new and separate set of requirements for non-exempt 
substitutes. This will allow the regulated community to use existing 
compliance procedures where applicable to reduce emissions of non-
exempt substitutes rather than having to develop wholly new approaches 
to managing compliance.

Authority for Extending 608 to Substitutes

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to extend, as appropriate, 
provisions of the refrigerant recovery and/or recycling regulations, 
which currently only apply to ODS refrigerants, to non-exempt 
substitute refrigerants. EPA's authority for this action rests largely 
on section 608(c), which EPA interprets, as described below in more 
detail, to provide authority to promulgate regulations to interpret, 
implement, and enforce the venting prohibition, as it applies to both 
ODS refrigerants and non-exempt substitutes. EPA's authority to issue 
implementing regulations for section 608(c) is supplemented by section 
301(a), which provides authority for EPA to ``prescribe such 
regulations as are necessary to carry out [the EPA Administrator's] 
functions under this Act.'' In addition, EPA's authority to extend the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements to substitutes is supplemented 
by section 114, which provides authority to the EPA Administrator to 
require recordkeeping and reporting in carrying out provisions of the 
CAA. Finally, as explained in more detail below, the extension of 
requirements under 608 to non-exempt substitutes in this proposal is 
also provided in section 608(a) because it would reduce emissions of 
ODS refrigerants.
    Section 608 of the CAA is ambiguous with regard to EPA's authority 
to establish refrigerant management regulations for substitute 
refrigerants. As Congress has not precisely spoken to this issue, EPA 
has the discretion to adopt a permissible interpretation of the CAA. 
Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 
843-44 (1984). Primarily under the authority of section 608(a), EPA has 
established standards for the proper handling of ODS refrigerants 
during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of an appliance to 
maximize the recovery and/or recycling of such substances and reduce 
the use and emission of such substances. Section 608(a) expressly 
requires EPA to promulgate regulations that apply to class I and class 
II substances, but is silent on whether its requirements apply to 
substitute substances. On the other hand, section 608(c)(2) contains 
provisions for substitute refrigerants which parallel those for ODS 
refrigerants in section 608(c)(1). For instance, as for ODS 
refrigerants under section 608(c)(1), section 608(c)(2) prohibits 
knowingly venting, releasing, or disposing of any substitute 
refrigerant during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of an 
appliance in a manner which permits the substance to enter the 
environment.\6\ This creates a tension or ambiguity because the 
regulated community is subject to an explicit and self-effectuating 
prohibition on venting or releasing non-exempt substitute refrigerants 
while servicing or disposing of equipment but at the same time is not 
explicitly required by section 608(a) to recover and recycle substitute 
refrigerant prior to servicing or disposing of equipment or to engage 
in any of the practices or behaviors that EPA has established to 
minimize the emission and release of ODS refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As noted above, this venting prohibition does not apply to 
substitutes for which the Administrator has made a determination 
that such venting, release, or disposal ``does not pose a threat to 
the environment'' under CAA 608(c)(2). As indicated elsewhere in 
this proposal, EPA is not proposing to extend the requirements of 
the refrigerant management program to substitutes that have been 
exempted from the venting prohibition in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Agency is aware that some amount of refrigerant, 
whether ODS or substitute, is inevitably released during the 
maintenance, servicing, repair, and disposal of air-conditioning or 
refrigeration appliances or equipment. Without a clear regulatory 
framework for determining what requirements apply during the 
maintenance, servicing, repair, and disposal of such equipment 
containing a non-exempt substitute refrigerant, it could be unclear to 
the regulated community and the public whether such releases violate 
the venting prohibition and what steps must be taken to comply with CAA 
obligations for such substitute refrigerants in undertaking such 
actions. Accordingly, it is appropriate to issue regulations to clarify 
how the venting prohibition and the de minimis exemption apply to non-

[[Page 69470]]

exempt substitute refrigerants, as is proposed in this rulemaking. In 
doing so, EPA intends to clarify that the regulated community may rely 
on the de minimis exemption to the venting prohibition if they follow 
the amended requirements in subpart F.
    Consistent with the language of sections 608(c)(1) and (2), these 
revisions aim to avoid knowing releases of non-exempt substitute 
refrigerants into the environment in the course of maintaining, 
servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance or IPR, unless those 
releases meet the criteria for de minimis releases. Section 608(c)(1) 
provides an exemption from the venting prohibition for ``[d]e minimis 
releases associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle 
or safely dispose of any such [class I or class II] substance.'' In 
this context, EPA interprets this provision to exempt releases that 
occur while the recycling and recovery requirements of regulations 
under sections 608 and 609 are followed and has promulgated regulations 
that implement that interpretation. In particular, as explained above, 
EPA has incorporated both the venting prohibition and the de minimis 
exemption into the regulations at Sec.  82.154(a). Further, the last 
sentence in Sec.  82.154(a)(2) provides that ``refrigerant releases 
shall be considered de minimis only if they occur when'' enumerated 
regulatory practices in either Sec.  82.156, Sec.  82.158, and Sec.  
82.161, or, alternatively, subpart B are followed. These requirements 
are the ones established in 1993, as explained above and as 
periodically amended. The term refrigerant, however, is defined in 
Sec.  82.152 for purposes of this subpart to mean any substance 
consisting in part or whole of a class I or class II ozone-depleting 
substance that is used for heat transfer purposes and provides a 
cooling effect. As such, this term does not include substitute 
substances. In addition, EPA has not yet applied the recycling and 
recovery requirements to non-ODS substitutes, and therefore these 
provisions which make clear how to qualify for the de minimis exemption 
for ODS refrigerants do not currently apply for substitute 
refrigerants.
    Section 608(c) can be interpreted such that the statutory de 
minimis exemption contained in section 608(c)(1) also applies to 
substitute refrigerants. Section 608(c)(2) states that, effective 
November 15, 1995, ``paragraph 1 shall also apply'' to the venting, 
release, or disposal of any substitute substance for class I or class 
II substances. As section 608(c)(2) incorporates ``paragraph 1'' it is 
reasonable to interpret it to also contain this de minimis exemption. 
However, the CAA does not explicitly address what should be considered 
``good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose'' for 
substitute refrigerants. Moreover, the statutory provisions that 
require EPA to promulgate regulations addressing recapturing and 
recycling requirements and safe disposal requirements in section 608(a) 
and 608(b) expressly mention that they apply to ODS refrigerants but 
are silent as to application to substitute refrigerants. This silence 
and the corresponding tension between these provisions creates an 
ambiguity in section 608 and a gap that EPA may fill with a permissible 
interpretation. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 
Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-44 (1984). While Congress did not expressly 
mention substitutes in section 608(a), EPA does have authority under 
the Act to establish regulations creating a program to address 
management of ODS refrigerants and their substitutes, including 
authority to implement the venting prohibition under section 608(c) for 
both substitutes and ODS, and the revisions proposed today are 
important to implementing those statutory authorities.
    Consistent with the interpretation of section 608(c)(2) as 
incorporating the de minimis exemption, EPA's regulations at Sec.  
82.154(a)(2) state that ``[d]e minimis releases associated with good 
faith attempts to recycle or recover . . . non-exempt substitutes are 
not subject to this prohibition,'' thus extending the statutory de 
minimis exemption from the venting prohibition to good faith efforts to 
recycle or recover non-exempt substitute refrigerants. However, in 
contrast to the regulations for ODS refrigerants, the regulations do 
not provide any specific provisions to explain how to determine what 
constitutes such a ``good faith attempt'' with respect to substitute 
refrigerants. Thus, the regulations are currently unclear as to what 
requirements or practices regulated parties must follow to qualify for 
the de minimis exemption, and thereby comply with the venting 
prohibition, for non-exempt substitute refrigerants.
    On June 11, 1998, EPA proposed to extend the de minimis exemption 
in section 608(c)(1) to substitute refrigerants and to issue 
regulations under section 608(c)(2) that implement and clarify the 
venting prohibition for substitutes (63 FR 32044). As stated in that 
proposed rule, ``while section 608(c) is self-effectuating, EPA 
regulations are necessary to define `(d)e minimis releases associated 
with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose' of 
such substances and to effectively implement and enforce the venting 
prohibition.''
    In the final rule issued March 12, 2004 (69 FR 11946), EPA extended 
the 608(c)(1) de minimis exemption only to blends containing an ODS 
component. As stated in that rule at 69 FR 11949:

    [V]enting of all substitute refrigerants, including HFC and PFC 
refrigerants (and blends thereof) is prohibited under section 
608(c), with the exception of de minimis releases associated with 
good faith attempts to recapture and recycle. The de minimis 
releases exception, however, is not self-effectuating, nor is it 
self-explanatory.
    EPA believes that regulatory clarification is necessary to 
define such `[d]e minimis releases' and `good faith attempts to 
recapture and recycle or safely dispose of any such substance' and 
safely dispose of appliances to effectively implement and enforce 
the venting prohibition. Section 608(c)(1) in conjunction with 
608(c)(2) of the Act allow for an exemption for de minimis releases 
associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or 
safely dispose of substitutes for class I and class II ODSs used as 
refrigerants. A regulation reflecting the statutory requirement for 
recovery of substitute refrigerants is an essential part of a 
regulatory framework within which de minimis releases and good faith 
attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of substitute 
refrigerants can be defined.

    This interpretation that the statutory de minimis exemption applies 
to substitutes is consistent with the interpretation of section 
608(c)(1) and (2) that EPA articulates in this section. The March 2004 
Rule then goes on to state at 69 FR 11953 that:

    EPA is not, however, finalizing the proposal to extend all of 
the regulations concerning emissions reduction of CFC and HCFC 
refrigerants, found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F, to HFC and PFC 
refrigerants. Therefore, today's rule does not mandate any of the 
following proposed requirements for HFC or PFC refrigerants that do 
not consist of a class I or class II ODS (i.e., pure HFC or PFC 
refrigerants): A sales restriction on HFC or PFC refrigerants; 
specific evacuation levels for servicing HFC or PFC appliances; 
certification of HFC or PFC recycling and recovery equipment; 
certification of technicians who work with HFC or PFC appliances; 
reclamation requirements for used HFC and PFC refrigerants; 
certification of refrigerant reclaimers who reclaim only HFCs or 
PFCs; or leak repair requirements for HFC and PFC appliances.

    Following the March 12, 2004, rulemaking, the Administrator 
promulgated a direct final rule to amend the regulatory definitions of 
refrigerant and technician, as well as the venting prohibition, to 
correct and clarify the intent of those regulations (70 FR 19273, April 
13, 2005). As part of that change, EPA edited the regulatory venting 
prohibition to reflect the statutory de

[[Page 69471]]

minimis exception in section 608(c)(2). As explained at 70 FR 19275:

    In accordance with section 608(c)(2) of Title VI of the Clean 
Air Act (as amended in 1990), de minimis releases associated with 
good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of 
such substitutes shall not be subject to the prohibition. EPA has 
not promulgated regulations mandating certification of refrigerant 
recycling/recovery equipment intended for use with substitutes; 
therefore, EPA is not including a regulatory provision for the 
mandatory use of certified recovery/recycling equipment as an option 
for determining de minimis releases of substitutes. However, the 
lack of a regulatory provision should not be interpreted as an 
exemption to the venting prohibition for non-exempted substitutes. 
The regulatory prohibition at Sec.  82.154(a) reflects the statutory 
reference to de minimis releases of substitutes as they pertain to 
good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of 
such substitutes.
    In order to emphasize that the knowing venting of HFC and PFC 
substitutes remains illegal during the maintenance, service, repair, 
and disposal of appliances and to make certain that the de minimis 
exemption for refrigerants remains in the regulatory prohibition, 
Sec.  82.154(a) is amended to reflect the venting prohibition of 
section 608(c)(2) of the Act.

    In that action, EPA added the phrase ``De minimis releases 
associated with good faith attempts to recycle or recover refrigerants 
or non-exempt substitutes are not subject to this prohibition'' to 
Sec.  82.154(a)(2) (emphasis added). However, because EPA has not 
extended the section 608 recycling and recovery requirements to 
substitute refrigerants, it is unclear how this exception applies to 
non-exempt substitute refrigerants that do not contain an ODS. As EPA 
has stated previously, the Agency is aware that some amount of 
refrigerant is released during the servicing of appliances even if 
precautions to avoid such releases are taken. For ODS refrigerants, the 
regulations on recovery and recyling provide certainty to the regulated 
community that if specific practices that EPA has identified are 
followed, regulated entities will not be held liable for releases of 
small amounts of refrigerant incidental to these actions. These 
regulations support the recovery or recycling of refrigerants and 
reduce the emissions of such substances. To provide the same clarity 
and certainty to the regulated community for substitute refrigerants, 
it is important to clarify how this exemption applies to non-exempt 
substitute refrigerants that do not contain an ODS. To do so, EPA is 
proposing to extend the amended regulations concerning emissions 
reduction and recapture and recycling of CFC and HCFC refrigerants, 
found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F, to all substitute refrigerants that 
have not been exempted from the venting prohibition under Sec.  
82.154(a)(1).
    Regulations intended to minimize the release and maximize the 
recapture and recovery of non-exempt substitutes will reduce the 
release and increase the recovery of ozone-depleting substances. For 
that reason, this proposal is additionally supported by the authority 
in section 608(a). Improper handling of substitute refrigerants is 
likely to contaminate appliances and recovery cylinders with mixtures 
of ODS and non-ODS substitutes. In particular, technician certification 
and a sales restriction help to ensure that persons lacking the 
expertise tested through certification do not release or contaminate 
ODS refrigerants in the course of using non-exempt substitutes to 
recharge or perform other work on systems that contain ODS. 
Contaminated appliances can lead to failures and emissions from those 
systems. Contaminated cylinders are less valuable to reclaimers and may 
not even be accepted by reclaimers as the mixed gas may no longer be 
cost-effectively recycled. Often, contaminated cylinders simply have to 
be destroyed. The costs of handling or properly disposing of these 
mixed refrigerants incentivizes intentional releases to the atmosphere. 
Therefore contamination can lead to the release of class I and class II 
substances. In addition, applying one consistent set of requirements to 
all relevant refrigerants will promote compliance with and enforcement 
of those requirements for both ODS refrigerants and their substitutes 
by reducing complexity.
    EPA further notes that under the current definition of refrigerant 
any substance that consists in whole or in part of a class I or class 
II ODS and is used for heat transfer and provides a cooling effect, is 
a refrigerant and is subject to the requirements for ODS. However, when 
a regulated entity believes it is using a substitute refrigerant, and 
that substitute becomes contaminated with ODS, the contamination may 
not be apparent to the user, and thus, the user may not be aware that 
the requirements for refrigerants apply to that substance.
    In sum, the authority to promulgate regulations regarding the use 
of class I and II substances encompasses the proper handling of 
alternatives where this is needed to reduce emissions and maximize 
recovery of class I and II substances. Applying one consistent set of 
requirements to all non-exempt refrigerants will promote compliance 
with and enforcement of those requirements for both ozone-depleting 
refrigerants and their substitutes by reducing complexity and 
clarifying requirements.

Authority for Amendments to Provisions Related to ODS

    In addition to extending the existing regulations in subpart F to 
substitute refrigerants, EPA is also proposing the following amendments 
related to ozone-depleting substances: Lowered leak rates, required 
leak inspections, two-year leak limits, and recordkeeping requirements 
for the disposal of appliances containing between five and 50 pounds of 
refrigerant. EPA is also proposing to update and revise many provisions 
in subpart F to improve clarity and enforceability. EPA's authority for 
these amendments is based primarily on section 608(a), which requires 
EPA to promulgate regulations regarding the use and disposal of class I 
and II substances to ``reduce the use and emission of such substances 
to the lowest achievable level'' and ``maximize the recapture and 
recycling of such substances.'' In addition, because EPA is further 
elaborating the requirements and practices that regulated parties must 
follow to qualify for the de minimis exemption from the venting 
prohibition, EPA is drawing on its authority under section 608(c). 
EPA's authority for these actions is also supplemented by section 
301(a) and 114, as described above.
    EPA solicits comments on all aspects of the discussion in this 
section concerning its authority for the revisions proposed today, 
including comments on its authority to extend the amended regulations 
concerning emissions reduction and recapture and recycling of CFC and 
HCFC refrigerants, found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F, to all non-
exempt substitute refrigerants.

How CAA Sections 608 and 609 Work Together

    While Section 608 covers all appliances, Section 609 of the CAA 
directs EPA to establish requirements to prevent the release of 
refrigerants during the servicing of MVACs specifically. MVACs are 
defined as mechanical vapor compression refrigeration equipment used to 
cool the driver's or passenger's compartment of any motor vehicle. EPA 
also regulates MVAC-like appliances under this section, which are used 
to cool the driver's or passenger's compartment of off-road vehicles, 
including agricultural and construction vehicles.
    Under section 609, no person repairing or servicing motor vehicles 
for consideration may perform any service on an MVAC that involves the 
refrigerant without properly using

[[Page 69472]]

approved refrigerant recovery or recovery and recycling equipment and 
no such person may perform such service unless such person has been 
properly trained and certified. Refrigerant handling equipment must be 
certified by EPA or an independent organization approved by EPA. 
Section 609 also prohibits the sale or distribution of any class I or 
class II MVAC refrigerant in a container of less than 20 pounds to any 
person that is not certified under section 609.
    Regulations issued under section 609 are in 40 CFR part 82, subpart 
B. Subpart B includes information on prohibitions and required 
practices (Sec.  82.34), approved refrigerant handling equipment (Sec.  
82.36), approved independent standards testing organizations (Sec.  
82.38), and certification, recordkeeping, and public notification 
requirements (Sec.  82.42). Appendices A-F of subpart B provide 
standards for minimum operating requirements for MVAC servicing 
equipment.
    The section 608 regulations found in 40 CFR part 82, subpart F are 
applicable to MVAC and MVAC-like appliances because MVAC and MVAC-like 
appliances are included in the statutory definition of appliances in 
section 601(1). Because servicing and technician training and 
certification are regulated under section 609, EPA's section 608 
regulations defer to those requirements. Procedures involving MVACs 
that are not regulated under section 609, such as the disposal of MVACs 
and the purchase of refrigerant for use in MVAC, are covered by section 
608. The prohibition against venting ODS and substitute refrigerants in 
section 608 is also applicable to refrigerants used in MVAC and MVAC-
like appliances.
    Through this rulemaking EPA is proposing to extend the provisions 
of section 608 to alternatives to ODS, including those used in MVACs. 
EPA is not updating the regulations under section 609 as part of this 
rulemaking because the 609 regulations have been applicable to all 
substitute substances since 1995.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Agency has indicated plans to issue a separate proposed 
rule to consider adopting standards from the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE) for servicing equipment in 40 CFR subpart B. These 
standards are: SAE J2843 R-1234yf Recovery/Recycling/Recharging 
Equipment for Flammable Refrigerants for Mobile Air-Conditioning 
Systems, SAE J2851 Recovery Equipment for Contaminated Refrigerant 
from Mobile Automotive Air Conditioning Systems, and SAE J3030 
Automotive Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment Intended for Use 
with Multiple Refrigerants. In a separate future proposed rule, EPA 
intends to propose to incorporate by reference these standards 
developed by SAE International's Interior Climate Control Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. The Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Changes to the Definitions in Section 82.152

    EPA is proposing to update and clarify many of the definitions in 
subpart F. EPA is also proposing to add new definitions and remove 
definitions that have the sole purpose of restating the required 
practice. In general, these changes are to improve readability, 
increase consistency with how the term is used in the regulatory text, 
and specifically incorporate substitute refrigerants as appropriate.
    Proposed changes to each term are discussed individually below, 
except for the terms refrigerant and appliance as well as full charge 
and seasonal variance which are sufficiently interrelated to require 
joint discussions.
    EPA requests comments on all of the proposed changes to the 
definitions below. The Agency is particularly interested in comments on 
newly defined terms and on changes to definitions that affect the scope 
and requirements of subpart F.
Refrigerant and Appliance
    The existing definitions in subpart F are written to separate 
ozone-depleting substances from non-ozone-depleting substitutes. As 
relevant here, section 601 of the CAA defines an appliance as a 
``device which contains and uses a class I or class II substance as a 
refrigerant.'' Class I and class II substances are defined as 
substances listed under sections 602(a) or (b), respectively. Section 
601 of the CAA does not define refrigerant. EPA's existing regulations 
at Sec.  82.152 reach that definition through a two-step process. First 
EPA defined an appliance as a device which contains and uses a 
refrigerant. Then EPA defined the term refrigerant as solely class I or 
class II ozone-depleting substances, or mixtures containing a class I 
or class II ODS.
    Defining these terms in this manner was appropriate before section 
608(c)(2) took effect on November 15, 1995. Under section 608(c)(2), 
the venting prohibition applies to substitutes for ODS refrigerants 
and, accordingly, it states that ``[f]or purposes of this paragraph'' 
the term appliance includes any ``device which contains and uses as a 
refrigerant a substitute substance.'' However, EPA has not updated the 
definition of appliance in subpart F to reflect section 608(c)(2). 
Because EPA regulations still define an appliance as a device that 
contains and uses a refrigerant, and refrigerant in such a way that 
does not include substitutes, substitutes are thereby excluded from the 
regulatory definition of the term appliance. This leads to confusing 
results throughout subpart F. As only one example among many that could 
be provided, the purpose and scope section in Sec.  82.150(b) states 
that this subpart applies to any person servicing, maintaining, or 
repairing appliances. Under the regulatory definition substitutes are 
not used in appliances, but regulations later in this subpart, at Sec.  
82.154(a)(1), state that no person maintaining appliances may knowingly 
vent any substitute from such appliances unless one of the regulatorily 
defined exceptions applies. This proposed rule attempts to clear up 
these inconsistencies by defining and using regulatory terms more 
consistently.
    EPA is proposing to revise the definition of appliance so that it 
encompasses the usage of the term in sections 601 and 608 of the CAA. 
This rule proposes to define appliance as any device which contains and 
uses a class I or class II substance or substitute (emphasis added) as 
a refrigerant and which is used for household or commercial purposes, 
including any air conditioner, motor vehicle air conditioner, 
refrigerator, chiller, or freezer. This proposed change would make the 
regulatory definition consistent with sections 601 and 608 of the CAA, 
improve internal consistency of the regulations, and increase clarity 
for the regulated community.
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of refrigerant to include 
any substance, including blends and mixtures, consisting in part or 
whole of a class I or class II ozone-depleting substance or substitute 
(emphasis added) that is used for heat transfer purposes and provides a 
cooling effect. This proposed definition would note that the term 
refrigerant would include blends as well as mixtures of refrigerants.
    EPA is proposing this approach so as to define refrigerant 
according to the way the term is currently understood. From an 
engineering standpoint, it does not matter whether or not a compound is 
an ODS to function as a refrigerant. This amended definition is closer 
to how the term is commonly understood. Broadening the term also brings 
other terms in subpart F such as refrigerant circuit or reclaimed 
refrigerant more in line with common usage.
Apprentice
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term apprentice to 
replace the ``Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training'' with the ``Office 
of

[[Page 69473]]

Apprenticeship'' to match the current name of the office. EPA is also 
proposing minor edits to improve clarity and readability.
Approved Equipment Testing Organization
    EPA is proposing to remove the defined term approved equipment 
testing organization. The current definition is merely a reference to 
the section of the CFR that discusses the characteristics of such an 
organization. EPA is proposing to remove the definition to increase 
readability.
Certified Refrigerant Recovery or Recycling Equipment
    EPA is proposing to remove the defined term certified refrigerant 
recovery or recycling equipment. The current definition merely refers 
to the sections of the CFR that discuss the certification program. This 
term is also used inconsistently throughout subpart F as ``recovery and 
recycling equipment,'' ``recovery or recycling equipment,'' ``recycling 
and recovery equipment,'' and ``recycling or recovery equipment.'' The 
regulations at Sec.  82.36 make a distinction, in the context of MVAC 
servicing, between equipment that only recovers refrigerant and 
equipment that both recovers and recycles refrigerant. The regulations 
in subpart F generally do not make a distinction. The standards in 
appendices B1 and B2 refer to recovery and/or recycling equipment while 
the standard in appendix C for small appliances refers to recovery 
equipment only. For consistency, this rule proposes to use ``recovery 
and/or recycling equipment'' throughout, except for when referring only 
to small appliances.
Class I and Class II
    EPA is proposing to create regulatory definitions for the terms 
class I and class II ozone-depleting substances. These terms are 
currently defined in section 601 of the CAA and in 40 CFR part 82, 
subpart A. EPA is not proposing a different meaning. Adding definitions 
to subpart F can assist the reader as these terms are currently not 
explained in the definitions section and are used frequently in the 
regulations. EPA's proposed definition of class I is an ozone-depleting 
substance that is listed in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, appendix A. 
Similarly, EPA's proposed definition of class II is an ozone-depleting 
substance that is listed in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, appendix B. EPA 
notes that the regulatory text uses class I substance, class I ODS, and 
class I refrigerant interchangeably (and similarly uses class II 
substance, class II ODS, and class II refrigerant interchangeably) and 
all are intended to have the same meaning for the purpose of subpart F.
Comfort Cooling
    EPA is proposing to create a definition for the term comfort 
cooling. The leak repair provisions divide refrigeration and air-
conditioning equipment into three categories: Comfort cooling, 
commercial refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration. EPA has 
previously defined commercial refrigeration and industrial process 
refrigeration but not comfort cooling.
    For purposes of the leak repair requirements, EPA is proposing to 
define comfort cooling as the air-conditioning appliances used to 
provide cooling in order to control heat and/or humidity in facilities 
including but not limited to office buildings and light commercial 
buildings. Comfort cooling appliances include building chillers and 
roof-top self-contained units. They may be used for the comfort of 
occupants or for climate control to protect equipment within a 
facility, such as but not limited to computer rooms.
    EPA seeks comments on the applicability of the proposed definition 
of comfort cooling to air-conditioning equipment that is typically used 
to provide cooling and or humidity control in such environments.
Commercial Refrigeration
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of commercial 
refrigeration for clarity by removing the sentence that this equipment 
typically contains a charge size over 75 pounds. While accurate, this 
sentence has caused some confusion as to whether or not the leak repair 
requirements are applicable to appliances with a full charge between 50 
pounds, as stated in the leak repair required practices, and 75 pounds. 
The Agency feels that the phrase is not required since the threshold 
for the leak repair requirements is a refrigerant charge of 50 pounds 
or greater. EPA is proposing to define commercial refrigeration as the 
refrigeration appliances used in the retail food and cold storage 
warehouse sectors. Retail food includes the refrigeration equipment 
found in supermarkets, convenience stores, restaurants and other food 
service establishments. Cold storage includes the refrigeration 
equipment used to store meat, produce, dairy products, and other 
perishable goods.
Critical Component
    EPA is proposing to remove the defined term critical component and 
add the term component. EPA proposed the same change in the proposed 
2010 Leak Repair Rule. As discussed in that rule, EPA considers 
components as the parts of the appliance that make up the refrigerant 
circuit such as the compressor, heat exchangers (condenser and 
evaporator), and valves (e.g., heat recovery, expansion, charging). 
Other components may include receivers, manifolds, filter driers, and 
refrigerant piping. The meaning of the definition can be preserved 
without classifying the component as critical.
    Owners or operators of IPR may be granted additional time to make 
repairs if critical components cannot be delivered within the necessary 
time. Later in this action, EPA discusses its proposal to create a 
consistent set of extensions to the leak repair regulations for all 
types of appliances. The unavailability of a component is not a 
situation unique to owners or operators of IPR. Owners or operators of 
comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances should be 
granted the same flexibility as owners and operators of IPR when 
requesting additional time to make repairs due to the unavailability of 
components. Having similar requirements for all affected appliances 
also provides for a more consistent set of regulations that should 
reduce the complexity of the current leak repair regulations. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to amend the definition so that it is not 
limited to IPR, but also includes comfort cooling and commercial 
refrigeration appliances.
    EPA also proposes to replace the current defined term critical 
component with the newly defined term component, which would mean an 
appliance part, such as, but not limited to, compressors, condensers, 
evaporators, receivers and all of its connections and subassemblies. 
The term component is intended to be broader so everything that would 
have been covered under the term critical component would be included.
Custom-Built
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term custom-built 
to remove a citation to a section of the regulation that has moved.
Disposal
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term disposal to 
clarify that the disposal process includes the destruction of an 
appliance that releases or would release refrigerant to the

[[Page 69474]]

environment. This proposed change is intended to cover activities such 
as vandalism or the cutting of refrigerant lines, both to steal metal 
and to vent the refrigerant. EPA is also proposing to clarify that the 
disassembly of an appliance for recycling, as well as reuse, is part of 
the disposal process. EPA does not believe that these changes alter the 
current understanding of the term and is proposing them to increase 
clarity.
Follow-Up Verification Test
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term follow-up 
verification test to remove duplicative text covered in Sec.  82.156 
``Required Practices.'' The proposed revisions describe what the test 
is and how it is conducted and not what the regulatory requirements of 
the test are, which this rule proposes to move to Sec.  82.157(f). EPA 
is proposing to define follow-up verification test as those tests that 
involve checking the repairs to an appliance after a successful initial 
verification test and after the appliance has returned to normal 
operating characteristics and conditions to verify that the repairs 
were successful. Follow-up verification tests include, but are not 
limited to, the use of soap bubbles, electronic or ultrasonic leak 
detectors, pressure or vacuum tests, fluorescent dye and black light, 
infrared or near infrared tests, and handheld gas detection devices.
    EPA is not proposing to specify one test that would satisfy the 
definition of follow-up verification. In addition, these methods are 
not meant to be all-inclusive, but are intended to provide examples of 
known methodologies of performing leak repair verification tests.
Full Charge and Seasonal Variance
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term full charge to 
account for seasonal variances and to make minor edits for readability. 
EPA noted in the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule that owners or 
operators of commercial refrigeration appliances and IPR have expressed 
concerns that the full charge may not be accurately determined due to 
seasonal variances that may alter the amount of refrigerant in an 
appliance. Seasonal variances in ambient temperature and pressure have 
the effect of forcing refrigerant to different appliance components 
(for example, from an appliance's receiver to the condenser).
    EPA proposed in 2010 to allow owners or operators to estimate the 
effect that seasonal variances have on appliance components by making 
calculations based on component sizes, density of refrigerant, volume 
of piping, and other relevant considerations. EPA continues to believe 
that owners or operators should be able to take seasonal variances into 
account in determining the full charge. Unlike the 2010 proposal, EPA 
is proposing that seasonal variances be accounted for using the actual 
amount of refrigerant added to or evacuated from the appliance, rather 
than estimates.
    EPA is proposing to define full charge as the amount of refrigerant 
required for normal operating characteristics and conditions of the 
appliance as determined by using one or a combination of the following 
four methods:
    (1) Use of the equipment manufacturer's determination of the full 
charge;
    (2) Use of appropriate calculations based on component sizes, 
density of refrigerant, volume of piping, and other relevant 
considerations;
    (3) Use of actual measurements of the amount of refrigerant added 
to or evacuated from the appliance, including for seasonal variances; 
and/or
    (4) Use of an established range based on the best available data 
regarding the normal operating characteristics and conditions for the 
appliance, where the midpoint of the range will serve as the full 
charge.
    EPA is proposing to create a defined term seasonal variance to mean 
the addition of refrigerant to an appliance due to a change in ambient 
conditions caused by a change in season, followed by the subsequent 
removal of an equal amount of refrigerant due to a later corresponding 
change in season, where both the addition and removal of refrigerant 
occurs within one consecutive 12-month period. The proposal to account 
for seasonal variance when calculating appliance leak rates is 
discussed further in Section IV.F. of this preamble.
    Unlike in the 2010 proposal, EPA is not proposing to require that 
an owner or operator choose solely one method rather than a combination 
of methods to determine full charge. There are instances where multiple 
methods may be necessary to accurately determine the full charge. In 
addition, EPA is not proposing that owners or operators commit to the 
same method for the life of the appliance. However, as discussed later 
in this notice, EPA is proposing to require a written record of the 
full charge, the method(s) used to determine the full charge, and any 
changes to that amount.
High-Pressure Appliance
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term high-pressure 
appliance to update the list of example refrigerants. The proposed 
changes to the terms appliance and refrigerant carry over into this 
term as well. Therefore, under the proposed revisions high-pressure 
appliances would include those that use ODS and non-ODS refrigerants. 
EPA is proposing to update the list of example refrigerants with the 
most common types currently used in these systems, including ODS and 
non-ODS refrigerants. Specifically, these are R-22, R-407A, R-407C, R-
410A, and R-502.
Industrial Process Refrigeration
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term industrial 
process refrigeration to make minor clarifications for readability and 
to remove a citation to a section of the regulation that has moved. EPA 
is proposing to define industrial process refrigeration as complex 
customized appliances that are directly linked to the processes used 
in, for example, the chemical, pharmaceutical, petrochemical, and 
manufacturing industries. This sector also includes industrial ice 
machines, appliances used directly in the generation of electricity, 
and ice rinks. Where one appliance is used for both industrial process 
refrigeration and other applications, it will be considered industrial 
process refrigeration equipment if 50 percent or more of its operating 
capacity is used for industrial process refrigeration.
Industrial Process Shutdown
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term industrial 
process shutdown to remove a citation to a section of the regulation 
that has moved.
Initial Verification Test
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term initial 
verification test to remove duplicative text covered in the required 
practices section of the regulation. The proposed revisions describe in 
general terms what the test is, not what the requirements of the test 
are. The purpose of the test is to verify that an appliance has been 
repaired prior to adding refrigerant back into the system. The 
requirements for an initial verification test are described in Section 
IV.F.10 of this preamble. EPA is proposing to define initial 
verification test as those leak tests that are conducted as soon as 
practicable after the repair is finished to verify that a leak or leaks 
have been repaired before refrigerant is added back to the appliance.

[[Page 69475]]

Leak Inspection
    EPA is proposing to create a new defined term leak inspection. EPA 
is proposing to require that owners or operators conduct annual or 
quarterly leak inspections for appliances normally containing 50 or 
more pounds of refrigerant. EPA is proposing to define leak inspection 
as the examination of appliances using a calibrated leak detection 
device, a bubble test, or visual inspection for oil residue in order to 
determine the presence and location of refrigerant leaks.
    This definition appropriately covers the techniques currently used 
to detect the location of leaks. This term encompasses activities that 
can be performed by someone who is not a certified technician, unlike 
some of the activities listed in the definition of the term follow-up 
verification test. The proposed term for leak inspection does not 
include activities that would assist in determining whether a system is 
leaking generally, such as viewing receiver levels, pressure gauges, or 
adding refrigerant. However, EPA encourages persons conducting leak 
inspections to also review receiver levels if applicable.
Leak Rate
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term leak rate to 
change the calculation performed under what is called Method 2 under 
the existing rules. Currently, the first step of that method is to take 
the sum of the quantity of refrigerant added to the appliance over the 
previous 365-day period (or over the period that has passed since leaks 
in the appliance were last repaired, if that period is less than one 
year). Instead of the cut-off being since the last repair (if less than 
365 days), EPA is proposing to amend Step 1 to cover the period of time 
since the last successful follow-up verification test (if less than 365 
days have passed since the last refrigerant addition). This proposed 
change would improve the clarity of the requirements, because under the 
existing definition, it is unclear if the repair has to be successful 
in order to be considered in the leak rate calculation; these proposed 
revisions are intended to clarify that it must be. As discussed later 
in this preamble, EPA is proposing to allow repairs and initial and 
follow-up verification tests to occur in the same visit by a certified 
technician. This will likely result in the verification tests occurring 
on the same day as the repair.
    EPA is also proposing to rename the two methods from Method 1 and 
Method 2 to ``Annualizing Method'' and ``Rolling Average Method'' to 
improve readability. Finally, EPA is proposing to clarify that while 
the same leak rate calculation must be used for all appliances at the 
same facility, this only refers to the appliances subject to the leak 
repair provisions (i.e. appliances normally containing 50 or more 
pounds of refrigerant).
Low-Pressure Appliance
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term low-pressure 
appliance to update the list of example refrigerants. The proposed 
changes to the terms appliance and refrigerant carry over into this 
term as well. Therefore, under the proposed revisions low-pressure 
appliances would include those that use ODS and non-ODS refrigerants. 
EPA is proposing to update the list of example refrigerants with the 
most common types currently used in these systems, including ODS and 
non-ODS refrigerants. Specifically, these are R-11, R-123, R-113, R-
245fa, and R-1233zd(E).
Medium-Pressure Appliance
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term medium-
pressure appliance to update the list of example refrigerants. The 
proposed changes to the terms appliance and refrigerant carry over into 
this term as well. Therefore, under the proposed revisions medium-
pressure appliances would include those that use ODS and non-ODS 
refrigerants. EPA is proposing to update the list of example 
refrigerants with the most common types currently used in these 
systems, including ODS and non-ODS refrigerants. Specifically, these 
are R-114, R-124, R-12, R-134a, and R-500.
Mothball
    EPA is proposing to change the defined term system mothballing to 
mothball to reflect how it is used in the regulations. Mothballing an 
appliance suspends the time needed to complete repairs, retrofit or 
retirement plans, or completion of a retrofit or retirement for IPR 
that have triggered the leak repair requirements. The current exemption 
for system mothballing at Sec.  82.154(i)(10) is available only for 
IPR. EPA is proposing to extend that exemption to all appliances, 
therefore EPA is proposing to remove the reference to ``refrigeration'' 
appliances in the definition. The current definition also requires that 
the appliance be shut down for ``an extended period of time.'' EPA does 
not believe that the length of time that the system is shut down is 
controlling, but rather that the system has been removed from service 
temporarily, as opposed to permanently retired, and that the 
refrigerant has been evacuated. EPA is also proposing to clarify that 
the suspension of time ends when refrigerant is added back into the 
appliance. The revised definition also notes that refrigerant can be 
evacuated from an isolated component of the appliance and makes minor 
edits to improve clarity and readability. Therefore, EPA is proposing 
the term mothball to mean to evacuate refrigerant from an appliance, or 
the affected isolated section or component of an appliance, to at least 
atmospheric pressure, and to temporarily shut down that appliance.
Normal Operating Characteristics and Conditions
    EPA is proposing to change the defined term normal operating 
characteristics or conditions by replacing ``or'' with ``and'' for 
consistency through the regulations and to accurately describe the 
intended state of the appliance to which this term refers. EPA is also 
proposing to remove a reference to a section of the regulation that has 
moved. EPA is further proposing to add a reference to the appliance's 
full charge. Operating at full charge is a necessary element of an 
appliance's normal characteristics and it should be reflected in the 
definition. Finally, EPA is clarifying that this term extends to all 
appliances, not just refrigeration appliances. This term is currently 
used in the regulatory text in reference to all types of air-
conditioning and refrigeration systems.
Normally Containing a Quantity of Refrigerant
    EPA is proposing to remove the defined term Normally containing a 
quantity of refrigerant. This term merely indicates the quantity of 
refrigerant in an appliance at full charge and it may be confusing to 
have two defined terms to make the same point. EPA is proposing to 
replace this term wherever it is found with the phrase ``with a full 
charge of.''
One-Time Expansion Device
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term one-time 
expansion device to make clear that this includes devices that can 
store multiple charges, which are released individually to the 
environment to provide a cooling effect. EPA is proposing to define 
one-time expansion device as an appliance that relies on the release of 
its refrigerant charge to the environment in order to provide a cooling 
effect. These are typically single releases but could also include 
products that are designed

[[Page 69476]]

to release refrigerant to the environment through multiple individual 
charges.
Opening an Appliance
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term opening an 
appliance to improve readability.
Reclaim
    EPA is proposing to change the defined term reclaim refrigerant to 
reclaim so as to match usage in the regulatory text. EPA is also 
proposing to update the Air Conditioning, Refrigeration, and Heating 
Institute (AHRI) standard referenced in the definition. This updated 
standard includes non-ODS refrigerants.
Recover
    EPA is proposing to change the defined term recover refrigerant to 
recover so as to match usage in the regulatory text.
Recycle
    In the context of recycling refrigerant, EPA is proposing to change 
the defined term recycle refrigerant to recycle so as to match usage in 
the regulatory text. EPA is also proposing to clarify in the definition 
that reuse of recycled refrigerant must occur in equipment of the same 
owner or operator. EPA has previously prohibited in Sec.  82.154(g) the 
sale of used refrigerant unless it has been reclaimed or is being 
transferred to an appliance owned by the same parent company or by the 
same Federal agency or department. EPA is also making minor changes to 
improve readability.
Retire
    EPA is proposing to create a defined term retire in reference to 
appliances to mean the disassembly of the entire appliance including 
its major components, such that the appliance as a whole cannot be used 
by any person in the future. Retirement means that any remaining 
refrigerant would be recovered from the appliance followed by the 
dismantling and disposal of the appliance components. Retirement 
differs from mothballing as defined at Sec.  82.152 because a 
mothballed appliance is simply evacuated and shut down until it is 
ready to be used once again, whereas retirement involves a permanent 
shutdown and disassembly of an appliance. Retirement should also not be 
confused with a repair. Repair is not expressly defined in the subpart 
F regulations. It may include the removal of a faulty component, but 
such removal does not mean that the appliance as a whole has been 
removed from service and rendered unfit for use by the current or any 
future owner or operator. Throughout this rule, ``replacement'' or 
``replace'' may be used when discussing a situation where an existing 
appliance is retired, and replaced with another appliance. In some 
instances, however, the owner or operator may choose to only retire and 
not replace an appliance so the two terms are not always used together.
Retrofit
    EPA is proposing to create a defined term retrofit. As discussed in 
the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule, many appliance owners or operators 
have incorrectly equated the two terms retrofit and repair. EPA does 
not view a retrofit or the need to retrofit as a repair. Although 
repair is not expressly defined in the subpart F regulations, EPA 
considers a repair to include an action that addresses the leaking 
appliance or the affected component(s) of the leaking appliance. 
Repairs may include replacement of components or component 
subassemblies, whereas EPA uses the term retrofit to refer to a change 
to the appliance in order to convert it to the use of a different 
refrigerant. EPA does not use the term to apply to upgrades or repairs 
to existing equipment where the refrigerant is not changed. Retrofits 
often require changes to the appliance (for example, change in 
lubricants, filter driers, gaskets, o-rings, and in some cases, 
components) in order to acquire system compatibility.
Self-Sealing Valve
    EPA is proposing to create a defined term self-sealing valve. A 
self-sealing valve means a valve affixed to a container of refrigerant 
that automatically seals when not actively dispensing refrigerant and 
that meets or exceeds established performance criteria as identified in 
Sec.  82.154(f)(2). The purpose of a self-sealing valve is to prevent 
or minimize inadvertent release of refrigerant to the environment 
during the use and storage of the container of refrigerant. EPA 
discusses the requirement for self-sealing valves for small cans of 
MVAC refrigerant in more detail in Section IV.H.4 of this preamble.
Small Appliance
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term small 
appliance to remove the reference to class I and class II refrigerants. 
The proposed changes to the terms appliance and refrigerant carry over 
into this term as well. Therefore, under this proposal small appliances 
would include those that use ODS and non-ODS refrigerants. EPA is also 
proposing to add portable air conditioners to the list of example 
appliances.
Substitute
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term substitute to 
remove the phrases ``EPA-approved'' and ``in a given refrigeration or 
air-conditioning end-use.'' These phrases are references to the SNAP 
program, which identifies acceptable alternatives to ODS for specific 
end-uses. EPA is proposing to remove this reference because the Agency 
has recently changed the status of certain refrigerants from acceptable 
to unacceptable for new retail food refrigeration equipment, vending 
machines, and motor vehicle air conditioning (80 FR 42870; July 20, 
2015). EPA does not mean to imply that finding a refrigerant to be 
unacceptable in a given end-use under SNAP means that it is no longer 
included within the term substitute and thus by extension the term 
refrigerant. Were that the case, those substitutes could be 
inadvertently exempted from the safe handling requirements of subpart 
F. EPA is making this change to prevent that confusion, especially 
since the Agency is allowing for the servicing of existing appliances 
designed to use refrigerants that the Agency recently listed as 
unacceptable in new (and in some cases) retrofitted appliances. In the 
revised definition, any chemical or product, whether existing or new, 
that is used by any person as a replacement for a class I or II ozone-
depleting substance would be considered a substitute, even if it has 
been recently listed as unacceptable under SNAP in some end-uses. As 
discussed above, EPA is also proposing to incorporate the term 
substitute within the term refrigerant.
    By defining the term substitute in this way, and incorporating it 
into the definition of refrigerant, EPA intends to apply the 
requirements in subpart F to all substances that are functionally 
refrigerants, including but not limited to HFCs, PFCs, HFOs, 
hydrofluoroethers, and hydrocarbons. Multiple stakeholders at the 
November 2014 meeting encouraged EPA to treat all refrigerants in the 
same manner. With the exception of those substances specifically 
exempted from the venting prohibition, requiring all substances used as 
refrigerants to be handled in the same manner will reduce confusion and 
ultimately prevent emissions of both ODS refrigerants and non-ODS, 
high-GWP refrigerants. As discussed later in this notice, EPA will 
continue to exempt through regulation certain substitutes from the 
venting prohibition, and the other safe handling provisions in

[[Page 69477]]

subpart F, based on a determination that their release does not pose a 
threat to the environment. This is the case in the current regulations, 
for instance, with all approved uses of hydrocarbon refrigerants, 
ammonia, and CO2.
Suitable Replacement Refrigerant
    EPA is proposing to remove the defined term suitable replacement 
refrigerant. The existing leak repair regulations allow for additional 
time to retrofit or retire an appliance using an ODS refrigerant if a 
suitable replacement refrigerant with a lower ozone depletion potential 
is unavailable. This is the only place this term is used in subpart F. 
EPA is proposing to remove the extension due to the unavailability of a 
suitable replacement, as discussed in Section IV.F.13 of this notice. 
It is therefore appropriate to remove the term from the list of 
definitions.
System Receiver
    EPA is proposing to create a defined term system receiver to 
provide clarity to the reader. This definition is currently found in a 
parenthetical in the regulatory text at Sec.  82.156(a). This term is 
used when describing the required practices to properly evacuate 
refrigerant from an appliance and the definition does not introduce any 
new concepts to the evacuation requirements currently stated in the 
parenthetical. EPA is proposing to define system receiver to mean the 
isolated portion of the appliance, or a specific vessel within the 
appliance, that is used to hold the refrigerant charge during the 
servicing or repair of that appliance.
Technician
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term technician to 
improve clarity. The revised definition highlights that the determining 
factor for being a technician is the performance of actions that could 
reasonably be expected to violate the integrity of the refrigerant 
circuit. In general, only technicians should be performing actions that 
could violate the integrity of the refrigerant circuit and could 
therefore release refrigerant into the environment. The exception to 
that general statement, which the revised definition makes clear, is 
that persons maintaining, servicing, or repairing MVACs and persons 
disposing of small appliances, MVACs, or MVAC-like appliances do not 
need to be technicians. This proposed change does not affect the scope 
of the existing requirements but rather is intended to address feedback 
from stakeholders that the Agency should clarify which activities must 
be conducted by technicians and which need not be.
    The current definition of technician also includes a non-exclusive 
list of example activities that are reasonably expected to violate the 
integrity of the refrigerant circuit as well as examples of activities 
that do not. EPA considered proposing to create a separate definition 
for that term but found it unnecessary to do so as it only appears 
within the definition of technician. EPA is proposing to make changes 
to these examples for clarity and to add the following two examples of 
activities reasonably expected to violate the integrity of the 
refrigerant circuit: Adding or removing components and cutting the 
refrigerant line. EPA is proposing to add these to the list of examples 
to improve the enforceability of these regulations.
Very High-Pressure Appliance
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term very high-
pressure appliance to update the list of example refrigerants. The 
proposed changes to the terms appliance and refrigerant carry over into 
this term as well. Therefore, under the proposed revisions very high-
pressure appliances would include those that use ODS and non-ODS 
refrigerants. EPA is proposing to update the list of example 
refrigerants with the most common types currently used in these 
systems, including ODS and non-ODS refrigerants. Specifically, these 
are R-13, R-23, R-503, R-508A, and R-508B.
Voluntary Certification Program
    EPA is proposing to remove the defined term voluntary certification 
program. This term references a provision in the regulations that 
grandfathered in technicians who were certified prior to the 
establishment of the technician certification program in subpart F. EPA 
is proposing to remove these grandfathering provisions and therefore is 
proposing to remove the definition as well. The rationale for proposing 
to remove this grandfathering provision is discussed with the 
technician certification proposals below.

B. Proposed Changes to the Venting Prohibition in Section 82.154

1. Background
    As explained in section III of this notice, Sec.  82.154(a) 
currently prohibits the venting of ODS refrigerants and non-ODS 
substitutes to the environment. This regulatory provision also 
currently provides an exemption to the venting prohibition for certain 
substitutes in specific end-uses based on a determination that the 
listed substitutes in the listed end-uses do not pose a risk to the 
environment when released. This section also exempts from the venting 
prohibition de minimis releases of ODS refrigerants and non-exempt 
substitute refrigerants, and defines de minimis releases of ODS 
refrigerants to be those releases that occur when the other provisions 
of subpart F (or subpart B in the case of MVACs) are followed.
2. Applying the de Minimis Exemption to Substitute Refrigerants
    The knowing venting, release, or disposal of substitutes for class 
I and class II refrigerants during maintenance, service, repair, or 
disposal of an appliance or IPR is expressly prohibited by section 
608(c)(1) and (2) of the CAA, effective November 15, 1995, unless the 
Administrator determines that such venting, release, or disposal does 
not pose a threat to the environment. This prohibition is commonly 
called the venting prohibition. As explained in more detail above, 
section 608(c)(1) establishes the venting prohibition for class I and 
class II substances, and also establishes an exemption from the 
prohibition for de minimis releases associated with good faith attempts 
to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of ``any such substance.'' 
The statutory language of section 608(c)(2) extends paragraph 608(c)(1) 
to substitutes for class I and class II substances used as refrigerants 
in appliances and IPR. This extension includes the prohibition on 
venting and the exemption for de minimis releases associated with good 
faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of such 
substances.
    For class I and II substances EPA has interpreted those releases 
that occur despite compliance with EPA's required practices for 
recycling and recovery under Sec.  82.156, including use of recovery 
and/or recycling equipment certified under Sec.  82.158, and technician 
certification programs under Sec.  82.161 as de minimis. Thus, 
compliance with these regulations represents ``good faith attempts to 
recapture and recycle or safely dispose'' of refrigerant. Accordingly, 
the regulations at Sec.  82.154(a)(2) currently provide that releases 
of ODS refrigerants are considered de minimis only if they occur when 
the other provisions of subpart F (or subpart B in the case of MVACs) 
are followed. As noted above, although the regulations at Sec.  
82.154(a) exempt de minimis releases of non-exempt substitutes from the 
venting prohibition, the regulations do not provide any express 
guidance for such substitutes as to what practices are

[[Page 69478]]

considered ``good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely 
dispose'' of the substitute such that incidental releases would qualify 
for the de minimis exception.
    EPA proposes to interpret the phrase ``good faith attempts to 
recapture and recycle or safely dispose'' similarly when it applies to 
substitute refrigerants under section 608(c)(2) as when it applies to 
ODS refrigerants under section 608(c)(1). Thus, compliance with the 
proposed provisions and revisions regarding evacuation of equipment, 
use of certified equipment, and technician certification in any 
instance where a person is opening (or otherwise violating the 
refrigerant circuit) or disposing of an appliance, as defined in Sec.  
82.152 would represent ``good faith attempts to recapture and recycle 
or safely dispose'' of substitute refrigerants. EPA considers these 
provisions to appropriately represent good faith attempts to recapture 
and recycle or safely dispose of substitute refrigerants for the 
reasons discussed in EPA's justification of each proposed provision 
below. Under this approach, emissions that take place during servicing 
or disposal when these provisions are not followed would not be de 
minimis emissions and would be subject to the venting prohibition. 
Conversely, this approach together with the proposal to include 
substitute refrigerants in the definition of the term refrigerant, 
would mean that substitute refrigerants would be included in the 
regulatory clarification that releases are only considered de minimis 
if they occur when these procedures or those under subpart B are 
followed.
    It is impossible to open appliances (or otherwise violate the 
refrigerant circuit) or dispose of appliances without emitting some of 
the refrigerant in that circuit, even if an effort is made to 
recapture. Even after the appliance has been evacuated, some 
refrigerant remains, which is released to the environment when the 
appliance is opened or disposed of. Other activities that fall short of 
opening or disposing of the appliance but that involve violation of the 
refrigerant circuit also release refrigerant, albeit in very small 
quantities, because connectors (e.g., between hoses or gauges and the 
appliance) never join together without intervening space. Even in the 
best case in which a good seal is made between a hose and an appliance 
before the valve between them is opened, some refrigerant will remain 
in the space between the valve and the outer seal after the valve is 
closed. This refrigerant will be released when the outer seal is 
broken. Thus, whenever a person opens an appliance (or otherwise 
violates the refrigerant circuit) in the course of maintaining, 
servicing, repairing, or disposing that appliance, he or she could 
violate the venting prohibition unless the exception for de minimis 
releases applies. Because EPA is proposing to define the exception for 
substitute refrigerants such that it only applies when the person 
complies with the existing refrigerant management provisions, 
compliance with the proposed provisions will ensure that any releases 
incidental to these practices will be considered de minimis and thus 
will not violate the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2). EPA 
invites comments on applying these provisions of subpart F to 
substitute refrigerants.
3. Exempting Certain Substitutes From the Venting Prohibition
    EPA is proposing to explicitly state in the regulatory text that 
the substitutes exempted from the venting prohibition in Sec.  
82.154(a)(1) are also exempt from the other provisions of subpart F. 
EPA has previously determined that these substances do not pose a 
threat to the environment when vented or otherwise released. Given that 
decision, it would generally not make sense to require procedures for 
recovery or safe disposal, or to apply other provisions of subpart F to 
those exempt refrigerants. This is consistent with the intent of 
section 608(c)(2), which states that the Administrator may determine 
that not just the venting but also the ``releasing, or disposing'' of 
such substance does not pose a threat to the environment. EPA does not 
view this as a substantive change but rather as a clarification of the 
existing regulations. This proposed revision will also help to ensure 
that the extension of substantive requirements to substitutes does not 
inadvertently lead to application of those requirements to exempt 
substitutes.
    EPA is also proposing to reorganize the list of exempt substitutes 
by refrigerant type for readability. All of the specific end-uses for 
that substance would appear in one place. EPA is not proposing any 
changes to those end-uses or adding or removing any substitutes from 
the list.
4. Releases From Containers
    EPA is moving the existing regulatory provision in Sec.  
82.154(a)(2) that states that the venting prohibition applies to the 
release of refrigerant (both ODS and non-exempt substitute 
refrigerants) after its recovery from an appliance. EPA is moving this 
provision to a separate subparagraph (Sec.  82.154(a)(3)) rather than 
its current location in the description of a de minimis release. 
Standing alone should make the provision clearer that it is a violation 
of the venting prohibition to vent or otherwise release refrigerant 
after that refrigerant is recovered from an appliance, whether from 
cylinders, recovery equipment, or any other storage container or 
device. EPA wishes to highlight that the venting prohibition cannot be 
obviated through using a recovery device and subsequently releasing the 
refrigerant. This is especially important because refrigerant recovered 
from appliances may be contaminated or be a mixture of multiple 
refrigerants. Such refrigerant may be difficult to reclaim or may 
require a fee for proper disposal or destruction. In light of those 
difficulties, it is important to emphasize that venting this 
refrigerant, even though it is in a cylinder and not an appliance, is 
illegal.
5. Removing Effective Dates
    EPA is proposing to remove the effective dates in Sec.  82.154(a) 
and elsewhere in subpart F wherever it makes sense to do so. These 
other locations are Sec.  82.154(d)-(f) and (i)-(k), Sec.  82.156(f), 
Sec.  82.158(a) and (n), Sec.  82.161(a), and Sec.  82.164(a). Many of 
the effective dates are 1993 or 1994 when the program was established 
and it is now well understood that these provisions currently apply. 
Others refer to the specific standards for recovery and/or recycling 
equipment, which EPA addresses below. EPA does not want to remove an 
effective date where it is important for understanding the timing of 
the regulations. For example, EPA is proposing to remove the separate 
effective date references in Sec.  82.154(a) but may decide to leave 
the June 9, 2015, effective date for the alternatives added under a 
recent SNAP rule (April 10, 2015; 80 FR 19454) as it is relatively new. 
EPA specifically encourages comments on whether removing effective 
dates in most instances is appropriate, both in Sec.  82.154(a) and in 
other provisions of subpart F.

C. Proposed Changes to the Refrigerant and Appliance Sales Restrictions 
in Section 82.154

1. Background
    Under the current regulations at Sec.  82.154(m), the sale or 
distribution of a refrigerant containing a class I or class II 
substance, such as R-12, or refrigerant blends that include HCFCs, is 
restricted to technicians certified under sections 608 or 609 of the 
CAA. The sale or distribution of any class I or class II substance 
suitable for use in an MVAC that is in a container of less than 20 
pounds may only be sold to technicians

[[Page 69479]]

certified under section 609. For example, any person who sells or 
distributes R-12 for use in an MVAC and that is in a container of less 
than 20 pounds must verify that the purchaser has obtained 
certification by an EPA-approved section 609 technician training and 
certification program.
    The current regulations at Sec.  82.154(g) also restrict the sale 
of used ODS refrigerant sold for reuse unless certain conditions are 
met, the most important of which is that the refrigerant has been 
reclaimed. Sections 82.154(j) and (k) prohibit the sale of appliances 
containing an ODS refrigerant unless the appliance has a servicing 
aperture or process stub to facilitate the removal of refrigerant at 
servicing and disposal. Section 82.154(p) also currently prohibits the 
manufacture or import of one-time expansion devices that contain any 
refrigerant (ODS or non-ODS), other than exempted refrigerants.
2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants
    EPA is proposing to extend the sales restriction to HFCs and other 
non-exempt substitute refrigerants. The sales restriction would apply 
to non-exempt substitute refrigerants sold in all sizes of containers 
for use in all types of appliances. However, as discussed below, EPA is 
proposing to create an exception for small cans (two pounds or less) of 
refrigerant intended to service MVACs, so long as the cans are equipped 
with a self-sealing valve. EPA is also proposing to extend the 
restriction on the sale of used refrigerant to include used non-exempt 
substitute refrigerants and require that appliances containing such 
substitute refrigerants contain a servicing aperture or process stub to 
allow for recovery of the refrigerant.
    To extend the sales restriction, EPA is proposing to remove 
references to class I and class II substances where appropriate in 
these provisions and to replace them with the term refrigerant, which 
EPA is proposing to amend in Sec.  82.152 to include substitutes. To 
avoid confusion, EPA is proposing to add a provision specifically 
noting that the sales restriction does not apply to substitutes that 
are exempt from the venting prohibition. EPA is also proposing to amend 
the purpose and scope statements at Sec.  82.150, both of which 
describe the sales restriction as only affecting class I or class II 
ODS. EPA is proposing to add the term substitutes to these purpose and 
scope statements to clarify that the sales restriction, as well as the 
other provisions of the rule, would apply to ODS and substitute 
refrigerants.
    EPA restricted the sale of ODS refrigerant to certified technicians 
as a means of ensuring that only qualified individuals--those who have 
sufficient knowledge of the safe handling regulations--actually handle 
refrigerant. EPA considers the restriction on the sale of ODS 
refrigerant to be important for ensuring compliance with and aiding 
enforcement of the regulations issued under section 608 and section 609 
of the CAA. This requirement also fits in well with EPA's Next 
Generation Compliance strategy since compliance with this requirement 
is largely carried out by distributors who sell refrigerant to 
technicians. Limiting the sale of substitute refrigerants to 
technicians who have demonstrated knowledge of safe handling practices 
is important to minimizing the release of refrigerants during the 
maintenance, servicing and repair of appliances containing substitute 
refrigerants. A sales restriction for substitute refrigerants is also 
vital to extending the technician certification requirements to 
individuals working with substitute refrigerants. EPA more fully 
discusses later in the preamble how section 608(c) of the CAA provides 
authority for extending the technician certification program. As an 
element of that program, the same legal authority applies to the sales 
restriction.
    EPA is not proposing to rely on section 608(b)(2) of the CAA which 
explicitly requires servicing apertures or other similar design 
features for appliances containing an ODS refrigerant. Instead, in 
order to comply with the section 608(c) prohibition against the 
venting, release, or disposal of substitute refrigerants into the 
environment, similar design features must also be present on appliances 
containing such substitutes. These access points allow for the proper 
evacuation or recovery of substitute refrigerant, preventing releases 
to the atmosphere. Without these access points, it would be harder for 
persons servicing or disposing of such appliances to properly evacuate 
the refrigerant in accordance with Sec.  82.156(b). Additionally, since 
refrigerant in an appliance will eventually leak out in the disposal 
process, such as when an appliance is crushed or shredded, failing to 
remove refrigerant prior to disposal could lead to a knowing release of 
refrigerant. These equipment requirements would prevent subsequent 
knowing releases of refrigerant.
    One-time expansion devices, by design, release their refrigerant 
charge to the environment in order to provide a cooling effect. 
Examples include self-chilled beverage containers that must be disposed 
of or recycled after each use, as well as reusable containers. The 
existing regulations limit the manufacture or import of one-time 
expansion devices to only those that contain exempted refrigerants. 
However, the definition of one-time expansion device refers to them as 
appliances containing a refrigerant, both of which under the existing 
regulations refer only to ODS refrigerants. This rule would clarify 
that ambiguity and clearly limit one-time expansion devices to those 
using exempt refrigerants.
    In addition to fully implementing 608(c) by clarifying how 
regulated entities may avail themselves of the de minimis exemption to 
the venting prohibition, these proposed changes would apply the same 
requirements for sales of ODS and substitute refrigerants (except those 
that are exempt from the 608(c) prohibition on venting), as well as for 
appliances containing ODS and substitute refrigerants. This should 
reduce potential confusion for the person maintaining, servicing, 
repairing and disposing of appliances, resulting in fewer releases of 
ODS and substitute refrigerants. For this reason, identical treatment 
will help to reduce ODS emissions to the lowest achievable level and 
lead to more recovery and recycling or reclamation of ODS.
    EPA also has authority under section 301(a) of the CAA to 
``prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out [its] 
functions under this Act.'' As described above, section 301(a) provides 
additional authority for EPA to establish a sales restriction as a way 
to further implement the 608(a) and 608(c)(2) statutory requirements. 
EPA solicits comments on its authority for the proposed changes to 
these regulations.
3. Sales of Small Cans
    EPA is generally proposing to extend the sales restriction to 
substitute refrigerants but is also proposing a limited exception for 
small cans of MVAC refrigerant (two pounds or less). Historically, 
individuals have been able to purchase small cans of non-ODS 
refrigerant to service their own vehicles. This do-it-yourself (DIY) 
servicing is unique among the air-conditioning and refrigeration sector 
to the MVAC end-use. If the sales restriction were simply extended to 
substitute refrigerants without change, the sale of both small 
containers of refrigerant, which are used exclusively for DIY servicing 
of MVAC systems, and large (e.g. 25- or 30-pound) cylinders of 
refrigerant used by technicians to service MVAC and other appliances 
would be limited to certified technicians. As discussed below, this 
could be unnecessarily burdensome. A

[[Page 69480]]

less burdensome option that EPA is proposing is to exempt small cans of 
MVAC refrigerant from the sales restriction and require that 
manufacturers install self-sealing valves that minimize the release of 
refrigerant during servicing.
    In the United States, HFC-134a has been used in all newly 
manufactured vehicles with air-conditioning systems since 1994 and 
almost all small cans of refrigerant sold for MVAC DIY use contain HFC-
134a.\8\ Recently, the SNAP program listed HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and 
carbon dioxide (CO2 or R-744), three climate-friendly 
alternatives for MVAC, as acceptable subject to use conditions for use 
in new light-duty vehicles. Manufacturers are currently producing or 
are actively developing light-duty models using these three 
refrigerants. The proposed exception for small cans would apply to HFC-
134a, HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, as well as any additional MVAC refrigerants 
listed as acceptable subject to use conditions under SNAP that are not 
exempt from the venting prohibition. Because CO2 is exempt 
from the venting prohibition, it will not be subject to sales 
restrictions or, in turn, this exception. Currently, EPA has not 
received a submission of a unique fitting for use on a small can of 
HFO-1234yf; therefore, currently this refrigerant cannot be sold in 
small cans to individuals at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ODS refrigerant for MVAC servicing that is sold in cylinders 
less than 20 pounds is currently restricted to technicians certified 
under section 609 of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most small cans are purchased by individuals servicing their own 
personal vehicles. Based on the NPD Automotive Aftermarket Industry 
Monitor, 2008, approximately 14 million small cans are sold each year. 
If EPA were to extend the sales restriction to small cans, individuals 
who normally service their own MVAC would be required to either seek 
certification under section 609 or take their car to a technician to be 
serviced. EPA estimates that the cost associated with those two actions 
could be as much as $1.5 billion per year. For more details, see 
Analysis of the Economic Impact and Benefits of Proposed Revisions to 
the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program in the docket.
    In lieu of a costly sales restriction on small cans used for MVAC 
servicing, EPA sought input on alternate mechanisms for reducing 
refrigerant releases from those cans. EPA reached out to the Auto Care 
Association and the Automotive Refrigeration Products Institute, two 
associations that represent the vast majority of manufacturers of small 
cans in the United States. The organizations referred EPA to 
California's program, and in particular suggested that EPA consider 
CARB's requirement that manufacturers install self-sealing valves on 
small cans. The organizations indicated that a nationwide requirement 
for self-sealing valves would be preferred to a sales restriction and 
would be a less costly way to reduce emissions. EPA then consulted with 
CARB to see if they had suggestions on ways to reduce refrigerant 
releases from small cans and to learn more about their experience with 
self-sealing valves. Based on California's experience, self-sealing 
valves are an effective way to reduce emissions of HFCs used to service 
MVACs without limiting sales to certified technicians. These valves 
reduce the release of refrigerant during servicing and may also reduce 
releases from the can after the servicing is complete.
    According to industry representatives and CARB, self-sealing valves 
are estimated to cost $0.25 per can. Manufacturers are already 
producing small cans with self-sealing valves to meet California's 
requirements. EPA heard from the manufacturers of those cans that they 
would not find it to be unduly burdensome to extend that restriction to 
all cans produced for sale in the United States, especially as compared 
to an extension of the sales restriction that would prohibit the sale 
of small cans completely. Because they are incorporated into the 
product, consistent with EPA's Next Generation compliance principles, 
the individual servicing her or his personal MVAC would reduce 
emissions without any additional effort or training, as compared to 
using small cans of refrigerant on the market today that do not employ 
the self-sealing valve. Self-sealing valves would thus be an effective 
mechanism for controlling the release of refrigerant to the atmosphere.
    EPA is proposing to create in appendix E a standard for self-
sealing valves that is based largely on CARB's Test Procedure for Leaks 
from Small Containers of Automotive Refrigerant, TP-503, as amended 
January 5, 2010. To be consistent with the CARB standard and existing 
small cans that are already on the market, the leakage rate may not 
exceed 3.00 grams per year when the self-sealing valve is closed. This 
leakage rate applies to full containers as well as containers that have 
been used and are partially full.
    As described in Analysis of the Economic Impact and Benefits of 
Proposed Revisions to the National Recycling and Emission Reduction 
Program, EPA estimates that a nationwide requirement to use self-
sealing valves on all small cans will reduce emissions by more than 
657,000 MTCO2eq. per year. EPA also anticipates there could 
be additional emissions reductions to the extent the self-sealing 
valves allow individuals to store and re-use the same can of 
refrigerant, reducing the need to buy additional small cans. Currently, 
a small can is typically used in one vehicle and then discarded with 
some refrigerant still remaining in the can. EPA estimates that the 
cost for this requirement would be approximately $3 million. EPA 
anticipates that the cost for self-sealing valves will decrease over 
time as manufacturers increase production and achieve greater economies 
of scale.
    EPA's authority for this requirement is primarily in sections 
608(c) and 301(a) of the CAA. EPA has the authority to require that 
anyone purchasing small cans of refrigerant be a certified technician, 
one element of the subpart F provisions needed to ensure that releases 
during the servicing of appliances are considered de minimis and thus 
exempt from the venting prohibition. However, EPA is proposing to 
require self-sealing valves as a lower cost option for minimizing the 
release of refrigerant during the servicing of MVACs. The requirement 
for self-sealing valves helps implement the venting prohibition under 
section 608(c) because it helps ensure that refrigerant is not released 
while servicing MVACs. The Agency is proposing to revise the 
regulations to clarify that any person servicing their personal MVAC 
with a small can that has a self-sealing valve installed may rely upon 
the de minimis exemption to the venting prohibition. As described 
previously, section 301(a) of the CAA provides supplemental authority 
for the Agency to ``prescribe such regulations as are necessary to 
carry out [its] functions under this Act.'' In this case, section 
301(a) provides additional authority for EPA to require self-sealing 
valves on all small cans of substitute refrigerant sold after a date in 
the future to implement the 608(c)(2) venting prohibition.
    Small cans of refrigerant sold for MVAC servicing are different 
from containers of refrigerant sold for stationary refrigeration and 
air-conditioning in that the small cans for MVAC are required to have 
unique fittings. The SNAP program requires as a use condition for MVAC 
refrigerants that the container and the MVAC system use unique fittings 
to prevent cross-contamination. If used properly, the unique fittings 
will not allow for the introduction of HFC-134a refrigerant

[[Page 69481]]

into a system using HFO-1234yf or another substitute refrigerant. Using 
an adapter or deliberately modifying a fitting to use a different 
refrigerant is a violation of the SNAP use conditions. EPA also 
believes that the unique fittings could reduce the likelihood that a 
small can will be used to service appliances other than MVACs that use 
substitute refrigerants, in contravention of the proposed sales 
restriction.
    Refrigerant sold for MVAC servicing is also different because of 
the types of equipment that could be serviced with a small can. First, 
the appliances that typically use HFC-134a (the most-common refrigerant 
that would be sold in small can for MVAC recharging) in a home would 
include appliances, like a refrigerator, that are hermetically sealed. 
Someone who wanted to open that appliance would need greater skill and 
specialized equipment to service the appliance since there wouldn't be 
a servicing port to access. This should dissuade homeowners from using 
a small can to service other small appliances. Larger appliances that 
use HFC-134a, like a reach-in cooler, would need more than one small 
can to fully charge the appliance. Because of the cost of and the added 
effort to use multiple small cans to charge a larger appliance, it's 
not practical for someone to use a small can. This would likely lead 
the person to purchase a larger container of refrigerant, which would 
require that the person be a certified technician.
    EPA requests comments on its proposal to exempt small cans of 
refrigerant for MVACs with self-sealing valves from the sales 
restriction, including the following: (1) Whether EPA should finalize 
the above-described exception for small cans if a self-sealing valve is 
affixed; (2) whether the agency should finalize a rule that creates an 
exemption for HFC-134a only or all MVAC refrigerants not exempt from 
the venting prohibition; (3) whether the agency should create an 
alternate self-sealing valve standard or use the CARB standard; (4) 
whether other standards exist or if other organizations are developing 
their own standards; (5) whether EPA should require labeling of small 
cans stating the refrigerant cannot be intentionally vented \9\; (6) 
whether allowing the sale of small cans would allow individuals to 
circumvent the proposed sales restriction for stationary appliances; 
and (7) whether EPA should finalize an earlier compliance date than one 
year after publishing a final rule, such as six or nine months after 
publication of a final rule, if it is coupled with a sell-through 
provision for all small cans manufactured or imported prior to that 
effective date. A fuller discussion of effective and compliance dates 
can be found in section IV.M of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See the CARB document titled, ``Certification Procedures for 
Small Containers of Automotive Refrigerant'' for additional 
information on labeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Proposed Changes to the Evacuation Requirements in Section 82.156

1. Background
    Under EPA's existing regulation at Sec.  82.156(a), ODS refrigerant 
must be transferred to a system receiver or to a certified recovery 
and/or recycling machine before appliances are opened for maintenance, 
service, or repair. The same requirement applies to appliances that are 
to be disposed of, except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like 
appliances which have separate requirements currently under Sec.  
82.156(g) and (h). To ensure that the maximum amount of refrigerant is 
captured rather than released, EPA requires that air-conditioning and 
refrigeration appliances be evacuated to specified levels of vacuum.
2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants
    EPA is proposing to extend the requirements at Sec.  82.156 for 
appliances containing ODS refrigerants to appliances containing non-
exempt substitute refrigerants. Therefore, before appliances containing 
non-exempt substitute refrigerants are opened for maintenance, service, 
or repair, the refrigerant in either the entire appliance or the part 
to be serviced (when it can be isolated) must be transferred to a 
system receiver or to a certified recovery and/or recycling machine. 
The same requirements would apply to equipment that is to be disposed 
of, except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances, which 
have separate requirements.
i. Evacuation Levels for Appliances Other Than Small Appliances, MVACs, 
and MVAC-Like Appliances
    EPA is proposing revisions to Sec.  82.156(a) such that appliances 
other than small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances containing 
non-exempt substitute refrigerants be evacuated to the levels 
established for CFCs and HCFCs with similar saturation pressures. These 
levels are based on the saturation pressures of the refrigerant, which 
is a characteristic of the refrigerant independent of whether or not it 
is an ozone-depleting substance. As is the case for CFCs and HCFCs, the 
appropriate evacuation levels for HFCs and other substitutes would 
depend upon the size of the appliance and the date of manufacture of 
the recovery and/or recycling equipment. Technicians repairing MVACs 
and MVAC-like appliances containing a substitute refrigerant would not 
be subject to the evacuation requirements below as they are currently 
subject to the requirement to ``properly use'' (as defined at Sec.  
82.32(e)) recovery/recycling and recovery-only equipment approved 
pursuant to Sec.  82.36(a).
ii. Evacuation Levels for Small Appliances.
    EPA is proposing revisions to Sec.  82.156(b) to establish the same 
evacuation requirements for servicing small appliances charged with 
non-exempt substitute refrigerants as it has for small appliances 
charged with ODS refrigerants. Technicians opening small appliances for 
service, maintenance, or repair would be required to use equipment 
certified either under appendix B, based on AHRI 740, or under appendix 
C, Method for Testing Recovery Devices for Use with Small Appliances, 
to recover the refrigerant.
    Technicians using equipment certified under appendix B would have 
to pull a four-inch vacuum on the small appliance being evacuated. 
Technicians using equipment certified under appendix C would have to 
capture 90 percent of the refrigerant in the appliance if the 
compressor is operational, and 80 percent of the refrigerant if the 
compressor is not operational. Because the percentage of refrigerant 
mass recovered is very difficult to measure on any given job, 
technicians would have to adhere to the servicing procedure certified 
for that recovery system under appendix C to ensure that they achieve 
the required recovery efficiencies.
    EPA also is proposing revisions to Sec.  82.156(b) to establish the 
same evacuation requirements for disposing of small appliances that are 
charged with non-exempt substitute refrigerants as it has for small 
appliances charged with ODS refrigerants. Providing a consistent 
standard for ODS and non-exempt substitute refrigerants will facilitate 
the recovery of both ODS and non-ODS refrigerants. MVACs and MVAC-like 
appliances would have to be evacuated to 102 mm (approximately 
equivalent to four inches) of mercury vacuum, and small appliances 
would have to have 80 or 90 percent of the refrigerant in them 
recovered (depending on whether or not the compressor was operational) 
or be evacuated to four inches of mercury vacuum. EPA notes that the 
original wording in the regulation was whether

[[Page 69482]]

or not the compressor was ``operating'' rather than ``operational.'' 
This change to ``operational'' matches the preamble to the 1993 Rule 
(58 FR 28668) which initially describes the standard. This change also 
reflects the intent of the standard, which is to allow for a lower 
recovery rate when the small appliance does not work.
    EPA is also proposing to make the evacuation requirements for small 
appliances the same whether it is being opened for servicing or it is 
being disposed of. This new provision would apply to both ODS and 
substitute refrigerants. Currently, when using recovery equipment 
manufactured before November 15, 1993, a technician servicing a small 
appliance containing an ODS need only recover 80% of the refrigerant. 
The existing disposal requirements do not provide a category for the 
use of pre-1993 recovery equipment. EPA is proposing to allow that 80% 
level of evacuation for disposal to simplify and unify the 
requirements. This change will have minimal effect as few people 
continue to use recovery equipment manufactured prior to that date.
    EPA has authority under section 608(c) and 608(a) to require that 
appliances containing a substitute refrigerant be properly evacuated. 
The Agency has the authority to specify what practices constitute a 
good faith attempt to recapture substitute refrigerants in order to 
extend the de minimis exemption from the venting prohibition to 
substitute refrigerants. Such practices can include a requirement that 
an appliance be properly evacuated prior to servicing or disposal. 
Additionally, providing a consistent standard for ODS and substitute 
refrigerants will facilitate the recovery of both ODS and non-ODS 
refrigerants. Increased recovery of ODS refrigerant will reduce the 
emission of such refrigerants. The full discussion of the authority for 
this action is found in section III of this notice.
3. Records for Disposal of Appliances With a Charge Between Five and 50 
Pounds
    EPA is proposing to add new recordkeeping requirements at Sec.  
82.156(a)(3) for the disposal of appliances normally containing more 
than five and less than 50 pounds of either ODS or substitute 
refrigerant. Most of these appliances are disassembled in the field 
before the components are recycled or disposed of. Under the proposed 
revisions, records would document the company name, location of the 
equipment, date of recovery, and the amount and type of refrigerant 
removed from each appliance prior to disposal. In addition, EPA is 
proposing to require that records be kept to document the quantity and 
type of refrigerant that was shipped or sold for reclamation or 
destruction (e.g., to a certified reclaimer or refrigerant distributor 
or wholesaler). This requirement would apply to all technicians 
recovering refrigerant from appliances, not just those with a full 
charge between five and 50 pounds. The technician, or the company 
employing the technician, would be required to maintain these records 
for three years.
    Under the current regulations, whenever ODS refrigerant is added or 
removed from an appliance with 50 pounds or greater of full charge, the 
technician must generate a service record documenting the addition or 
recovery. EPA also requires records documenting that ODS refrigerant 
was properly recovered from small appliances (hermetically sealed 
appliances with 5 pounds or less of full charge), MVACs, and MVAC-like 
appliances. EPA discusses elsewhere in this notice its proposal to 
extend those requirements to appliances containing non-exempt 
substitute refrigerants. There are currently no recordkeeping 
requirements for the addition or recovery of refrigerant in appliances 
normally containing more than five and less than 50 pounds of 
refrigerant. Because of this gap in regulatory coverage and for the 
reasons described below, EPA is proposing to require recordkeeping by 
any person recovering refrigerant from an appliance normally containing 
more than five and less than 50 pounds of ODS or non-exempt substitute 
refrigerant.
    EPA has heard from stakeholders that venting regularly happens in 
appliances of this size. At a recent meeting EPA attended with air-
conditioning and refrigeration contractors, the attendees were asked 
what percentage of technicians recover refrigerant. The estimates were 
generally between 10 to 30 percent, with the caveat that recovery is 
much more common in the refrigeration industry than the air-
conditioning industry. EPA also receives numerous tips each year of 
someone cutting refrigerant lines to quickly and illegally dispose of 
appliances of this size. While none of this feedback is conclusive, it 
is likely that venting occurs in violation of the CAA with some 
frequency.
    The potential emissions from appliances containing more than five 
and less than 50 pounds are significant. Using EPA's Vintaging 
Model,\10\ EPA estimated the number of appliances in this size category 
that are disposed of annually and the full charge of those appliances. 
EPA estimates there are 6.6 million appliances with a full charge of 
27,300 MT of refrigerant (49.5 MMTCO2eq GWP-weighted MT, 960 
ODP-weighted MT) disposed of annually. This represents 45 percent of 
the total amount of HCFC and HFC refrigerants charged into all 
appliances being disposed annually. Thus, under the current 
regulations, there is a significant amount of refrigerant, especially 
from a climate perspective, that could be vented without any record 
being generated to document recovery or facilitate enforcement. EPA's 
benefits assessment does not calculate any additional emissions 
reductions from this proposal because the existing regulations already 
require recovery when appliances are disposed. However, in practical 
terms, requiring a record from each disposal event should drive more 
technicians to comply with the existing requirement. This change also 
improves rule effectiveness by creating uniform expectations so the 
technician knows that a record is required when disposing of any 
appliance, not just appliances with 50 or more pounds of refrigerant or 
small appliances, MVAC, and MVAC-like appliances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA's Vintaging Model estimates the annual chemical 
emissions from industry sectors that have historically used ODS, 
including air-conditioning and refrigeration. The model uses 
information on the market size and growth for each of the end-uses, 
as well as a history and projections of the market transition from 
ODS to alternatives. The model tracks emissions of annual 
``vintages'' of new equipment that enter into operation by 
incorporating information on estimates of the quantity of equipment 
or products sold, serviced, and retired or converted each year, and 
the quantity of the compound required to manufacture, charge, and/or 
maintain the equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has also heard from stakeholders, including in public fora such 
as the public meeting in November 2014, that EPA should increase 
enforcement of the venting prohibition. They indicated that technicians 
will knowingly and illegally vent refrigerant if they think EPA will 
not bring an enforcement action. While cases have been brought against 
individuals who have illegally vented refrigerant, having a recovery 
record would improve the success of future cases. After discussions 
with stakeholders, establishing a recordkeeping requirement for the 
category of appliances that are most frequently vented by technicians 
would be the most practical and least burdensome way to improve the 
Agency's ability to enforce the venting

[[Page 69483]]

prohibition. Technicians who do not recover refrigerant and do not have 
records to show that they recover refrigerant would be open to 
enforcement action under the proposed changes.
    EPA understands that some, but nowhere near all, appliances are 
disposed of because they have broken down and lost their full 
refrigerant charge. In such cases, to comply with the requirement 
technicians would only need to note that they attempted to recover 
refrigerant but none was present.
    EPA has authority to establish this requirement under sections 
608(a), 608(c), 114, and 301(a) consistent with the description of 
these authorities offered above. Section 608(a) gives EPA explicit 
authority to implement requirements that reduce ODS refrigerant 
emissions to the lowest achievable level. This proposed recordkeeping 
requirement would further the recovery of ODS refrigerants and 
discourage the illegal venting of such refrigerants from appliances 
containing more than five and less than 50 pounds of refrigerant. 
Because it would minimize the emission of ODS refrigerant, EPA has 
authority for this proposal as it relates to ODS appliances under 
608(a).
    EPA also has authority under sections 114, 608(c), and 608(a) to 
require that technicians document that appliances containing a 
substitute refrigerant have been properly evacuated. Section 114 of the 
CAA provides the primary authority to establish these recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements. In addition, the Agency has the authority to 
specify what practices constitute a good faith attempt to recapture 
substitute refrigerants in order to extend the de minimis exemption 
from the venting prohibition to substitute refrigerants. Such practices 
can include documentation and recordkeeping. Additionally, providing a 
consistent standard for ODS and substitute refrigerants will facilitate 
the recovery of both ODS and non-ODS refrigerants. Increased recovery 
of ODS refrigerant will reduce the emission of such refrigerants. The 
full discussion of the authority for this action is found in section 
III of this notice.
    EPA seeks comments on this proposed recordkeeping requirement. 
Specifically, EPA seeks comments on whether keeping track of 
refrigerant recovered from appliances and sent off-site for 
reclamation, refrigerant banking, or destruction is a common practice 
for these appliances. EPA also seeks comments on whether this 
requirement would close the recordkeeping gap or if EPA should remove 
the lower limit of below 5 pounds. EPA expects that some appliances 
(e.g. some mini split AC and small remote condensing refrigeration 
systems) may not be covered by this recordkeeping requirement because 
they have charges less than 5 pounds. Therefore, EPA also specifically 
invites comments on whether this requirement should apply to all 
appliances that are disassembled in the field, regardless of the charge 
size. Likewise, EPA requests comments on whether the proposed records 
for five to 50 pound systems should be kept for appliances containing 
more than 50 pounds given the proposed recordkeeping requirements for 
appliances with 50 or more pounds (see discussion in section IV.F).
4. Clarifications and Edits for Readability
    EPA is proposing to move the provisions of Sec.  82.156 ``Required 
Practices'' into three separate sections: Sec.  82.155 would address 
the safe disposal of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances; 
Sec.  82.157 would address appliance maintenance and leak repair for 
appliances containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant; and Sec.  
82.156 would address the proper evacuation of refrigerant from 
appliances. These provisions tend to affect different stakeholders so 
dividing them into separate sections will make the required provisions 
easier to find.
    Within Sec.  82.156, EPA is proposing to separate the evacuation 
requirements into the following categories: (a) Appliances other than 
small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances; (b) small 
appliances, and (c) MVACs and MVAC-like appliances. With the exception 
of the evacuation of small appliances for disposal using recovery 
equipment manufactured before November 15, 1993, this proposed 
reorganization would not change the current evacuation requirements for 
the different types of appliances under Sec.  82.156.
    Within Sec.  82.156(a) and (b), EPA is proposing to reorganize the 
requirements to state the general requirement first followed by 
specific circumstances that allow for different evacuation levels. EPA 
is not proposing to change the required levels of evacuation in table 
1. Nor is EPA proposing to change the circumstances that would allow 
for alternate evacuation levels or to change those alternate levels.

E. Proposed Changes to the Safe Disposal Provisions in Section 
82.156(f)

1. Background
    In the 1993 Rule, EPA established specific requirements for the 
safe disposal of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances 
containing ODS refrigerant that enter the waste stream with the 
refrigerant charge intact. Under the existing rules at Sec.  82.156(f), 
persons who take the final step in the disposal process of such 
appliances must either recover any remaining refrigerant in the 
appliance or verify that the refrigerant has previously been recovered 
from the appliance or shipment of appliances. If they verify that the 
refrigerant has been recovered previously, they must retain a signed 
statement attesting to this or a contract from the supplier of the 
appliances for three years. Recovery equipment used to remove the 
refrigerant must meet certain standards but does not need to be 
certified by a third party. Persons recovering the refrigerant need not 
be certified technicians.
2. Clarifications to the Existing Program
    EPA is using this opportunity to clarify certain requirements of 
the existing safe disposal program. The safe disposal regulations 
require actions of three separate groups of people: the final 
processor, the supplier of appliances for disposal, and the person who 
recovers the refrigerant. The final processor is the person who takes 
the final step in the disposal process, typically a scrap recycler or 
landfill operator, where the appliance is in such a condition that the 
refrigerant cannot reasonably be expected to be recovered. The supplier 
is the person dropping off the appliance (or shipment of appliances) 
for disposal. The person who recovers the refrigerant may be the final 
processor, the supplier, or a separate third entity. As discussed 
below, to make the safe disposal requirements easier to find in the 
regulations, EPA is proposing to move these requirements to a new 
section Sec.  82.155.
    EPA is clarifying here that under the existing requirements 
refrigerant may be recovered at any stage in the disposal process, even 
prior to the supplier taking possession. As EPA stated in the 1993 Rule 
establishing the safe disposal program, ``the supplier to the final 
processor does not have to remove the refrigerant but then must assure, 
through an accompanying certification, that refrigerant has been 
removed earlier in the disposal chain. Any copies of the certificate of 
removal provided to the supplier could be passed on to the final

[[Page 69484]]

processor.'' (58 FR 28704-28705). EPA's intent has been to provide the 
flexibility needed to permit the recovery of refrigerant by the entity 
in the disposal chain that can accomplish that task most efficiently 
while at the same time establishing a mechanism to help ensure that the 
refrigerant has not simply been illegally vented. This signed 
certification serves both goals.
    EPA also wishes to address potential confusion related to whether 
the rules apply to equipment that is crushed or has had components 
removed. As EPA stated in the 1993 Rule, ``the Agency understands that 
crushed automobiles commonly arrive at scrap facilities and that such 
automobiles no longer contain refrigerant. Consequently, it may be 
safely presumed that refrigerant is no longer present in equipment that 
is received in such condition. This clarification does not alter the 
responsibility to obtain certification when receiving equipment from 
suppliers.'' (58 FR 28704). A scrap facility is still the final 
disposer in this situation. Therefore, a scrap facility would have to 
receive the proper certification from their supplier of the disposed 
appliances in order to accept the appliances.
3. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants
    EPA is proposing to extend the safe disposal provisions that 
currently exist at Sec.  82.156(f) for small appliances, MVACs, and 
MVAC-like appliances containing ODS refrigerants to the same types of 
appliances that contain non-exempt substitute refrigerants. Consistent 
with the general discussion in Section III above concerning the 
authority to extend provisions of subpart F to substitute refrigerants, 
extending these requirements is important to implementing the 608(c)(2) 
venting prohibition for substitute refrigerants because it would define 
practices that would qualify as ``good faith attempts to recapture and 
recycle or safely dispose'' of the substitute refrigerant when 
disposing of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances and thus 
qualify for the de minimis exemption to the venting prohibition.
    The rationale for establishing the safe disposal requirements for 
small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances that contain ODS also 
applies to these appliances when they contain substitute refrigerants. 
These requirements are designed to ensure that refrigerant is recovered 
before the appliance is finally disposed of while granting as much 
flexibility as possible to the disposal facility regarding the manner 
of its recovery (58 FR 28702). Specifying how the substitute 
refrigerant be recovered will reduce the release of that refrigerant to 
the environment.
    Such flexibility is important for the disposal sector, which is 
highly diverse and decentralized. Because the disposal infrastructure 
for appliances charged with substitute refrigerants is identical to 
that for appliances charged with an ODS, these considerations apply 
equally to appliances containing substitutes. In addition, applying a 
consistent set of disposal requirements to appliances containing ODS or 
substitute refrigerants will reduce confusion and minimize emissions of 
ODS and non-ODS refrigerant during the disposal process. Service 
technicians will not have to question whether the refrigerant in that 
appliance must be recovered or not. With the exception of specially 
labelled appliances using hydrocarbon refrigerants, the technician must 
recover refrigerant from all small appliances. Thus, the requirements 
for the safe disposal of appliances charged with substitute 
refrigerants should be the same as those for the safe disposal of 
appliances charged with CFCs and HCFCs.
    Safe disposal of refrigerant from small appliances, MVAC, and MVAC-
like appliances continues to be important for the environment and 
public health. According to EPA's Vintaging Model, the amount of 
refrigerant projected to be contained within MVAC and small appliances 
in 2015 will be more than 260 MMTCO2eq and 175 
MMTCO2eq, respectively. This constitutes 12.5 and 8.4 
percent, respectively, of the total GWP-weighted amount of refrigerant 
contained within all appliances in the United States. On an ODP basis, 
EPA anticipates more than 1,400 ODP-weighted metric tons of refrigerant 
will be contained within small appliances in 2015, representing 5.0 
percent of the refrigerant contained within all appliances in the 
United States. While these amounts decrease over time as zero-ODP and 
low-GWP substitute refrigerants are used in these appliances, the need 
for robust safe disposal requirements remains.
    EPA requests comments on these proposed revisions.
4. Restructuring and Edits for Readability
    First, EPA is proposing to create a single section, Sec.  82.155, 
for all safe disposal provisions, including the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements. Second, EPA is proposing to clarify what should 
be in the contract stating that refrigerant will be removed prior to 
delivery. EPA is proposing to replace the word ``remove'' which appears 
repeatedly in these provisions. What EPA means by ``remove'' in this 
context is that the refrigerant is recovered to the required evacuation 
levels using the appropriate equipment. EPA is also stating explicitly 
that which is implied in the current regulations. Specifically, as a 
result of the contract, the supplier of the appliances is responsible 
for recovering any remaining refrigerant or verifying that the 
refrigerant has already been evacuated.
    EPA is also clarifying the format that the records required under 
this section may take. In general, where the regulations in subpart F 
require an individual to maintain records, the Agency intends for them 
to do so either in an electronic or paper format, preferably in an 
electronic system. Based on pre-proposal input from stakeholders, EPA 
is clarifying this point explicitly in the proposed revisions to the 
recordkeeping provision at Sec.  82.155(c). EPA requests comments on 
these proposed changes and clarifications to the safe disposal 
requirements.

F. Proposed Changes to Leak Repair Requirements in Section 82.156(i)

1. Background
    An important component of EPA's program to properly manage ODS 
refrigerants is the requirement to repair leaking appliances within 30 
days if a certain leak rate is exceeded. Owners and operators of 
appliances normally containing 50 or more pounds of ODS refrigerant 
must repair their appliances if they leak above a certain rate. The 
current leak rate is 35 percent for commercial refrigeration appliances 
and IPR and 15 percent for comfort cooling and other appliances. If the 
attempt to repair fails to bring the appliance's leak rate below the 
applicable leak rate within that time frame, the owner or operator must 
develop a retrofit or retirement plan and implement it within one year 
of the plan's date. Owners or operators also have the option of 
developing a retrofit or retirement plan within thirty days of 
identifying that the leak rate has been exceeded. Owners or operators 
of IPR or Federally-owned appliances may have more than 30 days to 
complete repairs and more than one year to retrofit appliances where 
certain conditions apply (e.g., equipment located in areas subject to 
radiological contamination, unavailability of necessary parts, and 
adherence to local or state laws that may hinder immediate repairs). 
The full suite of the existing requirements are found at Sec.  
82.156(i).

[[Page 69485]]

    While the existing requirements are generally well-known by the 
industry, the program can be improved and EPA is therefore proposing 
amendments to do so in this notice. First, EPA is proposing to 
strengthen the requirements by lowering applicable leak rates, 
requiring periodic leak inspections, and setting a two-year leak limit, 
among other changes. Second, EPA is proposing to apply the leak repair 
requirements (as they would be amended) to non-exempt substitute 
refrigerants. Finally, EPA is proposing to modify the language, 
structure, and location of the requirements to make them more 
effective, easier to understand, and easier to find. This entails 
moving the requirements from Sec.  82.156(i) to their own section at 
Sec.  82.157.
    EPA recognizes that refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment do 
leak. This is particularly true for larger appliances. However, these 
leaks can be reduced significantly. Experience with the GreenChill 
program, an EPA partnership designed to encourage supermarkets to 
reduce emissions of refrigerants and transition to low-GWP and low-
charge refrigeration appliances, feedback from stakeholders in pre-
notice meetings, and reports from California facilities regulated under 
the state's Refrigerant Management Program, among other factors 
discussed in this notice, support this conclusion. Through this 
proposal, EPA's aim is to reduce refrigerant releases by breaking the 
cycle of continuous repair and recharge of appliances and by requiring 
proactive monitoring to identify leaks early so that they can be 
addressed promptly to avoid ongoing releases.
    EPA has previously proposed changes to strengthen the leak repair 
requirements that have never been finalized. In 1998, EPA proposed 
extending the leak repair requirements to substitute refrigerants and 
lowering the leak rates. Most recently, in the proposed 2010 Leak 
Repair Rule (75 FR 78558, December 15, 2010), EPA proposed changes to 
the purpose and scope, definitions, required practices, and reporting 
and recordkeeping sections for the leak repair program. EPA's intent in 
the 2010 proposal was to create a streamlined set of leak repair 
requirements that would apply to all types of appliances with large 
ozone-depleting refrigerant charges. EPA proposed the following notable 
amendments in that rule:
     Clarify that leak rate calculations are required upon 
addition of refrigerant;
     Lower applicable leak rates for currently regulated 
appliances;
     Require initial and follow-up verification tests for all 
repair attempts once the applicable leak rate is exceeded for comfort 
cooling and commercial appliances, and not just IPR (as is currently 
required), and written documentation of the results of those tests;
     Require a 24-hour waiting period after repairs before a 
follow-up verification can be conducted;
     Require the retrofit or retirement of the entire appliance 
if it experiences three component replacements or three failed 
verification tests during a consecutive six-month period (referred to 
as ``the worst leaker provision'');
     Exempt addition of refrigerant due to ``seasonal 
variances'' from the existing leak repair requirements;
     Allow all appliance owners/operators additional time to 
complete repairs due to unavailability of components, and not just IPR 
(as currently required);
     Require service technicians to maintain records on the 
fate of refrigerant that is recovered from but not returned to 
appliances during service; and
     Decrease the amount of time allowed for the completion of 
retrofit/retirement plans.
    While the Agency never finalized the proposed 2010 Leak Repair 
Rule, EPA has factored feedback on that proposal, as well as the 1998 
Proposed Substitutes Recycling Rule, into today's proposed rule. Based 
on comments generated by those proposed rules, EPA is not re-proposing 
the requirements to conduct follow-up verification tests at least 24 
hours after a required repair or establishing the ``worst leaker 
provision.'' However, many of the proposed changes still can improve 
the leak repair program and decrease the release of refrigerants during 
the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances normally 
containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant. Below EPA discusses the 
specific changes proposed in this action, some of which are novel to 
this rulemaking and some of which are adapted from the proposed 2010 
Leak Repair Rule.
2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants
    EPA is proposing to extend the leak repair provisions currently in 
Sec.  82.156(i) to appliances containing non-exempt substitute 
refrigerants. In addition, EPA is proposing that the other provisions 
related to leak repair and maintenance discussed in this section (e.g. 
leak inspections and leak limits) apply to appliances containing non-
exempt substitute refrigerants as well. The mechanism by which EPA is 
extending the leak repair requirements to appliances containing 
substitute refrigerants is through the amended definition of the terms 
refrigerant and appliance, as described above. However, as discussed 
below in Section IV.M, while EPA is proposing that the amended 
definitions become effective on January 1, 2017, EPA is proposing a 
delayed compliance date (18 months from publication of the final rule) 
for the revisions to the leak repair requirements. Consistent with 
discussions elsewhere in this preamble, EPA is not proposing to extend 
these requirements to appliances using substances that have been 
exempted from the venting prohibition in specific end-uses, such as 
ammonia, that are listed in the regulations at Sec.  82.154(a)(1).
    Extending the leak repair requirements to non-exempt substitute 
refrigerants as proposed in this notice would lead to environmental 
benefits because these substances pose a threat to the environment when 
released and they may not be adequately controlled by other mechanisms. 
In the 2004 Rule, EPA determined that the release of HFCs and PFCs 
during the maintenance, servicing, repair, or disposal of appliances 
poses a threat to the environment. In making that determination, EPA 
examined the potential effects of the refrigerant from the moment of 
release to its breakdown in the environment, considering possible 
impacts on workers, building occupants, and the environment. Once 
released into the atmosphere, HFCs and PFCs have the ability to trap 
heat that would otherwise be radiated from the Earth back to space. 
This ability gives both HFCs and PFCs relatively high GWPs. The 100-
year GWPs of HFCs under consideration as refrigerants range from 124 
(for HFC-152a) to 14,800 (for HFC-23), and the GWPs of PFCs under 
consideration as refrigerants range from 7,390 (for PFC-14) and higher. 
HFC-134a, the most common individual HFC used in air-conditioning and 
refrigeration equipment, has a GWP of 1,430. See section II.C.2 of this 
preamble for further discussion related to the environmental impacts of 
greenhouse gases.
    In determining whether to exempt HFC and PFC refrigerants from the 
venting prohibition in 2004, EPA concluded that these refrigerants have 
adverse environmental effects. For that reason, and because of a lack 
of regulation governing the release of such refrigerants, EPA did not 
exempt the release of HFC or PFC refrigerants from the statutory 
venting prohibition. Thus, the knowing venting or otherwise

[[Page 69486]]

releasing into the environment of HFC and PFC refrigerants during the 
maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances generally 
remains illegal.
    EPA generally assumes compliance with the regulatory venting 
prohibition. Nonetheless, that prohibition addresses only knowing 
venting or release and thus does not account for all HFC refrigerant 
emissions. For instance, in previous rules we have not assumed that 
emissions of HFCs that occur due to appliance leaks constitute knowing 
releases. The requirements for leak inspections, leak calculations, and 
recordkeeping that EPA is proposing in this action would provide more 
knowledge to appliance owners and operators, as well as technicians, 
and thereby broaden the set of refrigerant releases for which they 
would be liable for a knowing release. In addition, as discussed below, 
EPA is proposing to revise its interpretation of what constitutes a 
knowing release under section 608(c) for purposes of appliance leaks.
    EPA regulations at Sec.  82.154(a)(2) currently state that ODS 
refrigerant releases shall be considered de minimis only if they occur 
when the required practices set forth in specified regulatory 
provisions, such as Sec.  82.156 are observed. One of the required 
practices within that section is the requirement for owners or 
operators to repair leaks pursuant to paragraphs Sec.  82.156(i)(1), 
(i)(2) and (i)(5) within 30 days after discovery. EPA has therefore 
intended that proper leak repair be a component of the required 
practices necessary to meet the de minimis exemption to the venting 
prohibition for ODS refrigerants. Consistent with the discussion above 
relating to the implementation of the statutory and regulatory de 
minimis provisions for substitute refrigerants, EPA is proposing to 
extend the leak repair provisions to non-exempt substitute refrigerants 
to clarify how the de minimis exemption in Sec.  82.154(a)(2) applies 
to such substitute refrigerants and to provide regulatory certainty of 
what practices for leak repair would qualify for this exemption.
    The Agency has the authority under section 608(c) to define the 
contours of the de minimis exemption by establishing regulations 
related to the maintenance, service, and repair of appliances that are 
leaking ODS or non-exempt substitute refrigerants. The prohibition in 
section 608(c) applies to the knowing venting, release, or disposal of 
refrigerants during the course of maintenance, service, repair, or 
disposal of an appliance ``in a manner which permits such substance to 
enter the environment.'' As explained above, this prohibition applies 
both to ODS refrigerants under section 608(c)(1) and to non-exempt 
substitutes under 608(c)(2).
    EPA stated in 1993 when establishing the original leak repair 
provisions that:

    [T]he venting prohibition itself, which applies to the 
maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of equipment, does not 
prohibit `topping off' systems, which leads to emissions of 
refrigerant during the use of equipment. The provision on knowing 
releases does, however, include the situation in which a technician 
is practically certain that his or her conduct will cause a release 
of refrigerant during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal 
of equipment. Knowing releases also include situations in which a 
technician closes his or her eyes to obvious facts or fails to 
investigate them when aware of facts that demand investigation. (58 
FR 28672)

    EPA has subsequently moved toward a broader interpretation of the 
venting prohibition. In the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule, EPA stated 
that ``it is not necessarily a violation [of the venting prohibition] 
for an appliance owner or operator to discover a leak greater than the 
leak repair trigger rate; however it would be a violation of the 
proposed required practices at Sec.  82.152 to allow that appliance to 
continue to leak above the trigger rate without making and verifying 
the efficacy of repairs in a timely manner'' (75 FR 78570).
    EPA now views its statements in the 1993 Rule as presenting an 
overly narrow interpretation of the statutory venting prohibition. 
Consistent with the direction taken in the 2010 proposed leak repair 
rule, EPA is proposing a broader and more pragmatic interpretation of 
the venting prohibition under CAA section 608(c)(1) and (2) in this 
action. As a practical matter, when a technician must add refrigerant 
to an existing appliance, the technician necessarily knows that the 
system has leaks that will continue to release refrigerant to the 
environment if not properly repaired. That technician also knows that 
if he or she does not repair the leak, and verify that the repair has 
held, some or all of the newly added refrigerant will be released to 
the environment.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing to interpret section 608(c) such that 
when a person adds refrigerant to an appliance that he or she knows is 
leaking, without repairing the leaks consistent with the applicable 
leak repair requirements, he or she also violates the venting 
prohibition, both because he or she knows that the appliance is 
releasing refrigerant to the environment as the appliance is being 
serviced and because he or she knows that some or all of the 
refrigerant newly added to the appliance will be released in a manner 
that will permit the refrigerant to enter the environment. With today's 
proposed revisions, the person performing this work will also have a 
set of provisions that can be followed to repair the leaks and to avoid 
violating the venting prohibition in this situation. This analysis 
applies for both ODS refrigerants and substitute refrigerants.
    When initially establishing the leak repair provisions in subpart 
F, EPA relied on the authority in section 608(a)(3)(A) which states 
that ``the regulations under this subsection shall include requirements 
that reduce the use and emission of such [class I and class II] 
substances to the lowest achievable level.'' EPA used section 608(a) in 
part because the statute required EPA to establish regulations to 
reduce emissions of ODS refrigerants, whereas section 608(c) is a self-
effectuating prohibition that applied to both ODS refrigerants and 
substitutes.\11\ EPA, however, has also used rulemakings to clarify the 
requirements of section 608(c) for ODS. It is appropriate to do so now 
with regard to the knowing release of non-exempt substitute 
refrigerants from leaking appliances containing 50 or more pounds of 
such refrigerant and the application of the de minimis exception when 
leak repair requirements are followed for such appliances. As discussed 
below, EPA understands that few appliances are leak-free. However, the 
leak rate can be minimized by following the regulatory leak repair 
requirements. Under the revisions proposed in this rule, when those 
steps are followed, any release would fall within the de minimis 
exception, and the owner, operator and technician will not be violating 
the venting prohibition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Section 608(a) of the CAA continues to support the 
revisions to the leak repair requirements as those revisions relate 
to reducing emissions of ODS refrigerants. As such, and consistent 
with the description in Section III above, section 608(a) is one of 
the authorities EPA is relying on for proposed revisions in this 
rule that update requirements for ODS refrigerants, including 
proposed revisions to the leak repair provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration of Costs
    Based on the evidence discussed below, the reported performance of 
today's comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration, and IPR appliances 
with full charges of 50 or more pounds argues for lowering the 
applicable leak rates. The evidence discussed below demonstrates that 
the current applicable leak rate is considerably above the

[[Page 69487]]

``lowest achievable level of emissions'' envisioned in CAA section 
608(a)(3)(A).
    While section 608(a)(3) does not require EPA to perform a cost-
benefit analysis to determine what leak rate(s) would constitute the 
``lowest achievable level of emissions,'' the analyses EPA performed of 
costs and benefits support establishing lower leak rates. The leak 
rates reported above, which generally fall well below the current 
regulatory maximum, are clearly being achieved in response to private 
incentives alone. If maintaining these leak rates is privately cost-
effective, it is reasonable to assume they are also publicly cost-
effective, because the public cost of emissions, which includes both 
the private value of the refrigerant and the environmental damage it 
causes, would exceed the private cost of emissions, which includes only 
the private value of the refrigerant.
    In general, EPA balanced the need to reduce emissions of 
refrigerants with the costs of these requirements. EPA has determined 
that the costs are reasonable given the significant benefits that 
accrue (both private in the form of cost savings and public in the form 
of reduced GHG and ODS emissions). Specifically, EPA reviewed data from 
the lowest-emitting equipment to gauge technological feasibility and 
then reviewed other data sets, such as CARB data and consent decree 
requirements, to determine a reasonable set of requirements. EPA then 
assessed the costs and benefits associated with extending the existing 
requirements to appliances using substitute refrigerants and tighter 
requirements such as lower leak rates, the requirement to repair all 
identified leaks once the applicable leak rate is exceeded, the 
requirement to conduct verification tests on all types of appliances, 
and periodic leak inspections.
    With regard to the quarterly leak inspections, EPA looked at charge 
size to determine the number of affected appliances. Using that 
estimate and the cost of more frequent leak inspections, EPA assessed 
the economy-wide costs of requiring quarterly leak inspections for 
appliances with a full charge of 200 or more pounds and 500 or more 
pounds. Based on that assessment of the costs and benefits of such a 
requirement, EPA is proposing a higher charge size threshold (500 
pounds in commercial refrigerant and IPR appliances) for quarterly 
versus annual inspections. In addition, EPA is proposing to allow 
owners and operators of appliances to install automatic leak detection 
systems in lieu of conducting quarterly leak inspections as well as the 
opportunity for quarterly inspections to move to an annual schedule if 
the appliance is not leaking.
    In addition, as EPA discusses below, EPA is proposing to provide 
flexibility to help minimize compliance costs of the existing 
regulations. For comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration 
appliances, EPA is proposing to allow an extension to the 30-day repair 
requirement if the arrival of a part is delayed, recognizing that the 
short additional time needed for delivery of a part can result in a 
nearer-term and less costly emission reduction than a retrofit. This is 
a change from the current requirements for ODS appliances, and would 
result in a significant reduction in compliance costs. EPA is also 
proposing to allow an extension to implement a retrofit or retirement 
for comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances that 
transition to a non-exempt substitute refrigerant.
3. Restructuring and Edits for Readability
    The current regulatory text has been modified several times since 
EPA first established the program in 1993. Some of those changes were a 
result of a settlement agreement between EPA and the Chemical 
Manufacturers Association (see 60 FR 40420). The regulation now 
contains numerous cross-references to other provisions in Sec.  
82.156(i), making the requirements difficult to follow and in some 
places potentially leading to differing interpretations. Many important 
provisions are buried, such as the primary requirement that repairs 
must occur within 30 days, which appears only at the end of the leak 
repair requirements at Sec.  82.156(i)(9). Due to these concerns, EPA 
is proposing revisions that attempt to restructure the regulation to 
make it easier for stakeholders to understand whether they are subject 
to the requirements and what those are.
    EPA is proposing to move the required practices currently in Sec.  
82.156(i) and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Sec.  
82.166(j), (k), (m), (n), (o), (p), and (q) to a newly-created section 
at Sec.  82.157 titled ``Appliance maintenance and leak repair.'' EPA 
is proposing this title to more accurately reflect the goal of 
preventing releases of ODS and non-exempt substitute refrigerants 
during the maintenance of these appliances. Within that new section, 
EPA is proposing to restructure the requirements in a more linear and 
logical format.
    EPA recognizes that proposing to change the text so significantly 
may make stakeholders who are familiar with the requirements wonder how 
these revisions might affect their current compliance monitoring 
systems and protocols. EPA does not intend to change the substance of 
the requirements while restructuring except where specified. EPA 
discusses proposed changes to the requirements in the following 
preamble sections that would result from this restructuring. EPA is 
also developing a series of comprehensive compliance assistance 
documents, in addition to other online support materials.
    To avoid both ambiguity and cumbersome language throughout, EPA is 
proposing to establish from the outset in Sec.  82.157(a) that the 
provisions of Sec.  82.157 apply to owners and operators of all 
appliances containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant, unless 
otherwise specified. When a provision applies to technicians or people 
servicing equipment the provision so specifies. The changes are not 
intended to shift responsibilities and EPA believes this change is not 
substantive.
    The existing regulation also inconsistently describes the leak 
repair requirements as applying to appliances with ``50 or more 
pounds'' or ``more than 50 pounds'' of refrigerant. For example, in the 
existing recordkeeping requirements at Sec.  82.166(j) and (k), persons 
servicing and owners/operators of appliances normally containing 50 or 
more pounds of refrigerant must keep records, whereas Sec.  
82.156(i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(5) refer to appliances normally 
containing more than 50 pounds. EPA is proposing to consistently use 
``50 or more pounds of refrigerant.'' Because of this inconsistency, 
EPA assumes that an owner or operator of an appliance that has a full 
charge of 50 pounds would take a conservative assumption when reading 
the current regulations and consider the appliance covered by the leak 
repair requirements. For that reason, EPA does not anticipate this 
change to have a significant effect.
    EPA seeks comment on the proposed edits to restructure and clarify 
the regulations, including whether any other than those specifically 
discussed in this section of the preamble would alter the substance of 
the requirements and, if so, which edits would do so and how.
4. Lowering Applicable Leak Rates
    EPA is proposing to lower the applicable leak rates for comfort 
cooling, commercial refrigeration, and IPR appliances containing ODS 
refrigerants, and to establish those same leak rates for such 
appliances using non-exempt substitute refrigerants. The leak rate is 
the rate of emission from an appliance requiring action from the

[[Page 69488]]

owner/operator. EPA has proposed lowering leak rates twice previously 
for ODS-containing appliances, both in 1998 and 2010, but has not 
finalized either proposal. In both instances, EPA proposed lowering the 
leak rates to 20 percent or lower (from 35 percent) for IPR and 
commercial refrigeration appliances and to 10 percent or lower (from 15 
percent) for comfort cooling appliances (63 FR 32044, 75 FR 78558). EPA 
is again proposing to lower leak rates to 20 percent and 10 percent, 
respectively, and has considered comments on those past proposals in 
the development of this notice as well as additional available 
information. This proposal would be for appliances containing both ODS 
and non-exempt substitute refrigerants, and EPA's rationale for these 
proposed edits is described in more detail below.
i. Commercial Refrigeration and Industrial Process Refrigeration 
Appliances
    In general, leak rates are highest in large commercial 
refrigeration appliances and IPR. This is attributable to a number of 
factors. First, such appliances are generally custom-built and 
assembled at the site where they are used rather than in a factory 
(e.g., unlike a household refrigerator). Appliances used in IPR are 
custom-designed for a wide spectrum of processes and facilities, 
including applications such as flash freezers aboard commercial fishing 
vessels to cooling processes used in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals 
to ice skating rinks. This results in the sector having an 
extraordinarily broad range of equipment configurations and designs. 
Custom designed equipment presents more challenges to original 
equipment manufacturers who wish to systematically implement leak 
reduction technologies. Second, these appliances generally use a long, 
single refrigerant loop for cooling that is not enclosed within a piece 
of equipment. This tends to raise average leak rates, particularly when 
the refrigerant loop flows through inaccessible spaces, such as 
underneath floors, or when used in challenging climates and operating 
conditions. Third, these appliances typically operate continuously. For 
example, shutting down a refrigeration appliance can lead to food 
spoilage in commercial refrigeration. In IPR, a full appliance shutdown 
can stop all production and is typically costly. This need for 
continuous operation can make repairing certain leaks more difficult.
    EPA is proposing to lower the leak rate for both commercial 
refrigeration appliances and IPR from 35 percent to 20 percent. EPA has 
reviewed multiple sources of data to establish that 20 percent is a 
reasonable rate. As explained in more detail below, EPA reviewed 
GreenChill partner data, consent decrees of companies found to be in 
violation of subpart F regulations, and reported data from California's 
Refrigerant Management Program (RMP).\12\ Additionally, EPA held 
numerous conversations with potentially affected stakeholders and 
reviewed comments on past proposed rules. EPA also assessed the 
possible benefits that could result from lower proposed applicable leak 
rates and other changes being proposed in this notice using the 
Vintaging Model and data from California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Among other requirements, the RMP establishes leak repair 
requirements for appliances with more than 50 pounds of refrigerant. 
More detail on the RMP is provided in the technical support document 
in the docket titled Analysis of the Economic Impact and Benefits of 
Proposed Revisions to the National Recycling and Emission Reduction 
Program and online at www.arb.ca.gov/stoprefrigerantleaks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, EPA reviewed data from GreenChill, an EPA partnership with 
food retailers to reduce refrigerant emissions and decrease their 
impact on the ozone layer and climate change. Established in 2007, this 
partnership has over 20 member companies comprising almost 30 percent 
of all supermarkets in the United States. GreenChill works to help food 
retailers (1) transition to environmentally friendlier refrigerants; 
(2) lower refrigerant charge sizes; (3) eliminate leaks; and (4) adopt 
green refrigeration technologies and best environmental practices. One 
of the GreenChill partnership's programs that helps food retailers 
reduce their refrigerant emissions is the Food Retailer Corporate 
Emissions Reduction Program. Under this program, partners report their 
corporate-wide average leak rate for all refrigerants. A corporate-wide 
average leak rate is the sum of all refrigerant additions in a given 
time period for all of the refrigeration appliances owned by a 
corporate entity, divided by the full charge for all of the 
refrigeration appliances owned by that same corporate entity during 
that time period.
    In 2014, the corporate-wide average leak rate for all reporting 
GreenChill partners was under 14 percent. Since the start of the 
program, the reported corporate-wide average leak rate for all partners 
has been at or below this level, even though the number of partners has 
grown. Several supermarket chains, including some having hundreds of 
stores, have consistently reported a corporate-wide leak rate below 10 
percent. These confidential data support the conclusion that leak rates 
in commercial refrigeration appliances can be considerably lower than 
35 percent and that a 20 percent leak rate is reasonable.
    EPA has also reviewed how companies agreed to manage refrigerants 
through recent consent decrees with the Agency. In consent decrees with 
Safeway and Costco, the two companies agreed to bring their corporate-
wide leak rates from about 25 percent to 18 and 19 percent, 
respectively. EPA also reviewed consent decrees with commercial fishing 
vessels. These consent decrees do not establish a corporate-wide level 
but in one specific case a facility was able to lower its leak rate 
considerably below 20 percent. These consent decrees provide additional 
support for the proposition that a 20 percent leak rate for commercial 
refrigeration and IPR appliances is reasonably achievable. These 
consent decrees are available in the docket.
    EPA has also reviewed data submitted under California's RMP. 
California requires that owners or operators of any appliance with more 
than 50 pounds of ODS or HFC refrigerant repair leaks, conduct leak 
inspections or install automatic leak detection equipment, and report 
their refrigerant usage and repairs. In addition, any facility with a 
refrigeration appliance containing more than 50 pounds of refrigerant 
must report all service records annually to California.
    CARB has categorized facilities based on the facility's largest 
appliance. Facilities that have at least one appliance with a full 
charge of 2,000 pounds or more (classified as ``large'' facilities 
under the RMP) began reporting in 2012 (for 2011 service records). 
These large facilities must submit service records for any appliance 
that has a full charge greater than 50 pounds. ``Medium'' facilities 
have at least one appliance with a full charge of 200 or more pounds 
but less than 2,000 pounds and they started reporting in 2014. 
``Small'' facilities have at least one appliance between 50 and 200 
pounds; they must begin reporting in 2016. This data set provides 
insight into the use and emissions of ODS and substitute refrigerants 
from refrigeration appliances in California.
    EPA reviewed the 2013 data of large and medium facilities to 
determine the leak rates of those appliances. This was the only dataset 
currently available. Facilities reported on 10,362 appliances in this 
dataset. A series of charts showing the aggregated California data has 
been included in the docket. While the data are self-reported, and they 
do

[[Page 69489]]

not include all commercial refrigeration and IPR appliances in 
California, they show that approximately 48 percent of reporting 
appliances did not leak at all in 2013. They also show that 
approximately 13 percent of appliances have an annual leak rate between 
20 percent and 35 percent. An additional 22 percent of appliances are 
above a 35 percent annual leak rate. EPA considered these data to 
determine what an appropriate leak rate would be.
    If EPA uses the California data as a proxy for the rest of the 
United States, the existing 35 percent leak rate for commercial 
refrigeration and IPR appliances (if extended to non-exempt 
substitutes) would only require reductions from 22 percent of 
refrigeration appliances, responsible for approximately 70 percent of 
emissions. By establishing a leak rate at 20 percent, the regulations 
would affect approximately 35 percent of appliances, responsible for 
almost 90 percent of emissions. The increase in the universe of 
affected entities when moving from a 35 to 20 percent leak rate is 
appropriate given the percentage of emissions (20% of total reported 
emissions) coming from those facilities. A 20 percent leak rate is also 
consistent with two past proposals to lower leak rates.
    For the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule, EPA analyzed South Coast 
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) data on ODS-containing 
appliances. SCAQMD is responsible for controlling emissions primarily 
from stationary sources of air pollution. California South Coast Air 
Quality Management District is an air pollution control agency that 
services the areas of Orange County and the urban portions of Los 
Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. At the time of the 
analysis in 2010, SCAQMD was responsible for 16 million people in a 
10,743 square mile area, which was approximately half of the population 
of California.
    Similar to the EPA's regulations under section 608 of the CAA, 
SCAQMD has issued Rule 1415 aimed at reducing emissions of ozone-
depleting refrigerants from stationary refrigeration and air-
conditioning systems. The rule requires any person within SCAQMD's 
jurisdiction who owns or operates a refrigeration system to minimize 
refrigerant leakage. A refrigeration system is defined for the purposes 
of that rule as ``any non-vehicular equipment used for cooling or 
freezing, which holds more than 50 pounds of any combination of class I 
and/or class II refrigerant, including, but not limited to, 
refrigerators, freezers, or air-conditioning equipment or systems.''
    Under Rule 1415, SCAQMD used to collect the following information 
every two years from owners or operators of stationary refrigeration 
systems holding more than 50 pounds of an ozone-depleting refrigerant 
(http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/forms/1415form2.doc): Number of 
refrigeration systems in operation; type of refrigerant in each 
refrigeration system; amount of refrigerant in each refrigeration 
system; date of the last annual audit or maintenance performed for each 
refrigeration system; and the amount of additional refrigerant charged 
every year. For the purposes of the rule, additional refrigerant charge 
is defined as the quantity of refrigerant charged to a refrigeration 
system in order to bring the system to a full capacity charge and 
replace refrigerant that has leaked. This reporting requirement has now 
been replaced by the statewide RMP required reporting.
    In 2010, EPA reviewed data for over 4,750 pieces of equipment from 
SCAQMD covering 2004 and 2005. The data included refrigeration and air-
conditioning appliances that meet EPA's existing and proposed 
definitions of IPR (e.g., food processing industry, pharmaceutical 
manufacturing), comfort cooling (e.g. office buildings, schools and 
universities, hospitals), and commercial refrigeration (e.g., 
refrigerated warehouses, supermarkets, retail box stores) from 
businesses of all sizes. The appliances that were evaluated all had ODS 
refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds. EPA's review showed that 
lowering the leak rate to 20 percent for ODS-containing IPR would 
result in slightly less than 5 percent of systems facing mandatory 
repair within 30 days. It also showed that tightening of the leak rate 
for commercial refrigeration appliances to 20 percent would result in 8 
percent of the 1,722 systems examined facing mandatory repair within 30 
days.
    At the time, EPA found that the SCAQMD leak repair data for 
commercial refrigeration appliances was consistent with EPA's analysis 
of the commercial refrigeration sector. For example, EPA estimated that 
annual leak rates for distributed (DX) systems range from 3 percent to 
35 percent for in-use equipment, with higher annual leak rates (25%) in 
older appliances and the lower rates (15%) in newer appliances.
    EPA proposed in 2010 to conclude that a 20 percent leak rate 
``provides for continued flexibility in allowing appliance owners or 
operators to decide upon the necessary action needed to repair leaking 
appliances, and also provides for additional environmental benefit in 
terms of avoided refrigerant emissions'' (75 FR 78570). In coming to 
this assessment, EPA balanced the environmental benefits (in terms of 
ODS emissions reductions) with the costs of lowering the applicable 
leak rate for refrigeration appliances to a level between 10 percent 
and 30 percent. This analysis continues to be informative and is 
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In 1998, EPA proposed to lower leak rates for appliances containing 
both ODS and substitute refrigerants. After reviewing leak rate data 
collected by the SCAQMD and data submitted by a midwestern supermarket 
chain, EPA proposed that the maximum permissible leak rate for new 
commercial refrigeration equipment (commissioned after 1992) be lowered 
to 10 percent per year, and that the maximum rate for old commercial 
refrigeration equipment (commissioned before or during 1992) be lowered 
to 15 percent per year.
    For IPR, EPA proposed a two-rate system. IPR equipment would be 
subject to a 20 percent applicable leak rate unless it met all four of 
the following criteria in which case it would continue to be subject to 
the 35 percent leak rate:
    (1) The refrigeration system is custom-built;
    (2) The refrigeration system has an open-drive compressor;
    (3) The refrigeration system was built in 1992 or before; and
    (4) The system is direct-expansion (contains a single, primary 
refrigerant loop).
    For today's proposal, EPA reviewed comments on these earlier 
proposals and held several recent conversations with industry. While 
some stakeholders, in particular IPR owners and operators, were not in 
support of leak rates lower than 35 percent, there appears to be more 
agreement among commercial refrigeration appliance owners and operators 
that 20 percent is reasonable. In comments in response to the 1998 
Proposed Substitutes Recycling Rule, the Food Marketing Institute 
stated for commercial refrigeration that ``the targeted leak rates of 
15 percent and 10 percent for equipment built before and after 1992, 
was unattainable . . . We believe that rates of 25 percent for 
equipment manufactured before 1992 and 20 percent for equipment 
manufactured after 1992 are more realistic.'' Similar comments were 
stated by major supermarket chains indicating that leak rates of 25% 
would be more practical and allow more effective refrigerant 
management. Given the passage of time, equipment manufactured after 
1992 should now be a much larger share of the equipment

[[Page 69490]]

being used, meaning that the earlier concerns regarding lowering the 
applicable leak rate for commercial refrigeration appliances to 20 
percent may no longer apply.
    EPA received three comments on the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule 
that were opposed to lowering the leak rates for commercial 
refrigeration appliances and IPR. One commenter raised concerns about 
the effect that lowering the applicable leak rate would have on 
chillers used in the generation of nuclear power. The proposed 
flexibilities in today's action, such as allowing extensions for all 
appliance types--not just IPR and Federally-owned appliances--should 
address that concern; however, EPA again seeks comment on this point. 
The other commenters stated that the costs of lowering the leak rate to 
20 percent are too high. In addition to providing flexibility in the 
time needed to conduct repairs and retrofit or replace an appliance, 
EPA has assessed the compliance costs, cost savings, and environmental 
benefits of this proposed rule and has found that the aggregated costs 
are reasonable, and that lowering leak rates will result in fewer 
emissions of both ODS and substitute refrigerants. See the technical 
support document Analysis of the Economic Impact and Benefits of 
Proposed Revisions to the National Recycling and Emission Reduction 
Program for a complete discussion.
    Based on the data sources discussed above, EPA is proposing to 
lower the applicable leak rate for commercial refrigeration appliances 
and IPR from 35 percent to 20 percent. EPA seeks comments on whether a 
20 percent leak rate is appropriate given the evidence presented and in 
the docket, or if a higher (e.g., the current applicable leak rate for 
ODS appliances) or lower leak rate (e.g. as low as 10 or 15 percent) is 
appropriate, and if so, what information supports such a higher or 
lower leak rate. EPA also seeks comment on whether there are other 
regulatory incentives that could provide a basis to go with a leak rate 
lower than 20 percent.
    EPA has considered the 2010 proposed rule comments as part of the 
initial framing and background research, but we are not responding to 
those comments because they are not comments on what we are proposing 
in this notice. To the extent commenters have the same concerns, they 
should reiterate those concerns in their comments on this proposal.
ii. Comfort Cooling and All Other Appliances
    EPA is proposing to lower the applicable leak rate for comfort 
cooling appliances and all other refrigeration appliances normally 
containing 50 pounds or more of refrigerant that do not fit into the 
other two categories (commercial refrigeration and IPR). EPA proposes 
to lower these leak rates from 15 percent to 10 percent. As explained 
in more detail below, 10 percent is reasonable given what we know about 
comfort cooling appliances.
    In 1998, EPA proposed to reduce the leak rate for comfort cooling 
appliances using ODS or substitute refrigerants from 15 percent to 10 
percent for comfort cooling appliances (the Agency specifically stated 
chillers in that proposal) built in 1992 or earlier, and from 15 
percent to 5 percent for comfort cooling appliances built in 1993 or 
later. At the time, EPA noted that rates at which these appliances 
actually leak had decreased from between 10 and 15 percent per year to 
less than five percent per year in many cases (63 FR 32066). The Agency 
also noted that new comfort cooling appliances typically leak less than 
five percent per year, with many new comfort cooling appliances leaking 
around two percent per year, and some leaking less than one percent. 
Only one type of new equipment had been reported to have a leak rate 
above five percent: High pressure chillers with open-drive compressors, 
which have been found to have leak rates ranging from four to seven 
percent. Based on feedback and the assumptions used in EPA's peer-
reviewed Vintaging Model used to estimate refrigerant use and 
emissions, this assessment continues to be valid.
    In the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule, EPA proposed to lower the 
applicable leak rate for ODS-containing comfort cooling appliances from 
15 percent to 10 percent. EPA made this proposal after reviewing data 
submitted to the SCAQMD. EPA reviewed data from 2,700 comfort cooling 
appliances and found that fewer than 1 percent of ODS-containing 
appliances would be required to repair appliances within 30 days if the 
leak rate was lowered to 10 percent. EPA also analyzed the costs and 
benefits of lowering leak rates to five percent for comfort cooling 
appliances. The analysis used in the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule 
found reducing the leak rate for this category of equipment to 10 
percent provided the most benefit for the lowest cost. A full 
discussion of the analysis and rationale for the proposed 2010 Leak 
Repair Rule is available in the docket to this rule. EPA has also 
included a memo in the docket titled Analysis of Average Annual Leak 
Rates in Comfort Cooling Appliances (August 2015) that goes into 
average leak rates of comfort cooling appliances as reported to SCAQMD 
and CARB, and as estimated in the Vintaging Model. These three sources 
indicate 10 percent is more than reasonable and that 15 percent may be 
too high a leak rate.
    EPA seeks comments on establishing a 10 percent leak rate for ODS 
and non-exempt substitute refrigerants for comfort cooling and all 
other appliances that do not fit into the commercial refrigeration and 
IPR categories that contain 50 or more pounds of refrigerant. EPA also 
seeks comment on whether there are any other types of appliances that 
do not fit into either the comfort cooling, IPR, or commercial 
refrigeration appliance category. EPA seeks comments on whether a 10 
percent leak rate is appropriate given the evidence presented and in 
the record, or if a higher (e.g., the current applicable leak rate for 
ODS appliances) or lower leak rate (e.g. as low as 5 percent) is 
appropriate, and if so, what information supports such a higher or 
lower leak rate. EPA also seeks comment on whether there are other 
regulatory incentives that could provide a basis to go with a leak rate 
lower than 10 percent.
5. Requiring Periodic Leak Inspections
    The current regulation at Sec.  82.156(i) focuses on actions an 
appliance owner or operator must take after discovering an appliance 
has a leak, not on proactively finding leaks and reducing the release 
of refrigerant from them. To enhance the traditional repair requirement 
and to reduce emissions of refrigerant during the maintenance, service, 
and repair of appliances, EPA is proposing to require annual or 
quarterly leak inspections as a proactive maintenance practice 
depending on the type and size of the appliance.
    The purpose of the proposed leak inspection requirement is to 
determine the location of refrigerant leaks, not for calculating 
whether the applicable leak rate has been exceeded. However, a leak 
inspection could identify a leak, resulting in the addition of 
refrigerant. Under today's proposal, the addition of refrigerant would 
trigger the requirement to calculate the appliance's leak rate. As 
explained in the definitions section of this proposal, leak inspections 
of the appliance's refrigerant circuit include using a calibrated 
refrigerant leak detection device, a bubble test, or visual inspection 
for oil residue. Again, leak inspections would not need to be

[[Page 69491]]

conducted by certified technicians, but the agency would recommend some 
training for the person to ensure they are knowledgeable of the various 
leak inspection methods. EPA requests comments on whether there are 
methods of leak detection other than these three that would be 
sufficient for the purposes of this rule, and if these three methods 
are all appropriate.
    Some owners, especially for large, complex appliances, will 
evacuate the system periodically to inspect for leaks and to determine 
the full charge of an appliance. EPA seeks comment on whether this 
should be added as another viable leak inspection technique. This 
option may be appropriate because of EPA experience administering a 
consent decree. One company was required as part of a consent decree to 
evacuate an appliance to determine the full charge and inspect for 
leaks. The Agency's understanding is that the company found the 
practice to be a useful way to also find and fix leaks earlier, and now 
evacuates the system annually to inspect for leaks. As a result, the 
company has been able to keep the leak rate of the affected appliance 
significantly lower, saving money on refrigerant and keeping equipment 
operating more efficiently. EPA is not proposing to require such 
evacuation, but is seeking comment on whether evacuation of an 
appliance should be another leak inspection option. EPA also seeks 
comment on the best way to describe this option in the regulation. 
Generally, EPA intends to allow leak inspections to be conducted by 
people who are not certified technicians. This option, however, would 
require a certified technician to do the work. EPA can see value in 
providing additional flexibility for owners and operators if they 
already conduct comprehensive leak inspections periodically by 
evacuating the appliance.
    EPA is proposing to require that owners or operators of commercial 
refrigeration appliances or IPR normally containing 500 or more pounds 
of refrigerant conduct quarterly leak inspections of the appliance, 
including the appliance's refrigerant circuit. Inspections would be 
annual for commercial refrigeration appliances and IPR containing 50 
pounds or more but less than 500 pounds of refrigerant, as well as 
comfort cooling appliances and other appliances normally containing 50 
or more pounds of refrigerant. More frequent monitoring is important 
for larger commercial refrigeration appliances or IPR because those 
systems tend to have more leaks than comfort cooling appliances and 
because the amount of refrigerant that would be lost in a leak is 
greater.
    The proactive quarterly or annual leak inspections, as currently 
proposed, are distinct from the leak inspection that EPA is proposing 
to require at Sec.  82.157(e)(1) that occurs after discovering the leak 
rate had exceeded the applicable leak rate.
    EPA recognizes that some appliances are more leak tight than 
others. Therefore, EPA is proposing to allow annual rather than 
quarterly inspections for commercial refrigeration appliances or IPR 
normally containing 500 or more pounds of refrigerant if they satisfy 
one condition: Refrigerant has not been added to the appliance for more 
than 365 days (excluding an addition for a seasonal variance as defined 
in this proposal). Not needing to add refrigerant is an indication that 
the system is not leaking. However, once refrigerant is added to an 
appliance, the appliance owner or operator must resume quarterly leak 
inspections.
    As part of this proposal, EPA would not require periodic leak 
inspections if owners or operators install and operate an automatic 
leak detection system that continuously monitors the appliance for 
leaks. The leak detection system must meet the requirements described 
below, and the owner or operator must calibrate the system annually and 
keep records documenting the calibration. A system that meets these 
requirements and is properly operated will provide continuous 
information about whether a system is leaking, and thus quarterly 
inspections would be unnecessary.
    EPA considered CARB's RMP when developing this proposal. The RMP's 
leak inspection provisions, which only cover refrigeration appliances 
with a full charge of more than 50 pounds, require the following:
     An automatic leak detection system that continuously 
monitors appliances normally containing 2,000 pounds or more of 
refrigerant;
     Quarterly leak inspections for all appliances with 200 or 
more pounds of refrigerant (unless an automatic leak detection system 
is installed) and annually for appliances with 50 to 199 pounds; and
     Leak inspections before adding refrigerant to an appliance 
and after a leak is repaired.
    EPA's proposal for automatic leak detection equipment is based on 
CARB's requirements. EPA is proposing to use the same level of 
detection (10 parts per million of vapor) and notification thresholds 
(100 parts per million of vapor, a loss of 50 pounds of refrigerant, or 
a loss of 10 percent of the full charge) as in CARB's requirements. 
Such equipment is already available on the market and capable of 
meeting those standards.
    Leak inspections have been seen within the industry as a best 
practice to reduce emissions of refrigerants and many facilities use 
this strategy. For example, numerous GreenChill partners have used this 
best practice with success to keep their leak rates down.\13\ The 2014 
corporate-wide average leak rate among all GreenChill partner stores 
was under 14 percent. While the Agency recommends fixing all leaks once 
they've been found, EPA recognizes that even well-maintained appliances 
subject to these provisions leak. Given that fact, EPA's lead proposal 
is to only require that all identified leaks from a leak inspection be 
fixed when the applicable leak rate is exceeded. EPA is proposing this 
option because the costs of repairing all leaks when the leak rate is 
below the applicable leak rate may not justify the benefits, especially 
when the leak is a series of small pinhole leaks and the leak rate is 
very low, as may often be the case. When the applicable leak rate is 
exceeded, the benefits are significant and do result in significant 
enough savings--both for the environment and for the owner/operator (in 
decreased refrigerant replacement costs), to warrant repair of all 
identified leaks. This proposal is also consistent with the current 
leak repair requirements: Owners and operators of appliances are only 
required to repair leaks once the applicable leak rate has been 
exceeded. This familiarity will reduce confusion and encourage 
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See GreenChill's Best Practices Guidelines: Commercial 
Refrigeration Leak Prevention & Repairs, May 2011, available in the 
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This lead proposal was designed with Next Generation Compliance 
objectives in mind. Even if EPA does not require the repair of all 
leaks that are identified during leak inspections, the Agency 
anticipates that many appliance owners and operators would take action 
earlier if leak leaks are identified because it is in their financial 
interest to do so and would reduce emissions and refrigerant costs. 
Repairing leaks earlier could also prevent that appliance from being 
pulled into the regulatory requirements at Sec.  82.157 for exceeding 
the applicable leak rate.
    EPA is proposing to require that the following records be 
maintained as part of the leak inspection requirements. First, owners 
or operators must keep records of leak inspections that include the 
date of inspection and any component(s) where the leak(s) are

[[Page 69492]]

discovered. For systems that use an automatic leak detection system, a 
record must be kept of the annual calibration of the leak detection 
system. EPA seeks comment on whether it should require that continuous 
readings from the automatic leak detection equipment be maintained for 
some period of time (as few as three months or as long as three years) 
so the Agency can verify the automatic detection equipment is in fact 
being used continuously.
    EPA has authority under section 608(a)(3) to establish 
``requirements that reduce the use and emission of [ODS] to the lowest 
achievable level.'' Leaks will be identified sooner when appliances 
containing ODS refrigerant are regularly inspected. Leaks that are 
determined to be above the applicable leak rate must be repaired and it 
is likely that smaller leaks may also be fixed. As a result, leak 
inspections will reduce the emissions of ODS refrigerant. Additionally, 
providing a consistent standard for ODS and substitute refrigerants 
will reduce the incidence of failures to follow the requirements for 
ODS appliances and in turn reduce the emissions of ODS. For these 
reasons, EPA is relying in part on section 608(a) for authority to 
require leak inspections for appliances containing non-exempt 
substitutes.
    Section 608(c) provides an exception from the venting prohibition 
for de minimis releases during maintenance, service, repair, and 
disposal. EPA has implicit authority to issue regulations explaining 
the contours of this exception. Leak inspections are themselves a form 
of maintenance and actions taken to address a leak are a type of repair 
or service. By performing periodic leak inspections, and repairing 
leaks as would be required in this proposal, the owners and operators 
both limit the immediate leakage and decrease the likelihood of leaks 
during future maintenance or servicing. Whether owners and operators 
are taking proactive leak prevention steps by inspecting for leaks as a 
regular maintenance practice is relevant to whether any emissions that 
do occur may be considered de minimis under section 608(c). Section 
301(a) supplements EPA's authority under 608(a) and 608(c) as described 
previously.
    EPA seeks comments on the proposed requirement for leak 
inspections. Specifically, EPA seeks comment on the frequency of leak 
inspections: Does the quarterly/annual requirement make sense, or 
should EPA require more frequent for some appliances (as frequent as 
once per month), or less frequent (as infrequent as once every six 
months) inspections? EPA also seeks comment on the whether all systems 
should have to conduct leak inspections using the same frequency, or 
with different requirements based on full charge. EPA also seeks 
comment on the 500 pounds full charge threshold for requiring quarterly 
inspections. Specifically, should EPA establish a lower full charge 
threshold (as low as 200 pounds), or a higher full charge threshold (as 
high as 1,000 pounds)? EPA also seeks comment on the proposed criteria 
for the exemption from the quarterly leak inspection requirement. The 
agency has proposed to base this on refrigerant additions in the past 
365 days. However, EPA takes comment on whether basing this exemption 
on four consecutive quarters under the applicable leak rate or four 
consecutive quarters without identifying a leak would be more 
appropriate. EPA also seeks comment on whether a periodic (quarterly or 
annual) leak inspection should satisfy the requirement to conduct a 
leak inspection upon discovering a leak rate in excess of the 
applicable leak rate if the periodic leak inspection alerts the owner 
to the fact that the applicable leak rate has been exceeded and all 
identified leaks during the inspection are documented. Similarly, EPA 
seeks comment on whether a leak inspection conducted after the 
applicable leak rate was exceeded should replace a typically-scheduled 
quarterly or annual leak inspection. EPA also seeks comment on whether 
the agency should require the repair of all leaks identified during 
leak inspections regardless of whether the applicable leak rate has 
been exceeded, or only if the leak rate is above the applicable leak 
rate. For commenters on all of these alternative proposals, please 
provide as much specificity as possible and the reason why these 
changes would be more appropriate than the lead proposal, with special 
attention to the environmental outcomes resulting from the change.
    EPA also seeks comments on alternative proposals for automatic 
detection equipment including: (1) Whether automatic detection systems 
should be inspected and calibrated more frequently than annually to 
ensure it is functioning properly (as frequently as quarterly); (2) 
whether EPA should require the installation of automatic leak detection 
systems for appliances with a full charge of 2,000 pounds or more, 
similar to California's requirement, instead of just requiring periodic 
leak inspections; and (3) whether owners and operators using automatic 
leak detection systems should be required to keep records of when a 
leak is identified and what actions were taken to repair that leak.
i. Extensions for Less Frequent Inspections
    Consistent with past regulations implementing CAA section 608, EPA 
is proposing to establish a process that would allow owners or 
operators to request less frequent leak inspections for certain 
federally-owned appliances that are located in remote locations or are 
otherwise difficult to access for routine maintenance. Specifically, 
EPA is proposing that owners or operators of appliances in these unique 
situations would be allowed to request a less frequent leak inspection 
schedule (not to be less frequent than once every three years instead 
of the proposed annual or quarterly requirement that would otherwise 
apply). EPA is also considering establishing two years as the maximum 
amount of time that can pass between inspections, instead of three. 
None of the other appliance maintenance and leak repair requirements 
would be affected by this extension.
    Any owner or operator of an appliance requesting an extension would 
have to show that the appliance has a history of minimal leakage and is 
remotely located or is otherwise difficult to access for routine 
maintenance. Additionally, the extension request should explain why 
installation of automatic leak detection equipment is not practical and 
what leak inspection schedule would be reasonable given the 
circumstances (not to exceed three years). EPA seeks comments on the 
establishment of this extension request process, if there are other 
conditions that should be established to gain approval from EPA, 
whether the longest interval between inspections should be two years 
instead of three, and whether this extension should only be available 
for comfort cooling appliances, since they are the most likely to be in 
locations that are remote or difficult to access routinely.
    Given the attempt to harmonize appliance maintenance and leak 
repair extension requests elsewhere, EPA also seeks comments on whether 
privately-owned appliances face unique situations that make routine 
leak inspections or the installation of automatic leak detection 
equipment difficult, and whether EPA should apply this proposed 
extension request process to non-federally owned appliances as well. 
EPA may decide to finalize the proposed request process or a similar 
process for such unique situations. Commenters supporting such an

[[Page 69493]]

extension should provide as much specificity as possible about these 
unique situations, the appliances at issue, why those appliances might 
qualify for an extension, and why installation of automatic leak 
detection equipment is not practical in these situations.
6. Two-Year Leak Limit
    EPA is proposing a new requirement to address appliances that leak 
in excess of the applicable leak rate despite being repaired 
frequently. Under the existing rules at Sec.  82.156(i), an appliance 
can exceed the leak rate as long as leaks are repaired in accordance 
with the regulations. If leaks frequently occur in multiple areas, this 
can result in appliances that have high leak rates on an annual basis 
yet are still in compliance with regulatory requirements through means 
of continuous repair. EPA is proposing to add a total leak limit to the 
repair requirement to address these chronically leaking systems.
    Under this proposal, an appliance containing 50 or more pounds of 
refrigerant may not leak more than 75 percent of its full charge in two 
consecutive twelve-month periods and remain in use. Take, for example, 
an appliance that loses 95 percent of its full charge between June 1, 
2017, and May 31, 2018 (measured by the cumulative refrigerant 
additions excluding seasonal adjustments). Between June 1, 2018, and 
May 31, 2019, that appliance would not be permitted to leak more than 
75 percent of its full charge. If the amount lost in June 1, 2018, 
through May 31, 2019, exceeded 75 percent of the full charge, the owner 
or operator would be out of compliance starting June 1, 2019, until the 
appliance was retired or mothballed and later retired.
    EPA reviewed data reported to CARB to determine whether a leak 
limit was necessary and, if so, what the limit should be. In 2013, 
approximately 8 percent of reporting appliances had leaked more than 75 
percent of their full charge over the calendar year and were 
responsible for 38 percent of total reported emissions. As discussed, 
these appliances would not be out of compliance unless they were over 
75 percent in two consecutive twelve-month periods. EPA looked only at 
a single one-year period because 2012 and 2014 data were not available 
at the time the proposal was developed. The data do support the fact 
that a small percentage of appliances are responsible for a larger 
proportion of emissions. EPA also looked at the percentage of 
appliances that had leaked more than 35, 55, and 100 percent over the 
calendar year to see how many appliances could be affected and what 
percentage of leaks they are responsible for. EPA seeks comment on 
whether it should finalize a higher or lower two-year leak limit.
    Due to the high chronic leaks of such appliances, the environmental 
benefit of establishing a cumulative leak limit could be large. 
Nonetheless, the number of appliances affected by this proposed limit 
should be low. First, using a two-year limit should exclude appliances 
that suffered from a one-time catastrophic leak, many of which are 
largely unpreventable. A leak limit that is evaluated over two 
consecutive twelve-month periods allows for the possibility of an 
unpreventable catastrophic leak in one year without violating the 
prohibition, as long as leaks are reduced below the limit in the 
following year. Second, if the appliance maintenance and leak repair 
requirements proposed in this notice are finalized, they should prevent 
the leak limit from being reached. Only when an owner or operator 
continues to add refrigerant to a system without taking steps to repair 
the leaks would an appliance reach the two-year leak limit. Third, due 
to the proposed calculation and recordkeeping requirements discussed 
below, appliance owners or operators would be on notice that their 
appliance was leaking at an unacceptable level after the first year, 
and should have ample time to bring leaks down below the 75 percent 
leak limit in the following year. An appliance owner or operator that 
did not take action based on the calculation and recordkeeping 
requirements in order to meet the two-year limit would be participating 
in the knowing release of refrigerant during maintenance and servicing 
of the appliance.
    EPA seeks comments on creating a leak limit and on the leak amount 
that should be used for such a leak limit. EPA seeks comments on 
whether it should finalize a leak limit that is lower or higher (as low 
as 35 percent, or as high as 100 percent). EPA seeks comments on 
whether it should establish a limit based on two consecutive 6-month 
periods or on just one year, instead of two consecutive twelve-month 
periods. EPA also seeks comments on whether the Agency should allow 
owners or operators to stay in compliance after exceeding the leak 
limit if they develop a retrofit or retirement plan and implement it 
within one year instead of being required to retire the appliance or 
mothball and later retire the appliance. This option would provide 
owners and operators with additional flexibility to remain in 
compliance while decreasing emissions of refrigerant. EPA also seeks 
comment on whether it should allow owners and operators to continue 
operating their appliance beyond the two-year (or shorter) period if 
they notify EPA that the reason they went over the leak limit was only 
because of one or more catastrophic leaks that were unavoidable. Under 
this alternative proposal, EPA would have to review the notification 
and determine whether there is enough documentation to verify that the 
leak or leaks were in fact catastrophic and could not have been 
prevented. If comments indicate an exception for catastrophic leaks 
should be provided, the agency would likely finalize a lower leak limit 
and would potentially shorten the timeframe over which the requirement 
would apply (i.e., two consecutive six-month periods instead of two 
consecutive twelve-month periods). Finally, EPA seeks comment on 
whether the period, whether six months or twelve months, should be 
aligned with the calendar year, such that the first twelve month period 
would always be January 1 through December 31, or whether EPA should 
allow owners and operators to determine when each period begins. EPA 
sees advantages to both options (simplicity in the former option, but 
flexibility in the second).
7. Leak Rate Calculation
    The existing regulations at Sec.  82.156(i) do not explicitly 
require technicians or owners and operators to calculate the leak rate 
each time refrigerant is added to an appliance using an ODS 
refrigerant. Such action is implied since owners or operators may not 
be able to determine compliance without calculating the leak rate each 
time refrigerant is added to the appliance. For example, if a 
commercial refrigeration appliance owner adds refrigerant to the 
appliance but does not calculate the leak rate, the owner would have no 
means of determining if the appliance's leak rate was below 35 percent. 
Hence, the owner would not know if further action was warranted.
    To reinforce the required practices, EPA is proposing to explicitly 
require owners or operators of appliances with 50 or more pounds of 
refrigerant to calculate the leak rate each time refrigerant is added 
to an appliance. EPA is proposing this requirement for appliances that 
use an ODS or non-exempt substitute refrigerant. EPA would provide 
exceptions for when refrigerant is added immediately following a 
retrofit, the installation of a new appliance, or to counter a seasonal 
variance (where records documenting

[[Page 69494]]

the seasonal variance are maintained as proposed in this rule).
    EPA is also proposing to add specific recordkeeping requirements to 
ensure that the owner or operator is aware of the leak rate. The 
limited records currently required from service technicians may not 
provide information needed by the appliance owner or operator to make 
decisions on the fate of the appliance. In addition, the records that 
are currently required to be provided by the technician do not match 
the records that are currently required to be maintained by the owner 
or operator. EPA is therefore proposing to require that service 
technicians provide more detailed records to the owner or operator of 
the appliance. The additional records would match the records that 
owners and operators of appliances must maintain. The service 
technician is generally in the better position to generate those 
records as they usually are the expert that the appliance owner or 
operator is relying on to make informed decisions about their 
appliances. With the addition of these requirements, an appliance owner 
or operator that failed to take required leak repair actions would be 
participating in the knowing release of refrigerant during maintenance, 
service, or repair of the appliance.
    Specifically, EPA is proposing that whenever an appliance with 50 
or more pounds of refrigerant is maintained, serviced, repaired, or 
disposed of, the technician must provide the owner or operator with an 
invoice or other documentation that indicates (1) the identity and 
location of the appliance; (2) the date and type of maintenance, 
service, repair, or disposal performed, including the location of 
repairs and the results of any verification tests or leak inspections 
(if applicable); (3) the name and contact information of the person 
performing the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal; (4) the 
amount and type of refrigerant added to and/or removed from the 
appliance (if applicable); (5) the full charge of the appliance (if 
refrigerant is added); and (6) the leak rate and the method used to 
determine the leak rate (if refrigerant is added). EPA is proposing 
identical recordkeeping requirements for appliance owners or operators 
who use in-house service personnel. EPA is also proposing to require 
that the owner or operator maintain records of all calculations, 
measurements, and assumptions used to determine the full charge and any 
revisions made to the full charge over time.
    These proposed records are likely already provided by many service 
personnel and/or are being maintained by owners and operators. The 
current regulations already require technicians to provide an invoice 
or other documentation that includes the amount of ODS refrigerant 
added to the owner or operator. This would likely already include 
information on the system serviced, the date, and the company/person 
servicing the appliance. It would likely also include some description 
of the service provided. Owners and operators must already maintain 
service records documenting the date and type of service, as well as 
the quantity of ODS refrigerant added. Therefore, the only new 
information in most service instances for ODS systems would be the 
appliance's full charge and the leak rate, which would both be 
relatively simple since the owners and operators are required to have 
both available on-site. This will require communication between the 
owner/operator and the technician and/or access to past service records 
to ensure the technician can calculate the leak rate.
    EPA seeks comments on this proposed change. In particular, EPA 
solicits comments on whether invoices containing this information are 
common practice and whether these records would be useful for owners 
and operators in determining what actions they should take to properly 
maintain their appliances or determining whether an appliance should be 
repaired or replaced.
8. Seasonal Variances
    In regions of the country that experience large temperature swings 
during the year, refrigerant in some appliances can migrate from the 
condenser to the receiver. This migration results in a need to add 
refrigerant to an appliance to ``flood the condenser'' in the season of 
lower temperature ambient conditions (fall or winter). In this case, 
the added refrigerant would have to be removed when the weather returns 
to design ambient conditions to prevent high head pressures. This 
technique is often referred to as a winter-summer charge procedure or a 
seasonal adjustment. Seasonal adjustments are not necessary for 
appliances with properly sized system receivers because they can hold 
the appliances' full charge, including the additional charge needed to 
flood the condenser.
    As discussed above, EPA has proposed to define seasonal variance as 
the addition of refrigerant to an appliance due to a change in ambient 
conditions caused by a change in season, followed by the subsequent 
removal of an equal amount of refrigerant in the corresponding change 
in season, where both the addition and removal of refrigerant occurs 
within one consecutive 12-month period.
    EPA is proposing only to allow owners or operators to exclude the 
amount added from the leak rate calculation if the amount removed is 
equal to or greater than the amount added during the prior season. In a 
properly charged, non-leaking system, adding refrigerant during months 
with lower ambient conditions (fall or winter) would require an 
equivalent amount of refrigerant to be removed in the months with 
higher ambient conditions (spring or summer). If less is removed in the 
spring/summer than was added at the start of fall/winter, the 
difference between the two would be considered a leak and not a 
seasonal addition. Without requiring that the amount added be equal to 
the amount removed to qualify for the exemption, there is no way to 
distinguish legitimate seasonal variances from refrigerant leaks. EPA 
expects only one addition and one removal of refrigerant to account for 
seasonal variance. If the amount added is equal to or less than the 
amount removed in the previous season, but an additional amount is 
added in close proximity (typically within a few days to a few weeks) 
to the addition being counted as a seasonal variance, it would be 
considered part of the same refrigerant addition unless the owner or 
operator could document a leak.
    EPA is proposing at Sec.  82.157(c) to recognize that the leak rate 
does not need to be calculated when adding refrigerant to account for a 
seasonal variance. Both the addition and subsequent removal of 
refrigerant due to seasonal variances must be documented. Such 
additions and removals would already be accounted for in service 
records provided by the technician to the owner/operator. EPA is 
proposing to state the recordkeeping requirement explicitly in Sec.  
82.157(l)(4).
    EPA proposed to allow for seasonal variance in the proposed 2010 
Leak Repair Rule and received two comments on that rule. One commenter 
indicated support, while the other commented that the amount added in 
one season may not always match the amount removed later in the year, 
but provided no additional support for this assertion.
    EPA seeks comments on the need for a limited exclusion to the 
requirement to calculate the leak rate upon addition of refrigerant for 
seasonal variance. EPA also seeks comment on whether the seasonal 
variance provision should be a limited exclusion from the requirement 
to calculate leaks as discussed above, or

[[Page 69495]]

if the provision should establish a two-step test. First, the owner or 
operator would have to determine if the amount added is equal to or 
less than the amount removed from the appliance in the previous season. 
If the amount was lower, they would not have to calculate the leak 
rate. If it was above, they would have to calculate the leak rate for 
the appliance using the difference between the amount added and the 
amount removed in the previous season. EPA also seeks comments on the 
need to document the capacity of the receiver, as well as a requirement 
making the exemption contingent upon an equivalent amount of 
refrigerant being removed and added over a consecutive 12-month period.
9. Appliance Repair
    The existing required practices at Sec.  82.156(i) generally 
require owners or operators of IPR (Sec.  82.156(i)(2)), comfort 
cooling appliances (Sec.  82.156(i)(5)), and commercial refrigeration 
appliances (Sec.  82.156(i)(1)) with refrigerant charges of more than 
50 pounds to repair leaks within 30 days, unless owners or operators 
decide to immediately retrofit or retire the appliance. Retrofit or 
retirement plans must be developed within 30 days of discovering the 
leak and must be fully implemented within one year of the plan's date. 
For those appliances not undergoing retrofit or retirement, the repairs 
must bring the leak rate to below the current applicable leak rate of 
35 or 15 percent.
    This existing requirement has allowed a scenario where owners or 
operators could decide to not repair all known leaks within an 
appliance, as long as repair efforts brought the leak rate of the 
appliance below the applicable leak rate. The challenge with such a 
scenario is that owners or operators may assume that they have done 
sufficient repairs to comply with the leak repair requirements, or may 
be in temporary compliance, but may find themselves out of compliance 
if they are mistaken about what the current leak rate was such that the 
repair was not sufficient, or if another leak resulting in a calculated 
leak rate greater than the applicable leak rate occurs shortly after 
the initial repair effort was completed.
    EPA is proposing to require the repair of all identified leaks once 
the applicable leak rate at Sec.  82.157(d)(2) is exceeded, not just 
repairs sufficient to bring the leak rate below the applicable leak 
rate. Leaving some appliance leaks unaddressed in such situations does 
not reduce emissions of refrigerants to the lowest achievable level and 
does not prevent knowing releases of refrigerant during current or 
future maintenance, service, or repair. Since selective repairs can 
result in preventable refrigerant emissions, and therefore knowing 
releases of refrigerant to the atmosphere, with associated human health 
and environmental effects, and may be inconsistent with the venting 
prohibition, EPA is proposing to require that owners or operators of 
appliances normally containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant repair 
all identified leaks within 30 days of exceeding the applicable leak 
rate.
    If finalized, this revision would mean that appliance owners or 
operators cannot be selective about repairs made to appliances that 
leak in excess of the applicable leak rate. This will remove ambiguity 
concerning compliance with the leak repair requirements and remove 
potential questions that could arise as to whether a repair attempt was 
sufficient to comply with the rules.
    Many owners or operators (particularly of commercial refrigeration 
appliances and IPR) have stated that they always repair leaks, and must 
do so for their businesses to remain viable. EPA agrees that many 
businesses depend on the prompt repair of leaks and that it may not be 
in the financial interest of many appliance owners or operators to 
allow their appliances to continue to leak. However, there are 
appliance owners and operators that do not take appropriate steps to 
minimize refrigerant leaks. Hence, the Agency views the leak repair 
requirements as both a backstop to current repair practices for 
appliances that are well maintained, and necessary to ensure that 
refrigerant leaks during maintenance, service, and repair are kept to 
the lowest achievable level for appliances that are not as well 
maintained.
    EPA reviewed comments received on the proposed 2010 Leak Repair 
Rule during the development of this proposal. The comments tend to fall 
into three categories: Practicality of fixing all leaks; time needed to 
fix all leaks; and clarification on when all leaks must be fixed. 
First, on the practicality of fixing all leaks, several commenters 
noted that some leaks cannot be identified without shutting down and 
fully evacuating and inspecting an appliance. Others noted that some 
leaks may be trivial and located on seals, gaskets, valves, and 
fittings where leakage occurs regardless of repairs. One commenter 
stated that all leaks should be fixed regardless of the location. 
Others raised concern about the cost and the diminishing value of 
fixing ever smaller leaks. Several of these commenters recommended the 
Agency focus on ``identified'' or ``known'' leaks, or alternatively, on 
setting the requirement at ``making a best effort'' to repair all 
leaks.
    In considering these comments, EPA is proposing to require a leak 
inspection whenever the applicable leak rate is exceeded. EPA is not 
proposing to require evacuating or shutting down the appliance to 
conduct that leak inspection, although that would be an option 
available to owners and operators. The leak inspection would involve 
identifying and creating a record of leaks that must be repaired within 
30 days. EPA recognizes that a small amount of refrigerant can migrate 
from an appliance even if the refrigerant circuit is unbroken. EPA is 
seeking comments on whether the agency should create a limited 
exception, which would provide that if upon further inspection (through 
bubble tests or other means), sound professional judgment indicates an 
individual identified leak is not the result of a faulty component or 
connection and that refrigerant releases would not be reduced from 
repair or adjustment, the leak would not need to be repaired. If this 
proposal is finalized, EPA would likely require that the justification 
for the determination be noted in the appliance's service records. EPA 
notes that there are certain types of situations that would never meet 
these conditions, including but not limited to when a component has 
holes, cracks, or improperly seated seals. All other leaks would still 
need to be repaired if the applicable leak rate is exceeded.
    In addition to reducing emissions of high-GWP and ozone-depleting 
refrigerants, a refrigerant management program saves money in 
refrigerant and potentially energy expenses. EPA discusses the costs 
and savings later in this preamble, but preventive maintenance can save 
a significant amount of money even when factoring in the added cost of 
a more vigilant refrigerant management program, especially as the cost 
of some refrigerants such as HCFC-22 rises. Proposals to require repair 
of all identified leaks and conduct periodic leak inspections should 
incentivize owners and operators to develop a refrigerant management 
plan to proactively fix leaks before they become big enough to exceed 
the applicable leak rate. EPA's experience with several recent consent 
decrees indicates leak rates, even in complicated IPR applications, can 
be brought below the applicable leak rates proposed in this rule with a 
refrigerant management program that identifies and fixes leaks early.

[[Page 69496]]

    Finally, it is possible that some leaks may not be fixable in 30 
days. Later in this notice, EPA discusses the possible extensions to 
the 30-day leak repair requirement, including allowing these extensions 
for the repair of commercial refrigeration and comfort cooling 
appliances. Regardless, owners and operators should be fixing leaks as 
a normal course of business, which would largely prevent many of these 
requirements from ever being triggered. As noted above, the periodic 
leak inspections would help identify leaks earlier for repair, before 
those leaks are big enough to exceed the applicable leak rate.
    EPA requests comments on the proposed requirement to repair all 
identified leaks when the appliance leaks above the applicable leak 
rate.
10. Verification Tests
    Verification tests are performed on appliances after they are 
repaired to ensure that leaks have been fixed. The regulation at Sec.  
82.156(i)(3) currently requires verification tests only for repairs to 
IPR and Federally-owned commercial and comfort cooling appliances 
containing an ODS refrigerant and only when extensions to the 30 day 
deadline (or 120 day deadline when an IPR shutdown is required) are 
needed. Limiting the verification tests to such a narrow set of 
appliances is problematic, so EPA is proposing that all repairs should 
be verified.
    First, the lack of verification may leave owners or operators of 
comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances uncertain as to 
whether their repair efforts have brought them into compliance with the 
leak repair requirements. A lack of verification could allow for 
insufficient or incomplete repairs, which could lead to ongoing or 
future leaks during maintenance, service, or repair. Ongoing leaks, 
especially when they are at the same location or component in the 
appliance, could result in noncompliance with the current requirements 
if repairs did not actually bring the leak rate of the entire appliance 
beneath the applicable leak rate.
    Second, EPA has considered the burden of conducting verification 
tests on all types of equipment and addresses that issue below. EPA 
cannot identify a reason why the burden could more easily be borne in 
those narrow circumstances in which verification is currently required 
by the regulations, given that some type of verification is generally a 
standard practice across all types of appliances. Third, the 
environmental benefit of verifying repairs applies to comfort cooling 
and commercial refrigeration appliances as well as IPR.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing to require at 82.157(f) that owners or 
operators of all types of appliances that are subject to the leak 
repair requirements (including those using an ODS or non-exempt 
substitute refrigerant) perform both an initial and follow-up 
verification of repairs every time the applicable leak rate is exceeded 
(unless a retrofit or retirement plan is being developed).
    EPA sought comments on this same proposal in the proposed 2010 Leak 
Repair Rule and received three comments. All were in support of 
extending verification tests to all covered appliances. EPA again seeks 
comments on requiring verification tests on all appliances normally 
containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant. EPA sees a potential 
benefit in requiring both an initial and follow-up verification test to 
ensure a leak is repaired and that the repair will hold. EPA seeks 
comments whether both an initial and follow-up verification test are 
needed in all situations and seeks comments on requiring a minimum time 
between tests such as one to three hours to allow an appliance to 
return to normal operating characteristics and conditions.
    EPA is also clarifying that owners or operators may conduct as many 
repair attempts as needed within the initial 30 days (or longer if an 
extension is available) to repair the appliance. Consequently, the 
Agency is proposing to explicitly allow unlimited verification tests 
within the required repair window. This is discussed further in the 
preamble section on retrofit and retirement plans.
    The Agency understands that most technicians pressure check 
appliances immediately following repairs. EPA is proposing that such 
pressure checks would satisfy the initial verification requirements. 
EPA's concern is that follow-up verifications may not be a part of 
normal operating procedures for all repairs. Follow-up verifications 
require a technician to perform a second test after the appliance has 
returned to normal operating characteristics and conditions. A follow-
up verification is an indicator of the success of repairs. Thus, EPA 
intends to require such verification for all appliances that have 
leaked refrigerant above the applicable leak rate.
    EPA currently has not set a minimum amount of time that must pass 
between the initial and follow-up verifications. In the proposed 2010 
Leak Repair Rule EPA proposed that the two tests be separated by at 
least 24 hours. Based on comments to that rule, the Agency is taking 
comment in this action on whether a shorter time such as one to three 
hours after the appliance is brought back on-line would be more 
appropriate. Regardless of whether EPA specifies an amount of time that 
must pass, all follow-up verification tests must take place after the 
appliance has returned to normal operating characteristics and 
conditions--both currently for IPR, and under the proposed change to 
require verification tests for repairs on all types of appliances with 
50 or more pounds of class I, class II, or substitute refrigerant. EPA 
is also proposing to require follow-up verification tests to occur 
within 10 days of the successful initial verification test or 10 days 
of the appliance reaching normal operating characteristics and 
conditions.
11. Extensions to the 30-Day (or 120-Day) Repair Requirement
    EPA currently provides extensions to the repair or retrofit/
retirement deadlines for IPR and Federally-owned appliances under 
certain conditions. EPA has identified four conditions that exist in 
the current regulations:
     The appliance is mothballed (available for all appliances) 
(Sec.  82.156(i)(10));
     The appliance is located in an area subject to 
radiological contamination or where shutting down the appliance will 
directly lead to radiological contamination (available for Federally-
owned appliances) (Sec.  82.156(i)(1)(ii) and (i)(5)(ii));
     Applicable Federal, state, or local regulations make a 
repair within 30 or 120 days impossible (available for IPR) (Sec.  
82.156(i)(2)(i)); or
     Parts are unavailable (available for IPR) (Sec.  
82.156(i)(2)(i)).
    While not an extension, IPR facilities are also allowed an initial 
repair period of 120 days rather than 30 days if an industrial process 
shutdown is required to complete the repair. In addition, an exemption 
to the repair requirement is allowed for all types of appliances if a 
dated retrofit or retirement plan is developed and is implemented 
within one year of the date developed.
    EPA is proposing at Sec.  82.157(g) to make these extensions to the 
repair deadlines available to all appliance categories. EPA has heard 
from owners of commercial refrigeration appliances, for example, that 
they occasionally are unable to complete a repair due to the temporary 
unavailability of a component. They were therefore required to develop 
a retrofit and retirement plan even though a

[[Page 69497]]

component could be acquired shortly after 30 days. While IPR may 
require custom components, the need for components is not unique to 
IPR. It does not make sense to require the retrofit or retirement of an 
appliance that can be repaired in situations such as when a single 
component is the problem and can be procured shortly after 30 days.
    The extension for the delivery of components is open-ended in the 
current regulation. While the regulation provides only the additional 
time needed to receive delivery of the necessary parts, it does not set 
an outer limit for delivery nor does it clearly provide time to install 
the components once received. EPA is proposing at Sec.  
82.157(g)(1)(iii) to modify the extension so that the owner or operator 
must complete the repair within 30 days after receiving delivery of the 
necessary part and the total extension may not exceed 180 days (or 270 
days if an IPR shutdown is required). As proposed, this extension may 
be more stringent for IPR because IPR owners/operators would be time-
limited in conducting those repairs. EPA is not proposing to change the 
open-ended nature of the extensions due to radiological contamination 
or compliance with applicable Federal, state, or local regulations.
    To qualify for an extension, owners or operators must perform all 
repairs that can be completed within the initial 30 or 120 day period. 
All repairs must be verified if possible and the owner or operator must 
document all such repair efforts. The owner or operator must maintain a 
written statement from the appliance or component manufacturer or 
distributor stating the unavailability of parts and the expected 
delivery date as part of the reason why more than 30 days are needed. 
EPA is not proposing to change the elements of the request for an 
extension that is submitted to EPA. Requests must continue to include: 
Identification and address of the facility; the name of the owner or 
operator of the appliance; the leak rate; the method used to determine 
the leak rate and full charge; the date a leak rate above the 
applicable leak rate was discovered; the location of leak(s) to the 
extent determined to date; any repair work that has been performed thus 
far, including the date that work was completed; the reasons why more 
than 30 days are needed to complete the repair; and an estimate of when 
the work will be completed. If requesting an extension to the earlier 
submitted completion date, a new estimated date of completion and 
documentation of the reason for that change must be submitted to EPA 
within 30 days. The owner or operator must keep a dated copy of this 
submission and proof that it was submitted.
    EPA requests comments on applying the extensions to all appliance 
types, including whether such extensions should not be extended to 
certain appliances. EPA also seeks comments on the scope and amount of 
time allowed for each extension, and whether there are additional 
extension types that the Agency should consider allowing. Commenters 
supporting the creation of a new extension should provide detailed 
reasoning and cost implications (both for the environment and an owner/
operator) in their comment.
12. Retrofit or Retirement Plans
    EPA's regulations at Sec.  82.156(i)(6) currently require an owner 
or operator of an appliance that exceeds the applicable leak rate to 
develop and implement a retrofit or retirement plan generally within 30 
days if they are unable to repair the leak. EPA is proposing at Sec.  
82.157(h) three changes to the retrofit/retirement provision. First, 
EPA is proposing to remove the requirement to retrofit an appliance 
after a failed follow-up verification test. EPA is proposing to replace 
that provision with a requirement to retrofit an appliance if the owner 
or operator is unable to repair all identified leaks within 30 days 
after discovering the applicable leak rate is exceeded (unless 
additional time is allowed under one of the proposed extensions). 
Second, EPA is proposing to remove the requirement to use a substitute 
with a lower or equivalent ODP. Third, EPA is proposing to establish 
explicit elements of a retrofit/retirement plan. These three proposals 
are discussed below.
    Failed Verification Tests. EPA's regulations currently require 
owners or operators of IPR using an ODS refrigerant that have failed a 
follow-up verification test to develop a retrofit or retirement plan 
within 30 days of the failed verification test and implement the plan 
within one year. Under these plans, owners or operators must identify 
how and when they will retire or retrofit their appliance. Owners or 
operators of comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances 
are currently not required to perform verification tests and, in lieu 
of making repairs within 30 days, are given the option to draft and 
implement a retrofit or retirement plan within 30 days of discovering a 
leak rate greater than the applicable leak rate.
    EPA has heard concerns from appliance owners/operators that the 
requirement to retrofit or retire an entire appliance because it has 
failed a verification test may not always be practical or necessary. 
For example, some owners or operators would prefer to replace a faulty 
component before they are required to retrofit or retire an entire 
appliance and believe this could in many instances be an equally 
effective means to address needed repairs. The Agency wishes to reduce 
the potentially large burden upon owners or operators of requiring a 
large-scale retrofit or retirement when replacing the leaking component 
might satisfactorily repair the appliance. Therefore, EPA is proposing 
to provide an owner or operator additional flexibility if they are 
unable to initially fix all identified leaks after discovering the 
applicable leak rate is exceeded.
    This proposal would allow owners or operators to attempt as many 
repairs as necessary within the initial 30 days of discovering that an 
appliance's leak rate exceeds the applicable leak rate. This could 
include replacing a component. If that component cannot arrive within 
the initial 30 day period, the owner or operator could request 
additional time under the proposed provisions related to extensions 
discussed previously in this preamble. An owner or operator of an 
appliance would only have to retrofit or retire the appliance if the 
component replacement was unsuccessful and they could not repair all 
leaks that were identified in the leak inspection triggered by 
discovering that the applicable leak rate was exceeded.
    This approach is based, in part, on feedback received from past 
proposals. In comments on the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule, several 
commenters supported additional flexibility to conduct repairs and/or 
component replacements before being required to retrofit or retire an 
appliance. Stakeholders have stated that a facility should be allowed 
an unlimited number of repair attempts to equipment within the 30 day 
time period. These stakeholders supported an option in the proposed 
2010 Leak Repair Rule that would have allowed additional flexibility to 
replace components before being required to retrofit or retire a 
leaking appliance. The approach proposed in today's notice provides 
similar flexibility.
    Because the retrofit/retirement plan requirements allow an 
appliance to leak without repairs for up to a year (in addition to 
extension opportunities), this change would likely increase the speed 
at which appliance repairs take place, thereby reducing emissions of 
refrigerants. This proposal also would eliminate the possibility of 
mandatory retrofitting or retirement in cases where it might not be 
warranted because the owner or operator would have the

[[Page 69498]]

flexibility to determine if component replacement would be the best 
means of addressing a leaking appliance.
    As discussed in the prior section, EPA is proposing to extend the 
requirement for verification tests to repairs made by owners or 
operators of commercial refrigeration and comfort cooling appliances 
using both an ODS and non-exempt substitute refrigerant. EPA is also 
proposing to extend the approach to retrofit and retirement described 
above to owners or operators of commercial refrigeration and comfort 
cooling appliances. Extending this approach to all appliances will 
reduce refrigerant emissions while establishing a consistent set of 
regulatory required practices.
    Retrofit/Retirement ODP. EPA's regulations currently require that 
appliances containing an ODS refrigerant, when being retrofitted or 
retired/replaced, use a refrigerant with an equivalent or lower ODP. 
EPA created this provision to foster the transition from refrigerants 
with high ODPs to ones with a lower ODP. EPA is proposing to remove 
this requirement and allow for retrofits or retired/replaced appliances 
to use any refrigerant (other than the one currently used in that 
appliance in the case of retrofits), so long as it is acceptable for 
use by SNAP. This change would not relax the current requirements with 
respect to HCFCs since the regulations implementing sections 605 and 
606 of the CAA already prohibit the manufacture (and therefore 
installation) of appliances using virgin HCFCs (as of January 1, 2010, 
for HCFC-142b and HCFC-22; and as of January 1, 2020, for other HCFCs). 
Requiring the use of a refrigerant with a lower or equivalent ODP could 
be problematic if the requirement were read strictly because some HFO 
refrigerants that are not classified as an ODS have an ODP even though 
the ODP is negligible. For example, HFO-1233zd(E) has an ODP between 
0.00024 to 0.00034 and a GWP between 4.7 to 7 (see 77 FR 47768). Under 
a strict interpretation, if an owner/operator wanted to replace an R-
134a chiller with an HFO-1233zd(E) chiller in future, he/she would not 
be able to switch from R-134a, which has an ODP of zero, to the HFO 
since the HFO has an ODP that, though negligible, is higher than zero. 
This could prevent transition to low-GWP alternatives.
    EPA also wishes to clarify that the current requirement to retrofit 
with a refrigerant of the same or lower ODP does not mean that the same 
refrigerant can be used. Such actions do not satisfy the regulatory 
intent or the proposed definition of ``retrofit.'' The requirement to 
retrofit means the owner or operator must switch refrigerants. While 
the Agency is proposing to allow flexibility in refrigerant choices, 
the intent is not to allow the continued use of the same refrigerant in 
the retrofitted appliance. In cases where the owner/operator wants to 
use the same refrigerant and that refrigerant can continue to be used 
consistent with other applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, 
the owner/operator would have the option of retiring and replacing the 
appliance.
    If an owner/operator chooses to retire and replace a system, EPA is 
not proposing to require under Subpart F that a different refrigerant 
be used because eventually there may not be a refrigerant to switch to 
that is better for the environment. At this time, EPA intends to rely 
on other 40 CFR part 82 regulatory requirements that do prohibit the 
use of some refrigerants, (e.g., the prohibition on manufacture of 
systems using HCFC-22 under subpart A).
    Elements of a Retrofit or Retirement Plan. Stakeholders have asked 
EPA what should be included in a retrofit or retirement plan. The 
Agency has not previously provided a specific list of elements to be 
included due to the complex nature of refrigeration appliances. An 
exhaustive list may not fit all types of appliances considering the 
wide array of configurations and refrigerant choices. However, EPA 
finds merit in specifying a minimum set of information that is likely 
to be needed during any type of retrofit or retirement.
    EPA is proposing at Sec.  82.157(h)(2) to require that a retrofit 
or retirement plan include the following minimum set of information:
     Identification and location of the appliance;
     Type (i.e. ASHRAE number) and full charge of the 
refrigerant currently used in the appliance;
     Type (i.e. ASHRAE number) and full charge of the 
refrigerant to which the appliance will be converted, if retrofitted;
     Itemized procedure for converting the appliance to the new 
refrigerant, including changes required for compatibility (for example, 
procedure for flushing old refrigerant and lubricant; and changes in 
lubricants, filters, gaskets, o-rings, and valves), if retrofitted;
     Plan for the disposition of recovered refrigerant;
     Plan for the disposition of the appliance, if retired; and
     One-year schedule for completion of the appliance retrofit 
or retirement.
    Such requirements are a minimum of what should be considered by any 
owner or operator when retrofitting or retiring a leaking appliance. A 
retrofit or retirement plan may contain additional elements related to 
the specific characteristics of that appliance but EPA is not proposing 
requirements for those elements because they would more appropriately 
be determined on a case-by-case basis.
    The Agency's preference would be to have a complete plan developed 
within 30 days. However, EPA recognizes that some information may not 
be available in that timeframe. For example, owners or operators may 
not know within the allotted time frame what the itemized procedure 
will be until they finalize plans for the retrofit or retirement. Under 
the itemized procedure heading, EPA is considering whether to allow 
owners or operators to include a placeholder such as ``Engineer 
consulted to evaluate retrofit and replacement options on [X] date. 
Engineers report expected in three months.'' Shortly after that report 
is delivered, the owner or operator would need to update the plan 
accordingly to indicate the procedure for retrofit or retirement and 
replacement.
    EPA seeks comments on these proposed changes to the retrofit and 
retirement plans including the following questions: Should EPA allow 
for multiple repairs within the 30 day repair window? Should EPA apply 
the proposed changes to all appliance types? Should EPA remove the 
requirement to switch to a refrigerant with a lower or equivalent ODP? 
Should EPA require the use of a refrigerant with a lower or equivalent 
GWP?
    The Agency also requests comments on the proposed minimum 
requirements of a retrofit or retirement plan. Are there other factors 
that should be considered when developing a retrofit/retirement plan? 
Is this information available within 30 days of deciding to retrofit or 
retire an appliance? Should EPA allow for the retrofit/retirement plan 
to have placeholders for some elements until the information is 
available, by noting specific actions that are needed to accurately 
document the plan?
13. Extensions To Retrofit or Retire Appliances
    Under the current regulations at Sec.  82.156(i)(6), an owner or 
operator must generally complete the retrofit or retirement of a 
leaking appliance containing an ODS within one year of creating a 
retrofit or retirement plan. There are extensions available in the 
following circumstances:
     If delays are caused by requirements of other applicable

[[Page 69499]]

Federal, state, or local laws or regulations (available for IPR);
     If a suitable replacement refrigerant with a lower ODP is 
unavailable (available for IPR);
     If the supplier of the appliance or a critical component 
has quoted a delivery time of more than 30 weeks from when the order is 
placed (available for IPR);
     If complications presented by the appropriations and/or 
procurement process results in a delivery time of more than 30 weeks 
(available for Federally-owned appliances); or
     If the appliance is located in an area subject to 
radiological contamination and creating a safe working environment will 
require more than 30 weeks (available for Federally-owned appliances).
    EPA is proposing at Sec.  82.157(i) four substantive changes to 
these extensions. First, as in all other leak repair provisions, EPA is 
proposing to apply these extensions to appliances containing non-exempt 
substitute refrigerants. As discussed in section III of this notice, 
providing a consistent standard for ODS and substitute refrigerants 
will facilitate the recovery of both ODS and non-ODS refrigerants and 
reduce the environmental harm caused by the emissions of these 
refrigerants.
    Second, EPA is proposing to remove the extension offered when a 
suitable replacement refrigerant with a lower ODP is not available. EPA 
established this extension because there were certain applications 
using CFCs that did not have a suitable HCFC substitute. Today, there 
are many more substitutes for ODS refrigerants than when EPA 
established the refrigerant management program. In fact, few appliances 
can be newly-installed or retrofitted with virgin ODS because of the 
HCFC use restrictions implementing sections 605-606 of the CAA. As 
discussed above, EPA is not requiring that a retrofit use a refrigerant 
with a similar or lower ODP. Therefore, the rationale for this 
extension no longer exists. Because EPA is proposing to remove this 
requirement, EPA is also proposing to remove from the definitions in 
Sec.  82.154 the term suitable replacement refrigerant.
    Third, EPA is also proposing a new extension at Sec.  82.157(i)(1) 
if the appliance is to be retrofitted to or replaced with a refrigerant 
that is exempt from the venting prohibition as listed in Sec.  
82.154(a). In that situation, EPA is proposing to allow an extension up 
to 18 months. Whereas the existing extensions are only available to IPR 
and Federally-owned appliances, EPA is proposing to make this 
extension, and all other extensions, available to comfort cooling and 
commercial refrigeration appliances as well.
    Section 608(a)(3) provides authority to EPA to issue regulations 
that may include requirements to use alternative substances to ODS. 
Given this authority, and the distinction between exempt and non-exempt 
substitutes in section 612(c), the Agency is taking action to encourage 
the use of substances that do not pose a threat to the environment when 
released. Since many refrigerants have an ODP, a high GWP, or both, it 
is appropriate to allow more time to install a refrigerant that is 
exempt from the venting prohibition as an incentive for that type of 
transition. The refrigerants that are exempt from the venting 
prohibition, such as carbon dioxide (R-744), and the hydrocarbon 
refrigerants propane (R-290), isobutane (R-600a), and R-441A in certain 
uses, have no ODP and low GWPs ranging from one to eight. While the 
Agency would be allowing for potentially greater emissions in the short 
term by not requiring all repairs be completed for the 18 months 
allowed for a replacement with an exempt substitute, once the new 
appliance is installed, it will be using a zero ODP and very low-GWP 
refrigerant that does not pose a threat to the environment for a much 
longer period than the 18 month extension.
    Fourth, while not an extension, per se, the current regulations at 
Sec.  82.156(i)(3)(v) relieve owners and operators of IPR appliances of 
the requirement to retrofit or retire their appliances if they 
establish that the appliance's leak rate is below the applicable rate 
within 180 days of an initial failed follow-up verification test and 
they notify EPA within 30 days of that determination. Affected entities 
must report to EPA when they use this exemption and EPA has not 
received any reports on the subject in at least the last three to five 
years. Therefore, EPA is proposing to remove this exception entirely. 
The other proposed extensions, in particular the extension to receive a 
replacement component, should provide sufficient flexibility for IPR 
and other appliances.
    EPA seeks comments on its proposals to restructure and simplify the 
extensions to retrofit or retire appliances. EPA also seeks comments on 
its proposal to remove the extension for transitioning to a suitable 
replacement refrigerant and the removal of Sec.  82.156(i)(3)(v) as 
well as creating an extension for transitioning to a substitute 
refrigerant that is exempt from the venting prohibition.
14. Recordkeeping and Reporting
    EPA is proposing to create a recordkeeping and reporting paragraph 
at Sec.  82.157(m) to make these requirements easier to identify. Many 
of these requirements are identical to those currently included at 
Sec.  82.166 for appliances containing ODS. In summary, EPA is 
proposing to establish the following recordkeeping requirements for 
owners and operators of appliances normally containing 50 or more 
pounds of class I, class II, or substitute refrigerant:
     Maintain documentation from leak inspections or that an 
automatic leak detection system is installed and inspected annually and 
recalibrated as needed in accordance with the leak inspection 
requirements;
     Maintain leak inspection extension requests submitted to 
EPA.
     Maintain records documenting the full charge of 
appliances;
     Maintain invoices or other documentation when refrigerant 
is added or removed from an appliance, when a leak inspection is 
performed, and when a verification test is conducted, and when service 
or maintenance is performed;
     Maintain retrofit and/or retirement plans;
     Maintain retrofit and/or extension requests submitted to 
EPA;
     Maintain records documenting when the system was 
mothballed and when it was brought back on-line (i.e. refrigerant was 
added back into the appliance);
     Maintain records of purged refrigerant if excluding such 
refrigerant from the leak rate; and
     Maintain all of the above-listed records for a minimum of 
three years.
    Additionally, the proposed revisions would require persons 
servicing, maintaining, repairing, or disposing of such appliances to 
provide the owner or operator of such appliances with an invoice or 
other documentation when refrigerant is added or removed from an 
appliance, when a leak inspection is performed, and when a verification 
test is conducted, and when service or maintenance is performed.
    Stakeholders have also told EPA that the Agency should make 
explicit our view that records can be kept electronically. EPA 
recognizes that many companies employ electronic databases to store and 
track records. An electronic recordkeeping system has advantages to 
paper records, and EPA encourages owners and operators of appliances to 
use one of these systems to track refrigerant additions and other 
required records. Electronic systems

[[Page 69500]]

allow for more comprehensive refrigerant management and can help 
identify leaky appliances earlier. Given that fact, EPA is proposing to 
explicitly allow for electronic records. These records must still be 
accessible onsite if an EPA inspector visits a facility, but they can 
also be downloaded or printed from an online system if necessary. 
Having records accessible onsite is also important to facilitate 
accurate calculation of the leak rate by technicians.
    For reporting, EPA is proposing to require that all reports be 
submitted to EPA via email at 608reports@epa.gov. If the submission 
contains confidential business information, reports can be mailed to 
the address in Sec.  82.160. This should reduce costs and streamline 
the reporting process. It is also consistent with EPA's Next Generation 
Compliance initiative. EPA is also proposing to require reporting in 
the following circumstances:
     If the owner or operator is requesting an extension to the 
30-day (or 120-day) requirement to complete repairs pursuant to the 
proposed Sec.  82.157(g);
     If the owner or operator is requesting an extension to 
complete a retrofit or retirement of an appliance pursuant to the 
proposed Sec.  82.157(i); or
     If the owner or operator is excluding purged refrigerants 
that are destroyed from annual leak rate calculations pursuant to the 
proposed Sec.  82.157(k).
     If the owner or operator is submitting an extension 
request to EPA to conduct leak inspections less frequently pursuant to 
the proposed Sec.  82.157(b)(5).
    These proposed records and reports are essential to ensure 
compliance with section 608 of the CAA. EPA seeks comments on the 
specific recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Sec.  82.157(l) 
and (m). EPA also seeks comments on the changes to require electronic 
reporting and to allow and encourage electronic recordkeeping, so long 
as it is accessible at each facility regulated by these requirements 
during an onsite inspection.

G. Proposed Changes to the Standards for Recovery and/or Recycling 
Equipment in Section 82.158

1. Background
    Currently, all ODS refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment 
manufactured or imported on or after November 15, 1993, and used during 
the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances must be 
certified by an approved equipment testing organization to ensure that 
it meets certain performance standards. These standards may vary for 
certain equipment intended for use with the disposal of small 
appliances. These performance standards are currently found in tables 2 
and 3 of Sec.  82.158, as well as appendix B1, B2, and C of subpart F. 
EPA based these standards in large part on ARI (now AHRI) Standard 740-
1993 and ARI Standard 740-1995. Recovery and/or recycling equipment 
intended for use during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal 
of MVAC and MVAC-like appliances must meet the standards in subpart B. 
The regulations in subpart F simply refer to that subpart and state 
that the such recovery and/or recycling equipment must meet the 
standards of Sec.  82.36(a).
2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants
    EPA is proposing to require that all recovery and/or recycling 
equipment used during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of 
appliances, other than MVACs and MVAC-like appliances, that contain 
non-exempt substitute refrigerants also be certified by an approved 
equipment testing organization that it meets certain performance 
standards. EPA is proposing to allow all recovery and/or recycling 
equipment that met certification requirements for ODS prior to this 
rulemaking to be certified for non-exempt substitute refrigerants. 
Since most recovery equipment is already certified for use with non-
exempt substitute refrigerants, this proposal would merely update the 
standards to reflect current practices.
    EPA is also proposing to add appendices B3 and B4, based on the 
AHRI Standard 740-2015, Performance Rating of Refrigerant Recovery 
Equipment and Recovery/Recycling Equipment. All new equipment 
manufactured or imported on or after the effective date of this rule 
would be required to meet the standards in appendix B and table 2. The 
evacuation level would depend upon the saturation pressure of the 
refrigerant. EPA is also proposing to update appendix C ``Method for 
Testing Recovery Devices for Use with Small Appliances'' to reference 
all refrigerants, instead of the currently referenced CFC-12.
    Certifying refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment for use 
with non-exempt substitutes serves multiple purposes. First, 
certification would provide reliable information on the ability of 
equipment to minimize emissions of these substitute refrigerants, by 
measuring and/or establishing standards for recovery efficiency (vacuum 
level) and maximum emissions from air purging, oil draining, equipment 
clearing, and hose permeation. Second, certification would provide 
reliable information on the equipment's ability to clear itself when 
switching between refrigerants. Without sufficient clearing capability, 
equipment may retain residual refrigerant in its condenser, which would 
then be mixed with the next batch of refrigerant recovered by the 
equipment. Because mixed refrigerant can be difficult if not impossible 
to reclaim (depending on how cross-contaminated the mixed refrigerant 
is) and expensive to destroy, it is much more likely than unmixed 
refrigerant to be vented to the atmosphere. Third, certification would 
provide reliable information on the equipment's recovery speed. Without 
such information, technicians may purchase equipment that recovers too 
slowly, tempting them to interrupt recovery before it is complete. As 
discussed in the 1993 Rule, where EPA established the equipment 
certification requirements, the information on equipment performance 
provided by an independent third-party testing organization is more 
reliable than that provided by other sources, such as equipment 
manufacturers (58 FR 28686-28687).
    Certification of recovery equipment used with non-exempt substitute 
refrigerants would also maximize recycling and minimize emissions of 
ODS refrigerants. There is no physical difference between ozone-
depleting refrigerants and their fluorocarbon substitutes that would 
prevent a technician from purchasing and using HFC recovery equipment 
on CFCs or HCFCs, except in the case of flammable refrigerants.
    Because different treatment is warranted for flammable 
refrigerants, EPA is proposing to add standards for the recovery of 
flammable non-exempt refrigerants. Currently, EPA is only aware of two 
flammable non-exempt substitute refrigerants that are approved for use 
in stationary refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment: HFC-32 and 
HFO-1234ze(E). However, EPA expects this number to grow in the future. 
Additionally, EPA notes that the AHRI Standard 740-2015 that is being 
used as the basis for the recycling and/or recovery equipment 
requirements in appendix B3 does not apply to flammable refrigerants. 
To address this, EPA is proposing several options that could be used 
for flammable non-exempt substitute refrigerants like HFC-32. EPA could 
require that all recycling and/or recovery equipment used with

[[Page 69501]]

flammable non-exempt substitute refrigerants must:
--meet a new standard that requires the recovery/recycling performance 
of appendix B3 (based on AHRI Standard 740-2015) and the safety 
performance of Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard 1963, Supplement 
SB--Requirements for Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment Intended 
for Use with a Flammable Refrigerant;
--meet the standards in appendix C (80 percent of the refrigerant must 
be recovered if the compressor is not functioning; 90 percent of 
refrigerant must be recovered if the compressor is functioning);
--meet the requirements in a flammable refrigerant recovery standard 
from another organization like the International Organization for 
Standardization (ISO), AHRI, or ASHRAE, if available;
--use equipment that is certified for another refrigerant within the 
same pressure category; or
--recover flammable refrigerants, but without a standard or 
certification until standards are developed.
    Creating an appendix B4 that combines the requirements of appendix 
B3 with the requirements in Supplement SB of UL 1963 could be the most 
appropriate option. EPA would incorporate certain aspects of UL 1963 by 
reference and potentially modify the testing protocol in appendix B3 to 
account for flammability concerns during testing.
    When refrigerants are removed from the appliances, whether destined 
for reclamation or disposal, they must be managed properly. One of the 
first steps in proper management is to determine whether or not the 
refrigerants are a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA) and its corresponding regulations. It is the 
facility's responsibility to make this waste identification. Under the 
regulations, a facility may either test the waste or use knowledge to 
make this determination. If the material is determined to be a 
hazardous waste, then the facility is a hazardous waste generator and 
is subject to the generator regulations at 40 CFR part 261.5 or 40 CFR 
part 262, depending on the amount of hazardous waste generated in a 
month. For details on the Federal generator regulations, see http://www2.epa.gov/hwgenerators. Some spent alternative refrigerants such as 
HFC-32 most likely exhibit the hazardous waste characteristic of 
ignitability. This would also likely hold true for some exempt 
substitute refrigerants, like propane and isobutane.
    In the case of household appliances, repair and disposal of 
hydrocarbon refrigerant would not be considered hazardous waste 
management because the appliance is exempt under the household 
hazardous waste exemption at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1) (although States may 
have more stringent regulations). However, a facility must be careful 
not to mix the household hazardous waste with regulated hazardous waste 
in order for the household appliances to remain exempt.
    Certifying recovery and/or recycling equipment used with substitute 
refrigerants is important to further implementing section 608(c)(2) and 
608(a). In particular, the proposed revisions would make clear that 
proper use of certified equipment would be considered a good faith 
effort to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of non-exempt 
substitute refrigerants when maintaining, servicing, repairing, or 
disposing of an appliance, in order to comply with the prohibition on 
venting of substitute refrigerants. Part of making a good faith effort 
to recover such refrigerants involves using equipment that minimizes 
emissions of substitute refrigerants and prevents the mixture of 
substitute refrigerants and ODS refrigerants during the recovery and 
recycling process. It also involves using equipment that recovers 
refrigerant quickly enough that the recovery process can be completed 
in a reasonable amount of time from a given appliance. Certification of 
such equipment will help ensure that technicians use equipment that is 
suited to these goals.
    EPA requests comments on whether removing earlier appendices for 
older equipment and using the updated AHRI standards for newly 
certified recovery and/or recycling equipment is appropriate. EPA also 
requests comments on its proposal to require all recovery and/or 
recycling equipment used on appliances containing substitute 
refrigerants (with the potential exception of flammable refrigerants) 
to be certified by an independent third party and on the following 
questions: What equipment is currently being used on appliances 
containing substitutes? Would providing a uniform standard for recovery 
and/or recycling equipment be beneficial to product manufacturers or 
service technicians? Has mixing of ODS refrigerants and/or substitute 
refrigerants been a problem using the currently available equipment? 
Are there any recovery devices suitable for use with flammable non-
exempt refrigerants? Are there any other standards that EPA should 
considers before finalizing recovery standards (i.e., ISO, AHRI, 
ASHRAE)? EPA also seeks comment on what standards should be used for 
the recycling and/or recovery of flammable non-exempt refrigerants like 
HFC-32. Comments should address the safety and efficacy of the various 
standards and whether the standard would facilitate or deter the use of 
flammable refrigerants.
3. Clarifications and Edits for Readability
    EPA is proposing to reorganize Sec.  82.158 by appliance type. EPA 
is also proposing to combine tables 2 and 3. Table 2 contains the 
levels of evacuation that must be achieved by recovery and/or recycling 
equipment manufactured on or after November 15, 1993, and table 3 
contains levels for equipment manufactured before that date. The 
combined table removes inconsistencies in terminology and formatting.
    EPA is also proposing to re-write Sec.  82.158 for clarity the 
requirements for recovery equipment used on small appliances. In 
general, the requirement is that the equipment is capable of recovering 
90% of the refrigerant in the test stand when the compressor of the 
test stand is operational and 80% of the refrigerant when the 
compressor of the test stand is not operational. In addition, there are 
secondary considerations that could allow for the certification of 
recovery equipment based on when that equipment was manufactured or 
imported. EPA's intent was to remove redundancy and not to change the 
standards when modifying this section.
    EPA notes that the existing term is ``operating'' rather than 
``operational.'' EPA discusses this proposed change above in section 
IV.D above where it describes the proposed changes to the evacuation 
requirements for small appliances.
    EPA is also proposing to remove a provision stating that EPA will 
maintain a list of equipment certified under this section by 
manufacturer and model. EPA is proposing instead to require that the 
certified equipment testing organizations publish online a list of 
equipment that meets EPA requirements. This proposal is discussed in 
the next section of this notice.
4. Removing the Certification by Owners of Recovery and/or Recycling 
Equipment
    EPA currently requires under Sec.  82.162 that anyone who 
maintains, services, repairs, or disposes of appliances containing an 
ODS submit a signed statement to the appropriate EPA Regional office 
stating that they own

[[Page 69502]]

recovery and/or recycling equipment and are complying with the 
applicable requirements of subpart F. EPA is proposing to remove this 
requirement.
    EPA created this provision in 1993 when the Agency first required 
that recovery and/or recycling equipment be certified and that 
technicians use certified equipment. At the time, the use and 
availability of recovery and/or recycling equipment was not as 
commonplace as it is today. Equipment certification demonstrated to EPA 
that equipment was available for use by certified technicians. In 
particular EPA was interested in the capabilities of grandfathered, or 
pre-1993, equipment. Since certified recovery and/or recycling 
equipment is commonly available, EPA no longer needs the information 
contained in the certification statement such as the number of service 
trucks and personally identifiable information of equipment owners. EPA 
is therefore proposing to remove this certification requirement. EPA 
solicits comments on this proposed revision.

H. Proposed Changes for Equipment Testing Organizations in Section 
82.160

    EPA relies on independent third party organizations approved by the 
EPA Administrator to certify that refrigerant recovery and/or recycling 
equipment meets the standards in subpart F. Any equipment testing 
organization may apply for approval so long as they can verify that 
they have the expertise and technical capability to verify the 
performance of the recovery and/or recycling equipment and have no 
conflict of interest with the equipment manufacturers.
    EPA is proposing to make only a few substantive changes to these 
regulations. First and foremost, a certifying organization must have 
expertise to certify any new equipment affected by this proposed rule. 
Thus, an organization must be capable of certifying equipment that is 
used to recover or recycle HFCs and other substitute refrigerants. EPA 
is proposing to allow equipment certifying organizations that have 
already been approved by EPA to continue certifying equipment without 
need to re-apply. Organizations that are currently certified have 
sufficient expertise because the same expertise is needed to test 
equipment used on ODS and substitute refrigerants.
    EPA is also proposing changes that would reduce the reporting 
burden for these entities. EPA currently requires a list of all 
certified equipment to be submitted to EPA within 30 days of the 
organization's approval by EPA and annually at the end of each calendar 
year thereafter. EPA is proposing to remove those requirements. EPA is 
proposing instead to require that the certified equipment testing 
organizations publish online a list of equipment that meets EPA 
requirements. This list would include the manufacturer and the name 
and/or serial number of a newly certified model line, which is the 
information that the certifying organizations must currently provide to 
EPA. This list must be updated no less than once per year, but an 
organization can choose to update the list more frequently. Making the 
information available online will be no more burdensome for the testing 
organization than submitting the list to EPA. Online publication is 
also a better method of communicating these findings to the public than 
sending the information to EPA.
    EPA is also encouraging the use of electronic reporting and has 
established the email address 608reports@epa.gov to receive 
applications from organizations seeking to be approved under this 
section and notifications that a previously certified model fails to 
meet the standards upon retesting. EPA is also proposing to remove 
language in the regulation stating that applications must include 
written information.
    EPA requests comments on its proposal not to require equipment 
certification companies to reapply for approval so as to be able to 
certify equipment used with substitute refrigerants. EPA also requests 
comments on the proposal to remove the existing reporting requirements 
and instead require that certifying organizations publish lists of 
certified equipment online.

I. Proposed Changes to the Technician Certification Requirements in 
Section 82.161

1. Background
    The regulations at Sec.  82.161 currently require the certification 
of all individuals who service air-conditioning and refrigeration 
equipment containing an ODS, other than MVACs, which are addressed 
separately. This group includes installers, contractor employees, in-
house service personnel, and anyone else who performs installation, 
service, maintenance, or repair that might reasonably have the 
opportunity to release ODS refrigerants to the environment. In 
addition, individuals disposing of air-conditioning and refrigeration 
equipment other than small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances 
must be certified.
    Technicians become certified by passing a test containing questions 
drawn from a bank developed jointly by EPA and industry educational 
organizations with a certification program approved by EPA. The test 
includes questions on the role of CFCs and HCFCs in ozone depletion, 
the requirements of the refrigerant recycling rule, and proper 
techniques for recycling and conserving refrigerant. EPA makes the 
question bank available to certifying organizations that demonstrate 
that they can properly generate, track, and grade tests; issue 
certificates; and keep records.
2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants
    EPA is proposing to extend the certification requirements for 
technicians who work with ODS refrigerants to technicians who work with 
non-exempt substitute refrigerants. Requiring certification of 
technicians who work with non-exempt substitute refrigerants is 
important to effectively implement and enforce both section 608(c) and 
section 608(a)(2).
    As discussed above, section 608(c) prohibits the knowing release of 
substitute refrigerants during the service, maintenance, repair, or 
disposal of appliances, except for de minimis releases associated with 
``good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose'' of 
the refrigerants. Acts performed by an individual who has become a 
certified technician that comply with the applicable regulatory 
requirements would be defined as ``good faith attempts to recapture and 
recycle or safely dispose'' and thus any associated releases would 
qualify as de minimis. This interpretation is consistent with EPA's 
interpretation of the same statutory language as it applies to ozone-
depleting refrigerants.
    The technician certification program is one of the key elements in 
ensuring the proper recapture and recycling of refrigerant. As stated 
in the 1993 Rule establishing the program, a technician certification 
program increases the probability that technicians receive adequate 
training concerning the requirements of subpart F and the proper 
operation of recycling equipment, leading to reduced emissions through 
increased regulatory compliance. Certification does not prevent the 
violation of the venting prohibition, but it improves the likelihood of 
compliance through greater awareness. Certification also enhances EPA's 
ability to enforce against intentional noncompliance by allowing the 
Agency to revoke the technician's certification under the procedure in 
Sec.  82.169. Finally,

[[Page 69503]]

certification increases fairness by seeking to ensure that all 
technicians are complying with the provisions of subpart F.
    Persons who are not certified technicians are far more likely to 
intentionally or inadvertently release refrigerant. Certified 
technicians are much more likely to understand how and why to recover 
and recycle refrigerants and to have the proper equipment to do so. 
Technician certification helps ensure that technicians are 
knowledgeable in refrigerant recovery requirements and techniques. The 
existing regulations do not specifically prohibit an untrained 
individual from opening an air conditioner containing a substitute 
refrigerant to add a substitute refrigerant (or potentially even an ODS 
refrigerant, assuming a certified technician purchased the ODS 
refrigerant) or replace components. While the venting prohibition still 
applies, the individual may not even be aware that there is a 
prohibition against venting refrigerant. Tips reported to the Agency 
indicate this occurs. Requiring that anyone opening an appliance be a 
certified technician will reduce emissions caused by uninformed service 
personnel and will facilitate enforcement of the venting prohibition, 
especially when coupled with the proposed recordkeeping requirement 
discussed in section IV.D.3 of this notice.
    Based on stakeholder input prior to this proposal, EPA is aware 
that many companies require certification of their technicians 
regardless of the type of refrigerant being used. The principles of 
proper handling, recovery, and disposal of non-exempt substitute 
refrigerants are similar if not identical to those for ODS 
refrigerants, except that additional safeguards are advisable for 
flammable refrigerants. The fact that some individuals may be working 
on non-ODS appliances without certification and without following safe 
handling practices places those most likely to minimize emissions at a 
disadvantage. One goal of this rulemaking is to incentivize the proper 
practices or at least remove disincentives to compliance and to 
environmental protection. EPA is therefore proposing to require 
certification for anyone working on an appliance where there is a 
reasonable expectation that an ODS or non-exempt substitute refrigerant 
will be released into the environment in the course of that work.
    The mechanism by which EPA is extending the technician 
certification requirement to appliances containing non-exempt 
substitute refrigerants is through the amended definition of the terms 
refrigerant and appliance. As discussed in the definition section, EPA 
is proposing to update the term appliance to include substitutes in 
addition to class I and class II substances. EPA is not proposing any 
changes to the regulatory text in Sec.  82.161 to effectuate this 
proposal.
    EPA notes that this proposal would not extend the technician 
certification requirement to individuals servicing or disposing of 
appliances containing refrigerants that are exempt from the venting 
prohibition. However, expanding the certification program to cover 
those working on equipment containing non-exempt substitutes could 
decrease the likelihood of untrained technicians working with equipment 
containing any type of refrigerant, including hydrocarbons. Therefore, 
individuals would not need to be certified under section 608 of the CAA 
to work on hydrocarbons in those specific end-uses and appliances 
approved under SNAP. EPA discusses whether the agency should initiate a 
rulemaking in future to require certification of technicians using 
exempt substitutes in Section VI of this preamble.
    Consistent with the discussion in Section III above, requiring 
certification for technicians who work with substitute refrigerants is 
also necessary to implement the section 608(a) requirements for EPA to 
promulgate regulations that reduce emissions of class I and II 
refrigerants to the lowest achievable levels and maximize recapture and 
recycling of such substances. Technician certification requirements for 
handling substitute refrigerants would directly reduce some releases of 
class I and II refrigerants. It would also protect against refrigerant 
mixture, which otherwise is likely to cause additional releases of 
class I and II refrigerants.
    Failure to require technician certification may lead to increased 
emissions and reduced recycling of ozone-depleting substances, 
especially if the person who is violating the refrigerant circuit is 
not aware of refrigerant recovery requirements and best practices. 
Uncertified technicians working primarily with HFCs or other 
substitutes may overlook the restrictions on their ability to work with 
ozone-depleting refrigerants. Because of the absence of a certification 
requirement for substitute refrigerants they might be unaware of the 
existence or scope of the restrictions. Thus, they might fail to 
recover or recycle class I and class II refrigerants properly, if at 
all.
    Uncertified technicians are currently able to purchase HFC and 
other substitute refrigerants which they could end up using to retrofit 
appliances containing ozone-depleting substances. Such uncertified 
technicians may be more likely to vent the ozone-depleting substance 
prior to retrofitting, given their probable lack of knowledge and the 
fact that return of the substance to a reclaimer would reveal that they 
were handling it illegally. Failure to require technician certification 
to work with substitute refrigerants is also likely to encourage the 
inappropriate mixture of substitute and ozone-depleting refrigerants. 
In this scenario, refrigerant mixture could occur because uncertified 
technicians might wish to service CFC or HCFC equipment, but would have 
access only to HFCs due to the sales restriction on ODS refrigerants. 
Lacking proper education or knowledge, these technicians would probably 
have a poor understanding of the consequences of mixing refrigerants, 
and would therefore be more likely than certified technicians to add 
HFCs to CFC or HCFC systems.
    The consequences of such inappropriate mixture include significant 
losses in performance and energy efficiency in equipment serviced with 
mixed refrigerants, damage to equipment, the lost value of the mixed 
refrigerant (which is at best difficult, and often impossible, to 
separate into the component refrigerants), and costs for destroying 
mixed refrigerants. Refrigerant mixture also leads both directly and 
indirectly to refrigerant release. Mixture leads directly to release 
because mixtures of certain refrigerants, such as R-22 and R-134a, have 
higher pressures than either component alone. Thus, pressure-sensitive 
components such as air purge devices on recycling machines and relief 
devices on appliances may be activated by these mixtures, venting the 
refrigerant to the atmosphere. Purge devices in particular are often 
set to open when the pressure of the recovery cylinder's contents rises 
more than 5-10 psi above the expected saturation pressure for the 
refrigerant; this margin is exceeded by R-22/R-134a mixtures containing 
more than ten percent of the contaminating refrigerant.
    Refrigerant mixture also reduces recycling and leads indirectly to 
release. First, mixed refrigerants not only lose their value but cost 
money to reclaim or destroy, which could provide a financial incentive 
for illegal venting. Second, the direct releases and equipment 
breakdowns caused by contamination lead to increased equipment 
servicing, which itself leads to unavoidable releases of refrigerant. 
Thus, failure to impose a certification requirement on persons working 
with substitute refrigerants would increase the

[[Page 69504]]

probability of both substitute and ozone-depleting refrigerants being 
emitted to the atmosphere.
    For these reasons, EPA is proposing a technician certification 
requirement for persons working with non-exempt substitutes in order to 
further implement sections 608(a) and 608(c), using the authority under 
these sections. EPA requests comments on the likelihood that failure to 
impose a technician certification requirement on persons working with 
HFCs and other substitutes would lead to release and mixture of both 
ozone-depleting refrigerants and substitutes.
3. Updated Test Bank
    EPA is planning to update the technician certification test bank 
with more questions on handling substitutes, including flammable 
substitute refrigerants, and on the impacts of climate change. While 
this is not a regulatory change--the Agency can update the test bank 
when appropriate without promulgating a new regulation--it aligns with 
EPA's proposal to extend the refrigerant management regulations to 
substitute refrigerants. Currently, the questions focus on CFCs and 
HCFCs, even though CFCs have been phased out for nearly twenty years 
and the predominant HCFC, HCFC-22, will be phased out by 2020.
    EPA has begun reviewing the test bank and consulting with 
certification and training organizations to identify questions that 
should be updated, replaced, or removed, with an eye toward questions 
on the proper handling and recovery of HFCs and other substitute 
refrigerants. The updated test bank will incorporate new and revised 
elements of the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program that 
are being proposed in this action, once finalized. For this reason, EPA 
is waiting to update the test bank until after this rule is finalized.
    EPA intends to use a similar process to the one used when initially 
creating the test bank. EPA will work with industry and trade 
associations to develop and evaluate new questions as well as remove or 
update questions that may be out of date. EPA invites participation 
from the regulated community in this process.

J. Proposed Changes to the Technician Certification Program 
Requirements in Section 82.161

1. Background
    The current regulations at Sec.  82.161 require that organizations 
operating technician certification programs must apply to EPA to have 
their programs approved. The application process ensures that 
technician certification programs meet minimum standards for 
generating, tracking, and grading tests as well as keeping records. 
Approved technician certification programs must keep records of the 
names of technicians they have certified and the unique numbers 
assigned to each technician certified through their programs. These 
records allow both the Agency and the certification program to verify 
certification claims and to monitor the certification process. Approved 
technician certification programs also must submit reports to EPA every 
six months containing the pass/fail rate and testing schedules. Such 
reports allow the Agency to evaluate certification programs and modify 
certification requirements if necessary.
2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants
    EPA is proposing to require that technicians who work with non-
exempt substitute refrigerants be certified. By extension, EPA is 
proposing to require that technician certification programs offer tests 
for those technicians. This should not require significant changes to 
current practices other than using the updated test bank and the 
changes discussed below. EPA is not proposing as a lead option to 
require certification programs to recertify based on this or any other 
proposed changes in this rule, but seeks comments on whether such 
recertification requirements would be appropriate.
3. Technician Database
    In developing this proposed rule, EPA asked technician 
certification programs whether the Agency should establish a national 
database of certified technicians. EPA considered creating a database 
to reduce the burden currently facing the Agency and technician 
certification programs in assisting technicians who have lost their 
certification cards. EPA receives on average five inquiries a day from 
technicians who are seeking a copy of their card. EPA does not maintain 
records of who has been certified; this is currently the responsibility 
of the certification programs. EPA can only direct technicians to a 
list of the approved certification programs on the Agency's Web site, 
but in some cases the technician does not remember the name of the 
program that issued their card. EPA is aware that many certification 
programs also get numerous inquiries from technicians.
    Establishing a publicly searchable database would help technicians 
find replacement certification cards. Certification programs themselves 
are generally better suited to maintain such information. Currently, 
certification programs must maintain records of the names and addresses 
of all individuals taking the tests, as well as the scores, dates, and 
locations of all administered tests. A publicly-available database that 
contains components of these records should be sufficient for a 
technician to locate themselves. EPA is proposing that this database, 
which could be as simple as a list, contain the first name, middle 
initial, and last name of the certified technician, the technician's 
city of residence when taking the test, the type(s) of certification 
received, and the date each certification test was completed. EPA is 
proposing to exempt Federal government-run programs from this 
requirement because the public release of government and military 
personnel names linking them to their Federal employment could present 
significant privacy and security concerns, especially for military and 
other government personnel who may be based, deployed, or traveling to 
hostile regions throughout the world.
    Because this database is primarily for the benefit of the 
technician, EPA is offering the option for the technician to opt out. 
The technician certification program must therefore provide notice to 
technicians that they will be included in that database and give 
technicians the ability to opt out. EPA seeks comment on whether 
technicians should be allowed to opt out.
    EPA is not proposing to require that certification programs list 
everyone currently in their records. While this may assist current 
technicians who have lost their cards, listing the hundreds of 
thousands of technicians certified over the last twenty-two years could 
be overly burdensome. This would also not provide technicians with the 
opportunity to opt out. Therefore, EPA is proposing that the 
certification programs only be required to include technicians 
certified after the effective date of a rule finalizing this proposal. 
EPA would encourage certification programs to work with technicians 
they have previously certified to see if they could be added to an 
online database or list.
    EPA is not proposing to require any specific format for providing 
this database or list. EPA is aware that some certifying organizations 
already provide this information online to their technicians and the 
Agency does not intend to require that they change how they offer the 
information so long as the required data elements are included.
    An online database or list of certified technicians can also assist 
refrigerant

[[Page 69505]]

wholesalers to enforce the sales restriction. For example, if a vendor 
has any doubt about a new customer, they could confirm that the 
technician is certified by comparing the customer's ID with the 
information online. The online information can also be printed and 
maintained as a record by the vendor.
    EPA invites comments on the proposal to require certifying 
organizations to publish and maintain an online searchable database or 
list of technicians they certify going forward. EPA requests comments 
on whether such databases could be useful to technicians and 
refrigerant wholesalers while allowing for preservation of technicians' 
privacy as afforded by the Privacy Act. EPA also seeks comment on 
whether it should allow technicians to opt out of being included on a 
public list.
4. Grandfathering Provisions
    EPA is proposing to remove provisions related to voluntary 
certification programs at Sec.  82.161(g). This program was created to 
allow technicians who were trained prior to the establishment of 
approved technician certification programs to be recognized as 
certified technicians. In order to have their voluntary programs 
considered for approval, applications both for approval as a technician 
certification program and for approval as a voluntary program were due 
in 1994. EPA is proposing to remove this provision because it is 
expired and no longer necessary.
5. Certification Cards
    EPA is proposing to change the required text that is printed on 
certification cards. Currently, the card states that ``[Name of person] 
has been certified as a [Type I, Type II, Type III, and/or Universal, 
as appropriate] technician as required by 40 CFR part 82, subpart F.'' 
Some organizations believe that the language used on the certification 
card implies that a technician as defined in subpart F may be trained 
in other aspects of equipment installation.
    The primary purpose of the 608 certification card is for a 
technician to prove to a vendor that they understand the environmental 
impacts of mishandling refrigerants. While this certification also 
grants an individual the right to maintain, service, repair, or dispose 
of appliances, the 608 exam is less focused on the operational and 
engineering aspects of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment.
    EPA is proposing to amend the language found on the certification 
card to more accurately reflect the knowledge needed to obtain the 
certification. Therefore, EPA is proposing that the card read ``[Name 
of person] has successfully passed a [Type I, Type II, Type III, and/or 
Universal, as appropriate] exam on how to responsibly handle 
refrigerants as required by EPA's National Recycling and Emission 
Reduction Program.'' EPA stated in the 1993 Rule establishing the 
Technician Certification requirements that standardized language will 
decrease administrative costs and aid in enforcement. In addition it 
would ease burden on refrigerant wholesalers who must inspect the cards 
to verify the certification of technicians. Updating the information on 
the certification card should not result in any new administrative 
costs or generate confusion.
    The requirements for certification cards appears in both Sec.  
82.161 and appendix D. EPA is proposing to remove the redundant 
requirement from Sec.  82.161 and make the updates proposed in this 
section to appendix D, as descried in more detail below.
6. Updates to Appendix D
    EPA is proposing minor edits to appendix D ``Standards for Becoming 
a Certifying Program for Technicians.'' EPA is proposing that the 
description of test contents includes the environmental impact of not 
just ODS but also substitute refrigerants. EPA is also proposing to 
remove outdated, redundant, or self-explanatory provisions. This 
includes removing paragraphs (i) through (k) on approval process, 
grandfathering, and sample application. EPA is proposing to remove the 
reference that EPA will periodically publish information on the fees 
charged by the programs as the Agency no longer collects this 
information. To protect the private information of technicians and 
minimize the potential for fraud, EPA is also proposing to remove 
social security numbers as an acceptable form of identification for 
Type I technicians using the mail-in format and state that social 
security numbers cannot be used in the unique certification number 
assigned to newly-certified technicians. EPA is also proposing 
clarifying changes and other small changes, including changing the 
reporting deadline from June 30 of each year to July 30 of each year.
    Finally, to help technicians better identify who certified them, 
EPA is also proposing to require that certifying organizations provide 
a hand-out or electronic communication to technicians after they have 
taken the test explaining who provided the training, who to contact 
with questions, and when they should expect to receive their score, and 
if they passed, their certification cards. EPA requests comments on the 
proposed revisions to appendix D.
7. Edits To Improve Readability
    EPA is proposing to make minor edits to improve the readability of 
this section. Notably, EPA is proposing to divide the requirements into 
two sections. The first would be provisions related to responsibilities 
of technicians and the second would be provisions related to technician 
certification programs. It is not EPA's intent to place new 
requirements on either party through this reorganization of content.
    EPA also considered proposing to incorporate the provisions of 
appendix D into Sec.  82.161 itself and removing appendix D in its 
entirety but is not proposing to do so at this time. EPA invites 
comments on the revised language.

K. Proposed Changes to the Reclamation Requirements in Section 82.164

1. Background
    The regulations at Sec.  82.164 currently require that anyone 
reclaiming used ODS refrigerant for sale to a new owner, except for 
people properly certified under subpart F prior to May 11, 2004, is 
required to reprocess refrigerant to standards laid out in appendix A 
(based on ARI Standard 700-1995, Specification for Fluorocarbons and 
Other Refrigerants), release no more than 1.5 percent of the 
refrigerant during the reclamation process, dispose of wastes from the 
reclamation process in accordance with all applicable laws and 
regulations, and adhere to specific recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements.
2. Extension to Additional Substitute Refrigerants
    EPA is proposing to extend the reclamation standards for 
refrigerants in appendix A to additional non-ozone-depleting 
substitutes. Most of the refrigerants addressed in appendix A are 
single component ODS refrigerants or a blend containing an ODS 
component, with a few exceptions such as R-407C and R-410A. It is 
appropriate to update this 1995 standard to ensure that refrigerants 
developed in the last twenty years are reclaimed properly. While 
standards have been developed for these new refrigerants, reclaimers 
may not have to achieve such standards without that standard being 
incorporated into the subpart F regulations.
    In a recent proposed rule to issue allowances for the production 
and

[[Page 69506]]

import of HCFCs, EPA sought comments on referencing AHRI Standard 700-
2012 Specification for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants directly, a practice 
known as incorporation by reference, rather than reproducing the 
standard in appendix A (78 FR 78095; December 24, 2013). EPA noted at 
the time that incorporation by reference, and deletion of the text in 
appendix A, has several advantages. AHRI standards are published, 
widely known to and used by the persons affected by this regulation, 
and available free of charge online at www.ahrinet.org/standards.aspx. 
Referencing the AHRI standard, in lieu of duplicating it in appendix A, 
would reduce potential confusion about the relationship between the two 
sets of requirements. On the other hand, EPA recognizes that there is 
an advantage to including the requirements of the standard in an 
appendix to the regulation, avoiding the need to search for the 
specific version of the AHRI standard referenced, and providing 
certainty that compliance with appendix A (although possibly outdated) 
constitutes compliance with EPA regulations.
    In response to EPA's proposal, five commenters supported using the 
updated testing procedures and protocols, while six commented that the 
newer halogenated unsaturated volatile impurities limit of 40 ppm by 
weight (0.004% by wt), as compared to the previous limit of 0.5% by 
weight, created undue expense and difficulty for reclaimers to achieve. 
Those commenters noted that ASHRAE and AHRI were still conducting 
further studies on the unsaturates limit. In the final rule issuing 
HCFC allowances, EPA did not incorporate AHRI 700-2012 by reference, 
noting concerns about the unsaturates limit and the ongoing unsaturates 
study (79 FR 64281; October 28, 2014).
    At this time, recognizing that the unsaturates study has not been 
finalized, EPA is proposing to update appendix A to include HFCs, PFCs, 
HFOs, and other refrigerants based on the standards contained in AHRI 
Standard 700-2015, Specifications for Refrigerants, while keeping the 
unsaturates limit to be 0.5% by weight. If the unsaturates study is 
published before this final rule is issued, EPA would consider 
incorporating the full standard by reference.
    EPA seeks comments on whether the updated standard, AHRI Standard 
700-2015 Specifications for Refrigerants, along with Appendix C to 
AHRI-700 2015, should be directly incorporated by reference, or whether 
appendix A should be updated to include HFCs, PFCs, HFOs, and other 
refrigerants based on the 2015 version of the AHRI 700 standard, 
including the appendix. EPA also seeks comment on whether the agency 
needs to keep section 5.3.2 titled ``Alternative Method'' in Appendix A 
to subpart F.
3. Changes to Recordkeeping and Reporting
    Under the current regulations at Sec.  82.164(b), reclaimers must 
certify that the refrigerant reclaimed meets the specifications in AHRI 
Standard 700-1995 using the analytical methodology prescribed in 
appendix A. In addition to updating the standard to AHRI Standard 700-
2015, EPA is proposing to clarify that the analysis must be conducted 
on each batch of refrigerant being reclaimed. EPA is also proposing to 
require that reclaimers maintain records of these analyses. Requiring 
reclaimers to maintain records helps to ensure that refrigerant is 
being reclaimed to the appropriate specifications. Reclaimers currently 
analyze by batch, and already generate records when doing so, so these 
proposed changes update the regulations to reflect current practices 
and clarify the existing requirements for ODS, and do not add 
additional burden.
    EPA is also proposing to specify that all recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements for reclaimers be maintained by refrigerant type 
(i.e. ASHRAE number), as information kept in this format will provide 
more clarity on the types and quantities of refrigerants being 
reclaimed when aggregated information is reported. EPA is also 
clarifying what aggregate information must be reported annually to the 
Agency, and removing a redundant recordkeeping provision related to 
that report.
    EPA requests comments on these proposed changes to the 
recordkeeping and reporting provisions.
4. Clarifications and Edits for Readability
    EPA is proposing to consolidate provisions related to refrigerant 
reclaimers into a single section. Specifically, EPA is proposing to 
move prohibitions found in Sec.  82.154(i) and recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements found in Sec.  82.166(g) and (h) into Sec.  
82.164. This proposal also clarifies what is required of the reclaimer. 
The current regulation requires a reclaimer to certify that he or she 
will meet a certain set of standards and engage in certain behaviors. 
The revised regulation requires first that a reclaimer meet those 
standards and behaviors and second that they certify to having done so. 
EPA is making this change to improve the enforceability of these 
provisions. None of these underlying requirements themselves would 
change, other than the updated AHRI standard and that the clarification 
that the analysis be conducted on each batch of refrigerant, as 
discussed above.

L. Proposed Changes to the Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements in 
Section 82.166

1. Background
    The current regulations include all recordkeeping and reporting 
provisions in one section of subpart F (Sec.  82.166). While having all 
the provisions in one place is useful, the individual pieces are 
separated from the required practices that the records/reports are 
intended to help enforce. This can create confusion for the regulated 
community when they are trying to understand what they must do and what 
records they must keep to remain in compliance with the section 608 
requirements. This is especially true when a recordkeeping or reporting 
provision directly references a requirement in another section of 
subpart F. To improve the readability and clarity of the recordkeeping 
and reporting provisions, EPA is proposing to move the requirements 
that are currently in Sec.  82.166 to the relevant section describing 
the required practices. For example, EPA is proposing to move the 
amended recordkeeping and reporting requirements for Appliance 
Maintenance and Leak Repair to the section where those required 
practices are listed, specifically Sec.  82.157. This should allow the 
regulated community to more easily align the required practices with 
their recordkeeping/reporting obligations without having to reference 
requirements in other sections. EPA summarizes the amended 
recordkeeping and reporting provisions below. EPA is also proposing a 
new recordkeeping and reporting requirement for anyone disposing of 
appliances with between five and 50 pounds of refrigerant.
2. Summary of Recordkeeping Provisions
    EPA has developed numerous recordkeeping requirements to document 
compliance with the section 608 regulations. A summary of the proposed 
requirements is included below. Please refer to other sections of this 
notice to read about the proposed changes to the existing requirements. 
All of the proposed requirements would apply to all refrigerants unless 
the refrigerant is exempt from the venting prohibition. Unless 
otherwise noted, all

[[Page 69507]]

records must be maintained for at least three years.
     Disposal of Small Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like 
Appliances: Persons who take the final step in the disposal process of 
such appliances must keep a copy of all the signed statements 
indicating refrigerant was recovered properly. This statement must 
include the name and address of the person who recovered the 
refrigerant and the date the refrigerant was recovered. Alternatively, 
the statement may be a signed contract stating that the supplier will 
recover any remaining refrigerant from the appliance prior to delivery.
     Disposal of Appliances Containing Five to 50 Pounds of 
Refrigerant: Persons evacuating refrigerant from appliances normally 
containing five to 50 pounds of refrigerant for purposes of disposal of 
that appliance must maintain records documenting their company name, 
location of the equipment, date of recovery, amount and type of 
refrigerant recovered for each appliance and the quantity and type of 
refrigerant transferred for reclamation and/or destruction.
     Leak Inspection: Owners or operators of appliances 
normally containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant must maintain 
documentation from quarterly or annual leak inspections that includes 
the date of inspection and the component(s) where leaks were 
discovered. Alternatively, owners or operators may install an automatic 
leak detection system and maintain records showing that the system is 
calibrated annually.
     Extension Requests to the Periodic Leak Inspection 
Requirement: Owners or operators of federally-owned appliances 
containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant must maintain copies of 
extension requests submitted to EPA to conduct leak inspections less 
frequently until three years after the less frequent leak inspection 
schedule is no longer being followed.
     Full Charge: Owners or operators of appliances normally 
containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant must maintain records 
documenting what the full charge amount is for appliances with 50 or 
more pounds of refrigerant. The record for the current full charge must 
be maintained until three years after the appliance is retired.
     Service Records Provided by Technicians: Persons adding or 
removing refrigerant from an appliance normally containing 50 or more 
pounds of refrigerant must provide the owner or operator with 
documentation containing the identity and location of the appliance; 
the date and type of maintenance, service, repair, or disposal 
performed; the name of the person performing the maintenance, service, 
repair or disposal; the amount and type of refrigerant added to or 
removed from the appliance; the full charge of the appliance; and the 
leak rate and the method used to determine the leak rate (unless 
disposing of the appliance).
     Service Records Maintained by Owners and Operators: The 
appliance owner or operator must maintain service records provided by 
technicians and the identification of the owner or operator of the 
appliance; the full charge of the appliance and the method for how full 
charge was determined; the original range for the full charge of the 
appliance, its midpoint, and how the range was determined (if using 
method 4, as described in Sec.  82.152, for determining full charge); 
any revisions of the full charge and how they were determined; and the 
dates such revisions occurred.
     Verification Tests: Owners or operators of appliances 
normally containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant must maintain 
records of the dates, types, and results of all initial and follow-up 
verification tests. Under this proposed rule, this would apply to all 
types of equipment, not just IPR.
     Retrofit/Retirement Plans: Owners or operators of 
appliances normally containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant that 
cannot be repaired must maintain retrofit or retirement plans. The plan 
must, at a minimum, contain the following information: Identification 
and location of the appliance; type and full charge of the refrigerant 
used; type and full charge of the refrigerant to which the appliance 
will be converted, if retrofitted; itemized procedure for converting 
the appliance to a different refrigerant, including changes required 
for compatibility with the new substitute, if retrofitted; plan for the 
disposition of recovered refrigerant; plan for the disposition of the 
appliance, if retired; and one-year schedule for completion of the 
appliance retrofit or retirement.
     Extension Requests to Repair or Retrofit/Retire 
Appliances: Owners or operators of appliances normally containing 50 or 
more pounds of refrigerant must maintain copies of extension requests.
     Mothballing: Owners or operators of appliances normally 
containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant that mothball an appliance 
must keep records documenting when the system was mothballed and when 
they add refrigerant back into the appliance.
     Purged Refrigerant: Owners or operators of appliances 
normally containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant that exclude 
purged refrigerant that are destroyed from their leak rate calculation 
must maintain records to demonstrate that a 98 percent or greater 
destruction efficiency is met. At a minimum this includes flow rate, 
quantity or concentration of the refrigerant in the vent stream, and 
periods of purge flow.
     Lists of Certified Recovery Equipment and Testing Results: 
Organizations that are approved to certify refrigerant recovery and/or 
recycling equipment must maintain records of equipment testing and 
performance and a list of equipment that meets EPA requirements. These 
records must be maintained for three years after the equipment is no 
longer offered for sale.
     Proof of Certification for Technicians: Technicians who 
have passed the section 608 Type I, II, III or Universal test, must 
keep a copy of their certification at their place of business. These 
records must be maintained for three years after a certified individual 
no longer operates as a technician.
     Sales Restriction: Anyone selling ODS or substitute 
refrigerant must document the name of the purchaser, the date of sale, 
and the quantity of refrigerant purchased. In instances where the buyer 
employs a certified technician, the seller must keep the information 
provided by the buyer that at least one technician is properly 
certified. Copies of technician certifications must be maintained for 
at least three years after a technician or person employing a 
technician stops purchasing refrigerant.
     Small Cans of Refrigerant for MVAC Servicing: Anyone 
manufacturing small cans of refrigerant with a self-sealing valve must 
maintain records verifying that the self-sealing valves do not leak 
more than 3.00 grams per year when the self-sealing valve is closed as 
required in the newly-proposed Appendix E to subpart F. Records must be 
maintained for three years after a certified product is no longer 
offered for sale.
     Technician Certification Programs: Organizations that 
certify technicians must maintain records of who they certify, the 
scores of all certification tests administered, and the dates and 
locations of all tests administered. These records must be maintained 
as long as they are in operation, not just for three years.
     Reclaimers: Reclaimers must maintain records of the 
analyses conducted to verify that reclaimed refrigerant meets the 
necessary specifications. On a transactional basis, reclaimers must 
maintain records of the

[[Page 69508]]

names and addresses of persons sending them material for reclamation 
and the quantity of the material (the combined mass of refrigerant and 
contaminants) by refrigerant type sent to them for reclamation.
    EPA requests comments on the clarity and necessity of these 
recordkeeping provisions to ensure compliance with the section 608 
regulatory requirements.
4. Summary of Reporting Provisions
    EPA has also proposed several reporting provisions. Reporting is an 
important component of the National Recycling and Emission Reduction 
Program and allows EPA to track compliance with the requirements. In 
this action, EPA has attempted to propose reporting requirements only 
when necessary to avoid significantly increasing burden on the 
regulated community. A summary of the proposed reporting requirements 
is included below. All of these reporting requirements are new for non-
exempt substitute equipment. However, all of the proposed requirements 
are similar to those that exist currently for ODS equipment. 
Additionally, EPA has proposed to remove the requirement (1) for 
technicians to certify to the Administrator that they own certified 
refrigerant recovery equipment and (2) for programs certifying recovery 
and/or recycling equipment to report to EPA annually on the equipment 
they approve. Both of these requirements are no longer needed. Unless 
the information is claimed as confidential business information or as 
otherwise noted, all notifications must be submitted electronically to 
608reports@epa.gov. Electronic submission of reports should decrease 
burden on both EPA and the regulated community.
     Extensions to the 30-day or 120-day Leak Repair 
Requirement: Owners or operators of appliances normally containing 50 
or more pounds of refrigerant must notify EPA when seeking an extension 
of time to complete repairs. The request must include the following 
information: Identification and address of the facility; the name of 
the owner or operator of the appliance; the leak rate; the method used 
to determine the leak rate and full charge; the date a leak rate above 
the applicable leak rate was discovered; the location of leak(s) to the 
extent determined to date; any repair work that has been performed thus 
far, including the date that work was completed; the reasons why more 
time is needed to complete the repair; and an estimate of when the work 
will be completed.
     Extensions to Retrofit or Retire Appliances: Owners or 
operators of appliances normally containing 50 or more pounds of 
refrigerant must notify EPA when seeking an extension of time to 
complete a retrofit or retirement.
     Purged Refrigerant: Owners or operators of appliances 
normally containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant that exclude 
purged refrigerant that are destroyed from their leak rate calculation 
must provide a one-time report to EPA that includes the identification 
of the facility and a contact person; a description of the appliance; a 
description of the methods used to determine the quantity of 
refrigerant sent for destruction and type of records that are being 
kept; the frequency of monitoring and data-recording; and a description 
of the control device, and its destruction efficiency.
     Extensions to the Periodic Leak Inspection Requirement: 
Owners or operators of federally-owned appliances containing 50 or more 
pounds of refrigerant must submit a request to EPA if they wish to 
conduct leak inspections less frequently than quarterly or annually 
(depending on the full charge and type of appliance). The extension 
request must show that the appliance has a minimal history of leakage, 
and is remotely located or is otherwise difficult to access for routine 
maintenance. Additionally, the extension request should explain why 
automatic leak detection equipment could not be used and what leak 
inspection schedule would be reasonable given the circumstances (not to 
be less frequent than one inspection every three years).
     Requesting Approval to Certify Recovery/Recycling 
Equipment: Any organization wishing to certify refrigerant recovery 
and/or recycling equipment must submit an application to EPA. 
Applications must include information on the facilities used, the 
qualifications, experience and procedures used to perform 
certifications, and that there are no conflicts of interest in 
certifying equipment.
     Previously-certified Recovery/Recycling Equipment: 
Organizations that are approved to certify refrigerant recovery and/or 
recycling equipment must inform EPA if subsequent tests indicate a 
previously-certified recovery and/or recycling device does not meet EPA 
requirements.
     Technician Certification Programs: Any organizations 
wishing to certify technicians under section 608 must submit an 
application to EPA describing how they will meet all the required 
standards in appendix D. Organizations that certify technicians must 
publish online lists/databases of the people that they certify. 
Organizations must report to EPA twice a year the pass/fail rate and 
testing schedules. If a previously-approved technician certifying 
organization stops certifying technicians for any reason, they must 
ensure those records are transferred to another certifying program or 
EPA. Organizations that receive records from a program that no longer 
offers the certification test must inform EPA within 30 days of 
receiving these records. The notification must include the name and 
address of the program to which the records have been transferred.
     Reclaimer Certification: Any organization that wishes to 
reclaim refrigerants must certify to EPA that they will reclaim 
refrigerants to the required purity standards (based on AHRI Standard 
700-2015), verify each batch of refrigerant they sell meets those 
standards, not release more than 1.5 percent of the refrigerant they 
receive during the reclamation process, dispose of wastes from the 
reclamation process in accordance with all applicable laws and 
regulations, and maintain records as required.
     Reclaimer Change of Business Information, Location or 
Contact Information: If a reclaimer changes address or management, they 
must notify EPA within 30 days. Since reclaimer certification is not 
transferable, if ownership changes, the new owner must certify to EPA 
that they will meet the reclaimer certification requirements.
     Amounts Reclaimed: Reclaimers must report annually the 
aggregate quantity of material sent to them for reclamation (the 
combined mass of refrigerant and contaminants) by refrigerant type, the 
mass of each refrigerant reclaimed, and the mass of waste products.
    EPA seeks comments on the clarity and necessity of these reporting 
requirements to ensure compliance with the section 608 regulatory 
requirements.

M. Proposed Effective and Compliance Dates

    EPA is proposing that the final rule become effective on January 1, 
2017. However, EPA recognizes that for certain requirements, 
stakeholders will likely need additional time to comply. The below 
paragraphs describe the requirements for which EPA is proposing a 
delayed compliance date and the specific time periods EPA is 
considering. In addition to those compliance dates discussed below, EPA 
seeks comments on whether other portions of the revised regulations

[[Page 69509]]

should have earlier or later compliance dates.
1. Proposed Section 82.154(c)--Sale of Small Cans of Refrigerant for 
MVAC Servicing
    For manufacture and import of small cans of refrigerant for MVAC 
servicing, EPA is proposing a compliance date of one year from 
publication of the final rule. EPA is also proposing to allow small 
cans manufactured and placed into initial inventory or imported before 
that date to be sold for one additional year. For example, if the rule 
is published on July 1, 2016, small can manufacturers would have until 
July 1, 2017, to transition their manufacturing lines to add self-
sealing valves. Manufacturers, distributors, and auto parts stores 
would be able to sell all small cans manufactured and placed into 
initial inventory or imported prior to July 1, 2017, until July 1, 
2018. EPA seeks comments on this proposed implementation timeline.
2. Proposed Section 82.155--Safe Disposal of Small Appliances, MVAC, 
and MVAC-Like Appliances
    For the revisions to the requirements for the recovery of 
refrigerant prior to disposal/recycling of small appliances, EPA is 
proposing a compliance date of one year from publication of the final 
rule. This should provide time for final disposers such as scrap 
recyclers to learn about the updated requirement, make any adjustments 
needed to start maintaining records associated with disposal of 
appliances containing non-exempt substitutes, and to obtain certified 
recovery equipment for use with non-exempt substitutes.
    EPA is not proposing more than one year because (1) EPA is not 
proposing significant changes to the requirements for the recovery of 
refrigerant prior to disposal/recycling of small appliances, MVAC, 
MVAC-like appliances, (2) final disposers/recyclers of these appliances 
already must in effect recover HFCs and other non-exempt substitutes 
prior to disposing of an appliance, and (3) the existing recordkeeping 
systems and practices used by final disposers can be used to implement 
the safe disposal requirement to appliances containing non-exempt 
substitutes. EPA seeks comments on this proposed implementation 
schedule.
3. Proposed Section 82.156--Proper Evacuation of Refrigerant From 
Appliances
    For proposed provisions related to the evacuation of refrigerant 
before maintenance, servicing, repair, and disposal of appliances, EPA 
is proposing a compliance date of one year from publication of the 
final rule. This would provide time for affected entities to learn 
about the required practices, set up a recordkeeping program to track 
the amount of refrigerant recovered from appliances that are disposed 
of in the field, and to obtain certified recovery equipment for use 
with non-exempt substitutes. EPA seeks comments on this proposed 
implementation schedule.
4. Proposed Section 82.157--Appliance Maintenance and Leak Repair
    EPA is proposing significant revisions to the leak repair 
provisions, including lowering the applicable leak rate, requiring leak 
inspections, and modifying the recordkeeping requirements. Because 
these changes are extensive, EPA is proposing a later compliance date 
for the appliance maintenance and leak repair requirements than for 
most other proposed provisions. EPA is proposing a compliance date 18 
months from publication of the final rule. This would give owners and 
operators of appliances with 50 or more pounds of refrigerant time to 
learn about the updated requirements; update systems, standard 
operating procedures, and training materials to best implement the 
requirements; and fix leakier systems prior to the more stringent 
requirements taking place. EPA could consider a shorter or longer 
timeframe by approximately six to twelve months (in other words, the 
compliance dates could be between six months and two and half years 
after a final rule is published in the Federal Register), but would 
need commenters to provide details on why the shorter or longer 
timeframe is warranted (e.g., cost, logistics, environmental effects, 
or other verifiable and compelling rationales). EPA seeks comments on 
its proposed compliance date for the appliance maintenance and leak 
repair provisions.
5. Proposed Section 82.161--Technician Certification Requirements
    EPA is proposing that the compliance date for the revisions to 
Sec.  82.161 be one year after publication of a final rule. Providing 
more time will allow EPA to update the test bank and certifying 
organizations to update their tests to use the updated questions. EPA 
does not anticipate that more than one year would be necessary because 
HVACR contractors are generally working on both ODS refrigerants and 
non-exempt substitute refrigerants, and there is not likely to be a 
rush of contractors needing to be certified. EPA is also proposing to 
require that any person certified as a technician on January 1, 2017, 
or later be included in a publicly-accessible database of certified 
technicians. Under the proposed timelines, technician certification 
programs would have to make this database available starting January 1, 
2018. EPA seeks comments on these proposed compliance dates.
6. Sunset Dates for Requirements That Will Be Superseded in Future
    For the majority of the requirements in this rule, the new 
requirements will apply as of the effective date of the rule. For 
requirements with a delayed compliance date, EPA intends to indicate 
when those requirements will apply. EPA is proposing to sunset the 
corresponding existing requirements as of the dates the new 
requirements apply. EPA seeks comments on other approaches.

V. Economic Analysis

    While selecting regulatory actions that would achieve the goals of 
this proposed rule, EPA considered the costs of different actions to 
individual entities and the United States economy as a whole. A full 
description of the cost analyses is included in the technical support 
document Analysis of the Economic Impact and Benefits of Proposed 
Revisions to the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program, 
which can be found in the docket.
    To estimate the incremental costs of the proposed regulatory 
changes, the Agency developed a set of model entities with a 
distribution of different model facilities, each of which could contain 
a set of model appliances. This set of model entities was used to 
represent the potentially affected entities in a variety of economic 
sectors in the United States, and they were developed based on EPA's 
Vintaging Model and cross-checked with a large dataset of repair 
records developed under California's RMP. Each model entity reflects 
information about the typical number of facilities in a given sector 
and size category and the number of pieces of equipment in each 
equipment category that are likely to be owned and/or operated by each 
facility. By combining the model entities with economic data on 
potentially affected industries from the United States Census, EPA 
obtained a model for the potentially affected population. By applying 
the costs of leak inspections, repairs, recordkeeping and reporting, 
self-sealing cans for MVAC servicing, and other regulatory changes to 
this population, EPA estimated the costs to individual entities and the 
total cost to the economy.

[[Page 69510]]

    Some proposed regulatory changes in this action, e.g. providing 
extensions to owners or operators of comfort cooling and commercial 
refrigeration before having to replace leaking appliances, would reduce 
the cost of compliance to owners of ODS-containing equipment. These 
reductions were included in the incremental cost of the proposed 
action.
    Based on this analysis, EPA estimates that the total annual cost to 
comply with the proposed requirements is $63 million (all costs in 2014 
dollars); this includes $61 million in cost to owners and operators of 
equipment using HFCs, and $2 million for those using ODS. Total 
annualized costs includes new compliance costs of approximately $113 
million associated with the proposed rulemaking, less avoided 
compliance costs of approximately $50 million associated with the 
proposed removal of some existing regulatory requirements and provision 
of additional flexibility that are expected to reduce regulatory 
burden. The distribution of aggregate costs among different economic 
sectors and among the regulatory changes is detailed in the technical 
support document.
    Some proposed regulatory changes would reduce financial outlays by 
owners or operators of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment, 
for example, by reducing the amount of refrigerant lost to leaks and 
thus saving equipment owners or operators the cost of purchasing more 
refrigerant to replace it. For the money saved in refrigerant purchases 
alone, EPA estimates that affected entities would avoid spending over 
$52 million due to the proposed regulatory changes. Thus, the 
compliance costs and refrigerant savings combined are estimated to be 
$11 million per year. The financial outlay from affected entities would 
additionally be lower because appliances running with the correct 
amount of refrigerant are generally more energy efficient to operate 
and last longer.
    The aggregate costs and savings for the economy as a whole given 
above would not be expected to be distributed evenly across affected 
entities. For example, owners of equipment containing ODS that leak at 
a rate less than 5% of their full charge per year might only incur 
costs for recordkeeping. However, owners of equipment containing HFCs 
that leak at a rate of 30% of their full charge per year might incur 
costs of repairing leaks, while also realizing savings due to reduced 
refrigerant replacement purchases.
    Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA), Federal agencies must consider the effects regulations may 
have on small entities. If a rule may have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE), the Agency 
would be required to take certain steps to ensure that the interests of 
small entities were represented in the rulemaking process. To determine 
if this was necessary, EPA used the model's entity analysis to 
ascertain the likelihood that the proposed changes would have a 
SISNOSE. EPA estimates that approximately 140 of the approximately 
950,000 affected small businesses could incur costs in excess of 1% of 
annual sales and that fewer than 80 small businesses could incur costs 
in excess of 3% of annual sales. These levels are below the thresholds 
used in other Title VI rulemakings under which it can be presumed that 
an action will have no SISNOSE. Nevertheless, EPA consulted numerous 
stakeholders, including small businesses, in the development of this 
proposed rule.
    The full description of the cost analyses, including sensitivity 
analyses of key assumptions and alternate proposed options, is included 
in the technical support document Analysis of the Economic Impact and 
Benefits of Proposed Revisions to the National Recycling and Emission 
Reduction Program, which can be found in the docket for this action. 
EPA specifically requests comments on all aspects of that analysis.

VI. Possible Future Changes to Subpart F

    In addition to the proposals outlined in this notice, EPA is also 
seeking input on other aspects of the National Recycling and Emission 
Reduction Program. EPA is not proposing these changes at this time, but 
specifically solicits comments on whether the ideas have merit and how 
the potential changes might be implemented in a future rulemaking.

A. Appliance Maintenance and Leak Repair

    In meetings with stakeholders prior to the issuance of this 
proposed rule, EPA discussed the possibility of establishing a 
voluntary program for supermarkets based on their corporate-wide 
average leak rate (CWALR) instead of focusing on the leak rate of each 
individual appliance. The Agency and several stakeholders indicated 
that there could be value in regulating commercial refrigeration 
appliances at the corporate level instead of the individual appliance 
level. Currently, owners and operators of commercial refrigeration 
equipment must repair leaks on equipment with 50 pounds or more of 
refrigerant within 30 days if the leak rate is above 35%, and EPA is 
proposing in this notice to lower this leak rate to 20%. Under a 
program like this, EPA could relax the existing leak repair 
requirements for individual commercial refrigeration appliances if a 
supermarket chain was able to keep their CWALR below a certain level 
(for example, 15%) for a full calendar year.
    Supermarkets would still have to keep records of refrigerant 
additions and the full charge of each appliance, but they would not be 
required to follow the other requirements for commercial refrigeration 
facilities under the amended Sec.  82.157. For example, if an appliance 
was leaking more than 20%, they would not have to repair it within 30 
days so long as their CWALR was below 15% (or some other level) in the 
previous calendar year. However, they would have to report to EPA 
annually their total refrigerant additions, their corporate-wide full 
charge, and the facilities that are included in the full charge. EPA 
would use this information to determine if their corporate-wide leak 
rate was below the required level. If it was not, the supermarket chain 
would have to follow the requirements at Sec.  82.157 for the next 
calendar year. Supermarkets would still have to comply with the leak 
repair requirements for comfort cooling appliances.
    A program like this could have advantages for both supermarkets and 
EPA. Supermarkets would have greater flexibility to determine how they 
would reduce leaks so long as they are achieving an established level 
of environmental performance. EPA would receive additional data that it 
could use to better characterize the industry's emissions profile. 
Additionally, EPA could use the information to better target its 
enforcement action. This type of program also fits in well with the 
Agency's Next Generation Compliance initiative as it incentivizes 
better environmental performance.
    While EPA finds this type of program appealing, there are several 
reasons this idea is not being proposed in this action. First, 
establishing the universe of stores within the corporate-wide boundary 
could be difficult if there are multiple chains held by one parent 
company. At what level should the boundary be drawn? Second, 
supermarket chains frequently buy and sell stores to other chains, 
which may be difficult to address when calculating annual leak rates. 
Would the newly-purchased stores automatically be included in the CWALR 
or would they be subject to the requirements for individual appliances?

[[Page 69511]]

    Some stakeholders expressed interest in a program like this if the 
Agency would agree not to take any enforcement actions against them. 
However, the Agency would still want to ensure it could bring 
enforcement action if a supermarket chain was misreporting its CWALR.
    Some stakeholders also appreciated that the Agency was considering 
ways to reduce burden but felt the Agency should not relax 
recordkeeping requirements that may help a company reduce leaks. Others 
were disinterested in the program and did not see an incentive to join. 
EPA considered this feedback, and the possible benefits of the program, 
and has decided not to propose this option at this time. However, the 
Agency seeks comments on whether such an idea could be workable and 
whether it is worth exploring in a future proposed rule. EPA also seeks 
comments on other ways the Agency could incentivize compliance or 
performance that exceeds the regulatory requirements as well as ways to 
reduce burden for companies with low leak rates, while still ensuring 
compliance.

B. Refrigerant Reclamation

    EPA has received suggestions for how the reclaimer program could be 
strengthened. Some of these suggestions include more stringent 
certification requirements for reclaimers and third party audits to 
ensure reclamation facilities are following the required practices. 
Some of these suggestions are in the docket to this rule. These 
suggestions, combined with the principles of Next Generation 
Compliance, have encouraged EPA to take comment on those two ideas.
    EPA is also considering ways to promote the use of reclaimed 
refrigerant so as to increase the financial incentive to recover and 
reclaim refrigerant. EPA requests comments on a way to distinguish 
reclaimed refrigerant from virgin refrigerant. This could potentially 
include establishing a labeling program for reclaimed material, much 
like other recycled products.
1. More Stringent Certification Requirements for Reclaimers
    EPA has received feedback that the requirements to become a 
certified reclaimer are not stringent enough. Some have suggested that 
the Agency require that reclaimers provide more information in their 
certification on how they will comply with other potentially applicable 
regulations such as those related to the transport and disposal of 
hazardous materials. Stakeholders have also suggested that EPA cite 
compliance with Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) 
requirements. EPA seeks comment on whether it should develop more 
stringent certification requirements in a separate proposed rule, and 
what those requirements should look like.
    Some stakeholders have also suggested that EPA redefine the term 
reclaim to cover entities other than those historically seen as 
reclaimers, for example separation facilities. EPA seeks comment on 
whether the term reclaim should be amended in future to cover 
separation facilities. EPA also seeks comment on whether the agency 
should in future require reporting from separation facilities as part 
of the reclamation program or elsewhere in subpart F to better 
understand where refrigerant goes after it is recovered. EPA also seeks 
comment on whether there are other types of facilities that should be 
covered under a program like this.
2. Establishing a Third Party Certification or Audit Program for 
Reclaimers
    In developing this proposed rule, EPA considered establishing a 
third party certification program for reclaimers. In addition, one 
organization has recently urged EPA to require that a third party audit 
all reclaimers. The specific proposal is included in a letter from 
Intertek available in the docket. Under a program like this, EPA would 
certify independent auditors that would review reclaimers' compliance 
with the section 608 requirements. To reduce costs, EPA could require 
that in-person site audits occur once every few years. A program like 
this could help ensure compliance with the section 608 reclamation 
requirements. While EPA is not proposing this action in today's 
proposed rule, the Agency seeks comment on the establishment of a third 
party audit program for reclaimers in a future action.
3. Labeling of Reclaimed Refrigerant
    Refrigerant reclaimers and environmental organizations have 
encouraged EPA to further promote the reclamation of refrigerant. The 
Agency notes that existing regulations promote HCFC reclamation by 
requiring refrigerant be recovered rather than vented and that used 
refrigerant be reclaimed before being sold. Through today's proposal, 
EPA would be extending that requirement to HFCs and other substitutes, 
further increasing the supply and types of refrigerants for 
reclamation. Having said that, the Agency is considering whether 
labeling could allow for broader recognition, use of, and demand for 
reclaimed refrigerant.
    EPA seeks comments on the value of proposing in a separate 
rulemaking a voluntary labeling program for reclaimed refrigerant. 
Under this program, EPA would certify third parties who would then 
verify that the refrigerant being sold was in fact reclaimed. The 
reclaimer would have to document receipt of used refrigerant, the 
amount of that refrigerant that was reclaimed (and not a waste 
product), and that each batch of reclaimed refrigerant was tested and 
meets AHRI-700 standards. Alternatively, a program like this could be 
developed by industry.
    There are several situations where reclaimed refrigerant labeled as 
such could be valuable. First, given the existing restrictions at Sec.  
82.15(g) on the manufacture of new appliances using HCFC-22, owners of 
appliances that expand their system after January 1, 2010, would know 
that the refrigerant was reclaimed and could be used in compliance with 
HCFC phaseout requirements.\14\ Second, certified reclaimed refrigerant 
could be marketed to consumers seeking to purchase environmentally 
preferable products. This type of program could also be useful to 
Federal, state, or local governments that have directives to purchase 
recycled content materials by providing verification that the 
refrigerant they are purchasing is in fact reclaimed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For more information on how EPA treats supermarkets that 
have remodeled and expanded the capacity of their system, please see 
http://epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/Supermarket_Q&A_for_R-22.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA seeks comments on whether reclaimers, refrigerant wholesalers, 
or owners or operators of appliances would be interested in such a 
program. EPA also seeks comments on whether any organization would be 
interested in becoming a third party verifier for this program. The 
Agency also seeks comment on what criteria it could establish to ensure 
refrigerant was in fact reclaimed, and other potential approaches that 
the Agency could consider if it develops a program like this in future.

C. Safe Disposal of Small Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-Like Appliances

    After conversations with scrap recyclers, EPA considered ways it 
could improve the requirements for the disposal of small appliances, 
MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances. While EPA is not proposing any of 
these changes at this time, EPA is seeking comments on ways that it 
could ensure refrigerant is

[[Page 69512]]

recovered from appliances that enter the waste stream with their 
refrigerant circuit intact, while reducing burden on the final 
disposer, who is often relying on someone upstream to recover the 
refrigerant. EPA considered several options to move the recordkeeping 
requirements upstream, but EPA needs additional feedback before 
proposing these options.
1. Move Responsibility of Ensuring Proper Recovery to the First 
Collector
    One idea EPA considered was moving the requirement to ensure 
refrigerant is recovered from the final disposer to the first collector 
of the appliance. The first collector could include the retailer that 
delivers a new refrigerator and takes away the old one. The first 
collector could also include municipal waste collection facilities or 
others that pick up used appliances from homes, offices, or curbside. 
Under such a program, the first collector would have to ensure the 
refrigerant was properly recovered and keep a record documenting that 
fact. EPA could also create a requirement where the first collector and 
the final disposer would have to keep a record.
    EPA seeks comment on whether this would be an appropriate change to 
make in future and whether this would improve compliance with the safe 
disposal requirements (Sec. Sec.  82.155 and 82.156 as proposed in this 
notice). EPA also seeks comment on how it could ensure compliance with 
such a program.
2. Require a Certified Recovery Location for All Appliances
    EPA also considered whether to require the establishment of third-
party certified appliance recovery centers. These recovery centers 
would have to be certified by EPA or a third party certifier and would 
have to document every appliance they receive, the amount of 
refrigerant recovered from each appliance or each shipment of 
appliances, and report to EPA on the amount of refrigerant recovered 
and where that recovered refrigerant was sent for either destruction or 
reclamation. EPA would also have to require that all small appliances, 
MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances bound for disposal or recycling would 
have to be sent to such a certified recovery center. Scrap recyclers, 
landfills, or other final disposal facilities would only be allowed to 
receive appliances from certified appliance recovery centers to work 
effectively.
    One advantage to such a program is that scrap recyclers and other 
final disposers would not have to verify that refrigerant was properly 
recovered from appliances they receive. EPA would also have more 
information on how much refrigerant is being recovered from these 
appliances when they are disposed of. However, EPA has also considered 
the ongoing transition to lower-GWP alternatives like hydrocarbons, 
CO2, and HFO-1234yf in small appliances and MVACs. The 
benefit of requiring that appliances go through a certified recovery 
center may decline in the future, and could be potentially disruptive 
to the existing supply chain today. EPA weighed these factors and has 
decided not to propose a program like this in today's notice, but is 
requesting comment on such a program. EPA is particularly interested in 
whether this type of program would reduce emissions of refrigerants, be 
easy or difficult to establish and transition to, be difficult to set 
up in rural areas, and if any organizations would be interested in 
either becoming a certified appliance refrigerant recovery center or 
certifying appliance refrigerant recovery centers.

D. Technician Certification

1. Recertification
    EPA considered whether to require currently certified technicians 
to recertify based on the changes proposed in this rule. EPA states at 
Sec.  82.161(c)(2) that the Administrator reserves the right to specify 
the need for technician recertification at some future date, if 
necessary, by placing a notice in the Federal Register. At this time, 
EPA is not proposing that technicians currently certified to work with 
ODS refrigerants be recertified to work with substitute refrigerants.
    In pre-proposal discussions with stakeholders, EPA found both 
support and opposition to requiring recertification. One argument 
expressed in favor of recertification is that many changes have 
occurred in the twenty-two years since the first technicians took the 
certification exam. For example, many new refrigerants have entered the 
market, including flammable refrigerants, and air-conditioning and 
refrigeration equipment has changed.
    While more substitutes have been introduced, the techniques for 
properly handling fluorocarbon substitute refrigerants is very similar 
to that for ODS refrigerants. As many stakeholders noted at the 
November 12, 2014, stakeholder meeting, technicians currently handle 
all refrigerants in a similar manner, regardless of whether they are an 
ODS or a substitute. EPA's SNAP program has only recently listed a 
number of flammable refrigerants as acceptable, subject to use 
conditions, and only in narrow product categories. The benefits of any 
recertification requirement would probably be small, and would likely 
be outweighed by the costs of requiring every technician to recertify. 
EPA requests comments on this approach for currently certified 
technicians. EPA also seeks comments on the possibility of developing a 
one-time online recertification that could be more limited in scope 
than the existing certification test if the Agency did decide to 
require recertification in future.
2. Flammable Refrigerants
    While EPA has not ruled out the possibility of establishing 
requirements under 40 CFR part 82, subpart F for flammable exempt 
substitute refrigerants, EPA has not proposed in this rulemaking to 
extend any of the requirements under section 608, including the 
technician certification program and the sales restriction, to 
refrigerants that are exempt from the statutory venting prohibition 
(CO2, hydrocarbons in certain SNAP-approved applications, 
ammonia, etc.). Some in the industry have told EPA that the Agency 
should require training and certification of HVACR contractors that 
work with flammable refrigerants. The primary concern is the safety of 
the technicians working on appliances, the owners and operators of 
those appliances, and anyone recovering or reclaiming refrigerant from 
those appliances that may not be labeled properly or mixed with 
flammable refrigerants.
    EPA appreciates the concerns raised by stakeholders about flammable 
refrigerants and is planning to add questions on this topic to the 
technician certification test bank when the Agency updates those 
questions. These questions would cover proper handling practices to 
prevent mixing with ODS and substitute refrigerants, as well as safety. 
EPA has also proposed to broaden the definition of substitute so that 
it covers all refrigerants used by any person as replacements for a 
class I or II ozone-depleting substance whether or not SNAP-approved. 
This is to ensure that substitutes found to be unacceptable in a given 
refrigerant end-use under SNAP will still be covered by the safe 
handling requirements of subpart F.
    EPA is not proposing, however, to extend the sales restriction in 
today's proposal to hydrocarbon refrigerants for sale in the approved 
end-uses under SNAP. EPA is also not revisiting in this proposed rule 
the determination that venting, releasing, or disposing of hydrocarbon 
refrigerants in the limited

[[Page 69513]]

end-uses for which is it allowed, does not pose a threat to the 
environment. EPA also seeks comments on whether the Agency should 
establish through a future rulemaking a technician certification 
requirement for flammable refrigerants, or extend the sales restriction 
(as a way to enforce the certification requirement) or other 608 
requirements to flammable refrigerants that are exempt from the venting 
prohibition. Commenters should provide as much detail as possible, 
including the requirements that the Agency should establish, and what 
the environmental benefits might be.

VII. 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 a significant regulatory action that was submitted 
to OMB for review. This action was deemed to raise novel legal or 
policy issues. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have 
been documented in the docket. EPA prepared an economic analysis of the 
potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis 
is summarized in Section V of the preamble and is available in the 
docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information 
Collection Request (ICR) document that EPA prepared has been assigned 
EPA ICR number 1626.13. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket 
for this rule.
    All recordkeeping and reporting requirements under this program are 
specifically described in Section IV.L. of this preamble. In order to 
facilitate compliance with and enforce the requirements of section 608 
of the CAA, EPA requires reporting and recordkeeping requirements of 
technicians, technician certification programs, refrigerant recovery/
recycling equipment testing organizations, refrigerant wholesalers and 
purchasers, refrigerant reclaimers, refrigeration and air-conditioning 
equipment owners, and other establishments that perform refrigerant 
removal, service, or disposal. EPA has used and will continue to use 
these records and reports to ensure that refrigerant releases are 
minimized during the recovery, recycling, and reclamation processes. 
The handling and confidentiality of the reporting requirements follow 
EPA's confidentiality regulations at 40 CFR 2.201 et seq. for assuring 
computer data security, preventing disclosure, proper storage, and 
proper disposal.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities required to comply with 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements include technicians; 
technician certification programs; refrigerant wholesalers; refrigerant 
reclaimers; refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment owners and/or 
operators; and other establishments that perform refrigerant removal, 
service, or disposal.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 82, 
subpart F).
    Estimated number of respondents: The total number of respondents is 
estimated to be approximately 1,050,390.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses vary from once a 
year to daily. Public reporting burden for this collection of 
information is estimated to vary from one minute to 9.5 hours per 
response, including time for reviewing instructions and gathering, 
maintaining, and submitting information.
    Total estimated burden: The total estimated burden is 797,314 hours 
(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The total estimated cost is $35,931,685 (per 
year). There are no estimated annualized capital or operation & 
maintenance costs associated with the reporting or recordkeeping 
requirements.
    Most of this burden is already covered by the existing requirements 
in 40 CFR part 82, subpart F, and the existing ICR, which was last 
approved by OMB in December 2014.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. The OMB control 
number for this information collection is 2060-0256.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0453. You 
may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs via email to oria_submissions@omb.eop.gov, 
Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a 
decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB 
must receive comments no later than December 9, 2015. EPA will respond 
to any ICR-related comments in the final rule.

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. The 
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are 
businesses and small governmental jurisdictions that own or service 
comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration, or IPR equipment. EPA 
estimates that approximately 140 of the approximately 950,000 affected 
small businesses could incur costs in excess of 1% of annual sales and 
that fewer than 80 small businesses could incur costs in excess of 3% 
of annual sales. These levels are below the thresholds under which it 
can be presumed that an action will have no SISNOSE, as used in other 
Title VI rulemakings. Details of this analysis are presented in the 
Analysis of the Economic Impact and Benefits of Proposed Revisions to 
the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program available in the 
docket to this rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule 
supplements the statutory self-effectuating prohibition against venting 
refrigerants by ensuring that certain service practices are conducted 
that reduce the emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants and their 
substitutes. This rule also proposes to strengthen the leak repair 
requirements, establish recordkeeping requirements for the disposal of 
appliances containing five to 50 pounds of refrigerant, and modify the 
technician certification program.

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. This rule does not significantly or uniquely 
affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. This rule 
supplements the

[[Page 69514]]

statutory self-effectuating prohibition against venting refrigerants by 
ensuring that certain service practices are conducted that reduce the 
emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants and their substitutes. This 
rule also proposes to strengthen the leak repair requirements, 
establish recordkeeping requirements for the disposal of appliances 
containing five to 50 pounds of refrigerant, and modify the technician 
certification program. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined 
in Executive Order 12866. The agency nonetheless has reason to believe 
that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action 
may have a disproportionate effect on children. Depletion of 
stratospheric ozone results in greater transmission of the sun's 
ultraviolet (UV) radiation to the earth's surface. The following 
studies describe the effects of excessive exposure to UV radiation on 
children: (1) Westerdahl J, Olsson H, Ingvar C. ``At what age do 
sunburn episodes play a crucial role for the development of malignant 
melanoma,'' Eur J Cancer 1994: 30A: 1647-54; (2) Elwood JM Japson J. 
``Melanoma and sun exposure: an overview of published studies,'' Int J 
Cancer 1997; 73:198-203; (3) Armstrong BK, ``Melanoma: childhood or 
lifelong sun exposure,'' In: Grobb JJ, Stern RS Mackie RM, Weinstock 
WA, eds. ``Epidemiology, causes and prevention of skin diseases,'' 1st 
ed. London, England: Blackwell Science, 1997: 63-6; (4) Whiteman D., 
Green A. ``Melanoma and Sunburn,'' Cancer Causes Control, 1994: 5:564-
72; (5) Heenan, PJ. ``Does intermittent sun exposure cause basal cell 
carcinoma? A case control study in Western Australia,'' Int J Cancer 
1995; 60: 489-94; (6) Gallagher, RP, Hill, GB, Bajdik, CD, et al. 
``Sunlight exposure, pigmentary factors, and risk of nonmelanocytic 
skin cancer I, Basal cell carcinoma,'' Arch Dermatol 1995; 131: 157-63; 
(7) Armstrong, DK. ``How sun exposure causes skin cancer: an 
epidemiological perspective,'' Prevention of Skin Cancer. 2004. 89-116.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and 1 CFR Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. In some instances, EPA is 
proposing to adopt a modified version of an industry standard for 
purposes of this rule; in others, EPA is proposing to incorporate an 
industry standard by reference exactly as written. First, EPA is 
proposing that all new recovery and/or recycling equipment used during 
the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances 
manufactured or imported after the effective date of this rule be 
required to meet the standard based on AHRI Standard 740-2015, 
Performance Rating of Refrigerant Recovery Equipment and Recovery/
Recycling Equipment. This standard establishes methods of testing for 
rating and evaluating the performance of refrigerant recovery equipment 
and recovery/recycling equipment. The standard is available at 
www.ahrinet.org or by mail at Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 
Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, 
Arlington, VA 22201.
    EPA's lead proposal is to include this AHRI Standard with minor 
modifications in appendix B3. EPA is also proposing to establish in 
appendix B4 a modified version of the appendix B3 standard that could 
be used to certify recovery/recycling equipment used to recover/recycle 
flammable refrigerants. As proposed, the standard in appendix B4 would 
base the recovery/recycling performance on AHRI 740-2015 and the safety 
performance standards in UL 1963, Supplement SB, Requirements for 
Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment Intended for Use with a 
Flammable Refrigerant. UL 1963, Supplement SB establishes standards for 
refrigerant recovery and refrigerant recovery/recycling equipment to 
ensure the equipment can be used safely with flammable refrigerants. 
The standard is available at http://www.comm-2000.com or by writing to 
Comm 2000, 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference many of 
the standards referenced in appendix B3 and B4, including:

--ASHRAE Terminology, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and 
Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. This Web site provides a glossary of 
technical terms used by ASHRAE and is available at https://www.ashrae.org/resources--publications/free-resources/ashrae-terminology.
--UL Standard 1963, Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment, First 
Edition, 2011, American National Standards Institute/Underwriters 
Laboratories, Inc. This standard establishes safety requirements for 
and methods to evaluate refrigerant recovery and refrigerant recovery/
recycling equipment. The standard is available at http://www.comm-2000.com or by writing to Comm 2000, 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, 
IL 60106.
_AHRI Standard 110-2012, Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigerating 
Equipment Nameplate Voltages, 2012, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 
Refrigeration Institute. This standard establishes voltage rating 
requirements, equipment performance requirements, and conformance 
conditions for air-conditioning, heating, and refrigerating equipment. 
The standard is available at www.ahrinet.org or by mail at Air-
Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 2111 Wilson 
Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201.
--International Standard IEC 60038, IEC Standard Voltages, 2009, 
International Electrotechnical Commission.

    This standard specifies standard voltage values which are intended 
to serve as preferential values for the nominal voltage of electrical 
supply systems, and as reference values for equipment and system 
design. The standard is available at www.techstreet.com or by writing 
to Techstreet, 6300 Interfirst Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48108.
    EPA seeks comments on the use of these standards, especially 
whether to incorporate the UL standard by reference into appendix B4 
alongside the appendix B3 requirements or whether to establish a 
standard in appendix B4 that is based on that standard.
    Second, reclaimers are required to reprocess refrigerant to 
standards based on ARI Standard 700-1995, Specification for 
Fluorocarbons and Other Refrigerants. AHRI Standard 700 establishes 
purity specifications for refrigerants, and to specify the associated 
methods of testing for acceptability of refrigerants. EPA is proposing 
to update appendix A to include HFCs, PFCs, HFOs, and other 
refrigerants based on the standards contained in AHRI Standard 700-
2015, Specifications for Refrigerants, but not incorporate the full 
standard by reference because EPA intends to keep the older unsaturates 
limit. The standard is available at www.ahrinet.org or by mail at Air-
Conditioning, Heating,

[[Page 69515]]

and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, 
Arlington, VA 22201.
    EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the additional 
standards referenced in AHRI 700-2015. Specifically, EPA is proposing 
to incorporate by reference the following standards:

--Appendix C to AHRI Standard 700-2015: Analytical Procedures for AHRI 
Standard 700-2015, Normative, Specification for Fluorocarbon 
Refrigerants. This document establishes definitive test procedures for 
determining the quality of new, reclaimed and/or repackaged 
refrigerants in support of the standards established in AHRI-700, and 
is available at www.ahrinet.org or by mail at Air-Conditioning, 
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 2111 Wilson Boulevard, 
Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201.
--Appendix D Gas Chromatograms for AHRI Standard 700-2015--Informative, 
Specification for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants, 2012, Air-Conditioning, 
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute. This appendix provides figures 
for the gas chromatograms used with Appendix C to AHRI Standard 700-
2015: Analytical Procedures for AHRI Standard 700-2015, Normative, 
Specification for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants. The appendix is available 
at www.ahrinet.org or by mail at Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 
Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, 
Arlington, VA 22201.
--Federal Specification for ``Fluorocarbon Refrigerants,'' BB-F-1421 B, 
dated March 5, 1982, section 4.4.3. This section of this standard 
establishes a method to determine the boiling point and boiling point 
range of a refrigerant. The standard is available in the docket for 
this rulemaking.
--GPA STD-2177, Analysis of Natural Gas Liquid Mixtures Containing 
Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide by Gas Chromatography, 2013, Gas Processors 
Association. This standard establishes methods for analyzing 
demethanized liquid hydrocarbon streams containing nitrogen/air and 
carbon dioxide, and purity products such as ethane/propane mix that 
fall within compositional ranges indicated in the standard. The 
standard is available at www.techstreet.com or by writing to 
Techstreet, 6300 Interfirst Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48108.
_ASTM Standard D1296-01-2012, Standard Test Method for Odor of 
Volatile Solvents and Diluents, 2012, ASTM International. This test 
method covers a comparative procedure for observing the characteristic 
and residual odors of volatile organic solvents and diluents to 
determine their odor acceptability in a solvent system. The standard is 
available at www.astm.org or by writing to ASTM, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, 
PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.

    EPA seeks comments on whether to incorporate the updated standards 
by reference or whether appendix A should be updated based on AHRI 700-
2015 to include HFCs, PFCs, HFOs, and other refrigerants.
    Third, EPA is proposing to create in appendix E a standard for 
self-sealing valves that is based largely on CARB's Test Procedure for 
Leaks from Small Containers of Automotive Refrigerant, TP-503, as 
amended January 5, 2010. The standard establishes methods for assessing 
the leak rate from small containers of refrigerant. A copy of this 
standard is available in the docket and www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/hfc09/hfc09.htm. EPA requests comment on the use of this CARB standard 
for self-sealing valves.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes this action will not have disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income 
populations, because it affects the level of environmental protection 
equally for all affected populations without having any 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income 
population. This rule would amend the leak repair requirements for 
appliances using ozone-depleting substances, which would protect human 
health and the environment from increased amounts of UV radiation and 
increased incidence of skin cancer. The effects of exposure to UV 
radiation and the estimated reduction in emissions of ozone-depleting 
substances from this proposed rule is contained in section II.D.1 of 
this preamble.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, 
Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 15, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 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.

0
2. Revise Sec.  82.150 to read as follows:


Sec.  82.150  Purpose and scope.

    (a) The purpose of this subpart is to reduce emissions of class I 
and class II refrigerants and their substitutes to the lowest 
achievable level by maximizing the recapture and recycling of such 
refrigerants during the maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of 
appliances and restricting the sale of refrigerants consisting in whole 
or in part of a class I or class II ozone-depleting substance or their 
substitutes in accordance with Title VI of the Clean Air Act.
    (b) This subpart applies to any person maintaining, servicing, or 
repairing appliances. This subpart also applies to persons disposing of 
appliances, including small appliances and motor vehicle air 
conditioners. In addition, this subpart applies to refrigerant 
reclaimers, technician certifying programs, appliance owners and 
operators, manufacturers of appliances, manufacturers of recovery and/
or recycling equipment, approved recovery and/or recycling equipment 
testing organizations, and persons buying, selling, or offering to sell 
class I, class II, or substitute refrigerants.
0
3. Amend Sec.  82.152:
0
a. by adding definitions for ``Class I,'' ``Class II,'' ``Comfort 
cooling,'' ``Component,'' ``Leak inspection,'' ``Mothball,'' ``Normal 
operating characteristics and conditions,'' ``Reclaim,'' ``Recover,'' 
``Recycle,'' ``Retire,'' ``Retrofit,'' ``Seasonal variance,'' ``Self-
sealing valve,'' and ``System receiver.''
0
b. by revising the definitions for ``Appliance,'' ``Apprentice,'' 
``Commercial refrigeration,'' ``Custom-built,'' ``Disposal,'' ``Follow-
up verification test,'' ``Full charge,'' ``High-pressure appliance,'' 
``Industrial process refrigeration,'' ``Industrial process shutdown,'' 
``Initial verification test,'' ``Leak rate,'' ``Low-loss fitting,'' 
``Low-pressure appliance,'' ``Medium-pressure appliance,'' ``MVAC-like 
appliance,'' ``One-time expansion device,''

[[Page 69516]]

``Opening an appliance,'' ``Recovery efficiency,'' ``Refrigerant,'' 
``Self-contained recovery equipment,'' ``Small appliance,'' 
``Substitute,'' ``Technician,'' and ``Very high-pressure appliance.''
0
c. by removing the definitions for ``Critical Component,'' ``Normal 
operating characteristics or conditions,'' ``Normally containing a 
quantity of refrigerant,'' ``Reclaim refrigerant,'' ``Recover 
refrigerant,'' ``Recycle refrigerant,'' ``Suitable replacement 
refrigerant,'' ``System mothballing,'' and ``Voluntary certification 
program.''
    The revisions and additions to read as follows:


Sec.  82.152  Definitions.

    As used in this subpart, the term:
    Appliance means any device which contains and uses a class I or 
class II substance or substitute as a refrigerant and which is used for 
household or commercial purposes, including any air conditioner, motor 
vehicle air conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or freezer.
    Apprentice means any person who is currently registered as an 
apprentice in maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances 
with the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Apprenticeship (or a 
State Apprenticeship Council recognized by the Office of 
Apprenticeship). A person may only be an apprentice for two years from 
the date of first registering with that office.
* * * * *
    Class I refers to an ozone-depleting substance that is listed in 40 
CFR part 82 subpart A, appendix A.
    Class II refers to an ozone-depleting substance that is listed in 
40 CFR part 82 subpart A, appendix B.
    Comfort cooling means the air-conditioning appliances used to 
provide cooling in order to control heat and/or humidity in facilities 
including but not limited to office buildings and commercial buildings. 
Comfort cooling appliances include building chillers and roof-top self-
contained units. They may be used for the comfort of occupants or for 
climate control to protect equipment within a facility, including but 
not limited to computer rooms.
    Commercial refrigeration means the refrigeration appliances used in 
the retail food and cold storage warehouse sectors. Retail food 
includes the refrigeration equipment found in supermarkets, convenience 
stores, restaurants and other food service establishments. Cold storage 
includes the refrigeration equipment used to store meat, produce, dairy 
products, and other perishable goods.
    Component means a part of the refrigerant loop within an appliance 
including, but not limited to, compressors, condensers, evaporators, 
receivers, and all of its connections and subassemblies.
    Custom-built means that the equipment or any of its components 
cannot be purchased and/or installed without being uniquely designed, 
fabricated and/or assembled to satisfy a specific set of industrial 
process conditions.
    Disposal means the process leading to and including:
    (1) The discharge, deposit, dumping or placing of any discarded 
appliance into or on any land or water;
    (2) The disassembly of any appliance for discharge, deposit, 
dumping or placing of its discarded component parts into or on any land 
or water;
    (3) The destruction of any appliance such that the refrigerant 
would be released into the environment if it had not been recovered 
prior to the destructive activity, or
    (4) The disassembly of any appliance for reuse or recycling of its 
component parts.
    Follow-up verification test means those tests that involve checking 
the repairs to an appliance after a successful initial verification 
test and after the appliance has returned to normal operating 
characteristics and conditions to verify that the repairs were 
successful. Follow-up verification tests include, but are not limited 
to, the use of soap bubbles, electronic or ultrasonic leak detectors, 
pressure or vacuum tests, fluorescent dye and black light, infrared or 
near infrared tests, and handheld gas detection devices.
    Full charge means the amount of refrigerant required for normal 
operating characteristics and conditions of the appliance as determined 
by using one or a combination of the following four methods:
    (1) Use of the equipment manufacturer's determination of the full 
charge;
    (2) Use of appropriate calculations based on component sizes, 
density of refrigerant, volume of piping, and other relevant 
considerations;
    (3) Use of actual measurements of the amount of refrigerant added 
to or evacuated from the appliance, including for seasonal variances; 
and/or
    (4) Use of an established range based on the best available data 
regarding the normal operating characteristics and conditions for the 
appliance, where the midpoint of the range will serve as the full 
charge.
    High-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a refrigerant 
with a liquid phase saturation pressure between 170 psia and 355 psia 
at 104[emsp14][deg]F. Examples include but are not limited to 
appliances using R-22, R-407A, R-407C, R-410A, and R-502.
    Industrial process refrigeration means complex customized 
appliances that are directly linked to the processes used in, for 
example, the chemical, pharmaceutical, petrochemical, and manufacturing 
industries. This sector also includes industrial ice machines, 
appliances used directly in the generation of electricity, and ice 
rinks. Where one appliance is used for both industrial process 
refrigeration and other applications, it will be considered industrial 
process refrigeration equipment if 50 percent or more of its operating 
capacity is used for industrial process refrigeration.
    Industrial process shutdown means when an industrial process or 
facility temporarily ceases to operate or manufacture whatever is being 
produced at that facility.
    Initial verification test means those leak tests that are conducted 
as soon as practicable after the repair is finished to verify that a 
leak or leaks have been repaired before refrigerant is added back to 
the appliance.
    Leak inspection means the examination of all visible components of 
an appliance using a calibrated leak detection device, a bubble test, 
or visual inspection for oil residue in order to determine the presence 
and location of refrigerant leaks.
    Leak rate means the rate at which an appliance is losing 
refrigerant, measured between refrigerant charges. The leak rate is 
expressed in terms of the percentage of the appliance's full charge 
that would be lost over a 12-month period if the current rate of loss 
were to continue over that period. The rate is calculated using only 
one of the following methods for all appliances subject to the leak 
repair requirements located at an operating facility.
    (1) Annualizing Method. Step 1. Take the number of pounds of 
refrigerant added to the appliance to return it to a full charge, 
whether in one addition or if multiple additions related to same leak, 
and divide it by the number of pounds of refrigerant the appliance 
normally contains at full charge;
    Step 2. Take the shorter of the number of days that have passed 
since the last day refrigerant was added or 365 days and divide that 
number by 365 days;
    Step 3. Take the number calculated in Step 1 and divide it by the 
number calculated in Step 2; and
    Step 4. Multiply the number calculated in Step 3 by 100 to 
calculate a percentage. This method is summarized in the following 
formula:

[[Page 69517]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.300

    (2) Rolling Average Method. Step 1. Take the sum of the pounds of 
refrigerant added to the appliance over the previous 365-day period (or 
over the period that has passed since the last successful follow-up 
verification test showing all leaks in the appliance were repaired, if 
that period is less than one year);
    Step 2. Divide the result of Step 1 by the pounds of refrigerant 
the appliance normally contains at full charge; and
    Step 3. Multiply the result of Step 2 by 100 to obtain a 
percentage. This method is summarized in the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.301

    Low-loss fitting means any device that is intended to establish a 
connection between hoses, appliances, or recovery and/or recycling 
machines and that is designed to close automatically or to be closed 
manually when disconnected, minimizing the release of refrigerant from 
hoses, appliances, and recovery and/or recycling machines.
    Low-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a refrigerant 
with a liquid phase saturation pressure below 45 psia at 
104[emsp14][deg]F. Examples include but are not limited to appliances 
using R-11, R-123, R-113, and R-245fa.
* * * * *
    Medium-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a 
refrigerant with a liquid phase saturation pressure between 45 psia and 
170 psia at 104[emsp14][deg]F. Examples include but are not limited to 
appliances using R-114, R-124, R-12, R-134a, and R-500.
    Mothball means to evacuate refrigerant from an appliance, or the 
affected isolated section or component of an appliance, to at least 
atmospheric pressure, and to temporarily shut down that appliance.
* * * * *
    MVAC-like appliance means a mechanical vapor compression, open-
drive compressor appliance with a full charge of 20 pounds or less of 
refrigerant used to cool the driver's or passenger's compartment of an 
off-road motor vehicle. This includes, but is not limited to, the air-
conditioning equipment found on agricultural or construction vehicles. 
This definition is not intended to cover appliances using R-22 
refrigerant.
    Normal operating characteristics and conditions means appliance 
operating temperatures, pressures, fluid flows, speeds, and other 
characteristics, including full charge of the appliance, that would be 
expected for a given process load and ambient condition during normal 
operation. Normal operating characteristics and conditions are marked 
by the absence of atypical conditions affecting the operation of the 
appliance.
    One-time expansion device means an appliance that relies on the 
release of its refrigerant charge to the environment in order to 
provide a cooling effect. These are typically single releases but could 
also include products that are designed to release refrigerant to the 
environment through multiple individual charges.
    Opening an appliance means any maintenance, service, repair, or 
disposal of an appliance that would release any refrigerant in the 
appliance to the atmosphere. Connecting and disconnecting hoses and 
gauges to measure pressures, add refrigerant, or recover refrigerant 
from the appliance are not considered ``opening an appliance.''
* * * * *
    Reclaim means to reprocess recovered refrigerant to all of the 
specifications in appendix A of this subpart (based on AHRI Standard 
700-2015, Specifications for Refrigerants) that are applicable to that 
refrigerant and to verify that the refrigerant meets these 
specifications using the analytical methodology prescribed in section 5 
of appendix A of this subpart.
    Recover means to remove refrigerant in any condition from an 
appliance and to store it in an external container without necessarily 
testing or processing it in any way.
    Recovery efficiency means the percentage of refrigerant in an 
appliance that is recovered by a piece of recovery and/or recycling 
equipment.
    Recycle, when referring to refrigerant, means to extract 
refrigerant from an appliance and clean it for reuse in equipment of 
the same owner without meeting all of the requirements for reclamation. 
In general, recycled refrigerant is cleaned using oil separation and 
single or multiple passes through devices, such as replaceable core 
filter-driers, which reduce moisture, acidity, and particulate matter.
    Refrigerant means, for purposes of this subpart, any substance, 
including blends and mixtures, consisting in part or whole of a class I 
or class II ozone-depleting substance or substitute that is used for 
heat transfer purposes and provides a cooling effect.
    Refrigerant circuit means the parts of an appliance that are 
normally connected to each other (or are separated only by internal 
valves) and are designed to contain refrigerant.
    Retire, when referring to an appliance, means the disassembly of 
the entire appliance including its major components, such that the 
appliance as a whole cannot be used by any person in the future.
    Retrofit means to convert an appliance from one refrigerant to 
another refrigerant. Retrofitting includes the conversion of the 
appliance to achieve system compatibility with the new refrigerant and 
may include, but is not limited to, changes in lubricants, gaskets, 
filters, driers, valves, o-rings or appliance components.

[[Page 69518]]

    Seasonal variance means the addition of refrigerant to an appliance 
due to a change in ambient conditions caused by a change in season, 
followed by the subsequent removal of an equal amount of refrigerant in 
the corresponding change in season, where both the addition and removal 
of refrigerant occurs within one consecutive 12-month period.
    Self-contained recovery equipment means refrigerant recovery and/or 
recycling equipment that is capable of removing the refrigerant from an 
appliance without the assistance of components contained in the 
appliance.
    Self-sealing valve means a valve affixed to a container of 
refrigerant that automatically seals when not dispensing refrigerant 
and meets or exceeds established performance criteria as identified in 
Sec.  82.154(c)(2).
    Small appliance means any appliance that is fully manufactured, 
charged, and hermetically sealed in a factory with five (5) pounds or 
less of refrigerant, including, but not limited to, refrigerators and 
freezers (designed for home, commercial, or consumer use), medical or 
industrial research refrigeration equipment, room air conditioners 
(including window air conditioners, portable air conditioners, and 
packaged terminal air heat pumps), dehumidifiers, under-the-counter ice 
makers, vending machines, and drinking water coolers.
    Substitute means any chemical or product, whether existing or new, 
that is used as a refrigerant to replace a class I or II ozone-
depleting substance.
    System-dependent recovery equipment means refrigerant recovery 
equipment that requires the assistance of components contained in an 
appliance to remove the refrigerant from the appliance.
    System receiver means the isolated portion of the appliance, or a 
specific vessel within the appliance, that is used to hold the 
refrigerant charge during the servicing or repair of that appliance.
    Technician means any person who in the course of maintenance, 
service, or repair of an appliance could be reasonably expected to 
violate the integrity of the refrigerant circuit and therefore release 
refrigerants into the environment. Technician also means any person who 
disposes of an appliance that could be reasonably expected to violate 
the integrity of the refrigerant circuit and therefore release 
refrigerants from the appliance into the environment, except for 
persons who only dispose of appliances that are small appliances, 
MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances. Activities reasonably expected to 
violate the integrity of the refrigerant circuit include but are not 
limited to: Attaching and detaching hoses and gauges to and from the 
appliance; adding or removing refrigerant; adding or removing 
components; and cutting the refrigerant line. Activities such as 
painting the appliance, rewiring an external electrical circuit, 
replacing insulation on a length of pipe, or tightening nuts and bolts 
are not reasonably expected to violate the integrity of the refrigerant 
circuit. Activities conducted on appliances that have been properly 
evacuated pursuant to Sec.  82.156 are not reasonably expected to 
release refrigerants unless the activity includes adding refrigerant to 
the appliance. Technicians could include but are not limited to 
installers, contractor employees, in-house service personnel, and in 
some cases owners and/or operators of appliances.
    Very high-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a 
refrigerant with a critical temperature below 104 [deg]F or with a 
liquid phase saturation pressure above 355 psia at 104 [deg]F. Examples 
include but are not limited to appliances using R-13, R-23, R-503, R-
508A, and R-508B.
0
4. Revise Sec.  82.154 to read as follows:


Sec.  82.154  Prohibitions.

    (a) Venting Prohibition. (1) No person maintaining, servicing, 
repairing, or disposing of an appliance or industrial process 
refrigeration may knowingly vent or otherwise release into the 
environment any refrigerant from such appliances. Notwithstanding any 
other provision of this subpart, the following substitutes in the 
following end-uses are exempt from this prohibition and from the 
requirements of this subpart:
    (i) Carbon dioxide in any application;
    (ii) Nitrogen in any application;
    (iii) Water in any application;
    (iv) Ammonia in commercial or industrial process refrigeration or 
in absorption units;
    (v) Chlorine in industrial process refrigeration (processing of 
chlorine and chlorine compounds);
    (vi) Hydrocarbons in industrial process refrigeration (processing 
of hydrocarbons);
    (vii) Ethane (R-170) in very low temperature refrigeration 
equipment and equipment for non-mechanical heat transfer;
    (viii) Propane (R-290) in retail food refrigerators and freezers 
(stand-alone units only); household refrigerators, freezers, and 
combination refrigerators and freezers; self-contained room air 
conditioners for residential and light commercial air-conditioning; 
heat pumps; and vending machines;
    (ix) Isobutane (R-600a) in retail food refrigerators and freezers 
(stand-alone units only) and vending machines;
    (x) R-441A in retail food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone 
units only); self-contained room air conditioners for residential and 
light commercial air-conditioning; heat pumps; and vending machines.
    (2) De minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to 
recycle or recover refrigerants are not subject to this prohibition. 
Refrigerant releases are de minimis only if they occur when:
    (i) The required practices in Sec.  82.155, Sec.  82.156, and Sec.  
82.157 are observed, recovery and/or recycling machines that meet the 
requirements in Sec.  82.158 are used whenever refrigerant is removed 
from an appliance, the technician certification provisions in Sec.  
82.161 are observed, and the reclamation requirements in Sec.  82.164 
are observed; or
    (ii) The requirements in subpart B of this part are observed.
    (3) The knowing release of a refrigerant after its recovery from an 
appliance is a violation of the venting prohibition.
    (b) No person may maintain, service, repair, or dispose of an 
appliance without:
    (1) Observing the required practices in Sec.  82.155, Sec.  82.156, 
and Sec.  82.157; and
    (2) Using recovery and/or recycling equipment that is certified for 
that type of refrigerant and appliance under Sec.  82.158.
    (c) Sales Restriction. (1) No person may sell or distribute, or 
offer for sale or distribution, any substance that consists in whole or 
in part of a class I or class II substance or substitute for use as a 
refrigerant unless:
    (i) The buyer has been certified as a Type I, Type II, Type III, or 
Universal technician under Sec.  82.161;
    (ii) The buyer employs at least one technician who is certified as 
a Type I, Type II, Type III, or Universal technician under Sec.  82.161 
and provides proof of such to the seller;
    (iii) The buyer has been certified in accordance with 40 CFR part 
82, subpart B and the refrigerant is acceptable for use in MVACs under 
40 CFR part 82, subpart G;
    (iv) The buyer employs at least one technician who is certified 
under 40 CFR part 82, subpart B, and provides proof of such to the 
seller and the refrigerant is acceptable for use in MVACs under 40 CFR 
part 82, subpart G. Nothing in this provision relieves persons of the 
requirements of Sec.  82.34(b) or Sec.  82.42(b);
    (v) The refrigerant is sold only for eventual resale to certified 
technicians

[[Page 69519]]

or to appliance manufacturers (e.g., sold by a manufacturer to a 
wholesaler, sold by a technician to a reclaimer);
    (vi) The refrigerant is sold to an appliance manufacturer;
    (vii) The refrigerant is contained in an appliance with a fully 
assembled refrigerant circuit or an appliance component;
    (viii) The refrigerant is charged into an appliance by a certified 
technician or an apprentice during maintenance, service, or repair of 
the appliance;
    (ix) The refrigerant is exempted under paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section; or
    (x) The substitute refrigerant is intended for use in an MVAC and 
is sold in a container designed to hold two pounds or less of 
refrigerant, has a unique fitting, and has a self-sealing valve.
    (2) Self-sealing valve specifications. This provision will apply 
starting [ONE YEAR FROM PUBLICATION OF A FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER] for all containers holding two pounds or less of substitute 
refrigerant for use in an MVAC that are manufactured and placed into 
initial inventory or imported on or after that date. All containers 
holding two pounds or less of substitute refrigerant for use in an MVAC 
that are manufactured and placed into initial inventory or imported 
prior to that date must be sold prior to [TWO YEARS FROM PUBLICATION OF 
A FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (i) Each container holding two pounds or less of substitute 
refrigerant for use in an MVAC must be equipped with a single self-
sealing valve that automatically closes and seals when not dispensing 
refrigerant.
    (ii) The leakage rate from each container must not exceed 3.00 
grams per year when the self-sealing valve is closed. This leakage rate 
applies to new, full containers as well as containers that may be 
partially full.
    (iii) The leakage rate must be determined using the standards 
described in appendix E.
    (iv) All testing to demonstrate compliance with this paragraph must 
be conducted by an independent test laboratory in the United States. 
For purposes of this requirement, an independent test laboratory is one 
that is not owned, operated, or affiliated with the applicant 
certifying equipment and/or products.
    (3) Recordkeeping. (i) Persons who sell or distribute, or offer to 
sell or distribute, refrigerant must keep invoices that indicate the 
name of the purchaser, the date of sale, and the quantity of 
refrigerant purchased unless they are selling exempt substitutes or 
small cans of MVAC refrigerant in accordance with paragraph (c)(1)(ix) 
and (x) of this section. In instances where the buyer employs a 
certified technician, the seller must keep the documentation provided 
by the buyer that he or she employs at least one technician that is 
properly certified. All records must be kept for three years.
    (ii) Electronic or paper copies of all records described in 
appendix E must be maintained by manufacturers of containers holding 
two pounds or less of substitute refrigerant for use in an MVAC to 
verify self-sealing valves meet the requirements specified in paragraph 
(c)(2) of this section. All records must be kept for three years.
    (d) Sale of Used Refrigerant. No person may sell or distribute, or 
offer for sale or distribution, for use as a refrigerant any class I or 
class II substance or substitute consisting wholly or in part of used 
refrigerant unless the refrigerant:
    (1) Has been reclaimed by a person who has been certified as a 
reclaimer under Sec.  82.164;
    (2) was used only in an MVAC or MVAC-like appliance and is to be 
used only in an MVAC or MVAC-like appliance and recycled in accordance 
with Sec.  82.34(d);
    (3) is contained in an appliance that is sold or offered for sale 
together with a fully assembled refrigerant circuit;
    (4) is being transferred between or among a parent company and one 
or more of its subsidiaries, or between or among subsidiaries having 
the same parent company;
    (5) is being transferred between or among a Federal agency or 
department and a facility or facilities owned by the same Federal 
agency or department; or
    (6) is exempted under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (e) Manufacture and Sale of Appliances. (1) No person may sell or 
distribute, or offer for sale or distribution, any appliance (except 
small appliances) unless it is equipped with a servicing aperture to 
facilitate the removal of refrigerant at servicing and disposal.
    (2) No person may sell or distribute, or offer for sale or 
distribution, any small appliance unless it is equipped with a process 
stub to facilitate the removal of refrigerant at servicing and 
disposal.
    (f) One-time expansion devices. No person may manufacture or import 
a one-time expansion device unless the only refrigerants it contains 
have been exempted under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (g) Rules stayed for consideration. Notwithstanding any other 
provisions of this subpart, the effectiveness of 40 CFR 82.154(c), only 
as it applies to refrigerant contained in appliances without fully 
assembled refrigerant circuits, is stayed from April 27, 1995, until 
EPA takes final action on its reconsideration of these provisions. EPA 
will publish any such final action in the Federal Register.
0
5. Add Sec.  82.155 to subpart F to read as follows:


Sec.  82.155  Safe disposal of appliances.

    Until [ONE YEAR FROM PUBLICATION OF A FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER], this section applies only to disposal of appliances 
containing class I and class II refrigerants. Starting on [ONE YEAR 
FROM PUBLICATION OF A FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], this section 
applies to disposal of appliances containing any refrigerant as defined 
in Sec.  82.152.
    (a) Persons who take the final step in the disposal process 
(including but not limited to scrap recyclers and landfill operators) 
of a small appliance, MVAC, or MVAC-like appliance (the final 
processor) must either:
    (1) Recover any remaining refrigerant from the appliance in 
accordance with paragraph (b) of this section; or
    (2) Verify using a signed statement or a contract that all 
refrigerant that had not leaked previously has been recovered from the 
appliance or shipment of appliances in accordance with paragraph (b) of 
this section. This statement must include the name and address of the 
person who recovered the refrigerant and the date the refrigerant was 
recovered. The signed contract between the supplier and the final 
processor must state that the supplier will recover any remaining 
refrigerant from the appliance or shipment of appliances in accordance 
with this paragraph prior to delivery.
    (i) It is a violation of this subpart to accept a signed statement 
or contract if the person receiving the statement or contract knew or 
had reason to know that the signed statement or contract is false.
    (ii) Persons complying with this paragraph must notify suppliers of 
appliances that refrigerant must be properly recovered in accordance 
with paragraph (b) of this section before delivery of the items to the 
facility. The form of this notification may be signs, letters to 
suppliers, or other equivalent means.
    (b) Persons recovering refrigerant from a small appliance, MVAC, or 
MVAC-like appliance for purposes of disposal of these appliances must 
evacuate refrigerant to the levels in Sec.  82.156(b) or

[[Page 69520]]

(c) using recovery equipment that meets the standards in Sec.  
82.158(e)-(g), as applicable.
    (c) Recordkeeping. Persons who take the final step in the disposal 
process of a small appliance, MVAC, or MVAC-like appliance must keep a 
copy of all the signed statements or contracts obtained under paragraph 
(a)(2) of this section on site, in paper or electronic format, for at 
least three years.
0
6. Revise Sec.  82.156 to read as follows:


Sec.  82.156  Proper evacuation of refrigerant from appliances.

    Until [ONE YEAR FROM PUBLICATION OF A FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER], this section applies only to proper evacuation of 
refrigerant from appliances containing class I and class II 
refrigerants. Starting on [ONE YEAR FROM PUBLICATION OF A FINAL RULE IN 
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], this section applies to proper evacuation of 
refrigerant from appliances containing any refrigerant as defined in 
Sec.  82.152, except that the leak repair provisions in Sec.  82.157 
apply in lieu of paragraph (i) of this section.
    (a) Appliances other than small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like 
appliances. Before opening such appliances, or disposing of such 
appliances, persons must evacuate the refrigerant, including all the 
liquid refrigerant (except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this 
section), to the levels in Table 1 using a recovery and/or recycling 
machine certified pursuant to Sec.  82.158 unless the situations in 
paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) apply. Persons may evacuate either the 
entire appliance or the part to be serviced, if the refrigerant in the 
part can be isolated to a system receiver. A technician must verify 
that the applicable level of evacuation has been reached in the 
appliance or the part before it is opened.
    (1) If evacuation of the appliance to the atmosphere is not to be 
performed after completion of the maintenance, service, or repair, and 
if the maintenance, service, or repair is not major as defined at Sec.  
82.152, the appliance must:
    (i) Be evacuated to a pressure no higher than 0 psig before it is 
opened if it is a medium-, high- or very high-pressure appliance;
    (ii) Be pressurized to a pressure no higher than 0 psig before it 
is opened if it is a low-pressure appliance. Persons must cover 
openings when isolation is not possible. Persons pressurizing low-
pressure appliances that use refrigerants with boiling points at or 
below 85 degrees Fahrenheit at 29.9 inches of mercury (standard 
atmospheric pressure), must not use methods such as nitrogen that 
require subsequent purging. Persons pressurizing low-pressure 
appliances that use refrigerants with boiling points above 85 degrees 
Fahrenheit at 29.9 inches of mercury, must use heat to raise the 
internal pressure of the appliance as much as possible, but may use 
nitrogen to raise the internal pressure of the appliance from the level 
attainable through use of heat to atmospheric pressure; or
    (iii) For the purposes of oil changes, be evacuated or pressurized 
to a pressure no higher than 5 psig, before it is opened; or drain the 
oil into a system receiver to be evacuated or pressurized to a pressure 
no higher than 5 psig.
    (2) If leaks in the appliance make evacuation to the levels in 
Table 1 unattainable or would substantially contaminate the refrigerant 
being recovered, persons opening or disposing of the appliance must:
    (i) Isolate leaking from non-leaking components wherever possible;
    (ii) Evacuate non-leaking components to be opened or disposed of to 
the levels specified in Table 1; and
    (iii) Evacuate leaking components to be opened or disposed of to 
the lowest level that can be attained without substantially 
contaminating the refrigerant. This level may not exceed 0 psig.
    (3) Recordkeeping. Persons evacuating refrigerant from appliances 
with a full charge of more than 5 and less than 50 pounds of 
refrigerant for purposes of disposal of that appliance must keep 
records documenting the following for three years:
    (i) The company name, location of the equipment, date of recovery, 
amount and type of refrigerant recovered for each appliance; and
    (ii) The quantity and type of refrigerant transferred for 
reclamation and/or destruction, to whom it was transferred, and the 
date of transfer.

                              Table 1--Required Levels of Evacuation for Appliances
                         [Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Inches of Hg vacuum  (relative to standard atmospheric pressure of 29.9
                                                                       inches Hg)
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Type of appliance                                                   Using recovery and/or recycling
                                          Using recovery and/or recycling         equipment  manufactured or
                                             equipment  manufactured or       imported on or after November 15,
                                         imported before  November 15, 1993                  1993
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very high-pressure appliance..........  0..................................  0
High-pressure appliance, or isolated    0..................................  0
 component of such appliance, with a
 full charge of less than 200 pounds
 of refrigerant.
High-pressure appliance, or isolated    4..................................  10
 component of such appliance, with a
 full charge of 200 pounds or more of
 refrigerant.
Medium-pressure appliance, or isolated  4..................................  10
 component of such appliance, with a
 full charge of less than 200 pounds
 of refrigerant.
Medium-pressure appliance, or isolated  4..................................  15
 component of such appliance, with a
 full charge of 200 pounds or more of
 refrigerant.
Low-pressure appliance................  25 mm Hg absolute..................  25 mm Hg absolute.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Small appliances. Before opening a small appliance or when 
disposing of a small appliance, persons must use a recovery and/or 
recycling machine certified pursuant to Sec.  82.158 that meets the 
following conditions:
    (1) When using recovery equipment manufactured before November 15,

[[Page 69521]]

1993, recover 80% of the refrigerant in the small appliance; or
    (2) When using recovery equipment manufactured on or after November 
15, 1993, recover 90% of the refrigerant in the appliance when the 
compressor in the appliance is functioning, or 80% of the refrigerant 
in the appliance when the compressor in the appliance is not 
functioning; or
    (3) Evacuate the appliance to four inches of mercury vacuum.
    (c) MVACs and MVAC-like appliances. Persons may only open MVAC and 
MVAC-like appliances while properly using, as defined at Sec.  
82.32(e), recovery and/or recycling equipment certified pursuant to 
Sec.  82.158(f) or (g), as applicable. All persons recovering 
refrigerant from MVACs and MVAC-like appliances for purposes of 
disposal of these appliances must reduce the system pressure to or 
below 102 mm of mercury vacuum.
    (d) System-dependent equipment may not be used with appliances with 
a full charge of more than 15 pounds of refrigerant, unless the system-
dependent equipment is permanently attached to the appliance as a pump-
out unit.
    (e) Persons who maintain, service, repair, or dispose of only 
appliances that they own and that contain pump-out units are exempt 
from the requirement to use certified, self-contained recovery and/or 
recycling equipment.
    (f) All recovery and/or recycling equipment must be used in 
accordance with the manufacturer's directions unless such directions 
conflict with the requirements of this subpart.
    (g) Refrigerant may be returned to the appliance from which it is 
recovered or to another appliance owned by the same person without 
being recycled or reclaimed, unless the appliance is an MVAC or MVAC-
like appliance.
    (h) [Reserved]
    (i) The provisions in this paragraph (i) of this section apply to 
owners and operators of appliances containing more than 50 pounds of 
class I and class II refrigerants only until [18 MONTHS FROM 
PUBLICATION OF A FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The appliance 
maintenance and leak repair provisions in Sec.  82.157 apply as of [18 
MONTHS FROM PUBLICATION OF A FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
* * * * *
0
7. Add Sec.  82.157 to Subpart F to read as follows:


Sec.  82.157  Appliance maintenance and leak repair.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies as of [18 MONTHS FROM 
PUBLICATION OF A FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. This section 
applies only to appliances with a full charge of 50 or more pounds of 
refrigerant. Unless otherwise specified, the requirements of this 
section apply to the owner or operator of the appliance.
    (b) Leak Inspections. (1) Commercial refrigeration and industrial 
process refrigeration equipment with a full charge of 500 or more 
pounds of refrigerant must be inspected for leaks once every three 
months.
    (i) Such equipment may be inspected once per year if no refrigerant 
has been added in the past 365 days (excluding refrigerant added for 
seasonal variances). The equipment may continue to be inspected once 
per year if no refrigerant has been added in the past 365 days 
(excluding refrigerant added for seasonal variances).
    (ii) If refrigerant is added to an appliance that is on an annual 
leak inspection schedule under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, the 
appliance owner or operator must resume quarterly leak inspections.
    (2) Commercial refrigeration and industrial process refrigeration 
equipment with a full charge of 50 or more pounds but less than 500 
pounds of refrigerant must be inspected for leaks once per year.
    (3) Comfort cooling appliances or other appliances not covered by 
paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) with a full charge of 50 or more pounds of 
refrigerant must be inspected for leaks once per year.
    (4) Quarterly or annual leak inspections as described in paragraphs 
(b)(1)-(3) of this section are not required on appliances continuously 
monitored by an automatic leak detection system that is audited and 
calibrated annually. An automatic leak detection system may directly 
detect refrigerant in air, monitor its surrounding in a manner other 
than detecting refrigerant concentrations in air, or monitor conditions 
of the appliance.
    (i) For systems that directly detect the presence of a refrigerant 
in air, the system must:
    (A) Only be used on systems where the entire appliance or the 
compressor, evaporator, condenser, or other component with a high 
potential to leak is located inside an enclosed building or structure;
    (B) Have sensors or intakes placed so that they will continuously 
monitor the refrigerant concentrations in air in proximity to the 
compressor, evaporator, condenser, and other areas with a high 
potential for a refrigerant leak;
    (C) Accurately detect a concentration level of 10 parts per million 
of vapor of the specific refrigerant or refrigerants used in the 
refrigeration appliance(s); and
    (D) Alert the owner or operator when a refrigerant concentration of 
100 parts per million of vapor of the specific refrigerant or 
refrigerants used in the refrigeration appliance(s) is reached.
    (ii) For a system that monitors its surrounding in a manner other 
than detecting refrigerant concentrations in air or monitor conditions 
of the appliance, the system must automatically alert the owner or 
operator when measurements indicate a loss of 50 pounds of refrigerant 
or 10 percent of the full charge, whichever is less.
    (5) Owners or operators of federally-owned appliances may submit a 
request to EPA at the address specified in paragraph (m) of this 
section to conduct leak inspections less frequently than described in 
paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) of this section. The frequency of inspections 
cannot be less than one inspection every three years. The request will 
be considered approved unless EPA notifies the owner or operator of the 
appliance within 60 days of receipt of the request that it has been 
disapproved. Requests must include an alternate leak inspection 
schedule and demonstrate that:
    (i) The appliance has a history of minimal leakage;
    (ii) The appliance is remotely located or is otherwise difficult to 
access for routine maintenance; and
    (iii) Use of automatic leak detection equipment is not practical.
    (c) Leak Rate Calculation. Persons adding or removing refrigerant 
from an appliance must, upon conclusion of that service, provide the 
owner or operator with documentations that meets the requirements of 
paragraph (l)(4) of this section. The leak rate must be calculated 
every time refrigerant is added to an appliance unless the addition is 
made immediately following a retrofit, installation of a new appliance, 
or qualifies as a seasonal variance.
    (d) Requirement to Address Significant Leaks through Appliance 
Repair, or Retrofitting or Retiring an Appliance. (1) Appliances with a 
leak rate over the applicable leak rate in paragraph (d)(2) of this 
section must be repaired in accordance with paragraphs (e)-(g) of this 
section unless the owner elects to retrofit or retire the appliance in 
compliance with paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section. If the owner or 
operator elects to repair leaks, but fails to successfully comply with 
paragraphs (e)-(g) of this section, the owner or

[[Page 69522]]

operator must create and implement a retrofit or retirement plan in 
accordance with paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section.
    (2) Applicable Leak Rates: (i) 20 percent leak rate for commercial 
refrigeration equipment;
    (ii) 20 percent leak rate for industrial process refrigeration 
equipment; and
    (iii) 10 percent leak rate for comfort cooling appliances or other 
appliances with a full charge of 50 or more pounds of refrigerant not 
covered by (2)(i) or (ii) of this subsection.
    (e) Appliance Repair. All leaks must be identified and repaired in 
accordance with this paragraph within 30 days (or 120 days if an 
industrial process shutdown is required) of an appliance exceeding the 
applicable leak rate in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (1) A leak inspection must be conducted to identify the location of 
leaks.
    (2) All identified leaks must be repaired such that there are no 
longer any detectable leaks, as documented by an initial and follow-up 
verification test or tests.
    (f) Verification tests. Initial and follow-up verification tests 
are required on each identified leak required to be repaired in 
paragraph (e) of this section.
    (1) Initial verification test. Unless granted additional time, an 
initial verification test must be performed within 30 days (or 120 days 
if an industrial process shutdown is required) of an appliance 
exceeding the applicable leak rate in paragraph (d) of this section. An 
initial verification test must demonstrate that all identified leaks on 
the appliance are repaired.
    (i) For repairs that can be completed without the need to open or 
evacuate the appliance, the test must be performed as soon as 
practicable after the conclusion of the repair work and before any 
additional refrigerant is added to the appliance.
    (ii) For repairs that require the evacuation of the appliance or 
portion of the appliance, the test must be performed before adding any 
refrigerant to the appliance.
    (iii) If the initial verification test indicates that the repairs 
have not been successful, the owner or operator may conduct as many 
additional repairs and initial verification tests as needed within the 
applicable time period.
    (2) Follow-up verification test. A follow-up verification test must 
be performed within 10 days of the successful initial verification test 
or 10 days of the appliance reaching normal operating characteristics 
and conditions (if appliance or isolated component was evacuated for 
the repair(s)).
    (i) A follow-up verification test must demonstrate that all 
identified leaks on the appliance are repaired. If the follow-up 
verification test indicates that the repairs have not been successful, 
the owner or operator may conduct as many additional repairs and 
follow-up verification tests as needed within the applicable time 
period.
    (ii) [Reserved].
    (g) Extensions to the appliance repair deadlines in paragraphs (e)-
(g) of this section. The timeframes in paragraphs (e)-(g) of this 
section are temporarily suspended when an appliance is mothballed. The 
time will resume on the day additional refrigerant is added to the 
appliance (or component of an appliance if the leaking component was 
isolated). Additionally, owners or operators may request more than 30 
days (or 120 days if an industrial process shutdown is required) to 
comply with paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section if they meet the 
requirements of (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this section. The request will 
be considered approved unless EPA notifies the owners or operators 
within 30 days of receipt of the request.
    (1) One or more of the following conditions applies:
    (i) The appliance is located in an area subject to radiological 
contamination or shutting down the appliance will directly lead to 
radiological contamination. Additional time is permitted to the extent 
needed to conduct and finish repairs in a safe working environment.
    (ii) Requirements of other applicable Federal, state, or local 
regulations make a repair within 30 days (or 120 days if an industrial 
process shutdown is required) impossible. Additional time is permitted 
to the extent needed to comply with the pertinent regulations.
    (iii) Necessary parts are unavailable. Additional time is permitted 
up to 30 days after receiving delivery of the necessary parts, not to 
exceed 180 days (or 270 days if an industrial process shutdown is 
required) from the date the appliance exceeded the applicable leak 
rate.
    (2) All repairs that do not require additional time must be 
completed and verified within the initial 30 day repair period (or 120 
day repair period if an industrial process shutdown is required);
    (3) The owner or operator must document all repair efforts and the 
reason for the inability to make the repair within the initial 30 day 
repair period (or 120 day repair period if an industrial process 
shutdown is required); and
    (4) The owner or operator must request an extension from EPA at the 
address specified in paragraph (m) of this section within 30 days (or 
120 days if an industrial process shutdown is required) of the 
appliance exceeding the applicable leak rate in paragraph (d) of this 
section. Requests must include: Identification and address of the 
facility; the name of the owner or operator of the appliance; the leak 
rate; the method used to determine the leak rate and full charge; the 
date the appliance exceeded the applicable leak rate; the location of 
leak(s) to the extent determined to date; any repair work that has been 
performed thus far, including the date that work was completed; the 
reasons why more than 30 days (or 120 days if an industrial process 
shutdown is required) are needed to complete the repair; and an 
estimate of when the work will be completed. If the estimated 
completion date is to be extended, a new estimated date of completion 
and documentation of the reason for that change must be submitted to 
EPA within 30 days. The owner or operator must keep a dated copy of 
this submission.
    (h) Retrofit or retirement plans. The retrofit or retirement plan 
must be signed by an authorized company official, dated, accessible at 
the site of the appliance in paper copy or electronic format, and 
available for EPA inspection upon request.
    (1) A retrofit or retirement plan must be created within 30 days 
of:
    (i) discovering that an appliance is leaking above the applicable 
leak rate in paragraph (d) of this section if the owner or operator 
intends to retrofit or retire rather than repair the leak; or
    (ii) failing to comply with paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section.
    (2) A retrofit or retirement plan must, at a minimum, contain the 
following information:
    (i) Identification and location of the appliance;
    (ii) Type and full charge of the refrigerant used in the appliance;
    (iii) Type and full charge of the refrigerant to which the 
appliance will be converted, if retrofitted;
    (iv) Itemized procedure for converting the appliance to a different 
refrigerant, including changes required for compatibility with the new 
substitute, if retrofitted;
    (v) Plan for the disposition of recovered refrigerant;
    (vi) Plan for the disposition of the appliance, if retired; and
    (vii) A schedule, not to exceed one-year, for completion of the 
appliance retrofit or retirement.
    (3) Unless granted additional time, all work performed in 
accordance with the

[[Page 69523]]

plan must be finished within one year of the plan's date (not to exceed 
13 months from when the plan was required in paragraph (h)(1) of this 
section).
    (4) All identified leaks must be repaired as part of any retrofit 
under such a plan.
    (i) Extensions to the one-year retrofit or retirement schedule. The 
timeframes in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section are temporarily 
suspended when an appliance is mothballed. The time will resume on the 
day additional refrigerant is added to the appliance (or component of 
an appliance if the leaking component was isolated). Additionally, 
owners or operators may request more than one year to comply with 
paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section if they meet the requirements of 
this paragraph. The request will be considered approved unless EPA 
notifies the owners or operators within 60 days of receipt of the 
request. The request must be submitted to EPA at the address specified 
in Sec.  82.157(m) within seven months of discovering the appliance 
exceeded the applicable leak rate. The request must include the 
identification of the appliance; name of the owner or operator; the 
leak rate; the method used to determine the leak rate and full charge; 
the date the appliance exceeded the applicable leak rate; the location 
of leaks(s) to the extent determined to date; any repair work that has 
been finished thus far, including the date that work was finished; a 
plan to finish the retrofit or retirement of the appliance; the reasons 
why more than one year is necessary to retrofit or retire the 
appliance; the date of notification to EPA; and an estimate of when 
retrofit or retirement work will be finished. A dated copy of the 
request must be available on-site in either electronic or paper copy. 
If the estimated completion date is to be revised, a new estimated date 
of completion and documentation of the reason for that change must be 
submitted to EPA at the address specified in Sec.  82.157(m) within 30 
days.
    (1) Extensions available to any appliance. Owners or operators of 
commercial refrigeration, industrial process refrigeration, comfort-
cooling, or other equipment are automatically allowed 18 months to 
retire an appliance if the replacement uses a refrigerant exempt from 
the venting prohibition in Sec.  82.154(a).
    (2) Extensions available to industrial process refrigeration. 
Owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration equipment may 
request additional time beyond the one-year period in paragraph (h) of 
this section to finish the retrofit or retirement under the following 
circumstances.
    (i) Requirements of other applicable Federal, state, or local 
regulations make a retrofit or retirement within one year impossible. 
Additional time is permitted to the extent needed to comply with the 
pertinent regulations; or
    (ii) The new or the retrofitted equipment is custom-built as 
defined in this subpart and the supplier of the appliance or one of its 
components has quoted a delivery time of more than 30 weeks from when 
the order is placed. The appliance or appliance components must be 
installed within 120 days after receiving delivery of the necessary 
parts.
    (3) Extensions available to Federally-owned equipment. Owners or 
operators of Federally-owned commercial or comfort-cooling equipment 
may request an additional year beyond the one-year period in paragraph 
(h) of this section to finish the retrofit or retirement under the 
following circumstances:
    (i) A delivery time of more than 30 weeks from the beginning of the 
official procurement process is quoted due to complications presented 
by the Federal agency appropriations and/or procurement process;
    (ii) The appliance is located in an area subject to radiological 
contamination and creating a safe working environment will require more 
than 30 weeks; or
    (iii) After receiving a one-year extension under subparagraphs 
(i)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section, additional time is necessary to 
finish the retrofit or retirement of equipment. The request must be 
submitted to EPA before the end of the ninth month of the one-year 
extension and must include the same information submitted for that one-
year extension, with any necessary revisions. A dated copy of the 
request must be available on-site in either electronic or paper copy. 
The request will be considered approved unless EPA notifies the owners 
or operators within 60 days of receipt of the request.
    (j) Two-year leak limit. Appliances containing 50 pounds or more of 
refrigerant are prohibited from leaking more than 75 percent of the 
full charge in each of two consecutive twelve-month periods. Under 
paragraph (c) of this section, the leak rate must be calculated every 
time refrigerant is added to an appliance. By the end of the second 
twelve-month period, appliances that exceed this limit must be retired 
or mothballed until retired.
    (k) Purged refrigerant. In calculating annual leak rates, purged 
refrigerant that is destroyed at a verifiable destruction efficiency of 
98 percent or greater will not be counted toward the leak rate.
    (l) Recordkeeping. All records identified in this paragraph must be 
kept for three years in electronic or paper format.
    (1) Owners or operators must keep records of leak inspections that 
include the date of inspection, the method used to conduct the leak 
inspection, a list of the location of each leak that was identified, 
and a certification that all visible parts of the appliance were 
inspected.
    (2) If using an automatic leak detection system, the owner or 
operator must maintain records regarding the installation and the 
annual audit and calibration of the system. They also must keep a 
record of each date the monitoring system identified a leak and the 
location of the leak.
    (3) Owners or operators must determine the full charge of all 
appliances with 50 or more pounds of refrigerant (as defined in Sec.  
82.152), and maintain the following information for each appliance:
    (i) The identification of the owner or operator of the appliance;
    (ii) The address where the appliance is located;
    (iii) The full charge of the appliance and the method for how the 
full charge was determined;
    (iv) The range for the full charge of the appliance, its midpoint, 
and how the range was determined (if using method 4, as defined in 
Sec.  82.152, for determining full charge);
    (v) Any revisions of the full charge and how they were determined; 
and
    (vi) The dates such revisions occurred.
    (4) Owners or operators are required to maintain a record including 
the following information for each time an appliance with a full charge 
of 50 or more pounds is maintained, serviced, repaired, or disposed of, 
when applicable. If the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal is 
done by someone other than the owner, that person must provide a record 
containing the following information to the owner or operator, when 
applicable:
    (i) The identity and location of the appliance;
    (ii) The date of the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal 
performed;
    (iii) The part(s) of the appliance being serviced and for each 
part, the type of maintenance, service, repair, or disposal performed;
    (iv) The name of the person performing the maintenance, service, 
repair or disposal;
    (v) The amount and type of refrigerant added to or removed from the 
appliance;

[[Page 69524]]

    (vi) The full charge of the appliance; and
    (vii) The leak rate and the method used to determine the leak rate 
(not applicable when disposing of the appliance, following a retrofit, 
installation of a new appliance, or if the refrigerant addition 
qualifies as a seasonal variance).
    (5) Owners or operators must maintain records of the dates and 
results of all initial and follow-up verification tests. Records must 
include at minimum the location of the appliance, the date of the 
verification test or tests, the location of all repaired leaks that 
were tested, the type of verification test used, and the results of 
those tests.
    (6) Owners or operators must maintain retrofit or retirement plans 
developed in accordance with paragraph (h) of this section.
    (7) Owners or operators must maintain retrofit and/or extension 
requests submitted to EPA in accordance with paragraph (i) of this 
section.
    (8) Owners or operators that suspend the deadlines in this section 
by mothballing an appliance must keep records documenting when the 
appliance was mothballed and when additional refrigerant was added to 
the appliance (or isolated component).
    (9) Owners or operators who exclude purged refrigerants that are 
destroyed from annual leak rate calculations must maintain records to 
support the amount of refrigerant claimed as sent for destruction. 
Records must be based on a monitoring strategy that provides reliable 
data to demonstrate that the amount of refrigerant claimed to have been 
destroyed is not greater than the amount of refrigerant actually purged 
and destroyed and that the 98 percent or greater destruction efficiency 
is met. Records must include flow rate, quantity or concentration of 
the refrigerant in the vent stream, and periods of purge flow. Records 
must include:
    (i) the identification of the facility and a contact person, 
including the address and telephone number;
    (ii) A description of the appliance, focusing on aspects relevant 
to the purging of refrigerant and subsequent destruction;
    (iii) A description of the methods used to determine the quantity 
of refrigerant sent for destruction and type of records that are being 
kept by the owners or operators where the appliance is located;
    (iv) The frequency of monitoring and data-recording; and
    (v) A description of the control device, and its destruction 
efficiency.
    (10) Owners or operators that exclude additions of refrigerant due 
to seasonal variance from their leak rate calculation must maintain 
records in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
    (11) Owners or operators that submit reports to EPA in accordance 
with paragraph (m) of this section, must maintain copies of the 
submitted reports and any responses from EPA.
    (12) Owners or operators of federally-owned appliances that request 
an alternate leak inspection schedule in accordance with paragraph 
(b)(5) of this section must maintain copies of the submitted requests 
and all responses from EPA until three years after the less frequent 
leak inspection schedule is no longer being followed.
    (m) Reporting. All notifications must be submitted electronically 
to 608reports@epa.gov unless the notification contains confidential 
business information. If the notification contains confidential 
business information, the information should be submitted to: Section 
608 Program Manager; Stratospheric Protection Division; Mail Code: 
6205T; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 
NW.; Washington, DC 20460.
    (1) Owners or operators must notify EPA at this address in 
accordance with paragraph (b)(5) of this section when seeking an 
alternate leak inspection schedule.
    (2) Owners or operators must notify EPA at this address in 
accordance with paragraph (g) of this section when seeking an extension 
of time to complete repairs.
    (3) Owners or operators must notify EPA at this address in 
accordance with paragraph (i) of this section when seeking an extension 
of time to complete the retrofit or retirement of an appliance.
    (4) When excluding purged refrigerants that are destroyed from 
annual leak rate calculations, owners or operators must notify EPA at 
this address within 60 days after the first time the exclusion is used 
by the facility where the appliance is located. The report must include 
the information included in paragraph (l)(9) of this section.
0
8. Revise Sec.  82.158 to read as follows:


Sec.  82.158  Standards for recovery and/or recycling equipment.

    (a) No person may manufacture or import recovery and/or recycling 
equipment for use during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal 
of appliances unless the equipment is certified in accordance with this 
section.
    (b) No person may alter the design of certified refrigerant 
recovery and/or recycling equipment in a way that would affect the 
equipment's ability to meet the certification standards in this section 
without resubmitting the altered design for certification testing. 
Until it is tested and shown to meet the certification standards in 
this section, equipment so altered will be considered uncertified.
    (c) Recovery and/or recycling equipment manufactured or imported 
before November 15, 1993, intended for use during the maintenance, 
service, repair, or disposal of appliances (except small appliances, 
MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances) will be considered certified if it is 
capable of achieving the level of evacuation specified in Table 2 of 
this section when tested using a properly calibrated pressure gauge.
    (d) Manufacturers and importers of recovery and/or recycling 
equipment must have such equipment certified by an approved equipment 
testing organization as follows:
    (1) Recovery and/or recycling equipment manufactured or imported on 
or after November 15, 1993, and before September 22, 2003, intended for 
use during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances 
(except small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances) must be 
certified by an approved equipment testing organization as being 
capable of achieving the level of evacuation specified in Table 2 of 
this section under the conditions of appendix B1 of this subpart (based 
upon the ARI Standard 740-1993, Performance of Refrigerant Recovery, 
Recycling and/or Reclaim Equipment).
    (2) Recovery and/or recycling equipment manufactured or imported on 
or after September 22, 2003, and before January 1, 2017, intended for 
use during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances 
(except small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances) must be 
certified by an approved equipment testing organization as being 
capable of achieving the level of evacuation specified in Table 2 of 
this section under the conditions of appendix B2 of this subpart (based 
upon the ARI Standard 740-1995, Performance of Refrigerant Recovery, 
Recycling and/or Reclaim Equipment).
    (3) Recovery and/or recycling equipment manufactured or imported on 
or after January 1, 2017, intended for use during the maintenance, 
service, repair, or disposal of appliances (except small appliances, 
MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances) must be certified by an approved 
equipment testing

[[Page 69525]]

organization as being capable of achieving the level of evacuation 
specified in Table 2 of this section under the conditions of appendix 
B3 (for non-flammable refrigerants) or appendix B4 (for flammable 
refrigerants) of this subpart.

 Table 2--Levels of Evacuation Which Must Be Achieved by Recovery and/or
                           Recycling Equipment
     [Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Inches of Hg vacuum (relative to
                                   standard atmospheric pressure of 29.9
                                                inches Hg)
  Type of appliance with which   ---------------------------------------
    recovery and/or recycling                           Manufactured or
 machine is intended to be used     Manufactured or     imported on or
                                    imported before   after November 15,
                                   November 15, 1993         1993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCFC-22 appliances, or isolated   0.................  0
 component of such appliances,
 with a full charge of less than
 200 pounds of refrigerant.
HCFC-22 appliances, or isolated   4.................  10
 component of such appliances,
 with a full charge of 200
 pounds or more of refrigerant.
Very high-pressure appliances...  0.................  0
Other high-pressure appliances,   4.................  10
 or isolated component of such
 appliances, with a full charge
 of less than 200 pounds of
 refrigerant.
Other high-pressure appliances,   4.................  15
 or isolated component of such
 appliances, with a full charge
 of 200 pounds or more of
 refrigerant.
Medium-pressure appliances, or    4.................  10
 isolated component of such
 appliances, with a full charge
 of less than 200 pounds of
 refrigerant.
Medium-pressure appliances, or    4.................  15
 isolated component of such
 appliances, with a full charge
 of 200 pounds or more of
 refrigerant.
Low-pressure appliances.........  25 mm Hg absolute.  25 mm Hg absolute.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Recovery and/or recycling equipment whose recovery efficiency 
cannot be tested according to the procedures in appendix B1, B2, B3, or 
B4 of this subpart as applicable may be certified if an approved third-
party testing organization adopts and performs a test that 
demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, that the 
recovery efficiency of that equipment is equal to or better than that 
of equipment that:
    (i) Is intended for use with the same type of appliance; and
    (ii) Achieves the level of evacuation in Table 2. The 
manufacturer's instructions must specify how to achieve the required 
recovery efficiency, and the equipment must be tested when used 
according to these instructions.
    (5) The equipment must meet the minimum requirements for 
certification under appendix B1, B2, B3, or B4 of this subpart as 
applicable.
    (6) If the equipment is equipped with a noncondensables purge 
device, the equipment must not release more than 3 percent of the 
quantity of refrigerant being recycled through noncondensables purging 
under the conditions of appendix B1, B2, B3, or B4 of this subpart as 
applicable.
    (7) The equipment must be equipped with low-loss fittings on all 
hoses.
    (8) The equipment must have its liquid recovery rate and its vapor 
recovery rate measured under the conditions of appendix B1, B2, B3, or 
B4 as applicable, unless the equipment has no inherent liquid or vapor 
recovery rate.
    (e) Small Appliances. Equipment used during the maintenance, 
service, repair, or disposal of small appliances must be certified by 
an approved equipment testing organization to be capable of recovering 
90% of the refrigerant in the test stand when the compressor of the 
test stand is operational and 80% of the refrigerant when the 
compressor of the test stand is not operational, when used in 
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions under the conditions of 
appendix C, Method for Testing Recovery Devices for Use with Small 
Appliances.
    (1) Equipment manufactured or imported before November 15, 1993, 
will be considered certified if it is capable of either recovering 80% 
of the refrigerant in the system, whether or not the compressor of the 
test stand is operational, or achieving a four-inch vacuum when tested 
using a properly calibrated pressure gauge.
    (2) Equipment manufactured or imported on or after November 15, 
1993, may also be certified if it is capable of achieving a four-inch 
vacuum under the conditions of appendix B1 of this subpart, based upon 
ARI Standard 740-1993.
    (3) Equipment manufactured or imported on or after September 22, 
2003, and before January 1, 2017, may also be certified if it is 
capable of achieving a four-inch vacuum under the conditions of 
appendix B2 of this subpart, based upon ARI Standard 740-1995.
    (4) Equipment manufactured or imported on or after January 1, 2017, 
may also be certified if it is capable of achieving a four-inch vacuum 
under the conditions of appendix B3 (for non-flammable refrigerants) or 
appendix B4 (for flammable refrigerants) of this subpart.
    (5) Equipment used to evacuate refrigerant from small appliances 
before they are disposed of may also be certified if it is capable of 
achieving a four-inch vacuum when tested using a properly calibrated 
pressure gauge.
    (f) MVAC-like appliances. (1) Manufacturers and importers of 
recovery and/or recycling equipment intended for use during the 
maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of MVAC-like appliances must 
certify such equipment in accordance with Sec.  82.36(a).
    (2) Equipment manufactured or imported before November 15, 1993, 
intended for use during the maintenance, service, or repair of MVAC-
like appliances must be capable of reducing the system pressure to 102 
mm of mercury vacuum under the conditions of the SAE Standard, SAE 
J1990 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart B).
    (g) MVACs. Equipment used to evacuate refrigerant from MVACs before 
they are disposed of must be certified in accordance with Sec.  
82.36(a).
    (h) Labeling. Manufacturers and importers of equipment certified 
under paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section must place a label on each 
piece of equipment stating the following:
    THIS EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY [APPROVED EQUIPMENT TESTING 
ORGANIZATION] TO MEET EPA's

[[Page 69526]]

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR RECYCLING OR RECOVERY EQUIPMENT INTENDED FOR 
USE WITH [APPROPRIATE CATEGORY OF APPLIANCE].
    The label must also show the date of manufacture and the serial 
number (if applicable) of the equipment. The label must be affixed in a 
readily visible or accessible location, be made of a material expected 
to last the lifetime of the equipment, present required information in 
a way that it is likely to remain legible for the lifetime of the 
equipment, and be affixed in such a way that it cannot be removed from 
the equipment without damage to the label.
    (i) Retesting. At least once every three years, manufacturers or 
importers of recovery and/or recycling equipment intended for use 
during the maintenance, service, or repair of appliances (except MVACs 
or MVAC-like appliances) or during the disposal of appliances (except 
small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances) must have approved 
equipment testing organizations conduct either:
    (1) Retests of certified recovery and/or recycling equipment in 
accordance with paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section; or
    (2) Inspections of recovery and/or recycling equipment at 
manufacturing facilities to ensure that each equipment model line that 
has been certified under this section continues to meet the 
certification criteria.
    (j) Revocation. An equipment model line that has been certified 
under this section may have its certification revoked if it is 
subsequently determined to fail to meet the certification criteria. In 
such cases, the Administrator must give notice to the manufacturer or 
importer setting forth the basis for the determination.
    (k) Equipment that is advertised or marketed as ``recycling 
equipment'' must be capable of recycling the standard contaminated 
refrigerant sample of appendix B2, B3, or B4 of this subpart (as 
applicable) to the levels in the following table when tested under the 
conditions of appendix B2, B3 or B4 of this subpart:

       Maximum Levels of Contaminants Permissible in Refrigerant Processed Through Equipment Advertised as
                                             ``Recycling'' Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Low-pressure (R-11, R-123,
            Contaminants                    R-113) systems             R-12 Systems          All other systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acid Content (by wt.)..............  1.0 PPM....................  1.0 PPM...............  1.0 PPM.
Moisture (by wt.)..................  20 PPM.....................  10 PPM................  20 PPM.
Noncondensable Gas (by vol.).......  N/A........................  2.0%..................  2.0%.
High Boiling Residues (by vol.)....  1.0%.......................  0.02%.................  0.02%.
Chlorides by Silver Nitrate Test...  No turbidity...............  No turbidity..........  No turbidity.
Particulates.......................  Visually clean.............  Visually clean........  Visually clean.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
9. Revise Sec.  82.160 to read as follows:


Sec.  82.160  Approved equipment testing organizations.

    (a) Any equipment testing organization may apply for approval by 
the Administrator to certify equipment under the standards in Sec.  
82.158 and appendices B2, B3, B4, or C of this subpart. Applications 
must be sent to 608reports@epa.gov, or if containing confidential 
business information, mailed to: Section 608 Program Manager; 
Stratospheric Protection Division; Mail Code: 6205T; U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    (b) Applications for approval must include:
    (1) A list of equipment present at the organization that will be 
used for equipment testing.
    (2) Verification of the organization's expertise in equipment 
testing and the technical experience of the organization's personnel.
    (3) Verification of the organization's knowledge of the standards 
and recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this subpart.
    (4) A description of the organization's program for verifying the 
performance of certified recovery and/or recycling equipment 
manufactured over the long term, specifying whether retests of 
equipment or inspections of equipment at manufacturing facilities will 
be used.
    (5) Verification that the organization has no conflict of interest 
and receives no direct or indirect financial benefit from the outcome 
of certification testing.
    (6) Agreement to allow the Administrator access to records and 
personnel to verify the information contained in the application.
    (c) Organizations may not certify equipment before receiving 
approval from EPA. If approval is denied under this section, the 
Administrator must give written notice to the organization setting 
forth the basis for the determination.
    (d) If an approved testing organization conducts certification 
tests in a way not consistent with the representations made in its 
application or with the provisions of this subpart, the Administrator 
may revoke approval in accordance with Sec.  82.169. In such cases, the 
Administrator must give notice to the organization setting forth the 
basis for the determination.
    (e) Recordkeeping and reporting. (1) Approved equipment testing 
organizations must maintain records of equipment testing and 
performance and a list of equipment that meets EPA requirements. This 
list must include the name of the manufacturer and the name and/or 
serial number of the model line. Approved equipment testing 
organizations must publish online a list of all certified equipment 
that includes the information specified above and update the list 
annually.
    (2) Approved equipment testing organizations must notify EPA at 
608reports@epa.gov if retests of equipment or inspections of 
manufacturing facilities conducted under to Sec.  82.158(i) show that a 
previously certified model line fails to meet EPA requirements. Such 
notification must be received within thirty days of the retest or 
inspection.
0
10. Revise Sec.  82.161 to read as follows:


Sec.  82.161  Technician certification.

    Until [ONE YEAR FROM PUBLICATION OF A FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER], this section applies only to technicians and organizations 
certifying technicians that maintain, service, or repair appliances 
containing class I and class II refrigerants. Starting on [ONE YEAR 
FROM PUBLICATION OF A FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], this section 
applies to technicians and organizations certifying technicians that 
maintain, service, or repair appliances containing any refrigerant as 
defined in Sec.  82.152.
    (a) Requirements for Technicians. (1) Technicians must pass a 
certification exam offered by an approved technician

[[Page 69527]]

certification program to work on different types of appliances, as 
follows:
    (i) Technicians who maintain, service, or repair small appliances 
must be certified as Type I technicians.
    (ii) Technicians who maintain, service, repair, or dispose of 
medium-, high-, or very high-pressure appliances (except small 
appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances) must be certified as Type 
II technicians.
    (iii) Technicians who maintain, service, repair, or dispose of low-
pressure appliances must be certified as Type III technicians.
    (iv) Excluding persons who exclusively dispose of small appliances, 
MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances, technicians who maintain, service, 
repair, or dispose of appliances as described in paragraph (a)(1)(i)-
(iii) of this section must be certified as Universal technicians.
    (v) Technicians who maintain, service, or repair MVAC-like 
appliances must either be certified as Type II technicians or be 
certified by a training and certification program approved under Sec.  
82.40.
    (vi) Technicians who maintain, service, or repair MVAC appliances 
must be certified by a training and certification program approved 
under Sec.  82.40.
    (2) Apprentices are exempt from the requirement in paragraph (a)(1) 
of this section provided the apprentice is closely and continually 
supervised by a certified technician while performing any maintenance, 
service, repair, or disposal that could reasonably be expected to 
release refrigerant from an appliance into the environment. The 
supervising certified technician and the apprentice have the 
responsibility to ensure that the apprentice complies with this 
subpart.
    (3) The Administrator may require technicians to demonstrate at 
their place of business their ability to perform proper procedures for 
recovering and/or recycling refrigerant. Failure to demonstrate or 
failure to properly use the equipment may result in revocation or 
suspension of the certificate. Failure to abide by any of the 
provisions of this subpart may also result in revocation or suspension 
of the certificate. If a technician's certificate is revoked, the 
technician would need to recertify before maintaining, servicing, 
repairing, or disposing of any appliances.
    (4) Technicians certified under this section must keep a copy of 
their certificate at their place of business.
    (5) Recertification. The Administrator reserves the right to 
specify a requirement for technician recertification at some future 
date, if necessary, by placing a notice in the Federal Register.
    (b) Requirements for Technician Certification Programs. (1) No 
technician training or testing program may issue certificates under 
this section unless the program complies with all the standards of this 
section and appendix D, and has been granted approval by the 
Administrator.
    (2) Program Approval. Persons may seek approval of any technician 
certification program (program), in accordance with this paragraph, by 
submitting to the Administrator at the address in Sec.  82.160(a) 
verification that the program meets all the standards listed in 
appendix D. The Administrator reserves the right to consider other 
relevant factors to ensure the effectiveness of certification programs. 
If approval is denied under this section, the Administrator must give 
written notice to the program setting forth the basis for the 
determination.
    (3) Alternative Examinations. Programs are encouraged to make 
provisions for non-English speaking technicians by providing tests in 
other languages or allowing the use of a translator when taking the 
test. A test may be administered orally to any person who makes this 
request, in writing, to the program at least 30 days before the 
scheduled date for the examination. The written request must explain 
why the request is being made.
    (4) Proof of Certification. Programs certifying technicians must 
provide technicians with identification cards in accordance with 
section (f) of appendix D of this subpart.
    (5) Programs certifying technicians must maintain records in 
accordance with section (g) of appendix D of this subpart.
    (6) Starting January 1, 2018, programs certifying technicians, 
excluding Federally-run programs, must create and maintain a publicly-
searchable database of technicians they have certified.
    (i) At a minimum, the database must include all technicians 
certified after January 1, 2017.
    (ii) The database must provide the first name, middle initial, and 
last name of the certified technician, the technician's city of 
residence when taking the test, the type(s) of certification received, 
and the date each certification was completed.
    (iii) Programs certifying technicians must provide notice to 
technicians of their inclusion in the database in compliance with any 
other federal, state or local regulations, and give technicians the 
ability to opt out of being included in the database.
    (7) If an approved program violates any of the above requirements, 
the Administrator may revoke approval in accordance with Sec.  82.169. 
In such cases, the Administrator must give notice to the organization 
setting forth the basis for the determination.
    (c) Test Subject Material. A bank of test questions developed by 
the Administrator consists of groups, including a core group and 
technical groups. The Administrator will release this bank of questions 
only to approved technician certification programs. Each test for each 
type of certification must include at least 25 questions drawn from the 
core group and at least 25 questions drawn from each relevant technical 
group. These questions must address the subject areas in appendix D.
0
11. Remove and reserve Sec.  82.162:


Sec.  82.162  [Reserved]

0
12. Revise Sec.  82.164 to read as follows:


Sec.  82.164  Reclaimer certification.

    (a) All persons reclaiming used refrigerant for sale to a new owner 
must meet the following requirements:
    (1) Reclaim refrigerant to all the specifications in appendix A of 
this subpart (based on AHRI Standard 700-2015, Specifications for 
Refrigerants) that are applicable to that refrigerant;
    (2) Verify that each batch of refrigerant reclaimed meets these 
specifications using the analytical methodology prescribed in appendix 
A, which includes the primary methodologies included in the appendix to 
the AHRI Standard 700-2015;
    (3) Release no more than 1.5 percent of the refrigerant during the 
reclamation process;
    (4) Dispose of wastes from the reclamation process in accordance 
with all applicable laws and regulations; and
    (5) Maintain records and submit reports in accordance with 
paragraph (d) of this section.
    (b) The owner or a responsible officer reclaiming used refrigerant 
for sale to a new owner, except for persons who properly certified 
under this section before May 11, 2004, must certify to the 
Administrator at the address in Sec.  82.160(a) that they will meet the 
requirements in paragraph (a) of this section. The certification must 
include the name and address of the reclaimer and a list of equipment 
used to reclaim the refrigerant to the required standard, and to 
analyze the refrigerant to ensure it meets these specifications.
    (c) Certificates are not transferable. In the event of a change in 
ownership of an entity which reclaims refrigerant, the new owner of the 
entity must certify with the Administrator within 30 days

[[Page 69528]]

of the change of ownership under this section. In the event of a change 
in business management, location, or contact information, the owner of 
the entity must notify EPA within 30 days of the change at the address 
in Sec.  82.160(a).
    (d) Recordkeeping and reporting. (1) Reclaimers must maintain 
records of the analysis conducted to verify that reclaimed refrigerant 
meets the necessary specifications in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of 
this section.
    (2) Reclaimers must maintain records of the names and addresses of 
persons sending them material for reclamation and the quantity of the 
material (the combined mass of refrigerant and contaminants) by 
refrigerant type sent to them for reclamation. Such records must be 
maintained on a transactional basis for three years.
    (3) Reclaimers must report to the Administrator annually within 30 
days of the end of the calendar year the total annual quantity of 
material (the combined mass of refrigerant and contaminants) by 
refrigerant type sent to them for reclamation, the total annual mass of 
each refrigerant reclaimed, and the total annual mass of waste 
products.
    (e) Failure to abide by any of the provisions of this subpart may 
result in revocation or suspension of the certification of the 
reclaimer in accordance with Sec.  82.169. In such cases, the 
Administrator must give notice to the organization setting forth the 
basis for the determination.
0
13. Amend section 82.166 by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraphs (a) through (i), and (l); and
0
b. Revising paragraph (m).
    Revisions to read as follows:


Sec.  82.166  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    (a)-(i) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (l) [Reserved]
    (m) All records required to be maintained pursuant to this section 
must be kept for a minimum of three years unless otherwise indicated.
* * * * *
0
14. Amend subpart F by revising appendix A to read as follows:

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART F OF PART 82--SPECIFICATIONS FOR REFRIGERANTS

    This appendix is based on the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 
Refrigeration Institute Standard 700-2015, Specifications for 
Refrigerants.

Section 1. Purpose

    1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to evaluate and 
accept/reject refrigerants regardless of source (i.e., new, 
reclaimed and/or repackaged) for use in new and existing 
refrigeration and air-conditioning products as required under 40 CFR 
part 82.
    1.1.1 Intent. This standard is intended for the guidance of the 
industry including manufacturers, refrigerant reclaimers, 
repackagers, distributors, installers, servicemen, contractors and 
for consumers.
    1.1.2 Review and Amendment. This standard is subject to review 
and amendment as the technology advances.

Section 2. Scope

    2.1 Scope. This standard specifies acceptable levels of 
contaminants (purity requirements) for various fluorocarbon and 
other refrigerants regardless of source and lists acceptable test 
methods. These refrigerants are as referenced in the ANSI/ASHRAE 
Standard 34 with Addenda:
    2.1.1 Single-Component Fluorocarbon Refrigerants: R-11, R-12, R-
13, R-22, R-23, R-32, R-113, R-114, R-115, R-116, R-123, R-124, R-
125, R-134a, R-141b, R-142b, R-143a, R-152a, R-218, R-227ea, R-
236fa, R-245fa, R-1233zd(E), R-1234yf, R-1234ze(E);
    2.1.2 Single Component Hydrocarbon Refrigerants: R-50, R-170, R-
E170, R-290, R-600, R-600a, R-601, R-601a, R-610, R-1150, R-1270;
    2.1.3 Carbon Dioxide Refrigerant: R-744;
    2.1.4 Zeotropic Blend Refrigerants: R-401A, R-401B, R-402A, R-
402B, R-403A, R-403B, R-404A, R-405A, R-406A, R-407A, R-407B, R-
407C, R-407D, R-407E, R-407F, R-408A, R-409A, R-409B, R-410A, R-
410B, R-411A, R-411B, R-412A, R-413A, R-414A, R-414B, R-415A, R-
415B, R-416A, R-417A, R-417B, R-417C, R-418A, R-419A, R-419B, R-
420A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-422E, R-
423A, R-424A, R-425A, R-426A, R-427A, R-428A, R-429A, R-430A, R-
431A, R-434A, R-435A, R-437A, R-438A, R-439A, R-440A, R-442A, R-
444A, R-444B, R-445A, R-446A, R-447A, R-448A, R-49A, R-450A;
    2.1.5 Zeotropic Hydrocarbon Blend Refrigerants: R-432A, R-433A, 
R-433B, R-433C, R-436A, R-436B, R-441A, R-443A; and
    2.1.6 Azeotropic Blend Refrigerants: R-500, R-502, R-503, R-
507A, R-508A, R-508B, R-509A, R-510A, R-511A, and R-512A.

Section 3. Definitions

    3.1 Definitions. All terms in this appendix will follow the 
definitions in Sec.  82.152 unless otherwise defined in this 
appendix.
    3.2 Shall, Should, Recommended, or It Is Recommended shall be 
interpreted as follows:
    3.2.1 Shall. Where ``shall'' or ``shall not'' is used for a 
provision specified, that provision is mandatory if compliance with 
this appendix is claimed.
    3.2.2 Should, Recommended, or It is Recommended is used to 
indicate provisions which are not mandatory but which are desirable 
as good practice.

Section 4. Characterization of Refrigerants and Contaminants

    4.1 Characterization. Characterization of single component 
fluorocarbon (Table 1A) and zeotropic/azeotropic blend (Table 2A/3) 
refrigerants and contaminants are listed in the following general 
classifications:
    4.1.1 Isomer content (see Table 1A)
    4.1.2 Air and other non-condensables (see Tables 1A, 2A, 3)
    4.1.3 Water (see Tables 1A, 2A, 3)
    4.1.4 All other volatile impurities (see Tables 1A, 2A, 3)
    4.1.5 High boiling residue (see Tables 1A, 2A, 3)
    4.1.6 Halogenated unsaturated volatile impurities (see Table 1A)
    4.1.7 Particulates/solids (see Tables 1A, 2A, 3)
    4.1.8 Acidity (see Tables 1A, 2A, 3)
    4.1.9 Chloride (see Tables 1A, 2A, 3)
    4.2 Hydrocarbon Characterization. Characterization of 
hydrocarbon refrigerants (Tables 1B and 2B) and contaminants are 
listed in the following general classifications:
    4.2.1 Nominal composition
    4.2.2 Other allowable impurities
    4.2.3 Air and other non-condensables
    4.2.4 Sulfur odor
    4.2.5 High boiling residue
    4.2.6 Particulates/solids
    4.2.7 Acidity
    4.2.8 Water
    4.2.9 All other volatile impurities
    4.2.10 Total C3, C4, and C5 polyolefins
    4.3 Carbon Dioxide Characterization. Characterization of carbon 
dioxide (Table 1C) and its contaminants are listed in the following 
general classifications:

    4.3.1 Purity
    4.3.2 Air and other non-condensables
    4.3.3 Water
    4.3.4 High boiling residue
    4.3.5 Particulates/solids

Section 5. Sampling and Summary of Test Procedures

    5.1 Referee Test. The referee test methods for the various 
contaminants are summarized in the following paragraphs. Detailed 
test procedures are included in Appendix C to AHRI Standard 700. If 
alternative test methods are employed, the user must be able to 
demonstrate that they produce results at least equivalent to the 
specified referee test method.
    5.2 Refrigerant Sampling
    5.2.1 Sampling Precautions. Special precautions should be taken 
to ensure that representative samples are obtained for analysis. 
Sampling shall be done by qualified personnel following accepted 
sampling and safety procedures. Refrigerants with critical 
temperatures near or below ambient temperature cannot be reliably 
sampled for both liquid and vapor phase without special handling.
    Note: Flammable refrigerants which are ASHRAE 34 class 2L, 2, or 
3 present additional safety challenges and require additional 
measures for sampling safety procedures compared to nonflammable 
halocarbons documented in this standard.
    5.2.2 Cylinder Preparation. Place a clean, empty sample cylinder 
with the valve open in an oven at 110 [deg]C (230 [deg]F) for one 
hour. Remove it from the oven while hot, immediately connect it to 
an evacuation system and evacuate to less than 56 kPa. Close the 
valve and allow it to cool. Weigh the empty cylinder.

[[Page 69529]]

    5.2.3 Vapor Phase Sampling. A vapor phase sample shall be 
obtained for determining the non-condensables. The source 
temperature shall be measured and recorded at the time the sample is 
taken.
    5.2.3.1 Special Handling for Low Critical Temperature 
Refrigerant. A vapor phase sample is required to determine non-
condensables and volatile impurities, including other refrigerants. 
The vapor phase sample is obtained by regulating the sample 
container temperature to 5 K or more above the refrigerant critical 
temperature.
    5.2.3.2 Handling for Liquid Refrigerants with Boiling Points 
Near or Above Room Temperature. Since R-11, R-113, R-123, R-141b, R-
245fa, and R-1233zd(E) have normal boiling points near or above room 
temperature, non-condensable determination is not required for these 
refrigerants.
    Note: Non-condensable gases, if present, will concentrate in the 
vapor phase of the refrigerant; care must be exercised to eliminate 
introduction of either air or liquid phase refrigerant during the 
sample transfer.
    5.2.4 Liquid Phase Sampling. A liquid phase sample is required 
for all tests listed in this standard except the test for non-
condensables.
    5.2.4.1 Liquid Sampling. Accurate analysis requires that the 
sample cylinder, at ambient temperature, be filled to at least 60% 
by volume; however, under no circumstances should the cylinder be 
filled to more than 80% by volume. This can be accomplished by 
weighing the empty cylinder and then the cylinder with refrigerant. 
When the desired amount of refrigerant has been collected, close the 
valve(s) and immediately disconnect the sample cylinder.
    Note: Care should be taken to ensure that all connections and 
transfer lines are dry and evacuated to avoid contaminating the 
sample.
    Note: Low critical temperature refrigerants can have extremely 
high pressure and the sampling vessel, all connections, and transfer 
lines must be designed to handle high pressures.
    5.2.4.2 Special Handling for Low Critical Temperature 
Refrigerant. A liquid phase sample is required for all testing 
except volatile impurities, including other refrigerants. The liquid 
phase sample is obtained by regulating the sample cylinder 
temperature to 2 [deg]C below the critical temperature of the 
refrigerant.
    Note: If free water is present in the sample, cooling to below 0 
[deg]C may result in the formation of ice. Clathrates may form at 
temperatures above 0 [deg]C with some fluorocarbon refrigerants.
    5.2.4.3 Record Weight. Check the sample cylinder for leaks and 
record the gross weight.
    5.3 Refrigerant Identification. The required method shall be gas 
chromatography (GC) as described in Appendix C to AHRI Standard 700-
2015 with the corresponding gas chromatogram figures as illustrated 
in Informative Appendix D to AHRI Standard 700. The chromatogram of 
the sample shall be compared to known standards.
    5.3.2 Alternative Method. Determination of the boiling point and 
boiling point range is an acceptable alternative test method which 
can be used to characterize refrigerants. The test method shall be 
that described in the Federal Specification for ``Fluorocarbon 
Refrigerants,'' BB-F-1421 B, dated March 5, 1982, section 4.4.3.
    5.3.3 Required Values. The required values for boiling point and 
boiling point range are given in Table 1A, Physical Properties of 
Single Component Refrigerants; Table 1B, Physical Properties of 
Zeotropic Blends (400 Series Refrigerants); and Table 1C, Physical 
Properties of Azeotropic Blends (500 Series Refrigerants).
    5.4 Water Content.
    5.4.1 Method. The Coulometric Karl Fischer Titration shall be 
the primary test method for determining the water content of 
refrigerants. This method is described in Appendix C to AHRI 
Standard 700-2015. This method can be used for refrigerants that are 
either a liquid or a gas at room temperature. For all refrigerants, 
the sample for water analysis shall be taken from the liquid phase 
of the container to be tested.
    5.4.2 Limits. The value for water content shall be expressed in 
parts per million (ppm) by weight and shall not exceed the maximum 
specified in Tables 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, and 3.
    5.5 Conductivity. (Alternative to chloride and acidity tests).
    5.5.1 Method. A refrigerant may be tested for conductivity as an 
indication of the presence of acids, metal chlorides, and any 
compound that ionizes in water. This alternative procedure is 
intended for use with new or reclaimed refrigerants, however, 
significant amounts of oil can interfere with the test results.
    5.5.2 Limits. The value for conductivity shall be converted to 
and expressed in ppm by weight calculated as HCl and shall be 
compared with the maximum acidity value specified (see in Tables 1A, 
1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, and 3). If the conductivity is above this amount, 
then the chloride and acidity tests shall be conducted. If the 
conductivity is not greater than this amount, then the chloride and 
acidity tests may be omitted.
    5.6 Chloride. The refrigerant shall be tested for chloride as an 
indication of the presence of hydrochloric acid and/or metal 
chlorides. The referee procedure is intended for use with new or 
reclaimed halogenated refrigerants; however, high boiling residue in 
excess of the amounts in Tables 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, and 3 can 
interfere with the test results.
    5.6.1 Method. The test method shall be that described in 
Appendix C to AHRI Standard 700-2015. The test will show noticeable 
turbidity at chloride levels of about 3 ppm or greater by weight.
    5.5.2 Limits. The results of the test shall not exhibit any sign 
of turbidity. Report the results as ``pass'' or ``fail.''
    5.7 Acidity.
    5.7.1 Method. The acidity test uses the titration principle to 
detect any compound that is soluble in water and ionizes as an acid. 
The test method shall be that described in Appendix C to AHRI 
Standard 700-2015. This test may not be suitable for determination 
of high molecular weight organic acids; however these acids will be 
found in the high boiling residue test outlined in Section 5.8. The 
test requires a 50 to 60 gram sample and has a detection limit of 
0.1 ppm by weight calculated as HCl.
    5.7.2 Limits. The value for acidity shall be expressed in ppm by 
weight as HCl and shall not exceed the limits in Tables 1A, 1B, 2A, 
2B, and 3.
    5.8 High Boiling Residue.
    5.8.1 Method. High boiling residue shall be determined by either 
volume or weight. The volume method measures the residue from a 
standard volume of refrigerant after evaporation. The gravimetric 
method is described in Appendix C to AHRI Standard 700-2015. Oils 
and/or organic acids will be captured by these methods.
    5.8.2 Limits. The value for high boiling residue shall be 
expressed as a percentage by volume or weight and shall not exceed 
the maximum percent specified in Tables 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, and 3.
    5.9 Particulates and Solids.
    5.9.1 Method. A measured amount of sample shall be placed in a 
Goetz bulb under controlled temperature conditions. The 
particulates/solids shall be determined by visual examination of the 
Goetz bulb prior to the evaporation of refrigerant. For details of 
this test method, refer to Part 3 of Appendix C to AHRI Standard 
700-2015.
    Note: R-744 will partially sublimate when measuring a known 
amount of liquid sample into the dry Goetz bulb and the solid R-744 
will interfere with the visual examination of particulates/solids. 
Determining the particulates/solids shall be completed by visual 
examination of the Goetz bulb after the evaporation of the 
refrigerant.
    5.9.2 Limits. Visual presence of dirt, rust, or other 
particulate contamination is reported as ``fail.''
    5.10 Non-Condensables.
    5.10.1 Method. A vapor phase sample shall be used for 
determination of non-condensables. Non-condensable gases consist 
primarily of air accumulated in the vapor phase of refrigerants 
where the solubility of air in the refrigerant liquid phase is 
extremely low and air is not significant as a liquid phase 
contaminant. The presence of non-condensable gases may reflect poor 
quality control in transferring refrigerants to storage tanks and 
cylinders.
    The test method shall be gas chromatography with a thermal 
conductivity detector as described in Appendix C to AHRI Standard 
700-2015.
    5.10.2 Limits. The maximum level of non-condensables in the 
vapor phase of a test sample shall not exceed the maximum at 25 
[deg]C as shown in Tables 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, and 3.
    5.11 All Other Volatile Impurities and/or Other Refrigerants.
    5.11.1 Method. The amount of volatile impurities including other 
refrigerants in the subject refrigerant shall be determined by gas 
chromatography as described in Appendix C to AHRI Standard 700-2015.
    5.11.2 Limits. The test sample shall not contain more than 0.5% 
by weight of volatile impurities including other refrigerants as 
shown in Tables 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B and 3.
    5.12 Total C3, C4 and C5 Polyolefins in Hydrocarbon 
Refrigerants.
    5.12.1 Method. The amount of polyolefin impurities in the 
hydrocarbon shall be

[[Page 69530]]

determined by gas chromatography as described in GPA STD 2177--
Natural Gas Liquid Mixtures Containing Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide.
    5.12.2 Limits. The test sample shall not contain more than 0.05% 
by weight in the hydrocarbon sample as shown in Tables 1B and 2B. 
Report the results as ``pass'' or ``fail.''
    5.13 Sulfur Odor in Hydrocarbon Refrigerants.
    5.13.1 Method. The amount of sulfur containing compounds or 
other compounds with an odor shall be determined by ASTM method 
D1296, Odor of Volatile Solvents and Diluents.
    5.13.2 Limits. The test sample paper shall not emit a residual 
sulfur odor as shown in Tables 1B and 2B.

Section 6. Reporting Procedure

    6.1 Reporting Procedure. The source (manufacturer, reclaimer, or 
repackager) of the packaged refrigerant shall be identified. The 
refrigerant shall be identified by its accepted refrigerant number 
and/or its chemical name. Maximum allowable levels of contaminants 
are shown in Tables 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, and 3. Test results shall be 
tabulated in a similar manner.

[[Page 69531]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.304


[[Page 69532]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.305


[[Page 69533]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.306


[[Page 69534]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.307


[[Page 69535]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.308


[[Page 69536]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.309


[[Page 69537]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.310


[[Page 69538]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.311


[[Page 69539]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.312


[[Page 69540]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.313


[[Page 69541]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.314


[[Page 69542]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.315


[[Page 69543]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.316


[[Page 69544]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.317


[[Page 69545]]



APPENDIX A. REFERENCES--NORMATIVE

    Listed here are all standards, handbooks, and other publications 
essential to the formation and implementation of the standard. All 
references in this appendix are considered as part of this standard.
    ASHRAE Terminology, https://www.ashrae.org/resources--publications/free-resources/ashrae-terminology, 2014, American 
Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 
Inc.
    ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013, Designation and Safety 
Classification of Refrigerants, with Addenda, American National 
Standards Institute/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and 
Air-Conditioning Engineers.
    Appendix C to AHRI Standard 700-2015: Analytical Procedures for 
AHRI Standard 700-2015, Normative, Specification for Fluorocarbon 
Refrigerants, 2008. Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 
Institute.
    ASTM Standard D1296-01-2012, Standard Test Method for Odor of 
Volatile Solvents and Diluents, 2012, ASTM International.
    GPA STD-2177, Analysis of Natural Gas Liquid Mixtures Containing 
Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide by Gas Chromatography, 2013, Gas 
Processors Association.
    REFPROP Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport Properties 
NIST Standard Reference Database 23 version 9.1, 2013, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National 
Institute of Standards and Technology.

APPENDIX A. REFERENCES--INFORMATIVE

    Listed here are standards, handbooks, and other publications 
which may provide useful information and background but are not 
considered essential.
    2012 Appendix D Gas Chromatograms for AHRI Standard 700-2015--
Informative, Specification for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants, 2012, Air-
Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute.
0
15. Amend subpart F by adding appendix B3 to read as follows:

APPENDIX B3 TO SUBPART F OF PART 82--PERFORMANCE OF REFRIGERANT 
RECOVERY, RECYCLING, AND/OR RECLAIM EQUIPMENT

    This appendix is based on the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 
Refrigeration Institute Standard 740-2015, Performance Rating of 
Refrigerant Recovery Equipment and Recovery/Recycling Equipment.

Section 1. Purpose

    1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to establish 
methods of testing for rating and evaluating the performance of 
refrigerant recovery, and/or recycling equipment and general 
equipment requirements (herein referred to as ``equipment'') for 
contaminant or purity levels, capacity, speed and purge loss to 
minimize emission into the atmosphere of designated refrigerants.

Section 2. Scope

    2.1 Scope. This standard applies to equipment for recovering 
and/or recycling single refrigerants, azeotropes, zeotropic blends, 
and their normal contaminants from refrigerant systems. This 
standard defines the test apparatus, test gas mixtures, sampling 
procedures and analytical techniques that will be used to determine 
the performance of refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment 
(hereinafter, ``equipment''). Appendix B4 of this subpart 
establishes standards for recovery/recycling equipment used with 
flammable refrigerants.

Section 3. Definitions

    3.1 Definitions. All terms in this appendix will follow the 
definitions in Sec.  82.152 unless otherwise defined in this 
appendix.
    3.2 Clearing Refrigerant. Procedures used to remove trapped 
refrigerant(s) from equipment before switching from one refrigerant 
to another.
    3.3 High Temperature Vapor Recovery Rate. For equipment having 
at least one designated refrigerant (see Section 11.2) with a 
boiling point in the range of -50 to +10 [deg]C, the rate will be 
measured for R-22, or the lowest boiling point refrigerant if R-22 
is not a designated refrigerant.
    3.4 Published Ratings. A statement of the assigned values of 
those performance characteristics, under stated rating conditions, 
by which a unit may be chosen to fit its application. These values 
apply to all units of like nominal size and type (identification) 
produced by the same manufacturer. As used herein, the term 
``published rating'' includes the rating of all performance 
characteristics shown on the unit or published in specifications, 
advertising, or other literature controlled by the manufacturer, at 
stated rating conditions.
    3.5 Push/Pull Method. The push/pull refrigerant recovery method 
is defined as the process of transferring liquid refrigerant from a 
refrigeration system to a receiving vessel by lowering the pressure 
in the vessel and raising the pressure in the system, and by 
connecting a separate line between the system liquid port and the 
receiving vessel.
    3.6 Recycle Flow Rate. The amount of refrigerant processed 
divided by the time elapsed in the recycling mode. For equipment 
which uses a separate recycling sequence, the recycle rate does not 
include the recovery rate (or elapsed time). For equipment which 
does not use a separate recycling sequence, the recycle rate is a 
rate based solely on the higher of the liquid or vapor recovery 
rate, by which the contaminant levels were measured.
    3.7 Residual Trapped Refrigerant. Refrigerant remaining in 
equipment after clearing refrigerant.
    3.8 Shall, Should, Recommended or It Is Recommended shall be 
interpreted as follows:
    3.8.1 Shall. Where ``shall'' or ``shall not'' is used for a 
provision specified, that provision is mandatory if compliance with 
this appendix is claimed.
    3.8.2 Should, Recommended or It Is Recommended is used to 
indicate provisions which are not mandatory but which are desirable 
as good practice.
    3.9 Standard Contaminated Refrigerant Sample. A mixture of new 
or reclaimed refrigerant and specified quantities of identified 
contaminants which constitute the mixture to be processed by the 
equipment under test. These contaminant levels are expected only 
from severe service conditions.
    3.10 Trapped Refrigerant. The amount of refrigerant remaining in 
the equipment after the recovery or recovery/recycling operation but 
before clearing refrigerant.
    3.11 Vapor Recovery Rate. The average rate that refrigerant is 
withdrawn from the mixing chamber between two pressures as vapor 
recovery rate is changing depending on the pressure. The initial 
condition is vapor only at saturation pressure and temperature at 
either 24 [deg]C or at the boiling point at 100 kPa, whichever is 
higher. The final pressure condition is 10% of the initial pressure, 
but not lower than the equipment final recovery vacuum and not 
higher than 100 kPa.

Section 4. General Equipment Requirements

    4.1 Equipment Information. The equipment manufacturer shall 
provide operating instructions, necessary maintenance procedures, 
and source information for replacement parts and repair.
    4.2 Filter Replacement. The equipment shall indicate when any 
filter/drier(s) needs replacement. This requirement can be met by 
use of a moisture transducer and indicator light, by use of a sight 
glass/moisture indicator, or by some measurement of the amount of 
refrigerant processed such as a flow meter or hour meter. The 
equipment manufacturer must provide maximum quantity recycled or 
filter change interval in its written instructions.
    4.3 Purge of Non-Condensable. If non-condensables are purged, 
the equipment shall either automatically purge non-condensables or 
provide an indicating means to guide the purge process. Recycling 
equipment must provide purge means.
    4.4 Purge Loss. The total refrigerant loss due to purging non-
condensables, draining oil, and clearing refrigerant (see Section 
9.5) shall be less than 3% (by weight) of total processed 
refrigerant.
    4.5 Permeation Rate. High pressure hose assemblies 5/8 in. (16 
mm) nominal and smaller shall not exceed a permeation rate of 3.9 g/
cm\2\/yr (internal surface) at a temperature of 48.8 [deg]C. Hose 
assemblies that UL recognized as having passed ANSI/UL 1963 
requirements shall be accepted without testing. See Section 7.1.4.
    4.6 Clearing Trapped Refrigerant. For equipment rated for more 
than one refrigerant, the manufacturer shall provide a method and 
instructions which will accomplish connections and clearing within 
15 minutes. Special equipment, other than a vacuum pump or manifold 
gauge set, shall be furnished. The clearing procedure shall not rely 
upon the storage cylinder below saturated pressure conditions at 
ambient temperature.
    4.7 Temperature. The equipment shall be evaluated at 24 [deg]C 
with additional limited evaluation at 40 [deg]C. Normal operating 
conditions range from 10 [deg]C to 40 [deg]C.
    4.8 Exemptions. Equipment intended for recovery only shall be 
exempt from Sections 4.2 and 4.3.

[[Page 69546]]

Section 5. Contaminated Refrigerants

    5.1 Sample Characteristics. The standard contaminated 
refrigerant sample shall have the characteristics specified in Table 
1, except as provided in Section 5.2. Testing shall be conducted at 
an ambient temperature of 24 [deg]C 1 [deg]C except high 
temperature vapor recovery shall be 40 [deg]C 1 [deg]C.
    5.2 Recovery-only Testing. Recovery equipment not rated for 
removal of contaminants shall be tested with new or reclaimed 
refrigerant.

[[Page 69547]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.318


[[Page 69548]]



Section 6. Test Apparatus

    6.1 General Recommendations. The recommended test apparatus is 
described in the following paragraphs. If alternate test apparatus 
are employed, the user shall be able to demonstrate that they 
produce results equivalent to the specified reference apparatus.
    6.2 Self-Contained Equipment Test Apparatus. The apparatus, 
shown in Figure 1, shall consist of:
    6.2.1 Mixing Chamber. A mixing chamber consisting of a tank with 
a conical-shaped bottom, a bottom port and piping for delivering 
refrigerant to the equipment, various ports and valves for adding 
refrigerant to the chamber, and stirring means for mixing.
    6.2.2 Filling Storage Cylinder. The storage cylinder to be 
filled by the refrigerant transferred shall be cleaned and at the 
pressure of the recovered refrigerant at the beginning of the test. 
It will not be filled over 80%, by volume.
    6.2.3 Vapor Feed. Vapor refrigerant feed consisting of 
evaporator, control valves and piping to create a 3.0 [deg]C 
superheat condition at an evaporating temperature of 21 [deg]C 
2 [deg]C.
    6.2.4 Alternative Vapor Feed. An alternative method for vapor 
feed shall be to pass the refrigerant through a boiler and then 
through an automatic pressure regulating valve set at different 
saturation pressures, moving from saturated pressure at 24 [deg]C to 
final pressure of recovery.
    6.2.5 Liquid Feed. Liquid refrigerant feed consisting of control 
valves, sampling port, and piping.
    6.2.6 Instrumentation. Instrumentation capable of measuring 
weight, temperature, pressure, and refrigerant loss, as required.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.302

    6.3 Size. The size of the mixing chamber and filling storage 
cylinder used during testing shall correspond to the size of the 
equipment being tested per Section 6.3.1 or 6.3.2:
    6.3.1 For equipment utilizing nominal \1/4\'' or \3/8\'' flare 
ports and hoses, the mixing chamber shall be 0.09 m\3\ and all 
ports, valves, mixing valves, and piping shall be \1/2\'' or larger, 
reduced down to the port size of the equipment by fittings at the 
connection ports of the mixing chamber. The filling storage cylinder 
used during testing shall be a nominal 50-pound water capacity DOT 
4Bx cylinder with \1/4\'' flare liquid and vapor ports.
    6.3.2 For equipment utilizing \1/2\'' or larger flare ports and 
hoses, the mixing chamber shall be 0.45 m\3\ (or nominal 1000-pound 
water capacity DOT 4Bx cylinder) and all ports, valves, mixing 
valves, and piping shall be 1-\1/2\'' or larger, reduced down to the 
port size of the equipment by fittings at the connection ports of 
the mixing chamber. The filling storage cylinder used during testing 
shall be a nominal 1000-pound water capacity DOT 4Bx cylinder with 
liquid and vapor ports, valves and piping sized \3/4\'' NPT and 
reduced or increased to the port size of the equipment by fittings 
at the connection ports of the filling storage cylinder.
    6.4 System Dependent Equipment Test Apparatus. This test 
apparatus is to be used for final recovery vacuum rating of all 
system dependent equipment.
    6.4.1 Test Setup. The test apparatus shown in Figure 2 consists 
of a complete refrigeration system. The manufacturer shall identify 
the refrigerants to be tested. The test apparatus can be modified to 
facilitate operation or testing of the system dependent equipment if 
the modifications to the apparatus are specifically described within 
the manufacturer's literature. A 6.3 mm

[[Page 69549]]

balance line shall be connected across the test apparatus between 
the high- and low-pressure sides, with an isolation valve located at 
the connection to the compressor high side. A 6.3 mm access port 
with a valve core shall be located in the balance line for the 
purpose of measuring final recovery vacuum at the conclusion of the 
test.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.303

Section 7. Performance Testing Procedures

    7.1 General Testing.
    7.1.1 Temperatures. Testing shall be conducted at an ambient 
temperature of 24 [deg]C  1 [deg]C except high 
temperature vapor recovery shall be at 40 [deg]C  1 
[deg]C. The evaporator conditions of Section 6.2.3 shall be 
maintained as long as liquid refrigerant remains in the mixing 
chamber.
    7.1.2 Refrigerants. The equipment shall be tested for all 
designated refrigerants (see Section 11.2). All tests in Section 7 
shall be completed for each refrigerant before starting tests with 
the next refrigerant.
    7.1.3 Selected Tests. Tests shall be as appropriate for the 
equipment type and ratings parameters selected (see Sections 9.9, 
11.1 and 11.2).
    7.1.4 Hose Assemblies. For the purpose of limiting refrigerant 
emissions to the atmosphere, hose assemblies shall be tested for 
permeation according to ANSI/UL Standard 1963.
    7.2 Equipment Preparation and Operation. The equipment shall be 
prepared and operated per the operating instructions.
    7.3 Test Batch. The test batch consisting of refrigerant sample 
(see Section 5) of the test refrigerant shall be prepared and 
thoroughly mixed. Continued mixing or stirring shall be required 
during the test while liquid refrigerant remains in the mixing 
chamber. The mixing chamber shall be filled to 80% level by volume.
    7.3.1 Control Test Batch. Prior to starting the test for the 
first batch for each refrigerant,

[[Page 69550]]

a liquid sample will be drawn from the mixing chamber and analyzed 
per Section 8 to assure that contaminant levels match Table 1 within 
10 ppm for moisture, 20 ppm for oleic acid 
and 0.5% for oil.
    7.4 Recovery Tests (Recovery and Recovery/Recycling Equipment)
    7.4.1 Determining Recovery Rates. The liquid and vapor 
refrigerant recovery rates shall be measured during the first test 
batch for each refrigerant (see Sections 9.1, 9.2 and 9.4). 
Equipment preparation and recovery cylinder changeover shall not be 
included in elapsed time measurements for determining vapor recovery 
rate and liquid refrigerant recovery rate. Operations such as 
subcooling the recovery cylinder shall be included. The recovery 
cylinder shall be the same size as per Section 6.3 or as furnished 
by the equipment manufacturer. Oversized tanks shall not be 
permitted.
    7.4.1.1 Liquid Refrigerant Recovery Rate. If elected, the 
recovery rate using the liquid refrigerant feed means (see Section 
6.2.5) shall be determined. After the equipment reaches stabilized 
conditions of condensing temperature and/or recovery cylinder 
pressure, the recovery process shall be stopped and an initial 
weight shall be taken of the mixing chamber (see Section 9.2). The 
recovery process shall be continued for a period of time sufficient 
to achieve the accuracy in Section 9.4. The recovery process shall 
be stopped and a final weight of the mixing chamber shall be taken.
    7.4.1.2 Vapor Refrigerant Recovery Rate. If elected, the average 
vapor flow rate shall be measured to accuracy requirements in 
Section 9.4 under conditions with no liquid refrigerant in the 
mixing chamber. The liquid recovery feed means shall be used. At 
initial conditions of saturated vapor at the higher of 24 [deg]C or 
the boiling temperature (100 kPa), the weight of the mixing chamber 
and the pressure shall be recorded. At final conditions representing 
pressure in the mixing chamber of 10% of the initial condition, but 
not less than the final recovery vacuum (see Section 9.6) nor more 
than 100 kPa, measure the weight of the mixing chamber and the 
elapsed time. At initial conditions, the recovery cylinder shall be 
at saturation pressure at ambient conditions.
    7.4.1.3 High Temperature Vapor Recovery Rate. This is applicable 
for equipment having at least one designated refrigerant (see 
Section 11.2) with a boiling point between -50 [deg]C and +10 
[deg]C. Measure the rate for R-22, or the refrigerant with the 
lowest boiling point if R-22 is not a designated refrigerant. Repeat 
the test in Section 7.4.1.2 at saturated conditions at 40 [deg]C and 
continue to operate equipment to assure it will operate at this 
condition (see Section 7.4.3). At initial conditions, the recovery 
cylinder shall be at saturated pressure at 40 [deg]C.
    7.4.1.4 Push/Pull Liquid Refrigerant Recovery Rate. If elected, 
the average liquid push/pull flow rate shall be measured to accuracy 
requirements in Section 9.4. The mixing chamber and filling storage 
cylinder shall be filled with refrigerant vapor at initial 
conditions of saturated vapor at the higher of 24 [deg]C or the 
boiling temperature at 100 kPa. An amount of liquid refrigerant 
shall be added to the mixing chamber equivalent to 80% by weight of 
the capacity of the filling storage cylinder. The pressure between 
the mixing chamber and filling storage cylinder shall be equalized 
and stabilized at initial conditions of saturated vapor at the 
higher of 24 [deg]C or the boiling temperature at 100 kPa. The 
initial weight of the mixing chamber and the pressure shall be 
recorded. The equipment is then operated in push/pull recovery mode 
and the weight change of the mixing chamber is recorded over time 
until all of the liquid has been transferred.
    7.4.2 Recovery Operation. This test is for determining the final 
recovery vacuum and the ability to remove contaminants as 
appropriate. If equipment is rated for liquid recovery (see Section 
7.4.1.3), liquid recovery feed means described in Section 6.2.5 
shall be used. If not, vapor recovery means described in Sections 
6.2.3 or 6.2.4 shall be used. Continue recovery operation until all 
liquid is removed from the test apparatus and vapor is removed to 
the point where equipment shuts down by automatic means or is 
manually shut off per operating instructions.
    7.4.2.1 Oil Draining. Capture oil from the equipment at 
intervals as required in the instructions. Record the weight of the 
container. Completely remove refrigerant from oil by evacuation or 
other appropriate means. The weight difference shall be used in 
Section 7.5.2.
    7.4.3 Final Recovery Vacuum. At the end of the first test batch 
for each refrigerant, the liquid valve and vapor valve of the 
apparatus shall be closed. After waiting 1 minute, the mixing 
chamber pressure shall be recorded (see Section 9.6).
    7.4.4 Residual Refrigerant. This test will measure the mass of 
remaining refrigerant in the equipment after clearing and therefore 
the extent of mixing different refrigerants (see Section 9.6).
    7.4.4.1 Initial Conditions. At the end of the last test for each 
batch for each refrigerant, the equipment shall be disconnected from 
the test apparatus (Figure 1). Recycle per Section 7.5, if 
appropriate. Perform refrigerant clearing operations as called for 
in the instruction manual. Capture and record the weight of any 
refrigerant which would have been emitted to the atmosphere during 
the clearing process for use in Section 9.5. If two loops are used 
for recycling, trapped refrigerant shall be measured for both.
    7.4.4.2 Residual Trapped Refrigerant. Evacuate an empty test 
cylinder to 1.0 kPa. Record the empty weight of the test cylinder. 
Open all valves to the equipment so as to provide access to all 
trapped refrigerant. Connect the equipment to the test cylinder and 
operate valves to recover the residual refrigerant. Record the 
weight of the test cylinder using a recovery cylinder pressure no 
less than specified in Section 6.2.2. Place the test cylinder in 
liquid nitrogen for a period of 30 minutes or until a vacuum of 1000 
microns is reached, whichever occurs first.
    7.5 Recycling Tests (Recovery/Recycling Equipment).
    7.5.1 Recycling Operation. As each recovery cylinder is filled 
in Section 7.4.2, recycle according to operating instructions. There 
will not necessarily be a separate recycling sequence. Note non-
condensable purge measurement in Section 9.5.
    7.5.1.1 Recycle Flow Rate. While recycling the first recovery 
cylinder for each refrigerant, determine the recycling flow rate by 
appropriate means (see Section 9.3) to achieve the accuracy required 
in Section 9.4.
    7.5.2 Non-Condensable Sample. After completing Section 7.4.3, 
prepare a second test batch (see Section 7.3). Recover per Section 
7.4.2 until the current recovery cylinder is filled to 80% level by 
volume. Recycle per Section 7.5.1. Mark this cylinder and set aside 
for taking the vapor sample. For equipment having both an internal 
tank of at least 3 kg refrigerant capacity and an external recovery 
cylinder, two recovery cylinders shall be marked and set aside. The 
first is the cylinder described above. The second cylinder is the 
final recovery cylinder after filling it to 80% level by volume and 
recycling.
    7.5.2.1 Push/Pull Liquid Refrigerant Recovery Rate. This rate 
shall be measured by weight change of the mixing chamber divided by 
elapsed time (see Section 7.4.1.4). The units shall be kg/min and 
the accuracy shall be per Section 9.4.
    7.5.3 Liquid Sample for Analysis. Repeat steps in Sections 7.3, 
7.4.2 and 7.5.1 with further test batches until indication means in 
Section 4.2 show the filter/drier(s) need replacing.
    7.5.3.1 Multiple Pass. For equipment with a separate recycling 
circuit (multiple pass), set aside the current cylinder and draw the 
liquid sample (see Section 7.4) from the previous cylinder.
    7.5.3.2 Single Pass. For equipment with the single pass 
recycling circuit, draw the liquid sample (see Section 7.4) from the 
current cylinder.
    7.6 Measuring Refrigerant Loss. Refrigerant loss due to non-
condensables shall be determined by appropriate means (see Section 
9.5.1). The loss could occur in Sections 7.4.1, 7.4.2 and 7.5.1.

Section 8. Sampling and Chemical Analysis Methods

    8.1 Chemical Analysis. Chemical analysis methods shall be 
specified in appropriate standards such as AHRI Standard 700, 
Appendix C to AHRI Standard 700, and Addendum 700-1 to Appendix C. 
If alternate test methods are employed, the laboratory must be able 
to demonstrate that they produce results equivalent to the specified 
referee method.
    8.2 Refrigerant Sampling.
    8.2.1 Moisture Content. The water content in refrigerant shall 
be measured by the Karl Fischer Coulometric Titration technique. 
Report the moisture level in parts per million by weight.
    8.2.2 Chloride Ions. Chloride ions shall be measured by 
turbidity tests. At this time, quantitative results have not been 
defined. Report chloride content as ``pass'' or ``fail.'' In the 
future, when quantitative results are possible, report chloride 
content as parts per million by weight.
    8.2.3 Acid Content. The acidity test uses the titration 
principle. Report the acidity in

[[Page 69551]]

parts per million by weight (mg KOH/kg) of sample.
    8.2.4 High Boiling Residue. High boiling residues shall use 
measurement of the volume of residue after evaporating a standard 
volume of refrigerant. Using weight measurement and converting to 
volumetric units is acceptable. Report high boiling residues as 
percent by volume.
    8.2.5 Particulates/Solids. The particulates/solids measurement 
employs visual examination. Report results as ``pass'' or ``fail.''
    8.2.6 Non-condensables. The level of contamination by non-
condensable gases in the base refrigerant being recycled shall be 
determined by gas chromatography. Report results as percent by 
volume.

Section 9. Performance Calculations for Ratings

    9.1 Vapor Refrigerant Recovery Rate. This rate shall be measured 
by weight change of the mixing chamber divided by elapsed time (see 
7.4.1.2). The units shall be kg/min and the accuracy shall be per 
Section 9.4.
    9.1.1 High Temperature Vapor Recovery Rate. This rate shall be 
measured by measured weight change of the mixing chamber divided by 
elapsed time (see Section 7.4.1.3). The units shall be kg/min and 
the accuracy shall be per Section 9.4.
    9.2 Liquid Refrigerant Recovery Rate. This rate shall be 
measured by weight change of the mixing chamber divided by elapsed 
time (see 7.4.1.3). The units shall be kg/min and the accuracy shall 
be per Section 9.4.
    9.3 Recycle Flow Rate. The recycle flow rate shall be as defined 
in Section 3.12, expressed in kg/min, and the accuracy shall be per 
Section 9.4.
    9.3.1 For equipment using multi-pass recycling or a separate 
sequence, the recycle rate shall be determined by dividing the net 
weight, W, of the refrigerant to be recycled by the actual time T 
required to recycle. Any set-up or operator interruptions shall not 
be included in the time T.
    9.3.2 If no separate recycling sequence is used, the recycle 
rate shall be the higher of the vapor refrigerant recovery rate or 
the liquid refrigerant recovery rate. The recycle rate shall match a 
process which leads to contaminant levels in Section 9.9. 
Specifically, a recovery rate determined from bypassing a 
contaminant removal device cannot be used as a recycle rate when the 
contaminant levels in Section 9.9 are determined by passing the 
refrigerant through the contaminant removal device.
    9.4 Accuracy of Flow Rates. The accuracy of test measurements in 
Sections 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 shall be 008 kg/min for flow 
rates up to 0.42 kg/min and 2.0% for flow rates larger 
than 0.42 kg/min. Ratings shall be expressed to the nearest 0.02 kg/
min.
    9.5 Refrigerant Loss. This calculation will be based upon the 
net loss of refrigerant which would have been eliminated in the non-
condensable purge process (see Section 7.5.1), the oil draining 
process (see Section 7.4.2.1) and the refrigerant clearing process 
(see Section 7.4.4.1), all divided by the net refrigerant content of 
the test batches. The refrigerant loss shall not exceed 3% by 
weight.
    9.5.1 Non-Condensable Purge. Evacuate an empty container to 2 
kPa. Record the empty weight of the container. Place the container 
in a dry ice bath. Connect the equipment purge connection to the 
container and operate purge according to operating instructions so 
as to capture the non-condensables and lost refrigerant. Weigh the 
cylinder after the recycling is complete. Equivalent means are 
permissible.
    For units which either recycle or list non-condensable removal, 
non-condensable gases are purged, operating the recycle device per 
the manufacturer's instructions through an evaporator pressure 
regulator (EPR) valve into a liquid nitrogen-chilled cylinder. This 
combination will simulate the atmosphere while allowing the capture 
of purge gases. The cylinder is weighed before and after the purge 
procedure.
    9.5.2 Oil Draining. Refrigerant removed from the oil after 
draining shall be collected and measured in accordance with Section 
7.4.2.1.
    9.5.3 Clearing Unit. Refrigerant captured during the clearing 
process shall be measured in accordance with Section 7.4.4.1.
    9.6 Final Recovery Vacuum. The final recovery vacuum shall be 
the mixing chamber pressure in Section 7.4.3 expressed in kPa at 24 
[deg]C. The accuracy of the measurement shall be within 0.33 kPa.
    9.7 Residual Trapped Refrigerant. The amount of residual trapped 
refrigerant shall be the final weight minus the initial weight of 
the test cylinder in Section 7.4.4.2, expressed in kg. The accuracy 
shall be 0.02 kg and reported to the nearest 0.05 kg.
    9.8 Refrigerant Processed. The amount of refrigerant processed 
before changing filters (see Section 7.5.3) shall be expressed in kg 
to an accuracy of 1%.
    9.9 Contaminant Levels. The contaminant levels remaining after 
testing shall be published as follows:

Moisture content, ppm by weight
Chloride ions, pass/fail
Acid Content, ppm by weight
High boiling residue, % (by volume)
Particulates/solids, pass/fail (visual examination)
Non-condensables, % (by volume)

    9.10 Minimum Data Requirements for Published Ratings. Published 
ratings shall include all of the parameters as shown in Tables 2 and 
3 for each refrigerant designated by the manufacturer.

Section 10. Tolerances

    10.1 Tolerances. Performance related parameters shall be equal 
to or better than the published ratings.

Section 11. Marking and Nameplate Data

    11.1 Marking and Nameplate Data. The nameplate shall display the 
manufacturer's name, model designation, type of equipment (Recovery 
or Recovery/Recycling and Self-Contained or System Dependent), 
designated refrigerant(s), capacities, and electrical 
characteristics where applicable. The nameplate shall also conform 
to the labeling requirements established for certified recycling and 
recovery equipment established at 40 CFR 82.158(h).
    Recommended nameplate voltages for 60 Hertz systems shall 
include one or more of the equipment nameplate voltages shown in 
Table 1 of ANSI/AHRI Standard 110. Recommended nameplate voltages 
for 50 Hertz systems shall include one or more of the utilization 
voltages shown in Table 1 of IEC Standard Publication 60038, IEC 
Standard Voltages.
    11.2 Data for Designated Refrigerants. For each refrigerant 
designated, the manufacturer shall include all the following that 
are applicable per Table 2:

a. Liquid Recovery Rate, kg/min

b. Vapor Recovery Rate, kg/min
c. High Temperature Vapor Recovery Rate, kg/min
d. Push/Pull Liquid Recovery Rate, kg/min
e. Final Recovery Vacuum Level, kPa
f. Recycle Flow Rate, kg/min
g. Refrigerant Loss, kg
h. Residual Trapped Refrigerant, kg
i. Quantity of Refrigerant Processed at Rated Conditions, kg

           Table 2--Performance Ratings for Refrigerant Recovery and Recovery/Recycling Equipment 4,5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Type of equipment
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Parameter                                                                           System
                                                  Recovery        Recovery/        Recycling        dependent
                                                                  recycling                         equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid Refrigerant Recovery Rate, kg/min....           X \1\            X \1\              N/A              N/A
Vapor Refrigerant Recovery Rate, kg/min.....           X \1\            X \1\              N/A              N/A
High Temperature Vapor Recovery Rate, kg/min           X \1\            X \1\              N/A              N/A
Push/Pull Liquid Recovery Rate, kg/min......           X \1\            X \1\              N/A              N/A
Final Recovery Vacuum Level, kPa............               X                X              N/A                X
Recycle Flow Rate, kg/min...................             N/A                X                X              N/A
Refrigerant Loss, kg........................           X \2\                X                X            X \3\
Residual Trapped Refrigerant, kg............           X \3\            X \2\            X \2\            X \2\

[[Page 69552]]

 
Quantity of Refrigerant Processed at Rated               N/A                X                X              N/A
 Conditions, kg.............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For a recovery or recovery/recycle unit, one must rate either liquid refrigerant recovery rate or vapor
  refrigerant recovery rate or one can rate for both. If rating only one, the other shall be indicated by N/A,
  ``not applicable.''
\2\ Mandatory rating if multiple refrigerants, oil separation or non-condensable purge are rated.
\3\ Mandatory rating for equipment tested for multiple refrigerants.
\4\ ``X'' denotes mandatory rating or equipment requirements.
\5\ ``N/A'' indicates ``Not Applicable'' for a parameter that does not have a rating.


       Table 3--Contaminant Removal Ratings for Refrigerant Recovery and Recovery/Recycling Equipment 1,2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Type of equipment
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Contaminant                                                                          System
                                                  Recovery        Recovery/        Recycling        dependent
                                                                  recycling                         equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moisture Content, ppm by weight.............             N/A                X                X              N/A
Chloride Ions, pass/fail....................             N/A                X                X              N/A
Acid Content, ppm by weight.................             N/A                X                X              N/A
High Boiling Residue, % by volume...........             N/A                X                X              N/A
Particulates/solids, pass/fail..............             N/A                X                X              N/A
Non-Condensables, % by volume...............             N/A                X                X              N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``X'' denotes mandatory rating.
\2\ ``N/A'' indicates ``Not Applicable.''

Attachment 1 to Appendix B3 to Subpart F of Part 82--References

    Listed here are all standards, handbooks, and other publications 
essential to the formation and implementation of the standard. All 
references in this appendix are considered as part of this standard.

 ANSI/UL Standard 1963, Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling 
Equipment, First Edition, 2011, American National Standards 
Institute/Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
 ANSI/AHRI Standard 110-2012, Air-Conditioning, Heating and 
Refrigerating Equipment Nameplate Voltages, 2012, Air-Conditioning, 
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
 AHRI Standard 700-2015, Specifications for Refrigerants, 
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
 ASHRAE Terminology, https://www.ashrae.org/resources--publications/free-resources/ashrae-terminology, 2014, American 
Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 
Inc.
 International Standard IEC 60038, IEC Standard Voltages, 
2009, International Electrotechnical Commission

Attachment 2 to Appendix B3 to Subpart F of Part 82--Particulate Used 
in Standard Contaminated Refrigerant Sample

1. Particulate Specification

    B1.1 The particulate material (pm) will be a blend of 50% coarse 
air cleaner dust as received, and 50% retained on a 200-mesh screen. 
The coarse air cleaner dust is available from: AC Spark Plug 
Division; General Motors Corporation; Flint, Michigan.
    B1.2 Preparation of Particulate Materials. To prepare the blend 
of contaminant per ASHRAE Standard 63.2, first wet screen a quantity 
of coarse air cleaner dust on a 200-mesh screen (particle retention 
74 [mu]m). This is done by placing a portion of the dust on a 200-
mesh screen and running water through the screen while stirring the 
dust with the fingers. The fine contaminant particles passing 
through the screen are discarded. The larger than 200-mesh particles 
collected on the screen are removed and dried for one hour at 110 
[deg]C. The blend of standard contaminant is prepared by mixing 50% 
by weight of coarse air cleaner dust as received (after drying for 
one hour at 110 [deg]C) with 50% by weight of the larger than 200-
mesh screened dust.
    B1.3 Particle Size Analysis. The coarse air cleaner dust as 
received and the blend used as the standard contaminant have the 
following approximate particle size analysis:

  Table B1--Weight Percentage in Various [mu]m Size Ranges for Particle
                              Size Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        As
                Size range ([mu]m)                   received  Blend (wt
                                                      (wt %)       %)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-5...............................................         12          6
5-10..............................................         12          6
10-20.............................................         14          7
20-40.............................................         23         11
40-80.............................................         30         32
80-200............................................          9         38
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
16. Amend subpart F by adding appendix B4 to read as follows:

Appendix B4 to Subpart F of Part 82--Performance and Safety of 
Flammable Refrigerant Recovery and/or Recycling Equipment

    This appendix is based on the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 
Refrigeration Institute Standard 740-2015, Performance Rating of 
Refrigerant Recovery Equipment and Recovery/Recycling Equipment, and 
Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1963 (Fourth Edition), Standard 
for Safety: Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment, including 
Supplement SB (added October 11, 2013), Requirements for Refrigerant 
Recovery/Recycling Equipment Intended for Use with a Flammable 
Refrigerant.

Section 1. Purpose

    1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to establish 
methods of testing for rating and evaluating the performance and 
safety of refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment and 
general equipment requirements (herein referred to as ``equipment'') 
for contaminant or purity levels, capacity, speed and purge loss to 
minimize emission into the atmosphere of designated refrigerants, as 
well as safety for use with flammable refrigerants.

Section 2. Scope

    2.1 Scope. This standard applies to equipment for recovering 
and/or recycling flammable single refrigerants, azeotropes, 
zeotropic blends, and their normal contaminants from refrigerant 
systems. This standard defines the test apparatus, test gas 
mixtures, sampling procedures, analytical techniques, and equipment 
construction that will be used to determine the performance

[[Page 69553]]

and safety of refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment 
(hereinafter, ``equipment'').

Section 3. Definitions

    3.1 Definitions. All terms in this appendix will follow the 
definitions in Sec.  82.152 and Appendix B3 to Subpart F of Part 82 
unless otherwise defined in this appendix.
    3.2 All definitions used in Underwriters Laboratories Standard 
1963 (Fourth Edition), Standard for Safety: Refrigerant Recovery/
Recycling Equipment as applicable, are incorporated by reference.
    3.3 All definitions used in Supplement SB (added October 11, 
2013), Requirements for Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment 
Intended for Use with a Flammable Refrigerant in Underwriters 
Laboratories Standard 1963 (Fourth Edition), Standard for Safety: 
Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment, are incorporated by 
reference.

Section 4. Evaluation of Performance

    4.1 Performance Ratings. All recovery and/or recycling equipment 
to be tested under this appendix must follow the procedures and meet 
all requirements established in Appendix B3 to Subpart F of Part 82 
to determine the performance ratings in addition to the safety 
evaluation conducted under the rest of this appendix.
    4.2 Safety. All recovery and/or recycling equipment to be tested 
under this appendix must follow the procedures and meet all 
requirements in Supplement SB (added October 11, 2013), Requirements 
for Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment Intended for Use with a 
Flammable Refrigerant in Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1963 
(Fourth Edition), Standard for Safety: Refrigerant Recovery/
Recycling Equipment.
0
17. Amend subpart F by revising appendix D to read as follows:

Appendix D to Subpart F of Part 82--Standards for Becoming a Certifying 
Program for Technicians

a. Test Preparation

    Technicians must pass an EPA-approved test, provided by an EPA-
approved certifying program to be certified as a Type I technician. 
Organizations providing Type I certification only may choose either 
an on-site format or a mail-in format similar to what is permitted 
under the MVACs program.
    Technicians must pass a closed-book, proctored test, 
administered in a secure environment, by an EPA-approved certifying 
program to be certified as a Type II or Type III technician.
    Technicians must pass a closed-book, proctored test (or series 
of tests), administered in a secure environment, by an EPA-approved 
certifying program to be certified as a Universal technician. Mail-
in format Type I tests cannot be used toward a Universal 
certification.
    Each certifying program must assemble tests by choosing a 
prescribed subset from the EPA test bank. EPA will have a test bank 
with more questions than are needed for an individual test, which 
will enable the certifying program to generate multiple tests in 
order to discourage cheating. Each test must include 25 questions 
drawn from Group 1 and 25 questions drawn from each relevant 
technical Group. Tests for Universal technicians will include 100 
questions (25 from Group 1 and 25 from each relevant technical 
Group). Universal tests may be taken all at once, or by combining 
passing scores on separate Type I, Type II, and Type III tests. 
Questions should be divided in order to sufficiently cover each 
topic within the Group.
    Certifying programs must provide a paper hand-out or electronic 
form of communication to technicians after they have completed their 
certification test that contains the following information:

--Which certifying program is providing the testing;
--contact information for the certifying program;
--the name and contact information of the proctor; and
--when they should expect to receive their score and, if they 
passed, their certification card.

    Each certifying program must show a method of randomly choosing 
which questions will be on the tests. Multiple versions of the test 
must be used during each testing event. Test answer sheets must 
include the name and address of the applicant, the name and address 
of the certifying program, and the date and location at which the 
test was administered.
    Training material accompanying mail-in Type I tests must not 
include sample test questions mimicking the language of the 
certification test. All mail-in material will be subject to review 
by EPA.
    Certifying programs may charge individuals reasonable fees for 
the administration of the tests. EPA will publish a list of all 
approved certifying programs.

b. Proctoring

    A certifying program for Type I (if in-person), Type II, Type 
III, and Universal technicians must designate at least one proctor 
registered for every 50 people taking tests at the same time at a 
given site.
    The certification test for Type I (if taken as part of a 
Universal certification), Type II, Type III, and Universal 
technicians is a closed-book exam. The proctors must ensure that the 
applicants for certification do not use any notes or training 
materials during testing. Desks or work space must be placed in a 
way that discourages cheating. The space and physical facilities are 
to be conducive to continuous surveillance by the proctors and 
monitors during testing.
    The proctor may not receive any benefit from the outcome of the 
testing other than a fee for proctoring. Proctors cannot know in 
advance which questions are on the tests they are proctoring.
    Proctors are required to verify the identity of individuals 
taking the test by examining photo identification. Acceptable forms 
of identification include but are not limited to drivers' licenses, 
government identification cards, passports, and military 
identification.
    Certifying programs for Type I technicians using the mail-in 
format, must take sufficient measures at the test site to ensure 
that tests are completed honestly by each technician. Each test for 
Type I certification must provide a means of verifying the 
identification of the individual taking the test. Acceptable forms 
of identification include but are not limited to drivers' licenses 
and passports.

c. Test Security

    A certifying program must demonstrate the ability to ensure the 
confidentiality and security of the test questions and answer keys 
through strict accountability procedures. An organization interested 
in developing a technician certification program will be required to 
describe these test security procedures to EPA.
    After the completion of a test, proctors must collect all test 
forms, answer sheets, scratch paper and notes. These items are to be 
placed in a sealed envelope.

d. Test Content

    All Type I, Type II, Type III, and Universal certification tests 
will include 25 questions from Group I. Group I will ask questions 
in the following areas:

I. Environmental impact of CFCs, HCFCs, and substitute refrigerants
II. Laws and regulations
III. Changing industry outlook

    Type I, Type II and Type III certification tests will also 
include 25 questions from Group II. Group II will ask questions 
covering sector-specific issues in the following areas:

IV. Leak detection
V. Recovery Techniques
VI. Safety
VII. Shipping
VIII. Disposal

    Universal certification tests will include 75 questions from 
Group II, with 25 from each of the three sector-specific areas. This 
is in addition to the 25 questions from Group I.

e. Grading

    Tests must be graded objectively. Certifying programs must 
inform the applicant of their test results no later than 30 days 
from the date of the test. Type I certifying programs using the 
mail-in format must notify the applicants of their test results no 
later than 30 days from the date the certifying programs received 
the completed test and any required documentation.
    The passing score for the closed-book Type I, Type II, Type III 
and Universal certification test is 70 percent. The passing score 
for Type I certification tests using the mail-in format is 84 
percent.

f. Proof of Certification

    Certifying programs must issue a standard wallet-sized 
identification card no later than 30 days from the date of the test. 
Type I certifying programs using mail-in formats must issue cards to 
certified technicians no later than 30 days from the date the 
certifying program receives the completed test and any required 
documentation.
    Each wallet-sized identification card must include, at a 
minimum, the name of the certifying program including the date the 
certifying program received EPA approval, the name of the person 
certified, the type of

[[Page 69554]]

certification, a unique number for the certified person that does 
not include a technician's social security number, and the following 
text:
    [Name of person] has successfully passed a [Type I, Type II, 
Type III and/or Universal--as appropriate] exam on how to 
responsibly handle refrigerants as required by EPA's National 
Recycling and Emissions Reduction Program.

g. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    Certifying programs must maintain records of the names and 
addresses of all individuals taking the tests, the scores of all 
certification tests administered, and the dates and locations of all 
tests administered. These records must be maintained indefinitely, 
unless transferred to another certifying program or EPA.
    EPA must receive an activity report from all approved certifying 
programs by every January 30 and July 30, which covers the previous 
six months of certifications. The first report must be submitted 
following the first full six-month period for which the program has 
been approved by EPA. This report includes the pass/fail rate and 
testing schedules. If the certifying program believes a test bank 
question needs to be modified, information about that question 
should also be included.
    Approved certifying programs will receive a letter of approval 
from EPA. Each testing center must display a copy of that letter at 
their place of business.
    Approved technician certification programs that voluntarily plan 
to stop providing the certification test must forward all records 
required by this appendix and Sec.  82.161 to another program 
currently approved by EPA in accordance with this appendix and with 
Sec.  82.161. Approved technician certification programs that 
receive records of certified technicians from a program that no 
longer offers the certification test, and the program that is 
voluntarily withdrawing from being a technician certification 
program must inform EPA in writing at the address listed in Sec.  
82.160 within 30 days of receiving or transferring these records. 
The notification must include the name and address of the program to 
which the records have been transferred. If another currently 
approved program willing to accept the records cannot be located, 
these records must be submitted to EPA at the address listed at 
Sec.  82.160.
    Technician certification programs that have had their 
certification revoked in accordance with Sec.  82.169 must forward 
all records required by this appendix and Sec.  82.161 to EPA at the 
address listed in Sec.  82.160. Failure to do so is a violation of 
40 CFR part 82, subpart F.

h. Additional Requirements

    EPA may periodically inspect testing sites to ensure compliance 
with EPA regulations. If testing center discrepancies are found, 
they must be corrected within a specified time period. If 
discrepancies are not corrected, EPA may suspend or revoke the 
certifying program's approval.
    The inspections will include but are not limited to a review of 
the certifying program's provisions for test security, the 
availability of space and facilities to conduct the administrative 
requirements and ensure the security of the tests, the availability 
of adequate testing facilities and spacing of the applicants during 
testing, a review of the proper procedures regarding accountability, 
and that there is no evidence of misconduct on the part of the 
certifying programs, their representatives and proctors, or the 
applicants for certification.
    If the certifying programs offer training or provide review 
materials to the applicants, these endeavors are to be considered 
completely separate from the administration of the certification 
test.

0
18. Amend subpart F by adding appendix E to read as follows:

Appendix E to Subpart F of Part 82--Test Procedure for Leaks From 
Containers Holding Two Pounds or Less of Refrigerant for Use in an MVAC

    This appendix is based on the California Air Resources Board 
(CARB) standard TP-503: Test Procedure for Leaks from Small Cans of 
Automotive Refrigerant, as amended on January 5, 2010; and CARB 
standard BP-A1: Balance Protocol for Gravimetric Determination of 
Sample Weights using a Precision Balance, as amended January 5, 
2010.

Section 1. Applicability

    This test procedure is used by manufacturers of containers 
holding two pounds or less of refrigerant for use in a motor vehicle 
air conditioner (MVAC) to determine the leakage rate of small 
containers of automotive refrigerant that are subject to the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 82, subpart F. Specifically, this test 
procedure will specify the equipment, procedures, and calculations 
to determine if a container holding two pounds or less of 
refrigerant for use in an MVAC complies with the leakage rate 
specified in Sec.  82.154(c)(2)(ii). All terms in this appendix will 
follow the definitions in Sec.  82.152 unless otherwise defined in 
this appendix.
    All containers holding two pounds or less of refrigerant for use 
in an MVAC must comply with other applicable codes and regulations 
such as local, state, or Federal safety codes and regulations.
    This test procedure involves the use of materials under pressure 
and operations and should only be used by or under the supervision 
of those familiar and experienced in the use of such materials and 
operations. Appropriate safety precautions should be observed at all 
times while performing this test procedure.

Section 2. Principle and Summary of Test Procedure

    This procedure is used to determine the leakage rate of 
containers holding two pounds or less of refrigerant for use in an 
MVAC (small cans). Testing will involve subjecting both full and 
partially empty cans in both upright and inverted positions at two 
temperatures: 73 [deg]F and 130 [deg]F.
    Thirty small cans are tested under each condition for a total of 
240 small cans tested. Small cans are brought to temperature 
stability, weighed, then stored for 30 days under specified 
conditions of temperature, orientation, and state of fill, then re-
weighed. Leakage rate (grams/year) is estimated by (weight loss in 
grams) x 365/(days duration). The leakage rate is then compared to a 
standard of 3.00 grams/year to determine if a given small can 
complies with the leakage rate specified in Sec.  82.154(c)(2)(ii).

Section 3. Biases and Interferences

    3.1 Contaminants on the operator's hands can affect the weight 
of the small can and the ability of the small can to absorb 
moisture. To avoid contamination of the small can, the balance 
operator should wear gloves while handling the small cans.
    3.2 Weight determinations can be interfered with by moisture 
condensing on the small can and by thermal currents generated by 
temperature differences between the small can and the room 
temperature. The small cans cool during discharge and could cause 
condensation. For these reasons, small cans must be equilibrated to 
balance room temperature for at least four hours before weighing.
    3.3 Variations in the temperature, pressure, and humidity of the 
ambient air will cause variations in the buoyancy of the small can. 
These variations should typically be less than 25 mg for a small 
can. If the small can is not leaking at all, then the uncorrected 
weight changes will be within the range of 0  25 mg, 
which is about ten percent of the 247 mg loss expected after thirty 
days for a can leaking at 3 g/yr. In that case buoyancy corrections 
can be omitted. If the absolute value of the uncorrected weight 
change exceeds 25 mg, then all calculations must be made using 
weights corrected for buoyancy based on the temperature, pressure, 
and humidity of the weighing room.
    3.4 Some electronic balances are sensitive to the effects of 
small static charges. The small can should be placed directly on the 
balance pan, ensuring metal to metal contact. If the balance pan is 
not grounded, the small can and balance pan should be statically 
discharged before weighing.

Section 4. Sensitivity and Range

    The mass of a full small can could range from roughly 50 g to 
1000 g depending on the container capacity. A top loading balance, 
capable of a maximum weight measurement of not less than 1,000 g and 
having a minimum readability of 0.001 g, reproducibility and 
linearity of  0.002 g, must be used to perform mass 
measurements.

Section 5. Equipment

    5.1 A top loading balance that meets the requirements of Section 
4 above.
    5.2 A NIST traceable working standard mass for balance 
calibration. A NIST traceable working standard mass for a balance 
linearity check. A reference mass to serve as a ``blank'' small can.
    5.3 An enclosure capable of controlling the internal air 
temperature from 73 [deg]F  5 [deg]F, and an enclosure 
capable of controlling the internal air temperature to 130 [deg]F 
 5 [deg]F.
    5.4 A temperature instrument capable of measuring the internal 
temperature of the

[[Page 69555]]

temperature conditioning enclosures and the balance room with a 
sensitivity of  2 [deg]F.
    5.5 A barometric pressure instrument capable of measuring 
atmospheric pressure at the location of the balance to within  0.02 inches of mercury.
    5.6 A relative humidity measuring instrument capable of 
measuring the relative humidity (RH) at the location of the balance 
with a sensitivity of  2% RH.
    5.7 A hose with appropriate fitting for dispensing refrigerant 
from the small can to a recovery machine.
    5.8 A refrigerant recovery machine to collect the discharged 
refrigerant from small cans being tested.

Section 6. Calibration Procedures

    6.1 Calibrations are applied to the balance and to the support 
equipment such as temperature, humidity, and pressure monitoring 
equipment. Procedures for calibration are not spelled out here. 
General calibration principals for the support equipment and the 
balance are described in Section 11, Quality Assurance/Quality 
Control. Detailed calibration procedures for measurements made using 
the balance are contained in Attachment A: ``Balance Protocol for 
Gravimetric Determination of Sample Weights using a Precision 
Balance.''

Section 7. Small Can Preparation

    7.1 Receive a batch of 240 small cans of one design to be 
tested. These may include several SKUs from different manufacturers 
if the container and valve combination are the same.
    7.2 Clean small cans with Alkanox solution or equivalent and dry 
with a lint free towel.
    7.3 Confirm that the sample ID sticker on the small can matches 
the sample ID on the chain of custody forms.
    7.4 Select a reference mass similar to the weight of a full 
small can. If multiple sets of similar sized small cans are being 
tested, only one reference mass is needed; it can be used with all 
sets. Store the reference mass in the balance area.
    7.5 Evacuate the contents of one half of the small cans (120 
cans) into the refrigerant recovery machine using normal DIY 
dispensing procedures until each small can is approximately half 
full.
    7.6 Select a reference mass similar to the weight of the half-
full small can. If multiple sets of similar size small cans are 
being tested, only one reference mass is needed; it can be used with 
all sets. Store the reference mass in the balance area.

Section 8. Small Can Weighing

    Weighing cans on the balance is done in accordance with 
Attachment A to this appendix. Attachment A describes how to conduct 
weight determinations including appropriate calibration and QC data. 
This section, ``Small Can Weighing,'' describes the overall process, 
not the details of how to use the balance.

Initial Weights

    8.1 Put on gloves. Check the small cans for contamination.
    8.2 Place the 240 small cans into a location where they can 
equilibrate to balance room temperature. Record the small can test 
IDs and the equilibration start time on the Small Can Test Data 
Forms (Form XXXX-YY) available on EPA's Web site in sets of thirty, 
one form for each of the eight test conditions.
    8.3 Let cans equilibrate for at least four hours.
    8.4 Weigh the set of 240 small cans and the reference weights 
using Attachment A and log the results to the Balance Weighing Log 
Form (Form XXXX-YY) available on EPA's Web site.
    8.5 Transfer data from the Balance Weighing Log Form to the 
Small Can Test Data Form in sets of 30, one set for each of the 
eight conditions to be tested.

Thirty-Day Soak

    8.6. Place each set of 30 small cans into the appropriate 
orientation and temperature for soaking:
    30 full small cans--73 [deg]F, upright
    30 full small cans--73 [deg]F, inverted
    30 full small cans--130 [deg]F, upright
    30 full small cans--130 [deg]F, inverted
    30 half-full small cans--73 [deg]F, upright
    30 half-full small cans--73 [deg]F, inverted
    30 half-full small cans--130 [deg]F, upright
    30 half-full small cans--130 [deg]F, inverted
    8.7. Soak the small cans for 30 days undisturbed.

Final Weighing

    8.8 Place the 240 small cans into a location where they can 
equilibrate to balance room temperature.
    8.9 Let the small cans equilibrate for at least four hours.
    8.10 Weigh the set of 240 small cans, the reference weights, and 
any additional sets of small cans using Attachment A.
    8.11 Transfer data from the Balance Weighing Log Form to the 
corresponding Small Can Test Data Forms.

Section 9. Calculations

Corrections for Buoyancy

    The calculations in this section are described in terms of 
``weight.'' Mass is a property of the small can, whereas weight is a 
force due to the effects of buoyancy and gravity. Procedures for 
correcting the effect of buoyancy are given in Attachment B of this 
appendix. Ignoring buoyancy, i.e. using weight data uncorrected for 
buoyancy effects, is acceptable for a thirty day test if the 
absolute magnitude of the weight change is less than 25 mg. If the 
uncorrected weight change exceeds 25 mg for any small can, then 
correct all small can weights for buoyancy using the procedures in 
Attachment B before performing the calculations described below.

Calculation of Leak Rate

    The emission rate in grams/day for each small can is calculated 
by subtracting the final weight from the initial weight and then 
dividing the weight difference by the time difference measured in 
days to the nearest hour (nearest 1/24 of a day). The emission rate 
in g/day is multiplied by 365 to determine emission rate in grams/
yr. If the annual emission rate for any small can exceeds the entire 
small can contents, then the annual emission rate for that small can 
is adjusted to equal the entire small can contents/year (e.g., about 
350 g/yr for a 12 ounce small can). The annual emission rate for the 
purpose of the test is calculated by averaging the 240 individual 
adjusted annual emission rates and rounding to two decimal places. 
The cans fail the test if the adjusted annual emission rate averaged 
over 240 cans is greater than 3.00 g/yr. The calculations are 
described below.

Loss Rate for Each Small Can

Eidaily = (Wifinal - Wiinitial) / 
(Difinal - Diinitial) g/day
Eiannual = 365 x Eidaily g/year
Eiadjusted = Minimum of (Eiadjusted, Ci/year) 
g/yr

Where,

Ei = emission rate
Wifinal = weight of can i after soaking (grams)
Wiinitial = weight of can I before soaking (grams)
Difinal = date/time of final weight measurements (days)
Diinitial = date/time of initial weight measurements 
(days)
Ci = original factory mass of refrigerant in can i

    Note: Date/Times are measured in days. Microsoft Excel stores 
dates and times in days, and the calculations can be made directly 
in Excel. If calculations are made manually, calculate serial days 
to the nearest hour for each date and time as follows:
D = Julday + Hour/24

Where,

Julday = serial day of the year: Jan 1 = 1, Jan 31 = 31, Feb 1 = 32, 
etc.
Hour = hour of day using 24-hour clock, 0 to 23

    Calculate the average loss rate for the 240 small cans as 
follows:

Emean = [Sum (Eadjustedi), i=1 to 240] / 240

Section 10. Recordkeeping

    During small can weighing, record the small can weights and 
date/times on the Balance Weighing Log Form. After each weighing 
session, transfer the measured weights and date/times from the 
Balance Weighing Log Form to the Small Can Test Data Form.
    At the end of the test, complete the calculations described in 
Section 9, Calculations, and record the results on the Small Can 
Test Data Form.

Section 11. Quality Assurance/Quality Control

    11.1 All temperature, pressure, and humidity instruments should 
be calibrated annually against NIST traceable laboratory standards. 
The main purpose of the NIST traceable calibration is to establish 
the absolute accuracy of the device. The instruments should also be 
checked periodically such as weekly, monthly, or quarterly against 
intermediate standards or against independent instruments. For 
example, a thermocouple can be checked weekly against a wall 
thermometer. A barometer or pressure gauge can be checked weekly by 
adjusting to sea level and comparing with local airport data. The 
main purpose of the frequent checks is to verify that the device has 
not failed in some way.

[[Page 69556]]

This is especially important for electronic devices such as a 
digital thermometer, but even a liquid filled thermometer can 
develop a problem such as a bubble.
    11.2 The balance should be serviced and calibrated annually by 
an independent balance service company or agency using NIST 
traceable reference masses. Servicing verifies accuracy and 
linearity, and the maintenance performed helps ensure that a 
malfunction does not develop.
    11.3 The balance must also be calibrated and its linearity 
checked with working standards before and after each weighing 
session, or before and after each group of 24 small cans if more 
than 24 small cans are weighed in a session. Procedures for 
calibrating and using the balance, as well as recording balance 
data, are described in the accompanying balance weighing protocol. 
These procedures include zero checks, calibration checks, and 
reference mass checks. Procedures for calculating quality control 
data from those checks are described in Attachment A.
    11.4 The small cans are cleaned then handled using gloves to 
prevent contamination. All equilibration and soaking must be done in 
a dust free area.

ATTACHMENT A--BALANCE PROTOCOL FOR GRAVIMETRIC DETERMINATION OF SAMPLE 
WEIGHTS USING A PRECISION BALANCE

1. Scope and Application

    This Protocol summarizes a set of procedures and tolerances for 
weighing objects in the range of 0 to 1,000 g with a resolution of 
0.001 g. This protocol only addresses balance operations, it does 
not address project requirements for equilibration, sample hold time 
limits, sample collection etc.

2. Summary of Method

    The balance is zeroed and calibrated using procedures defined 
herein. Object weight determinations are conducted along with 
control object weight determinations, zero checks, calibration 
checks, sensitivity checks, and replicate weightings in a defined 
sequence designed to control and quantitatively characterize 
precision and accuracy.

3. Definitions

    N/A.

4. Interferences

    Object weights can be affected by temperature and relative 
humidity of their environment, air currents, static electricity, 
gain and loss of water vapor, gain or loss of and loss of volatile 
compounds directly from the sample or from contaminants such as 
finger prints, marker ink, and adhesive tape.
    Contamination, transfer of material to or from the samples, is 
controlled by conducting operations inside a clean area dedicated to 
the purpose and having a filtered laminar air flow where possible; 
by wearing gloves while handling all samples and related balance 
equipment; by using forceps to handle small objects, and by keeping 
the balance and all related equipment inside the clean area.
    Air currents are controlled by conducting weighing operations 
inside a closed chamber or glove box and by allowing the substrates 
to reach temperature and relative humidity equilibrium. The chamber 
is maintained at 40% relative humidity and 25 [deg]C by a continuous 
humidity and temperature control system. The temperature and RH 
conditions are recorded at least once per weighing sessions. 
Equilibration times for samples that are particularly sensitive to 
humidity or to loss of semi-volatiles species are specified by 
project requirements.
    Static electric charges on the walls of the balance and the 
weighed objects, including samples, controls, and calibration 
weights, can significantly affect balance readings. Static is 
avoided by the operator ground himself and test objects as described 
in the balance manual.

5. Personnel Health and Safety

    N/A.

6. Equipment and Supplies

     Filtered, temperature and humidity controlled weighing 
chamber.
     Precision Balance.
     Plastic forceps.
     Nylon fabric gloves.
     Working calibration weights: ANSI Class 2, 1000g and 
500 g.
     Working sensitivity weight: 50 mg.
     Reference objects: references are one or more objects 
that are typical of the objects to be weighed during a project, but 
that are stored permanently inside the balance glove box. Reference 
objects are labeled Test1, Test2, Test3, etc.

7. Reagents and Standards

    N/A.

8. Sample Collection, Preservation, and Storage

    N/A. See relevant project requirements and SOPs.

9. Quality Control

    Data quality is controlled by specifying frequencies and 
tolerances for Zero, Calibration, Linearity, and Sensitivity checks. 
If checks do not meet tolerance criteria, then samples must be re-
weighed. In addition, the procedures specify frequencies for Control 
Object Checks.
    Data quality is quantitatively characterized using Zero Check, 
Calibration Check, and Control Check data. These data are summarized 
monthly in statistics and QC charts.

10. Calibration and Standardization

    The absolute accuracy of the balance is established by 
calibration against an ANSI Class 2, stainless steel working weight: 
1000.000 g  0.0025 g. Linearity is established checking 
the midpoint against an ANSI Class 2 stainless steel working weight: 
500.000  0.0012 g. Sensitivity is established using and 
ANSI Class 2 stainless steel or aluminum working weight: 50 mg. 
Precision is checked by periodically checking zero, calibration, and 
reference object weights.

11. Procedure

    11.1 Overview of Weighing Sequence
    Weighing a series of substrates consists of performing the 
following procedures in sequence, while observing the procedures for 
handling and the procedures for reading the balance:
    1. Initial Adjustment.
    2. Weigh eight samples.
    3. Zero Check.
    4. Weigh eight samples.
    5. Zero Check.
    6. Weigh eight samples.
    7. Calibration Check.
    8. Return to step 2.
    9. If less than 24 cans are weighed, perform a final Calibration 
Check at the end of weighing.
    This sequence is interrupted and samples are reweighed if QC 
check tolerances are not met. Each of these procedures along with 
procedures for handling and reading the balance are described below. 
The QC tolerances referred to in these procedures are listed in 
Table 1.

11.2 Handling

    1. Never touch samples, weights, balance pans, etc. with bare 
hands. Wear powder free gloves to handle the weights, controls, and 
samples.

11.3 Reading the Balance

    1. Close the door. Wait for the balance stabilization light to 
come on, and note the reading.
    2. Watch the balance reading for 30 sec (use a clock). If the 
reading has not changed by more than 0.001 g from the reading noted 
in step 1, then record the reading observed at the end of the 30 sec 
period.
    3. If the reading has drifted more than 0.001 g note the new 
balance reading and go to step 2.
    4. If the balance reading is flickering back and forth between 
two consecutive values choose the value that is displayed more often 
than the other.
    5. If the balance reading is flickering equally back and forth 
between two consecutive values choose the higher value.

11.4 Initial Adjustment

    1. Empty the sample pan Close the door. Select Range 1000 g.
    2. Wait for a stable reading.
    3. Record the reading with QC code IZC (initial zero check).
    4. Press the Tare button.
    5. Record the reading in the logbook with QC code IZA (initial 
zero adjust).
    6. Place the 1,000 g working calibration weight on the balance 
pan.
    7. Wait for a stable reading.
    8. Record the reading with QC code ICC (initial cal check).
    9. Press the Calibrate button.
    10. Record the reading with QC code ICA (initial cal adjust).
    11. Remove the calibration weight.
    12. Wait for a stable reading.
    13. Record the reading with QC code IZC.
    14. If the zero reading exceeds  0.002 g, go to step 
4.
    15. Place the 500 g calibration weight on the balance pan.
    16. After a stable reading, record the reading with QC code 
C500. Do not adjust the balance.

[[Page 69557]]

    17. Add the 0.050 g weight to 500 g weight on the balance pan.
    18. After a stable reading, record the reading with QC code 
C0.05. Do not adjust the balance.
    19. Weigh reference object TEST1, record reading with QC code 
T1.
    20. Weigh the reference object TEST2, TEST3, etc. that is 
similar in weight to the samples that you will be weighing. Record 
with QC code T2, T3, etc.

11.5 Zero Check

1. Empty the sample pan. Close the door.
2. Wait for a stable reading
3. Record the reading with QC code ZC
4. If the ZC reading is less than or equal to the zero adjustment 
tolerance shown in Table 1, return to weighing and do not adjust the 
zero. If the ZC reading exceeded the zero adjustment tolerance, 
proceed with steps 5 through 7.
5. Press the Tare button
6. Record the reading in the logbook with QC code ZA.
7. If the ZC reading exceeded the zero re-weigh tolerance, change 
the QC code recorded in step 3 from ZC to FZC. Then enter a QC code 
of FZ into the QC code column of all samples weights obtained after 
the last valid zero check. Re-weigh all of those samples, recording 
new data in new rows of the logbook.

11.6 Calibration Check

1. First, follow procedures for Zero Check. If the ZC was within 
tolerance, tare the balance anyway (i.e. follow steps 5 and 6 of the 
Zero Check method)
2. Place the 1,000 g working calibration weight on the sample pan, 
wait for a stable reading.
3. Record the reading with QC code C1000
4. If the C1000 reading is less than or equal to the calibration 
adjustment tolerances, skip steps 5 through 8 and proceed to step 9. 
Do not adjust the calibration.
5. If the C100 reading exceeded the calibration adjust tolerance, 
press the Calibrate button.
6. Record the reading in the logbook with QC code CA
7. Perform a Zero Check (follow the Zero Check method)
8. If the C1000 reading exceeded the calibration re-weigh tolerance, 
change the code recorded in step 3 from C1000 to FC1000. Enter FC 
into the QC column for all sample weights obtained after the last 
valid calibration check. Re-weigh all of those samples, recording 
new data in new rows of the logbook.

11.7 Replicate Weighing Check

1. This protocol does not include reweigh samples to obtain 
replicates. The projects for which this protocol is intended already 
include procedures multiple weightings of each sample.

       Table 1--QC Tolerances and Frequencies for Balance Protocol
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading Tolerance:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    0.001 g, stable for 30 sec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustment Tolerances:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Zero:..............................  -0.003 to +0.003 g.
    Calibration:.......................  999.997 to 1000.003 g.
    Controls:..........................  none.
    Replicates:........................  none.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re-weigh Tolerances:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Zero:..............................  -0.005 to +0.005 g.
    Calibration:.......................  999.995 to 1000.005 g.
    Controls:..........................  none.
    Replicates:........................  none.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference Objects:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Test 1--A reference object weighing about 400 g.
    Test 2--A reference object weighing about 200 g.
    Test 3--A reference object weighing about 700 g.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QC Frequencies:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Zero Checks:.......................  once per 8 samples.
    Calibration Checks:................  once per 24 samples.
    Repeat weighings:..................  none (test method includes
                                          replicate determinations).
    Control objects:...................  once per weighing session.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. Data Analysis and Calculations

    For Zero Checks, let Z equal the recorded Zero Check value. For 
control checks let T1, T2, etc. equal the recorded value for control 
object Test 1, Test 2, etc. For Calibration Checks, let C1000 equal 
C1000 reading minus 1000, M = C500-500, S = .C.050-C500-.050. For 
Replicate Checks, let D equal the loss that occurred between the 
first and second measurements. In summary:

T1 = T1
T2 = T2
T3 = T3
Z = ZC -0
C = C1000 -1000
M = C500 -500
G = C050 - C500 - .050

    Tabulate the mean and standard deviation for each of the 
following: Z, C, M, G. T1, T2, T3. Depending on the number of 
operators using the balance and the number of protocols in use, 
analyze the data by subcategories to determine the effects of 
balance operator and protocol. Each of these standard deviations, 
SZ, SC, etc. is an estimate of the precision 
of single weight measurement.
    For Z, C, M, and G, check the mean value for statistical 
difference from 0. If the means are statistically different than 
zero, troubleshooting to eliminate bias may be called for. For Z, C, 
M, G, T1, T2, T3, check that the standard deviations are all 
comparable. If there are systematic differences, then 
troubleshooting to eliminate the problem may be called for.
    Note that the precision of a weight gain, involves two weight 
determinations, and therefore is larger than S by a factor of 
sqrt(2). On the other hand replicate weighings improves the 
precision of the determinations by a factor of sqrt(N). If N = 2, 
i.e. duplicates, then the factors cancel each other.
    To estimate the overall uncertainty in a weight determination, a 
conservative estimate might be to combine the imprecision 
contributed by the zero with the imprecision contributed by the 
calibration.

U = Sqrt(SZ\2\ + SC\2\)

[[Page 69558]]

    The uncertainty in a weight gain from N replicates is then given 
by:

Ugain = Sqrt(2) x Sqrt(SZ\2\ + 
SC\2\) /Sqrt(N)

    But due to the balance adjustment and reweigh tolerances, we 
expect SZ to approximately equal SC, to 
approximately equal SM, etc. tolerances, so that the 
equation above becomes:

Ugain = 2 x S/Sqrt(N)

    Where S is any individual standard deviation; or better, a 
pooled standard deviation.

13. Method Performance

    The data necessary to characterize the accuracy and precision of 
this method are still being collected. The method is used primarily 
to weigh objects before and after a period of soaking to determine 
weight loss by subtraction. Given the reweigh tolerances, we expect 
that the precision of weight gain determinations will be on the 
order of 0.006 g at the 1-sigma level. Bias in the weight gain 
determination, due to inaccuracy of the calibration weight and to 
fixed non-linearity of the balance response is on the order 0.005% 
of the gain.

14. Pollution Prevention

    When discharging half the can contents during can preparation, 
do not vent the contents of the small can to the atmosphere. Use an 
automotive recovery machine to transfer small can contest to a 
recovery cylinder.

15. Waste Management

    Dispose of the contents of the recycle cylinder through a 
service that consolidates waste for shipment to EPA certified 
facilities for reclaiming or destruction.

ATTACHMENT 2--COMPENSATION OF WEIGHT DATA FOR BUOYANCY AND GRAVITY 
EFFECTS

Gravity

    Variations in gravity are important only when weighing objects 
under different gravitational fields, i.e. at different locations or 
at different heights. Since the balance procedures calibrate the 
balance against a known mass (the calibration ``weight'') at the 
same location where sample objects are weighed, there is no need to 
correct for location. Although both the sample and the calibration 
weight are used at the same location, there will be a difference in 
the height of the center of gravity of the sample object (small can) 
and the center of gravity of the reference mass (calibration 
weight). However, this difference in height is maintained during 
both the initial weights and final weights, affecting the initial 
and final weights by the same amount, and affecting the scale of the 
weight difference by only a few ppm. In any event, the magnitude of 
this correction is on the order of 0.3 ug per kg per mm of height 
difference. A difference on the order of 100 mm would thus yield a 
weight difference of about 0.03 mg, which is insignificant compared 
to our balance resolution which is 0.001 g or 1 mg.
    Based on the discussion above, no corrections for gravity are 
necessary when determining weight changes in small cans.

Buoyancy

    Within a weighing session, the difference in density between the 
sample object and the calibration weight will cause the sample 
object weight value to differ from its mass value due to buoyancy. 
For a 1-liter object in air at 20 [deg]C and at 1 atm, the buoyant 
force is about 1.2 g. The volume of a 1 kg object with a density of 
8 g/cm\3\ (e.g. a calibration weight), is about 0.125 liters, and 
the buoyancy force is about 0.15 g. Variations in air density will 
affect both of these values in proportion. The net value being 
affected by variations in air density is thus on the order of 1.2-
0.15 = 1.05 g. Air density can vary up or down by 2% or more due to 
variations in barometric pressure, temperature, and humidity. The 
buoyancy force will then vary up or down by 0.02 g, or 20 mg. This 
is significant compared to the weight change expected after one week 
for a can leaking at 3 grams per year, which is 57 mg.
    Based on the discussion above, buoyancy corrections must be 
made.
    Variables measured or calculated:

Vcan = volume of can (cm\3\). Estimate to within 10% by 
measuring the can dimensions or by water displacement. Error in the 
can volume will cause an error in the absolute amount of the 
buoyancy force, but will have only a small effect on the change in 
buoyancy force from day to day.
Wcan = nominal weight of a can (g), used to calculate the 
nominal density of the can.
[rho]can = nominal density of a small can (g/cm\3\). The 
nominal values can be applied to corrections for all cans. It is not 
necessary to calculate a more exact density for each can. Calculate 
once for a full can and once for a half full can as follows:
[rho]can = WCAN/VCAN
T = Temperature in balance chamber (degrees Celsius).
RH = Relative humidity in balance chamber (expressed a number 
between 0 and 100).
Pbaro = Barometric pressure in balance chamber 
(millibar). Use actual pressure, NOT pressure adjusted to sea level.
[rho]air = density of air in the balance chamber (g/
cm\3\). Calculate using the following approximation:
[rho]air = 0.001*[0.348444*Pbaro - (RH / 
100)x(0.252xT - 2.0582)] / (T + 273.15)
[rho]ref = the reference density of the calibration 
weight (g/cm\3\). Should be 8.0 g/cm\3\.
Equation to correct for buoyancy: Wcorrected = 
Wreading x (1 - [rho]air / 
[rho]ref) / (1 - [rho]air / 
[rho]can)
[FR Doc. 2015-26946 Filed 11-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


