The EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, signed the following

Page 1 of 403

The EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, signed the following document on September 26, 2016,

and the agency is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken

steps to ensure the accuracy of this Internet version of the document, it is not the official version.

Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR publication, which will appear on the

Government Printing Office's FDSys website (http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action)

and on Regulations.gov (www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0453. Once

the official version of this document is published in the FR, this version will be removed from

the Internet and replaced with a link to the official version.

6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0453; FRL-9950-20-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: Final 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 maintaining,

servicing, repairing, or disposing of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment containing

more than 50 pounds of refrigerant observe certain service practices that reduce emissions of

ozone-depleting refrigerant. This rule updates those existing requirements as well as extends

them, as appropriate, to non-ozone depleting substitute refrigerants, such as hydrofluorocarbons.

Updates include strengthened leak repair requirements, recordkeeping requirements for the

disposal of appliances containing more than five and less than 50 pounds of refrigerant, revisions

Page 2 of 403

to the technician certification program, and revisions for improved readability and compliance.

As a result, this action reduces emissions of ozone-depleting substances and gases with high

global warming potentials.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 1, 2017. The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register

as of on January 1, 2017. This rule contains information collection activities that have been

submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA). Under the 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 [Insert date 30 days after date of publication in the Federal

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-

OAR-2015-0453. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov web site.

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted

material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.

Publicly available docket materials are available electronically through www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremy Arling, Stratospheric Protection

Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 6205T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

N.W., Washington, D.C., 20460; telephone number (202) 343-9055; e-mail address

[email protected]. You may also visit www.epa.gov/section608 for further information

about refrigerant management, other Stratospheric Ozone Protection regulations, the science of

ozone layer depletion, and related topics.

Page 3 of 403

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?

E. Judicial Review

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 rule?

E. What are the major revisions being finalized in this rule?

F. Enforcement of subpart F regulations

G. Incorporation by reference

III. EPA’s Authority Under the Clean Air Act

A. Summary of EPA’s authority for the revisions to subpart F

B. Comments and responses related to EPA’s authority

IV. The Revisions Finalized in this Rule

A. Revisions to the definitions in section 82.152

B. Revisions to the venting prohibition in section 82.154(a)

C. Revisions to the refrigerant and appliance sales restrictions in section 82.154

D. Revisions to the safe disposal provisions in section 82.155

E. Revisions to the evacuation requirements in section 82.156

F. Revisions to the leak repair requirements in section 82.157

G. Revisions to the standards for recovery and/or recycling equipment in section 82.158

H. Revisions to the standards for equipment testing organizations in section 82.160

I. Revisions to the technician certification requirements in section 82.161

J. Revisions to the technician certification program requirements in section 82.161

K. Revisions to the reclamation requirements in section 82.164

L. Revisions to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in section 82.166

M. Effective and compliance dates

V. Possible Future Revisions to Subpart F

VI. Economic Analysis

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

Page 4 of 403

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments

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

Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution,

or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income Populations

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

List of Acronyms

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

CFC- Chlorofluorocarbon

- 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

MMTCO

eq- Million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent

MVAC- Motor vehicle air conditioner

Page 5 of 403

NAICS- North American Industry Classification System

ODP- Ozone depletion potential

ODS- Ozone-depleting substance

PFC- Perfluorocarbon

RCRA- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

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, including motor vehicle air

conditioning. Regulated entities include, but are not limited to, the following:

Table 1. Potentially Affected Entities

Category

North American Industry

Classification System

(NAICS) Code

Examples of regulated entities

Industrial Process

Refrigeration

(IPR)

111, 11251, 11511, 21111,

2211, 2212, 2213, 311,

3121, 3221, 3222, 32311,

32411, 3251, 32512, 3252,

3253, 32541, 3256, 3259,

3261, 3262, 3324, 3328,

33324, 33341, 33361,

3341, 3344, 3345, 3346,

3364, 33911, 339999

Owners or operators of refrigeration

equipment used in agriculture and crop

production, oil and gas extraction, ice

rinks, and the manufacture of frozen food,

dairy products, food and beverages, ice,

petrochemicals, chemicals, machinery,

medical equipment, plastics, paper, and

electronics

Page 6 of 403

Commercial

Refrigeration

42374, 42393, 42399,

4242, 4244, 42459, 42469,

42481, 42493, 4451, 4452,

45291, 48422, 4885, 4931,

49312, 72231

Owners or operators of refrigerated

warehousing and storage facilities,

supermarkets, grocery stores, warehouse

clubs, supercenters, convenience stores,

and refrigerated transport

Comfort Cooling

45211, 45299, 453998,

512, 522, 524, 531, 5417,

551, 561, 6111, 6112,

6113, 61151, 622, 7121,

71394, 721, 722, 813, 92

Owners or operators of air-conditioning

equipment used in the following:

hospitals, office buildings, colleges and

universities, metropolitan transit

authorities, real estate rental & leased

properties, lodging and food services,

property management, schools, and public

administration or other public institutions

Plumbing,

Heating, and Air-

Conditioning

Contractors

238220, 811111, 81131,

811412

Plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning

contractors, and refrigerant recovery

contractors, including automotive repair

Manufacturers and

Distributors of

Small Cans of

Refrigerant

325120, 441310, 447110

Automotive parts and accessories stores

and industrial gas manufacturers

Reclaimers

325120, 423930, 424690,

562920, 562212

Industrial gas manufacturers, recyclable

material merchant wholesalers, materials

recovery facilities, solid waste landfills,

and other chemical and allied products

merchant wholesalers

Disposers and

Recyclers of

Appliances

423990, 562212, 562920

Materials recovery facilities, solid waste

landfills, and other miscellaneous durable

goods merchant wholesalers

Refrigerant

Wholesalers

325120, 42, 424690

Industrial gas 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 regulations in subpart F and this rule. If you have questions regarding the

Page 7 of 403

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 regulations in 40 CFR part 82, subpart F (subpart F) that are in effect before this final

action takes effect (often referred to in this notice as the “prior” or “previous” regulations)

require that persons servicing, maintaining, repairing, or disposing of air-conditioning and

refrigeration equipment observe certain service practices that reduce emissions of ozone-

depleting refrigerant. Specifically, these provisions include: restricting the servicing of

appliances and the sale of refrigerant to certified technicians; specifying the proper evacuation

levels before opening an appliance; requiring the use of certified refrigerant recovery and/or

recycling equipment; requiring the maintenance and repair of appliances that meet size and leak

rate thresholds; requiring that refrigerant be removed from appliances prior to disposal; requiring

that appliances have 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 updates the prior refrigerant management requirements in subpart F that apply

to ozone-depleting refrigerants. It also extends those requirements, as appropriate, to non-ozone

depleting substitute refrigerants that are not exempt from the venting prohibition, including but

not limited to hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), in order to interpret, explain, and enforce the venting

prohibition.

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

Page 8 of 403

Section 608 of the CAA provides EPA authority for these revisions to the regulations

found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F. 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). More detail on EPA’s

authority for this action is provided in subsequent sections.

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

The revisions in this rule require certain businesses to take actions that have associated

costs, such as conducting leak inspections, repairing leaks, and keeping records. Total annual

incremental compliance costs associated with this rule are estimated to be $24.5 million per year

in 2014 dollars using a 7 percent discount rate. Costs were modeled for a single typical year in

which all the requirements were in effect, based on the appliance distribution modeled for 2015.

Total annual operating savings associated with reduced refrigerant use are estimated to be $44

million; thus incremental compliance costs and refrigerant savings combined are estimated to be

approximately $19.5 million per year. A detailed description of the comments received on the

proposed analysis can be found in Section VI of this preamble as well as the response to

comments document found in the docket. A full description of the technical analysis can be

found in the document Analysis of the Economic Impact and Benefits of Final Revisions to the

National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program in the docket.

EPA estimates that this rule will prevent damage to the stratospheric ozone layer by

reducing emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants by approximately 114 metric tons per year,

weighted by the ozone-depletion potential (ODP) of the gases emitted. Avoided emissions of

Page 9 of 403

ozone-depleting refrigerants and non-ozone depleting substitutes will also reduce climate

impacts because most of these refrigerants are potent greenhouse gases. Weighted by their global

warming potentials (GWP)

, EPA estimates that the revisions will prevent annual emissions of

greenhouse gases equivalent to 7.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (MMTCO

eq). The

reductions in emissions of GHGs and ODS have benefits for human health and the environment

because of the threats these substances pose to human health and the environment. Such threats

are discussed further in Section II.D of this notice.

Table 2. Annual GHG and ODS Emissions Avoided

Rule Component

GHG Emissions Avoided

(MTCO

eq)

ODS Emissions Avoided

(ODP-weighted MT)

HFC

ODS

Total

ODS

Leak Repair and Inspection

Comfort Cooling

1,425,000

2,487,000

3,912,000

Commercial Refrigeration

1,246,000

1,077,000

2,323,000

IPR

275,000

169,000

444,000

Reporting & Recordkeeping

Self-sealing Valves on Small Cans

657,000

Total

3,603,000

3,733,000

7,336,000

114

Totals may not sum due to independent rounding

Details of the methods used to estimate the benefits are discussed in Section VI of this

notice and the Analysis of the Economic Impact and Benefits of Final Revisions to the National

Recycling and Emission Reduction Program in the docket.

E. Judicial Review

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.

Page 10 of 403

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by

filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by

[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. This

final action is a nationally applicable regulation and has nationwide scope and effect because it

makes revisions to the EPA’s regulations for the National Recycling and Emission Reduction

Program found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F, which are nationally applicable regulations that

have nationwide scope and effect. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to this

final action that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can

be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a mechanism for EPA to convene a

proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to [EPA]

that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the

grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time

specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of this

rule.” Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for

Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room

3000, William Jefferson Clinton Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC

20460, with a copy to the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office,

Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344-A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What are ozone-depleting substances?

Page 11 of 403

The stratospheric ozone layer protects life on Earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet

(UV) radiation. ODS are generally man-made chemicals that, when transported by winds into the

stratosphere, release chlorine or bromine and damage that protective ozone layer. ODS are used

as refrigerants, solvents, foam blowing agents, aerosol propellants, fire suppression agents, and

in other smaller applications. The Clean Air Act divides ODS into two categories: class I and

class II substances. The production of new class I ODS, which includes chlorofluorocarbons

(CFCs), methyl chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, halons, and other compounds has been banned

for over a decade. The production of new class II substances, which are all

hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), will be phased down 99.5 percent by 2020.

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 Parties to the Montreal Protocol

have agreed to phase out the production and consumption of ODS controlled by the Protocol.

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

Section 608 of the CAA bears the title “National Recycling and Emissions Reduction

Program.” Under the structure of section 608, this program has three main components. First,

section 608(a) requires EPA to establish standards and requirements regarding use and disposal

of class I and II substances, including a comprehensive refrigerant management program to limit

emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. This program is to include regulations that reduce the

use and emissions of class I and II substances to the lowest achievable level and that maximize

the recapture and recycling of such substances. The second component, section 608(b), requires

Page 12 of 403

that the regulations issued pursuant to subsection (a) contain requirements for the safe disposal of

class I and class II substances. The third component, section 608(c), prohibits the knowing

venting, 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.

This prohibition is also referred to as the “venting prohibition” in this action. Section 608 is

described in greater detail in Section III.

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. These regulations were intended to substantially

reduce the use and emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants.

The regulations first established in the 1993 Rule require that persons servicing air-

conditioning and refrigeration equipment containing an ozone-depleting refrigerant observe

certain practices that reduce emissions. They also established requirements for refrigerant

recovery equipment, reclaimer certification, and technician certification, and restricted the sale of

refrigerant so that only certified technicians could purchase it. In addition, they required the

removal of ODS 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 was exceeded, the appliance must be repaired within 30 days.

Page 13 of 403

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), January 11, 2005 (70 FR 1972), May 23,

2014 (79 FR 29682), and April 10, 2015 (80 FR 19453). EPA also issued proposed rules to

revise the regulations in subpart F on June 11, 1998 (63 FR 32044), elements of which were not

finalized, and on December 15, 2010 (75 FR 78558), which was also not finalized. EPA is

withdrawing and therefore not finalizing the 2010 proposed rule. Instead, EPA re-proposed

elements of both the 1998 and the 2010 proposed rules in the notice of proposed rulemaking (80

FR 19453) for 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 responded to a settlement agreement between EPA and the

Chemical Manufacturers Association to give additional flexibility to repair or retrofit IPR

appliances containing ODS. EPA allowed owners or operators additional time beyond 30 days to

complete repairs and more than one year to retrofit appliances where certain conditions applied

(i.e., federally owned equipment located in areas subject to radiological contamination,

unavailability of necessary parts for IPR, or instances where adherence to local, state, or federal

Page 14 of 403

laws hinder immediate repairs for IPR). 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

and 740

, 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.

The March 12, 2004, rule exempted from the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2)

specific non-ozone depleting substances that the Agency found did not pose a threat to the

environment (69 FR 11946). Notably, EPA did not exempt HFC or perfluorocarbon (PFC)

refrigerants from the venting prohibition. The rule clarified that regulations affecting the

handling and sales of ozone-depleting refrigerants apply to blends that contain an ODS.

The January 11, 2005, rule clarified that the leak repair requirements also apply to blends

that contain an ODS (70 FR 1927). The rule amended the required practices and associated

reporting/recordkeeping requirements and clarified certain leak repair requirements.

On December 15, 2010 (75 FR 78558, “proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule”), EPA

proposed 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

The Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute Standard 700, Specification for Fluorocarbons and Other

Refrigerants, contains standards for the reclamation of used refrigerants.

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.

Page 15 of 403

to reduce the leak repair rates. EPA did not finalize that rule and EPA has withdrawn that

proposal through this rulemaking, although, as noted above, EPA also re-proposed elements of

that proposal in the notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule.

Finally, on May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29682), and April 10, 2015 (80 FR 19453), EPA

expanded the list of substitute refrigerants that EPA has exempted from the CAA venting

prohibition to include certain hydrocarbons in specific end-uses.

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 established a

phaseout schedule for HCFCs. The schedule for HCFCs was later amended and now calls for a

35 percent reduction in production and consumption from each Article 2 Party’s (developed

country’s) 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 by 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

Page 16 of 403

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.

EPA established the refrigerant management program shortly before the CFC phaseout.

Similarly, today’s rule to update those regulations closely precedes the phaseout of HCFCs. In

2020, production and consumption of HCFCs will be limited to 0.5% of baseline, and may not

include HCFC-22, the most commonly used HCFC refrigerant. The reasons for encouraging a

viable CFC recycling program support the same approach for HCFCs. The 1993 Rule discussed

a 1990 advance 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. (58 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.

Page 17 of 403

2. Development 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. Instead, the SNAP list evolves as 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 31 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.

For example, 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). EPA anticipates that industry

will continue to develop safer alternatives and that EPA will continue to review information

Page 18 of 403

concerning additional refrigerant options and determine the appropriate action needed to

safeguard human health and the environment.

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, including non-

exempt substitute refrigerants, should be handled under the refrigerant management regulations

in subpart F.

3. Increased attention to HFCs as climate pollutants

Domestic and international efforts to protect the ozone layer have also helped to protect

the global climate, because in addition to damaging ozone in the stratosphere, CFCs and HCFCs

are also potent GHGs. 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 (CO

), methane (CH

), nitrous oxide (N

O), HFCs, PFCs, and sulfur hexafluoride

(SF

) — 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.

Page 19 of 403

i. Climate Action Plan

In June 2013, the President announced the Climate Action Plan.

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 this international

diplomacy is the proposed 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 revised the listing status for certain substitutes previously

listed as acceptable under the SNAP program (80 FR 42870). That rule revised the status of

certain HFCs and HCFCs for various end-uses in the aerosols, refrigeration and air-conditioning,

and foam blowing sectors. EPA made these revisions based on information showing that other

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.

The President’s Climate Action Plan also calls on the federal government to reduce

emissions of HFCs by purchasing alternatives whenever feasible and transitioning to equipment

that uses safer and more sustainable alternatives to HFCs. To implement the Climate Action

Plan, the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and National Aeronautics

and Space Administration recently amended the Federal Acquisition Regulation to encourage the

purchase of alternatives to high GWP HFCs (81 FR 30429; May 16, 2016). This rule is designed

to promote the use of safer chemical alternatives to HFCs by service and vendor contractors. To

The President’s Climate Action Plan, 2013,

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf

Page 20 of 403

help agencies monitor progress, the amendment requires contractors to keep records of and

report on the amounts of HFCs added or removed during the routine maintenance, repair, or

disposal of appliances with a full charge of 50 or more pounds of HFC or HFC blend refrigerant.

Minimizing the emissions and maximizing the recovery and reuse of ODS and HFC

refrigerants are consistent with the Climate Action Plan. EPA estimates that the revisions

finalized in this action will prevent annual emissions of refrigerant equivalent to 7.3

MMTCO

eq. Of this amount, 3.6 MMTCO

eq are due to HFCs and 3.7 MMTCO

eq are due to

ODS. Because of the significant environmental benefit to be gained by addressing HFC

refrigerants, 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. The most commonly used HFC, HFC-134a, has a

GWP of 1,430, which means it traps 1,430 times as much heat per kilogram as carbon dioxide

does over 100 years. The majority of global, and U.S., HFC use is in the refrigeration and air

conditioning sector. 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 group of GHGs, and

globally they are increasing 10 to 15 percent 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 percent 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 percent per year from 2007 to 2011, respectively. Without action, annual

Page 21 of 403

global emissions of HFCs are projected to rise to about 6,400 to 9,900 MMTCO

eq in 2050,

which is comparable to the drop in annual GHG emissions of ODS of 8,000 MMTCO

between 1988 and 2010 (UNEP, 2011).

As these HFCs accumulate in the atmosphere, they 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 to 0.22–0.25 W m

‑

.To appreciate the significance of the projected HFC radiative forcing within the context of all

GHGs, the forcing from HFCs would be 6–9% of that from CO

in the IPCC’s representative

concentration pathways (RCP6 and RCP8.5) in 2050 (Velders et al., 2015).

iii. Montreal Protocol Amendment Proposal

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 (CO

eq) through 2050. A number of other Parties to the Montreal

Protocol have also proposed amendments to phase down global production and consumption of

HFCs. These proposals were introduced by a group of Island States; the European Union; and

India. On November 6, 2015, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol adopted the “Dubai Pathway”

on HFCs, which provides that the Parties would work together, within the Montreal Protocol, to

adopt an HFC amendment in 2016.

4. Petition from the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy

Page 22 of 403

On January 31, 2014, the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy (the Alliance)

petitioned the Agency to initiate a rulemaking to apply the section 608 refrigerant management

regulations to HFCs and other substitute refrigerants. In that petition, the Alliance requested that

EPA extend the section 608 regulations relating to refrigerant sales and distribution restrictions,

and the evacuation, certification, reclamation and recovery, leak repair, reporting and

recordkeeping requirements to HFCs. The petition argues that applying 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 petition cites

sections 608(c)(2) and 301(a) of the CAA as authority for these revisions. A copy of the petition

is included in the docket for this rulemaking. While EPA is not taking today’s action solely as a

result of the Alliance petition, this rulemaking constitutes the Agency’s response to the petition.

D. What are the goals of this rule?

The Agency has two goals for this rulemaking. The first is to promote the proper

handling and use of ozone-depleting and substitute refrigerants. Doing so will protect the

stratospheric ozone layer by reducing emissions of ODS refrigerants and protect the climate

system by reducing emissions of refrigerant gases with high GWPs. High-GWP refrigerants

include both ODS refrigerants and most substitute refrigerants, including HFCs, that EPA has

not exempted from the venting prohibition under CAA section 608. The second goal of this

rulemaking is to harmonize the requirements across all major refrigerant types and update the

regulations in plain language to reduce uncertainty and complexity for the regulated community,

as well as increase clarity, encourage compliance, and facilitate enforcement.

1. Promoting the Proper Handling of Refrigerants

Page 23 of 403

Today’s rule will reduce the use and emission of refrigerants, maximize the recapture and

recycling of such substances, and further interpret, explain, and enforce the prohibition on

knowingly venting or releasing refrigerants during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal

of appliances.

EPA estimates that this rule will result in annual reductions in emissions of

approximately 114 ODP-weighted metric tons. A separate support document Analysis of the

Economic Impact and Benefits of Final Revisions to the National Recycling and Emission

Reduction Program contains a full discussion of the benefits of this rule and is available in the

docket.

Stratospheric ozone depletion decreases the atmosphere’s ability to shield life on the

Earth’s surface from the sun’s UV radiation. The links between stratospheric ozone depletion

and public health concerns are well established. Emissions of ODS lead to chemical reactions

that reduce the amount of ozone in the stratosphere. Less ozone in the stratosphere means that

more UVA and UVB radiation reaches the earth’s surface and is incident on exposed organisms,

including humans. Adverse health effects associated with exposure to UV radiation include skin

cancer, cataracts, and immune suppression. The Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion

prepared by the Scientific 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

World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2014, World

Meteorological Organization, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project—Report No. 55, 416 pp., Geneva,

Switzerland, 2014.

United Nations Environment Programme, Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Environmental effects of

ozone depletion and its interactions with climate change: progress report, 2011, Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 2012,

11, DOI: 10.1039/c1pp90033a.

Page 24 of 403

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.

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). Rates for

new cases of melanoma, the most serious form of skin cancer, have been rising on average 1.4

percent 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 have been diagnosed with

melanoma and almost 10,000 will have died as a result of the disease (American Cancer Society,

Cancers Facts and Figures, 2015).

Non-melanoma skin cancers are less deadly than melanomas, but if 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,

Page 25 of 403

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 which contains the part of the retina where visual perception is most

acute.

Another benefit of reducing refrigerant emissions is protection of the climate system.

Many refrigerants, including ODS and substitutes for ODS, are potent GHGs, having GWPs

thousands of times higher than that of carbon dioxide (CO

), which has a GWP of one. For

example, HCFC-22 has a GWP of 1,810. 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). EPA estimates that today’s rule will reduce

GWP-weighted emissions by approximately 7.3 MMTCO

eq per year.

Page 26 of 403

To briefly summarize, GHGs cause climate change by trapping heat on Earth. The Earth

is constantly receiving energy from the sun in the form of radiation, while at the same time,

energy is radiating away into space, mostly as infrared radiation. By absorbing and scattering

radiation that otherwise would escape into space, GHGs throw off the balance between incoming

and escaping radiation, resulting in more energy in the Earth’s climate system.

As described in the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding (74 FR 66496) and subsequent

reports by the IPCC, the United States Global Change Research Program, and the National

Research Council, climate change impacts threaten the health of Americans in multiple ways and

touch on nearly every aspect of public welfare. For more information on GHGs and climate

change in the United States, visit www.epa.gov/climatechange.

2. Improving Rule Effectiveness

The second goal of today’s rule is to improve the clarity and effectiveness of the subpart

F regulations. Achieving the health and environmental benefits of these rules depends on

widespread compliance, and understanding of the regulations by the regulated community

enhances compliance.

EPA has begun an initiative to improve the effectiveness of its rules called Next

Generation Compliance. The vision for this initiative is to make it easier for the regulated

community to understand and 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.

Page 27 of 403

The Agency has identified several interconnected components in the Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance’s 2014-2017 strategic plan for its Next Generation

Compliance initiative 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 3

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.

Effective Regulations. The Agency and industry have more than 20 years of experience

implementing and operating under the refrigerant management regulations in subpart F. Through

that experience, it has become clear that there are elements of the program that could be made

Page 28 of 403

more effective. This rule revises the structure of these regulations to clearly lay out the process

for repairing refrigerant leaks and adds steps to ensure that the repairs were successful. This rule

also for the first time addresses chronically leaking systems in a manner that minimizes the

burden on compliant systems. EPA has reorganized the subpart so affected entities can more

easily find the provisions that apply to them, including recordkeeping and reporting. This rule

removes outdated requirements and, where appropriate, removes unnecessary distinctions

between refrigerants, appliance types, and recovery equipment types. Clearer regulations will

also be supported by comprehensive compliance assistance materials for each industry segment

affected by this final regulation. EPA hopes to make it easier for the regulated community to

understand their obligations when handling refrigerants, thereby improving compliance and

reducing damage to the environment.

Advanced Monitoring. EPA is encouraging owners/operators of appliances containing 50

or more pounds of refrigerant to install automatic leak detection equipment. Such systems

provide continuous information about whether a system is leaking, allowing leaks to be caught

sooner. This can reduce both refrigerant costs and labor costs of manually inspecting

refrigeration systems.

Electronic Reporting. EPA has established the email address [email protected] and

this rule requires that all reports that do not contain confidential business information be

submitted to EPA at that address. EPA is also revising the regulations to explicitly state that

owners and operators of appliances subject to the leak repair provisions may use electronic

systems to track when and how much refrigerant is added to equipment and to keep other

required records.

Page 29 of 403

Transparency. EPA is requiring members of the regulated community to post additional

information online that is of use to this sector. For example, equipment testing organizations

must post lists of certified recovery and/or recycling equipment on their websites rather than

submit paper reports to EPA. Certifying organizations must also publish lists of technicians that

they certify online to assist technicians who have lost their certification cards. EPA also posts to

its website data on the amount of ODS refrigerant reclaimed each year. Under this final rule EPA

will begin collecting and making available reclamation data for non-exempt substitute

refrigerants which should provide EPA and the general public a greater understanding of the

extent of HFC recovery and reclamation.

Innovative Enforcement. EPA has incorporated innovative enforcement principles into

subpart F since its inception, and this rule updates and strengthens those principles. For example,

the refrigerant sales restriction is an effective way to ensure that anyone maintaining, servicing,

or repairing an appliance is a certified technician. EPA has also required certification of

refrigerant recovery equipment by independent third parties (i.e., UL and Air Conditioning,

Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI)) to ensure that recovery equipment meets the

applicable standards. This ensures that technicians who use these devices to recover refrigerant

are also using equipment that, when following the manufacturer’s instructions, will meet the

minimum refrigerant evacuation requirements. EPA also relies on third parties to administer the

technician certification exam.

E. What are the major revisions being finalized in this rule?

EPA is finalizing most of the proposed revisions to the regulations for the National

Recycling and Emission Reduction Program. Some of these revisions strengthen the existing

program, in particular by requiring owners and operators to repair systems that leak at lower

Page 30 of 403

rates than what is currently required and to verify that those repairs were successful. Others

extend, as appropriate, the regulations to HFCs and other non-exempt substitute refrigerants. Still

other revisions improve the effectiveness of the regulations. After considering comments, EPA

has decided not to finalize certain aspects of the proposal. This section briefly discusses the

major proposed revisions and the final actions that EPA is taking. Detailed discussions of all of

the revisions to the regulations finalized in this action, changes from the proposal, and responses

to significant comments are in Section IV of this notice. EPA also summarizes and responds to

all significant comments on the proposed action in the comment response document in the

docket.

1. Extend the regulations to cover substitute refrigerants

EPA is finalizing the proposed extension of the requirements of the National Recycling

and Emission Reduction Program to substitute refrigerants that have not been exempted from the

venting prohibition (also referred to in this action as “non-exempt substitutes”).

2. Strengthen leak repair requirements

Prior to this rule, the leak rates for ODS equipment were 35 percent for IPR and

commercial refrigeration appliances, and 15 percent for comfort cooling and other appliances.

EPA proposed leak rates of 20 percent for IPR and commercial refrigeration and 10 percent for

comfort cooling and other appliances. Based in part on comments received on the proposal, EPA

is finalizing leak rates for ODS equipment as follows: 30 percent for IPR, 20 percent for

commercial refrigeration appliances, and 10 percent for comfort cooling and other appliances.

EPA is also extending the new leak rates to equipment using HFCs and other substitute

refrigerants that are not exempt from the venting prohibition.

Page 31 of 403

After considering public comments, EPA is modifying the proposed leak inspection

requirements in this final rule. EPA proposed to require quarterly or annual leak inspections for

all appliances with a full charge of 50 pounds or greater, with the more frequent inspections

applying to larger systems. In the revisions finalized in this rule, EPA is requiring quarterly or

annual leak inspections only for appliances that have exceeded the applicable leak rate. Similar

to the proposal, owners or operators can forgo leak inspections if they install, continuously

operate, and maintain automatic leak detection systems.

Based on comments, EPA has given particular attention to situations where the proposed

regulations would have required the retrofit or retirement of an appliance. EPA has modified the

final rule in numerous places to support the proper repair of leaking systems. Most notably, EPA

is modifying the proposed chronic leaker provision. EPA proposed that appliances containing 50

or more pounds of ODS or substitute refrigerant that leak more than 75 percent of the appliance’s

full charge in each of two consecutive 12-month periods would have to be retired or mothballed.

EPA is finalizing a requirement that owners or operators of appliances that leak 125 percent of

their full charge in a calendar year must submit a report to EPA detailing their repair efforts. The

report must be submitted no later than March 1 following the calendar year of the ≥ 125 percent

leak.

3. Extend the sales restriction to substitute refrigerants, with an exception for small cans of

MVAC refrigerant

EPA is finalizing the proposed restriction that non-exempt substitute refrigerants may

only be sold to technicians certified under sections 608 or 609 of the CAA. In the case of MVAC

refrigerant, EPA is exempting the sale of small cans of non-ODS substitutes to allow the do-it-

yourself (DIY) community to continue servicing their personal vehicles. EPA is requiring that

Page 32 of 403

small cans of non-exempt substitute refrigerant be outfitted with self-sealing valves by January 1,

2018. Based on comments, EPA is not finalizing the proposal to prohibit the sale of small cans

that do not contain self-sealing valves that were manufactured or imported prior to that

requirement taking effect.

4. Establish recordkeeping for appliances containing more than 5 and less than 50 pounds of

ODS and non-exempt substitute refrigerant

EPA is finalizing revisions to the regulations that require that technicians, or the company

employing technicians, keep records when disposing of appliances containing more than five and

less than 50 pounds of refrigerant. These records include the company name, location of the

appliance, date of recovery, and type of refrigerant recovered for each appliance. EPA is also

finalizing, with some modification, the revision to the regulations requiring that technicians keep

records of the amounts of ODS and non-exempt substitute refrigerant transferred for reclamation

by refrigerant type.

EPA is reducing the burden in this final rule by only requiring maintaining records

typically generated in the field during the normal disposal of appliances. Therefore, EPA is not

finalizing the proposed requirement to keep records indicating the amount of refrigerant

recovered from each appliance. Instead, EPA is finalizing a requirement to record the total

amount of refrigerant, by type, recovered from all appliances they disposed of over a calendar

month. This tally can be performed less frequently and at a central location.

5. Update the technician certification program

EPA is finalizing the requirement that technicians be certified to handle HFCs and other

non-exempt substitutes, as proposed. EPA is also finalizing the proposed requirement for

certifying organizations to publish lists or create online databases of technicians that they certify.

Page 33 of 403

6. Improving readability and restructuring the requirements

EPA is finalizing the 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, with minor changes from the proposal. EPA is

modifying some of the proposed revisions to address additional suggestions raised by

commenters. EPA’s intent with these edits is to improve readability, not to change the

substantive content or requirements of the regulations. For edits to the regulations that are

intended to be substantive, EPA is discussing those revisions in this notice. EPA is adding to the

docket a red-line version of the final regulatory text from subpart F that shows the final revisions

to the prior regulations to assist the regulated community in identifying the differences.

F. Enforcement of subpart F regulations

Subpart F regulations must be enforced to realize their full environmental and human

health benefit. This section briefly presents examples of recent actions that EPA has taken to

enforce the venting prohibition, leak repair, and safe disposal provisions of subpart F. Several

provisions that EPA is finalizing in this rule are based on lessons learned in taking these

enforcement actions. These revisions are intended to encourage compliance and facilitate

potential future enforcement of the requirements actions of these and other sections of the

subpart F regulations. EPA’s website contains more information on these enforcement actions.

Some commenters stated that EPA should seek better ways to enforce the pre-existing

regulations for Class I and II ODS. One commenter encouraged EPA to continue to identify cost-

effective means of ensuring that the entire regulated community supports and follows lawful

policies and regulations. Another commenter wrote that venting of HFCs above de minimis

https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/enforcement-actions-under-title-vi-clean-air-act

Page 34 of 403

levels must be severely penalized for the rule to be as effective as possible. That commenter

encouraged EPA to reiterate that EPA welcomes information and reporting on an anonymous

basis regarding parties known to be venting ODS, HFCs, and any non-exempt substitute.

EPA responds that the Agency has enforced and continues to enforce these regulations in

actions that range from civil fines to criminal prosecutions. EPA encourages anyone who

suspects or witnesses unlawful releases of refrigerants or other violations of CAA regulations to

report an environmental violation to EPA (www.epa.gov/enforcement/report-environmental-

violations). In 2014 and 2015, EPA brought or assisted in three cases against individuals for

violating the venting prohibition when cutting into the refrigerant lines to steal metal from

HCFC-22 containing air conditioners. Under the plea agreement in a case from 2014, the

individual cutting the refrigerant line must serve 31 months in federal prison and then remain

under court supervision for an additional 12 months during which time he must perform 200

hours of community service.

EPA entered into consent decrees with the supermarket chains Safeway in 2013, Costco

in 2015, and Trader Joe’s in 2016 for violations of the leak repair provisions of subpart F for

their commercial refrigeration units. In 2015, EPA obtained corrective action with the United

States Navy to resolve allegations of failing to perform leak rate calculations when servicing

comfort cooling equipment, and with DuPont for improper maintenance and repair of two large

IPR units. In 2012, EPA executed consent decrees with Icicle Seafoods, American Seafoods Co.

LLC, and Pacific Longline Co. LLC for failure to repair refrigerant leaks at chilling units aboard

its fishing vessels and failure to verify the adequacy of repairs before resuming operations,

among other violations. In March of 2016, Ocean Gold Seafoods, Inc. and Ocean Cold, LLC

entered into a consent decree with EPA that resolved alleged violations for failing to promptly

Page 35 of 403

repair refrigerant leaks and failing to keep adequate records of the servicing of their IPR

equipment necessary to prevent leaks.

EPA has executed consent decrees to resolve alleged violations of the safe disposal

regulations in subpart F. These include decrees in 2016 with Parkway Iron and Metal, and in

2015 with Metal Dynamics and Basic Recycling, as well as at least forty-five non-judicial

settlements against scrap recyclers in 2014 and 2015.

EPA also continues to take steps to maintain the integrity of the certification programs

under subpart F. EPA recently revoked over a dozen technician certification programs that had

failed to submit the required biannual activity report (81 FR 28864). EPA is also ensuring that

certified refrigerant reclaimers continue to operate in accordance with §82.164 and maintain

records and submit reports in accordance with §82.166. EPA recently published a notice

announcing the previous revocation of the certification of eight refrigerant reclaimers and giving

a ninth reclaimer notice of impending revocation (80 FR 75455).

G. Incorporation by reference

This action involves technical standards. In some instances, EPA is deciding to use a

modified version of an industry standard for purposes of this rule; in others, EPA is deciding to

use an industry standard by incorporating it by reference exactly as written. This section

summarizes the technical standards that EPA is incorporating by reference and describes how

interested parties can access those standards. Sections IV.C (small cans of MVAC refrigerant),

Section IV.G (recovery and/or recycling equipment), and IV.K (reclamation requirements)

contain further discussion of these technical standards including comments received on EPA’s

proposal to incorporate certain standards by reference.

Page 36 of 403

EPA is incorporating by reference UL 1963, Requirements for Refrigerant

Recovery/Recycling Equipment, Fourth Edition, June 1, 2011 in appendix B4. This 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

www.comm-2000.com or by writing to Comm 2000, 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL

60106. The cost is $798 for an electronic copy and $998 for hardcopy. UL also offers a

subscription service to the Standards Certification Customer Library (SCCL) that allows

unlimited access to their standards and related documents. The cost of obtaining this standard is

not a significant financial burden for equipment manufacturers. Therefore, EPA concludes that

the UL standard being incorporated by reference is reasonably available.

EPA is not incorporating by reference AHRI Standard 700-2016, Specifications for

Refrigerants. Rather EPA is basing the content found in appendix A on this standard. This

standard establishes purity specifications for refrigerants, and specifies the associated methods of

testing for acceptability of refrigerants. 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. EPA is incorporating by reference publically available versions of the

standards referenced in AHRI Standard 700-2016. Specifically, these standards are:

- 2008 Appendix C for Analytical Procedures for AHRI Standard 700-2014-Normative.

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. An electronic copy of the appendix is available at www.ahrinet.org. It is also

available by mail at Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 2111

Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201. The cost of obtaining this standard is

Page 37 of 403

not a significant financial burden. Therefore, EPA concludes that the standard being

incorporated by reference is reasonably available.

- 2012 Appendix D for Gas Chromatograms for AHRI Standard 700-2014- Informative

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute. This appendix provides figures for

the gas chromatograms used with Appendix C to AHRI Standard 700-2015: Normative.

An electronic copy of the appendix is available at www.ahrinet.org. It is also available by

mail at Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 2111 Wilson

Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201. The cost of obtaining this standard is not a

significant financial burden. Therefore, EPA concludes that the standard being

incorporated by reference is reasonably available.

- Federal Specification for “Fluorocarbon Refrigerants,” BB-F-1421 B, dated March 5,

1982. 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. Therefore, EPA concludes that the standard being incorporated by reference

is reasonably available.

- 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. The cost of this standard is $55 for an electronic copy or $65 for a

printed edition. The cost of obtaining this standard is not a significant financial burden.

Page 38 of 403

Therefore, EPA concludes that the standard being incorporated by reference is reasonably

available.

- ASTM Standard D1296-01-2012, Standard Test Method for Odor of Volatile Solvents

and Diluents, July 1, 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. The cost of this standard is $39. The cost

of obtaining this standard is not a significant financial burden. Therefore, EPA concludes

that the standard being incorporated by reference is reasonably available.

EPA is not incorporating by reference AHRI Standard 740-2016, Performance Rating of

Refrigerant Recovery Equipment and Recovery/Recycling Equipment. Rather EPA is basing the

content found in appendices B3 and B4 on this standard. 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 is incorporating by reference the standards referenced in AHRI

Standard 740-2016. Specifically, these standards are:

- ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 63.2-1996 (RA 2010) Method of Testing Liquid-Line Filter

Drier Filtration Capability, 2010, American National Standards Institute/American

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. The purpose of

this standard is to prescribe a laboratory test method for evaluating the filtration

capability of filters and filter driers used in liquid lines of refrigeration systems. The

Page 39 of 403

standard is available at www.ashrae.org or by mail at AHSRAE, 1791 Tullie Circle N.E.,

Atlanta, GA 30329. The cost is $39 for an electronic copy or printed edition. The cost of

obtaining this standard is not a significant financial burden. Therefore, EPA concludes

that the standard being incorporated by reference is reasonably available.

- UL Standard 1963-2011, Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment, Fourth 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 www.comm-

2000.com or by writing to Comm 2000, 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106. The

cost is $798 for an electronic copy and $998 for hardcopy. UL also offers a subscription

service to the Standards Certification Customer Library (SCCL) that allows unlimited

access to their standards and related documents. The cost of obtaining this standard is not

a significant financial burden for equipment manufacturers. Therefore, EPA concludes

that the UL standard being incorporated by reference is reasonably available.

- AHRI Standard 110-2016, Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigerating Equipment

Nameplate Voltages, 2016, 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. A

free electronic copy of this standard is available at www.ahrinet.org. It is also available

by mail at Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 2111 Wilson

Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201. The cost of obtaining this standard is not a

significant financial burden. Therefore, EPA concludes that the standard being

incorporated by reference is reasonably available.

Page 40 of 403

- International Standard IEC 60038, IEC Standard Voltages, Edition 7.0, 2009-06,

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. The cost of this standard is $50. The cost of obtaining this

standard is not a significant financial burden. Therefore, EPA concludes that the standard

being incorporated by reference is reasonably available.

EPA is not incorporating by reference California Air Resources Board, Test Procedure

for Leaks from Small Containers of Automotive Refrigerant, TP-503, as amended January 5,

2010. Rather EPA is basing the content found in appendix E on this standard. This 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.

III. EPA’s Authority under the Clean Air Act

A. Summary of EPA’s authority for the revisions to subpart F

The authority for this action is provided primarily by section 608 of the CAA. Section

608 is divided into three subsections, which together comprise the “National Recycling and

Emission Reduction Program.” Among other things, section 608 of the CAA requires EPA to

establish a comprehensive program to limit emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. It also

prohibits the knowing release or disposal of ozone-depleting refrigerants and their substitutes in

the course of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of air-conditioning and refrigeration

equipment in a manner which permits such a substance to enter the environment. The three

subsections of section 608 are described in more detail in the following paragraphs.

Page 41 of 403

Section 608(a) requires EPA to establish standards and requirements regarding use and

disposal of class I and II substances. With regard to refrigerants, EPA is 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. Regulations under section 608(a) are to 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 section 608(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 in a way that allows the refrigerant to enter the environment while maintaining,

servicing, repairing, 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

Page 42 of 403

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 or 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 40 CFR 82.154(a). For some substitutes that have been

exempted from the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) and §82.154(a) the exemption

only applies when the substitute is used in specified applications, but for others, the exemption is

for the substitute refrigerant as used in all applications.

The statutory standards under section 608(a) against which the regulations concerning the

use and disposal of ozone-depleting substances are to be measured are whether they “reduce the

use and emission of such substances to the lowest achievable level” and “maximize the recapture

and recycling of such substances.” These standards are often complementary in the context of

maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of air conditioning and refrigerant equipment. For

example, in the context of recycling, maximizing recycling will also help reduce the use and

emission of these substances to the lowest achievable level. These statutory standards also bear a

relationship to the de minimis releases addressed in section 608(c). More specifically, emissions

that occur while complying with EPA’s recovery and recycling regulations are considered de

minimis, because those regulations set forth practices and requirements which result in the lowest

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) in the relevant end-use.

Similarly, the term “exempt substitute” refers to a substitute refrigerant that has been exempted from the venting

prohibition under section 608(c)(2) and §82.154(a) in the relevant end-use.

Page 43 of 403

achievable level of emissions. EPA has established this interpretation in its regulations under

section 608 for ODS refrigerants.

On May 14, 1993, EPA published the original regulations implementing subsections (a),

(b), and (c)(1) for ODS refrigerants (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. However, those

requirements only applied to ODS refrigerants, and these regulations did not explain how the

venting prohibition or the de minimis exemption applied for substitute refrigerants. Among other

things, this rulemaking addresses that gap in the regulations.

1. Applying regulations under section 608 to substitute refrigerants

In this rule, EPA is extending, as appropriate, provisions of the refrigerant recovery

and/or recycling regulations, which previously had only applied to ODS refrigerants, to non-

exempt substitute refrigerants. To summarize briefly, EPA’s authority for this action rests largely

on section 608(c), which EPA interprets to provide it authority to promulgate regulations that

interpret, explain, and enforce the venting prohibition and the de minimis exemption, as they

apply to both ODS refrigerants and non-exempt substitute refrigerants. Accordingly, this rule

establishes a comprehensive and consistent framework that applies to both ODS and non-exempt

substitute refrigerants. This, in turn, provides clarity to the regulated community concerning the

Page 44 of 403

measures that should be taken to comply with the venting prohibition for non-exempt substitutes

and reduces confusion and enhances compliance for both ODS and non-exempt substitutes.

EPA’s authority to issue 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 non-exempt 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, the extension of requirements under section 608

to non-exempt substitutes in this rule is also supported by section 608(a) because having a

consistent regulatory framework for non-exempt substitutes and ODS is expected to reduce

emissions of ODS refrigerants, as well as non-exempt substitutes.

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

EPA used an analogous analysis in promulgating the regulations for section 608 originally. In that rulemaking,

EPA explained that extending regulatory requirements to class II substances (rather than only regulating class I

substances) would facilitate compliance with the venting prohibition, in part by providing clear guidance to

technicians recovering class II substances on what releases do and do not constitute violations of the prohibition. 58

FR 28667. EPA also explained that it was desirable to provide a “clear, consistent framework for fully implementing

the prohibition on venting for all refrigerants” to “minimize confusion and maximize compliance with the

prohibition.” 58 FR 28666.

Page 45 of 403

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 in the course of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or

disposing of an appliance in a manner which permits the substance to enter the environment.

This creates a tension or ambiguity because the regulated community is subject to an explicit and

self-effectuating prohibition on venting, releasing, or disposing of non-exempt substitute

refrigerants while maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of equipment but at the same

time is not explicitly required by section 608(a) to recover 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 during such maintenance,

service, repair, or disposal.

Moreover, 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, the regulated community and the public would

not have the same measure of certainty as to whether such releases violate the venting

prohibition or fall within the de minimis exemption to that prohibition, and what steps must be

taken to comply with CAA obligations for such substitute refrigerants in undertaking such

As noted previously, 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 notice, EPA is not extending the requirements of the refrigerant

management program to substitutes that have been exempted from the venting prohibition in this action. Where a

substitute has been exempted only in specific uses, the requirements in this rule apply to uses in which the substitute

has not been exempted.

Page 46 of 403

actions. Accordingly, this rulemaking finalizes regulations to interpret and explain how the

venting prohibition and the de minimis exemption apply to non-exempt substitute refrigerants. In

doing so, EPA is clarifying that the regulated community that uses non-exempt substitute

refrigerants 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), this rule aims 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 the de minimis exemption. 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 consistent with that interpretation.

In particular, EPA has incorporated both the venting prohibition and the de minimis

exemption into the regulations at §82.154(a). Further, the last sentence in the existing regulations

at §82.154(a)(2) provides that “refrigerant releases shall be considered de minimis only if they

occur when” enumerated regulatory practices in subpart F or, alternatively, subpart B are

followed. These subpart F requirements are the ones established in the 1993 rule mentioned

above, and as periodically amended. The term refrigerant, however, was defined in §82.152 for

purposes of subpart F 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.”

This definition did not include substitute substances. In addition, EPA had not yet applied the

Page 47 of 403

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 did not

apply to substitute refrigerants.

EPA interprets section 608(c) 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, which is

included in paragraph 1 of section 608(c). However, the Act’s exemption applies only to those de

minimis releases “associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose

of refrigerants” and the Act does not explicitly address what would be considered such “good

faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose” of either ODS or substitute refrigerants.

In fact, Title VI does not contain any further explanation or definition of those terms. 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 EPA may fill that gap with a permissible interpretation. Chevron,

U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843–44 (1984).

Consistent with the interpretation of section 608(c)(2) as incorporating the de minimis

exemption, prior to this rulemaking EPA’s regulations at §82.154(a)(2) stated that “[d]e minimis

releases associated with good faith attempts to recycle or recover … non-exempt substitutes are

not subject to this prohibition,” thus applying the statutory de minimis exemption from the

Page 48 of 403

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 did not provide any

specific provisions to explain what constitutes such a “good faith attempt” with respect to

substitute refrigerants. Thus, the prior regulations were 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.

EPA has discussed this issue in previous notices. On June 11, 1998, EPA proposed to

apply the de minimis exemption in section 608(c)(1) to substitute refrigerants and to issue

regulations under section 608(c)(2) that interpret, clarify, and enforce the venting prohibition for

substitutes (63 FR 32044). EPA stated in that proposed rule, “[w]hile 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.” 63 FR 32046.

In the final rule issued March 12, 2004 (69 FR 11946), EPA extended the regulations

interpreting and enforcing the 608(c)(1) de minimis exemption to blends containing an ODS

component but not to refrigerants containing only substitutes. 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

Page 49 of 403

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 but is not

self-explanatory is consistent with the interpretation of section 608(c)(1) and (2) that EPA

articulates in this section. However, in the March 2004 Rule EPA did not finalize its proposal to

extend all of the subpart F regulations to substitute refrigerants. See 69 FR 11953.

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 rule, EPA edited the regulatory venting prohibition to reflect the statutory de

minimis exemption 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 §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, §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 “[d]e minimis releases associated with good faith

attempts to recycle or recover refrigerants or non-exempt substitutes are not subject to this

prohibition” to §82.154(a)(2) (emphasis added). However, because EPA has not extended the

regulatory recycling and recovery requirements to substitute refrigerants, the regulations have

Page 50 of 403

not provided clarity or certainty how this exception applies to non-exempt substitute refrigerants

that do not contain an ODS. Moreover, as for ODS, some amount of substitute refrigerant is

released during the maintenance, servicing, repair, or disposal of appliances, even if precautions

to avoid such releases are taken. For ODS refrigerants, the rules have provided certainty to the

regulated community that if specific identified practices are followed, regulated entities would

not be held liable for releases of small amounts of refrigerant incidental to these actions. These

regulations have supported the recovery or recycling of ODS refrigerants and reduced the

emissions of such substances. In other words, for ODS, EPA has reasonably interpreted the de

minimis exemption to apply only to the small amount of emissions that cannot be prevented by

following the regulatory requirements. This interpretation of the de minimis exemption is equally

reasonable for non-exempt substitute refrigerants. Accordingly, 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 finalizing its proposal 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

§82.154(a)(1).

These regulations establish standards and requirements related to the maintenance,

servicing, repair, or disposal of appliances and IPR that use ODS or non-exempt substitutes as

refrigerants. They are designed to minimize or avoid knowing releases or disposal, in the course

of those activities, of ODS and non-exempt substitute refrigerants in a manner which allows that

substance to enter the environment. For example, the regulations establish requirements to

minimize emissions during appliance maintenance, servicing, or repair (e.g., by requiring that

Page 51 of 403

technicians recover refrigerant from an appliance before servicing and by setting standards for

the repair of appliances that have leaked above the applicable threshold), as well as disposal

(e.g., by requiring the use of certified recovery equipment to remove refrigerant from the

appliance before the final disposal). Accordingly, the regulations finalized in this action fall

within the scope of EPA’s authority to interpret and explain the venting prohibition, and to give

regulated entities greater certainty about what is required to comply.

EPA is also adopting a broader interpretation of the venting prohibition under CAA

sections 608(c)(1) and (2) in this action. As discussed in more detail in the proposal for this

action (80 FR 69486), in the 1993 Rule EPA stated that the venting prohibition did not “prohibit

‘topping off’ systems, which leads to emissions during the use of equipment” but explained that

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” or fails to appropriately investigate facts

that demand investigation (58 FR 28672). The proposal also explained that EPA had

subsequently moved toward a broader interpretation of the venting prohibition in the proposed

2010 Leak Repair Rule (80 FR 69486, quoting 75 FR 78570). EPA concludes that its statements

in the 1993 Rule presented an overly narrow interpretation of the statutory venting prohibition.

Consistent with the direction articulated in the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule, EPA is

adopting a broader interpretation. When refrigerant must be added to an existing appliance, other

than when originally charging the system or for a seasonal variance, the owner or operator

necessarily knows that the system has leaks. At that point the owner or operator is required to

calculate the leak rate. If the leaks exceed the applicable leak rate for that particular type of

appliance, the owner or operator will know that absent repairs, subsequent additions of

Page 52 of 403

refrigerant will be released in a manner that will permit the refrigerant to enter the environment.

Therefore, EPA interprets section 608(c) such that if a person adds refrigerant to an appliance

that he or she knows is leaking, he or she also violates the venting prohibition unless he or she

has complied with the applicable practices referenced in §82.154(a)(2), as revised, including the

leak repair requirements, as applicable.

This action extending the regulations under subpart F to non-exempt substitutes is

additionally supported by the authority in section 608(a) because regulations that minimize the

release and maximize the recapture and recovery of non-exempt substitutes will also reduce the

release and increase the recovery of ozone-depleting substances. Improper handling of substitute

refrigerants is likely to contaminate appliances and recovery cylinders with mixtures of ODS and

non-ODS substitutes, which can lead to illegal venting because such mixtures are difficult or

expensive to reclaim or appropriately dispose of. Under the prior 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. This

confusion can also lead to illegal venting of ODS. In short, the authority to promulgate

regulations regarding the use of class I and II substances encompasses the authority to establish

regulations regarding the proper handling of substitutes where this is needed to reduce emissions

and maximize recapture and recycling of class I and II substances. Applying consistent

requirements to all non-exempt refrigerants will reduce complexity and increase clarity for the

Page 53 of 403

regulated community and promote compliance with those requirements for ODS refrigerants, as

well as their substitutes.

2. Recordkeeping provisions

In this action, EPA is also establishing new recordkeeping requirements, as well as

extending existing recordkeeping requirements to non-exempt substitutes. EPA’s authority to

establish and extend these requirements is supported by CAA sections 608(a), 608(c), and 114,

consistent with the description of these authorities offered above. These new recordkeeping

requirements are an important part of EPA’s efforts to address illegal venting of refrigerants,

improve accounting of refrigerants in affected appliances, and facilitate enforcement of

requirements under section 608. For example, EPA is establishing a new recordkeeping

requirement for the disposal of appliances containing more than five and less than 50 pounds of

refrigerant. Section 608(a) gives EPA explicit authority to implement requirements that reduce

ODS refrigerant emissions to the lowest achievable level. This recordkeeping requirement, along

with other recordkeeping requirements in this rule, further the recovery, reclamation, and/or

destruction of ODS refrigerants and discourages the illegal venting of such refrigerants from

affected appliances. Because it minimizes the emission of ODS refrigerant, EPA has authority

for this requirement as it relates to ODS appliances under 608(a). Additionally, providing a

consistent standard for ODS and non-exempt substitute refrigerants will facilitate the recovery,

reclamation, and/or destruction of both ODS and non-ODS refrigerants and, accordingly, will

reduce the emission of such refrigerants. EPA will continue to evaluate how best to use the

information to promote the recovery of refrigerants and compliance with these provisions.

EPA also has authority under section 114 of the CAA to require that technicians

document that appliances containing an ODS refrigerant or a non-exempt substitute refrigerant

Page 54 of 403

have been properly evacuated prior to disposal. Section 114 of the CAA provides the primary

authority to establish these recordkeeping and reporting requirements because it provides EPA

authority to require recordkeeping and reporting in carrying out provisions of the CAA,

including the venting prohibition under CAA sections 608(c) and the requirements under 608(a).

Because these records will help EPA determine whether requirements under sections 608(c) and

608(a) are being complied with, this requirement falls within the scope of section 114.

3. Amendments related to practices and requirements for ODS

In addition to extending the existing regulations in subpart F to non-exempt substitute

refrigerants, EPA is also revising and augmenting the existing requirements that apply to ozone-

depleting substances, including: lowered leak rates, periodic leak inspections for equipment that

has leaked above the leak threshold, leak repair verification tests, and recordkeeping

requirements for the disposal of appliances containing more than five and less than 50 pounds of

refrigerant. EPA is also finalizing its proposal to update and revise 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 for ODS, EPA is drawing on its

authority under section 608(c)(1). EPA’s authority for these actions is also supplemented by

section 301(a) and 114, in the same way as described earlier in this notice.

4. Provisions related to MVAC and MVAC-like appliances

Page 55 of 403

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 under EPA’s section 608 implementing regulations at 40 CFR

part 82, subpart F as “any appliance that is a motor vehicle air conditioner as defined in 40 CFR

part 82, subpart B.” 40 CFR 82.152. Under section 609, in 40 CFR part 82, subpart B, MVACs

are defined as “mechanical vapor compression refrigeration equipment used to cool the driver’s

or passenger’s compartment of any motor vehicle....” 40 CFR 82.32(d).

A motor vehicle is defined under subpart B as “any vehicle which is self-propelled and

designed for transporting persons or property on a street or highway, including but not limited to

passenger cars, light duty vehicles, and heavy duty vehicles. This definition does not include a

vehicle where final assembly of the vehicle has not been completed by the original equipment

manufacturer.” 40 CFR 82.32(c).

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 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 who is not certified under section 609.

Regulations issued under section 609 are in 40 CFR part 82, subpart B, and include

information on prohibitions and required practices (§82.34), approved refrigerant handling

equipment (§82.36), approved independent standards testing organizations (§82.38),

For EPA’s discussion on the definition of appliance, see Section IV.A.

Page 56 of 403

requirements for technician certification and training programs (§82.40), and certification,

recordkeeping, and public notification requirements (§82.42). Appendices A-F of subpart B

provide standards for minimum operating requirements for MVAC servicing equipment.

Because MVACs are defined in subpart F as an “appliance” (§82.152), the section 608

regulations found in subpart F are generally applicable to MVAC systems. However, because

servicing and technician training and certification are regulated under section 609, EPA’s section

608 regulations in subpart F defer to those requirements in subpart B. Procedures involving

MVACs that are not regulated under section 609, such as the disposal of MVACs and the

purchase of refrigerant for use in MVACs besides ODS refrigerant in containers less than 20

pounds, are covered by section 608. The prohibition in section 608 against venting ODS and

substitute refrigerants is also applicable to refrigerants used in MVAC systems.

EPA also regulates MVAC-like appliances under subpart B. MVAC-like appliances are

used to cool the driver’s or passenger’s compartment of off-road vehicles, including agricultural

and construction vehicles.

While these types of systems are outside of the scope of the

definition of motor vehicle established in subpart B, there are similarities between MVAC-like

appliances and MVAC systems. In the 1993 Rule, under the authority of section 608, EPA

adopted requirements for the certification and use of recycling equipment for MVAC-like

appliances in subpart B. MVAC-like appliances may only be serviced by a certified technician

and this requirement is not limited to those servicing for consideration, but MVAC-like

technicians have the option to be certified under section 608 or 609.

We are amending the subpart F definition of “MVAC-like appliance” to replace the term “off-road motor vehicle”

with the term “off-road vehicles or equipment.” This revision is not intended to effect a substantive change in the

equipment covered by this definition but rather simply is intended to clarify the definition.

Page 57 of 403

Through this rulemaking EPA is finalizing its proposal to apply the provisions of section

608 to non-exempt ODS substitutes, including those used in MVAC and MVAC-like appliances.

EPA is not extending the regulations under section 609 as part of this rulemaking because the

609 regulations have been applicable to all substitute substances since 1995.

5. Consideration of Economic Factors

Section 608 of the CAA does not explicitly address whether costs or benefits should be

considered in developing regulations under that section. The statutory standards under section

608(a) against which the regulations concerning the use and disposal of ozone-depleting

substances are to be measured are whether they “reduce the use and emission of such substances

to the lowest achievable level” and “maximize the recapture and recycling of such substances.”

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 did not propose to revise that

interpretation and has considered economic as well as technological factors in the development

of this rule.

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

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 future rulemaking, EPA intends to propose to incorporate by reference these standards developed

by SAE International’s Interior Climate Control Committee.

Page 58 of 403

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 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),

reprinted in 1 A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, at 929 (1993)).

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 method for doing so. In

developing this 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 affordable.

EPA considered cost for many specific aspects of this rule. For instance, as discussed in

the leak repair section (Section IV.F of this notice), EPA considered what is achievable from a

technical perspective, while also considering the costs of those practices and technologies and

the benefits from their use, when determining whether to establish new requirements and

Page 59 of 403

extending existing requirements to non-exempt substitute refrigerants. See the technical support

document Analysis of the Economic Impact and Benefits of Final Revisions to the National

Recycling and Emission Reduction Program in the docket for sensitivity analyses conducted on

various options. Generally, the leak repair requirements finalized in this action take into account

that the variability of those conditions in the field 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. The requirements in this rule reflect that difference.

As another example, EPA considered the costs of extending the refrigerant sales

restriction to small cans of non-exempt substitutes used for MVAC servicing. EPA decided a

more cost effective method of reducing emissions is requiring that manufacturers install self-

sealing valves on small cans rather than limiting the sale of small cans to certified technicians

only. As a final example of how EPA considered costs in this rulemaking, 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 in many instances use or adapt existing compliance procedures for

non-exempt substitutes rather than having to develop wholly new approaches to managing

compliance. This approach should help regulated entities to better predict and manage

compliance costs.

B. Comments and responses related to EPA’s authority

Page 60 of 403

This section summarizes many comments related to EPA’s authority under the Clean Air

Act to issue this rule and EPA’s responses. Other comments related to EPA’s authority for this

action are addressed in the response to comments document found in the docket for this action.

1. Comment: EPA does not have authority to regulate substitutes that have limited or no

impact on stratospheric ozone under section 608

Some comments asserted that EPA does not have the authority to extend the existing

refrigerant management provisions in subpart F to non-ozone depleting refrigerants. Some

commenters stated that under a plain language reading of section 608(a) it is clear that

regulations to reduce use and emissions apply only to class I and class II substances and not

substitutes. These comments said the language of section 608 as a whole authorizes a wide range

of prescriptive regulations to reduce the use and emissions of class I and class II refrigerants but

mentions substitutes only twice: that their use be promoted and the general requirement that their

knowing venting is prohibited.

On the contrary, other comments agreed that EPA had authority to extend these

regulations to substitutes. One such comment stated: “We believe that both the language of

section 608 and the Agency’s discretionary authority allow the extension of section 608’s

requirements to substitutes for ODS in the regulations.”

These commenters noted that

extending these regulations to substitutes allows for a coherent and robust regime to address

venting across the full suite of appliances and applications, and that applying the regulatory

regime to substitute refrigerants would more fully allow for and incentivize the recovery and

reclamation of both ODS and substitutes. These comments concluded that because ODS and

substitutes can be used interchangeably, the regulation of substitutes reinforces the regulation of

Comment submitted by Natural Resources Defense Council and Institute for Governance and Sustainable

Development, David Doniger, et. al., pg. 3. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0453-0121.

Page 61 of 403

ODS and more reliably reduces ODS emissions. Another commenter who generally believes the

Agency does not have authority to apply the leak repair provisions to appliances using substitute

refrigerants does concede that there may be provisions of subpart F which are directly related to

emissions occurring in the course of maintenance, service, repair or disposal activities and might

be reasonably extended to substitute refrigerants.

EPA disagrees that its regulatory authority under CAA section 608 extends only to class I

and class II (ODS) substances and not to substitutes. EPA also disagrees with comments

contending that, as a factual matter, extension of the refrigerant management regulations to

substitutes would not reduce emissions of ODS and maximize the recapturing and recycling of

ODS. Section 608 expressly addresses substitute refrigerants in the venting prohibition in section

608(c)(2). As explained previously in this notice, EPA’s authority for extending the refrigerant

management regulations to substitute refrigerants is based primarily on section 608(c)(2) (via

interpretation, explanation, and enforcement of the venting prohibition for substitutes) and

secondarily on section 608(a) (via the corresponding reductions in ODS emissions and increases

in ODS recapture and recycling that are expected to result from requiring consistent practices for

ODS and substitute refrigerants), with additional support from CAA sections 301 and 114.

More specifically with respect to section 608(a), that section states that the regulations

under that section shall include requirements that reduce the use and emission of ODS to the

lowest achievable level and that maximize their recapture and recycling. EPA’s interpretation

that section 608(a) supports the extension of the refrigerant management regulations to

substitutes is based on reducing emissions of ODS and maximizing recapturing and recycling of

ODS. This is because requiring practices that are consistent for both ODS and for substitutes

reduces the likelihood that a person maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an

Page 62 of 403

appliance that uses ODS as a refrigerant mistakenly believes that it contains a substitute

refrigerant and fails to apply the proper procedures for ODS, leading to increased ODS emissions

or failure to recover or reclaim ODS. It is also because in the course of servicing, repairing, or

maintaining appliances there is a potential for mixing ODS and substitute refrigerants, which

may lead to venting or release of the mixture due to the difficulty of reclamation. EPA has

explained that the venting prohibition applies to all refrigerants consisting in whole or in part of

an ODS, such as a blend with an HFC component. (See 69 FR 11949). Accordingly, the

commenters’ statements that section 608(a) only applies to class I and class II substances fail to

recognize that regulation of substitutes can help effectuate the statutory purposes mentioned in

section 608(a). EPA is relying in part on section 608(a) for the extension of regulatory

requirements to substitutes because it interprets this provision to support regulation of substitutes

when such regulations can help achieve the purposes listed in section 608(a). The extension of

regulatory requirements to substitutes in this action is supported by section 608(a) because that

extension of requirements to substitutes is expected to reduce ODS emissions and further

maximize the recovery and reclamation of ODS. After consideration of all the comments, EPA

concludes that it has authority to extend the refrigerant management regulations to substitutes,

and that section 608(a) is a relevant source of authority because applying a consistent and

coherent regulatory regime to both ODS and substitute refrigerants improves the application of

the requirements to ODS, promoting the recovery and reclamation of ODS and reducing ODS

emissions. Such ODS-focused goals are well within EPA’s authority under CAA section

608(a).

Although these comments do not relate to EPA’s authority to regulate ODS, we do note for completeness’ sake

that CAA section 608(a) also provides authority for the portions of this rulemaking that revise the refrigerant

management requirements as those apply directly to ODS.

Page 63 of 403

Commenters also disagreed with EPA’s statement that there is ambiguity in the CAA

regarding the Agency’s authority to create a comprehensive regulatory program akin to that

applicable to class I and class II ODS. These commenters expressed that Congress explicitly

addressed substitutes in section 608(c)(2) and did not in section 608(a) and that Congress was

fully aware and capable of granting EPA authority to regulate substitutes under section 608(a)

and it chose not to do so. They further commented that Congress knew which provisions of Title

VI it wished to extend to substitutes and which it did not, and pointed to sections 609, 612, and

615 as allowing EPA to regulate substitutes. These comments concluded that Congress

demonstrated that it knew how to include substitutes in refrigerant management regulations if it

wanted to.

EPA recognizes that Congress expressly mentioned substitutes in certain sections of

Title VI of the CAA, such as section 608(c)(2). In EPA’s interpretation of section 608, the fact

that Congress expressly applied the venting prohibition to substitutes in section 608(c)(2)

supports this action because this action clarifies how EPA interprets that venting prohibition and

explains what actions must be taken during the maintenance, servicing, repair, or disposal of

appliances and IPR to avoid violating the venting prohibition. The inclusion of substitutes in

section 608(c)(2) also indicates that Congress contemplated that regulation of substitutes would

play a role in implementing section 608. The ambiguity in section 608 is that Congress created

an explicit prohibition on venting substitute refrigerants in the course of maintaining, servicing,

repairing, or disposing of appliances or IPR, and also provided an exception to that prohibition

for “de minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely

dispose” of such substances. CAA section 608(c)(1); see also CAA section 608(c)(2) (applying

paragraph (c)(1) to the venting, release, or disposal of substitute refrigerants). Congress,

Page 64 of 403

however, did not define what releases would be considered “de minimis” nor which activities

would be considered “good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose” of such

substances. Where Congress has not directly spoken to an issue or has left ambiguity in the

statute, that silence or ambiguity creates an assumption that “Congress implicitly delegated to the

agency the power to make policy choices that represent a reasonable accommodation of

conflicting policies that are committed to the agency’s care by the statute.” National Ass’n of

Mfrs. v. United States DOI, 134 F.3d 1095, 1106 (D.C. Cir. 1998). As the U.S. Supreme Court

has explained, the “power of an administrative agency to administer a congressionally created . .

. program necessarily requires the formulation of policy and the making of rules to fill any gap

left, implicitly or explicitly, by Congress.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843-44. The Court later

explained, “[w]e accord deference to agencies under Chevron, . . . because of a presumption that

Congress, when it left ambiguity in a statute meant for implementation by an agency, understood

that the ambiguity would be resolved, first and foremost, by the agency, and desired the agency

(rather than the courts) to possess whatever degree of discretion the ambiguity allows.” Smiley v.

Citibank (s.D.), N.A, 517 U.S. 735, 740-741 (1996). Accordingly, Congress’s silence with regard

to the venting prohibition and the exception for certain releases leaves a gap for the Agency to

fill, as it is doing in this rulemaking.

In addition to the statutory interpretation and the principle of Chevron deference

discussed above, the legislative history further supports the notion that Congress anticipated and

intended for the Agency to establish regulations that would further interpret, explain, and enforce

the exception to the venting prohibition. A Senate Report accompanying a version of the Senate

bill for the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which enacted Title VI, addressed the venting

prohibition and described that it would include “[e]xceptions . . . for de minimis releases

Page 65 of 403

associated with good faith attempts to recapture, recycle and safely dispose of” the substances

used as refrigerants in household appliances, commercial refrigeration and air conditioning units.

Report of the Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate, Report

Accompanying S. 1630 (S. Rept. 101-228) (December 20, 1989) at 396 (reprinted in 4 A

Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, at 8736 (1993)). This report

further stated that the standards and requirements that EPA was required to promulgate “should

include provisions to foster implementation of this prohibition, including guidance on what

constitutes ‘de minimis’ and ‘good faith’.” Id. Thus, EPA reasonably interprets the ambiguity in

section 608(c) to mean that in creating the exception to the venting prohibition, Congress

intended for the Agency to provide additional specificity regarding how a regulated entity would

qualify for this exception. This rulemaking provides such additional specificity and further

articulates the policy of how this exception is interpreted, explained, and enforced.

While EPA acknowledges that section 608(a) does not explicitly mention substitutes, we

disagree with the conclusion that the comment draws from that. The fact that Congress required

EPA to address ODS in a certain manner under section 608(a) is not the same as prohibiting EPA

from addressing other refrigerants in the same manner. EPA has explained in the preceding

response to comments how it interprets section 608(a) to support this rulemaking.

Some commenters contend that Congress specifically listed class I and class II substances

for coverage under the regulations and under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio

alterius, regulations cannot be applied to refrigerants that are neither class I or class II

substances. This rule of statutory interpretation, which has limited force in an administrative law

setting, means that the inclusion of one thing implies the exclusion of another thing. However,

the fact that Congress mandated certain measures for ODS but was silent regarding appropriate

Page 66 of 403

measures for substitutes does not mean that Congress prohibited EPA from adopting similar

measures for substitutes. See Cheney R.R. Co. v. ICC, 902 F.2d 66, 69 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (“The

contrast between Congress’s mandate in one context with its silence in another suggests not a

prohibition but simply a decision not to mandate any solution in the second context, i.e., to leave

the question to agency discretion.”)

Commenters stated that section 608(c) is self-implementing and no promulgation of

regulations by EPA is required or contemplated to implement such prohibition. In contrast,

608(a) and (b) require EPA to promulgate regulations to establish “standards and requirements.”

These standards and requirements are different in kind and broader than the 608(c) statutory

prohibition. EPA cannot merge the distinct requirements of 608(a) and (b) with the statutory

prohibition of 608(c). Another commenter stated that in trying to apply section 608(b) to any

substitute substance, EPA is inferring authority that is not there.

EPA agrees that the prohibition under 608(c) as it applies to the knowing venting or

releasing of ODS and substitutes is itself self-implementing. However, that fact does not

preclude EPA from establishing regulations to include the prohibition in the overall context of

the regulatory scheme and to promulgate rules to further interpret, explain, and enforce it,

including by providing certainty to enhance compliance. Indeed, EPA’s prior regulations at 40

CFR 82.154 included the venting prohibition. More specifically, these regulations provided that

“no person maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances may knowingly vent or

otherwise release into the environment any refrigerant or substitute from such appliances” and

then provided for exceptions from this prohibition for specified substitutes in specified end-uses.

These exceptions implemented the discretion Congress left EPA under 608(c)(2) to exempt

certain releases from the venting prohibition, if the Administrator has determined that “venting,

Page 67 of 403

releasing, or disposing of such substance does not pose a threat to the environment.” CAA

section 608(c)(2). Contrary to the comment, the inclusion of this discretion in section 608(c)(2)

indicates that Congress intended for the EPA to have authority to implement aspects of the

prohibition and in fact left gaps in this section that it expected EPA would fill as appropriate.

Similarly, as discussed in the preceding response, the legislative history indicates that in

establishing the venting prohibition, Congress expected EPA to promulgate regulatory

“provisions to foster implementation of this prohibition, including guidance on what constitutes

‘de minimis’ and ‘good faith’.” Report of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate, Report Accompanying S. 1630 (S. Rept. 101-228) (December 20, 1989) at

396 (reprinted in 4 A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, at 8736

(1993)). Consistent with that Congressional intent, the prior regulations at 40 CFR 82.154

included provisions clarifying that “[ODS] releases shall be considered de minimis only if they

occur when” certain regulatory requirements are observed. 40 CFR 82.154(a)(2). However, those

regulations did not provide the same clarity regarding releases of non-exempt substitute

refrigerants or what practices would be considered to fall within the ambit of “good faith

attempts to recycle or recover” non-exempt substitute refrigerants. 40 CFR 82.154(a)(2).

Because Congress provided this exception to the venting prohibition for substitutes under section

608(c)(2) but did not specify what practices or actions should be taken to qualify for this

exception, it is reasonable to interpret this provision as indicating that Congress contemplated

that EPA would resolve this ambiguity.

While Congress did not establish specific rulemaking authority under section 608(c)(2),

Congress did provide a general grant of authority in CAA section 301(a)(1) to “prescribe such

regulations as are necessary to carry out [the Administrator’s] functions under” the CAA. This

Page 68 of 403

rulemaking authority supplements EPA’s authority under section 608 by authorizing EPA to

promulgate regulations necessary to carry out its functions under section 608, including

regulations necessary to interpret the venting prohibition and exceptions to it.

EPA disagrees with the commenter that it is impermissibly merging the distinct

requirements of CAA sections 608(a) and (b) with section 608(c). While EPA’s regulations

under section 608(b) are simply one part of the regulations required under section 608(a), EPA is

not relying on section 608(b) to justify its extension of the section 608 regulations to substitutes

in this rulemaking. The role of EPA’s section 608(a) authority in this rulemaking has been

discussed above, in a prior response to comment. Moreover, as noted above, the fact that

Congress required EPA to address ODS refrigerants in specific way under section 608(a), or

section 608(b) for that matter, is not the same as precluding EPA from addressing other

refrigerants in a similar fashion. Likewise, where EPA has authority to establish regulations for

non-exempt substitute refrigerants, the fact that it has exercised its authority to establish similar

regulations for other refrigerants does not prevent it from exercising its authority to regulate non-

exempt substitute refrigerants in a similar manner.

One commenter stated that using section 608(c) to establish the same requirements as

authorized under section 608(a) renders section 608(a) null and stated that statutory language

should not be read in a manner that renders other provisions of the statute inconsistent,

meaningless or superfluous.

EPA disagrees with this comment. Unlike section 608(c), section 608(a) is not limited to

refrigerants. EPA has applied its authority under section 608(a) to establish or consider

regulations for ODS in non-refrigerant applications. As an example, in 1998, EPA issued a rule

on halon management under the authority of section 608(a)(2) (63 FR 11084, March 5, 1998). In

Page 69 of 403

that action, EPA noted that section 608(a)(2) “directs EPA to establish standards and

requirements regarding the use and disposal of class I and II substances other than refrigerants.”

63 FR 11085. Similarly, EPA considered whether to establish a requirement to use gas

impermeable tarps to reduce emissions of methyl bromide under section 608(a)(2), ultimately

determining not to do so for technological and economic reasons. 63 FR 6008 (February 5,

1998). In that action, EPA noted: “[s]ection 608(a)(1) of the Act provides for a national recycling

and emission reduction program with respect to the use and disposal of Class I substances used

as refrigerants. Section 608(a)(2) provides for such a program with respect to Class I and Class II

substances not covered by section 608(a)(1).” 63 FR 6008. Accordingly, this interpretation of

section 608(c)(2) to allow EPA to establish requirements for non-exempt substitute refrigerants

similar to those established under section 608(a) for ODS refrigerants does not render section

608(a) null or superfluous. Although EPA interprets its substantive authority under both sections

608(a) and 608(c) to support application of the refrigerant management requirements to both

ODS and non-exempt substitute refrigerants, that is different from asserting that its section

608(c) authority would extend to any requirement that could be imposed under section 608(a).

EPA was required to establish certain regulations for ODS refrigerants under section 608(a) and

then decided to use those provisions to interpret and explain the venting prohibition for ODS

under section 608(c). The fact that EPA is now electing to use the same requirements under

section 608(c) for substitutes does not render 608(a) a nullity. EPA could have established

different requirements to interpret and explain the venting prohibition, but for the reasons

discussed above, decided to make the requirements consistent for both ODS and substitutes.

2. Comment: Congress did not regulate substitutes because it wanted to create incentives to

use substitute refrigerants

Page 70 of 403

One commenter asserted that applying detailed refrigerant management requirements to

substitutes discourages the development of substitutes as it eliminates the incentive to operate

with fewer regulatory requirements. Another commenter stated that the current regulations

provide an opt-out incentive to owners that voluntarily retrofit to a non-ozone depleting

substitute and suggested that EPA should seek to revise the proposed rule so that it continues to

provide similar incentives.

EPA disagrees that applying the refrigerant management requirements to non-exempt

substitute refrigerants will discourage the development of substitutes. At this point in time, there

are other incentives to either retrofit or replace existing equipment that relies on ODS. Most ODS

have been completely phased out and the HCFC phaseout is well underway. Allowances for

domestic consumption of the most common HCFC refrigerant, HCFC-22, are set at 5.6 percent

of baseline for 2016 and will decline to zero in 2020 (40 CFR 82.16, 82.15(e)). In addition, use

restrictions issued pursuant to section 605(a) prohibit use of newly produced HCFC-22 in

equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 2010 (40 CFR 82.15(g)(2)). The section 605(a)

use restrictions further prohibit use of newly produced HCFC-123 in equipment manufactured on

or after January 1, 2020 (40 CFR 82.15(g)(4)). While used HCFCs are not subject to these

restrictions, the HCFC phaseout and the restrictions on use of newly produced HCFCs provide

clear market signals regarding future availability of HCFC refrigerants.

In addition, while some provisions of the statute indicate Congressional intent to

encourage companies to use safer alternatives, other provisions indicate that Congress was also

concerned about the potential impacts of unregulated releases of these substitute refrigerants.

Section 608(c)(2) is in the latter category, as it extends the venting prohibition to substitute

refrigerants, unless EPA determines that such releases do not pose a threat to the environment.

Page 71 of 403

Accordingly, the application of these regulatory requirements to non-exempt substitute

refrigerants provides clarity and certainty to owners, operators, and people servicing,

maintaining, repairing, or disposing of air conditioning and refrigeration equipment of how they

can avoid violating the venting prohibition. Such clarity and certainty is consistent with EPA’s

efforts through other regulatory programs to facilitate and encourage the use of substitute

refrigerants.

Other commenters stated that Congress did not extend the refrigerant management

requirements to substitutes, likely because it wanted to create incentives for companies to switch

to safer alternatives.

EPA responds that Congress did extend the venting prohibition to substitute refrigerants

and left to EPA’s discretion how to interpret and enforce that prohibition. While Congress did

not require EPA to interpret and enforce the venting prohibition by regulating substitute

refrigerants in the same manner as ODS, neither did it prevent EPA from doing so.

Commenters also stated that 608(a)(3) encourages EPA to use the regulations under that

provision to promote the use of safe alternatives. EPA responds that while section 608(a)(3)

provides that the regulations that are required under section 608(a) “may include requirements …

to promote the use of safe alternatives pursuant to section [612],” whether to include such

provisions is discretionary, not mandatory. While Congress left such regulations to EPA’s

discretion, Congress directly applied the venting prohibition to substitute refrigerants under

section 608. Moreover, the legislative history for section 608 recognizes the distinctions between

sections 612 and 608, stating: “The fact that a particular substance has been identified by the

Administrator as a ‘safe substitute’ for purposes of section 612, does not affect the requirement

for a separate determination under [section 608]. The purposes of section 612 and of this section

Page 72 of 403

are different and substances approved under section 612 will not automatically qualify for

exclusion from the prohibition on venting that is included in this section.” Statement of Senate

Managers, S. 1630, The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, reprinted in 1 A Legislative

History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, at 928 (1993). Accordingly, EPA does not

interpret the discretion provided by section 608(a)(3) to diminish its ability to interpret, explain,

and enforce section 608(c) as it is doing in this rule.

3. Comment: Section 608 does not authorize EPA to regulate the normal operation of

refrigerant equipment

Commenters stated that EPA’s authority under section 608 is limited to regulating actions

taken during servicing, repair, or disposal of refrigeration equipment, or class I and II

refrigerants evacuated during such servicing and repair. These comments further stated that

EPA’s authority extends only to technicians and that nothing in section 608 would enable EPA to

impose liability on the equipment owner or operator.

With regard to the actions that are within the scope of section 608(c), as explained earlier

in this notice, EPA interprets section 608(c) to convey authority to interpret, explain, and enforce

the venting prohibition for both ODS and substitute refrigerants, and that prohibition applies to

the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances and IPR. As explained elsewhere in

this rulemaking, this action applies regulations to non-exempt substitute refrigerants that are

related to the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of such appliances or to providing persons

engaged in such activities with additional clarity and certainty on how to ensure that their actions

comport with the venting prohibition and the de minimis exemption to it. For example, the

technician certification provisions relate to who can maintain, service, or repair an appliance and

the evacuation and recovery equipment provisions relate to how to maintain, service, repair or

Page 73 of 403

dispose of an appliance. Furthermore, the comment omits the concept of maintenance, which is

included in section 608(c). EPA notes that the definition of the term “maintain” includes “to keep

in an existing state; preserve or retain” and to “keep in a condition of good repair or efficiency.”

The American Heritage College Dictionary, 4th ed. (Houghton Mifflin, 2002), at 834; see also

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maintain (including in the definition of maintain

“to keep in an existing state (as of repair, efficiency, or validity): preserve from failure or decline

<maintain machinery>”) (last accessed May 31, 2016). Thus, “maintenance” and “maintaining”

include a broad range of activities involved in preserving equipment in normal working order.

EPA noted in a prior response that section 608(c) is limited to refrigerants while section

608(a) is not. However, the comment is incorrect that section 608(c) is limited to the activities of

a technician. Section 608(c)(2) refers to “any person,” and “person” is defined broadly in CAA

section 302, as well as in subpart F to 40 CFR part 82. More specifically, section 302(e) defines

“person” to “include[] an individual, corporation, partnership, association, State, municipality,

political subdivision of a State, and any agency, department, or instrumentality of the United

States and any officer, agent or employee thereof.” Thus, the definition clearly is not limited to

technicians. Furthermore, the current statement of purpose and scope in subpart F, §82.150, lists

appliance owners and operators as one of the persons to which the subpart applies.

When EPA initially promulgated the subpart F regulations, it explained that these rules

applied to owners. For example, in the preamble to the 1993 Rule, EPA explained that it had

made “additions to the scope section to clarify that the rule covers refrigerant reclaimers,

appliance owners, and manufacturers of appliances and recycling and recovery equipment in

addition to persons servicing, repairing, maintaining, and disposing of appliances.” 58 FR 28707

(emphasis added); see also 58 FR 28681 (explaining that the rule required the owner of the

Page 74 of 403

equipment to either authorize the repair of substantial leaks or develop the equipment

retirement/retrofit plan within 30 days of discovering leak above the standard and that the owner

has the legal obligation to ensure that repairs are made to equipment where the leak rate exceeds

the standard).

Some comments on the proposed rule stated that section 608(c) cannot be used to require

that an equipment owner undertake repairs. EPA disagrees with this comment. As explained

above, owners are within the scope of “person” as defined in CAA section 302(e) and subpart F.

An owner’s failure to undertake repairs of leaky appliances or IPR could lead directly to a

violation of the venting prohibition. As one example, if in the course of a normal maintenance

check, a technician discovers that the appliance is releasing refrigerant above the threshold leak

rate but the owner does not authorize the repairs as required by the rules, and instead decides to

add refrigerant and continue operating the equipment, the owner would be participating in a

knowing release.

Many commenters also disagreed with EPA’s interpretation of the venting prohibition, as

articulated in the proposed rule that “when a person adds refrigerant to an appliance that he or

she knows is leaking, without repairing the appliance consistent with the leak repair

requirements, he or she also violates the venting prohibition.” One commenter stated that this

could prohibit technicians from filling any leaking appliance. Another commenter noted that that

it appears to cover failed repairs and verification tests during the repair period allowed by

§82.156(i)(9) and §82.157(e). Commenters requested that EPA clarify that leaks that occur

within an applicable repair window or retrofit/retirement schedule, even though the facility may

be aware of the leak, do not violate the venting prohibition, where the leak repair procedures

prescribed in subpart F are followed. To clarify EPA’s statement in the proposed rule and to

Page 75 of 403

respond to these comments, EPA’s position is that while the addition of refrigerant to an

appliance known to be leaking above the threshold rate is a knowing release, that release does

not violate the venting prohibition so long as the applicable practices referenced in

§82.154(a)(2), as revised, are complied with, including the leak repair requirements, as

applicable.

4. Addressing concerns about global warming is not lawful under Title VI of the CAA

Multiple commenters stated that EPA cannot use Title VI to control substances based on

their GWPs. These commenters referred to section 602(e), which states that EPA’s required

publication of the GWP of a class I or class II substance “shall not be construed to be the basis of

any additional regulation under this chapter.” EPA responds that section 602(e) relates to the

GWPs of ODS, and says nothing regarding the GWPs of substitutes. In any event, EPA is not

relying on section 602 as authority for the action being taken in this rulemaking. Rather, EPA is

relying on section 608 for the substantive requirements contained in this rule. Section 608(c)

prohibits the knowing venting or release of a substitute refrigerant unless the Administrator

determines that such venting, release, or disposal does not pose a threat to the environment.

While it is true that EPA anticipates a significant GHG emissions reduction as a result of this

rule, EPA is extending the subpart F regulations to all substitute refrigerants that are not exempt

from the venting prohibition irrespective of their GWPs. The GWPs of the non-exempt

substitutes addressed in this rulemaking range from 4 to over 14,000.

One commenter stated that the legislative history demonstrates that Congress considered

and rejected regulating GHGs under Title VI of the CAA. Congress does not intend sub silento

to enact statutory language that it has earlier discarded. The commenter also noted that Congress

rejected the Senate version known as “The Stratospheric Ozone and Climate Protection Act.”

Page 76 of 403

That version of the act sought to reduce methane emissions in the U.S. and other countries. The

removal of those provisions signifies, in the commenter’s opinion, that Congress did not intend

for Title VI to address substances that were not ozone depleting, even if they have high GWPs.

EPA responds that while Congress chose not to include certain potential measures

regarding regulation of GHGs unrelated to ODS, Congress nonetheless included multiple

provisions regarding ODS substitutes. The legislative history of section 608(c) indicates that

Congress specifically recognized that substitutes could pose a threat to the environment because

they could include greenhouse gases. In discussing the venting prohibition, as it applies to

substitute refrigerants, the statement of the Senate Managers included the following:

Effective 5 years after enactment, the prohibition on venting or release shall also

apply to all substances that are used as refrigerants as substitutes for class I or class II

refrigerants. By its terms, this provision applies to substances that are not listed as class I

or class II substances. This is an important provision because many of the substitutes

being developed do not have ozone depleting properties but they are ‘greenhouse gases’

and have radiative properties that are expected to exacerbate the problem of global

climate change. The prohibition shall apply to all such substitute substances except where

the Administrator determines that the venting, release or disposal of a particular

substitute substance does not pose a threat to the environment.

The Administrator shall consider long term threats, such as global warming, as

well as acute threats. The fact that a particular substance has been identified by the

Administrator as a ‘safe substitute’ for purposes of section 612 does not affect the

requirement for a separate determination under this section. The purposes of section 612

and of this section are different and substances approved under section 612 will not

automatically qualify for exclusion from the prohibition on venting that is included in this

section.

It is therefore clear that Congress understood that substitute refrigerants could be

greenhouse gases, specifically sought to apply the venting prohibition to such gases, and

specifically contemplated that climate risks would be considered in carrying out the venting

Statement of Senate Managers, S. 1630, The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, reprinted in 1 A Legislative

History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, at 929 (1993).

Page 77 of 403

prohibition. The removal of a provision related to methane within Title VI does not indicate that

Congress did not intend to address greenhouse gases in the venting prohibition.

One commenter stated that EPA has not undertaken an endangerment finding to support

regulation of HFCs from IPR as a greenhouse gas which can be regulated under the CAA. EPA

responds that under section 608(c), the venting prohibition applies to substitutes unless EPA

exempts them. EPA is not required to take any affirmative action, let alone an endangerment

finding, for the venting prohibition to apply.

One commenter stated that the purpose of Title VI is to implement the Montreal Protocol,

whose sole goal is to protect the stratospheric ozone layer from ODS. EPA responds that while

certain sections of Title VI do in fact implement the Montreal Protocol, several sections of Title

VI call on EPA to take measures that are not required by the Montreal Protocol but are

complementary to the ODS phaseout. These sections include, in addition to section 608, sections

609 (servicing of motor vehicle air conditioners), 610 (nonessential products), 611 (labeling),

and 612 (safe alternatives policy). Section 608 clearly provides EPA authority to regulate the

venting, release, and disposal of substitute refrigerants.

5. EPA’s proposal would increase risks to human health and violate section 612

One commenter stated that the proposed rule would drive owners and operators of IPR

from HFCs to exempt substitutes in order to remove themselves from the regulatory

requirements of subpart F. The commenter stated that some of these exempt substitutes are not

safer for human health. HFCs are non-ozone depleting, non-flammable, and non-toxic whereas

ammonia, chlorine, and hydrocarbons are either toxic or flammable. By encouraging the use of

these non-exempt but riskier substitutes, the commenter states that EPA is violating section

612(a) of the CAA.

Page 78 of 403

EPA responds that the commenter is quoting the policy statement that appears in section

612(a). The Agency is not acting under section 612. Rather, EPA is acting under section 608.

This action under section 608 is consistent with decisions made under section 612 and does not

alter those decisions. Specifically, it does not preclude use of any substitute listed as acceptable

or acceptable subject to use restrictions under section 612(c) for the specified end-use. Under

section 612(c), EPA compares substitutes not only to ODS but also to other available substitutes.

When reviewing substitute refrigerants, EPA considers a variety of risks, including toxicity and

flammability. In some instances, EPA lists substitutes as acceptable subject to use conditions that

mitigate such risk. EPA does not dictate that a particular user choose a specific substitute from

among those listed as acceptable for that end-use. Whether an owner or operator of an IPR

facility chooses to transition to an exempt substitute is a decision that must be made weighing the

advantages and disadvantages of the specific refrigerant.

6. Section 301 and 114 do not grant EPA authority to regulate substitutes

Two commenters stated that section 301 grants EPA general rulemaking authority but

does not authorize the Agency to act where a specific statutory provision already has addressed

an issue. They further stated that section 608(a) does address the issue of whether the refrigerant

management regulations apply to substitutes and therefore EPA cannot use section 301 to create

that authority.

As discussed above, nothing in Title VI says what refrigerant management requirements

should apply to substitutes: therefore, this is not a situation where a specific statutory provision

has already addressed the issue. EPA is issuing regulations to interpret, explain, and enforce the

venting prohibition in section 608(c)(2) with regard to non-exempt substitutes. EPA is not

deriving substantive authority from section 301. Rather, EPA is relying on section 608 for its

Page 79 of 403

substantive authority and is looking to section 301 as supplemental authority to issue regulations

to carry out its functions under section 608. Similarly, EPA is looking to section 114 not for the

substantive refrigerant management requirements being finalized today but rather as authority to

require recordkeeping and reporting in carrying out the venting prohibition for non-exempt

substitutes.

IV. The Revisions Finalized in this Rule

A. Revisions to the definitions in section 82.152

EPA proposed to update and clarify many of the definitions in subpart F. EPA also

proposed to add new definitions and remove definitions that solely restated the required practice.

In general, these revisions are to improve readability, increase consistency with how the term is

used in the regulatory text, and specifically incorporate substitute refrigerants as appropriate.

EPA received comment on the proposed revisions to definitions of refrigerant and

appliance, as well as terms specifically applicable to the leak repair portion of the regulations.

EPA also received requests to define additional terms. Those comments, and changes from the

proposed definitions that are being made in this final rule, are discussed later in this section with

those terms. EPA is finalizing as proposed the other revisions to definitions in this section that

were addressed in the notice of proposed rulemaking and where we did not receive comments.

Other revisions elicited only supporting comments, which are briefly noted in the descriptions of

the revisions.

Appliance

EPA proposed to define appliance as 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

Page 80 of 403

freezer. EPA is finalizing three revisions to the definition of appliance. First, EPA is extending

the subpart F regulatory definition to apply to substitute refrigerants. Second, EPA is adding

“motor vehicle air conditioner” to the list of example appliances. Third, EPA is adding a

sentence stating that each independent circuit on a system with multiple circuits is considered a

separate appliance.

The prior definitions in subpart F are written to separate ozone-depleting substances from

non-ozone depleting substitutes. EPA’s prior regulations defined an appliance as a device which

contains and uses a refrigerant. 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 but EPA’s regulations at §82.152 as they

existed before this rulemaking defined 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” appliance

includes any “device which contains and uses as a refrigerant a substitute substance and which is

used for household or commercial purposes.” However, EPA had not updated the definition of

appliance in subpart F to reflect section 608(c)(2). Because EPA regulations, as they existed

before this rulemaking, had defined an appliance as a device that contains and uses a refrigerant,

and refrigerant in a way that does not include substitutes, substitutes were excluded from the

regulatory definition of appliance.

Page 81 of 403

In this action, EPA is revising the definition of appliance so that it encompasses the

definition of the term in both sections 601 and 608 of the CAA. EPA is defining appliance as

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. This revision makes the regulatory

definition consistent with both sections 601 and 608 of the CAA, improves internal consistency

of the regulations, and increases clarity for the regulated community.

One commenter stated that EPA should not add “substitutes” to the definition of

appliance because CAA section 601(1) already defines appliance and “substitutes” is not

included. EPA responds that while the definition of appliance in section 601(1) does not contain

“substitutes,” section 608(c)(2) does extend the term appliance to systems containing substitutes

for purposes of that paragraph. It is reasonable to update the regulatory definition so that there is

a consistent definition of appliance throughout subpart F. Further, because the regulations in

subpart F address the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) for substitute refrigerants and

requirements to interpret, explain, and enforce the de minimis exemption to that prohibition, it is

reasonable to include “substitutes” in the regulatory definition of appliance. In addition, this

rulemaking only changes the definition of appliance as it appears in subpart F, but the definition

of the term in other regulations under Title VI, such as in 40 CFR 82.3, remains unchanged.

EPA also proposed and is finalizing the addition of “motor vehicle air conditioner” to the

list of example appliances. Two commenters objected to this proposal, stating that neither

definition of appliance in section 601 or 608 of the CAA specifically includes motor vehicle air

conditioners. One commenter states that Congress specifically considered but ultimately decided

against explicitly including “motor vehicles” within the definition of appliance in section 601 of

the CAA.

Page 82 of 403

A plain reading of the Clean Air Act would include motor vehicle air conditioning under

appliance. Section 601 of the CAA defines an appliance as “any device…which is used for

household or commercial purposes including any air conditioner…” (emphasis added). In the

1993 Rule establishing regulations under section 608 for the first time, the Agency stated the

following:

The Act defines ‘appliance’ as ‘any device which contains and uses a class I or class II

substance as a refrigerant and which is used for household or commercial purposes,

including any air conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or freezer.’ EPA interprets this

definition to include all air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment except that designed

and used exclusively for military applications. Thus, the term includes all the sectors of

air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment described under Section III.A above,

including household refrigerators and freezers (which may be used outside the home),

other refrigerated appliances, residential and light commercial air-conditioning, transport

refrigeration, retail food refrigeration, cold storage warehouses, commercial comfort air-

conditioning, motor vehicle air conditioners, comfort cooling in vehicles not covered

under section 609, and industrial process refrigeration.” (58 FR 28669; May 14, 1993,

emphasis added)

In that same final rule, EPA established the definition of MVAC in subpart F as “any

appliance that is a motor vehicle air conditioner as defined in 40 CFR part 82, subpart B”

(emphasis added), and that definition has not since been changed. The commenters themselves

state that procedures that are not regulated under section 609, such as the disposal of MVACs

and the purchase of refrigerant in some sized containers, are covered by section 608.

Furthermore, they agree that the prohibition against venting ODS and substitute refrigerants in

section 608 is also already applicable to refrigerants used in MVAC and MVAC-like appliances.

This necessarily implies that appliance as used in section 608 includes “motor vehicle air

conditioners.” The inclusion of “motor vehicle air conditioners” as an example within appliance

is a clarification, and it reflects the way the term appliance has been used throughout the history

of the program. Specific provisions in subpart F that relate to activities that are regulated for

Page 83 of 403

MVACs under section 609 refer, as appropriate, to the subpart B regulations issued under section

609 of the CAA.

Comments from the auto industry also expressed concern that adding motor vehicle air

conditioners to the list of examples in the definition of appliance would affect EPA’s exemption

from servicing requirements for MVACs in vehicles that have not yet left the manufacturing

facility. In the 1992 rule establishing regulations under section 609, EPA stated that:

a motor vehicle air conditioner is not subject to these regulations prior to the completion

of final assembly of the vehicle by the original equipment manufacturer. While repair or

service work on air conditioners in unfinished vehicles may well fit the definition of

‘service for consideration,’ the equipment and technician certification requirements of

these rules do not apply as the motor vehicle air conditioner is not subject to these rules

prior to the completion of the final assembly process by the vehicle’s manufacturer. (57

FR 31246; July 14, 1992)

The addition of motor vehicle air conditioners as an example within the definition of

appliance does not affect current practices and EPA regulations as they affect vehicle

manufacturing. That was not the intent of the proposed change and is not a result of this final

action. As previously discussed, the definition of motor vehicle air conditioner in subpart F is

“any appliance that is a motor vehicle air conditioner as defined in 40 CFR part 82, subpart B”

and the definitions within subpart B, under section 609, exclude vehicles that have not completed

manufacturing by the original equipment manufacturer. EPA provided the following explanation

for the exclusion of vehicles that have not yet been fully manufactured from the servicing

requirements under section 609 in the 1992 final rule:

EPA believes the repair of newly manufactured units is not likely to be a common

occurrence and when it does occur, the manufacturing facilities clearly use equipment to

recover and recycle the refrigerant so that it may be reintroduced once the motor vehicle

air conditioner is repaired. The equipment is significantly different from the kind of

equipment covered by EPA’s definition of approved equipment, yet serves the purpose of

such equipment equally well. In addition, the technicians performing this operation are

typically manufacturing employees, not service technicians. For all these reasons, the

Agency believes it is not necessary at this time to extend the requirements of this

Page 84 of 403

servicing regulation into the assembly operation… EPA wants to be clear that this

exclusion is limited to final assembly activities conducted by the vehicle’s original

manufacturer, and does not include service or repair activities conducted, for example, by

a dealer. (57 FR 31245, July 14, 1992)

One commenter further stated that it is not necessary to impose new technician training

and certification requirements, or other regulatory requirements, for the automobile company and

component supplier employees and contractors engaged in these activities. EPA agrees and

reiterates that because the venting prohibition already applied to ODS and substitutes, this final

action will not have any new effect on the automotive manufacturing process or individuals

employed in the automotive and/or MVAC manufacturing process prior to the vehicle leaving

the manufacturing plant. EPA’s regulations under both sections 608 and 609 are intended, and

will continue, to apply only to MVACs that are fully manufactured.

A few commenters requested that EPA clarify that for systems containing multiple

circuits, each independent circuit is considered a separate appliance for the purposes of subpart

F. This is the position that EPA has taken in the Compliance Guidance for Industrial Process

Refrigeration Leak Repair Regulations under Section 608 of the Clean Air Act from October

1995 and the commenters believe that making such a statement in the regulations will be clearer

to the regulated community. EPA agrees and is adding a sentence clarifying this point to the

definition.

Many commenters from the supermarket industry believe that the Agency’s interpretation

of the term appliance is too broad. In these commenters’ view, appliances are display cases or

unit coolers and not the broader system of piping, compressors, and condensing units to which

those are attached. One commenter suggested that EPA create a definition for the term system to

indicate a combination of various pieces of equipment and appliances that are professionally and

specifically designed and erected for a particular application. Another commenter suggested that

Page 85 of 403

EPA define the refrigerant circuit as separate from the appliance. These commenters are

especially concerned about a definition of appliance that includes all coolers, display cases,

components, and piping in light of EPA’s proposal to require that an appliance be retired if it

exceeds the proposed two-year leak limit.

EPA responds that the Agency interprets an appliance as a fully assembled device that

can function for its intended purpose. Components, on the other hand, are all the parts of the

appliance that make up the refrigerant circuit, as described later in this section. As EPA

described in the final rule allocating HCFCs for 2010-2014, “appliances are separate from

components, which are the individual parts of an appliance, such as a condensing unit or line set,

that by themselves cannot function to provide a cooling effect” (74 FR 66439; December 15,

2009). EPA recognizes that some would prefer that some components be considered appliances.

For example, some members in the industry consider a condensing unit in a residential split

system to be an appliance. However, EPA does not believe it is practical or clear for some

components to also be considered appliances in the regulatory definitions. The concepts of full

charge or leak rate do not make sense in the context of only a component. Finally, EPA notes

that much of these commenters’ concerns about the scope of the term appliance was in response

to EPA’s proposal that chronically leaking appliances be retired. As discussed in Section

IV.F.12, EPA is not finalizing the proposed requirement for automatic retirement of chronically

leaking appliances.

Apprentice

As proposed, EPA is amending the definition of apprentice to replace the “Bureau of

Apprenticeship and Training” with the “Office of Apprenticeship” to match the current name of

the office and to make minor edits to improve clarity and readability.

Page 86 of 403

Batch

EPA proposed a requirement that each batch of reclaimed refrigerant be tested. EPA did

not propose to define “batch” but is doing so in this final rule based on requests by commenters

to clarify the term. EPA agrees with the comment that adding a definition of batch will clarify

this requirement, and is defining the term based on language provided by multiple commenters.

Therefore, EPA is defining batch to mean a single bulk cylinder of refrigerant after all

reclamation has been completed prior to packaging or shipping to the market.

Certified refrigerant recovery or recycling equipment

As proposed, EPA is removing the defined term certified refrigerant recovery or

recycling equipment which was merely a reference to the sections of the Code of Federal

Regulations that discuss the certification program. This term was 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

§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, in the revised provisions, EPA is using

“recovery and/or recycling equipment” throughout, except for when referring only to small

appliances.

Class I and Class II

EPA is finalizing as proposed regulatory definitions for class I and class II ozone-

depleting substances to assist the reader. These terms are currently defined in section 601 of the

Page 87 of 403

CAA and in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A. EPA is finalizing the addition of a definition of class I as

an ozone-depleting substance that is listed in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, appendix A. Similarly,

EPA is finalizing the addition of a definition of class II as an ozone-depleting substance that is

listed in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, appendix B. EPA also 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 finalizing the addition of a definition for comfort cooling. The leak repair

provisions divide refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment into four categories: comfort

cooling, commercial refrigeration, industrial process refrigeration, and other. EPA’s prior

regulations defined commercial refrigeration and industrial process refrigeration but not comfort

cooling.

For purposes of the leak repair requirements, EPA proposed 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. EPA

further proposed to include language explaining that comfort cooling appliances include building

chillers and roof-top self-contained units, and 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 sought 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.

Page 88 of 403

Commenters suggested that EPA remove the reference to equipment and computer rooms

as this is beyond the scope of comfort cooling. One commenter suggested that comfort cooling

only include computer rooms set to above 68 degrees F to align the definition with CARB-32.

That commenter also suggested that appliances used to cool computer rooms would fall under

the category of “other appliances.” Another commenter believes that such appliances are

currently considered as IPR. EPA responds that the intent was to apply the term comfort cooling

only to spaces occupied by humans. EPA has made edits to better reflect this understanding in

the final definition and is therefore not including in the final definition the last sentence from the

proposed definition (which read “[t]hey 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.”).

EPA notes here that comfort cooling, with respect to the leak repair provisions in this

subpart, does not include MVACs or MVAC-like appliances.

Commercial refrigeration

As proposed, EPA is finalizing the amendment to the definition of commercial

refrigeration that removed the sentence stating that this equipment typically contains a charge

size over 75 pounds. While accurate, this sentence has caused confusion as to whether or not the

leak repair requirements are applicable to such appliances with a full charge between 50 pounds,

as stated in the leak repair required practices, and 75 pounds. The leak repair requirements do

apply because the threshold is a refrigerant charge of 50 pounds or greater. EPA is removing this

sentence to avoid this confusion. EPA received comments in support of this revision.

Critical component/Component

As proposed, EPA is removing the defined term critical component and adding the term

component. The term critical component was only used in the context of an extension for the

Page 89 of 403

repair of IPR when critical components could not be delivered within the necessary time. EPA is

amending the definition so that it is not limited to IPR, but also includes comfort cooling and

commercial refrigeration appliances. As discussed in Section IV.F of this notice, EPA is

applying the extensions for leak repairs to all types of appliances. The unavailability of a

component is not unique to IPR and EPA is granting all appliances the same flexibility to request

additional time. This revision to the regulatory definitions supports that flexibility.

EPA proposed to define component as “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.” Component is intended to be broader than critical component.

EPA considers components to include all 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. EPA is finalizing this definition substantially as proposed,

although it is replacing the word “loop” with “circuit,” as refrigerant circuit is a defined term in

the regulations.

Custom-built

As proposed, EPA is amending the definition of custom-built to remove a citation to a

section of the regulation that has moved.

Disposal

EPA proposed to amend the definition of disposal to clarify that the disposal process

includes the destruction of an appliance that releases or would release refrigerant to the

environment. This proposed revision is intended to cover activities such as vandalism or the

cutting of refrigerant lines, whether to steal metal or to vent the refrigerant or both. EPA also

Page 90 of 403

proposed to clarify that the disassembly of an appliance for recycling, as well as reuse, is part of

the disposal process.

One commenter stated that the regulatory definition of disposal is inconsistent with

EPA’s Sustainable Materials Management policy and with the RCRA definition of disposal at 40

CFR 260.10, which leads to regulatory confusion. The commenter seeks to clarify that the

recycling of appliances or components is separate from disposal. The commenter believes there

should be four definitions regarding recycling and disposal: 1) recycle refrigerant; 2) dispose of

refrigerant; 3) recycle an appliance; and 4) dispose of an appliance. The commenter finds that the

proposed revision to the definition confuses the distinction between recycling and disposal. The

commenter also finds that the word “destruction” is too broad if EPA is trying to address

vandalism, line-cutting, or theft and is concerned that the term equates recycling with such

unlawful activities.

EPA responds that the Agency addresses the recycling and disposal (or reclamation) of

refrigerant elsewhere in subpart F. The safe disposal provisions at §82.155 relate to the disposal

of appliances. The Clean Air Act in 608(a) refers to the “service, repair, and disposal of

appliances” and 608(c) refers to the “maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an

appliance” (emphases added). The manner in which the appliance is disposed of, whether by

recycling, landfilling, reuse of component parts, or another method is not addressed by the CAA.

For the purposes of section 608, what is relevant is that an action is taken on an appliance at the

end of its useful life that releases or would release refrigerant if the proper precautions are not

taken. EPA agrees it is appropriate to specify what is included in disposal for clarity but does not

agree that the term must have the same meaning in section 608 of the CAA as under RCRA or

the Sustainable Materials Management policy. The commenter does not make clear how the

Page 91 of 403

Agency’s Sustainable Materials Management policy is in conflict with the requirement in subpart

F to recover, or verify the prior recovery, of refrigerant in discarded appliances. EPA is finalizing

its proposal to include recycling for scrap as one of the methods by which an appliance may be

disposed.

Furthermore, EPA’s intent is to address the various actions taken upon an existing and

operational system that will effectively end its useful life and potentially release refrigerant. Both

recycling and vandalizing a fully charged appliance would have that effect, though EPA

recognizes the distinctions between those two actions. This revision is also consistent with a

recent court decision which found that cutting a functioning condenser unit and releasing

refrigerant into the environment constituted disposal of an appliance within the meaning of CAA

section 608 and its implementing regulations, even if the underlying intent was to steal and sell

the metal piping. United States v. Harrold, No. 2:15-mj-605 (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 28, 2015) (order

concluding that the complaint sufficiently charged a violation of the Act and that sufficient

evidence was presented to establish probable cause that defendant violated the Act).

See also

United States v. Morrissette, 579 F. App’x 916, 919 (11

Cir. 2014) (stating that defendant who

stole metal coils from commercial air conditioning units had violated the CAA regardless of the

underlying intent to steal copper). EPA is finalizing the definition of disposal substantially as

proposed. In response to the comment, EPA is replacing the word “destruction” with

“vandalism” to more specifically refer to actions such as line cutting and metal theft. The

vandalism would have to be of such a nature that it would release the refrigerant. EPA is also

separating “[t]he recycling of any appliance for scrap” from “[t]he disassembly of any appliance

for reuse of its component parts.” Both are considered disposal.

A copy of this opinion and other documents related to this case are available in the docket for this rulemaking.

Page 92 of 403

Follow-up verification test

EPA is amending the definition of follow-up verification test to remove duplicative text

that was also covered in §82.156(i). The revised definition describes what the test is and how it is

conducted, not the regulatory requirements of the test. The revised regulatory requirements are

found in §82.157(e). EPA is not specifying one test that would satisfy what constitutes a follow-

up verification test, but is providing an illustrative list of tests that would qualify. EPA does not

intend for this list to be all-inclusive, but rather to provide examples of known methodologies of

performing leak repair verification tests.

One commenter suggested that EPA modify the name of this test to follow-up leak repair

verification test. The commenter has found that over 40 percent of technicians who do not work

on IPR, where these tests were previously required, were confused about the distinction between

the initial and follow-up verification tests. The technicians indicated to the commenter that such

a name change would make it clearer that the tests are about the effectiveness of the repair. EPA

disagrees that changing the name of the test will improve technician’s abilities to conduct these

tests or reduce refrigerant emissions. It is understandable that technicians that do not work on

IPR equipment and are not trained in the procedures of subpart F that had previously only

applied to IPR would not be aware of the requirements. EPA is concerned that changing the

name of the test would confuse those who already know of the requirement. EPA is therefore

finalizing the definition of follow-up verification test as proposed.

Full Charge and Seasonal Variance

EPA is amending the definition of full charge to account for seasonal variances and to

make minor edits for readability. Owners or operators of commercial refrigeration appliances

and IPR have previously expressed concerns that the full charge may not be accurately

Page 93 of 403

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 is allowing owners or operators to account for seasonal variances by measuring the

actual amount of refrigerant added to or evacuated from the appliance. EPA is defining 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.

To further explain the definition of full charge, EPA is creating a defined term for

seasonal variance. This term means the removal of refrigerant from an appliance due to a change

in ambient conditions caused by a change in season, followed by the subsequent addition of an

amount that is less than or equal to the amount of refrigerant removed in the prior change in

season, where both the removal and addition of refrigerant occurs within one consecutive 12-

month period. A complete discussion of allowing for seasonal variances when calculating

appliance leak rates is found in Section IV.F of this preamble.

Page 94 of 403

EPA received several comments on the proposed definition of seasonal variance. Two

commenters recommended that EPA use the removal of refrigerant as the first step and the

addition of refrigerant as the second step. While EPA proposed the opposite framing, you can

measure the amount removed to be able to determine the amount that can be added in the next

season without triggering a leak rate calculation. EPA has adjusted the definition and the

narrative in the preamble accordingly.

Four commenters suggested that the amount added and removed does not always have to

be equal, as was proposed. EPA agrees that as long as the amount added is less than or equal to

the amount removed in the prior season, the addition will be considered a seasonal variance.

One commenter requested that EPA clarify whether the added refrigerant amount is to be

included in the full charge amount. The commenter is concerned that not reflecting the seasonal

variance could affect what is considered normal operating characteristics and conditions, which

would in turn affect when verification tests can be conducted. Another commenter proposed that

the maximum charge be used at all times when calculating the leak rate, regardless of what is

actually in the appliance at the time of repair.

Given the concerns raised by the commenter about including seasonal variances in the

appliance’s full charge to prevent problems with compliance with normal operating

characteristics and conditions, the full charge must be adjusted to account for the amount of

refrigerant removed or added for a seasonal variance if the full charge was calculated using any

method other than method four, since that method inherently includes a range. To be clear,

verification tests should be conducted regardless of whether the appliance contains extra

refrigerant to account for a seasonal variance. This could result in two “full charges,” one for

each season. EPA does not agree that it would be appropriate to use the maximum charge or the

Page 95 of 403

higher of the two full charge calculations because some seasonal variances are large enough that

adjusting the full charge would make significant difference in the leaks that would exceed the

applicable leak rate. Since this is an added flexibility, requiring slightly more recordkeeping is

warranted.

One commenter indicated that refrigerant charge should never be added or removed

throughout the year. While this may be true for some types of equipment, there are legitimate

situations where such additions or removals are appropriate, typically in larger commercial

refrigeration and industrial process refrigeration appliances. For example, one commenter cited

the instance of a seafood packer who may need to add refrigerant during crab season when the

refrigeration or freezing load spikes.

Finally, the Agency is allowing an owner or operator to choose a combination of methods

to determine full charge. There are instances where multiple methods may be necessary to

accurately determine the full charge. Further EPA is providing flexibility by not requiring that

owners or operators commit to the same method for the life of the appliance. EPA is requiring in

this final rule that owners or operators maintain 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 amending the definition of high-pressure appliance as proposed to update the list

of example refrigerants with the most commonly used refrigerants today. Because revisions to

appliance and refrigerant carry over into this term as well, under the revisions finalized in this

rule, high-pressure appliances include those that use ODS and non-ODS substitute refrigerants.

Industrial process refrigeration

Page 96 of 403

EPA is amending the definition of industrial process refrigeration as proposed to make

minor clarifications for readability and to remove a citation to a section of the regulation that has

moved.

Industrial process shutdown

EPA is amending the definition of industrial process shutdown as proposed to remove a

citation to a section of the regulation that has moved.

Initial verification test

EPA is amending the definition of initial verification test to remove duplicative text that

is also covered in the required practices section of the regulation. The revised definition

describes in general terms what the test is, not what the requirements of the test are. The purpose

of this test is to verify that a leak has been repaired prior to adding refrigerant back into the

system. The requirements for an initial leak repair verification test are described in Section

IV.F.8 of this notice and in §82.157(e)(1) of the revised regulation.

Leak inspection

EPA is creating a new defined term leak inspection. EPA proposed 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.

Some commenters recommended additional leak detection methods including: standing

pressure/vacuum decay tests, ultrasonic tests, periodic evacuations, gas-imaging cameras, sight

glass checks, viewing receiver levels, pressure checks, charging charts, and the sub-cooling

method (for expansion systems).

Page 97 of 403

In general, leak detection methods fall into two categories: ones that indicate that an

appliance is leaking; and ones that can identify the location of a leak. EPA stated in the proposal

that the proposed definition covers the techniques currently used to detect the location of leaks,

not activities that would assist only in determining whether a system is leaking generally without

providing information that would allow detection of the location of the leak. One commenter

stated that limiting leak inspections in such a manner increases the costs of conducting leak

inspections.

EPA responds that the purpose of a leak inspection is to determine the location of a leak,

not to determine whether an appliance is leaking. As discussed in Section IV.F.4 of this notice,

EPA is modifying the leak inspection requirement so that it is only required on appliances that

have exceeded the applicable leak rate. To repair a leak, the technician must be able to locate it.

Therefore, inspection methods that only indicate that the appliance is releasing refrigerant do not

provide the necessary information for a technician to repair leaks. Further leak inspections on the

repaired system may benefit from using a combination of methods to determine whether the

system continues to leak refrigerant, and if so, where.

Commenters also recommended that EPA remove some of the proposed inspection

methods. Multiple commenters recommended that EPA not include a visual inspection for oil

residue, as that is not a reliable indicator of a refrigerant leak. Similarly, some commenters noted

that the bubble test should be used in conjunction with another leak detection method due to its

low sensitivity or potential unreliability when performed outdoors. EPA agrees that a visual

inspection for oil residue is not dispositive and has removed that method from the list of leak

inspection methods included in the definition as finalized. EPA is including bubble tests in that

list because it may be appropriate in some circumstances. EPA is also strengthening the leak

Page 98 of 403

inspection by requiring under §82.157(g)(2) that it be performed by a certified technician, while

providing discretion for the technician to determine which methods are appropriate.

Some commenters also recommended that EPA remove the word “calibrated” because

some electronic leak detectors are self-calibrating while others do not require calibration.

Instead, these commenters suggested that EPA require that the devices be operated and

maintained according to manufacturer guidelines. Another commenter recommended that EPA

maintain the requirement that leak detection devices be calibrated. Given the variability of

equipment, EPA agrees with the comments suggesting that it is preferable to follow the

manufacturer guidelines. Thus, in this final definition EPA is replacing “calibrated leak detection

device” with “leak detection device operated and maintained according to manufacturer

guidelines” based on public comment.

In this final rule, EPA is providing a non-exhaustive list of methods for leak inspections,

and clarifying that techniques that only determine whether the appliance is leaking must be used

in combination with another method that can identify the location of the leak. In general,

commenters encouraged EPA to allow for or require multiple methods due to the limitations of

individual techniques in different circumstances. This approach is consistent with those

comments.

Leak rate

EPA proposed, and is now finalizing, one substantive change to the definition of leak rate

to change the calculation performed under what is called Method 2 under the prior rules. The

first step of that method has been 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

Page 99 of 403

since the last repair (if less than 365 days), EPA is amending Step 1 to cover the period of time

since the last successful follow-up verification test showing that all identified leaks were

successfully repaired (if less than 365 days have passed since the last refrigerant addition). The

goal of this change is to improve the clarity of the requirements. Under the prior definition, it

was unclear if the repair had to be successful in order to be considered in the leak rate

calculation. These revisions clarify that all identified leaks must be verified as having been

successfully repaired.

EPA is also renaming the two methods from Method 1 and Method 2 to “Annualizing

Method” and “Rolling Average Method” to improve readability. EPA is also finalizing the

proposed change 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).

EPA received three comments on this proposed definition. One commenter recommended

that EPA remove the Rolling Average Method for simplicity and change the Annualizing

Method such that the calculation is based on the time since the last successful follow-up

verification test instead of the last refrigerant addition. The commenter further recommended

changes to the Rolling Average Method, if EPA keeps it in the regulation, to better express the

amount of refrigerant that would be lost if that leak continued for a full year.

EPA responds that while reducing the number of leak rate calculation methods could

simplify the regulations, numerous appliance owners and operators have used the Rolling

Average method for years and they continue to seek flexibility. EPA does not see an

environmental benefit in reducing this flexibility. On the suggestions to change the Annualizing

and Rolling Average Methods, EPA is not adopting the suggestions. Broadly speaking, EPA

Page 100 of 403

interprets the comment to indicate that the Rolling Average Method should be more like the

Annualizing Method and vice versa such that they are effectively identical. This seems

unnecessary and confusing, and limits flexibility. Both methods have strengths that would be

undercut by the suggested changes.

The strength of the Annualizing Method is that it is future-oriented. It allows an owner or

operator to “close out” each leak event so long as the requirements are followed and does not

lump past leak events with the current leak event. It considers the amount of time since the last

refrigerant addition and then scales that up to provide a leak rate that projects the amount lost

over a whole year if not fixed. As a result, this formula will yield a higher leak rate for smaller

leaks if the amount of time since the last repair was shorter. This can have significant

environmental benefits by requiring more thorough leak inspections and verified repairs sooner.

The commenter’s suggested change would make this method too similar to the Rolling Average

Method for minimal, if any, benefit and could potentially increase the amount of time included in

each leak rate calculation. Stretching out the period of time covered could result in lower leak

rates depending on the situation.

The Rolling Average Method also has its strengths. It accounts for all refrigerant

additions over the past 365 days or since the last successful follow-up verification test showing

that all identified leaks were successfully repaired (if less than 365 days). If an owner or operator

verifies all identified leaks are repaired, this method would also allow an owner or operator to

“close out” a leak event. If there is no follow-up verification test showing that all identified leaks

were successfully repaired within the last year, the leak rate would be based completely on actual

leaks in the past year. This retrospective approach measures actual performance and if leaks are

identified and fixed quickly, an appliance may never reach the applicable leak rate.

Page 101 of 403

Two other commenters questioned the rationale for the change given the need to update

tracking software and provide staff training. EPA explained its rationale in the proposed rule and

earlier in this notice. Specifically, the change is needed to provide clarity that repairs must be

successful and verified in order to be considered in the calculation and to improve effectiveness

of the rule.

In this action, EPA is requiring that owners or operators use a prospective approach (the

Annualizing Method), that focuses on the current leak event rather than the size of past leaks, or

a retrospective approach (the Rolling Average Method), where past performance is key. If an

owner or operator repairs all identified leaks and verifies that the repairs have been successful,

then the Agency considers that a sufficient clearing event in that the leak rate has been brought

as close to zero as possible. We recognize that these changes may require modification to

software and technician training with the new requirements. For that reason, EPA intends to

develop several compliance assistance tools that will help technicians and owners/operators to

better understand the requirements. EPA has also delayed the compliance date for the appliance

maintenance and leak repair requirements to January 1, 2019, to allow time for the industry to

prepare for these changes.

Low-pressure appliance

EPA is amending the definition of low-pressure appliance to update the list of example

refrigerants with the most commonly used refrigerants today. Because revisions to appliance and

refrigerant carry over into this term as well, under the revisions finalized in this action, low-

pressure appliances include those that use ODS and non-ODS substitute refrigerants. EPA is

finalizing this definition as proposed.

Medium-pressure appliance

Page 102 of 403

EPA is amending the definition of medium-pressure appliance to update the list of

example refrigerants with the most commonly used refrigerants today. Because revisions to

appliance and refrigerant carry over into this term as well, under the revisions finalized in this

action, medium-pressure appliances include those that use ODS and non-ODS substitute

refrigerants. EPA is finalizing this definition as proposed.

Mothball

EPA proposed to revise the defined term system mothballing to mothball to reflect how it

is used in the regulations, and EPA is finalizing this definition as proposed. Mothballing an

appliance suspends the time needed to complete repairs, retrofit or retirement plans, or the actual

retrofit or retirement of appliances that have triggered the leak repair requirements. The previous

definition referred to refrigeration appliances, but the suspension is allowed for comfort cooling

appliances as well as commercial refrigeration and IPR systems. EPA is therefore removing the

reference to “refrigeration” appliances in the definition. The previous definition also required

that the appliance be shut down for “an extended period of time.” EPA is removing this phrase

because the Agency is not concerned about length of time that the system is shut down but rather

that the system has been removed from service temporarily, as opposed to permanently, and that

the refrigerant has been evacuated. The revised definition also notes that refrigerant can be

evacuated from an isolated component of the appliance if only an isolated section or component

is affected and makes minor edits to improve clarity and readability. EPA is also clarifying in

§82.157(d)(3) and §82.157(i) that the suspension of time ends when refrigerant is added back

into the appliance.

One commenter recommended that EPA allow the system to be filled with nitrogen or

another inert gas to protect the system while repair is in process. EPA responds that the

Page 103 of 403

regulations in subpart F do not prohibit or address this action, as long as the holding charge is an

inert gas and not a refrigerant as defined in this subpart. However, EPA is not making revisions

to address this point specifically, as the regulations in subpart F are concerned with refrigerants

and the nitrogen or other inert gas in this example is not being used as a refrigerant.

Normal operating characteristics and conditions

As proposed, EPA is changing 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 removing a

reference to a section of the regulation that has moved and adding 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, the revised definition clarifies

that this term applies to all appliances, not just refrigeration appliances.

Normally containing a quantity of refrigerant

As proposed, EPA is removing the defined term normally containing a quantity of

refrigerant. Because EPA is replacing this term with the phrase “with a full charge of” in the

regulatory text where the term occurred, this definition is no longer needed.

One-time expansion device

EPA is amending the definition of one-time expansion device as proposed to clarify that

this includes devices that can store multiple charges, which are released individually to the

environment to provide a cooling effect.

Opening an appliance

EPA proposed to amend the definition of opening an appliance to improve readability.

EPA is finalizing this amended definition as proposed.

Page 104 of 403

Reclaim

As proposed, EPA is changing the defined term reclaim refrigerant to reclaim so as to

match usage in the regulatory text and to update the Air Conditioning, Refrigeration, and Heating

Institute (AHRI) standard referenced in the definition. Because revisions to refrigerant carry

over into the definition for this term, it is appropriate to use the updated AHRI standard which

also includes non-ODS substitute refrigerants.

Recover

As proposed, EPA is changing the defined term recover refrigerant to recover so as to

match usage elsewhere in the regulatory text.

Recycle

In the context of recycling refrigerant, EPA is finalizing revisions to the defined term

recycle refrigerant to recycle so as to match usage elsewhere in the regulatory text. The revised

term also clarifies that reuse of recycled refrigerant must occur in equipment of the same owner.

This revision facilitates consistency with the prohibition in §82.154(g) of the existing rules on

the sale of used refrigerant unless it has either 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 finalizing this definition substantially as proposed.

Refrigerant

EPA is amending the definition of refrigerant, for the purposes of subpart F, to include

both ODS and substitutes that are used for heat transfer purposes and provides a cooling effect.

This amended definition is closer to how the term is commonly understood, based on its

functional properties. From an engineering standpoint, it is irrelevant whether or not a compound

Page 105 of 403

is an ODS to function as a refrigerant. Broadening the term also brings another term in subpart F

that contains this term, refrigerant circuit, more in line with common usage.

One commenter stated that EPA does not have authority to regulate substitutes to the

same extent as class I and class II ODS and thus the Agency is prohibited from redefining

refrigerant to include substitutes. EPA is revising the definition of refrigerant under subpart F

for purposes of interpreting, explaining, and enforcing the venting prohibition, which applies to

substitute refrigerants as well as to ODS refrigerants. EPA is not revising the definition of

refrigerant for other subparts under part 82. EPA addresses comments about its authority for this

action in Section III of this notice.

Retire

EPA is creating a defined term retire. EPA proposed retire to mean, in reference to

appliances, 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.

One commenter recommended that retire not include the phrase “such that the retired

appliance as a whole cannot be used by any person in the future.” The commenter is concerned

that this could prevent the reuse of certain equipment parts. Furthermore, the owner/operator has

no means to determine the ultimate fate of the retired appliance or components. Another

commenter stated that the requirement to render the appliance unfit for use by the current or

future owner is unnecessary because retired appliances typically use an older refrigerant and are

not economical to purchase. Requiring that the owner do something to render the unit unfit for

use would impose an unnecessary burden. EPA responds that the term retire concerns the

continued use of that appliance as a whole. All of the working components of a retired appliance

Page 106 of 403

could be disassembled and resold to be used in multiple other appliances because the original

appliance, as a whole, is no longer operating.

Another commenter stated that appliances may be retired without being completely

disassembled. This comment stated that often, especially for IPR, appliances can be abandoned

in place for a considerable length of time; so long as an appliance is made inoperable and

permanently shut down it should be considered retired. This commenter provided recommended

language which accurately describes the necessary state of the appliance “rendered unusable”

and notes that any remaining refrigerant would be recovered from the appliance. EPA is

finalizing the definition of retire that largely matches the definition suggested by this commenter

because it more accurately describes the intent of what the Agency proposed.

As discussed in the proposed rule, retirement differs from mothballing, as defined at

§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 of an appliance.

Retirement should also not be confused with a repair. Repair is not expressly defined in the

subpart F regulations. Repair 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 further use. 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 creating a defined term retrofit. Many appliance owners or operators have

incorrectly equated retrofit with repair and EPA received one comment on the proposed rule

Page 107 of 403

requesting additional examples of activities and refrigerant conversions that would qualify as a

retrofit.

EPA is finalizing this definition as proposed. EPA uses retrofit to refer to a change to the

appliance in order to convert it to the use of a different refrigerant. In response to the comment

requesting the addition of examples of activities or refrigerant conversions, EPA concludes that it

is not necessary to include additional examples of activities in the definition. Further, EPA is not

specifying the type of refrigerants that are being converted, though typically retrofits have

involved the replacement of an ODS with a non-ozone depleting substitute. 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. Sometimes very few or

no changes to the appliance are necessary to convert from one refrigerant to another. That would

still be a retrofit because the refrigerant has changed.

Retrofit does not apply to upgrades or repairs to existing equipment where the refrigerant

is not changed. EPA generally 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 but changing the refrigerant would

make the action a retrofit.

Self-sealing valve

EPA is finalizing its proposal to create a defined term self-sealing valve. Under this

definition, self-sealing valve is 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 §82.154(c)(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

Page 108 of 403

container of refrigerant. The requirement for self-sealing valves for small cans of MVAC

refrigerant is discussed in more detail in Section IV.C.

Small appliance

EPA is finalizing proposed amendments to the definition of small appliance to remove

the reference to class I and class II refrigerants. Because revisions to appliance and refrigerant

carry over into this term as well, under the revisions finalized in this rulemaking small

appliances include those that use ODS and non-ODS substitute refrigerants. EPA is also adding

portable air conditioners to the list of example small appliances.

One commenter requested that EPA specifically exclude MVACs and MVAC-like

appliances from this definition. The commenter believes that without such an exclusion those

types of appliances would be included in the revised definition of small appliance, which it

characterizes as including any appliance charged with five pounds or less of refrigerant, and be

subject to regulations that apply to small appliances. EPA responds that MVACs and MVAC-

like appliances are not small appliances even though the charge sizes may be similar. Small

appliances must be hermetically sealed, which MVACs and MVAC-like appliances are not.

Another commenter noted that EPA has specifically granted an exemption for the

manufacture of small appliances in subpart B and urged EPA to preserve that exclusion in

subpart F for MVACs. The commenter points to the definition of motor vehicle in subpart B.

EPA responds that the definition of motor vehicle air conditioner in subpart F is simply a

reference to subpart B. Thus, the use of MVAC in subpart F has the meaning granted to it in

subpart B and this rule does not remove the exclusion granted for the assembly of MVACs in

subpart B. EPA disagrees that it is necessary to clarify this point by amending the definition of

appliance, which is a broader category, nor is it appropriate to amend the definition of small

Page 109 of 403

appliance in the manner in which the commenter recommends. See discussion under the

definition of appliance for additional information.

Substitute

EPA is finalizing proposed amendments to the definition of 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. The Agency has 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 has also recently proposed to make

additional changes (81 FR 22810; April 18, 2016). 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 substitute, and thus by extension refrigerant. Were that the case, those substances would

be exempted from the safe handling requirements of subpart F, or even the venting prohibition,

despite still being used as refrigerants. EPA intends for those substances to continue to be subject

to those requirements where they are being used as refrigerants. Accordingly, EPA is finalizing

this revision to prevent that confusion, especially since the Agency allows 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.

Under the revised definition, any chemical or product, whether existing or new, that is

used by any person as a replacement refrigerant 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 or has not been submitted to or reviewed by the SNAP program. One

commenter stated that by limiting the definition of substitute to replacements for ODS, EPA

Page 110 of 403

could be unintentionally permitting new replacements to HFCs, as opposed to ODS, to be

beyond the scope of subpart F. Another commenter suggested that the term be limited to the

SNAP-approved list of substitutes but provided no reasons for such a limitation.

EPA responds that in 2004, the Agency affirmed an inclusive view of the scope of

substitutes under subpart F. In that rule, it stated:

Under section 608, EPA considers a SNAP-approved refrigerant a ‘substitute’ for CFC or

HCFC refrigerants under section 608 if any of the following is the case: (1) The

substitute refrigerant immediately replaced a CFC or HCFC in a specific instance, (2) the

substitute refrigerant replaced another substitute that replaced a CFC or HCFC in a

specific instance (i.e., it was a second-or later-generation substitute), or (3) the substitute

refrigerant has always been used in a particular instance, but other users in that end-use

have used it to replace a CFC or HCFC. (March 12, 2004; 69 FR 11958)

EPA continues to hold this interpretation, except that for the reasons discussed above, EPA no

longer maintains the position that substitutes must be approved under SNAP in order to be

considered a refrigerant under section 608 when the substance is used as a refrigerant. In

addition, the phrase “any chemical or product, whether existing or new” makes clear that the

term is to be applied broadly, even to compounds that do not yet exist or have not yet been

developed.

Other commenters recommended that EPA explicitly state the types of refrigerants that

are considered substitutes. The proposal stated that 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, as long as those substances have not been

exempted from the venting prohibition. To the extent these comments are suggesting that EPA

should provide some examples as a non-exhaustive list in the definition, EPA agrees that this

increases clarity and EPA has added a non-exhaustive list of examples of substances that would

be included in this definition, as well as clarifying that blends of such substances are also

Page 111 of 403

included. This approach also matches other definitions in subpart F that have similar lists of

examples. To the extent the commenters are suggesting that EPA establish an exhaustive list of

substances that would qualify as substitutes, EPA does not agree such a list is needed or would

be feasible to include. Including such a list would also be unadvisable given the continued

development of new substitutes. Therefore, the definition provides an illustrative list of

substances that are included.

To provide clarity, EPA is adding mention of the venting prohibition in the definition of

substitute. While EPA is finalizing its interpretation that carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water,

ammonia, chlorine, hydrocarbons, and R-441A are substitutes, the regulations as finalized make

clear that when these substitutes are used as refrigerants in the end-uses specified in

§82.154(a)(1), they are exempt from the requirements of subpart F and can be referred to as

“exempt” substitutes. Similarly, the term “non-exempt substitutes” as used in this subpart refers

to all other substitutes and end-uses not specified in §82.154(a)(1) as exempt from the venting

prohibition. This clarification is only for purposes of the subpart F regulations, and should not be

construed to affect any other subpart.

One commenter requested that the regulations include the phrase “non-exempt

refrigerants” more frequently so that the reader does not have to understand that the regulatory

definition of refrigerants excludes substitutes that are exempted from the venting prohibition.

EPA responds that while exempt substitutes are included in the regulatory definition of

refrigerant, the regulatory text has been revised to clarify that the obligations under subpart F do

not apply to exempt substitutes. EPA has included in the definition of substitute a description of

the terms “exempt substitutes” and “non-exempt substitutes” with reference to §82.154(a)(1),

which provides that exempt substitutes are exempt from the requirements of this subpart, so that

Page 112 of 403

readers of the regulation can follow EPA’s intent from the definition. EPA has also added

references in the regulation to class I, class II, and non-exempt substitute refrigerants, where

applicable, to be clear which refrigerants are subject to the provisions.

Suitable replacement refrigerant

EPA is removing the defined term suitable replacement refrigerant. As discussed in

discussed in Section IV.F.10 of this notice, EPA is removing the extension to retrofit or retire an

appliance using an ODS refrigerant if a suitable replacement refrigerant with a lower ozone

depletion potential is unavailable. It is therefore appropriate to remove the term from the list of

definitions.

System receiver

EPA is finalizing the creation of a defined term system receiver to provide clarity to the

reader and improve the organization of these regulations, by providing a definition of this term in

a location where the reader might expect to find it. Under the added definition, a system receiver

is 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. This definition was

previously included only in a parenthetical in the regulatory text at §82.156(a), which describes

the required practices to properly evacuate refrigerant from an appliance. The definition added in

this rule does not introduce any new practices to the evacuation requirements. EPA is also

removing the parenthetical in §82.156(a), as it is no longer needed.

Technician

EPA is amending the definition of technician to improve clarity. As revised, the

definition highlights that the determining factor for being a technician is performing actions that

could reasonably be expected to violate the integrity of the refrigerant circuit. In general, only

Page 113 of 403

people who have completed the technician certification process 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 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, as defined within subpart F. This exception is explicitly

included in the definition finalized in this action. This revision is not intended to affect the scope

of the existing requirements but rather to respond to requests from stakeholders prior to the

publication of the proposed rule that the Agency clarify which activities must be conducted by

technicians and which need not be. EPA received comments stating that the proposed revision

would require persons maintaining, servicing, or repairing MVACs to be technicians. EPA did

not intend to impose that requirement and has corrected that in the final rule. EPA also edited the

regulations in the sales restriction in §82.154(c) to ensure that technician applies only to

technicians authorized under section 608 and not persons authorized under section 609.

The prior definition of technician also included 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 proposed to edit these examples to improve 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

finalizing the definition substantially as proposed, including the two new example activities that

are reasonably expected to violate the integrity of the refrigerant circuit, and with the

modifications from the proposal described above related to MVACs and persons authorized

under section 609.

Page 114 of 403

Very high-pressure appliance

EPA is finalizing amendments to the definition of very high-pressure appliance to update

the list of example refrigerants with the most commonly used refrigerants today. Because

revisions to appliance and refrigerant carry over into this term as well, under the revised

definition very high-pressure appliances include those that use ODS and non-ODS substitute

refrigerants.

Voluntary certification program

EPA is finalizing the proposed removal of 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.

As discussed in Section IV.J.4 below, EPA is removing these grandfathering provisions in this

action because they are no longer needed and therefore is removing the definition as well.

B. Revisions to the venting prohibition in section 82.154(a)

1. Background

As explained in Section III of this notice, under the revisions finalized in this rule,

§82.154(a) prohibits the venting of ODS refrigerants and non-ODS substitute refrigerants to the

environment by persons maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance. This

provision 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 threat

to the environment when released. As revised, 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 and non-exempt substitute refrigerants to be

Page 115 of 403

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

As explained in more detail earlier in this notice, the knowing venting, release, or

disposal of substitutes for class I and class II refrigerants in the course of maintaining, servicing,

repairing, or disposing 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. 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 both 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.

Prior to this rulemaking, for class I and II substances EPA had interpreted as de minimis

those releases that occur despite compliance with EPA’s required practices under the previous

regulations for recycling and recovery, use of certified recovery and/or recycling equipment, and

technician certification programs. EPA interpreted compliance with those regulations to

represent “good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose” of refrigerant.

Accordingly, the prior regulations at §82.154(a)(2) provided 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. Although the prior regulations at §82.154(a) exempted de

Page 116 of 403

minimis releases of non-exempt substitutes from the venting prohibition, those regulations did

not provide any express guidance for such substitutes as to what practices are considered “good

faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose” of the substitute such that incidental

releases would qualify for the de minimis exemption.

EPA interprets 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 provisions regarding the

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 would represent “good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose” of

non-exempt substitute refrigerants. EPA considers these provisions to appropriately represent

good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of such substitute refrigerants. For

example, the proper use of certified recovery equipment and the evacuation of refrigerant to

prescribed standards would be considered a good faith attempt to recapture and recycle or safely

dispose of non-exempt substitute refrigerants when maintaining, servicing, repairing, or

disposing of an appliance.

Under this approach, releases are only considered de minimis if they occur when these

procedures, or those under subpart B, are followed. Conversely, emissions that take place during

maintenance, servicing, repair, or disposal when these provisions are not followed are not de

minimis emissions and are subject to the venting prohibition. While these principles were clearly

expressed in the prior regulations for ODS, the prior regulations did not clearly establish what

practices the regulated community would need to follow in order to qualify for the de minimis

exemption and to comply with the venting prohibition while maintaining, servicing, repairing, or

Page 117 of 403

disposing of equipment containing non-exempt substitute refrigerants. With the revisions

finalized in this rule, EPA is clarifying how the venting prohibition and de minimis exemption

apply to non-exempt substitute refrigerants, to increase certainty for and facilitate compliance by

the regulated community, as well as further explaining its interpretation of these statutory

provisions.

It is impossible to open an appliance (or otherwise violate the refrigerant circuit) or

dispose of an appliance without emitting some of the refrigerant in the circuit. 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 finalizing revisions that

define the exception for substitute refrigerants such that it only applies when the person complies

with the existing refrigerant management provisions, compliance with those 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).

Page 118 of 403

One commenter stated that it fails to see why it would be unclear to the regulated

community that the same de minimis exemption applicable to class I and II substances applies

equally to substitutes. Section 608(c)(1) provides a specific de minimis exemption. Paragraph 1

contains the de minimis language, so that language clearly applies to the intentional

venting/release of substitutes under paragraph 2. In other words, the de minimis language in

section 608(c)(1) is expressly applicable to section 608(c)(2), and there is no ambiguity that EPA

needs to clarify.

EPA agrees with the comment that the statute applies the de minimis exemption to

substitute refrigerants. This statutory interpretation supports the revisions finalized in this rule.

The statutory ambiguity arises because neither section 608(c)(1) or (2) specifically define what

releases would qualify for the de minimis exemption or what would be considered “good faith

attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose” of such a substance. The Agency previously

established regulations clarifying what releases would be considered exempt from the venting

prohibition under the de minimis exemption for ODS refrigerants. 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 the previous §82.156, use of recovery and/or recycling

equipment certified under §82.158, and technician certification programs under §82.161 as

falling within the de minimis exemption. Because the de minimis language in section 608(c)(1) is

directly applicable to section 608(c)(2), it is reasonable for EPA to choose to use the same

regulations to clarify which releases of non-exempt substitute refrigerants qualify for the de

minimis exception. These regulations accordingly fill a gap in the statute and the prior

regulations relating to the definition of the de minimis exemption and the phrase “good faith

attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose” for non-exempt substitute refrigerants

Page 119 of 403

Another commenter stated that EPA must distinguish between provisions interpreting and

enforcing the venting prohibition and other provisions implementing the statutory requirements

to “minimize the use and emission” and “maximize the recapture and recycling” of class I and

class II substances. In the commenter’s view, the leak repair program is clearly related to the

latter requirements. In addition, to the extent that a regulatory violation such as recordkeeping

does not cause a release, EPA cannot use that as a violation of the venting prohibition. The

comment concludes that all de minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to recover or

recycle refrigerants are exempt regardless of regulatory compliance.

EPA disagrees that there is a subset of the provisions finalized in this action that does not

interpret, explain, or enforce the venting prohibition and is only aimed at minimizing the use and

emission or maximizing the recapture and recycling of refrigerants. Under the prior regulations

with regard to ODS, the regulatory text has long used the required practices under subpart F,

including the leak repair provisions under the prior §82.156(i), to clarify which emissions will

qualify for the de minimis exemption and thus not run afoul of the venting prohibition. The

stakeholder community has appeared to accept this structure, and the interpretation of the venting

prohibition it embodies, as it related to ODS. As described above in more detail, EPA is

extending this regulatory structure which has long interpreted and enforced the venting

prohibition for ODS to do the same for the venting prohibition as it applies to non-exempt

substitute refrigerants. The fact that these requirements may also be related to minimizing the use

and emission or maximizing the recapture and recycling of ODS refrigerants does not preclude

EPA from using those requirements to clarify how the venting prohibition applies to non-exempt

substitute refrigerants. Nor does it prevent EPA from choosing to interpret, explain, and enforce

the de minimis exemption for ODS and non-exempt substitutes through consistent requirements.

Page 120 of 403

EPA is extending this regulatory structure to non-exempt substitutes to clarify its interpretation

of the ambiguous statutory phrase “de minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to

recover or recycle refrigerants” and to enhance certainty that emissions that occur while

complying with the regulations are covered by this exemption. After the revisions finalized in

this rule, releases of non-exempt substitutes will be considered de minimis only if they occur

when the specified requirements are satisfied.

In addition, EPA does not agree with the comment’s implication that the leak repair

program relates only to minimizing the use and emission or maximizing the recapture and

recycling of refrigerants. For example, leak repair is a type of servicing and releases of non-

exempt substitutes that occur in the course of repairing leaks as required by the leak repair

program could violate the venting prohibition. As such, it is reasonable to clarify in the

regulations that releases of non-exempt substitutes that are incidental to repairing leaks as

required by the regulations will not be considered to violate the venting prohibition. In

establishing the recordkeeping requirements in this rule, EPA is not suggesting that every failure

to comply with a recordkeeping requirement would necessarily result in a violation of the

venting prohibition. But in any event a failure to comply with a recordkeeping requirement

would certainly be a violation of section 114.

Another commenter stated that there is no basis in the text of the CAA to assert that the

venting prohibition is self-effectuating but that the de minimis exemption is not. It may be

reasonable to interpret de minimis to mean in compliance with a comprehensive regulatory

program when such a program is already authorized, but EPA cannot create a comprehensive

regulatory program from that term. The commenter believes that it would be reasonable to

Page 121 of 403

interpret de minimis as those releases that occur when following best practices that occur while

maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance.

While the prohibition on venting under section 608(c) is self-effectuating, meaning the

prohibition itself is legally binding even without implementing regulations, the statutory terms

contain ambiguity. For example, the terms “de minimis releases” and “good faith attempts to

recapture and recycle or safely dispose” are not specifically defined in section 608(c)(1) or

(c)(2). Accordingly, it is appropriate for EPA to clarify in its regulations how it interprets and

will apply those terms. As described in greater detail above, EPA is finalizing revisions to the

section 608 regulations to further interpret and explain the venting prohibition and increase its

enforceability by giving greater clarity and certainty as to which releases it views as being

covered by the de minimis exemption. Addressing the application of the venting prohibition and

the de minimis exemption through rulemaking provides advance notice to regulated entities; this

is in contrast to case-by-case application, which would be the approach in the absence of

rulemaking.

Further, even if we agreed with the comment that the term de minimis does not support

development of a comprehensive regulatory program, EPA is not creating such a program

through this rule. Rather, it is extending a regulatory program that already exists and serves to

interpret and enforce the venting prohibition and de minimis exemption for ODS and using those

same requirements for the same purpose for non-exempt substitute refrigerants. Although EPA

could have chosen a different method to interpret and enforce the venting prohibition for non-

exempt substitute refrigerants, for reasons described elsewhere in this rule, EPA is electing to

regulate ODS refrigerants and non-exempt substitute refrigerants consistently.

3. Exempting Certain Substitutes from the Venting Prohibition

Page 122 of 403

EPA proposed to explicitly state in the regulatory text that the substitutes exempted from

the venting prohibition in §82.154(a)(1) are also exempt from the other provisions of subpart F.

EPA also proposed to reorganize the list of exempt substitutes by refrigerant type for readability.

EPA did not propose to revise the listed end-uses or propose to add or remove any substitutes

from the list.

Multiple commenters supported EPA’s proposal to extend the existing regulations to

HFCs and other non-exempt substitutes for the clarity it would provide to manufacturers and

technicians. Other commenters recommended that EPA treat all refrigerants (including exempt

substitutes like hydrocarbons, ammonia, and carbon dioxide) equally in all aspects of the subpart

F regulations, including recovery and reclamation, technician certification, leak detection, and

recordkeeping. Consistent application of the regulations to all refrigerants, the commenters say,

would reinforce essential refrigerant management practices for all systems, reduce leaks,

improve safety, and improve the operating efficiency of equipment. The commenters say that all

refrigerants, other than water and some HFOs, have either flammability properties, higher GWP

properties, or properties hazardous to human health (toxicity, risk of asphyxiation, frostbite, etc).

Another commenter was opposed to exempting refrigerants that may be vented from the broader

subpart F requirements (with the possible exception of systems using water, nitrogen, or carbon

dioxide) as it viewed such an exemption as a dramatic expansion of the exemption to the venting

prohibition. The commenter states that establishing a separate class of equipment that does not

require proper refrigerant management practices will only increase confusion in the field and

exacerbate the problem of illegal venting.

EPA agrees with the comments that the extension of the subpart F regulations increases

clarity. EPA disagrees that its clarification that exempt substitutes are not subject to the subpart F

Page 123 of 403

requirements is an expansion of the exemption since the service practices and requirements in

subpart F had previously only applied to ODS refrigerant. There are a couple of reasons for

EPA’s present view that it is appropriate not to extend the provisions of subpart F to refrigerants

that have been exempted from the venting prohibition. First, EPA has previously determined that

the release of these substances do not pose a threat to the environment or are already controlled

by other authorities. (See 69 FR 11949, 80 FR 19454, and 81 FR 22810). Given those decisions,

it would generally not make sense to require all procedures for recovery or safe disposal, or to

apply all other provisions of subpart F to those exempt refrigerants. This is consistent with the

intent of section 608(c)(2), which states that substitutes may be exempted from the venting

prohibition if the Administrator determines that not just the venting but also the “releasing, or

disposing” of such substance does not pose a threat to the environment.

Second, the refrigerant management practices in subpart F may be inappropriate for some

of the exempted refrigerants. For example, the venting of exempt hydrocarbon refrigerants in

certain end-uses may be the safest option for technicians at this time, considering that such

refrigerants are flammable but most existing recovery equipment were not designed and

constructed, e.g. with spark-proof components, for use on flammable refrigerants. As long as the

Administrator has determined that such venting of those substances in those end-uses does not

pose a threat to the environment, such venting is legal and may be safer than following the

subpart F requirements in some circumstances.

4. Releases from Containers

EPA is moving the previous regulatory provision in §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

Page 124 of 403

subparagraph (§82.154(a)(3)) rather than its previous 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.

The venting prohibition cannot be circumvented by 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. EPA did not receive any comments on this provision and

is finalizing it as proposed.

C. Revisions to the refrigerant and appliance sales restrictions in section 82.154

1. Background

Under the prior regulations at §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 certified under section 609.

The prior regulations at §82.154(g) also restricted 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) prohibited 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) prohibited the manufacture or import

Page 125 of 403

of one-time expansion devices that contain any refrigerant (ODS or non-ODS), other than

exempted refrigerants.

2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants

Through today’s rule, EPA is extending the sales restriction to HFCs and other non-

exempt substitute refrigerants. This sales restriction applies to non-exempt substitute refrigerants

sold in all sizes of containers for use in all types of appliances, including MVACs. EPA is

creating 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 restricting the

sale of used non-exempt substitute refrigerants.

Since 1993, EPA has 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 sections 608 and 609 of the CAA. This requirement also relates to

EPA’s Next Generation Compliance strategy since compliance with this requirement is largely

carried out by distributors who sell refrigerant to technicians. In this rulemaking, EPA is

choosing to apply the same requirements for sales of ODS and non-exempt substitutes. Limiting

the sale of non-exempt substitute refrigerants to technicians who have demonstrated knowledge

of safe handling practices helps minimize the release of refrigerants during the maintenance,

servicing, and repair of appliances containing such substitute refrigerants. A sales restriction for

non-exempt substitute refrigerants also provides important support to the extension of the

technician certification requirements to individuals working with non-exempt substitute

refrigerants.

Page 126 of 403

Generally, commenters are supportive of EPA’s proposal and agree with EPA’s rationale.

Commenters who are generally opposed to extending EPA’s regulations under section 608 to

substitutes did not specifically raise the issue of whether EPA had authority to extend the sales

restriction to HFCs and other non-exempt substitute refrigerants. EPA addresses the general

comments about its authority for extending the refrigerant management regulations, as

appropriate, to non-exempt substitute refrigerants in Section III of this notice. Some commenters

stated that the sales restriction should be extended to hydrocarbons. These commenters noted that

the flammability of these refrigerants poses far greater risks than that of R-22 when handling it

and servicing equipment. Because the sales restriction is an element of the broader technician

certification provisions of subpart F, EPA responds to comments concerning the sale and

handling of flammable refrigerants in Section IV.I of this notice.

3. Sales of Small Cans

a. What is EPA finalizing concerning small cans of MVAC refrigerant?

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 in the air-conditioning

and refrigeration sector to the MVAC end-use. As mentioned previously in this notice, EPA is

finalizing the extension of the sales restriction to non-exempt substitutes. EPA is also finalizing

an exemption from the sales restriction for small cans of MVAC refrigerant that are

manufactured with a self-sealing valve to minimize the release of refrigerant during servicing

because the Agency has concluded that restricting the sale of small cans of refrigerant for use in

servicing MVAC would be unnecessarily burdensome. If EPA extended the sales restriction to

substitute refrigerants without exempting small cans, the sale of both small containers of

refrigerant, which are used for DIY servicing of MVAC systems, and typical size (e.g., 25- or

Page 127 of 403

30-pound) cylinders of refrigerant used by technicians to service MVAC and other appliances

would be limited to certified technicians.

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 are cans of HFC-134a.

More recently, the SNAP program listed HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a,

and carbon dioxide (CO

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

finalized in this rule, the 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 CO

is exempt from the

venting prohibition, it is not subject to the sales restrictions and certification is not required for

its purchase in any size container. EPA has not received a submission of a unique fitting for use

on a small can of HFO-1234yf; therefore, at this time this refrigerant cannot be sold in small cans

to individuals, regardless of the exemption finalized in this rule.

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

without the exemption for small cans with self-sealing valves, 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

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.

Page 128 of 403

and Benefits of Final Revisions to the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program in

the docket.

EPA’s proposal to exempt small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC systems that are

equipped with a self-sealing valve was informed by input from 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. EPA also reached out to CARB and other

industry representatives as discussed in the NPRM. Based on California’s experience, EPA

proposed the exemption for small cans equipped with self-sealing valves as 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 reduce releases from the can

after the servicing is complete.

Manufacturers already produce small cans with self-sealing valves to meet California’s

requirements. According to industry representatives and CARB, self-sealing valves are estimated

to cost $0.25 per can. In light of that information, EPA does not find it to be unduly burdensome

to add self-sealing valves to all small 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 to

non-certified persons. 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 a self-sealing valve. Thus, EPA has

determined that self-sealing valves are an effective mechanism for controlling the release of non-

exempt substitute refrigerants to the atmosphere, making it unnecessary to impose burdensome

training and/or certification requirements more broadly at this time.

Page 129 of 403

As described in Analysis of the Economic Impact and Benefits of Final 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 0.657

MMTCO

eq. 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 –from which it will

ultimately be released to the environment. EPA estimates that the annual cost for this

requirement would be approximately $3 million with the cost decreasing over time as

manufacturers increase production and achieve greater economies of scale.

EPA is finalizing a new appendix E establishing 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.

b. How is EPA responding to comments about this topic?

EPA received comments from several manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of

automotive refrigerant, and associations representing them, in support of requiring that the small

cans be outfitted with self-sealing valves and not restricting the sale of small cans to certified

technicians. EPA also received comments from multiple industry associations and CARB

supporting these provisions.

Page 130 of 403

Two environmental organizations were opposed to the proposed exemption for small

cans equipped with self-sealing valves. The commenters recommend that only certified

technicians be allowed to purchase MVAC refrigerant, regardless of the container size. The

commenters believe that the DIY community is a large source of emissions of automotive

refrigerant. Specifically, they claimed that emissions occur because DIYers are untrained in the

use of the product, they vent remaining refrigerant from the MVAC prior to recharging it

because they do not own recovery and recycling equipment, and they are merely filling, rather

than repairing, a leaking system. One of the commenters estimated the annual emissions of

automotive refrigerant at 18 MMTCO

eq.

EPA responds that DIY servicing is unique to the MVAC end-use, as discussed

previously in this notice. EPA did not propose to restrict the sale of small cans of MVAC

refrigerant to certified technicians, explaining its concerns that such a requirement could be

unnecessarily burdensome (80 FR 69479; Nov. 9, 2015). If EPA were to prohibit DIY servicing,

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. In the short term,

EPA has concluded that requiring small cans of refrigerant to have self-sealing valves is an

effective mechanism for controlling the release of refrigerant to the atmosphere by DIYers from

the can of refrigerant. In the longer term, the transition to new MVAC refrigerants will reduce

emissions of high GWP refrigerants from DIY servicing at little to no cost for DIYers.

EPA has estimated that the requirement for self-sealing valves on small cans of

refrigerant will reduce refrigerant emissions by 0.657 MMTCO

eq. per year compared to the

current status. Self-sealing valves prevent emissions of the gas remaining in the can after the

Page 131 of 403

system is fully filled. Currently, if a system takes 1.5 cans to fill, the DIYer will have no choice

but to allow the extra 0.5 can to be released to the environment after detaching it. Furthermore,

because self-sealing valves allow individuals to store and re-use the same can of refrigerant,

there may be less need to buy additional small cans. CARB has claimed benefits of 0.25–0.47

MMTCO2eq for their small can program in 2020. However, because their program includes

more than just self-sealing valves (e.g., refundable deposits), the benefits are not directly

comparable. CARB has noted a reduction in sales of small cans of 1.1 million to 1.9 million

cans, which they attribute to the effectiveness in the valves and the displacement of new

purchases by later use of the remaining heel.

EPA received one comment from a chemical manufacturer stating that they would

support the continued sale of small cans without self-sealing valves but limit those sales to

certified technicians under section 609. EPA does not see the benefit of restricting the sale of

small cans to people certified under section 609 since small cans of refrigerant that do not have

self-sealing valves are inherently emissive. Being certified under section 609 would not prevent

the emission of the refrigerant from the heel of the can.

Commenters who oppose the sale of small cans generally do support the requirement to

use self-sealing valves if there is not a total ban on sales. One commenter also strongly

recommended that EPA allow the sale of small cans of HFO-1234yf and HFC-152a so that DIY

consumers will not be enticed to recharge their HFO-1234yf system with HFC-134a for the lack

of any alternative. EPA responds that the regulations at §82.154(c)(1)(x) as revised in this action

include any non-exempt substitute refrigerant that is intended for use in an MVAC. Therefore,

small cans of HFO-1234yf and HFC-152a would be exempt from the sales restriction but also

have the same requirements for unique fittings and self-sealing valves under section 608. As

Page 132 of 403

discussed previously in this notice, HFO-1234yf cannot currently be sold in small cans because a

submission has not yet been made to SNAP for a unique fitting for small cans of HFO-1234yf.

This action under section 608 does not prohibit the sale of any MVAC refrigerant alternative in a

small can; however, refrigerants must be listed as acceptable or acceptable subject to use

conditions for MVAC and unique fittings for small cans must be established under section 612 of

the CAA prior to use

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 into a system using any other refrigerant, including CFC-12, HFO-1234yf, or

another approved substitute refrigerant. Using an adapter or deliberately modifying a fitting to

use a different refrigerant is a violation of the SNAP use conditions. Unique fittings will also

reduce the likelihood that a small can will be used to service appliances other than MVACs that

use non-exempt substitute refrigerants, which would be in contravention of the sales restriction.

Refrigerant sold for MVAC servicing is also different than other refrigerant because of

the limited types of equipment that could be serviced with a small can. First, many household

appliances that use refrigerants are hermetically sealed, like a refrigerator. Someone who wanted

to open that appliance would need greater skill and specialized equipment to service the

appliance since there would not be a servicing port to access. This makes it less likely that

homeowners would attempt to use a small can to service other small household appliances.

“Use” is defined at 40 CFR 82.172 to include “use in a manufacturing process or product, in consumption by the

end-user, or in intermediate uses, such as formulation or packaging for other subsequent uses.”

Page 133 of 403

Larger appliances that use HFC-134a that are not hermetically sealed, like a reach-in cooler,

would need more than one small can to fully charge the appliance. Because of the cost and the

added effort to use multiple small cans to charge a larger appliance, it is 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.

Commenters, including CARB, supported the use of CARB’s standards. One commenter

representing the manufacturers of small cans noted that this standard was developed in a

cooperative effort between CARB and the refrigerant industry and that the procedures described

in the standard have been used since 2010 to certify small cans sold in the California market. The

commenter also stated that adopting the California standard would also allow for a quicker

transition to cans with self-sealing valves, while development and adoption of a new standard

would require a longer transition time and therefore, EPA should provide a later compliance

date.

EPA agrees with the commenters and has determined that the establishment of the

standard in appendix E, which is based on CARB’s Test Procedure for Leaks from Small

Containers of Automotive Refrigerant, TP-503, is appropriate. This provides for one uniform

standard across the nation, thus simplifying compliance and avoiding potential burdens

associated with complying with two different standards, one in California and another in the rest

of the country. No commenter identified any other standard for self-sealing valves. EPA is

finalizing the provisions in the newly created appendix E without any changes from the proposal.

EPA requested comment on whether the final rule should exempt the sale of HFC-134a

only or of all MVAC substitute refrigerants in small cans. One commenter responded that the

exemption should apply to all refrigerants for use in MVAC and MVAC-like appliances because

Page 134 of 403

the rationale applies equally to other MVAC refrigerants. The minimal leakage and venting from

small cans of other refrigerants is relatively the same as from small cans of HFC-l34a, and the

commenters know of no technical reason why a self-sealing valve could not be created for those

cans also. EPA appreciates the commenters’ support for the proposal to apply the exemption to

all MVAC substitute refrigerants. EPA is finalizing the exemption as proposed. It will apply to

all MVAC substitute refrigerants, except those exempt from the venting prohibition. EPA also

notes that refrigerants for use in MVAC-like appliances are not exempt from the sales

prohibition, consistent with EPA’s approach to MVAC-like appliances historically. Under

section 609, technician certification is required only when a person is servicing an MVAC

system for consideration whereas MVAC-like appliances must always be serviced by a certified

technician.

4. Servicing Apertures and Process Stubs

EPA is finalizing revisions that require that new appliances containing a non-exempt

substitute refrigerant (including a used non-exempt substitute refrigerant) have a servicing

aperture or process stub to facilitate the recovery of refrigerant at servicing and disposal.

Including these design features on appliances containing such substitutes facilitates compliance

with the section 608(c) prohibition against the venting, release, or disposal of substitute

refrigerants into the environment. These access points allow for the proper evacuation or

recovery of substitute refrigerant, preventing releases to the atmosphere in the course of

maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of the appliance. Without these access points, it

would be harder for persons maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of such appliances to

properly evacuate the refrigerant in accordance with §82.156(b). For example, these access

points provide the person disposing of an appliance the opportunity to properly remove the

Page 135 of 403

refrigerant prior to crushing or shredding and thus avoid a knowing release. EPA did not receive

comments on this provision. The manufacture or import of one-time expansion devices that

contain any refrigerant (ODS or non-ODS), other than exempted refrigerants, was prohibited

under the prior regulations. 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. EPA is finalizing minor edits to this prohibition that reference the list of exempt

refrigerants as proposed. EPA did not receive any comments on this provision.

D. Revisions to the safe disposal provisions in section 82.155

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 since they typically

enter the waste stream with the refrigerant charge intact. Under the prior rules at §82.156(f),

persons who took the final step in the disposal process of such appliances had to 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 verified that the refrigerant has

been recovered previously, they had to retain a signed statement attesting to this or a contract

from the supplier of the appliances for three years. While recovery equipment used to remove the

refrigerant had to be certified under §82.158, persons recovering the refrigerant at disposal did

not need to be certified technicians.

2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants

EPA is extending the preexisting safe disposal provisions previously found at §82.156(f)

for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances containing ODS refrigerants to the

Page 136 of 403

same types of appliances that contain non-exempt substitute refrigerants. Generally, commenters

support EPA’s proposal and agree with EPA’s rationale. Commenters who stated that EPA does

not have authority to extend section 608 regulations to substitutes were silent on the specific

issue of the safe disposal provisions. A fuller and more general discussion of the authority for

this action is found in Section III of this notice.

Safely disposing of both ODS and substitute refrigerant in small appliances, MVACs, and

MVAC-like appliances is important for the environment and public health. According to EPA’s

Vintaging Model

, EPA projects that the GWP-weighted amount of refrigerant contained within

MVACs and small appliances in use in 2015 was more than 260 MMTCO

eq and 175

MMTCO

eq, respectively. This constitutes 12 and 8 percent, respectively, of the total GWP-

weighted amount of refrigerant contained within all appliances in the United States in 2015. On

an ODP-weighted basis, EPA estimates that more than 1,400 ODP-weighted metric tons of

refrigerant were contained within small appliances in 2015, representing 5 percent of the

refrigerant contained within all appliances in the United States. While EPA projects that these

amounts will decrease over time as zero-ODP and low-GWP substitute refrigerants penetrate the

market, the need for robust safe disposal requirements remains because these appliances are used

for a long time. One commenter agreed, noting that forty percent of the refrigerators sent to their

recovery facility were manufactured prior to 1993 and contain CFCs.

One commenter approves of the clear signal that the rule sends for appliances containing

exempt refrigerants. However, this commenter asks how a recipient of a component of such an

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.

Page 137 of 403

appliance for disposal would be aware that the subpart F requirements do not apply to that

component. EPA responds that the only likely exempt refrigerant in that scenario is a small

appliance containing a flammable refrigerant. As required under the SNAP use conditions, the

component would have markings such as red tubing or a warning label that would distinguish

that component from other components. The labels must be placed on the outside of the

appliance, on the inside of the appliance near the compressor, on or near any evaporators that can

be contacted by the consumer, near the machine compartment, and near any and all exposed

refrigerant tubing.

3. Clarifications to the Existing 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. Final processors may receive appliances with a charge or

without a charge. 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. EPA is finalizing as proposed regulatory text to help clarify

the different actors.

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, “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 processor.” (58 FR

28704-28705). EPA’s intent has been to provide the flexibility needed to permit the recovery of

Page 138 of 403

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 flexibility is important for the disposal sector, which is highly diverse and

decentralized. This signed certification serves both goals.

EPA is revising the regulations to clarify what must be in the contract stating that

refrigerant will be removed prior to delivery. EPA is replacing the word “remove” which appears

repeatedly in these provisions with “properly recover.” These revisions clarify the provisions’

intent that the refrigerant is recovered to the required evacuation levels using the appropriate

equipment. EPA is also stating explicitly that the contract should provide that the supplier of the

appliances is responsible for recovering any remaining refrigerant or verifying that the

refrigerant has already been evacuated. As discussed in the 1993 Rule, the supplier to the final

processor does not have to remove the refrigerant but must assure, through accompanying

certifications, that the refrigerant has been removed earlier in the disposal chain.

EPA notes here that a contract is appropriate for businesses to streamline transactions in

cases where they maintain long-standing business relationships. A contract would be entered into

prior to the transaction, such as during the set-up of a customer account, not simultaneously with

the transaction. A signed statement is more appropriate for one-off transactions between the

supplier and the final processor.

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. EPA is clarifying this point explicitly in the recordkeeping provision at §82.155(c).

Page 139 of 403

One commenter stated that the new §82.155 will remain unclear if EPA does not review

the relevant applicability determinations for potential inclusion in the regulatory text. EPA

responds that applicability determinations are only applicable to the person requesting the

determination from EPA. However, in response to the comment, EPA has reviewed and is

incorporating information from specific applicability determinations into the regulatory text

where the Agency finds it will increase clarity to the industry as a whole.

Two applicability determinations address the situation where refrigerant has leaked out of

an appliance prior to arriving at the final disposer. Applicability determination number 608-8

addresses whether a verification statement is needed where all of the refrigerant has already

leaked out due to a break in the refrigerant circuit. Applicability determination number 608-9

addresses whether the term leaked out includes instances in which the line has been cut prior to

the delivery of the appliance. EPA’s determination in 1993 was that if all the refrigerant has

leaked out, the signed statement need not contain the name and address of the person who

performed the recovery as no such person exists. The signed statement must, however, clearly

state that all the refrigerant in the appliance had already leaked out. EPA also determined that

“leaked out” means those situations in which the refrigerant has escaped because of system

failures, accidents, or other unavoidable occurrences not caused by a person’s deliberate acts or

negligence, such as deliberately cutting refrigerant lines. Scrap processors may accept appliances

whose lines have been cut as long as they obtain a signed statement from the supplier. This

includes appliances that have been vandalized. EPA is incorporating information from these

determinations into the regulatory text at §82.155(b)(2)(iii).

Two applicability determinations address whether the verification statements are needed

for appliances that arrive at the final processor in various conditions. Applicability determination

Page 140 of 403

number 608-8 pertains to the situation where the entire refrigeration circuit has been removed

from the appliance prior to delivery. Applicability determination number C040001 pertains to 1)

receipt of an appliance in which some components of the refrigerant circuit have been removed;

2) receipt of portions of the refrigerant circuit (e.g., compressor); 3) receipt of an appliance in

which the entire refrigerant circuit has been removed; and 4) receipt of an appliance which has

previously been through a process in which refrigerant would have been released or recovered.

EPA’s determinations in 1993 and 1996 were that the first two situations would be

subject to the safe disposal regulations and the third and fourth situations would not be. Any

equipment that contained refrigerant is subject to the safe disposal requirements. This includes a

complete appliance with an intact refrigerant circuit, an appliance with a broken refrigerant

circuit such as one with a component removed, or a single component that would contain

refrigerant in an appliance. In all such instances the intent of the safe disposal program – to

verify that the refrigerant was recovered properly – still applies.

Consistent with these determinations, EPA interprets its regulations such that items that

have had the entire refrigerant circuit removed, such as the outer housing of an air conditioner or

the structural shell of a refrigerator, are not subject to the safe disposal regulations, as these items

do not meet the definition of appliance. Similarly, shredded material, baled scrap, or crushed cars

are not subject to the safe disposal regulations. The person responsible for compliance with the

safe disposal regulations is the entity upstream that conducted the final processing where the

appliance was shredded, crushed, flattened, baled, or otherwise demolished and where the

refrigerant would have been previously recovered in accordance with the regulations.

4. Hazardous Wastes

Page 141 of 403

One commenter requested that EPA exclude hydrocarbon refrigerants that are vented

from the definition of hazardous waste. The commenter reacted to a discussion in the proposed

rule that household appliances containing a hydrocarbon refrigerant would be exempt as a

household hazardous waste under the federal hazardous waste regulations at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1)

(although States may have more stringent regulations) and therefore, could generally be vented

upon disposal under both RCRA and CAA regulations. The commenter notes that a household-

type appliance may also originate from institutional and commercial settings and therefore would

not qualify for the household waste exclusion under RCRA.

EPA responds that these refrigerants may be subject to regulation as hazardous waste,

with the exception of refrigerants that are directly reused. The Agency did not propose to amend

the regulations issued under RCRA in the proposal to this final action and has not undertaken the

analysis to do so at this time. This comment is also outside the scope of this rulemaking, which

relates to regulations under section 608 of the CAA, not to regulations under RCRA.

5. Restructuring and Edits for Readability

EPA is creating a single section, §82.155, for all safe disposal provisions, including the

recordkeeping and reporting requirements. One commenter supported moving the refrigerant

recovery requirements for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances into a single

section. The commenter suggested the section be titled “Safe Disposal of Refrigerant” rather than

“Safe Disposal of Appliances” as they stated that the CAA does not contain the concept of safe

disposal of appliances. While it is true that section 608(c) is concerned with the entry of

refrigerants into the environment, it addresses such releases in the context of “disposing of an

appliance.” EPA disagrees that it is necessary to change the name of the section. However, EPA

Page 142 of 403

has reorganized the section to put up front the general requirement that refrigerant be evacuated

from appliances before describing the requirements of the final processor.

E. Revisions to the evacuation requirements in section 82.156

1. Background

Under EPA’s existing regulations at §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 were

subject to separate requirements under §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 finalizing revisions in this action that extend the existing requirements at §82.156

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 affected part (when it can be isolated) must be

transferred to a system receiver or to a certified recovery and/or recycling machine. The same

requirements apply to appliances that are to be disposed of, except for small appliances,

MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances, which have separate requirements.

Generally, commenters were supportive of EPA’s proposal and agreed with EPA’s

rationale. Commenters who stated that EPA does not have authority to extend section 608

regulations to substitutes were silent on the specific issue of evacuation requirements. EPA

addresses general comments about its authority for this action in Section III of this notice.

Page 143 of 403

i. Evacuation Levels for Appliances other than Small Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-

like Appliances

EPA is finalizing revisions to §82.156(a) such that appliances other than small

appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances containing non-exempt substitute refrigerants

must 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 independent of whether or not the refrigerant is an ozone-depleting substance. As

is the case for CFCs and HCFCs, the appropriate evacuation levels for HFCs and other

substitutes depends upon the size of the appliance and the date of manufacture of the recovery

and/or recycling equipment. EPA did not receive comment expressing any technical concerns

with extending the evacuation requirements to substitute refrigerants. Some commenters stated

that they currently treat ODS and HFC appliances in the same manner, including the level of

evacuation.

ii. Evacuation Levels for Small Appliances.

EPA is finalizing revisions to §82.156(b) to establish the same evacuation requirements

for servicing small appliances charged with non-exempt substitute refrigerants as had previously

existed only for small appliances charged with ODS refrigerants. Technicians opening small

appliances for service, maintenance, or repair are 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 have to pull a four-inch vacuum.

Technicians using equipment certified under appendix C have to capture 90 percent of the

refrigerant in the appliance if the compressor is operational, and 80 percent of the refrigerant if

Page 144 of 403

the compressor is not operational. Because the percentage of refrigerant 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.

One commenter specifically expressed support for extending the evacuation requirements

to small appliances charged with non-exempt substitutes but not to small appliances containing

exempt refrigerants. The commenter notes that the technician would be required to use

appropriately certified equipment to recover the refrigerant. EPA did not propose to require the

recovery of exempt refrigerants and agrees that it would not be appropriate to finalize such a

requirement in this rule, as the venting prohibition does not apply to these substances.

EPA is also revising §82.156(b) to establish the same evacuation requirements for

disposing of small appliances that are charged with non-exempt substitute refrigerants as

currently exist for small appliances charged with ODS refrigerants. Small appliances must 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 is also finalizing revisions to the regulations to simplify the evacuation requirements

for small appliances so that they are the same for both servicing and disposal. This new provision

applies to both ODS and non-exempt substitute refrigerants. Prior to this rulemaking, a

technician servicing a small appliance containing an ODS needed to only recover 80 percent of

the refrigerant when using recovery equipment manufactured before November 15, 1993. At the

same time, there was no established level of evacuation in the disposal requirements when using

pre-1993 recovery equipment. EPA is allowing that 80 percent level of evacuation for disposal to

Page 145 of 403

simplify and unify the requirements. This revision will have minimal effect as few people

continue to use recovery equipment manufactured prior to that date.

One commenter stated that there should not continue to be separate evacuation levels for

recovery equipment manufactured before 1993. This commenter saw such equipment being used

only rarely and only to avoid the deeper evacuation requirements. This commenter also stated

that pulling a 4-inch vacuum on a small appliance is not equal to 80 percent refrigerant recovery.

EPA responds that the proposal explicitly stated that EPA was not proposing to amend the

required levels of evacuation in Table 1, change the circumstances that would allow for alternate

evacuation levels, or to revise those alternate levels. EPA understands the concerns raised by the

commenter, but removing the older evacuation levels at this time is beyond the scope of this

rulemaking.

iii. Evacuation Levels for MVACs and MVAC-like Appliances

Technicians repairing or servicing MVACs for consideration and MVAC-like appliances

containing an ODS or a non-exempt substitute refrigerant are subject to the requirement to

“properly use” (as defined at §82.32(e)) servicing equipment approved pursuant to §82.36(a). 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 or

use refrigerant recycling equipment dedicated for use with MVAC and MVAC-like appliances

approved pursuant to §82.36(a). The proposed rule incorrectly extended the MVAC servicing

requirement to all persons, not just those servicing MVACs for consideration. EPA has revised

the final rule to properly distinguish between the two.

EPA received a comment that section 608 of the CAA does not apply to MVACs. As

discussed above in Section III of this notice, section 608(c) provides EPA authority to regulate

Page 146 of 403

the disposal of MVACs, which are a type of appliance. With respect to disposal of MVACs, this

final rule, like the prior regulations, only specifies evacuation levels for such appliances when

they are disposed.

3. Records for Disposal of Appliances with a Charge of More than 5 and Less than 50

Pounds

EPA is adding new recordkeeping requirements at §82.156(a)(3) for the disposal of

appliances with a full charge of more than five and less than 50 pounds of either ODS or non-

exempt substitute refrigerant. Most appliances this size are disassembled in the field and as such

must have the refrigerant recovered in the field. EPA is requiring records that document the

name of the company that employs the technician, the location of the appliance being disposed

of, the date of recovery, and the type of refrigerant removed from each appliance prior to

disposal. The technician who evacuated the refrigerant, or the company employing that

technician, must also maintain records indicating the quantity and type of refrigerant transferred

for reclamation, the company that they transferred the gas to, and the date of the transfer. The

technician, or the company employing the technician, would be required to maintain these

records for three years. By company employing the technician, EPA means the person paying the

technician’s salary or wage, not the appliance owner or operator who has hired the technician for

that specific service. The finalized regulations have one change compared to the proposal: EPA

is not requiring records indicating the amount and type of refrigerant recovered from each

separate appliance but rather the total amount and types recovered from all appliances disposed

of in each calendar month. As described in more detail below, this modification from the

proposed revision was made after consideration of public comments.

Page 147 of 403

Comments in support of this proposed recordkeeping requirement agreed with EPA’s

goal of improving the enforceability of the venting prohibition. One commenter stated that

EPA’s rationale to improve compliance with the venting prohibition and facilitate enforcement

against those who do vent is insufficient and not adequately supported in the record. Another

commenter believes that venting is not as prevalent as EPA thinks it is and that to the extent that

it does occur, it is done by individuals who are not certified technicians.

EPA responds that the Agency has heard from people throughout the HVAC/R industry

that venting regularly happens in appliances with more than 5 and less than 50 pounds of

refrigerant. One commenter to this rule who regularly addresses contractor and service

technician groups hears from them that the venting prohibition is widely disregarded. At a recent

meeting EPA attended with air-conditioning and refrigeration contractors, an industry speaker

asked attendees what percentage of technicians recover refrigerant. The estimates individuals

offered 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. This feedback indicates a likelihood that venting regularly occurs.

At times, including in public fora such as the public meeting in November 2014,

stakeholders have requested that EPA increase enforcement of the venting prohibition. At that

meeting, some stakeholders indicated that technicians will knowingly and illegally vent

refrigerant if they think EPA will not bring an enforcement action. Multiple commenters urged

the Agency to do a better job of enforcing the venting prohibition. This request came from a

broad cross section of the air conditioning and refrigeration community including refrigerant

reclaimers, recycling and recovery equipment certifiers, and appliance manufacturers and

Page 148 of 403

distributors. Some of these comments stated that good actors who comply with the law are

placed at a competitive disadvantage by entities who can operate more cheaply by skipping the

required recovery practices and choose instead to illegally vent refrigerant.

The Agency has recently brought successful cases against individuals who have illegally

vented refrigerant. However, the availability of the records required under this provision would

enhance the Agency’s ability to enforce the venting prohibition because these records could be

used to demonstrate whether or not refrigerant has been recovered and sent for reclamation. If

refrigerant cannot be accounted for, a company or technician may not be able to show that they

complied with the venting prohibition.

Some commenters who objected to this proposal stated that EPA did not provide

sufficient justification and that EPA underestimated the burden to technicians. EPA responds that

it is reasonable to require technicians and the companies employing technicians to maintain

records of the amount of refrigerant that they recover and send for reclamation to enhance

compliance with and enforceability of the venting prohibition. There is a significant

environmental benefit to ensuring that ODS and HFC refrigerant are recovered from existing

appliances of this size at the time of disposal. Using EPA’s Vintaging Model, EPA estimated the

number of appliances in this size category that are disposed of annually, the full charge of those

appliances, and the type of refrigerant they contain. EPA estimates that 7.3 million appliances of

this size, with a total charge of 27,300 MT of refrigerant, are disposed of annually. This is equal

to 960 ODP-weighted metric tons and 49.5 MMTCO

eq. This represents 45 percent of the total

amount of ODS and HFC refrigerants contained within all appliances from all size categories

that are disposed of annually.

Page 149 of 403

EPA’s benefits assessment for the proposed rule did not calculate any additional

emissions reductions because the existing regulations already require recovery when appliances

are disposed. However, in practical terms, requiring a record from each disposal event may drive

more technicians to comply with the venting prohibition because the recordkeeping requirement

places extra emphasis on the prohibition and on the risks of violating it. Even slight

improvements to compliance could produce substantial environmental benefits.

Another commenter stated that some IPR facilities may have hundreds or even a

thousand of these smaller 5-50 pound appliances and that requiring additional tracking or

recordkeeping would be unnecessary and overly burdensome. Furthermore, the commenter

continued, because industry has the burden of proof that it is in compliance with the venting

prohibition, industry has established basic recordkeeping that can meet the intent of this rule

without requiring additional or duplicative information. A couple of commenters similarly noted

that it is good business practice to recover refrigerant from such units prior to disposal.

EPA responds that the incentive to illegally vent may be less if the owner has hundreds of

appliances or uses in-house technicians. In that situation, it may be good business practice to

recover refrigerant from a system being disposed of because that refrigerant can be reused in that

owner’s other appliances. The desire to fit more service calls into a day is also perhaps less when

using in-house personnel. However, in cases where a technician is getting paid by the job, there

is an economic incentive to minimize the time spent at each job-site which could include venting

refrigerant. EPA disagrees that such facilities will require burdensome new tracking and

recordkeeping. While a facility may have many appliances, the records that EPA is requiring in

this rule are only necessary once – upon disposal – and only a small subset of the total number of

appliances is likely to be disposed of in a given year.

Page 150 of 403

EPA has considered ways to minimize the burden to technicians in light of commenters’

concerns. EPA is modifying the final rule so as to require records that are generated through

normal operations in the field. Therefore, EPA is removing the requirement to determine the

amount of refrigerant recovered from each appliance. Entities would not be required to weigh

cylinders or otherwise calculate how much refrigerant they recovered at each and every site,

which was the most time consuming element of the proposed recordkeeping requirements.

Instead, EPA’s goals can be achieved by requiring records of the amount recovered in each

calendar month. This way, recovery cylinders can be weighed less frequently and at a centralized

location or recovery cylinders can simply be tallied if the amount of refrigerant in them is

known.

One commenter encouraged EPA to consider exempting residential systems from the

recordkeeping requirements due to the nature of their servicing. EPA responds that this

recordkeeping requirement does not apply to regular servicing, only disposal, which occurs much

less frequently.

A couple of commenters requested clarification of who must maintain records. One

commenter did not support this requirement because they believed it would require records be

kept by homeowners. Another commenter suggested that third-party collection sites not have

recordkeeping requirements so as to not discourage wholesalers and storefronts from serving in

the collection chain.

EPA responds that the recordkeeping requirements finalized for this provision apply

solely to the company employing the technician (or to the technician, if operating independently)

who is disposing of the appliance in both commercial and residential settings. This could be the

owner or operator of the appliances or it could be a contractor who is hired to dispose of the

Page 151 of 403

appliance. When that company transfers the refrigerant for reclamation they may have to receive

records from other entities (such as reclaimers or third-party collection sites) but those receiving

refrigerant are not obligated to maintain any records themselves. EPA is not requiring any

recordkeeping by the owners of the appliance unless the owner of the appliance and the

employer of the technician are the same entity.

One commenter suggested that EPA extend the proposed recordkeeping requirements to

those who collect at least 100 pounds of refrigerant per year from small appliances. This

commenter also suggested less detailed records be kept in such instance, specifically 1) the

quantity of refrigerant recovered monthly, 2) the number of units disposed of, and 3) the name of

the certified reclaimer to whom they transferred the recovered refrigerant. EPA disagrees that

extending this requirement to small appliances is necessary. Certification and recordkeeping

requirements currently exist for the disposal of small appliances. These records are held by the

final disposer, who is best suited to maintain them. In addition, EPA does not require that small

appliances be evacuated by a certified technician when being disposed of.

Two commenters suggested that EPA extend the recordkeeping requirement to appliances

containing more than 50 pounds as well. One of the commenters was concerned that contractors

who collect from both smaller 5-50 pound and larger 50-plus pound appliances would have to

separate or otherwise distinguish between what was recovered from each when transferring their

refrigerant to a reclaimer. EPA finds that it would not be necessary to distinguish between these

two size categories. A single record of all refrigerant transferred for reclamation is sufficient

because EPA is not requiring an accounting of all recovered refrigerant as it moves through the

market.

Page 152 of 403

After consideration of these comments, EPA is requiring records that are regularly

generated by technicians or companies recovering refrigerant while disposing of appliances as a

practical way to improve the Agency’s ability to enforce the venting prohibition without

imposing an undue burden on regulated entities that are already complying fully with the venting

prohibition. To avoid imposing an undue burden on good actors, especially out in the field where

there may already be pressure to cut corners, EPA is not finalizing the proposed requirement that

records be kept of how much refrigerant is recovered from each appliance. Weighing or

otherwise calculating the amount of refrigerant recovered at each job site could increase burden

of these requirements by consuming additional time.

4. Clarifications and Edits for Readability

As proposed, EPA is moving the provisions that were found in §82.156 “Required

Practices” in the prior rules into three separate sections: §82.155 to address the safe disposal of

small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances; §82.157 to address appliance

maintenance and leak repair for appliances containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant; and

§82.156 to address the proper evacuation of refrigerant from appliances. These provisions tend to

affect different stakeholders so separating them into different sections will make the required

provisions easier to find.

F. Revisions to the leak repair requirements in section 82.157

1. Background

A central component of EPA’s longstanding program to properly manage ODS

refrigerants is the requirement to repair leaking appliances within 30 days of determining that a

certain leak rate has been 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

Page 153 of 403

or take other actions to reduce the emissions such as retrofitting, retiring, or mothballing the

appliance. Under the prior regulations, the leak rate at or above which action was required was

35 percent for commercial refrigeration appliances and IPR and 15 percent for comfort cooling

and other appliances. If the attempt to repair failed 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 had

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 applied (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 prior requirements are found at §82.156(i).

EPA recognizes that refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment often do leak. This is

particularly likely for larger and more complicated appliances like those subject to the subpart F

leak repair provisions. However, leaks from such appliances can be significantly reduced.

Multiple factors support this conclusion. Concrete evidence that leaks can be significantly

reduced include 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; reports from facilities regulated under California’s Refrigerant

Management Program; and feedback from stakeholders prior to publishing the proposed rule.

The revised leak repair provisions in this action will reduce refrigerant releases of ODS and non-

exempt substitute refrigerants by ensuring effective repairs and ongoing monitoring of leaking

systems.

Page 154 of 403

2. Restructuring and Edits for Readability

The regulatory text has been modified several times since EPA first established the

program in 1993. The regulation now contains numerous cross-references to other provisions in

§82.156(i), making the requirements difficult to follow and in some places potentially leading to

differing interpretations. Many important provisions are not readily apparent, such as the primary

requirement that repairs must occur within 30 days, which appears explicitly only at the end of

the leak repair requirements at §82.156(i)(9). Therefore, EPA has rewritten the regulation and

moved the provisions to a single new section of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to make

it easier for stakeholders to locate and understand the requirements.

EPA recognizes that changing the text so significantly may make stakeholders who are

familiar with the existing requirements wonder how these revisions affect their current

compliance monitoring systems and protocols. EPA emphasizes that the Agency did not intend

to alter the substance of the requirements while restructuring except where specified. EPA

discusses the intended amendments to the requirements in this section of the notice. In general,

commenters were supportive of EPA’s efforts to rewrite and simplify the leak repair provisions.

To avoid both ambiguity and cumbersome language throughout, EPA establishes from

the outset in §82.157(a) that the provisions of §82.157 apply to owners and operators of all

appliances containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant, unless otherwise specified. One

commenter stated that EPA should clarify throughout the rule whether the owner/operator or the

technician is responsible. EPA responds that the final rule makes clearer that the owner or

operator is responsible for conducting the leak inspection or repairing the appliance even when it

is the technician who will be performing those actions. When a provision applies to technicians

or people servicing equipment, the provision so specifies.

Page 155 of 403

Multiple commenters requested that EPA define owner/operator and one commenter

requested that EPA clarify who is responsible if the owner is different from the operator. EPA

responds that the Agency is not defining owner or operator because these terms are widely

understood in the public and regulated community. If the owner and the operator are separate

entities, both are responsible for complying with the applicable leak repair provisions. EPA notes

that the owner of the system chooses the operator of the system, or passes that responsibility to

someone else (e.g., a tenant in a building may be provided authority to operate an air

conditioning system even though that tenant does not own the building or the air conditioning

system). EPA does not want to hinder the ability of the owner and operator of the system to

make the decision as to who would be responsible for complying with these requirements, and,

therefore, the Agency has maintained the existing language that places responsibility for such

compliance with requirements on both parties.

The existing regulations also inconsistently described the leak repair requirements as

applying to appliances with “50 or more pounds” or “more than 50 pounds” of refrigerant. The

proposed revisions consistently use “50 or more pounds of refrigerant.” EPA received a

comment from CARB that the California regulations are based on EPA’s “more than 50

pounds,” but CARB stated they can address any potential inconsistencies created by this

revision. As such, EPA is finalizing consistent use of the phrase “50 or more pounds of

refrigerant” in the revised regulations.

3. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants

EPA proposed to extend the leak repair provisions previously found at §82.156(i) to

appliances containing non-exempt substitute refrigerants. EPA is finalizing this extension in the

revised leak repair regulations (now found at §82.157). As such, the other provisions related to

Page 156 of 403

leak repair and maintenance finalized in this rule (e.g., verification tests, reporting by chronic

leakers, etc.) apply to appliances containing ODS and non-exempt substitute refrigerants as well.

Consistent with discussions elsewhere in this notice, EPA is not extending these requirements to

appliances using substitute refrigerants in a specific end-use for which the substitute refrigerant

used has been exempted from the venting prohibition. These exemptions are listed in the

regulations at §82.154(a)(1). For example, these requirements would not be extended to water in

any application, or to ammonia in commercial or industrial process refrigeration or in absorption

units.

Extending the leak repair requirements to non-exempt substitute refrigerants will lead to

significant environmental benefits because these substances pose a threat to the environment

when released. Like ODS, HFCs and PFCs also 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 saturated HFCs used as refrigerants range from 124 (for HFC-

152a) to 14,800 (for HFC-23), and the GWPs of PFCs used 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 notice for further

discussion related to the environmental effects of greenhouse gases.

In determining whether to exempt HFC and PFC refrigerants from the venting prohibition

in 2004, EPA examined the potential effects of the refrigerant from the moment of release to its

breakdown in the environment, considering possible effects on workers, building occupants, and

the environment. EPA concluded that the release of HFCs and PFCs poses a threat to the

environment due to their high GWPs. 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

Page 157 of 403

refrigerants from the statutory venting prohibition. Therefore, knowingly venting or otherwise

releasing into the environment of HFC and PFC refrigerants during the maintenance, service,

repair, or disposal of appliances remains illegal. The venting prohibition focuses on knowing

venting or release during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances and thus

does not account for all HFC (and PFC) refrigerant emissions. For instance, in previous rules we

have not assumed that emissions of HFCs that occur due to appliance leaks constitute knowing

releases. However, as discussed elsewhere in this rulemaking, EPA is broadening its

interpretation of what is considered a knowing release under section 608(c) for purposes of

appliance leaks. In addition, the requirements to calculate leak rates and monitor leaking systems

that EPA is finalizing in this action provide knowledge to appliance owners and operators and

thereby broaden the set of refrigerant releases for which they would be liable for a knowing

release.

Consideration of Costs

Based on the evidence discussed later, the reported leak rate performance of today’s

comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration, and IPR appliances with full charges of 50 or more

pounds argues for lowering the leak rates. The evidence discussed later demonstrates that the

leak rates of 35 percent for IPR and commercial refrigeration and 15 percent for comfort cooling

are considerably above the “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,” in

general, EPA has balanced the benefits from reducing emissions of refrigerants with the costs of

these requirements. EPA has determined that the costs are reasonable given the significant

Page 158 of 403

benefits that accrue (both private in the form of cost savings and public in the form of improved

health and environmental protection from reduced GHG and ODS emissions). Specifically, EPA

reviewed data from the lowest-emitting equipment to gauge technological feasibility and then

reviewed other datasets, 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. EPA also

assessed the tighter requirements applicable to appliances containing ODS or non-exempt

substitute refrigerants such as lower leak rates, the requirement to repair leaks once the

applicable leak rate is exceeded, the requirement to conduct verification tests on all types of

appliances, and periodic leak inspections for appliances that had exceeded the leak rates.

Based on the comments received, EPA considered ways to reduce the cost of these

requirements, as compared to the proposal. These changes are discussed in full later in this

section and include: limiting periodic leak inspections to appliances that have exceeded the

applicable leak rate, rather than requiring all appliances to be inspected; finalizing a leak rate for

IPR of 30 percent rather than 20 percent; allowing greater flexibility for owners and operators to

determine which leaks to repair rather than requiring the repair of all leaks; and modifying the

proposed chronic leaker provision so that it results in reporting to EPA rather than automatic

retirement of the appliance.

This rule also provides flexibility that will reduce the cost of complying with the existing

regulations. For comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances, EPA is allowing 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

Page 159 of 403

emission reduction than a retrofit. EPA is also allowing an extension to implement a retrofit or

retirement for any appliance that transitions to a non-exempt substitute refrigerant.

4. Leak Inspections

The prior regulations at §82.156(i) focused on actions an appliance owner or operator

must take after discovering an appliance has a leak. EPA proposed to require annual or quarterly

leak inspections as a proactive maintenance practice depending on the type and size of the

appliance. More specifically, EPA proposed 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.

The purpose of the proposed leak inspection requirement was to determine the location of

refrigerant leaks. This proposal was designed with Next Generation Compliance objectives in

mind (see Section II.D.3). The Agency anticipated that many appliance owners and operators

would take action earlier if leaks were 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 proposed regulatory requirements at §82.157 for exceeding

the applicable leak rate. EPA also proposed to allow owners or operators to forgo periodic leak

inspections if they installed and operated an automatic leak detection system that continuously

monitors the appliance for leaks.

Frequency of Leak Inspections. State regulatory agencies and environmental

organizations supported the proposed requirement to conduct periodic leak inspections. Two

Page 160 of 403

such commenters suggested that EPA require quarterly leak inspections for systems with 200

pounds or more to harmonize the leak inspection requirements with California’s Refrigerant

Management Program. However, many other commenters expressed strong opposition to

mandatory quarterly or annual leak inspections, asserting that requiring inspections of all

appliances imposes unnecessary costs, especially for systems that are not leaking. Those

commenters estimated the cost of an inspection for a large supermarket could exceed $5,000.

Another commenter stated that companies do not need a regulatory requirement to inspect and

maintain their refrigeration equipment and that since EPA did not require repair of leaks

identified in a leak inspection for appliances that do not exceed the applicable leak rate, there is

not a reasonable relationship between the proposed requirement and the goal of emissions

reduction. One commenter stated that leak inspections are unnecessary, at least for chemical

manufacturing, because temperatures and pressures must be maintained within tight tolerances

for reactions to proceed. Furthermore, any changes in temperature and pressure would trigger an

alarm or shutdown the process.

Other commenters expressed qualified support for annual leak inspections, especially if it

is phased in, starting with larger systems or if a company can provide evidence that they have not

added refrigerant to a system in over a year. Another commenter stated that leak inspections

should only be annual, unless the equipment exceeds the applicable leak rate for that system.

That commenter believes that the inspections should return to being an annual requirement after

the leak rate has been reduced below the threshold for two years. One commenter stated that the

greatest value of a leak inspection is on a system with a known leak.

Based on these comments relating to the expense and value of conducting leak

inspections on all appliances, EPA is finalizing the leak inspection requirement only for

Page 161 of 403

appliances that have been found to be above the applicable leak rate. EPA proposed to only

require that the leaks identified from a leak inspection be repaired when the applicable leak rate

is exceeded. EPA’s proposal observed that the costs of repairing all leaks when the leak rate is

below the applicable leak rate may be higher than 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. As stated in

the proposed rule, when the applicable leak rate is exceeded, the benefits of repairing those leaks

are significant—both for the environment and for the owner/operator (in decreased refrigerant

replacement costs)—and do result in significant savings, which supports repair of leaks. EPA

appreciates the concern raised by commenters who question the value of conducting leak

inspections on appliances that are known to not be leaking, or leaking at a low rate that would

not trigger a requirement for repair under the regulations. Periodic leak inspections are a best

practice within the industry to reduce emissions of refrigerants and the Agency continues to

recommend periodic leak inspections for all appliances as even well-maintained appliances

might leak.

EPA did not quantify any benefits for systems that had a leak rate below the

applicable leak rate because the Agency did not propose that the leaks that were discovered in

those systems needed to be repaired. While requiring proactive leak inspections would generally

reduce leaks because companies would find leaks and could repair them before the applicable

leak rate was exceeded, EPA is not finalizing the periodic leak inspections for all appliances, as

proposed. Many of the specific comments about timing of leak inspections no longer apply

because of this change. However, EPA has reconsidered the cost of conducting a leak inspection,

as discussed further in Section VI of the preamble.

See GreenChill’s Best Practices Guidelines: Commercial Refrigeration Leak Prevention & Repairs, May 2011,

available in the docket for this rulemaking.

Page 162 of 403

EPA is finalizing a requirement at §82.157(d)(1) to conduct a leak inspection after

discovering the leak rate had exceeded the applicable leak rate. Thereafter, EPA is requiring

episodic leak inspections based on the full charge size and type of appliance on the same

schedule as in the proposed §82.157(b)(1)-(3), but in this final rule EPA added a provision

clarifying that this requirement ends if the appliance remains below the applicable leak rate for a

specific time. More specifically, following a leak rate exceedance, EPA is requiring quarterly

leak inspections for IPR and commercial refrigeration appliances containing 500 or more pounds

of refrigerant until there are four quarters in a row where the appliance has not exceeded the

applicable leak rate. For IPR and commercial refrigeration appliances containing between 50 and

500 pounds of refrigerant, and for all comfort cooling appliances or other remaining appliances

normally containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant, EPA is requiring annual leak inspections

following a leak rate exceedance until the owner or operator can demonstrate that the appliance

has not exceeded the applicable leak rate for one year. More frequent monitoring is important for

larger commercial refrigeration appliances and 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 generally greater for those systems.

In our view, and based on our review of comments, limiting inspections to those

appliances that are known to have leaked and triggered the repair requirements appropriately

tailors the leak inspection requirement to those systems that are most likely to leak and provides

important information about whether the leak repairs have held over the longer term. EPA is not

finalizing the proposed revision allowing for annual leak inspections when refrigerant has not

been added to the appliance for more than a year as EPA is not finalizing the periodic leak

inspection requirement for systems that are below the applicable leak threshold. As discussed

Page 163 of 403

later, EPA is finalizing the proposed revision allowing the use of automatic leak detection

systems in lieu of quarterly or annual leak inspections.

EPA proposed to establish a process that would allow less frequent leak inspections for

federally owned appliances that are located in remote locations or are otherwise difficult to

access for routine maintenance. One commenter disagreed with the proposal to allow a reduced

inspection schedule for federally owned appliances. Other commenters requested that EPA

provide a similar exemption to privately owned appliances.

Because EPA is not finalizing periodic leak inspections for appliances below the

applicable leak threshold, EPA is also not finalizing the reduced leak inspection schedule for

federally owned appliances. EPA is requiring that federally owned equipment that has leaked in

excess of the applicable leak rate be subject to the same periodic leak inspection schedule as

privately owned equipment. The concerns about burden raised by federal agencies during the

development of the proposal are addressed by removing the proposed requirement that leak

inspections be conducted on all appliances. The number of appliances leaking above the final

leak thresholds is less than 20 percent of the total number of installed appliances with charges of

50 pounds or greater.

Description of leak inspections. Many commenters requested clarification about the types

of methods that can be used to conduct a leak inspection. EPA responds to those comments in the

section of this notice that addresses comments on the proposed definitions. As described there,

the revised definition includes examples of methods that may be appropriate for leak inspections.

EPA proposed that periodic leak inspections would not need to be performed by certified

technicians and took comment on that idea. Two commenters agreed that leak inspections should

not be required to be conducted by certified technicians. Reasons stated for not requiring the

Page 164 of 403

inspection to be done by a certified technician are that they are more expensive than in-house

personnel, they may be less familiar with the appliance, and that the person doing the inspection

will not necessarily be performing activities that can only be performed by a certified technician

such as adding or removing refrigerant or making any repairs to the appliance. Another

commenter believes that leak inspections should be performed by someone trained to fix leaks,

and thus that the persons performing leak inspections must be a certified technician.

In this final rule, EPA is requiring that the required leak inspections be performed by

certified technicians. EPA is making this change from the proposal for several reasons. First,

required leak inspections are now limited to appliances that are known to have been leaking. It is

now very likely that a technician will have to add refrigerant or make additional repairs after the

leak inspection. This is certainly the case for the inspection triggered by discovering that the leak

rate exceeds the threshold. Second, because EPA is no longer requiring the repair of all identified

leaks, the person inspecting the system must also be qualified to determine which leaks must be

repaired to bring the leak rate below the applicable level. Third, while certified technicians may

be more expensive to hire, the overall burden of the leak inspection requirement is less since

many fewer appliances must be inspected than originally proposed. Under the proposal, all

appliances of a certain size would require leak inspections, which EPA estimated to be

approximately 1.5 million. Under the finalized provisions, that number drops to approximately

282,000 appliances. EPA has considered the comments about the cost of performing a leak

inspection and has updated the technical support document accordingly. Finally, EPA is not

specifying a single method but rather allowing the person conducting the inspection to determine

the method(s) that are appropriate for that appliance. This technical judgment requires someone

Page 165 of 403

trained in the methods of leak detection, which is more likely to be the case for a certified

technician.

Many commenters requested clarification on what portions of an appliance are subject to

a leak inspection. The proposed regulatory text was silent on this issue but the notice of proposed

rulemaking discussed inspecting visible components and the proposed definition of leak

inspection included an examination of “all visible components of an appliance.” The proposal

did not define “visible” or address the treatment of components that are only visible if

intermediary steps are taken (e.g., clearing ice or elevating monitoring personnel). Commenters

noted that refrigerant lines may be insulated and thus the piping is not visible and that lines may

run along the ceiling of a store and are not observable or are difficult to access. One commenter

proposed a definition that would limit inspections to areas that are visible and accessible without

the use of equipment. The commenter states that the vast majority of components in commercial

refrigeration, and those most prone to refrigerant leakage, are accessible directly from floor or

roof level. One commenter requested that EPA define visible components as those that are

readily accessible to be viewed and accessed during normal preventative maintenance activities

for the appliance. One commenter suggested that the leak inspection be “consistent with good

industry practice.” Another commenter expressed concern that requiring the inspection of all

visible components may necessitate the appliance be shut down.

Another commenter requested specific exceptions for components that are difficult to

monitor, insulated, unsafe to monitor, or otherwise not accessible. Consistent with other leak

detection and repair programs for New Source Performance Standards, Subparts VV and VVa,

which relates to equipment leaks of VOC in synthetic organic chemicals manufacturing, the

commenter suggests that the following sources be exempt from inspection: (1) components that

Page 166 of 403

require monitoring personnel to be elevated more than 2 meters above a support surface; (2)

components that are insulated; (3) components that are determined to be un-safe to monitor as

determined by site personnel; (4) components that are under “ice” that forms on the outside of

equipment. A couple of commenters also expressed concern about requiring leak inspections on

equipment that cannot be accessed due to radiological concerns.

EPA appreciates the difficulties associated with inspecting the entirety of an appliance,

which these comments illustrate. EPA proposed a definition of leak inspection that includes “all

visible components.” EPA is modifying that proposed definition to remove the reference to “all

visible components.” Also, in light of the points raised in the comments, EPA is clarifying in the

final rule that a leak inspection must be conducted on all visible and accessible components of an

appliance, with some exceptions. EPA did not propose any exceptions but did state in the notice

of proposed rulemaking that the inspection should occur on all visible and accessible

components of an appliance. The exceptions finalized in this rulemaking clarify what is not

considered visible or accessible: 1) where components are insulated, under ice that has formed

on the outside of equipment, underground, behind walls, or are otherwise inaccessible; (2) where

personnel must be elevated more than 2 meters above a support surface; or (3) where

components are unsafe to inspect, as determined by site personnel. This clarification takes into

consideration risks to the person conducting the inspection. The Agency does not expect that an

appliance be shut down in order to fulfill the obligation of inspecting all visible components.

Automatic Leak Detection. EPA proposed to not require periodic leak inspections if

owners or operators install and operate an automatic leak detection system that continuously

monitors the appliance for leaks. Although EPA is removing the periodic leak inspection

requirements for many appliances, EPA will continue to allow the use of automatic leak

Page 167 of 403

detection equipment to continuously monitor whole appliances or portions of appliances in lieu

of the required periodic inspections for that appliance or that portion of the appliance. Use of

such equipment can minimize releases of refrigerant because it discovers leaks sooner than a

quarterly or annual leak inspection can. Using their 2014 Refrigerant Management Program

(RMP) data, CARB commented that they found that leaking systems using automatic leak

detection had a 25 percent lower annual leak rate than those without. This comment provides

further support for including this option to use automatic leak detection equipment to

continuously monitor an appliance or portion of an appliance in the final rule.

A few commenters encouraged EPA to require automatic leak detection equipment on

appliances with more than 2,000 pounds of refrigerant to harmonize EPA’s requirements with

California’s. EPA responds that while this rule does not impose requirements that are

inconsistent with CARB’s program, EPA has not included all of CARB’s requirements in this

rule. EPA is requiring that automatic leak detection systems meet 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 CARB requires. EPA

knows that such equipment is already available on the market and capable of meeting those

standards, which allows companies wishing to install automatic leak detection equipment to do

so sooner than if EPA established different standards in this rule. It also means that installed

equipment that meets California’s requirements will meet EPA’s requirements. EPA disagrees,

as discussed later, with the comment suggesting it require the use of automatic leak detection

equipment.

Some commenters were opposed to requiring automatic leak detection. One such

commenter stated that it does not work well outdoors and that it may be hazardous to enclose a

Page 168 of 403

system to facilitate leak detection. It can also be expensive and EPA did not estimate the costs of

requiring it. One nuclear power producer commented that any modifications to nuclear

generating stations must undergo extensive engineering and risk review processes. This argues

against requiring the installation of monitoring equipment. Another commenter stated that it has

not been able to identify any reliable information confirming that such automatic leak detection

devices are available, cost-effective, and capable of satisfying EPA’s requirements.

EPA responds that the Agency is not requiring the use of automatic leak detection

equipment in this final rule. Rather, this is an option that an owner or operator can choose to

pursue in lieu of conducting periodic leak inspections. EPA agrees that automatic leak detection

equipment may not be appropriate for all systems, and the Agency is not suggesting that

components be enclosed in order to allow for automatic leak detection equipment where it would

be hazardous to do so. The decision to install such equipment is up to the owner/operator. With

regard to availability, EPA responds that California’s existing requirements for use of such

systems have been in place since 2011 and include the same standards as those EPA is finalizing

in this rule, so equipment meeting these requirements is already available and in use. EPA

encourages anyone interested in using automatic leak detection to consult entities in California

regarding the availability and performance of such equipment. Another commenter notes that

electronic leak detection equipment is currently installed in thousands of supermarkets, further

supporting the idea that such equipment is available and in use.

Many commenters supported automatic leak detection equipment in lieu of periodic leak

inspections but were concerned that the systems they currently have installed do not meet the

requirements of the proposed rule because the entire refrigeration system is not within the

building envelope. EPA proposed that automatic leak detection equipment systems that directly

Page 169 of 403

detect the presence of a refrigerant in air could only be used 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. Multiple commenters requested that EPA still allow the

option of using automatic leak detection for those components that are not outdoors. The outside

components would then be the only portion of the system that would be subject to periodic

inspections. EPA agrees that automatic leak detection equipment should be allowed for enclosed

components even if only portions of an appliance are enclosed and the proposed rule was

intended to cover that situation. EPA has revised the final rule to more clearly allow for this and

to clarify that in such situations, the automatic leak detection equipment would only be used to

monitor components located in an enclosed building or structure but the other components would

continue to be subject to any applicable leak inspection requirements.

One commenter encouraged EPA to require that the leak detection system be certified.

There are third party systems on the market that claim to check charges, but the commenter

believes some may be inaccurate. The commenter recommends referencing ASHRAE 207P,

which will allow for verification of the charge checking systems. EPA responds that the

referenced ASHRAE standard is still under development and we are unaware of any certification

programs that exist or that are planned to reference that standard once finalized. Requiring

certifications for leak detection systems is therefore not appropriate at this time. EPA is

finalizing the proposal to require that the owner or operator calibrate the automatic leak detection

system annually and keep records documenting the calibration.

5. Lowering Leak Rates

The leak rate is the rate at which an appliance is losing refrigerant, measured between

refrigerant charges. If the leak rate for an appliance is above a specified threshold, the regulatory

Page 170 of 403

revisions finalized in this rule require certain actions, such as leak repair, from the

owner/operator.

EPA is lowering the leak rates for IPR, commercial refrigeration, and comfort cooling

and other appliances containing ODS refrigerants and is establishing those same leak rates for

appliances using non-exempt substitute refrigerants. EPA is lowering the leak rates to 30 percent

(from 35 percent) for IPR, 20 percent (from 35 percent) for commercial refrigeration appliances

and 10 percent (from 15 percent) for comfort cooling and all other appliances with a full charge

of 50 pounds or more of ODS or non-exempt substitute refrigerant. For the reasons discussed

below, EPA is finalizing a higher leak rate for IPR than proposed while finalizing the same rates

as proposed for commercial refrigeration and comfort cooling. In making this decision, EPA has

assessed the compliance costs, cost savings, and environmental benefits and has found that the

aggregated costs are reasonable, and that lowering leak rates will result in fewer emissions of

both ODS and non-exempt substitute refrigerants.

EPA reviewed data submitted under California’s RMP, the South Coast Air Quality

Management District (SCAQMD), GreenChill partners, consent decrees for both commercial

refrigeration and IPR for companies found to be in violation of subpart F regulations, EPA’s

Vintaging Model, conversations with potentially affected stakeholders, and comments on this

and past proposed rules. See the technical support document Analysis of the Economic Impact

and Benefits of Final Revisions to the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program for a

complete discussion. EPA presents here background on two data sources (CARB and SCAQMD)

that EPA relied on for multiple types of appliances and then discusses appliance-specific data

separately.

Page 171 of 403

California’s RMP 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 and will have begun reporting

in 2016. California’s reporting program provides insight into the use and emissions of ODS and

substitute refrigerants from refrigeration appliances in the state, across a broad range of sectors

that use refrigeration appliances. For the proposed rule, EPA reviewed the 2013 data, the most

recent dataset available at that time, which contained information from 11,166 appliances at

large and medium facilities. EPA has subsequently reviewed the 2014 data, containing data on

12,605 appliances, and found it to be substantially similar. A series of charts showing the

aggregated California data has been included in the technical support document. EPA has

analyzed these data in developing the revised leak rates for IPR, commercial refrigeration, and

comfort cooling appliances.

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 Final Revisions to the National Recycling and Emission Reduction

Program and online at www.arb.ca.gov/stoprefrigerantleaks.

Page 172 of 403

California’s 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, which contained approximately half of the population of

California at that time. SCAQMD had issued Rule 1415 to reduce emissions of ozone-depleting

refrigerants from stationary refrigeration and air-conditioning systems. The rule required 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 collected the following information every two years from

owners or operators of such refrigeration systems: 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 Rule 1415,

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 reporting.

EPA analyzed the SCAQMD data on ODS-containing appliances for the proposed 2010

Leak Repair Rule. The analysis prepared for that rule can also be found in the docket for today’s

rulemaking. The dataset contains information on over 4,750 appliances from 2004 and 2005 with

ODS refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds. The data included refrigeration and air-

conditioning appliances that meet EPA’s definitions of IPR (e.g., food processing industry,

Page 173 of 403

pharmaceutical manufacturing), commercial refrigeration (e.g., refrigerated warehouses,

supermarkets, retail box stores), and comfort cooling (e.g., office buildings, universities,

hospitals) from businesses of all sizes. EPA has considered the previous analysis of those data in

developing the revised leak rates for IPR, commercial refrigeration, and comfort cooling

appliances in this final rule.

i. Industrial Process Refrigeration

In the proposed rule, EPA discussed reducing the leak rate for IPR and commercial

refrigeration from 35 percent to 20 percent. EPA specifically sought comments on whether a 20

percent leak rate was appropriate, or whether a leak rate higher than 35 percent or as low as 10 or

15 percent would be appropriate. After considering the comments received and upon further

analysis of the CARB data, EPA is finalizing a leak rate of 30 percent.

Some commenters supported the lower leak rates noting that real-world experience shows

that the lower leak thresholds are technically and practically achievable. Some industry members

encouraged EPA to explore the feasibility of further lowering rates for IPR in the future,

consistent with improved and available industry best practices. Other commenters stated that

data from GreenChill and consent decrees are not representative of IPR facilities. One

commenter also stated that CARB data do not support that a 20 percent threshold is achievable

because one third of the reporting facilities are not achieving such performance. As a result, the

commenter stated that EPA has not shown that lowering the leak rate for IPR from 35 to 20

percent is necessary nor economically or practically feasible.

Some commenters suggested EPA distinguish between old and new equipment. One

commenter noted that existing IPR equipment can meet the 35 percent leak rate but not all could

achieve the 20 percent leak rate. Thus, the proposed leak rate would strand significant investment

Page 174 of 403

in custom-designed refrigeration process equipment. Another commenter stated that older IPR

facilities were designed when refrigerant tightness was not a critical design element. Facilities

have been upgraded and maintained to achieve 35 percent leak rates but further upgrades and

repairs to bring them to a lower rate would be costly if not impossible. The commenter also

stated that it would not be cost effective since many are near the end of their useful lives. A few

commenters suggested that EPA follow the 1998 proposal and allow for the 35 percent rate if the

appliance meets all of the following criteria: (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).

Another commenter recommended keeping the leak rate at 35 percent for systems using

substitute refrigerants, stating that companies that retrofitted from ODS to HFC refrigerants

should be recognized for that prior environmental advancement.

In response to the comment that some of the data are not representative of IPR facilities,

EPA responds that the Technical Support Document for the proposal did distinguish between

IPR and commercial refrigeration. EPA did not use GreenChill’s commercial refrigeration data

or consent decrees for commercial refrigeration as a basis for the proposal on IPR. In the final

Technical Support Document, as well as the discussion that immediately follows, EPA has

further separated out the analysis for IPR.

After considering these comments and further reviewing the CARB data, EPA is

finalizing a leak rate of 30 percent for IPR, rather than 20 percent as proposed. The potential

benefits of lowering the leak rate to 20 percent are small in relation to the potential costs incurred

by those small number of facilities that could be affected.

Page 175 of 403

EPA’s model, informed by the 2013 CARB data, indicates that 92 percent of IPR

appliances have leak rates below 30 percent. Almost 10 percent of ODS-containing appliances

would trigger the leak repair requirements if the leak rate were lowered from 35 to 20 percent, as

proposed. However, if the leak rate is lowered from 35 to 30 percent only 0.6 percent more ODS-

containing IPR appliances would trigger the leak repair requirements.

Viewed another way, using the California data as a proxy for the entire United States’

IPR systems, the proposed 20 percent leak rate could affect up to 9 percent of all IPR appliances

(though only a small subset of IPR systems above 20 percent using ODS refrigerant would be

newly affected because they were already subject to the 35 percent leak rate). Appliances that

leaked more than 20 percent are responsible for 86 percent of emissions in the CARB data.

Changing the leak rate threshold to 30 percent, as EPA is finalizing in this rule, would affect 7

percent of all IPR appliances and an even smaller subset of ODS-containing equipment (only 0.6

percent). In the CARB records, appliances leaking more than 30 percent are responsible for 75

percent of emissions.

EPA’s review of the 2004 and 2005 data submitted to the SCAQMD from 349 IPR

facilities also indicate that 81 percent of ODS-containing IPR appliances had leak rates below 30

percent. Slightly less than 5 percent of ODS-containing appliances would trigger the leak repair

requirements if the leak rate was lowered from 35 to 20 percent, as proposed. In this final rule,

only 1.5 percent of ODS-containing appliances would trigger the leak repair requirements if the

leak rate was lowered from 35 to 30 percent. However, by extending the leak repair requirements

to IPR appliances containing non-exempt substitute refrigerants, a 30 percent leak rate would

also trigger all IPR facilities using non-exempt substitute refrigerants above that threshold, not

just the incremental difference of facilities operating between 30 and 35 percent.

Page 176 of 403

EPA calculates leak inspection and repair costs of a 20 percent leak rate for IPR to be

$7.0 million, with annual emissions reductions equal to 0.63 MMTCO

eq and 8.0 ODP tons.

EPA calculates the leak inspection and repair compliance costs of a 30 percent leak rate for IPR

to be $5.5 million, with annual emissions reductions equal to 0.44 MMTCO

eq and 5.4 ODP

tons. Finally, EPA analyzed retaining the current 35 percent leak rate for IPR, as applied to IPR

using substitute refrigerants. In that scenario, the leak inspection and repair costs would be $5.1

million, with annual emissions reductions equal to 0.26 MMTCO

eq and 0 ODP tons. Lowering

the leak rate from 35 to 30 percent provides significantly more environmental benefits, including

reductions in emissions of ozone-depleting substances, for the costs. Lowering the leak rate

further provides diminishing returns.

EPA recognizes that some IPR transitioned to HFCs from ODS refrigerants. This may

have been an environmental decision for some, but other commenters stated that this was done to

avoid being covered by the subpart F regulations. For whatever reasons, these facilities

transitioned to a substitute refrigerant and therefore were no longer required to maintain a leak

rate below 35 percent. EPA’s analysis described above indicate that that a majority of the new

IPR equipment affected by the rule will be those using substitute refrigerants. At a 30 percent

leak rate, EPA estimates that there will be 492 newly affected systems containing ODS

refrigerant but 5,938 systems containing HFC refrigerants.

While the number of affected IPR facilities may be small (EPA estimates there are 1.5

million appliances with a charge size of at least 50 pounds of an ODS or non-exempt substitute

refrigerant), the challenges faced by IPR facilities to upgrade or improve their system are more

substantial that those faced by other appliance types. In general, leak rates are highest for IPR

systems for a number of factors. First, such appliances are generally custom-built and assembled

Page 177 of 403

at the site where they are used rather than in a factory where standard manufacturing practices

can be put in place to reduce leaks. 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.

This results in the sector having an extraordinarily broad range of equipment configurations and

designs. Custom designed equipment may also present 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 are often integrated into production

plants or other applications and typically operate continuously. This need for continuous

operation can make repairing certain leaks more difficult and costly, possibly requiring

manufacturing processes to be shut down and long lead times. Multiple commenters agreed with

and provided comments supporting EPA’s assessment that IPR facilities can be leakier and more

challenging to repair than commercial refrigeration and comfort cooling appliances.

In response to comments requesting different leak rates for old and new appliances, EPA

is not distinguishing between old and new appliances in the regulations for the following

reasons. First, CARB data indicate that older IPR equipment is not necessarily leakier than newer

IPR equipment. While newer systems can generally be designed with leak tightness in mind,

EPA has also found that the quality of the construction and the operation and maintenance of the

appliance plays a larger role in whether the appliance leaks than the age of the equipment per se.

Leakage can be reduced even on older equipment by taking appropriate measures. Second, in

Page 178 of 403

EPA’s experience with the HCFC phaseout, it has been challenging in some circumstances for

owners and operators to determine whether an appliance is existing or new.

For clarity and to facilitate compliance, and consistent with the proposal, EPA is not

finalizing a distinction between old and new IPR appliances in the leak thresholds finalized in

this rulemaking. In response to the commenters encouraging EPA to explore the feasibility of

further lowering IPR rates in the future, EPA will take this under advisement for future analyses

and such a future analysis may include the age of the facility and refrigeration technology used.

Further gradation of the IPR category is not necessary at this time.

ii. Commercial Refrigeration Appliances

EPA proposed to lower the leak rate for commercial refrigeration appliances from 35

percent to 20 percent. Based on the data analysis discussed in this section and comments, EPA is

finalizing that rate as proposed.

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 27 member companies comprising almost 30 percent of

all supermarkets in the United States. GreenChill works to help food retailers voluntarily 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

commercial refrigeration appliances owned by a corporate entity, divided by the full charge for

Page 179 of 403

all of the commercial refrigeration appliances owned by that same corporate entity during that

time period.

Between 2007 and 2014, the corporate-wide average leak rate for all reporting

GreenChill partners remained within a relatively narrow range of between 12.6 percent and 13.8

percent. Remarkably, when new partners joined, the reported corporate-wide average leak rate

across all partners remained level. Several supermarket chains in the GreenChill program,

including some having hundreds of stores, have consistently reported a corporate-wide leak rate

below 10 percent. These 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.

Some commenters found GreenChill data unpersuasive because they are self-reported and

unverified and because they represent the average performance of multiple appliances rather than

the performance of individual systems. Another commenter stated that GreenChill data are not

representative of the supermarket industry as a whole and do not consider the capabilities of

independent operators or small businesses.

EPA disagrees with the comments regarding the use of GreenChill data. It is appropriate

to use the GreenChill data to inform EPA’s consideration of achievable leak rates for commercial

refrigeration. The average performance of multiple appliances is relevant to understanding how

well individual appliances, on average, perform. This dataset represents almost a third of the

supermarket industry, including a few smaller independent operators, over multiple years and

locations across the United States. Even if the data were biased towards larger chains and

organizations that have proactively sought to reduce their emissions below the prior regulatory

rate of 35 percent, these data give an indication of what is achievable when companies seek to

Page 180 of 403

reduce leak rates. Further, these data demonstrate that leak rates well below 20 percent are not

just achievable but may be consistently maintained. A leak rate is not inherent to a particular

piece of equipment but rather includes factors such as how that appliance is operated and

maintained.

One commenter representing the supermarket industry supported lowering the leak rate

threshold but stated that 20 percent may be burdensome for small businesses and independent

retailers. Other commenters in the supermarket industry supported the proposed 20 percent leak

rate and one stated that they currently meet that rate for both ODS and HFC equipment. CARB

submitted comments suggesting that EPA lower the leak rate to 10 percent for commercial

refrigeration, or totally eliminate the threshold. Based on their 2014 RMP data, lowering the

threshold to 10 percent would raise the number of affected systems in California from 5,500 to

6,342 (out of more than approximately 20,000 systems) while reducing greenhouse gas

emissions by 0.11 MMTCO

e. Another commenter urged EPA to establish a leak rate of 10

percent for new commercial refrigeration to incentivize improved design, installation, and

maintenance. The commenter refers to the GreenChill program at least 125 stores currently

certified as Silver or above, and with Platinum certified stores achieving leak rates below 5

percent and to a supermarket chain in the UK that has a corporate-wide leak rate of 7.1 percent in

2013.

EPA responds that the average leak rate across all GreenChill commercial refrigeration

appliances does not rise appreciably when new companies joined the partnership, which

indicates that companies operating outside of the GreenChill partnership are operating with leak

rates well below 35 percent.

EPA’s standard presumption, based on CARB data, is that the

See the document GreenChill Partnership’s 2014 Data: Benchmarks, Results, and Trends in the docket.

Page 181 of 403

average leak rate for all commercial refrigeration is 25 percent. That some commenters say they

operate their commercial refrigeration with leak rates below 20 percent for both ODS and HFC

equipment is further support that private incentives drive lower leak rates and that a 20 percent

rate is clearly achievable.

Based on data in the record, EPA does not agree that a 10 percent leak rate would be

appropriate for commercial refrigeration. GreenChill partners have lower leak rates than the

industry average, yet the average rate among all commercial refrigeration appliances in

GreenChill is around 13 percent. There are only nine supermarkets that have achieved the

Platinum level certification. EPA therefore does not believe that 10 percent is currently regularly

achievable industry-wide. EPA also appreciates the concept raised by the commenter that

establishing lower leak rates for future appliances could be a way to encourage innovation. EPA

did request comment on whether there are other regulatory incentives that could provide a basis

to go with a leak rate lower than 20 percent and establishing a target rate to achieve in the future

is an intriguing concept. EPA will take this comment under advisement. However, in today’s

final rule EPA is basing the revised leak rates on what appliances are currently able to regularly

achieve.

The data submitted to the SCAQMD from 1,722 commercial refrigeration appliances

indicate that 77 percent of ODS-containing comfort cooling appliances had leak rates below 20

percent. Only 8 percent of ODS-containing appliances would trigger the leak repair requirements

if the leak rate was lowered from 35 to 20 percent. In 2010, when EPA analyzed the data, EPA

found that the SCAQMD leak repair data for commercial refrigeration appliances was consistent

with EPA’s analysis of the commercial refrigeration sector.

Page 182 of 403

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. In a recent consent decree with Trader Joe’s, the company agreed to

achieve and maintain an annual corporate-wide average leak rate of 12.1 percent through 2019.

One commenter was unpersuaded by the use of consent decrees because they are aspirational and

do not reflect actual operation. EPA agrees that the corporate-wide leak rates to be obtained

under these consent decrees are not data of actual operations, per se, but they are more than

merely aspirational. Consent decrees are legally binding and the companies would not have

committed to them if they thought they were unachievable. These consent decrees provide

additional support for the proposition that a 20 percent leak rate for commercial refrigeration is

reasonably achievable. These consent decrees are available in the docket.

iii. Comfort Cooling and Other Appliances

EPA proposed to lower the 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 commercial refrigeration or IPR categories from 15 percent to 10 percent. Based on the data

analysis discussed in this section and comments, EPA is finalizing that rate as proposed.

Some commenters recommended keeping the leak rate at 15 percent because some older

systems may not be able to achieve a lower leak rate. These commenters stated that large chillers

from the 1990s have a leak rate of 8 to 10 percent due to the seal lubrication design and that as

chillers age, the leak rate increases. They asserted EPA should therefore consider the

equipment’s date of manufacture, the compressor configuration, and whether the equipment is

custom built. Another commenter recommended a 5 percent leak rate for comfort cooling and

Page 183 of 403

cited multiple data sources. This commenter pointed to sources of data showing a 0.5 percent

leak rate for HCFC-123 chillers, as well as a 2009 CARB analysis showing a leak rate of 1

percent and the 2005 IPCC/TEAP Special Report which shows average annual leak rates for best

practice in large commercial air-conditioning to be 0.5 percent. Another commenter indicated

support for the 10 percent leak rate and noted that the threshold could be lowered further without

creating undue burden, but did not provide any technical data concerning average leak rates.

EPA responds that the Agency does consider factors such as the date of manufacture and

the compressor configuration for establishing a leak rate applicable to all comfort cooling

appliances. Since as far back as 1998, EPA found that comfort cooling appliances leaked less

than five percent per year, with many new comfort cooling appliances leaking around two or

even one percent per year. The highest leak rates reported from new equipment back in 1998 was

high pressure chillers with open-drive compressors with leak rates ranging from four to seven

percent. (63 FR 32066). This assessment continues to be valid based on industry feedback on

EPA’s Vintaging Model. On the other side of the spectrum, the ultralow leak rates (e.g., 1

percent or lower) cited by the other commenter are generally best-practice leak rates or average

leaks rates across new or low-pressure chillers and do not necessarily represent the full range of

chillers, by type and age, that are subject to these regulations. The HCFC-123 chillers cited by

the commenter operate at a lower pressure than the other systems and thus might not be

representative of achievable leak rates for HFC and other HCFC equipment which operate under

higher pressures.

A few commenters stated that EPA lacks definitive data on typical and economically

achievable leak rates for comfort cooling appliances. These commenters asserted that the CARB

and GreenChill data presented in the proposed rule are primarily related to commercial

Page 184 of 403

refrigeration and IPR, and that SCAQMD’s data is not nationally representative because those

appliances have been subject to leak regulations since 1991.

EPA responds that the Agency has analyzed average leak rates specifically of comfort

cooling appliances as reported to SCAQMD and CARB, and as estimated in the Vintaging

Model. As reflected in this analysis, these three sources indicate that most comfort cooling

appliances can regularly achieve an annual leak rate of 10 percent. This memo also cites other

industry estimates of leak rates in comfort cooling appliances. The majority of these estimates

range between 2 and 5 percent with three of the fourteen estimates estimating leak rates above 10

percent.

The data submitted to the SCAQMD from 2,700 comfort cooling appliances indicate that

87 percent of ODS-containing comfort cooling appliances had leak rates below 10 percent. Only

1.5 percent of ODS-containing appliances would trigger the leak repair requirements if the leak

rate was lowered from 15 to 10 percent.

EPA agrees that appliances in California or in the SCAQMD may have lower leak rates

than appliances nationally, given the refrigerant management regulations that have existed in the

state for many years. EPA therefore compared California data with the national assumptions in

the Vintaging Model and found that the two correlate closely. The Vintaging Model is updated

frequently with data supplied by refrigerant industry stakeholders. Therefore, any difference is

not likely to be significant. This comparison is found in the final technical support document in

the docket.

Commenters also stated that previous actions are leading the recovery of the ozone layer.

These commenters stated that reducing the leak rate as proposed will not contribute to the

recovery of the ozone layer and thus EPA cannot justify the burden on owners and operators of

Page 185 of 403

such equipment. EPA anticipates that this action will contribute to the recovery of the ozone

layer and has calculated a reduction in ODP-weighted emissions of 114 ODP tons. However,

section 608 does not require EPA to quantify the impact of this action on the ozone layer. To the

contrary, section 608(a) directs EPA to establish regulations that reduce the use and emissions of

ODS to the lowest achievable level, without requiring separate evaluation of how each such

reduction would affect the recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer. Individual actions such as

reducing emissions from comfort cooling appliances fit into the broader approach to ozone layer

protection reflected in Title VI of the Clean Air Act. As such, any action that reduces the use and

emissions of ODS can help the recovery of the ozone layer.

EPA also received two comments regarding what is included under the term other

appliances. One commenter recommended that the Agency create a defined term that includes

refrigerated air dryers, non-food cold storage, wind tunnels, electrical equipment room cooling,

non-occupied digital control rooms, computer server rooms with set point below 68° F,

environmental chambers, growth chambers, turbine inlet air cooling, test cells and chambers, and

aquariums. That commenter stated that thousands of regulated entities have identified systems

that potentially fall into that category. Another commenter noted that humidity control in paint

booths and air compressors could be other appliances but are currently treated as IPR. This

commenter encouraged EPA to remove the other category and instead treat appliances that do

not fall under comfort cooling or commercial refrigeration as IPR.

At this time, EPA is not finalizing a definition of “other appliance.” The owners or

operators of some of the appliances included in a definition may currently treat such appliances

as IPR or commercial refrigeration. While not all “other appliances” fall under IPR, for those

that do, moving them into an “other appliances” category would reduce their leak rate from 35 to

Page 186 of 403

10 percent without prior notice. More fundamentally, EPA’s current view is that it is appropriate

for other appliances to be regulated according to their function, such that those that fit within the

definition of IPR would be regulated as IPR and those that fit within the definition of commercial

refrigeration would be regulated accordingly. That view is reflected in the regulatory text

finalized in this rule, which provides that the 10 percent leak rate applies to “other appliances”

with a full charge of 50 or more pounds of refrigerant that are not covered by subparagraphs

addressing IPR or commercial refrigeration equipment.

6. Leak Rate Calculation and Seasonal Variances

The first step in reducing refrigerant leaks is knowing whether the appliance is leaking

refrigerant and, if so, to what extent. The prior regulations at §82.156(i) did not explicitly require

technicians or owners and operators to calculate the leak rate each time refrigerant is added to an

appliance. Recognizing that knowing the leak rate is necessary for compliance with the leak

repair provisions of subpart F, EPA’s Compliance Guidance for Industrial Process Refrigeration

Leak Repair Regulations under Section 608 of the Clean Air Act from October 1995 states that

“[e]ach time you add refrigerant to a system normally containing 50 pounds or more of

refrigerant, you should promptly calculate the leak rate.” (emphasis in original). Generally, the

only time one can calculate the leak rate is when refrigerant is added to the appliance.

To reinforce this practice, EPA is clarifying in the revisions to the regulatory text

finalized in this rule that owners or operators of appliances with 50 or more pounds of refrigerant

must calculate the leak rate every time refrigerant is added to those appliances. EPA is also

clarifying that the leak rate would not need to be calculated when refrigerant is added

immediately following a retrofit or the installation of a new appliance or for a seasonal variance.

Page 187 of 403

Two commenters suggested that the leak rate calculation should not be required on non-

leaking appliances where all identified leaks are repaired within 30 days of discovery. While

EPA commends appliance owners and operators who regularly repair all identified leaks within

30 days, calculating the leak rate each time refrigerant is added is still necessary. Comments

indicate that in some instances, appliance owners and operators are unable to find significant

leaks that may be driving the high leak rate. Given this feedback, EPA concludes that calculating

the leak rate is needed to alert the appliance owner or operator to the fact that, in the case of a

continually high leak rate, the typical repair and inspection attempts are not sufficiently

addressing the problem with the appliance. Moreover, because the revisions to the leak repair

rules as finalized in this action require owners or operators to repair leaks to lower the leak rate

below the applicable threshold, calculating the leak rate on an ongoing basis provides important

information to help evaluate whether this requirement has been satisfied. Not calculating the leak

rate each time refrigerant is added could also lead to confusion for technicians that service more

than one customer if each has different equipment subject to different regulatory compliance

requirements.

EPA is also clarifying in this final rule how to handle 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

Page 188 of 403

can hold the appliances’ full charge, including the additional charge needed to flood the

condenser.

Under this final rule, owners or operators can exclude from the leak rate calculation the

amount added that is less than or equal to the amount removed 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 more refrigerant is added in

the fall/winter than was removed in the prior spring/summer, the difference between the two

would be considered a leak and not a seasonal variance. Without requiring that the amount added

be equal to or less than the amount removed to qualify for the exemption, there is no way to

distinguish legitimate seasonal variances from refrigerant leaks. For example, an appliance

owner removes 150 pounds of refrigerant during the spring. Later that year, he adds 180 pounds

to that same system to address a seasonal variance. The owner would be able to consider 150 of

the 180 pounds as a seasonal variance and the remaining 30 pounds as a leak.

EPA expects only one removal and one addition 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, and the two additions together are

less than or equal to the amount removed in the previous season, the second addition would be

considered part of the same refrigerant addition unless the owner or operator could document a

leak.

As discussed previously in this notice, EPA is defining a seasonal variance as the

removal of refrigerant from an appliance due to a change in ambient conditions caused by a

Page 189 of 403

change in season, followed by the subsequent addition of an amount that is less than or equal to

the amount of refrigerant removed in the prior change in season, where both the removal and

addition of refrigerant occurs within one consecutive 12-month period.

EPA is finalizing in the revised regulations at §82.157(b) that the leak rate does not need

to be calculated when adding refrigerant that qualifies as a seasonal variance. Both the addition

and prior 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. The recordkeeping requirements for this flexibility in calculating the leak rate

are located in §82.157(l)(2), and those for maintaining records associated with the seasonal

variance if it is excluded from the leak rate calculation are at §82.157(l)(10).

Commenters were generally supportive of this new flexibility, but had some concerns,

many of which are discussed in the definitions section of this notice. Several commenters

requested clarification on whether the owner or operator would be responsible for this

requirement. Owners or operators must keep records of refrigerant added and removed from an

appliance. If they wish to claim a seasonal variance, they must note in their records the amount

of refrigerant that was removed at the end of the last season for a seasonal variance. This is likely

to be one of the only reasons to remove refrigerant without immediately adding additional

refrigerant or without mothballing, retiring or retrofitting an appliance.

7. Appliance Repair

The prior regulations at §82.156(i) generally require owners or operators to repair leaks

within 30 days of the leak rate being exceeded (i.e., the date of the refrigerant addition) to bring

the leak rate to below the applicable leak rate. In the proposed rule, EPA discussed that owners

or operators may not know that they have performed sufficient repairs to bring the system below

Page 190 of 403

the leak rate, or they may have completed the repairs but may find themselves out of compliance

if a separate leak occurs. To reduce emissions of refrigerants to the lowest achievable level, and

remove ambiguity concerning compliance, EPA proposed to require a leak inspection of the

appliance and then repair all identified leaks. Recognizing that a small amount of refrigerant can

be released from an appliance even if the refrigerant circuit is unbroken, EPA sought comments

on not requiring the repair of certain minor leaks. Specifically, EPA asked whether it should

exempt situations where 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.

Many commenters requested that EPA differentiate between major fixable leaks and

minor unfixable leaks. They stated that it is impossible to repair “all leaks” as many systems

have minuscule leaks that are not fixable. A couple of commenters suggested that EPA not

require the repair of leaks that meet the ASHRAE 147 standard, which are those that are less

than 0.1oz/year/joint. Another commenter recommends a threshold of 10,000 ppm if using leak

detection equipment, or detection visible to the naked eye if using qualitative tests like a soap

bubble test. Other commenters supported EPA’s proposed exception that allows a technician to

use best professional judgment to decide that a leak is not caused by a faulty component or

connection and that the leak would not be reduced from repair or adjustment.

Some commenters were concerned about the diminishing returns of repairing all

identified leaks. In some cases, small leaks may actually require extensive repair activities and

even component replacement. Repairing all identified leaks will extend repair times, which for

IPR systems may increase the costs of the repair or, in the case of nuclear generating facilities,

increase the risk of conducting those repairs. For those reasons, these commenters said owners

Page 191 of 403

and operators should be provided flexibility to select which leaks to repair or make a good-faith

effort to repair leaks.

In this final rule, after consideration of the comments, EPA is not finalizing the proposed

change to require repair of all identified leaks. In the proposal, EPA acknowledged that a small

amount of refrigerant can migrate from an appliance even if the refrigerant circuit is unbroken,

and requested comment on whether there should be a limited exception from the requirement.

Instead, the regulations finalized today contain the same requirement as in the original rule by

requiring that leaks be repaired such that the leak rate will be below the applicable leak rate.

Accordingly, EPA is not at this time setting a final standard for what is, or is not, an actionable

leak beyond the applicable leak rate. In not finalizing this proposed change, EPA considers that

an owner or operator may have good reason to choose not to repair a small leak. EPA also

considers the original intent of the leak repair provisions, as explained in the 1993 Rule. At that

time the Agency considered requiring the repair of all leaks “which has the benefit of simplicity

and clarity” but explained that without “any type of lower bound, however, this standard could

result in huge amounts of money being spent to repair even pinhole leaks in equipment that may

soon be obsolete…The intent of the leak repair requirement in this rule is to assure that

substantial leaks are repaired.” (58 FR 28680). Not finalizing this proposed requirement reduces

the number of leaks that are to be repaired and accordingly will reduce the burden of the final

rule compared with the proposed rule for two reasons. First, the repair effort itself may take less

time. Second, fewer verification tests on the repairs, and recordkeeping associated with such

tests, will be needed.

The final regulations include other provisions to help ensure that leaks are repaired

consistent with the Rule’s provisions, and to address compliance and enforceability of the leak

Page 192 of 403

repair provisions. For example, the final regulations provide for initial and follow-up verification

tests, as discussed below. They also specify that the leak rate must be confirmed upon the next

refrigerant addition. EPA recognizes that this will result in some uncertainty because the owner

or operator will not know whether the repair is successful until the leak rate is measured at a

future date. There are two instances in which EPA will consider a repair to be successful beyond

calculating the leak rate upon the next refrigerant addition. The first instance is if a subsequent

leak inspection does not find any leaks at all.

EPA therefore strongly encourages the owner or

operator to repair all identified leaks, and this provision provides an incentive to repair all

identified leaks, although EPA is not finalizing this proposed requirement. The second instance

is if there has not been a refrigerant addition in 12 months after the date of repair. If there is not a

need for another refrigerant addition for at least a year after the date of repair (and thus the leak

rate cannot be calculated for at least a year) EPA will consider the repairs to have been

successful.

If upon the next refrigerant addition the appliance is still exceeding the threshold leak

rate, EPA’s presumption is that the repair failed. The burden is on the owner or operator of the

appliance to show that leaks were repaired to bring the leak rate below the applicable threshold

and that those repairs held.

One commenter stated that the greatest value of a leak inspection is on a system with a

known leak. A comprehensive leak inspection on an appliance that has exceeded the applicable

leak rate will ensure that the technician does not stop an inspection when the first leak is found.

Another commenter encouraged EPA to be specific that the leak inspection be conducted on the

As discussed previously in this notice, EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement that the owner or operator

conduct a leak inspection of the appliance before considering the repair to be complete. Conducting a

comprehensive leak inspection is the only way to ensure that the owner or operator can identify the repairs necessary

to bring the leak rate below the applicable level.

Page 193 of 403

whole system not just where the original leak was found. Another commenter stated that if a

particular circuit in a rack house is found to be leaking and is subsequently repaired and passes

the verification test, it would be nonsensical to require the inspection of other circuits on that

particular appliance.

EPA agrees with these three commenters. The leak inspection must encompass all visible

and accessible components of an appliance, with certain exceptions specified in the revised rule.

The leak inspection is not complete simply because a single suspected leak is identified. Only

through an inspection of the whole of the appliance can an owner or operator know that the

repairs that are to be made will be sufficient to bring the appliance below the applicable leak rate.

However, a leak inspection need not be performed on other appliances at that site. As discussed

previously in this notice, EPA is clarifying the definition of appliance such that each separate

circuit is a separate appliance. While there could be a benefit to proactively searching for leaks

on all other circuits, there is no obligation to inspect the other circuits if only one circuit is

leaking and it has been repaired and the repair verified.

8. Verification Tests

The prior regulations at §82.156(i)(3) required verification tests for repairs to IPR and

federally owned commercial and comfort cooling appliances containing an ODS refrigerant.

Verification tests are performed on appliances, or portions thereof, shortly after they are repaired

to confirm that leaks have been fixed. Without verification tests, it may take additional time for

the owner and operator to realize that a repair has been unsuccessful and during that time

refrigerant could continue to leak from the appliance. EPA is extending this requirement to all

required repairs because ensuring that the repairs are done correctly the first time is vital to

Page 194 of 403

reducing refrigerant emissions, regardless of whether the appliance is used for IPR, commercial

refrigeration, comfort cooling, or is in the category of “other appliances.”

EPA is finalizing the requirement at §82.157(e) 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).

Most commenters on this issue supported the requirement for a follow-up verification test.

Commenters agreed that the combination of an initial and a follow-up verification test provides

effective confirmation of successful repair. One commenter stated that requiring the verification

of all repairs would be excessively burdensome. The commenter discusses this burden in the

context of the proposal to repair “all identified leaks.” The commenter continues that if

amendments to the rule for inspections and repairs are adopted in any form, EPA should adopt

verification provisions that are limited to significant leaks or adopt an 80/20 rule to assure that

the majority of leak repairs are verified by a certified technician or qualified plant personnel.

EPA disagrees with the comment about limiting verification provisions to significant

leaks or adopting an 80/20 rule. Because EPA is not requiring the repair of all identified leaks in

the final rule, the number of verification tests should be reduced. However, as explained above, it

is important that all repairs be verified both for purposes of compliance and enforceability and

for purposes of avoiding emissions from leaking appliances. Since owners or operators have

flexibility to determine which leaks to repair as long as they can meet the obligation to bring the

leak rate below the applicable threshold, they may generally consider what are significant leaks

in their repair effort. The verification tests would only apply to the leaks that were repaired.

Page 195 of 403

One commenter stated that a follow-up verification test is unnecessary if there are

periodic leak inspections and thus they should be eliminated. EPA disagrees with this comment

because a follow-up verification test and a leak inspection serve two separate purposes. The

verification test is conducted shortly after the repairs to confirm the success of those repairs. The

leak inspections are to identify over the next year or longer whether new leaks have developed or

whether minor leaks have become more significant and to determine the location of such leaks.

EPA requested comments on whether to require a minimum time between initial and

follow up verification tests, such as one to three hours, to allow an appliance to return to normal

operating characteristics and conditions. Many commenters recommended that EPA not establish

a minimum time. Commenters suggested that the follow-up verification test be allowed as soon

as the appliance returns to normal operating characteristics and conditions. Requiring a waiting

period would increase costs by requiring an additional service call. Furthermore, high pressure

systems will reveal whether a leak was properly repaired almost immediately.

EPA has considered the burden of conducting verification tests on all appliances. The

Agency understands that most technicians pressure check appliances immediately following

repairs. Such pressure checks would satisfy the initial verification requirements. EPA is

concerned that follow-up verifications may not be a part of normal operating procedures for all

repairs. This final rule would allow both initial and follow-up verification tests to be conducted

during the same service appointment. Accordingly, EPA does not expect the requirement for

verification tests to result in a longer servicing event and thus we do not expect this requirement

to result in incremental labor costs. However, the final rule provides, and EPA reiterates, that the

technician must wait until the appliance returns to normal operating characteristics and

conditions, which includes operating temperatures, pressures, fluid flows, speeds, and other

Page 196 of 403

characteristics, including full charge of the appliance, that would be expected for a given process

load and ambient condition during normal operation.

Some commenters requested that EPA add a reporting requirement for technicians to

provide owners or operators with the results of the verification tests. These commenters

expressed that it is difficult to get all of the documentation that they are required to maintain

from the technicians who generate those records. EPA agrees with the need to harmonize the

recordkeeping provisions between technicians and owners and operators and understands that in

order for owners and operators to maintain the required records of the verification tests, they

would need to obtain relevant information from the person conducting those tests. For these

reasons, EPA is adding a requirement for technicians to provide documentation at the conclusion

of each service visit to §82.157(l)(5).

Two commenters suggested that EPA provide an exception for situations where a follow-

up verification test is impossible, for example, when it would be unsafe to be present when the

system is at normal operating characteristics and conditions. One of the commenters

recommended that EPA allow a standing deep vacuum test in lieu of a follow-up verification

test. EPA responds that the Agency attempted to address similar concerns from commenters in

1995. Examples included leaks inside a heat exchanger, compressor internals, locations that must

be insulated prior to start-up, and locations in close proximity to dangerous hot equipment or

moving parts where access is not possible after reassembly (See 60 FR 40429). At that time, the

Agency amended the regulation at §82.156(i)(3) to state that “[i]n all cases, the follow-up

verification test shall be conducted at normal operating characteristics and conditions, unless

sound professional judgment indicates that tests performed at normal operating characteristics

and conditions will produce less reliable results, in which case the follow-up verification test

Page 197 of 403

shall be conducted at or near the normal operating pressure where practicable, and at or near the

normal operating temperature where practicable.” EPA had proposed to remove that provision to

make the regulation clearer and less ambiguous. Instead, EPA is modifying that provision in the

revised regulations at §82.157(e)(2) to more clearly address the concern about safety raised by

the commenters as well as the original intent of that provision.

EPA is also finalizing the proposed change to clarify 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 explicitly allowing unlimited

verification tests within the required repair window. Commenters were supportive of this

clarification.

9. Extensions to the 30-day (or 120-day) Repair Requirement

The prior regulations contained extensions to the repair or retrofit/retirement deadlines

under four conditions:

 The appliance was mothballed (available for all appliances) (§82.156(i)(10));

 The appliance was located in an area subject to radiological contamination or where

shutting down the appliance would directly lead to radiological contamination (available

for federally owned appliances) (§82.156(i)(1)(ii) and (i)(5)(ii));

 Applicable federal, state, or local regulations made a repair within 30 or 120 days

impossible (available for IPR) (§82.156(i)(2)(i)); or

 Parts were unavailable (available for IPR) (§82.156(i)(2)(i)).

While not an extension, IPR facilities were 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 was allowed for all types of appliances if a

Page 198 of 403

dated retrofit or retirement plan is developed within 30 days and is then implemented within one

year of the date developed.

EPA proposed to provide these extensions to all appliance categories, not just IPR and

federally owned equipment. EPA is finalizing these proposed extensions, with some changes

from the proposal. Based on comments received, EPA is finalizing a modified version for the

extension for when necessary parts are unavailable. More specifically, EPA is clarifying that the

extension is allowed when components that must be replaced as part of the repair are not

available within the initial 30 day (or 120 day) repair time frame. Also based on comments, EPA

is modifying the proposed changes to allow these extensions upon notification to EPA, unless

EPA notifies the source otherwise, rather than requiring owners or operators to request an

extension and wait for EPA approval. Taken together, these changes significantly reduce the

burden of the leak repair regulations on owners of comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration

appliances and to a lesser extent IPR.

Based on comments received, EPA is modifying the extension for when necessary parts

are unavailable. Many commenters supported EPA’s proposal to allow additional time to acquire

and install a replacement for a leaking component. While EPA views installing a component as a

type of repair, the comments indicate that some owners or operators consider the replacement of

a component as different than the repair of an appliance. Replacing a component is more costly,

requires more time to order, and requires more system downtime to install. Owners or operators

may attempt to repair a leak but upon a failed follow-up verification test may ultimately decide

that the whole component where the leak is located needs to be replaced. By the time a decision

is made to replace the whole component, there is little time remaining within the initial 30 day

repair window to procure and install that component.

Page 199 of 403

Based on these comments, EPA is modifying the extension for when necessary parts are

unavailable by clarifying that the extension is allowed when components that must be replaced as

part of the required repair are not available within the initial 30 day time frame (or 120 days if an

industrial process shutdown is required). This extension encourages the proper repair of an

appliance, which in EPA’s view, includes the replacement of major components if necessary,

rather than simply patching those components, an approach which may not be successful in the

longer term. Furthermore, 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. This extension should also

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.

The extensions for repair in the prior regulations are open-ended. While those regulations

provided only the additional time needed to receive delivery of the necessary parts, it did not set

an outer limit for delivery nor did it clearly provide time to install the components once they are

received. EPA is finalizing its proposal to set a limit on the extension for the installation of a

necessary component. The owner or operator must complete the repair within 30 days after

receiving delivery of the component and the total extension may not exceed 180 days (or 270

days if an IPR shutdown is required).

To qualify for any of the extensions in this section, owners or operators must perform all

repairs that can be completed within the initial 30 or 120 day period. Initial verification tests

must be performed on all completed repairs. A final verification test may not be appropriate for

the completed repairs depending on the nature of the remaining repairs and state of the appliance.

The owner or operator must also document all such repair efforts and the reason for the inability

Page 200 of 403

to make the repair. This would include a written statement from the appliance or component

manufacturer or distributor stating the unavailability of the necessary component and the

expected delivery date.

Some commenters stated that any changes to nuclear generating stations must undergo

extensive engineering and risk review processes, which recommends against the requirement to

retrofit if they cannot repair the system. The commenter noted that extended downtime of safety

systems in such facilities will increase risk to workers and may conflict with federal regulations.

EPA responds that the Agency is providing extensions for any appliance type subject to

radiological contamination. Previously, this extension was available only for federally owned

appliances. EPA is also not changing the open-ended nature of the extensions due to radiological

contamination or compliance with applicable federal, state, or local regulations. Together, this

should allow repairs in accordance with the commenter’s schedule.

In some instances, encouraging repair may be a preferable environmental outcome to

requiring the retrofit or retirement of a leaking system. Appliances that are to be retired are not

required to be repaired. Thus, an appliance may continue to leak for up to a year (in addition to

extension opportunities). Under this final rule, leaks must be repaired to bring the leak rate below

the applicable threshold within 30 days and any component replacement must occur within 6

months. The extension could accelerate the time by which the appliance will stop releasing

refrigerants by making leak repair seem more attractive or feasible for some owners or operators

compared with retrofit or retirement of a leaking system.

Based on the comments received, EPA is allowing these extensions to be automatic, so

long as EPA is notified. Previously, owners or operators would have to request these extensions

from EPA and wait for them to be approved. One commenter requested that EPA automatically

Page 201 of 403

grant the extension where there are limiting federal, state, or local laws so long as the owner or

operator maintains the proper documentation that demonstrates they satisfy the condition.

Another commenter requested that EPA harmonize the timing of the request with the 30 day time

frame to repair. Previously, a request had to be made within 30 days of exceeding the leak rate

but EPA had an additional 30 days to approve or deny the request. There was no clear tolling of

the 30 day repair clock which meant a system could be denied an extension after the repair

deadline expired. EPA is resolving these conflicting schedules by considering repair requests

approved unless EPA notifies the owner or operator that it is not approved.

Owners or operators must provide the same information to EPA as was contained in a

request for an extension under the prior regulations. The request 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 a leak rate above the applicable

leak rate was discovered; the location of leak(s) to the extent determined to date; any repair work

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 an extension to the earlier submitted completion date is necessary, the owner or

operator must still submit a request to EPA with a new estimated date of completion and

documentation of the reason for that change. The request must be within 30 days of identifying

that further time is needed. The owner or operator must keep a dated copy of this submission and

proof that it was submitted.

10. Retrofit or Retirement Plans

The previous regulations at §82.156(i)(6) required an owner or operator of an appliance

that exceeds the applicable leak rate to develop a retrofit or retirement plan generally within 30

Page 202 of 403

days if they were unable to repair the leak or simply choose not to repair the leak and instead

retire the appliance. EPA proposed four revisions to the retrofit/retirement provision. First, EPA

proposed to remove the requirement to retrofit or retire an appliance after a failed follow-up

verification test. Second, EPA proposed to remove the requirement to use a substitute with a

lower or equivalent ODP. Third, EPA proposed to establish explicit elements of a

retrofit/retirement plan. Fourth, EPA proposed to require that all identified leaks be repaired as

part of implementing any retrofit plan. EPA is finalizing these four proposals, with some

modifications based on comments.

Failed Verification Tests. The prior regulations required 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. Owners or operators of comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances were not

required to perform verification tests on their repairs and therefore were not subject to this

trigger to develop a retrofit or retirement plan. As discussed in Section IV.F.8 of this notice, EPA

is extending the requirement to conduct verification tests on repairs made to commercial

refrigeration and comfort cooling appliances, increasing the potential universe of appliances

affected.

Both prior to initiating this rulemaking and through comments received on the proposed

rule, appliance owners/operators have expressed their concern to EPA that the requirement to

retrofit or retire an entire appliance because it has failed a verification test is not always practical

or necessary. In their view, a failed verification test should indicate to a technician that further

repair work needs to be performed to properly fix the leak, not a regulatory requirement to begin

retrofitting or retiring the appliance. As EPA discusses in the section on follow-up verification

Page 203 of 403

tests, in the revisions finalized in this rule EPA is allowing as many repairs and follow-up

verification tests as are necessary to fix the appliance within the required time frame.

Accordingly, consistent with these comments, the revised regulations no longer require an owner

or operator to retrofit or retire an entire appliance simply because it has failed a verification test.

EPA proposed that failing to comply with “paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section,” which

included the proposed requirement to repair all identified leaks and verify all repairs, would

trigger a requirement to develop a retrofit or retirement plan within 30 days, rather than a failed

verification test. As discussed above, EPA is not finalizing the proposal to repair all identified

leaks; therefore, EPA is modifying the trigger to develop a retrofit or retirement plan

accordingly. In this final rule, a plan must be developed within 30 days of discovering that an

appliance continues to leak above the applicable leak rate after having conducted the necessary

repairs and verification tests. This provision as finalized is also narrower and clearer than a

“failure to comply with paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section,” which EPA proposed, because the

proposed language could have been interpreted to also include failure to maintain records rather

than failure to repair the appliance. EPA has added a provision to clarify that owners or operators

are still required to develop a retrofit or retirement plan even if they do not affirmatively choose

to retrofit, retire, or repair their leaking appliance.

Retrofit/Retirement ODP. EPA’s prior regulations required 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 or zero ODP.

EPA proposed 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

Page 204 of 403

of retrofits), so long as it is acceptable for use under SNAP. This proposed revision would not

relax the prior requirements with respect to HCFCs since the regulations implementing sections

605 and 606 of the CAA already prohibit the use of virgin HCFCs in appliance manufacture (as

of January 1, 2010, for HCFC-142b and HCFC-22; and as of January 1, 2020, for other HCFCs)

and thus installation and retrofit of such appliances would not occur. As explained in the

proposal, requiring the use of a refrigerant with a lower or equivalent ODP could be problematic

if the requirement were read strictly because some non-exempt substitutes like HFOs that are not

classified as an ODS have a negligible, but non-zero, ODP. For example, trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-

trifluoroprop-1-ene (also known as 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, an owner/operator would

not be able to replace an R-134a chiller with a 1233zd(E) chiller in the future because R-134a

has an ODP of zero and the olefinic refrigerant has an ODP greater than zero. This could prevent

transition to low-GWP alternatives.

Some commenters suggested that EPA should require a retrofit to an acceptable substitute

under SNAP, with one commenter suggesting that it be a lower GWP alternative than the

refrigerant currently being used. Another commenter suggested that if the SNAP-approved

refrigerant with the lowest available GWP is being used, EPA should allow for documented

repairs and quarterly leak inspection in place of forced system retirement.

Other commenters questioned the value of retrofitting a system that already uses

substitute refrigerants and suggest that retrofit plans should not be required for non-ODS

equipment. One commenter viewed the existing rules as providing an opt-out incentive to owners

that voluntarily retrofit to a non-ODS. The commenter requested that EPA retain this feature so

that owners that switch from a high-GWP refrigerant to a low-GWP refrigerant similarly benefit.

Page 205 of 403

Similarly, a commenter questioned how retrofitting helps the owner/operator if the rules for

HFCs are the same as for ODS.

EPA responds that the Agency is finalizing provisions that encourage the repair of

leaking systems instead of requiring the retrofitting or retirement of those systems. Most

significantly, EPA is finalizing the proposal to allow all comfort cooling, commercial

refrigeration, and IPR appliances the opportunity to extend the deadline to repair leaking

appliances beyond 30 days (or 120 days if an industrial process shutdown is required). It is not

the Agency’s intention to use the retrofit or retirement requirements in the subpart F regulations

to dictate specific refrigerant choices. The revisions to these regulations are intended to provide

as much flexibility to the owner or operator to decide what is appropriate for their system.

Elements of a Retrofit or Retirement Plan. EPA has not previously specified what

elements should be included in a retrofit or retirement plan. 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. Based on requests from stakeholders, EPA

proposed a minimum set of information that is likely to be needed during any type of retrofit or

retirement to be included in a plan, including:

 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;

Page 206 of 403

 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

 Schedule for completion within one year of the appliance retrofit or retirement.

Some commenters stated that this is excessively detailed and includes information that is

unlikely to be known immediately upon deciding to retrofit or retire an appliance. One

commenter noted that it will take time to perform the necessary engineering evaluations and

investigate the costs and timing associated with the available options. The commenter provided

revised regulatory text to remove reference to the type of refrigerant and full charge for the

retrofitted system, the procedure for converting the appliance to a new refrigerant, and the

schedule for conducting the retrofit or retirement.

EPA responds that the shortest time frame in which a retrofit or retirement plan would

have to be developed is when, upon discovering a leak, the owner or operator immediately

chooses to retrofit or retire the appliance upon discovering that leak. In that circumstance the

plan would be developed within 30 days. In all other circumstances, the owner will have 30 days

from when repair attempts have failed, including repairs attempted under various extensions, to

develop the plan.

While some information may not be available in that time frame, the owner or operator

can develop an initial plan within 30 days and then modify it as additional information is

determined. 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. The plan

Page 207 of 403

could indicate what steps must be taken in order to have enough information to make the

necessary determinations. The information required in the plan is not excessively detailed

because the owner or operator will need to know this information in order to properly dispose of

the old appliance and install the replacement.

One commenter also stated that the plan does not need to be kept onsite with the

appliance, so long as it can be made available to EPA and that it is also unnecessary for a plan to

be signed because staff, including the person who initially signed the plan, could change. The

commenter believes it is sufficient for EPA to be told who is responsible for the plan when it is

provided to the Agency. EPA responds that it is appropriate for the plan to be accessible at the

site of the appliance. The previous rules required that the original plan or a legible copy be kept

at the site of the appliance. This could imply maintaining a printed version of the plan with the

appliance. EPA is finalizing the proposal to allow for the plan to be “accessible” at the site of the

appliance, which includes an option to have the plan be “accessible” in electronic format. This

provides sufficient flexibility for the plan’s storage while still allowing for the plan to be quickly

available upon request. It is also important that the plan be signed so that the authorized

representative has taken responsibility for the plan and so that EPA can identify who that person

is and the date the plan was created.

Requirement to Repair Appliances Undergoing Retrofit. Under the prior regulations at

§82.156(i)(6), owners or operators were not required to repair leaks if they developed a retrofit

or retirement plan. EPA proposed to require that all identified leaks be repaired as part of any

retrofit under such a plan. EPA is finalizing the requirement that a system being retrofitted must

be simultaneously repaired as part of the retrofit. EPA is also finalizing the proposed requirement

that the owner or operator repair “all identified leaks” as part of the retrofit, rather than allowing

Page 208 of 403

selective repairs that would bring the appliance below the applicable leak rate. Although this

differs from the requirements for leak repair discussed in Section IV.F.7, a retrofit is a more

extensive change to a system, during which time components may be replaced and more

comprehensive leak repair can be performed.

11. Extensions to Retrofit or Retire Appliances

Under the prior regulations at §82.156(i)(6), an owner or operator generally was required

to complete the retrofit or retirement of a leaking appliance containing an ODS within one year

of creating a retrofit or retirement plan. Extensions were available in the following

circumstances:

 If delays were caused by requirements of other applicable federal, state, or local laws or

regulations (available for IPR);

 If a suitable replacement refrigerant with a lower ODP was unavailable (available for

IPR);

 If the supplier of the appliance or a critical component quoted a delivery time of more

than 30 weeks from when the order was placed (available for IPR);

 If complications presented by the appropriations and/or procurement process resulted in a

delivery time of more than 30 weeks (available for federally owned appliances); or

 If the appliance was 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 proposed at §82.157(i) four substantive revisions to these extensions. First, as with

all other leak repair provisions, EPA proposed to apply these extensions to appliances containing

non-exempt substitute refrigerants. EPA is finalizing this revision, as proposed.

Page 209 of 403

Second, EPA proposed to remove the extension for when a suitable replacement

refrigerant with a lower ODP is not available. EPA established this extension when certain

applications using CFCs did not have a suitable HCFC substitute. Today, there are many more

substitutes for ODS refrigerants. In fact, few appliances can be newly installed or retrofitted with

virgin ODS because of the HCFC use restrictions implementing section 605 of the CAA. As

discussed previously in this notice, EPA is removing the requirement that a retrofit use a

refrigerant with a similar or lower ODP. Therefore, the rationale for this extension no longer

exists and EPA is removing it as proposed. EPA is accordingly also removing the term suitable

replacement refrigerant from the definitions in §82.154, as proposed.

Third, EPA proposed a new extension at §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

§82.154(a). In that situation, EPA proposed to allow an extension up to 18 months. Whereas the

prior extensions were only available to IPR and federally owned appliances, EPA proposed to

make this extension available to comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances as

well.

Some commenters were supportive of this proposal as a way to encourage transition to

zero-ODP and low-GWP refrigerants. Other commenters were opposed to the proposal because

it encourages the use of refrigerants that are more toxic, hazardous, or flammable than HFCs.

EPA responds that the first comment is correct that the refrigerants that are exempt from

the venting prohibition, such as carbon dioxide (R-744), and the hydrocarbon refrigerants ethane

(R-170), propane (R-290), isobutane (R-600a), and R-441A in certain uses, have an ODP of zero

and low GWPs ranging from one to eight. EPA further notes that subject to 40 CFR subpart G,

many of the refrigerants exempt from the venting prohibition are not acceptable when retrofitting

Page 210 of 403

certain types of equipment; hence, in most cases these exempt refrigerants would be used in new

equipment replacing the leaking system. One reason to provide more time for retrofitting or

replacements for exempt substitutes is to allow time to purchase and install new equipment.

With respect to the points made by the second comment, the refrigerant must be approved under

SNAP for the end-use in order to be used. A company choosing to move to one of these

alternatives would reasonably be expected to consider safety characteristics of the refrigerant.

Moreover, for refrigerants that are exempt from the venting prohibition, the Agency has already

determined that the release of these substances do not pose a threat to the environment as part of

the decision to exempt them from the venting prohibition. Accordingly, EPA is finalizing this

extension as proposed.

Fourth, the prior regulations at §82.156(i)(3)(v) relieved owners and operators of IPR

appliances of the requirement to retrofit or retire their appliances if they established that the

appliance’s leak rate is below the applicable rate within 180 days of an initial failed follow-up

verification test and they notified EPA within 30 days of that determination. EPA proposed to

remove this provision because it was infrequently used and because other extensions, in

particular the extension to receive a replacement component, should provide sufficient flexibility

for IPR and other appliances.

Multiple commenters recommended that EPA retain this exemption because there may be

situations where the root cause of a leak is not identified until after a retrofit/retirement plan is

developed. The commenters stated that an appliance need not be retrofitted or retired if it can be

demonstrated that it is repaired.

Based on these comments, EPA is not finalizing its proposal to remove that provision.

Just because it is not frequently used does not mean that it may not be used in the future,

Page 211 of 403

especially since EPA is expanding the universe of appliances subject to the retrofit/retirement

plan requirements to include those that use non-exempt substitute refrigerants. EPA agrees that

an appliance need not be retrofitted or retired if it can be demonstrated that the repairs bring the

leak rate of the appliance below the threshold leak rates. In the instance of a retrofit, because

EPA is requiring that all identified leaks be repaired, it is possible that the appliance could be

repaired to such an extent as to not need to complete the retrofit.

EPA is concerned, however, about whether this provision could provide a mechanism to

delay repairs. To discourage this, EPA is requiring that all identified leaks be repaired consistent

with the retrofit requirements, rather than merely fixing leaks sufficient to bring the appliance

below the applicable leak rate, which is what EPA is finalizing for repairs required under

§82.157(d). EPA is also revising the reporting elements that were found in the prior regulations

related to this provision. Rather than allowing the owner or operator to merely provide notice to

EPA, the Agency is requiring that the owner or operator request that EPA relieve them of the

obligation to retrofit or retire the appliance. Like other requests in the leak repair provisions, the

request will be considered approved unless EPA notifies the owners or operators otherwise

within 60 days of receipt. The request must also provide other information about the equipment

and the repair, such as an explanation of why the repair was not conducted within the time

frames required under §82.157(d) and (f). This approach provides flexibility for owners and

operators while avoiding it becoming simply an extension of the duty to repair because of the

increased level of repair and the information requirements associated with its use. EPA

anticipates this will be most useful in situations where the root cause of the leak is not identified

until after a retrofit/retirement plan is developed.

Page 212 of 403

Finally, EPA proposed to revise the extension for IPR to implement a retrofit plan where

a supplier of the appliance or a critical component has quoted a delivery time of more than 30

weeks from when the order is placed. EPA proposed to modify this to mirror the extension

allowed for the repair of an appliance in this situation, such that the appliance or appliance

components would have to be installed on the retrofitted appliance within 120 days after

receiving delivery of the necessary parts. Previously, this extension allowed for one additional

year beyond the one-year retrofit period. EPA inadvertently removed a provision, found

previously at §82.156(i)(7)(iii), that further extended this extension for the delivery and

installation of critical components without discussion in the notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA

is restoring that provision at §82.157(i)(2)(iii). EPA notes that the Agency correctly proposed a

similar extension for federally owned appliances in §82.157(i)(3)(iii).

12. Chronically Leaking Appliances

EPA proposed to add a total leak limit to the repair requirement to address chronically

leaking systems. Under that 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. If an appliance exceeded the two year leak limit, the owner or operator would

be out of compliance until the appliance was retired or mothballed and later retired.

For the proposed rule, EPA reviewed data reported to CARB to determine whether such a

total leak limit would be 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. Due to the high

chronic leaks of such appliances, the environmental benefit of establishing a cumulative leak

Page 213 of 403

limit could be large. Nonetheless, the number of appliances affected by this proposed limit

should be low.

Environmental NGOs and state pollution control agencies were supportive of the

proposed two year leak limit, with one NGO suggesting a leak limit of 55 percent instead of 75

percent. A chemical manufacturer was also supportive if the proposal allowed an exemption for

unavoidable catastrophic leaks. Many other commenters expressed strong opposition to the

proposed two year leak limit, describing it as redundant, unnecessary, or punitive. Commenters

state that there are many reasons why an appliance may leak in excess of 75 percent for two

consecutive years even though the appliance is in good condition. For example, commenters

expressed that it is possible for two large volume leaks to occur from unrelated components.

Multiple commenters stated that owners should not have to mothball an appliance where the

cause of the leak can be remedied by the replacement of a component. Commenters that operate

supermarkets were especially concerned about the requirement to retire the appliance given that

EPA’s definition of appliance includes all of the display cases and coolers attached to the

refrigerant circuit. This requirement would result in the scrapping and replacement of perfectly

good components. Another commenter for similar reasons suggested that IPR be exempt from

the retirement responsibility due to their unique nature, although the commenter believed

comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration could remain subject to the 2 year leak limit. If

EPA chose to finalize this leak limit, many commenters requested an off-ramp provision from

the automatic retirement for catastrophic leaks resulting from accidents, vandalism, acts of

nature, non-mechanical failures, or on a case-by-case decision upon notifying EPA.

In response to the significant concerns raised by commenters, EPA is not finalizing this

proposed two year leak limit. EPA is aware of the many situations in which a system can leak

Page 214 of 403

large quantities of refrigerant in consecutive years. For instance, it is possible, though rare, for

two catastrophic leaks to occur on the system through no fault of the operator. Although EPA

requested comments on a possible exemption for catastrophic leaks, it is clear from the

comments that there is a wide range of opinions about what a catastrophic leak is, and what can

cause such a leak. Because EPA is not finalizing this provision, it is not defining the term

catastrophic leak at this time.

EPA also assumed that, absent catastrophic leaks, it was unlikely for a system to be in

compliance with other parts of subpart F while still leaking at this rate. EPA generally anticipates

that a leaking appliance will be repaired within 30 days to six months. However, the leak repair

regulations contemplate situations in which an owner or operator is unable to repair or

subsequently retrofit a system in a timely fashion (e.g., federally owned equipment located in

areas subject to radiological contamination, unavailability of necessary parts for IPR, or

adherence to local, State, or federal laws hinder repairs for IPR). Based on feedback from

stakeholders from meetings docketed in this rule, EPA is aware of instances where appliances

leak refrigerant in excess of 75 percent but are still in compliance with the other leak repair

regulations.

While EPA wishes to reduce chronically leaking systems, EPA believes other practices

required under this final rule will help address chronic leakers. For example, strengthening the

leak repair regulations by lowering the rate at which the initial repairs must be performed,

requiring leak inspections prior to those repairs, verification tests of those repairs, and

subsequent leak inspections after the repair, will reduce the number of chronically leaking

systems.

Page 215 of 403

Data received from CARB and other sources indicate that there are systems that may not

be adhering to the leak repair requirements of subpart F. Some commenters, even those opposed

to the specific proposal offered by EPA, agree that the worst chronic leaking systems may

warrant special consideration. However, they found the proposed provision both overly broad

and overly harsh in its outcome. Some commenters proposed alternate methods of addressing

chronically leaking systems. One commenter stated that a requirement to properly document

causes for large leaks and to establish corrective actions would likely be more effective at

reducing large leaks than simply imposing a two year leak limit that would result in a unit being

retired. CARB recommended that if both (a) the annualized leak rate exceeds 100 percent more

than 4 times in the previous 365 days and (b) more than 120 percent of the total charge has been

added in the previous 365 days, the system or faulty component should be retired. EPA

considered CARB’s approach and finds it attractive for a couple of reasons. This alternative has

the benefit of considering the number of refrigerant additions in addition to the total amount of

refrigerant released, thereby removing appliances affected by catastrophic leaks. It also would

take effect after one year, which will cut in half the time in which refrigerant is being released

into the environment. However, this approach would still require the automatic retirement of

these systems, which some commenters found to be too strict a penalty.

The chronically leaking appliance provision, as proposed, would apply to appliances

containing 50 pounds or more of refrigerant that leak more than 75 percent of the full charge in

each of two consecutive twelve-month periods. Based on the comments, EPA is revising the

chronically leaking appliance provision. EPA is requiring that owners or operators of appliances

that leak 125 percent of their full charge in a calendar year submit a report to EPA detailing their

repair efforts. The reports must be submitted no later than March 1 of the year following the 125

Page 216 of 403

percent or greater leak. Through that report, the owner or operator must demonstrate that they are

in compliance with the repair provisions or the retrofit or retirement provisions in this section. In

some cases, owners or operators may have already provided information to EPA as part of a

repair or retrofit extension request.

By raising the threshold, EPA intends to avoid capturing appliances affected by

unavoidable losses of full charge. Systems would have to lose their full charge and then a

significant quantity more. Using CARB data and scaling up to the whole U.S., EPA estimates

that 1,425 appliances (or 0.1 percent of all appliances with 50 or more pounds of refrigerant)

would be affected at 125 percent of full charge.

Like CARB’s approach, this would apply after one year rather than waiting for a second

year of high leaks. As such, it will catch chronic leakers sooner than the provision EPA

proposed. Several commenters contended the opportunity for a case-by-case determination is

necessary to account for the variety of situations that might trigger the chronically leaking

appliance provisions. They contended that without the opportunity for a case-by-case

determination, the provision will force the retirement of working equipment. EPA’s revised

approach is similar to what many commenters suggested in that it allows for a case-by-case

discussion after notifying EPA. Adding this reporting requirement also furthers EPA’s goal of

revising these regulations to improve enforcement and compliance of the regulations in subpart

F. This will incentivize many owners and operators to improve their systems to ensure that they

do not trigger this reporting requirement.

Comments were mixed as to whether the chronically leaking appliance provisions should

be calculated based on calendar year, 12-month consecutive periods, or whether regulated

entities should be given the discretion to choose one or the other. These concerns are partially

Page 217 of 403

moot, given that EPA has changed this requirement to allow for reporting to EPA in lieu of a

retrofit or retirement. EPA is finalizing provisions stating that the 125 percent is based on

calendar year so that entities do not need to calculate refrigerant additions on a rolling basis.

13. Recordkeeping

The prior regulations contained recordkeeping and reporting provisions for all of subpart

F at §82.166. As proposed, EPA is finalizing a recordkeeping paragraph at §82.157(l) and a

reporting paragraph at §82.157(m) within the leak repair section to make these requirements

easier to locate.

The prior regulations also required that certain records be kept in hard copy at the site of

the appliance. Under the revisions finalized in this rule, EPA is explicitly allowing, though not

requiring, electronic records in this final rule. 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

allow for more comprehensive refrigerant management and can help identify leaky appliances

earlier. These records must still be accessible onsite if an EPA inspector visits a facility, but that

access can occur through downloading or printing the records from an online system.

Owners and operators. The previous rules required owners and operators to maintain

service records documenting the date and type of service, as well as the quantity of ODS

refrigerant added. EPA proposed to add specific recordkeeping requirements to ensure that the

owner or operator is aware of the leak rate. EPA also proposed 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. EPA also proposed records

Page 218 of 403

for the leak inspections or automatic leak detection equipment, verification tests, and seasonal

variances.

Some commenters stated that the recordkeeping for the newly proposed requirements will

be a significant burden. One commenter stated that the recordkeeping from all of the leak

inspections would be a large burden and urged EPA to minimize that burden in the final rule.

Another stated that requiring detailed information on the location of all repaired leaks with the

type of verification test would be a substantial burden and would require enhanced service

records tailored to individual equipment. The commenter suggested EPA require instead only the

date and results of initial and follow-up verification tests.

EPA responds that the Agency recognizes the concerns about the extent of the proposed

recordkeeping burden. EPA is finalizing the recordkeeping requirements as proposed but is

modifying the final rule to reduce the number of such records. First, EPA is only requiring leak

inspections on systems that have exceeded the applicable leak rate, rather than on all appliances.

EPA estimates that the universe of affected appliances will decrease by 81 percent relative to the

proposal (from 1.5 million to 282,000 appliances). Though there are fewer leak inspections, EPA

estimates a higher total burden because the Agency has increased the estimates for the costs of

each inspection based on public comments. Second, EPA is only requiring repairs sufficient to

bring the leak rate below the threshold leak rate, rather than requiring the repair of all identified

leaks (unless the owner or operator chooses to calculate their leak rate using the Rolling Average

method). There should be fewer verification tests and thus less to record.

EPA is finalizing the leak inspection records as proposed. Specifically, owners or

operators must keep records of leak inspections that include the date of inspection, the method(s)

used to conduct the leak inspection, a list of the location of each leak that was identified, and a

Page 219 of 403

certification that all visible and accessible parts of the appliance were inspected. The specificity

of the leak inspection documentation is appropriate because this information will help

demonstrate that the repair has brought the appliance’s leak rate below the threshold leak rate.

This information would allow the owner or operator to demonstrate, if needed, that a further

exceedance of the leak rate threshold after repairing leaks is due to a new leak rather than a leak

that was previously identified but not repaired.

EPA is also finalizing the verification test records as proposed. Specifically, owners or

operators must maintain records that include the location of the appliance, the date of the

verification tests, the location of all repaired leaks that were tested, the type of verification test

used, and the results of those tests. It is important to document that each specific repair was

verified so as to determine whether a repair was successful and whether the leak has been

addressed. EPA is not requiring such specificity as a schematic of that individual appliance

showing the locations of all repairs and verification tests. However, information should allow a

technician to generally know which components of the appliance were repaired.

In this final rule, EPA is establishing the recordkeeping requirements described generally

in this section for owners and operators of appliances normally containing 50 or more pounds of

class I, class II, or non-exempt substitute refrigerant. All records required in §82.157(l) must be

maintained for at least three years.

 Maintain records documenting the full charge of appliances;

 Maintain records, such as invoices or other documentation showing when refrigerant is

added or removed from an appliance, when a leak inspection is performed, when a

verification test is conducted, and when service or maintenance is performed;

Page 220 of 403

 If using an automatic leak detection system, maintain documentation that the system is

installed and audited or calibrated annually and records of when the monitoring system

identifies a leak and the location of the leak;

 Maintain retrofit and/or retirement plans;

 Maintain retrofit and/or extension requests submitted to EPA;

 If a system is mothballed to suspend a deadline, maintain records documenting when the

system was mothballed and when it was brought back on-line (i.e., when refrigerant was

added back into the appliance);

 Maintain records of purged and destroyed refrigerant if excluding such refrigerant from

the leak rate;

 Maintain records to demonstrate a seasonal variance; and

 Maintain copies of any reports submitted to EPA under §82.157(m).

Technicians. The prior rules required 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. However, the information that the technician was required to provide did not

match the information that the owner or operator was required to maintain. The limited records

that the prior regulations required from service technicians also did not provide information

needed by the owner or operator to make decisions on the fate of the appliance. EPA proposed to

align the records that the technician must provide to the owner or operator with the ones that the

owner or operator are required to maintain.

Page 221 of 403

Multiple commenters noted that owners or operators must expend a tremendous amount

of effort to obtain good records from outside service providers. Often facility owners are

provided incorrect or incomplete paperwork or are unable to obtain paperwork at all. The

commenters were generally supportive of EPA’s proposal that would make it a requirement for

technicians to provide the necessary information to the owner or operator of the appliance.

However, one commenter stated that the record for the proposed rule does not justify the extent

of records that technicians must provide to owners/operators and suggested that EPA maintain

only the current recordkeeping requirements for technicians.

Multiple commenters requested that EPA remove the proposed requirement that

technicians provide the owner or operator with the full charge of the appliance or the leak rate

calculations because technicians often do not have sufficient information, such as the date of last

service, to make those calculations. Other commenters requested that the Agency require the

technician provide the owner or operator with information about the initial and follow-up leak

repair verification tests that matches what EPA proposed to require the owner or operator to

maintain.

After considering the comments, EPA is finalizing its proposal to align the records that

the technician must provide to the owner or operator with the records that the owner or operator

are required to maintain, with a few exceptions described below. In response to the comment that

EPA maintain only the current recordkeeping requirements for technicians, the service technician

is generally in the better position to generate those records as they are performing the service

activities and usually are the expert that the appliance owner or operator is relying on to make

informed decisions about their appliances. Finalizing these requirements for technicians should

help ensure that the appropriate records are created so that they can be maintained.

Page 222 of 403

Specifically, EPA is requiring 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; and (4) the amount and type of refrigerant added to

and/or removed from the appliance (if applicable).

Based on the comments, EPA is not finalizing a requirement that the technician calculate

the leak rate or provide the owner or operator with a record indicating the full charge of the

appliance. The rules as finalized require the technician to provide information that they are best

positioned to gather and that is relevant to calculating the leak rate and full charge, but the owner

or operator is well positioned to determine those numbers because they should have the historical

information that informs that calculation. Accordingly, it is not necessary for the technician to

calculate the leak rate and EPA has modified the requirement at §82.157(b) to explicitly state

that it is the owner or operator’s responsibility to calculate the leak rate. Because the owner and

operator is also required to calculate the full charge it is no longer a relevant record for the

technician to provide.

The final rule also explicitly requires that persons conducting the initial or follow-up leak

repair verification test must, upon conclusion of that service, provide the documentation needed

to meet the owner or operator’s recordkeeping requirements. This furthers the goal of aligning

the technician and owner or operator’s recordkeeping requirements.

14. Reporting

Page 223 of 403

The existing regulations require that owners or operators report to EPA in certain

circumstances. EPA is not making changes to those reporting requirements in this final rule:

 If the owner or operator is requesting an extension to the 30-day (or 120-day)

requirement to complete repairs pursuant to §82.157(f);

 If the owner or operator is requesting an extension to complete a retrofit or retirement of

an appliance pursuant to §82.157(i); or

 If the owner or operator is excluding purged refrigerants that are destroyed from annual

leak rate calculations pursuant to §82.157(k).

EPA is also finalizing two reporting requirements that were not contained in the proposed

rule. First, EPA is requiring at §82.157(j) that owners or operators submit a report if their

appliance leaks 125 percent or more of the full charge in a calendar year and thereby triggers the

chronically leaking appliances provision. EPA is adding this report to provide added flexibility,

so that appliances that have leaked 125 percent of their full charge or greater do not necessarily

need to be retired or retrofitted provided there is an explanation for the leak. This report must

explain the reason for the leak rate of 125 percent or greater and could potentially include,

among other things, the documentation prepared to extend the repair requirement or a description

of catastrophic events. As discussed earlier in this notice, this reporting requirement is based on

comments received to remove the two-year leak limit and allow for case-by-case evaluations.

Second, this final rule contains a provision allowing owners or operators who are

retrofitting or retiring an appliance to request that EPA relieve them of that obligation if they can

establish within 180 days of the plan’s date that the appliance no longer exceeds the applicable

leak rate. This provision is contained in the prior regulations. EPA had proposed to remove it,

but based on comments requesting that it be left in place, EPA is not finalizing the proposal to

Page 224 of 403

remove it. EPA is requiring information be included in the report that is similar to the previously

existing requirement except EPA is additionally requiring a description of why the repair was not

conducted within the time frames required under paragraphs (d) and (f) of this section. In

addition, it must include a signed statement that all identified leaks will be repaired and an

estimate of when those repairs will be completed (not to exceed one year from date of the plan).

These additional elements are necessary to ensure that this provision is not used as a way to

circumvent the required time frames for repair.

EPA is not finalizing the proposed requirement for the report that would have

accompanied an extension request from federal agencies to conduct less frequent leak

inspections in the proposed rule. EPA is not finalizing this proposed extension and thus the

reporting element is no longer necessary.

EPA is also finalizing the requirement that all reports be submitted to EPA via email at

[email protected], as proposed. If the submission contains confidential business information,

reports can be mailed to the address in §82.160. This should reduce costs and streamline the

reporting process for both EPA and those reporting. It is also consistent with EPA’s Next

Generation Compliance initiative. Commenters generally supported the move towards electronic

reporting and recordkeeping.

Two commenters requested that the Agency require that owners and operators keep a

record of the amount of refrigerant leaked annually to the atmosphere by refrigerant type and that

this information be reported to EPA. Additionally, the commenters requested that EPA make the

data related to the emissions of refrigerants publicly available. In accordance with the

transparency element of the Next Generation Compliance initiative, the general public could then

Page 225 of 403

point out violations and owners and operators would have an incentive to correct excessively

leaking appliances.

EPA responds that in general, EPA is not requiring that owners or operators calculate the

sum total of refrigerant leaked annually or submit those data to EPA. The volume of reporting

would be substantial and for a majority of appliances would be of limited value to EPA or the

general public. However, owners or operators of equipment that leaks 125 percent of the total

charge in a calendar year will have to calculate their total refrigerant additions to determine

whether they have met that threshold. EPA finds that there is merit for those chronically leaking

systems to perform this calculation and report to EPA because that will encourage those owners

or operators to take steps to ensure they do not meet or exceed that threshold.

G. Revisions to the standards for recovery and/or recycling equipment in section 82.158

1. Background

Under the prior regulations, all 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 containing an ODS refrigerant 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 were contained in tables 2 and 3 of §82.158, as well as

appendices 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 pertaining to MVACs refer to

Page 226 of 403

subpart B and state that such recovery and/or recycling equipment must meet the standards of

§82.36(a).

2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants

In the revisions finalized in this rule, EPA is requiring that all recovery and/or recycling

equipment manufactured or imported for use during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal

of appliances (except small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances) that contain non-

exempt substitute refrigerants be certified by an approved equipment testing organization as

being capable of meeting certain performance standards. EPA is requiring that after January 1,

2017, all newly manufactured or imported recovery and/or recycling equipment used during the

disposal of all appliances, including MVACs and MVAC-like appliances, also be certified. One

commenter agreed that recovery and/or recycling equipment for use with non-exempt substitute

refrigerants should be certified. This comment supports EPA’s approach.

EPA proposed that all existing recovery and/or recycling equipment that met certification

requirements for ODS prior to this rulemaking would be considered as certified for non-exempt

substitute refrigerants. EPA is further clarifying that if a person who recovers refrigerant has

recovery equipment that was certified as meeting the requirements for an ODS refrigerant, it can

be used to recover other non-flammable refrigerants in that pressure category. For example,

recovery equipment manufactured in 2015 that was certified to recover HCFC-22 can be used to

recover other non-ODS refrigerants like R-407A, R-407C, or R-410A. However, proper care

should be taken to prevent refrigerant mixing if using the same recovery device with multiple

refrigerants.

One commenter noted that additional equipment testing would be required if the

equipment manufacturers want older equipment to handle newer non-exempt substitute

Page 227 of 403

refrigerants. EPA responds that all equipment manufactured or imported on or after January 1,

2017, must be tested under the new standards. This is true of older equipment designs previously

certified for ODS which have not been tested for substitute refrigerants. However, any

equipment manufactured or imported prior to the effective date is grandfathered and does not

have to be recertified. Technicians can continue to use previously certified recovery equipment

that they already own. As has been the case when EPA has previously changed equipment

standards, EPA does not require technicians to recertify or replace their existing equipment.

EPA is adding appendices B3 and B4, based on the AHRI Standard 740-2016,

Performance Rating of Refrigerant Recovery Equipment and Recovery/Recycling Equipment.

The recovery standard is the same in both appendices; the difference between the two, as

discussed later in this notice, is that appendix B4 contains additional safety standards for

flammable refrigerants. EPA proposed to base appendices B3 and B4 on AHRI Standard 740-

2015 but is using the most recent version of that standard for the final rule. All new equipment

manufactured or imported on or after January 1, 2017, must meet the standards in appendices B3

or B4 and table 2. The evacuation level would depend upon the saturation pressure of the

refrigerant. EPA is also updating appendix C “Method for Testing Recovery Devices for Use

with Small Appliances” to reference all refrigerants, instead of the previously referenced CFC-

12.

Certifying refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment for use with non-exempt

substitutes serves multiple purposes. First, certification provides 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. The fact that the equipment

Page 228 of 403

minimizes emissions is part of our consideration of whether emissions associated with using

recovery equipment are considered de minimis releases. Second, certification provides 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 provides 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).

Finally, certification embraces Next Generation Compliance principles. Users of certified

equipment, when following the manufacturer’s instructions, will be in compliance with the

regulatory standards for the evacuation of refrigerant.

Flammable Refrigerants. Different treatment is warranted for non-exempt flammable

refrigerants. As proposed, EPA is adding standards for the recovery of flammable non-exempt

refrigerants to appendix B4. Currently, six flammable non-exempt substitute refrigerants are

approved for use in stationary refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment: HFC-32, HFC-152a,

R-406A, R-411A, R-411B, and HFO-1234ze(E).

Page 229 of 403

EPA is using AHRI Standard 740-2016 as the basis for the recycling and/or recovery

equipment requirements in appendix B3. This standard does not address the safety of recovering

flammable refrigerants. EPA is therefore creating appendix B4, which requires the

recovery/recycling performance of appendix B3 and the safety performance of Underwriters

Laboratories (UL) Standard 1963-2011, Supplement SB—Requirements for Refrigerant

Recovery/Recycling Equipment Intended for Use with a Flammable Refrigerant. All recycling

and/or recovery equipment manufactured or imported after January 1, 2017, that are to be used

with flammable non-exempt substitute refrigerants must meet this new standard. EPA is

incorporating UL 1963 by reference and modifying the testing protocol in appendix B3 to

account for flammability concerns during testing.

Two testing organizations supported using UL 1963 to address flammable refrigerants.

One commenter preferred that EPA reference UL 1963 directly within appendix B4 rather than

establishing separate requirements in appendix B4 that are based on that standard. Separate

requirements published outside of that standard would make it more difficult to apply the

standard. EPA responds that appendix B4 refers to UL 1963, Supplement SB, and does not

reproduce the standard in the appendix due to copyright concerns.

Another commenter strongly recommended that a label be required on all products

certified to handle flammable refrigerants. EPA responds that UL 1963, Supplement SB has

requirements for markings that must be placed on recovery and/or recycling equipment certified

to handle flammable refrigerants. Because EPA is incorporating those standards in appendix B4

by reference, EPA is requiring those markings.

3. Removing the Certification by Owners of Recovery and/or Recycling Equipment

Page 230 of 403

As proposed, EPA is removing the requirement under §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 recovery and/or recycling

equipment and are complying with the applicable requirements of subpart F. EPA received one

comment in support of taking this action.

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 by owners 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

now 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.

4. Clarifications and Edits for Readability

EPA is reorganizing §82.158 by appliance type. EPA is also combining tables 2 and 3,

which contain the levels of evacuation that must be achieved by recovery and/or recycling

equipment, to remove inconsistencies in terminology and formatting.

EPA also revised how the requirements for recovery equipment used on small appliances

are written. In general, the requirement is that the equipment is capable of recovering 90 percent

of the refrigerant in the test stand when the compressor of the test stand is operational and 80

percent of the refrigerant when the compressor of the test stand is not operational. In addition,

Page 231 of 403

there are secondary considerations that could allow for the certification of recovery equipment

based on when that equipment was manufactured or imported.

H. Revisions to the standards 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, have no conflict of interest (e.g., with equipment manufacturers), and

receive no direct or indirect financial benefit from the outcome of certification testing.

Any new certifying organization must have expertise to certify equipment that is used to

recover or recycle refrigerants that are subject to this subpart. This means that they must be able

to evaluate and certify HFCs and other non-exempt substitute refrigerants, including flammable

refrigerants. Because the same expertise is needed to test equipment used for ODS and substitute

refrigerants, equipment certifying organizations that have already been approved by EPA may

continue to certify equipment designed for substitute refrigerants without needing to re-apply. In

comments on the proposed rule, two certifying organizations agreed that currently approved

organizations should not have to reapply to certify equipment used to recycle and/or recover

substitute refrigerants and that the same expertise is needed to test equipment used for ODS and

substitutes.

EPA is removing the requirement that organizations provide a list of all certified

equipment to EPA within 30 days of the organization's approval by EPA and annually at the end

of each calendar year thereafter. Instead, EPA is requiring that the certified equipment testing

organizations publish online a list of equipment that meets EPA requirements. This list must

Page 232 of 403

include the manufacturer and the name and/or serial number of a newly certified model line,

which is the information that the certifying organizations had to 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. Online lists must contain certified equipment until three years after that equipment is

no longer offered for sale. 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 and the service/repair industry than

sending the information to EPA. Two certifying organizations commented that they support

these revisions because they already make the information publicly available through their

websites.

EPA is also adding to the regulatory text the timing for records retention that had

previously only been found in guidance documents. The regulation now specifies that all records

must be maintained for three years after the equipment is no longer offered for sale. EPA is

adopting a similar timeframe for the online lists of certified equipment.

EPA also encourages the use of electronic reporting and has established the email address

[email protected] to receive applications from organizations seeking to be approved under

this section and the required notification if a previously certified model line fails to meet the

standards upon retesting.

I. Revisions to the technician certification requirements in section 82.161

1. Background

The prior regulations at §82.161 required the certification of all individuals who

maintain, service, or repair air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment containing an ODS,

other than MVACs which are addressed in a separate subpart of the regulations. This group

Page 233 of 403

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. Individuals disposing of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-

like appliances do not need to be certified.

Under those rules, technicians become certified by passing a test containing questions

drawn from a bank developed by EPA with input from industry educational organizations with a

certification program approved by EPA. The test includes questions on the role of CFCs and

HCFCs in stratospheric ozone depletion, the requirements of the subpart F, 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, administer, and

grade tests; issue certificates; and keep records.

2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants

In this final rule, EPA is finalizing its proposal to extend the certification requirements to

technicians who work with non-exempt substitute refrigerants.

Persons who are not certified technicians are more likely to intentionally or inadvertently

release refrigerant in the course of servicing, maintaining, repairing, or disposing of refrigeration

and air conditioning equipment. One commenter stated that they believe most of the intentional

venting of refrigerant is done by individuals who are not certified technicians. Another

commenter noted that they have observed a lack of competence within the equipment servicing

sectors leading in many instances to the improper handling of refrigerants or servicing of

mechanical equipment.

Page 234 of 403

EPA responds that these comments support the importance of extending the technician

certification requirement, as well as other provisions of the refrigerant management rules, to non-

exempt substitute refrigerants. Certified technicians are 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 know refrigerant recovery requirements and

techniques. The prior regulations did not specifically prohibit an uncertified individual from

opening an air conditioner that contains a substitute refrigerant in order to add a substitute

refrigerant or replace components. Similarly, the regulations did not specifically prohibit an

uncertified individual from opening an air conditioner that contains an ODS refrigerant to add

ODS refrigerant (assuming a certified technician purchased the ODS refrigerant). While the

venting prohibition generally applies to these actions, without training or certification the

individual performing such servicing activities may not even be aware of the prohibition against

knowingly venting or otherwise releasing refrigerant.

Tips reported to the Agency indicate that servicing by uncertified individuals occurs. One

commenter asserted that a substantial number of technicians, possibly up to 25 percent, are

operating without certification. EPA responds that this information, if true, would further support

the extension of the technician certification requirement to non-exempt substitute refrigerants.

Requiring that anyone opening an appliance (except those containing only exempt substitute

refrigerants) 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 recordkeeping requirement for appliances containing more than five and less than 50

pounds of refrigerant.

Page 235 of 403

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 them at a disadvantage with respect to compliance. Because there is a

reasonable expectation that an ODS or non-exempt substitute refrigerant could be released into

the environment in the course of that work if appropriate precautions and practices are not

followed, requiring technician certification for individuals performing such work ensures that

they have the information necessary to comply with the regulatory requirements and with the

venting prohibition, as well as to minimize emissions. Accordingly, to promote proper practices

or at least remove barriers for compliance and for environmental protection, EPA is requiring

certification for anyone working on an appliance that contains a non-exempt refrigerant.

Many commenters supported extending the technician certification requirement for the

handling of substitute refrigerants. While some commenters stated that EPA does not have

authority to extend section 608 regulations to substitutes, those commenters did not raise the

specific issue of technician certification. EPA addresses those general comments about its

authority for this action in Section III of this notice. Two commenters recommended extending

the technician certification requirement to flammable refrigerants. Three commenters urged EPA

to extend the technician certification requirement for the handling of all refrigerants, even if they

are exempt from the venting prohibition. These commenters stated that treating all refrigerants

equally will provide consistency and clarity in the industry. Other commenters stated that many

of the exempt refrigerants have special considerations such as flammability or toxicity that

Page 236 of 403

require care during handling and servicing. As noted previously, some commenters stated that

the sales restriction should be extended to hydrocarbons. These commenters noted that the

flammability of these refrigerants poses far greater risks than that of R-22 when handling it and

servicing equipment. One commenter recommended that if the sales restriction was extended to

flammable refrigerants then it should be extended to all exempt refrigerants.

As stated in the proposed rule, EPA is not extending the technician certification

requirement (and thus the sales restriction) to individuals maintaining, servicing, repairing, or

disposing of appliances containing substitute refrigerants that are exempt from the venting

prohibition. EPA has exempted substitutes, at least in the specified end-uses, from the venting

prohibition because the Agency has determined for purposes of section 608(c) that they do not

pose a threat to the environment when released. For water or nitrogen, technician certification

would provide no environmental benefit nor would it increase technician safety. For ammonia or

chlorine, other regulations address the risks related to those specific compounds (for example,

OSHA regulations that address risk to technician safety). The types of refrigeration equipment

that use these exempt substitute refrigerants are also significantly different from an engineering

standpoint from the equipment that uses ODS or HFC refrigerants. Therefore, there is little

potential for ODS and these exempt substitute refrigerants to be mixed and intentionally released

to the environment.

Hydrocarbon refrigerants may be different than the other substitute refrigerants. EPA

notes that all end-uses for hydrocarbons currently authorized under SNAP are also exempted

under the venting prohibition. The Agency did not propose and is not establishing a technician

certification requirement or sales restriction for those exempt substitute refrigerants. The Agency

Page 237 of 403

may consider in future whether there are any regulatory or other measures that would be

appropriate to address the handling of exempt flammable refrigerants.

As a result of today’s action, flammable substitutes that have not been exempted from the

venting prohibition in a particular end-use are subject to the requirements of subpart F, including

the sales restriction and the technician certification requirements. Unlike the other exempt

substitutes, hydrocarbons are being sold to service existing ODS and HFC equipment for which

this refrigerant is not listed as acceptable under SNAP. Specifically, R-22a, which is propane, in

some cases mixed with isobutane and an odorant, has been marketed as a “drop-in” (or more

appropriately termed a “retrofit”) replacement for existing equipment designed for use with

HCFCs and/or HFCs. Often these are MVACs or residential split systems.

R-22a has not been submitted to SNAP for review for these uses, and EPA has not listed

propane as acceptable for these end-uses under the SNAP program. Accordingly, EPA considers

its introduction into interstate commerce for this use a violation of the SNAP regulations. In

addition, EPA has not exempted R-22a or propane used as a retrofit in existing HCFC-22

appliances from the venting prohibition. As a result, R-22a and propane are subject to the

requirements of subpart F in such non-exempt end-uses, including the sales restriction and the

technician certification requirements.

The Agency has learned through its recent enforcement actions against Enviro-Safe and

Northcutt, two distributors of R-22a, and through other investigations that R-22a is being sold to

both consumers and technicians. Often the buyers are not aware there is a difference between R-

22 and R-22a, or even that R-22a is flammable. As a result, appliances have exploded and

technicians have been injured. Technicians need to be aware of the safety concerns of using such

refrigerant for themselves or subsequent technicians who service ODS or HFC equipment that

Page 238 of 403

inappropriately contains hydrocarbons. Consumers must also not have easy access to this

refrigerant for their own safety. Applying the sales restriction to unapproved uses of hydrocarbon

refrigerants and educating technicians through the certification program will reduce safety risks

and prevent the mixing (and subsequent venting) of ODS and HFC refrigerants with these

unapproved alternatives.

One commenter, while supportive of extending the technician certification requirements

to those working with non-exempt substitute refrigerants, disagreed with the premise that failing

to require certification will result in the release and mixture of ODS and non-ODS refrigerants.

EPA responds that information about the illegal use of R-22a as a replacement for R-22

indicates to EPA that people are purchasing their own refrigerant and mixing it with HCFCs. The

consequences of inappropriately mixing refrigerants include significant losses in performance

and energy efficiency, 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.

Page 239 of 403

Refrigerant mixture also reduces recycling and leads indirectly to release. First, mixed

refrigerants lose their value for reclamation because it is difficult to separate the component

refrigerants. Typically, reclaimers will pay refrigerant distributors for recovered refrigerant.

Reclaimers may actually charge money to accept highly mixed refrigerant or not take it at all.

Mixed refrigerants cost money to reclaim or destroy and this cost 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 require certification for people working with substitute refrigerants

would increase the probability of both substitute and ozone-depleting refrigerants being emitted

to the atmosphere.

As noted previously in this notice, certified technicians are more likely to understand how

and why to recover and recycle refrigerants and to have the proper equipment to do so. The skills

and knowledge that certified technicians have reduces the likelihood that they would mix or

release ODS and non-ODS refrigerants. For these reasons, EPA is requiring technician

certification for persons working with non-exempt substitutes.

3. Updated Test Bank

EPA is currently updating the technician certification test bank through a process separate

from this rulemaking. 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 efforts 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.

Page 240 of 403

As part of the public participation process for this rule, stakeholders provided input

regarding updating the test bank questions. Many commenters supported updating the test bank,

especially given the new refrigerants and technologies that have become available since the test

was initially developed. Commenters provided suggestions for numerous topics that should be

covered by the exam. These include placing greater focus on the venting prohibition, recovery

best practices, safe handling of flammable refrigerants, use of new refrigerants, financial benefits

of refrigerant recycling, and the costs of non-compliance related to equipment efficiency,

equipment life, and environmental harm. One commenter observed that the core, Type II, and

Type III tests should now include questions on verification testing since this will be a new

requirement of technicians servicing comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances

under the leak repair provisions.

EPA responds that all of these suggested topics fit into the testing topics listed in

appendix D. EPA intends to consider these potential topics when updating the test bank

questions. EPA has begun reviewing the test bank and consulting with certification and training

organizations to identify questions that should be updated, replaced, or removed. EPA also

intends to incorporate new and revised elements of the National Recycling and Emission

Reduction Program that are being finalized in this action in the updated test bank. As such, the

test bank will not be completed until after publication of the final rule. Testing organizations

have requested time to update their training and testing materials before the new questions go

into effect. EPA anticipates the new questions will be added to all exams by mid- to late 2017.

J. Revisions to the technician certification program requirements in section 82.161

1. Background

Page 241 of 403

The regulations at §82.161 require that organizations operating technician certification

programs 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 information on the number of students certified and the pass/fail rate. Such reports

allow the Agency to monitor program compliance.

2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants

As discussed previously, EPA is requiring in this final rule that technicians who work

with non-exempt substitute refrigerants be certified. By extension, EPA is also requiring that

technician certification programs offer tests to certify those technicians. This should not require

significant changes to current practices other than using the updated test bank once available and

the revisions discussed in this section. EPA is not requiring that current certification programs

recertify based on any of the revisions in this final rule. EPA did not receive comment

specifically on these proposed revisions.

3. Posting Lists of Certified Technicians

In regulatory revisions finalized in this rule, EPA is requiring that certifying

organizations publish online lists of the technicians certified by that organization. However, EPA

is not establishing a single “database” nor requiring certified organizations to create their own

databases as was contemplated in the proposed rule. The primary intent of these published lists is

Page 242 of 403

to assist technicians who have lost their certification cards and reduce the burden currently facing

the Agency and technician certification programs in assisting technicians who have lost their

certification cards as described in the proposed rule. These goals can be accomplished for all

future technicians through the publication of limited information online. Technicians should be

able to find out who certified them through a simple web search.

In the proposed rule, EPA described this as a database and discussed one of its possible

uses as a tool refrigerant wholesalers could use to verify their customer is a certified technician.

Many commenters supported the creation of a single technician database maintained by EPA. A

few of those commenters encouraged EPA to include all certified technicians, not just newly

certified technicians, because an incomplete list would have only marginal value for anyone

referencing the list prior to selling refrigerant. Some refrigerant distributors wanted assurance

that their refrigerant sales would not be adversely affected or that they would not be held

responsible for errors or omissions in the technician database. One commenter who employs in-

house technicians stated that their technicians would prefer not to be included in such a database.

The commenter requested that there not be a database, or if there is one that technicians should

have to affirmatively opt in, rather than being given the option of opting out.

EPA responds that the Agency did consider the possibility of a database that could be

used to enforce the sales restriction. EPA agrees that in order to be used for regulatory purposes

the content of the database would need to be complete and continuously updated. The only

manner the Agency could ensure a complete list of technicians would be to require technicians to

recertify, which EPA did not propose. EPA did not propose 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

Page 243 of 403

years could be overly burdensome. This would also not provide technicians with the opportunity

to opt out.

As this requirement is primarily for the benefit of the technician, EPA is requiring

technician certification programs to notify individuals taking the certification exam that

information will be posted online and allow them to opt out. Allowing the opt out is sufficient for

those technicians who do not want to be listed; requiring an opt in to be listed, on the other hand,

would reduce the utility of the lists. EPA is also exempting federal government-run programs

from this requirement as proposed. The public release of government and military personnel

names linking them to their federal employment could present significant privacy and security

concerns.

EPA did not receive comment on the proposed information that would need to be

published. EPA is therefore finalizing as proposed the following information requirements: 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 received. EPA is not requiring any specific format for providing this

information. 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. Rather than continuous

updating, as would have been required of a database, EPA is requiring that the lists be updated

annually, although individual organizations may choose to update their lists more frequently.

4. Grandfathering Provisions

In this rulemaking, EPA is finalizing its proposal to remove provisions related to

voluntary certification programs at §82.161(g). This program was created to allow technicians

Page 244 of 403

who were trained prior to the establishment of approved technician certification programs to be

recognized as certified technicians. This program expired in 1994 and is no longer necessary.

EPA did not receive any comments on this proposal.

5. Certification Cards

As proposed, EPA is finalizing revisions to the requirements for the required text that is

printed on certification cards. Some organizations told EPA prior to publication of the proposed

rule 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 and are legally permitted to perform the

necessary maintenance, servicing, repair, or disposal work under CAA section 608. While this

certification qualifies an individual to maintain, service, repair, or dispose of appliances

containing certain refrigerants for purposes of CAA section 608, the 608 exam is less focused on

the operational and engineering aspects of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment.

Accordingly, the 608 certification is not intended to serve as a general license for individuals

who work on such equipment.

To more accurately reflect the knowledge needed to obtain the certification, EPA is

updating the card to 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

was intended to ease burden on refrigerant wholesalers who must inspect the cards to verify the

Page 245 of 403

certification of technicians. Those principles also apply to this rulemaking, and updating the

information required on the certification card should improve clarity and should not result in any

new administrative costs. EPA notes that the Agency is not requiring that currently certified

technicians obtain new cards with the updated language. The new language applies only to cards

issued to newly certified technicians. In the event where a technician is requesting a replacement

for a lost card, EPA encourages that the certifying organization use the updated language

whenever feasible.

6. Updates to Appendix D

In this rulemaking, EPA is also finalizing minor edits to appendix D “Standards for

Becoming a Certifying Program for Technicians.” EPA did not receive any comments on this

element of the proposal and is finalizing the revisions as proposed. More specifically, EPA is

updating the description of test content to include the environmental impact of not just ODS but

also substitute refrigerants. EPA is removing paragraphs (i) through (k) on approval process,

grandfathering, and sample application as they are outdated, redundant, or self-explanatory. EPA

is removing 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 removing social security

numbers as an acceptable form of identification for Type I technicians using the mail-in format

and stating that social security numbers cannot be used in the unique certification number

assigned to newly certified technicians. EPA also is requiring that certifying organizations

provide a hand-out or electronic communication to technicians after they have taken the

certification test explaining who provided the training, who to contact with questions regarding

Page 246 of 403

the certification process, and when they should expect to receive their score, and if they passed,

their certification cards.

K. Revisions to the reclamation requirements in section 82.164

1. Background

The regulations at §82.164 required 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

In this final rule, EPA is extending the reclamation standards for refrigerants in appendix

A to additional non-ozone depleting substitute refrigerants. Most of the refrigerants in appendix

A were single component ODS refrigerants or blends containing an ODS component. However,

appendix A had previously contained a few commonly used substitute refrigerants that have been

used for a long time, such as R-407C and R-410A. EPA is updating appendix A to include newer

HFCs, PFCs, HFOs, and other refrigerants based on the standards contained in the latest AHRI

Standard 700, Specifications for Refrigerants. EPA proposed to base appendix A on AHRI

Standard 740-2015, with the exception that the Agency would maintain the current unsaturates

limit of 0.5 percent by weight. Recently AHRI released Standard 740-2016 which includes

additional refrigerants and an impurity standard for R-40. EPA is finalizing appendix A based on

Page 247 of 403

the recent AHRI Standard 740-2016 by adding the new refrigerants, but not the unsaturates limit

or R-40 impurity standard.

The standard in the previously existing rules was adopted in 1995. It is appropriate to

update this standard to ensure that refrigerants developed in the last twenty years are reclaimed

properly. While industry has established standards for these new refrigerants, EPA’s regulations

have not kept pace. Therefore, reclaimers have not had a legal obligation to achieve such

standards. Instilling confidence in the market that reclaimed refrigerant is as good as virgin

refrigerant is crucial to its widespread use. Ensuring a healthy market for reclaimed refrigerant is

also crucial to support the value of used refrigerant and provide incentives through market forces

to recover used gas from appliances during their maintenance, servicing, repair, or disposal.

Many refrigerant reclaimers and distributors commented that the current 0.5 percent

unsaturates limit is appropriate. One commenter specifies that the reclamation industry as a

whole has delivered more than 200 million pounds of reclaimed refrigerant at that unsaturates

level without any known issues. Another commenter expressed concern that lowering the

unsaturates limit will make successful reclamation impossible. Other commenters encouraged

EPA to incorporate the AHRI Standard 700-2015, Specifications for Refrigerants, by reference

and establish a process to automatically adopt the latest version of the AHRI-700 standard. These

commenters explained that typically, the standard is updated to establish purity specifications for

each new substitute refrigerant as it is developed and approved. The commenters state that this

will prevent reclaimers from having to comply with regulations requiring that they reclaim new

refrigerants without any EPA required standard for those refrigerants.

EPA responds that it is not incorporating either the AHRI Standard 700-2015,

Specifications for Refrigerants, or the current AHRI Standard 700-2016, Specifications for

Page 248 of 403

Refrigerants by reference. This is because ASHRAE and AHRI are still conducting further

studies on whether and how to amend the unsaturates limit. It is important to maintain the 0.5

percent unsaturates limit while the standard is still being debated. Accordingly, rather than

incorporating the AHRI Standard 700-2016 by reference, EPA is updating appendix A to include

HFCs, PFCs, HFOs, and other refrigerants based on the standards contained in AHRI Standard

700-2016. In response to the comment about establishing a process to automatically update the

standards, it is important to understand that EPA cannot automatically incorporate future

standards by reference. EPA appreciates the commenters’ concerns that the Agency has not

updated the standard in twenty-one years. However, any updated standard must undergo notice

and comment review prior to being adopted into the regulations.

This final rule will extend the prior reporting requirements that are applicable to ODS to

HFCs and other non-exempt substitutes. 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 by type, and the mass of waste products.

EPA has been publishing the aggregate total of each ODS refrigerant reclaimed each year on its

website. After these revised reporting requirements take effect, EPA will begin collecting and

making available reclamation data for non-exempt substitute refrigerants as well as ODS, which

should provide EPA and the general public a greater understanding of the extent of HFC

recovery and reclamation. One commenter encouraged EPA to publish data on the amount of

refrigerant being sent to a reclaimer in addition to the amount reclaimed. The commenter does

not believe that aggregated data is CBI and believes that sharing the data publicly will provide

further justification for the actions taken in this rule. EPA responds that the Agency has

aggregated and released the reported quantity of refrigerant received for reclamation, as well as

Page 249 of 403

the aggregate quantity of refrigerant reclaimed since 2010. This includes an aggregate of all of

the different types of refrigerant reported to EPA as received and/or reclaimed. Because

reporting on substitutes was previously not a requirement, the data on HFCs are incomplete and

based only on reports from companies that chose to provide such data.

3. Revisions to Recordkeeping and Reporting

Under the prior regulations at §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 700-2016, EPA

is finalizing revisions to the regulations to clarify that the analysis must be conducted on each

batch of refrigerant being reclaimed and that reclaimers must maintain records of each analysis.

Requiring reclaimers to maintain records helps to ensure that refrigerant is being reclaimed to the

appropriate specifications. The standard practice for reclaimers currently is to analyze by batch,

and to generate records when doing so, so these revisions update the regulations to reflect current

practices and do not add additional burden. EPA is also requiring that all recordkeeping and

reporting requirements for reclaimers be maintained and reported by refrigerant type (i.e.,

ASHRAE number). 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. Currently,

reclaimers provide data on ODS reclamation to EPA in multiple formats. EPA intends to develop

an electronic form to standardize the reporting across all reclaimers. This should reduce burden

on the Agency and on reclaimers as EPA must currently engage in a back and forth process to

Page 250 of 403

ensure that all required data have been reported properly. This will also allow the Agency to

publish reclamation data in a more timely manner.

Previously reclaimers were required to certify that the refrigerant reclaimed meets the

specifications in AHRI Standard 700-1995 using the analytical methodology prescribed in

appendix A. EPA proposed to specify that reclaimers must, “[v]erify that each batch of

refrigerant reclaimed meets these specifications using the analytical methodology prescribed in

appendix A,” but did not propose a definition of the term batch. Multiple reclaimers supported

testing each batch of refrigerant but suggested that EPA define the term batch. These

commenters proposed identical or similar definitional language requesting that EPA define a

batch of refrigerant as a single bulk cylinder containing the reclaimed refrigerant after all

processing has been completed but prior to packaging or shipping to the market. EPA agrees that

specifying what a batch is will assist reclaimers in complying with this requirement and is

therefore adding batch to the defined terms in §82.152. This added definition is materially

similar to what commenters suggested.

One commenter suggested that a testing ID or batch number be placed on each cylinder

packaged from the bulk cylinder to allow for traceability back to the analysis. EPA recognizes

that some companies may want to do this for their own internal quality control. However, EPA is

not presently convinced of the environmental benefit of making this change at this time.

Multiple reclaimers requested that the reclaimed refrigerant be independently analyzed by

an accredited laboratory. They stated that independently verifying that reclaimed refrigerant

meets the required specifications reaffirms the appropriate industry standard already being

followed by most reclaimers. One commenter found that it would not be necessary to require

independent analysis since all reputable reclaimers already do this. EPA responds that it did not

Page 251 of 403

propose to require independent third-party testing of reclaimed refrigerant and does not presently

have sufficient information to finalize such a requirement. Before requiring third-party testing,

EPA would want to better understand the frequency with which such testing is done, the costs

involved, whether such testing would improve the quality of the reclaimed refrigerant on the

market, and which and how many companies conduct such testing. Therefore, at this time EPA is

not requiring independent third-party testing. However, as discussed previously in this notice,

ensuring the quality of reclaimed refrigerant is very important to its use and to further the goals

of the section 608 program and EPA may consider establishing such requirements in a future

rulemaking.

EPA requested comment on possible future proposed revisions to the reclamation

requirements including establishing more stringent certification requirements for reclaimers;

establishing a third-party certification or audit program for reclaimers; and requiring labeling of

reclaimed refrigerant. Many reclaimers and other commenters provided input on these questions.

Because EPA was merely seeking comment for potential future actions and did not propose any

specific action for this rulemaking, EPA is not responding to those comments at this time and is

not taking final action with respect to any of those comments. EPA will consider the information

received for a potential future rulemaking.

4. Hazardous Wastes

EPA received comments related to hazardous waste in the context of the safe disposal

requirements, recovery equipment, and reclamation. Multiple commenters requested that EPA

create new Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) exclusions from the definition of

hazardous waste for all recovered refrigerants, perhaps with the exception of ammonia. The

commenters stated that classifying used refrigerant as a hazardous waste would prevent

Page 252 of 403

technicians from recovering and transporting used refrigerant and prevent reclaimers from

accepting, processing, or reclaiming such refrigerant. As a result, commenters foresee less

recovery and increased emissions because handling compounds classified as hazardous waste

would be cost prohibitive. The commenters point to the exclusion EPA created for used CFCs at

40 CFR 261.4(b)(12) as a model.

EPA responds that to be a hazardous waste, a compound must either be specifically listed

as a hazardous waste per 40 CFR 261 Subpart D or exhibit one of the following characteristics:

ignitability, reactivity, toxicity, or corrosivity per 40 CFR 261 Subpart C. In 1990, EPA revised

the toxicity characteristic and as a result, became aware that certain CFCs may exhibit the

toxicity characteristic. On February 13, 1991, the Agency issued an exclusion from the RCRA

hazardous waste regulations for CFCs used as refrigerants, provided the refrigerant is reclaimed

for further use. Most non-exempt substitute refrigerants are not listed nor do they exhibit any

characteristics of a hazardous waste and therefore, are not considered hazardous wastes when

they are recovered and reclaimed. However, some refrigerants are flammable (e.g., HFC-32),

which are likely to exhibit the hazardous waste characteristic of ignitability.

5. Clarifications and Edits for Readability

EPA is also finalizing revisions in this rule that consolidate provisions related to

refrigerant reclaimers into a single section at §82.164. This rule also clarifies what is required of

the reclaimer. The prior regulations required a reclaimer to certify that he or she will meet a

certain set of standards and engage in certain behaviors. The revised regulations require first, that

a reclaimer meet those standards and behaviors and second, that they certify to having done so.

EPA is making this revision to improve the clarity and enforceability of these provisions. EPA

did not receive any comments on this proposal.

Page 253 of 403

L. Revisions to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in section 82.166

1. Background

The prior regulations included all recordkeeping and reporting provisions in one section

of subpart F (§82.166). While having all the provisions in one place can be useful, they are

separated from the required practices specific to that regulated entity. This can create difficulty

for the regulated community in finding what records they must keep and what reports they must

make to remain in compliance with the section 608 requirements. To improve the readability of

the recordkeeping and reporting provisions, EPA is moving the requirements that were in

§82.166 to the relevant section describing the required practices. The recordkeeping and

reporting provisions that remain in §82.166 relate to the leak repair provisions in §82.156(i) that

are effective until January 1, 2019.

EPA summarizes some of the key amended recordkeeping and reporting provisions for

this rulemaking below and intends to prepare a guidance document for this rule that includes all

of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Additional discussion of these provisions may

be found in the section of this notice discussing the corresponding required practice. This

summary is not exhaustive, so to determine all of recordkeeping requirements that apply to a

particular requirement, you must consult the appropriate text in the revised regulations.

2. Summary of Recordkeeping Provisions

A summary of some key, revised recordkeeping requirements for subpart F is included

here. Unless otherwise noted, all 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

Page 254 of 403

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 either that

the supplier will recover any remaining refrigerant from the appliance in accordance with

§82.155 prior to delivery or will verify that the refrigerant has been properly recovered

before receipt by the supplier.

 Disposal of Appliances Containing More than 5 and Less than 50 Pounds of Refrigerant:

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 maintain

records documenting their company name, location of the appliance, date of recovery,

and type of refrigerant recovered for each appliance. They must also keep records of the

quantity of refrigerant, by type, recovered from such appliances in each calendar month

and the quantity and type of refrigerant transferred for reclamation, the person to whom it

was transferred, and the date of transfer.

 Leak Inspection: Owners or operators of appliances with a full charge of 50 or more

pounds of refrigerant must maintain documentation from quarterly or annual leak

inspections that includes the date of inspection, method used for the inspection, a list of

locations where leaks were discovered, and a certification that all visible and accessible

parts of the appliance were inspected. Technicians conducting leak inspections must

provide such documentation to the owner or operator. Alternatively, owners or operators

may install an automatic leak detection system and maintain records for that system,

including records showing that the system is audited or calibrated annually and records

related to the leaks that the system identifies.

Page 255 of 403

 Full Charge: Owners or operators of appliances with a full charge of 50 or more pounds

of refrigerant must maintain records relating to the full charge of the appliance, including

records documenting what the full charge amount is for such appliances, how it was

determined, the range and its midpoint for the full charge, and any revisions to the full

charge. 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 with a full charge of 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

parts of the appliance serviced, maintained, repaired, or disposed of; the name of the

person performing the maintenance, service, repair or disposal; and the amount and type

of refrigerant added to or removed from the appliance. The appliance owner or operator

must maintain service records provided by technicians.

 Verification Tests: Owners or operators of any appliance with a full charge of 50 or more

pounds of refrigerant must maintain records relating to any verification tests, including

records of the dates, types, and results of all initial and follow-up verification tests.

Technicians conducting verification tests must provide documentation of such activities

to the owner or operator.

 Retrofit/Retirement Plans: Owners or operators of appliances with a full charge of 50 or

more pounds of refrigerant that are subject to retrofit/retirement requirements must

maintain retrofit or retirement plans. The plan must contain the following information:

identification and location of the appliance; type and full charge of the refrigerant used;

Page 256 of 403

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 a schedule, not to exceed one year, for completion of the appliance retrofit or

retirement.

 Requests to Extend the Deadline to Repair or Retrofit/Retire Appliances: Owners or

operators of appliances with a full charge of 50 or more pounds of refrigerant must

maintain copies of extension requests.

 Chronically Leaking Systems: Owners or operators of appliances with a full charge of 50

or more pounds of refrigerant that leak 125 percent or more of the full charge in a

calendar year period must maintain copies of reports submitted to EPA.

 Mothballing: Owners or operators of appliances with a full charge of 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 with a full charge of 50 or more

pounds of refrigerant who exclude from their leak rate calculation purged refrigerant that

is destroyed must maintain records related to the destruction of that purged refrigerant,

including records that demonstrate that a 98 percent or greater destruction efficiency is

met and that include flow rate, quantity or concentration of the refrigerant in the vent

stream, and periods of purge flow.

 Seasonal Variances: Owners or operators of appliances with a full charge of 50 or more

pounds of refrigerant who exclude additions of refrigerant due to seasonal variance from

Page 257 of 403

their leak rate calculation must maintain records stating that they are using the seasonal

variance flexibility and documenting the amount added and removed.

 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 a non-exempt 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 to demonstrate that at least one technician is

properly certified. Copies of technician certifications must be maintained for three years

after each purchase. These records would not apply to the sale of small cans of substitute

refrigerant for servicing MVACs.

 Small Cans of Substitute Refrigerant for MVAC Servicing: Anyone manufacturing small

cans of substitute refrigerant with a self-sealing valve for use in an MVAC 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, consistent with appendix E to subpart F, as revised.

Page 258 of 403

 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. 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. The recordkeeping requirements

can be found in section (g) of appendix D of this subpart.

 Reclaimers: Reclaimers must maintain records, by batch, of the analyses conducted to

verify that reclaimed refrigerant meets the necessary specifications. On a transactional

basis, 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.

4. Summary of Reporting and Notification Provisions

Reporting and notification are important components of the National Recycling and

Emission Reduction Program and allow EPA to track compliance with the requirements. A

summary of some key requirements is included here, and additional discussion may be found in

other sections of this notice. Please consult the appropriate regulatory provision for a complete

list of reporting and notification requirements. All of these reporting requirements are new for

equipment containing non-exempt substitutes. Unless the information is claimed as confidential

business information or as otherwise noted, all notifications must be submitted electronically to

[email protected]. Electronic submission of reports should decrease burden on both EPA and

the regulated community.

Page 259 of 403

 Extensions to the 30-day or 120-day Leak Repair Requirement: Owners or operators of

appliances with a full charge of 50 or more pounds of refrigerant must request an

extension from EPA when seeking additional time to complete repairs.

 Extensions to Retrofit or Retire Appliances: Owners or operators of appliances with a full

charge of 50 or more pounds of refrigerant must request an extension from EPA when

seeking additional time to complete a retrofit or retirement.

 Relief from the Obligation to Retrofit or Retire an Appliance: Owners or operators who

are retrofitting or retiring an appliance with a full charge of 50 or more pounds of

refrigerant may request that EPA relieve them of that obligation if they can establish

within 180 days of the plan’s date that the appliance no longer exceeds the applicable

leak rate. The owner or operator must provide the retrofit or retirement plan; the date that

the requirement to develop a retrofit or retirement plan was triggered; the leak rate; the

method used to determine the leak rate and full charge; the location of the leak(s)

identified in the leak inspection; a description of repair work that has been completed; a

description of repair work that has not been completed; and a description of why the

repair was not conducted within the required time frames.

 Chronically Leaking Systems: Owners or operators must submit a report to EPA for any

appliance with a full charge of 50 or more pounds of refrigerant that leaks 125 percent or

more of the full charge in a calendar year. This report must describe efforts to identify

leaks and repair the appliance.

 Purged Refrigerant: The first time that owners or operators of appliances with a full

charge of 50 or more pounds of refrigerant exclude purged refrigerant that has been

destroyed from their leak rate calculation, they must provide a one-time report to EPA

Page 260 of 403

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.

 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 model line for recovery and/or recycling devices does

not meet EPA requirements.

 Technician Certification Programs: 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. 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. The reporting requirements can

be found in section (g) of appendix D of this subpart.

 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 total aggregate quantity of

material sent to them for reclamation (the combined mass of refrigerant and

contaminants) by refrigerant type, the total mass of each refrigerant reclaimed, and the

total mass of waste products.

Page 261 of 403

M. Effective and compliance dates

EPA proposed that the final rule become effective on January 1, 2017, with later

compliance dates for specific provisions that stakeholders may need additional time to

implement. The “effective date” is the date that the regulatory text in the Code of Federal

Regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F will change. Unless otherwise specified, it is also the

date by which the regulated community must comply with the revised regulation. Additional

“compliance dates” are the dates by which the regulated community must comply with specific

provisions of the revised regulation.

One commenter stated that January 1, 2017, is too aggressive a compliance date, given

the length of time needed to issue the final rule and the rule’s size and complexity. EPA responds

that while the Agency is finalizing an effective date of January 1, 2017, as proposed, it is also

establishing later compliance dates for some new provisions as well as for the application of

some existing provisions to non-exempt substitutes. Where a later compliance date applies, the

revised regulations explicitly specify that later compliance date.

The existing provisions related to ODS that were not substantively modified by the rule

continue to apply with respect to ODS. For minor changes to existing ODS provisions, the

compliance date is the same as the effective date of the rule. Provisions in this final rule for

which there is no delayed compliance date with respect to ODS include the sales restriction,

technician certification requirements, safe disposal requirements, evacuation requirements,

restriction on the sale of used refrigerant, requirement that appliances include a process stub or

servicing aperture, and the recordkeeping associated with those provisions. While in most

instances this rule establishes a later compliance date for application of these provisions to non-

exempt substitutes, the restriction on the sale of used substitute refrigerant and the requirement

Page 262 of 403

that appliances containing non-exempt substitutes include a process stub or servicing aperture

apply for non-exempt substitutes as of January 1, 2017. In addition, the revised standards for the

sale or import of recovery and/or recycling equipment apply for both ODS and non-exempt

substitutes as of January 1, 2017.

This rule establishes a compliance date of January 1, 2018, for many provisions that are

newly applicable to substitute refrigerants. These include the sales restriction, technician

certification requirements, safe disposal requirements, evacuation requirements, and the

recordkeeping associated with those provisions. The new requirement that small cans of

substitute MVAC refrigerant be equipped with self-sealing valves will also apply as of January

1, 2018. In addition, this rule establishes a compliance date of January 1, 2018, for the new

recordkeeping requirement associated with the disposal of appliances containing more than five

and less than 50 pounds of either ODS or non-exempt substitute refrigerant.

Lastly, this rule establishes a compliance date of January 1, 2019, for the revised leak

repair provisions, regardless of whether the appliance contains an ODS or a non-exempt

substitute refrigerant.

The following sections discuss EPA’s rationale for these staggered compliance dates.

1. Section 82.154(c) – Refrigerant Sales Restriction

EPA proposed January 1, 2017, as the compliance date for the sales restriction of all

refrigerant (non-exempt substitutes or ODS). EPA also proposed to require that small cans of

MVAC refrigerant be manufactured with self-sealing valves by one year from the publication of

the final rule and that the sale of small cans without self-sealing valves cease by two years from

publication of the final rule.

Page 263 of 403

EPA is finalizing a compliance date of January 1, 2018, for the sales restriction as applied

to non-exempt substitute refrigerants. Changes related to the sales restriction, as applied to ODS,

apply January 1, 2017, as proposed. EPA is also finalizing a compliance date of January 1, 2018,

to equip small cans with a self-sealing valve. EPA is not finalizing a sell-through requirement in

this rule.

EPA is delaying the compliance date for the sales restriction so that it matches the

compliance dates for other aspects of the rule related to sales of non-exempt substitute

refrigerants. Specifically, EPA proposed one year from the date of publication of the final rule as

the date by which technicians working with appliances containing non-exempt substitutes must

be certified and the date by which small cans of MVAC refrigerant must be equipped with a self-

sealing valve. As discussed below, EPA is finalizing January 1, 2018, as the compliance date for

both of those provisions. To minimize potential conflicts by having different compliance dates,

EPA is extending the compliance date for the sales restriction of substitute refrigerants to

January 1, 2018.

With regards to small cans of MVAC refrigerant, manufacturers, distributors and retailers

of automotive refrigerant supported the proposed “manufacture-by” date of one year from

publication of the final rule, but commented that they oppose a sell-through date for small cans

that do not have self-sealing valves. They commented that such a requirement would be

inefficient, burdensome, costly, and environmentally problematic. It would require all retailers to

know of the requirement and establish processes for returning unsold cans back to the

manufacturer for destruction. More likely, the cans may be improperly disposed of, which would

negate the environmental benefit of the new provisions. One commenter stated that a

“manufacture-by” date would shift EPA’s burden in ensuring compliance from a few

Page 264 of 403

manufacturers to thousands of retailers. Furthermore, commenters cited EPA’s July 2015 SNAP

rule (80 FR 42901; July 20, 2015) which listed HFC-134a as unacceptable for use as an aerosol

as of a “manufacture-by” date, rather than a “sell-by” date. CARB commented on EPA’s

proposal for a two-year sell-through period that a one-year sell-through period has been found to

be acceptable in their experience.

EPA responds that to allow all entities in the distribution chain time to plan for and

communicate changes to the sales restriction on non-exempt substitute refrigerants, as well as the

requirement for self-sealing valves on small cans, EPA is finalizing a sales restriction date and

“manufacture-by” or “import-by” date of January 1, 2018. This will provides slightly more time

than one year from publication of the final rule, which EPA proposed for the self-sealing valve

requirement. Generally speaking, EPA has attempted to simplify the compliance dates so they do

not fall in the middle of a month or during the middle of the cooling season.

In response to the comments received on EPA’s proposal to allow small cans

manufactured and placed into initial inventory or imported before that date to be sold for one

additional year, EPA is not finalizing the sell-through requirement and is finalizing only a date

by which small cans must be manufactured or imported with a self-sealing valve. EPA agrees

that this is the least-burdensome option and that it avoids the potential for any unintended

consequences of a “sell-by” date.

2. Section 82.155 – Safe Disposal of Small Appliances, MVAC, and MVAC-like

Appliances

EPA proposed that the extension of the requirements for the recovery of non-exempt

substitute refrigerant prior to disposal/recycling of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like

Page 265 of 403

appliances take effect one year from publication of the final rule. EPA proposed that changes

related to ODS equipment be effective January 1, 2017.

One commenter supported the proposed one-year extension to the compliance date for

substitute refrigerants. EPA is finalizing a compliance date of January 1, 2018, for the extension

to non-exempt substitute refrigerants. This will provide sufficient time for final disposers such as

scrap recyclers to learn about the extension to non-exempt substitutes and make any adjustments

needed to start maintaining records associated with disposal of appliances containing non-

exempt substitutes. Using January 1, 2018, rather than one year from publication will also make

communicating the compliance date for the rule easier.

Because EPA is not making substantive changes to the existing requirements for

appliances containing ODS, EPA does not expect that final disposers will need extra time to

adjust to the updates in this rule for those appliances. Accordingly, EPA is finalizing a

compliance date for ODS appliances of January 1, 2017.

3. Section 82.156 – Proper Evacuation of Refrigerant from Appliances

EPA proposed that the extension of the requirements related to the evacuation of non-

exempt substitute refrigerants before the maintenance, servicing, repair, or disposal of appliances

apply one year from publication of the final rule. EPA proposed that changes related to ODS

equipment apply January 1, 2017.

Two commenters supported the proposed one year extension to the compliance date for

non-exempt substitutes. Another commenter requested two years on the ground that recovery and

reclamation equipment may need to be modified to meet the requirements of the final rule. EPA

responds that the Agency is not requiring that existing recovery and/or recycling equipment be

modified or replaced with new equipment.

Page 266 of 403

EPA is finalizing a compliance date of January 1, 2018, for the extension of the

requirements to appliances containing non-exempt refrigerants. This will provide affected

entities time to learn about the extension and make any adjustments needed to apply the required

practices to the evacuation of appliances containing non-exempt substitutes. Because EPA is not

making substantive changes to the existing requirements for appliances containing ODS, EPA

does not expect that affected entities will need extra time to adjust to the updates in this rule for

those appliances. Accordingly, EPA is finalizing a compliance date for ODS appliances of

January 1, 2017.

EPA is establishing a delayed compliance date of January 1, 2018, for the new

requirement to keep records upon disposal of appliances containing either a class I, class II, or

non-exempt substitute refrigerant. This is slightly more than one year from publication of the

final rule, which was what EPA proposed. The delayed compliance date will allow affected

entities to establish a recordkeeping program to track the amount of refrigerant recovered from

appliances that are disposed of in the field. EPA expects that the same amount of time will be

needed for ODS and non-ODS appliances because this is a new requirement, not an update to an

existing requirement.

4. Section 82.157 – Appliance Maintenance and Leak Repair

This rule makes significant revisions to the leak repair provisions, including lowering the

leak rates, requiring leak repair verification tests on new types of equipment, and modifying the

recordkeeping and reporting requirements. In addition, owners and operators of appliances using

non-exempt substitute refrigerants that were previously not covered by any subpart F required

practices will have to familiarize themselves with the requirements. EPA is therefore establishing

Page 267 of 403

a later compliance date for the appliance maintenance and leak repair requirements than for most

other provisions.

EPA proposed a compliance date 18 months from publication of the final rule. One

commenter suggested that EPA shorten the compliance date to 12 months and two commenters

agreed that it should be at minimum 18 months. Five commenters recommended more than 18

months, with the longest extensions ranging from 24 to 36 months after the publication of the

final rule. These commenters stated that later dates would decrease the costs of compliance and

give companies adequate time to train employees and update current systems to meet the

requirements of the rule. Extending the compliance dates would also allow more time for owners

or operators to bring equipment up to the new standards, and avoid having to potentially conduct

numerous repairs or replacements at once. Commenters who supported a 36-month extension

noted constraints with the federal budget cycle and acquisition requirements or referred to

Maximum Achievable Control Technology rules that typically provide three years to comply.

Because the leak repair provisions already provide the opportunity for extensions for

delays caused by the federal agency appropriations and/or procurement process, EPA disagrees

with federal agencies requesting a 36 month extension to the compliance date. EPA agrees with

commenters that additional time may be needed to understand the regulations and to make

repairs on systems that have not previously been subject to the subpart F required practices.

Therefore, EPA is establishing a compliance date of January 1, 2019. This date is two years from

the effective date, and more than 24 months from publication of the final rule. This is sufficient

time for owners and operators of appliances with 50 or more pounds of refrigerant to learn about

the updated requirements; update systems, standard operating procedures, and training materials

to best administer the requirements; and fix leakier systems.

Page 268 of 403

Until January 1, 2019, the leak repair provisions at §82.156(i) and the associated

recordkeeping requirements at §82.166 continue to apply as specified to appliances containing

ODS refrigerant. Those leak repair provisions use terminology contained in the definitions as

they existed prior to this rulemaking. EPA has added those unmodified definitions to §82.156(j)

for the purposes of implementing §82.156(i) until the new provisions take effect January 1, 2019.

5. Section 82.158 – Recovery and recycling equipment

EPA proposed that the standards for recovery and recycling equipment apply to the

manufacture and import of equipment for non-exempt substitutes as of January 1, 2017. One

commenter requested additional time on the ground that recovery and recycling equipment may

need to be modified to meet the requirements of the final rule. EPA responds that the Agency is

not requiring that existing recovery and/or recycling equipment be modified or replaced with

new equipment certified for use with non-exempt substitute refrigerants. Rather, EPA is

requiring only that newly manufactured or imported recovery and/or recycling equipment meet

the new standards upon the compliance date.

6. Section 82.161 – Technician Certification Requirements

EPA proposed that technicians be certified to handle non-exempt substitute refrigerants

by one year from publication of the final rule. EPA proposed that changes related to ODS apply

January 1, 2017.

One commenter supported the one year extension to the compliance date for non-exempt

substitute refrigerants. Another commenter requested two years so as to allow time for certifying

organizations to write and review the certification test questions as well as train, or re-train,

technicians on that new material.

Page 269 of 403

EPA is establishing a compliance date of January 1, 2018, for technicians to be certified

to handle non-exempt substitute refrigerants. This is slightly more than the proposal of one year

from publication of the final rule. This will provide time for EPA to update the test bank with

questions related to non-exempt substitute refrigerants and for certifying organizations to update

their testing materials to use the new questions. EPA does not anticipate that a two year

extension 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 finalizing the compliance dates for the publication of lists of certified

technicians as proposed. As such, any technician certified on or after January 1, 2017, must be

included in a publicly accessible list of certified technicians or provided the ability to opt out.

Technician certification programs must make these lists available starting January 1, 2018.

V. Possible Future Revisions to Subpart F

EPA requested input on other aspects of the National Recycling and Emission Reduction

Program that might be addressed in a future rulemaking. Specifically EPA requested feedback on

1) establishing a voluntary program for supermarkets based on their corporate-wide average leak

rate; 2) establishing more stringent certification requirements for reclaimers; 3) establishing a

third-party certification or audit program for reclaimers; 4) requiring labeling of reclaimed

refrigerant; 5) moving further upstream the responsibility to recapture refrigerant from

appliances being disposed of; 6) requiring recertification of currently certified technicians; and 7)

establishing a technician certification requirement or sales restriction for flammable refrigerants.

EPA is not taking any final action on these topics in this rule but does greatly value the

Page 270 of 403

information provided by commenters. EPA has prepared a summary of these comments that is

available in the docket for this rule.

VI. Economic Analysis

For the reasons explained in Section III of this preamble, EPA considered economic

factors in the development of this rule. EPA considered the costs of different actions that would

achieve the goals of this rule to individual entities and the United States economy as a whole.

While selecting regulatory actions that would achieve the goals of this rule, EPA elected to

consider the costs of different actions to individual entities and the United States economy as a

whole. Many commenters claimed that the benefits of the proposed regulatory provisions do not

justify the costs, while four comments supported the cost effectiveness of the proposed rule. EPA

has taken these comments into consideration and is finalizing several provisions that will be less

burdensome than proposed. This section provides a brief overview of how the Agency calculated

costs and then discusses major revisions to the final rule that affect EPA’s economic analysis. A

full description of the cost analyses is included in the technical support document Analysis of the

Economic Impact and Benefits of Final Revisions to the National Recycling and Emission

Reduction Program, which can be found in the docket.

To estimate the incremental costs of the regulatory revisions, 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 the 2013 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

Page 271 of 403

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 revisions to this population, EPA estimated the costs to individual entities

and the total cost to the economy.

Some regulatory revisions in this action, such as providing extensions to owners or

operators of comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration before having to replace leaking

appliances reduce the cost of compliance to owners of ODS-containing equipment. These

reductions were included in the incremental cost of the action.

As detailed more fully in the technical support document, the rulemaking includes new

compliance costs of approximately $75.5 million split into approximately $32.5 million for

owners and operators of equipment containing ODS and $43 million in non-ODS systems.

Offsetting the new compliance costs are reductions in cost due to the removal of some regulatory

requirements and increasing flexibility for repairs. These offsetting costs total $51 million, all

related to equipment containing ODS. Taken together (the new compliance costs less the

offsetting costs), EPA estimates that the net total cost to comply with the requirements of this

final rule is $24.5 million per year (Table 3 shows these net costs at both the rule component

level and for the total rule).

Table 3. Incremental Annual Compliance Costs by Rule Component (2014$)

with 7% and 3% Discount Rates

Rule

Component

Total Incremental Compliance Costs

(7% Discount Rate)

Total Incremental Compliance Costs

(3% Discount Rate)

HFC

ODS

Total

HFC

ODS

Total

Leak Repair

Page 272 of 403

Table 3. Incremental Annual Compliance Costs by Rule Component (2014$)

with 7% and 3% Discount Rates

Comfort

Cooling

$5,046,000

-$38,191,000

-$33,145,000

$2,437,000

-$18,705,000

-$16,268,000

Commercial

Refrigeration

$1,709,000

-$10,137,000

-$8,428,000

$823,000

-$4,963,000

-$4,139,000

IPR

$385,000

$31,000

$417,000

$186,000

$13,000

$200,000

Leak Inspection

$21,703,000

$27,460,000

$49,163,000

$21,703,000

$27,460,000

$49,163,000

Reporting &

Recordkeeping

$11,101,000

$2,350,000

$13,451,000

$11,101,000

$2,350,000

$13,451,000

Self-sealing

Valves on Small

Cans

$3,070,000

Total

$43,014,000

-$18,487,000

$24,528,000

$39,320,000

$6,155,000

$45,477,000

Totals may not sum due to independent rounding

Some regulatory revisions, by reducing the amount of refrigerant lost to leaks, also result

in savings for equipment owners or operators of the cost of purchasing replacement refrigerant.

EPA estimates that affected entities would avoid spending over $44 million in refrigerant

purchases alone due to the regulatory revisions. The compliance costs and refrigerant savings

combined are estimated to be savings of $19.6 million per year. Furthermore, costs could

additionally be lower because appliances running with the correct amount of refrigerant are

generally more energy efficient to operate and last longer.

Table 4: Total Annual Refrigerant Savings (2014$) and Combined Annual Cost and Annual Savings

with 7% and 3% Discount Rate

Rule Component

Annual Refrigerant Savings

Incremental

Compliance

Costs

Combined

Annual

Savings and

Compliance

Costs

Incremental

Compliance

Costs

Combined

Annual

Savings and

Compliance

Costs

HFC

ODS

Total

7% Discount Rate

3% Discount Rate

Leak Repair

Comfort

Cooling

-$9,853,000

-$20,221,000

-$30,073,000

-$33,145,000

-$63,218,000

-$16,268,000

-$46,341,000

Commercial

Refrigeration

-$3,439,000

-$7,514,000

-$10,953,000

-$8,428,000

-$19,381,000

-$4,139,000

-$15,092,000

IPR

-$1,582,000

-$1,533,000

-$3,115,000

$417,000

-$2,698,000

$200,000

-$2,915,000

Leak Inspection

$49,163,000

Page 273 of 403

Table 4: Total Annual Refrigerant Savings (2014$) and Combined Annual Cost and Annual Savings

with 7% and 3% Discount Rate

Reporting &

Recordkeeping

$13,451,000

Self-sealing

Valves on Small

Cans

$3,070,000

Total

-$14,874,000

-$29,268,000

-$44,141,000

$24,528,000

-$19,613,000

$45,477,000

$1,336,000

Totals may not sum due to independent rounding

Several commenters questioned the validity of EPA’s cost estimates and some provided

examples of costs from their own business/organizations. One commenter said that, given the

amount of paperwork and added compliance requirements in the proposed rule, the cost

estimates are implausibly low and call into question the fundamental integrity of the Agency’s

economic analysis. Another said that they would estimate the cost to implement the new

requirements to be well in excess of $100 million just to repair and potentially replace IPR

systems, noting that the replacement of a single complex IPR system can be as high as $10

million.

EPA responds that the aggregate costs and savings for the economy as a whole would not

be expected to be distributed evenly across affected entities. For example, owners of ODS-

containing equipment with low leak rates might only incur costs for recordkeeping. On the other

hand, owners of HFC-containing equipment with high leak rates might incur costs of repairing

leaks, though they would also realize savings due to reduced refrigerant purchases. Owners of

ODS-containing comfort cooling or commercial refrigeration appliance with high leak rates may

also incur costs of repairing leaks but also substantial cost savings by not having to retrofit or

retire the appliance if unable to repair within 30 days, given the extensions provided in the final

rule.

Several commenters claimed that requiring all systems to have annual or quarterly leak

inspections would impose significant costs on owners of all systems including those systems that

Page 274 of 403

do not leak or leak very little. One commenter, using their estimate for the cost of each leak

inspection of a particular facility’s appliances, when taken quarterly across some 5,200 retail

stores and supporting business units, stated that the impact on their company would exceed $10

million. Another commenter called quarterly leak inspections redundant if it is already required

that leaks be fixed in a timely manner. Two commenters supported leak inspections and trade

group supported periodic leak inspections as a proactive means to detect leaks, reduce refrigerant

emissions, and maintain energy efficiency of equipment.

The Agency responds that a proactive plan of maintenance leads to reduced emissions of

refrigerant and is part of the best practices for operation of these systems. Discussions with

members of industry and reports from the GreenChill program support the effectiveness of a

program of regular inspections to lower average leak rates. However, to allow for flexibility in

how system owners and operators implement their refrigeration management programs,

especially for the least leaky equipment, EPA is not finalizing a requirement that all systems

undergo periodic leak inspections. Only systems that show a history of excessive emissions by

exceeding the leak rate threshold will require periodic inspections, and then only for a limited

time if the leak rate of the system is addressed effectively. This will reduce the burden on owners

of systems that are not responsible for emissions, while focusing attention on systems that

require it. EPA estimates that this will affect 282,000 appliances, compared to approximately 1.5

million under the proposed rule.

EPA’s analysis of the costs of leak inspection used the median hourly rate for heating,

air-conditioning, and refrigeration mechanics and installers provided by the Bureau of Labor

Statistics, along with an additional 110% for overhead. EPA assumed that leak inspections could

be carried out quickly because the proposal allowed employees and not certified technicians to

Page 275 of 403

conduct the inspections. However, as discussed previously, a number of stakeholders claimed

that inspections by employees not specialized in refrigeration would be far less effective and

pointed out that the standard practice for many entities is to hire technicians for inspections. EPA

is requiring in this final rule that leak inspections be conducted by certified technicians. EPA’s

final analysis continues to use the average rate provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics but has

increased the number of hours for each inspection.

Several commenters said that the costs of completely replacing a system if it leaked more

than 75 percent of its full charge in two consecutive years were very high, and that these costs

would not necessarily fall on those whose poor maintenance practices allowed for excessive

emissions. They also commented that the provision was inefficient because all of the system

components would need to be replaced, even those that were known not to be leaking, imposing

additional costs with no additional benefit.

In response to the potential significant costs that commenters said the proposed “chronic

leaker” provision would incur, EPA is finalizing a modification of this provision that would

instead require reporting to EPA rather than retirement of an appliance. This will greatly reduce

the costs on owners of systems with very high emissions. While EPA had not estimated the costs

or benefits of the proposed chronic leaker provision, EPA has calculated the total annual

reporting burden associated with the final provision to be $126,000.

Two commenters said that requiring all leaks be fixed after a system exceeds the

threshold leak rate would lead to high costs with diminishing returns as smaller and smaller leaks

were repaired.

EPA maintains that once a system has been evacuated for repair it is a best practice to

repair any significant leaks. Doing so makes financial sense because allowing leaks to continue

Page 276 of 403

leads to the purchase of more refrigerant, reduced energy efficiency, possible increased service

costs if the system must be shut down and repaired again, and increased risk of loss of cooling.

However, EPA agrees that some leaks may allow very small amounts of refrigerant to escape and

that some leaks are difficult to access or repair. Therefore, taking into account the comments,

EPA is not finalizing the requirement that all identified leaks be repaired.

Two commenters claimed that lowering the maximum leak rate for IPR systems to 20

percent would lead to significant economic burden for some businesses, and one of whom said

that EPA has not provided adequate benefits to justify this requirement.

EPA has estimated that lowering the maximum rate at which systems may be allowed to

leak perpetually without being repaired protects the environment by reducing emissions of

pollutants. EPA recognizes that maintenance of IPR systems presents particular challenges.

These systems are often very large and complex, making finding leaks more difficult. They can

also be extremely costly to shut down to allow for repairs. Therefore, in consideration of

comments and other feedback from stakeholders, the Agency is finalizing a leak rate of 30

percent for IPR systems. While this will reduce benefits, we hope to strike a balance between the

costs and benefits of this provision that will allow greater flexibility in the management of these

systems. Under the proposed leak rate of 20 percent, the EPA estimates benefits of 0.63

MMTCO

eq with costs of $7 million for leak inspections and repair. With the final leak rate of

30 percent, estimated benefits are 0.44 MMTCO

eq with costs of $5.5 million.

One commenter stated that there is substantial uncertainty in the transition pathway away

from HFCs due to EPA’s SNAP rule that changed the listing status for certain substitute

refrigerants (80 FR 42870) (“SNAP Program Status Change Rule”). The commenter encouraged

Page 277 of 403

EPA to consider a wider range of possible baseline futures when calculating the 2020 and 2025

benefits of the rule.

EPA responds that the Agency has considered that many end users will change the ODS

substitutes being used because of the SNAP rule and EPA considered such change when

estimating the benefits of this final action. EPA assumed transitions away from substitutes that

are no longer acceptable in some end-uses, most notably in commercial refrigeration based on

the most likely scenario detailed in Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule

found in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0239. However, many of the differences

between the scenarios in that analysis have little or no effect on the estimated benefits of the

present action. For example, the analysis of the SNAP rule looked only at transitions of MVAC

units for exports, as it is assumed that the domestic market will already have transitioned away

from HFC-134a by 2020 due to EPA’s earlier Light Duty Vehicle rule. Therefore the SNAP rule

would not be expected to introduce uncertainty in the benefits in 2020 or 2025 in MVAC

servicing. As another example, the different SNAP scenarios assumed that low-temperature

commercial refrigeration appliances would begin to transition from HFC-134a to R-450A or R-

513A in different years, but all three scenarios assume that transition will reach a maximum of

50 percent by 2020. Given the small differences in the expected equipment stock related to

uncertainty in the effects of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule, we believe that assuming

the effects of the “most likely” scenario from the SNAP analysis provides a model universe of

appliances that is realistic and that avoids any possibility of double counting benefits between the

two rules.

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

Page 278 of 403

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

entity analysis to ascertain the likelihood that the revisions would have a SISNOSE. EPA

estimates that approximately 740 of the approximately 854,580 affected small businesses could

incur costs in excess of 1 percent of annual sales and that fewer than 80 small businesses could

incur costs in excess of 3 percent 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 rule.

The full description of the cost analyses, including sensitivity analyses of key

assumptions and alternate options, is included in the technical support document Analysis of the

Economic Impact and Benefits of Final Revisions to the National Recycling and Emission

Reduction Program, which can be found in the docket for this action.

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 VI of the notice and is available in the docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

Page 279 of 403

The information collection activities in this rule have been submitted for approval to the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request

(ICR) document that EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1626.15. You can find a

copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information

collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.

All recordkeeping and reporting requirements under this program are specifically

described in Section IV.L of this notice. In order to facilitate compliance with and enforce the

refrigerant management requirements of section 608 of the CAA, EPA requires reporting and

recordkeeping by 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 861,374.

Page 280 of 403

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

9.4 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions and gathering, maintaining, and

submitting information.

Total estimated burden: The total estimated burden is 580,473 hours (per year). Burden is

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: The total estimated cost is $34,627,299 (per year). There are no

estimated annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs associated with the reporting or

recordkeeping requirements.

Much 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. The OMB

control number for this information collection is 2060-0256.

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 the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB

approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a

technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved

information collection activities contained in this 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 740 of the

Page 281 of 403

approximately 854,580 affected small businesses could incur costs in excess of 1 percent of

annual sales and that fewer than 80 small businesses could incur costs in excess of 3 percent 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 Final Revisions to the National

Recycling and Emission Reduction Program available in the docket.

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. For example, this rule strengthens the leak repair requirements,

establishes recordkeeping requirements for the disposal of appliances containing more than five

and less than 50 pounds of refrigerant, and modifies 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 statutory self-effectuating prohibition against venting refrigerants by

ensuring that certain service practices are conducted that reduce the emissions of ozone-depleting

Page 282 of 403

refrigerants and their substitutes. For example, this rule strengthens the leak repair requirements,

establishes recordkeeping requirements for the disposal of appliances containing more than five

and less than 50 pounds of refrigerant, and modifies 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 F.R. 19885, April 23, 1997)

because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. Nonetheless, 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)

Page 283 of 403

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

This action involves technical standards. In some instances, EPA is deciding to use a

modified version of an industry standard for purposes of this rule; in others, EPA is deciding to

use an industry standard by reference exactly as written.

EPA is incorporating by reference UL 1963, Supplement SB, Requirements for

Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment Intended for Use with a Flammable Refrigerant,

Fourth Edition, June 1, 2011. This 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 www.comm-2000.com or by writing to Comm 2000,

151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106. The cost is $798 for an electronic copy and $998 for

hardcopy. UL also offers a subscription service to the Standards Certification Customer Library

(SCCL) that allows unlimited access to their standards and related documents. The cost of

obtaining this standard is not a significant financial burden for equipment manufacturers.

Therefore, EPA concludes that the UL standard being incorporated by reference is reasonably

available.

EPA is incorporating by reference standards referenced in AHRI Standard 700-2016.

Specifically, these standards are:

Page 284 of 403

- 2008 Appendix C for Analytical Procedures for AHRI Standard 700-2014-Normative,

2008. 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. An electronic copy of the appendix is available at www.ahrinet.org. It is also

available by mail at Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 2111

Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201. The cost of obtaining this standard is

not a significant financial burden. Therefore, EPA concludes that the standard being

incorporated by reference is reasonably available.

- 2012 Appendix D for Gas Chromatograms for AHRI Standard 700-2014- Informative,

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. An electronic copy of the appendix is available at

www.ahrinet.org. It is also available by mail at Air-Conditioning, Heating, and

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201.

The cost of obtaining this standard is not a significant financial burden. Therefore, EPA

concludes that the standard being incorporated by reference is reasonably available.

- Federal Specification for “Fluorocarbon Refrigerants,” BB-F-1421 B, dated March 5,

1982. 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. Therefore, EPA concludes that the standard being incorporated by reference

is reasonably available.

Page 285 of 403