has advantages. Refrigerant decisions are based on actual amounts of
refrigerant added and the leak rate calculations are also based on
pounds. Therefore, EPA is proposing to set the requirement based on
pounds but is soliciting comments on a CO2e approach too.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ California Code of Regulations, Regulation for the
Management of high Global Warming Potential Refrigerants for
Stationary Sources. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/finalfro_0.pdf.
    \71\ Washington, Department of Ecology, Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs) and Other Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases, Draft (January 27,
2023). Available: https://ecology.wa.gov/DOE/files/9b/9b91965d-4986-4c42-aa50-fd54cb97a2a4.pdf.
    \72\ Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and
repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, May 2014, available at:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0517.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a consideration in setting the proposed threshold, EPA took into
account to what extent ALD systems may already be in use and the types
of equipment to which they are marketed. For example, many larger
refrigeration appliances (e.g., a charge size of 1,500 to 2,000 pounds
or more) may already use ALD systems per certain state requirements or
to reduce negative economic impacts associated with replacing leaking
refrigerant. These larger refrigeration appliances have potential to
leak greater amounts of refrigerant, such that owners and operators
using an ALD system to quickly detect leaks would further support the
statutory purposes in

subsection (h) of minimizing releases of HFCs from equipment and
maximize the amount of HFC that is available for reclaiming. EPA also
considered the availability of ALD systems for refrigeration appliances
in the United States. In the draft TSD titled American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act of 2020--Subsection (h): Automatic Leak Detection
System in the docket for this proposal, EPA assessed the market
presence and number of manufacturers of ALD systems that sell to the
U.S. market. EPA notes that most manufacturers make direct ALD systems,
while indirect ALD systems are newer technologies on the market.\73\
Since ALD systems have generally only been required for larger
refrigeration appliances per certain state requirements, or are likely
used in larger charge size refrigeration appliances to avoid potential
economic burden associated with replacing refrigerant that has leaked,
EPA anticipates that the current market presence of ALD system
manufacturing may be generally aligned to demand for ALD systems for
larger refrigeration appliances. The proposed threshold accounts for
the potential for an increased demand of ALD systems, where
manufacturers of such systems may not be prepared for an increased
demand if EPA were to propose a lower charge size, opening the
requirement for ALD systems to a larger inventory of refrigeration
appliances. Taking into account existing and pending state
requirements, and a likely degree of voluntary adoption of ALD systems,
EPA estimates that the proposed requirement will impact approximately
50,000 appliances over the year 2025 and 6,500 per year in subsequent
years. EPA has identified 10 manufacturers of ALD systems for the U.S.
market. There are eight manufacturers making direct ALD systems and
three manufacturers making indirect ALD systems (one manufacturer was
identified to make both types of ALD systems). The majority of
installed systems are likely direct ALD systems. EPA estimates that one
of the largest manufacturers of direct ALD in the US makes between
6,500-7,000 direct ALD systems per year. For additional information and
details on the estimated emissions reductions and costs related to ALD
systems, see the draft TSD titled Analysis of the Economic Impact and
Benefits of the Proposed Rule available in the docket for this action.
EPA also notes that later in this section, we are seeking comments
specifically on the proposed threshold for ALD system requirements as
well as comment on the current manufacturing landscape of ALD systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ EPA describes each type (i.e., direct and indirect) of ALD
system later in this section and in detail in the draft TSD titled
American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020--Subsection (h):
Automatic Leak Detection System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA considered and is not proposing requiring ALD systems for all
refrigerant-containing appliances above a certain charge size. Instead,
after considering the opportunities to reduce leaks and thus minimize
emissions, EPA decided to limit this proposed requirement to commercial
refrigeration and IPR appliances. EPA is not proposing requirements for
using ALD systems for appliances used solely for comfort cooling. The
Agency understands that refrigerant-containing appliances used for
comfort cooling typically do not leak to the same degree as appliances
in the commercial refrigeration and IPR subsectors. Medium (charge size
of 200-2,000 pounds of refrigerant) and large (charge size 2,000 pounds
or greater of refrigerant) comfort cooling appliances average annual
leak rates of around 10 percent, while medium and large commercial
refrigeration and IPR appliances have average leak rates that are
around two to three times greater.\74\ This is consistent with EPA's
proposed requirements for leak inspections, such that appliances used
for comfort cooling would not have more frequent required inspections
as a part of the leak repair provisions (see section IV.C.3.d.). EPA
previously noted in the 2016 CAA 608 Rule (81 FR 82272, November 16,
2016) that larger commercial refrigeration and IPR appliances tend to
have larger annual average leak rates than comfort cooling appliances.
Further, larger commercial refrigeration and IPR appliances would have
a greater amount of refrigerant lost compared to comfort cooling
appliances even if the leaks rate were the same since these larger
appliances typically have significantly larger refrigerant charge
sizes. Thus, the primary benefit of early leak detection from an ALD
system would not be as useful for appliances solely used for comfort
cooling. However, if an appliance has a dual function (e.g., IPR and
comfort cooling), an ALD system would be required. For example, if the
refrigerant coming off the evaporator in an industrial process were
cool enough, it could be directed towards co-located offices or break
rooms to provide air conditioning, before being routed back to the
compressor(s). Such a system would provide both IPR and comfort
cooling, and for purposes of this rule, an ALD system would be
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Average annual leak rates by appliance type and charge size
are provided in the RIA Addendum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ALD systems detect leaks either by a direct system that
automatically detects the presence of refrigerant leaked into the air
(e.g., an alert is triggered at a specified concentration, typically in
parts per million (ppm)) from a refrigeration system, or by an indirect
system that automatically analyzes operating conditions (e.g.,
temperature or pressure) within a refrigeration system as indicators of
whether a refrigerant leak has occurred. Both types of ALD systems can
help to ensure early detection of leaks and help to identify the
location and severity of a leak. Thus, EPA is not proposing to
prescribe whether direct or indirect ALD systems must be used, but
rather is proposing that either type of system, or a combination of
direct and indirect systems, would be required, and is proposing
requirements that are specific to each type of ALD system. For both
indirect and direct systems, EPA is proposing that the ALD system be
installed on covered refrigerant-containing appliances where the
components (e.g., compressor, evaporator, condenser) of the refrigerant
circuit are located within an enclosed building or structure (or the
whole refrigerant circuit if it is entirely enclosed within a building
or structure). Further, EPA is proposing where ALD systems are required
for covered appliances that the systems be calibrated or audited
annually as described in section IV.C.4.b.
    Direct refrigerant leak detection systems are fixed hardware that
directly monitor the concentration of refrigerants in the air. For
direct ALD systems, it is essential that gas sensors are located at all
leak-prone components of a refrigeration system; otherwise, some leaks
may go undetected. The benefits of direct ALD systems include being
able to pinpoint the location and severity of a leak. Direct ALD
systems are commissioned to send an ``alarm'' to maintenance and/or
operations staff if the programmed leak level threshold is exceeded.
EPA is proposing that if an owner or operator chooses to use a direct
ALD system to comply with the proposed provisions to detect refrigerant
leaks in equipment, the programmed leak level threshold to alert the
operator would be when a concentration of 100 ppm of vapor of the
specified refrigerant is detected. EPA is also proposing that the leak
detection sensors must be capable of accurately detecting a
concentration level of 10 ppm of the vapor of the specified
refrigerant. The leak level threshold and minimum level of detection
are critical to catch leaks in

equipment. If the leak level threshold is set too high, the ALD system
will only provide an alarm in the case of catastrophic leaks. The
technical feasibility of the 100 ppm threshold is well established.
This has been the threshold used by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) and is also the standard in provisions at 40 CFR 82.157(g)(4)(i)
for ALD systems that are used in lieu of quarterly or annual leak
inspections, as part of the leak repair requirements under CAA section
608.
    EPA is proposing that if a direct ALD system detects a leak based
on the 100 ppm threshold, the owner or operator would be required to
either perform a leak rate calculation to determine if the leak rate
threshold has been exceeded, or alternatively they may preemptively
repair the leak before adding refrigerant and calculating the leak
rate. In order to calculate the leak rate, refer to section IV.C.3.a.
of this action. EPA is proposing that a leak rate calculation must be
performed within 30 days (or 120 days where an industrial process
shutdown would be necessary) of the alarm where a direct ALD system is
used for required equipment. If the leak rate calculated is above the
applicable leak rate, as discussed in section IV.C.3. of this preamble,
all of the leak repair requirements proposed in this action (including
the repair requirements, inspections, verification tests and
recordkeeping and reporting) would then apply. Alternatively, if the
owner or operator chooses to preemptively repair the detected leak, a
leak rate calculation would be performed after the preemptive repair;
however, the leak rate calculation would still be required to be
performed within 30 days (or 120 days where an industrial process
shutdown would be necessary) of the alarm where a direct ALD system is
used for required equipment, and accordingly the preemptive repair
would also need to occur in that time frame. If the leak rate
calculation (performed after the addition of refrigerant pursuant to
the follow-up verification test) conducted after the preemptive repair
reveals that the appliance had leaked above the applicable leak
threshold, the proposed suite of leak repair requirements would apply.
The preemptive repair actions can be considered in determining whether
the suite of leak repair requirements triggered by the exceedance of
the applicable leak threshold have been satisfied, but the owner or
operator of the appliance would still need to ensure that the leaks had
been repaired according to the proposed definition of repair and that
the other requirements proposed in 40 CFR 84.106 (e.g., initial and
follow-up verification tests, leak inspections (where applicable), and
related recordkeeping) had been met. By allowing a leak detected by an
ALD system to be preemptively repaired before the addition of
refrigerant and calculation of the leak rate, EPA anticipates that this
would avoid requiring owners and operators to add refrigerant to a
system with a known leak, thereby saving the cost of refrigerant that
might subsequently leak prior to the repair, as well as prevent
unnecessary emissions of refrigerant. Additionally, preemptive repair
of leaks allows owners and operators to have a ``head start'' on
repairing leaks if it is later found that the applicable leak rate
threshold has been exceeded when the leak rate calculation is
performed.
    Indirect ALD systems rely on data analytics to detect leaks rather
than the direct detection of refrigerant gas. Indirect ALD systems
monitor the operation of a refrigerant-based system to infer whether a
leak is present. This method is typically conducted using existing
sensors and hardware that are already located on site, and it relies on
algorithms to evaluate existing conditions, such as liquid levels,
temperatures, and ambient conditions to indicate if a leak is
occurring. EPA understands that indirect systems can be calibrated to
provide an alarm when a specified predicted refrigerant leak rate has
occurred. EPA is proposing that if an owner or operator chooses to use
an indirect ALD system to comply with the proposed provisions to detect
leaks in equipment, that the system be calibrated to provide an alarm
when the system has provided measurements that indicate that 50 pounds
of refrigerant or 10 percent of the full charge of refrigerant,
whichever is less, has leaked. At that point, as for direct ALD
systems, EPA is proposing that the owner or operator would be required
to perform a leak rate calculation, or alternatively they may
preemptively repair the leak before adding refrigerant and calculating
the leak rate. EPA is proposing that a leak rate calculation be
performed within 30 days (or 120 days where an industrial process
shutdown would be necessary) of the alarm where an indirect ALD system
is used for required equipment. If the calculated leak rate is above
the applicable leak trigger rate (as discussed in section IV.C.3. of
this preamble), all of the leak repair requirements proposed in this
action (including the repair requirements, inspections, verification
tests and recordkeeping and reporting) would then apply.
    If the owner or operator chooses to preemptively repair the
detected leak, a leak rate calculation would be performed after the
repair, for example when refrigerant is added to perform the follow-up
verification test. The same requirements as described above for where
an owner or operator chooses to do preemptive leak repair when using
direct ALD system apply in the scenario where preemptive leak repair is
performed when using an indirect ALD system. The leak rate calculation
would still be required to be performed within 30 days (or 120 days
where an industrial process shutdown would be necessary) of the alarm
where an indirect ALD system is used for required equipment, and
accordingly the preemptive repair would also need to occur in that time
frame. If the leak rate calculation (performed after the addition of
refrigerant pursuant to the follow-up verification test) conducted
after the preemptive repair reveals that the appliance had leaked above
the applicable leak threshold, the proposed suite of leak repair
requirements would apply. The preemptive repair actions can be
considered in determining whether the suite of leak repair requirements
triggered by the exceedance of the applicable leak threshold have been
satisfied, but the owner or operator of the appliance would still need
to ensure that the leaks had been repaired according to the proposed
definition of repair and that the other requirements proposed in 40 CFR
84.106 (e.g., initial and follow-up verification tests, leak
inspections (where applicable), and related recordkeeping) had been
met.
    EPA notes that a 10 percent loss in full charge does not directly
correspond to the leak rate threshold of 20 percent for commercial
refrigeration and 30 percent for IPR. The 10 percent of total charge
lost when an indirect ALD system alarms may equate less than or greater
than an annualized leak rate of 20 or 30 percent depending on the
timeframe over which the leak occurred. See section IV.C.3.a. for more
information on calculating the annualized leak rate. In any event, this
difference is reasonable because the primary purpose of the ALD system
is to allow the owner or operator to obtain knowledge of the leak
earlier (e.g., before operations are impacted) and to facilitate
earlier repair, whether through preemptive repair before the leak rate
threshold is exceeded or through required repairs after the leak rate
threshold is exceeded.

    The technical feasibility of the ``50 pounds of refrigerant or 10
percent of the full charge, whichever is less'' standard is well
established. This has been the threshold used by both CARB and is also
the standard in provisions at 40 CFR 82.157(g)(4)(ii) for ALD systems
that are used in lieu of quarterly or annual leak inspections, as part
of the leak repair requirements under CAA section 608.
    EPA is requesting comment on all aspects of this proposal, and, in
particular, aspects of the proposed requirements for installing and
using ALD systems on refrigerant-containing appliances, as well as the
proposed compliance dates. EPA is requesting comment on the types of
appliances (e.g., only refrigeration equipment) and the charge size
cutoff for appliances (i.e., 1,500 pounds) that would be required to
use ALD systems. For example, should EPA consider including comfort
cooling appliances in the equipment required to use ALD systems or
should a lower or higher charge size cutoff be used, or should a
different approach be used for determining applicability for this
requirement (such as a CO2e based approach)? EPA continues
to consider options for the charge size cutoff for applying ALD system
provisions, particularly, those discussed in this preamble (e.g., 200,
500 pounds, 1,000 pounds, 2,000 pounds) and requests comment on these
and other potential cutoffs for requiring ALD systems on refrigerant-
containing appliances.
    EPA is also requesting comment on the proposed alarm trigger
thresholds and detection levels for both direct and indirect ALD
systems. For direct ALD systems, EPA is requesting comment if it would
be appropriate to lower the required alert trigger threshold to 50 ppm
or to lower the concentration detection level to 5 ppm. For indirect
ALD systems, EPA is seeking comment on requiring that an indirect ALD
system alert at a lower measurement to detect leaks sooner (e.g., 5
percent of the full charge). For either type of ALD system, EPA
requests comment on whether these lower levels are technically
feasible, whether they would lead to increase in false positives, and
whether existing ALD systems used on refrigerant-containing appliances
should be grandfathered if EPA were to lower these levels.
    As noted above in this section, EPA is aware of ten manufacturers
currently making ALD systems and selling them in the U.S. market. Many
of these companies have been supplying those that are required by state
regulations, those that chose to use ALD systems as an option under CAA
section 608, and those that choose on a voluntary basis to use ALD
systems. By requiring ALD systems nationally for certain types of RACHP
equipment, EPA understands demand will increase in short time.
Therefore, EPA requests comment and data or other supporting
information on whether supply and availability of ALD systems will be
available to meet the proposed compliance dates for new and existing
appliances. EPA anticipates that ALD systems for new appliances would
be able to comply with the January 1, 2025 date, and thus the options
described are focused only on existing equipment. However, EPA requests
comments on whether additional time would be needed for ALD system
installations in new appliances as well. EPA considered but did not
propose as its lead option to require ALD systems for existing
appliances when there is a triggering event (e.g., a leak rate
threshold exceedance). In this option, existing appliances would not be
required to install ALD systems within one year of the effective date
of the final rule, but they would be required to obtain and install ALD
systems within one year of a leak rate threshold exceedance (measured
from the date of the refrigerant addition that triggered the leak rate
calculation that revealed the exceedance). Another option EPA
considered but did not propose as its lead option would be to phase in
the requirement for ALD systems for existing refrigerant-containing
appliances over a longer time frame, such as over the course of three
years. EPA requests comment on the requirements for ALD systems
including these options the Agency considered. Additional information
is available in the draft TSD named American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act of 2020--Subsection (h): Automatic Leak Detection
System available in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
b. Recordkeeping and Reporting
    EPA is proposing specific reporting and recordkeeping requirements
for ALD systems that would be required under this action under
subsection (h). Where ALD systems are required, EPA is proposing that
owners or operators maintain records regarding the annual calibration
or audit of the system. EPA is also proposing to require that records
be maintained each time an ALD system triggers an alert, whether that
be based on the applicable ppm threshold for a direct ALD system or the
indicated loss of refrigerant measured in an indirect ALD system. When
an ALD system alerts of a leak, EPA is proposing that the owner or
operator maintain a record of the date the ALD systems alerted to a
leak and the location of the leak. The recordkeeping requirements
related to when a leak rate calculation is conducted are described in
section IV.C.3.g of this document. As noted in section II.B. of this
document, EPA's authority to require recordkeeping and reporting under
the AIM Act is also supported by section 114 of the CAA, which applies
to the AIM Act and rules promulgated under it as provided in subsection
(k)(1)(C) of the AIM Act.
    EPA is proposing recordkeeping requirements in the case where an
owner or operator chooses to use an ALD system, where not required, as
a compliance option in lieu of periodic inspections for an appliance
that has exceeded an applicable leak rate. EPA is proposing that owners
or operators maintain records regarding the installation of the ALD
system and records of the annual calibration or audit of the system.
EPA is also proposing to require that records be maintained each time
the ALD system triggers an alert, whether that be based on the
applicable ppm threshold for a direct ALD system or the indicated loss
of refrigerant measured in an indirect ALD system. EPA is proposing
that the owner or operator maintain a record of the date the ALD
systems alerted to a leak and the location of the leak.
    EPA is proposing that these records related to ALD systems, where
required, be maintained for 3 years. Where ALD systems are being
voluntarily used (i.e., appliances with a full charge below 1,500
pounds or using a substitute for HFCs with a GWP of 53 or below), there
are no recordkeeping requirements under this proposal. However, if an
appliance using an ALD system is found to be leaking above the
applicable leak rate and the owner or operator chooses to use the ALD
system in lieu of periodic inspections, they would be required to
follow all requirements associated with this compliance option,
including annual audits or calibration and all necessary recordkeeping
requirements. The proposed recordkeeping requirements in this action do
not change any recordkeeping requirements where an owner or operator
chooses to use an ALD system per 40 CFR 82.157(g)(4) for appliances
containing ODS refrigerants.
    EPA requests comment on whether the Agency should require reporting
of ALD system alerts to the agency. Specifically, EPA requests comment
on whether owner or operators of refrigerant-containing appliances that
have a full charge of 1,500 pounds should be required to file a report
with

the agency within 120 days of an ALD system alert that describes the
incident and follow-up leak rate calculation and/or repairs.
Alternatively, EPA requests comment on an annual reporting requirement
that would catalogue all ALD system alerts that occurred in a one-year
period and the follow-up actions associated with those alerts. EPA is
not proposing either of these reporting requirements as its lead option
because the Agency believes the proposed requirements for chronically
leaking appliance reports may be sufficient to accomplish the policy
objectives of verifying that appropriate repairs are undertaken when a
refrigerant-containing appliance has a significant history of leaks.

D. How is EPA proposing to establish requirements for the use of
recovered and reclaimed HFCs?

1. Background
    As described more fully in section II.B. in this proposal,
subsection (h) of the AIM Act directs EPA to promulgate regulations for
certain purposes identified in the statutory text, which include
maximizing the reclamation of regulated substances. More specifically,
subsection (h)(1) gives EPA authority to promulgate regulations to
control, where appropriate, any practice, process, or activity related
to the servicing, repair, disposal, or installation of equipment that
involves HFCs or their substitutes, or the reclaiming of HFCs or their
substitutes used as a refrigerant. With respect to reclamation, EPA
interprets subsection (h) as including authority for EPA to establish
regulations to control such practices, processes, or activities that
are intended to increase reclamation of HFCs, as well as substitutes
for HFCs that are used as refrigerants. Such regulations could include
those that are designed to increase market demand for reclaimed HFCs
with a goal of increasing the amount of HFCs that are reclaimed, which
would further serve the purpose of maximizing the reclamation of
regulated substances. Consistent with this interpretation, EPA is
proposing requirements for the use of reclaimed HFCs in the
installation, servicing, or repair of certain equipment. In this
rulemaking, EPA is not considering establishing requirements for the
use of reclaimed HFC substitutes. Substitutes for HFCs, for the
purposes of this proposal, range from fluorinated chemistry (e.g.,
HFOs), non-fluorinated chemistry (e.g., hydrocarbons), and not-in-kind
substitutes. In this proposed rulemaking, EPA determined it would be
prudent to limit the proposed requirements to HFCs, given the
consumption and production phasedown will create scarcity for virgin
HFCs and such demand can partly be addressed by increased use of
reclaimed HFCs where possible.
    Reclamation of refrigerants has played an important role in
smoothing the phase out of ODS refrigerants. The continued availability
of ODS refrigerants helped ensure that equipment could continue to be
used even after the phaseout date for production and consumption of
various class I and class II ODS. Even today, more than 25 years after
the class I phaseout, reclaimed class I ODS remain available for
servicing appliances. Reclamation of HFCs already plays a nascent role
in the refrigerant market and is expected to be of increasing
importance as HFC production and consumption are phased down. By
bolstering the current supply of HFCs with recovered and reclaimed
refrigerants from existing systems, reclamation can support a smooth
transition to substitutes for HFCs, minimize disruption of the current
capital stock of equipment by allowing its continued use with existing
refrigerant supplies, avoid supply shortages of virgin refrigerants,
and can insulate the industry against price spikes that could affect
the servicing of existing systems using HFCs.
    EPA published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) on October 17,
2022 (87 FR 62843) to alert stakeholders of information regarding the
U.S. HFC reclamation market, available through a draft report, Analysis
of the U.S. Hydrofluorocarbon Reclamation Market: Stakeholders,
Drivers, and Practices.\75\ EPA solicited stakeholder feedback and held
a public stakeholder meeting shortly after the NODA was published on
November 9, 2022.\76\ EPA received comments \77\ from various entities
in response to the published NODA and from the stakeholder meeting
held, including comments from reclaimers, industry organizations,
environmental non-government organizations (ENGOs), OEMs, and a private
citizen. Commenters provided input on a variety of topics. They noted
the importance of tackling certain barriers to increased reclamation
and availability of reclaimed HFCs on the market. Such barriers
included increasing recovery of refrigerants, handling mixed
refrigerants returned to reclaimers, and reclaiming certain patented
blends. Commenters also provided input on consideration for a clear
standard of what constitutes reclaimed HFCs, as well as improved
tracking of HFCs in the supply chain. Further, some commenters noted
opportunities for requiring the use of reclaimed materials in certain
uses (e.g., first charge of certain equipment). EPA held an additional
public stakeholder meeting on March 16, 2023 and a webinar through
EPA's GreenChill Partnership Program on April 12, 2023 and heard many
similar comments.78 79 Interested parties may view the draft
report, the materials for the public meetings, and the comments the
Agency received in response to the NODA in the docket for this action.
Further, EPA is providing an updated version of the draft report,
titled Updated Draft Report--Analysis of the U.S. Hydrofluorocarbon
Reclamation Market: Stakeholders, Drivers, and Practices, in the docket
of this action that incorporates feedback heard in the stakeholder
meetings and as provided in comments to the NODA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Draft Report--Analysis of the U.S. Hydrofluorocarbon
Reclamation Market: Stakeholders, Drivers, and Practices, October
2022. Available: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-10/Draft_HFC-Reclamation-Report_10-13-22%20sxf%20v3.pdf.
    \76\ Stakeholder meeting for input on an upcoming regulatory
action under subsection (h) of the AIM Act, November 2022.
Available: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-11/AIM%20Act%20Stakeholder%20Meeting_HFC%20Management_11-9-2022.pdf.
    \77\ Comments submitted to response of NODA published on October
17, 2022 (87 FR 62843) are available in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking at https://www.regulations.gov.
    \78\ Stakeholder meeting on HFC reclamation under the AIM Act,
March 2023. Available: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-04/HFC%20Management_Reclaimer%20Stakeholder%20Mtg_Final%203-15-23.pdf.
    \79\ Webinar--Subsection (h) Under the American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act, April 2023. Available: https://www.epa.gov/greenchill/webinar-subsection-h-under-american-innovation-and-manufacturing-act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Proposed Reclamation Standard
    Subsection (b)(9) of the AIM Act provides a statutory definition
for ``reclaim, reclamation.'' This definition refers to the
reprocessing of a recovered regulated substance to meet at least the
purity described in standard AHRI 700-2016 (or an appropriate successor
standard adopted by the Administrator), and that the purity of the
reclaimed regulated substances must be verified using, at a minimum,
the analytical method described in that standard. EPA promulgated a
definition for ``reclaim'' in the Allocation Framework Rule (86 FR
55116, October 5, 2021) that is consistent with the definition provided
by the AIM Act. As noted in section IV.A. of this proposal, the Agency
intends to maintain consistency, except as otherwise explained in this
proposal,

and use terms in this proposal, and in the new subpart C, which is
proposed to be established in this rulemaking, as they are defined in
subpart A.
    Subsection (h)(2)(B) of the AIM Act provides that any regulated
substance used as a refrigerant that is recovered shall be reclaimed
before being sold or transferred to a new owner, except where the
recovered regulated substance is sold or transferred to a new owner
solely for the purposes of being reclaimed or destroyed. EPA is
proposing regulations to implement the statutory requirement in
subsection (h)(2)(B) for stationary refrigerant-containing equipment.
This would be particularly relevant to the refrigerant-containing
appliances for which EPA is proposing requirements to use reclaimed
HFCs in sections IV.D.3. and IV.D.4. of this proposal. More
specifically, EPA is proposing to prohibit the sale, distribution, or
transfer to a new owner, or the offer for sale, distribution, or
transfer to a new owner, any regulated substance used as a refrigerant
in stationary refrigerant-containing equipment consisting in whole or
in part of recovered regulated substances. This prohibition would not
apply where the recovered regulated substances are reclaimed by an EPA-
certified reclaimer (as described in 40 CFR 82.164) and has been
reclaimed to the required purity standard, or if the recovered
regulated substance is being sold, distributed, or transferred to a new
owner, or offered for sale, distribution, or transfer to a new owner
solely for the purposes of being reclaimed or destroyed. These proposed
provisions are intended to support the implementation of this statutory
provision for stationary refrigerant-containing equipment in the
context of other requirements proposed in this rulemaking, including by
outlining more specific requirements for the reclamation that would
need to occur before sale or any of the other listed activities for
such regulated substances, as well as incorporating the statutory
exception for situations where such recovered regulated substances are
sold or transferred solely for the purposes of being reclaimed or
destroyed. EPA further discusses its anticipated approach for recovered
regulated substances used as refrigerants in MVAC equipment in section
IV.H. of this preamble.
    To support consistent implementation of the proposed requirements
for the use of reclaimed HFCs in the installation, servicing, or repair
of certain equipment, EPA is proposing a standard for the amount of
virgin HFC refrigerant that can be included in any HFC or HFC blend
reclaimed refrigerant. These requirements are being proposed as part of
implementing subsection (h)(1) of the AIM Act, as these provisions
would control practices, processes, or activities regarding the
installation, servicing or repair of equipment and would involve a
regulated substance or the reclaiming of a regulated substance used as
a refrigerant.
    Typically, CAA section 608 certified reclaimers meet the required
purity standards for reclaimed refrigerants by using separation
technology (e.g., fractional distillation), combining high purity \80\
refrigerant with recovered refrigerant until the purity standard is
met, or using a combination of these approaches. In some cases,
sophisticated fractional distillation technology is required to purify
recovered refrigerants. Combining high purity (e.g., virgin)
refrigerants with recovered refrigerants is an approach that some CAA
section 608 certified reclaimers may use to meet the required purity
standard. In that approach, virgin or otherwise high purity (e.g.,
other reclaimed refrigerants) refrigerant is added to the recovered
refrigerant, which may or may not have gone through some degree of
reprocessing, until the final product meets the purity specifications
to be considered reclaimed. A combination of separation technology and
using virgin HFCs may be used, in which the separation technology
reprocesses the refrigerant nearly to the required purity standard and
high purity refrigerant is used to rebalance the refrigerant and/or
fully achieve the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ In some cases, virgin refrigerant may be combined with less
pure recovered refrigerant to achieve the required applicable purity
standard; however, other higher purity refrigerants, such as
previously reclaimed refrigerants could also be used to achieve the
same result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the HFC phasedown progresses, the overall quantity of virgin
HFCs available, including to facilitate reclamation through blending or
rebalancing, will decrease. In addition, the Agency considers that
limiting the extent to which the purity standard for reclamation is
achieved through combining with virgin refrigerant (besides what the
Agency understands to be the necessary rebalancing, particularly of
certain blends) will support the purposes of its proposed regulations
for use of reclaimed refrigerant, including maximizing reclamation, as
well as bolstering the available supply of HFCs in the market.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish a limit on the amount, by
weight of virgin HFC refrigerants, that can be contained in reclaimed
HFC refrigerant. The proposed amount is no more than 15 percent virgin
HFC refrigerants, by weight. As EPA understands, reclaimed HFCs may be
reprocessed in a batch, from which containers, such as cylinders, may
be filled and sold or distributed. In this case, EPA is not proposing
to require that each individual container or cylinder be rationed out
to meet the allowable limit of virgin HFCs. Rather, EPA would expect
that at the batch level, the reclaimed HFCs do not exceed 15 percent,
by weight, virgin HFCs. In order to support compliance with and
enforcement of these proposed requirements, EPA is proposing labeling
and recordkeeping requirements as well as proposing to prohibit the
sale, identification, or reporting of refrigerant as being reclaimed if
the HFC component of the resulting refrigerant contains more than 15
percent, by weight, of virgin HFC. Similarly, to ensure that this
standard is supporting the reclamation of substances that have had bona
fide use in equipment, EPA would not consider a refrigerant to be
reclaimed if it contains a recovered regulated substance that has not
had bona fide use in equipment, unless that recovered refrigerant was
from the heel or residue of a container that had a bona fide use in the
servicing, repair, or installation of refrigerant-containing equipment.
    As the Agency developed this aspect of the proposal under the AIM
Act subsection (h), EPA considered a number of sources of information
about the approach to the use of virgin refrigerant in reclaimed
refrigerant, including but not limited to the NODA (87 FR 62843,
October 17, 2022) on the state of reclamation and comments received,
relevant state regulations, comments made during stakeholder meetings,
and a 2022 report by a group of ENGOs (Environmental Investigations
Agency, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Institute for
Governance & Sustainable Development).\81\ Limiting the amount of
virgin refrigerant was not included in the CAA section 608 regulations.
However, consistent with sources of information noted above and in
recognizing the context of the overall structure of the AIM Act
phasedown, EPA assessed the current landscape of requirements for
defining the composition of reclaimed HFCs as it

relates to the amounts of virgin and recovered HFCs contained. EPA
notes that the State of California currently has such a definition in
its regulations. The CARB finalized a regulation, effective January 1,
2022, that defines ``certified reclaimed refrigerant'' as containing no
more than 15 percent virgin refrigerant by weight and the certified
reclaimer must provide supporting documentation showing as such.\82\
CARB arrived at a maximum allowable amount of virgin HFCs of 15 percent
by weight in ``certified reclaimed refrigerant'' based on feedback from
multiple stakeholders (including reclaimers, OEMs, and industry trade
groups) who commented that having an allowable amount of virgin HFCs in
reclaimed HFCs would be necessary for rebalancing out-of-ratio
recovered HFCs and HFC blends.\83\ During a November 2022 stakeholder
meeting EPA hosted and in comments submitted in response to the October
2022 NODA, several participants referred to CARB's 15 percent
requirement as a workable limit for reclaimed refrigerant. The ENGO
report suggests that a 15 percent requirement should be the maximin
amount of virgin refrigerant the Agency should consider; however, EPA
is not aware of a specific alternative proposed limit that the groups
that developed this report are suggesting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Environmental Investigations Agency, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, and the Institute for Governance & Sustainable
Development, The 90 Million Ton Opportunity: Lifecycle Refrigerant
Management (LMR), available at: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/lrm-90-billion-ton-opportunity-report-20221020.pdf.
    \82\ California Code of Regulations, Prohibitions on Use of
Certain Hydrofluorocarbons in Stationary Refrigeration, Stationary
Air-conditioning, and Other End-Uses. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2020/hfc2020/frorevised.pdf.
    \83\ Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Including
Summary of Comment sand Agency Response, State of California Air
Resources Board, available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2020/hfc2020/fsorrevised.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the information described above from CARB and others, EPA
is proposing to conclude that placing a limit on virgin HFCs in
reclaimed HFC refrigerant is necessary to avoid situations where
unlimited virgin HFCs could be sold as reclaimed HFC refrigerant if
even a small amount of reclaimed HFCs are present. EPA notes that the
limit of 15 percent virgin HFC refrigerant, by weight, in reclaimed
HFCs as proposed in this action is consistent with the requirements in
the State of California for what is defined as ``certified reclaimed
refrigerant.'' Accordingly, EPA anticipates that regulated entities
could draw on the experience of those regulated entities complying with
California's limit in implementing this requirement. As part of
developing this proposal, EPA considered the process which CARB
underwent with industry and trade associations, both of which have a
national presence, to land on this limit. Further, EPA acknowledges
CARB's consideration of avoiding a scenario in which reclaimed HFCs
could be sold as such, but actually contain mostly virgin HFC
refrigerant with minimal amounts of recovered HFCs. Such a scenario
would be inconsistent with the purpose identified in the subsection (h)
of the AIM Act to maximize the reclamation of regulated substances and
could cause strain on the supply of virgin HFC refrigerants available
as EPA implements the provisions in the AIM Act related to phasing down
the production and consumption of HFCs.
    As part of the initial regulations to implement subsection (h), for
specified subsectors and applications, EPA is proposing to establish
requirements that specific practices, processes, or activities
regarding the servicing, repair, or installation of equipment be
conducted using reclaimed HFCs, meeting the proposed criteria described
in this section. In particular, EPA is proposing to require that HFCs
that are considered to be reclaimed must contain no more than 15
percent, by weight, of virgin HFCs. EPA recognizes that some amount of
virgin HFC refrigerant may be needed to meet the required purity
standard and correct blend composition for HFC blends and/or HFC and
HFC substitute blends.
    In the case of reclaimed refrigerant blends that contain other
components that are substitutes for HFCs (e.g., HFOs, hydrocarbons),
EPA is proposing that only the HFC portion of the reclaimed blend is
required to meet the virgin substance limit (i.e., 15 percent, by
weight). EPA notes that subsection (h)(1) of the AIM Act provides
authority to promulgate regulations to control, where appropriate,
practices, processes, or activities related to the servicing, repair,
disposal, or installation of equipment that involves reclaiming of a
substitute for a regulated substance used as a refrigerant. EPA
interprets this provision to provide it authority which could include
requiring, where appropriate, the use of reclaimed HFC substitute
refrigerants in practices, processes, or activities related to the
servicing, repair, disposal, or installation of equipment. However, at
this time, we are not proposing a requirement on establishing a
standard limiting the amount of virgin material for what is considered
a reclaimed substitute for HFCs.
    EPA is proposing labeling and recordkeeping requirements to support
the proposed provision implementing a standard for reclaimed HFC
refrigerants to contain no more than 15 percent, by weight, virgin
HFCs. These requirements would help ensure that reclaimed HFCs would
not exceed the limit for virgin HFCs and also help ensure that
reclaimed HFCs are used for servicing, repair, and/or installation of
equipment as proposed in sections IV.D.3. and IV.D.4. of this proposal.
EPA is proposing that certified reclaimers would be required to affix a
label to containers that are being sold or distributed or offered for
sale or distribution that would certify that the reclaimed HFC
refrigerant meets the proposed requirements to contain no more than 15
percent virgin HFCs. The label would further serve to inform owners or
operators of refrigerant-containing equipment that the reclaimed HFCs
meet the proposed requirements to be used for servicing, repair, and/or
installation of equipment in the covered subsectors of this proposal
(see sections IV.D.3. and IV.D.4.). EPA is proposing that certified
reclaimers must affix this label to reclaimed HFCs being sold or
distributed or offered for sale or distribution beginning January 1,
2026. The label would be required to follow the specifications as
described in the proposed regulatory text at Sec.  84.112.
    EPA is also proposing a recordkeeping requirement related to the
proposed provision to limit reclaimed HFCs to not exceed 15 percent
virgin HFCs, by weight. The recordkeeping requirement would help
provide certainty that the reclaimed HFCs that are in a container do
not exceed the limit for virgin HFCs. EPA is proposing to require that
certified reclaimers create and maintain a record related to the
reclaimed HFCs that would be filled in containers. As described above,
reclaimed HFCs may be reprocessed in a batch, from which containers,
such as cylinders, may be filled and sold or distributed. As noted, EPA
is not proposing to require that each individual container or cylinder
be rationed out to meet the allowable limit of virgin HFCs. Rather, EPA
would expect that at the batch level, the reclaimed HFCs do not exceed
15 percent, by weight, virgin HFCs. EPA is proposing that a certified
reclaimer would be required to provide a record of certification that
the reclaimed HFCs being sold in a container were sourced from a batch
that met the proposed standard. Further, the record generated would be
required to contain the following information: the name, address,
contact person, email address, and phone number of the certified
reclaimer, the date the container was filled with reclaimed HFC(s), the
amount and name of the HFC(s) in the container, certification that the
contents

of the container are from a batch where the amount of virgin HFCs does
not exceed 15 percent, by weight, of the total HFCs, the unique serial
number of the container(s) filled from the batch, identification of the
batch of reclaimed HFCs used to fill the container(s) and the percent,
by weight, of virgin HFC(s) in the batch used to fill the container(s).
EPA is proposing to require that such record would be required to be
generated beginning January 1, 2026 and be maintained for three years.
    EPA is seeking comment on considering whether the requirements for
generating a machine-readable tracking identifier per section IV.F.3.
of this proposal would satisfy these proposed labeling and
recordkeeping requirements to implement the limit of 15 percent virgin
HFCs, by weight, in reclaimed HFCs. For example, EPA is seeking comment
on whether the data elements required for generating the machine-
readable tracking identifier would be sufficient for certifying that
the limit for virgin HFCs is not exceeded. EPA is also seeking comment
on whether or how the information proposed to be required in the
generation of a machine-readable tracking identifier would serve the
purpose of ensuring that a certified reclaimer has certified that no
more than 15 percent virgin HFCs, by weight were used to formulate the
reclaimed HFCs, and whether or how this information would also help to
inform owners and operators in the proposed RACHP subsectors who would
be required to use reclaimed HFCs for the servicing, repair, and/or
installation of equipment, that they are using reclaimed HFCs meeting
the proposed standards. Further, EPA seeks comment on whether an
additional label would be required or any current labels affixed to a
container of reclaimed HFCs could be adjusted to accommodate these
proposed requirements.
    EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposal, and in
particular, aspects of setting a standard for the amount of virgin HFC
refrigerant in reclaimed HFCs. EPA is seeking comment on whether to
establish a lower percentage of allowable virgin HFC refrigerants, for
example, EPA could allow no more than 10 percent virgin HFCs, by
weight, in reclaimed HFCs that are used to meet these proposed
requirements. EPA is also seeking comment on our proposal to not
require a limit on the amount of virgin refrigerant used in reclaimed
substitutes for HFCs. The Agency is seeking comment on the proposed
recordkeeping and labeling requirements to ensure that the reclaimed
HFCs do not exceed 15 percent, by weight, virgin HFCs, and which party
or parties should be responsible for maintaining the record.
Specifically, EPA is seeking comment on adding a label to reclaimed HFC
refrigerants that would identify them as such, since it is EPA's
understanding that not all reclaimed HFC refrigerants are explicitly
marketed as such.
3. Proposed Requirements for Initial Charge of Equipment for Subsectors
in the RACHP Sector
    EPA is proposing that for certain subsectors and applications in
the RACHP sector where HFCs or a blend containing HFCs are used, the
initial charge of refrigerant-containing equipment must be with
reclaimed HFCs starting January 1, 2028. Specifically, in the case of
certain factory-charged refrigerant-containing equipment that use HFCs
as the refrigerant, EPA is proposing that such equipment in the covered
subsectors and applications sold or distributed, or offered for sale or
distribution, for installation, or installed, in the United States
would be required to have reclaimed HFCs be used for the initial
charge. For certain refrigerant-containing equipment using HFCs that
are initially charged in the field (e.g., on-site),\84\ EPA is
proposing to require that reclaimed HFCs be used for the initial charge
during installation of the equipment. These requirements are being
proposed as part of implementing subsection (h)(1) of the AIM Act, as
these provisions would control practices, processes, or activities
regarding the installation of equipment, and would involve a regulated
substance or the reclaiming of a regulated substances used as a
refrigerant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Field-charging of equipment occurs when of a piece of
equipment shipped to the location in which it will be installed.
Equipment may also be field-charged when the overall system is not a
single piece of equipment, but rather is a collection of components
installed to meet a particular configuration (e.g., installation of
a supermarket system).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of field-charged equipment that are designed to be
configured to particular application (e.g., custom-built or not ``off-
the-shelf'' equipment), EPA is proposing that for certain refrigerant-
containing equipment (e.g., retail food refrigeration supermarket
system) a new installation would be considered to have occurred if the
overall cooling capacity is increased or the entire refrigeration loop
is replaced (compressor, condenser, evaporator, etc.). For example, EPA
understands that in some situations components may be added to current
systems, such as if the cooling demand of a particular system increases
(e.g., expansion of a supermarket). In other cases, components may be
added to a system without changing the overall cooling capacity or
replacing the refrigeration loop. In these cases, EPA is not proposing
to consider this a new installation and the use of reclaimed HFCs would
not be required unless the equipment had already been required to use
reclaimed HFCs for its original installation. Under the proposed
requirements, where equipment was already required to have been charged
with reclaimed HFCs when installed, reclaimed HFCs must continue to be
used even if a component is added to a system but the cooling capacity
is unchanged or the refrigerant loop is not replaced. Proposed
requirements for servicing or repair of certain equipment with
reclaimed HFCs would apply in the event that refrigerant needs to be
removed or other servicing or repair is required. Section IV.D.4 of
this proposal describes what EPA is proposing for the use of reclaimed
HFCs for the servicing and/or repair of certain refrigerant-containing
equipment.
    As explained in this section, EPA is proposing requirements for
using reclaimed HFCs as the initial charge in certain refrigerant-
containing equipment that will be sold or distributed or offered for
sale or distribution for installation or installed in the United States
in certain RACHP subsectors and applications. EPA is proposing to delay
the compliance date for the requirements for using reclaimed HFCs as
the initial charge in certain equipment until January 1, 2028.
    On January 1, 2029, under the HFC phasedown schedule prescribed by
Congress in subsection (e)(2)(C) of the AIM Act, the HFC production and
consumption caps decrease by 70% as compared to historic baseline
levels. While EPA anticipates that many equipment manufacturers will
transition to substitutes for HFCs, reclaimed HFCs are anticipated to
fill a vital role in supplying industry with usable HFCs for new and
existing equipment. The experience with the phaseout of class I and
class II ODS suggests that reclamation will be an important option for
smoothing the phasedown. However, given the AIM Act calls for a
phasedown of HFCs and not a phaseout, there also likely could be a
continuing dependency on HFCs, at least for certain sectors and
subsectors, indefinitely. Therefore, experience with similar chemicals
and considering how markets may respond to a phasedown, were among the
factors EPA considered when

developing the proposed requirements for requiring use of reclaimed
HFCs.
    EPA is aware that industry and, in particular, reclaimers may need
time to adjust business practices and build capacity to reclaim HFCs to
support this upcoming demand for reclaimed HFCs as well as make other
changes. EPA publishes annual data on the trends of reclaimed
refrigerants.\85\ These data for reclaimed HFCs begin in 2017, when the
CAA section 608 requirements for reporting reclamation of HFCs began.
Reclamation of HFC refrigerants have been generally steady since 2017
through 2021; however, HFC reclamation had a sizeable increase of
approximately 38 percent in 2022 compared to 2021. EPA recognizes that
these data mostly represent years ahead of when HFC production and
consumption was capped, but the observed increase in reported HFC
reclamation in 2022 shows an important step to making reclaimed HFCs
more available on the market. Continued increases in the current levels
of HFC reclamation will be necessary to meet the anticipated demand of
HFCs in the subsectors for which EPA is proposing requirements for the
use of reclaimed HFCs. EPA also recognizes the significant steps in the
HFC phasedown that will occur in 2024 and 2029, and equipment using
HFCs will generally rely on reclaimed HFCs, further adding to the
demand of reclaimed HFCs. Proposing requirements for the use of
reclaimed HFCs beginning in 2028 will give reclaimers and industry time
to adjust business practices (e.g., changing suppliers) and build
capacity, while allowing industry to have sufficient reclaimed HFCs
ahead of the significant phasedown step which will reduce the amount of
virgin HFCs that are available to meet demand for HFCs. Reclaimers who
may need to build additional capacity would need this additional time
to develop the necessary infrastructure to reclaim sufficient HFCs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ U.S. EPA, Summary of Refrigerant Reclamation Trends,
available: https://www.epa.gov/section608/summary-refrigerant-reclamation-trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The report by a group of ENGOs \86\ states that a requirement for
new equipment to use reclaimed HFCs would further help mitigate the
climate impact of sectors that are transitioning away from very-high-
GWP substances to mid-GWP substances as part of the HFC phasedown. The
report states that a requirement to use reclaimed refrigerant instead
of virgin refrigerants in specific subsectors ``would go a long way
towards building a market for reclaimed refrigerant and avoiding
unnecessary emissions of virgin HFCs.'' Specifically, it advocates for
requirements to use of reclaimed refrigerant for initial charge and
provides examples of subsectors to be covered for initial factory-
charged equipment. Such examples include air conditioning and heat
pumps where refrigerants such as HFC-32 and R-454B are among the likely
candidates replace R-410A. The authors of the report note that it has
been uncommon to use reclaimed refrigerant in new factory-charged
equipment. However, they state that the use of reclaimed refrigerant in
new air conditioners and heat pumps has been successfully executed on a
voluntary basis in Europe.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Environmental Investigations Agency, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, and the Institute for Governance & Sustainable
Development, The 90 Million Ton Opportunity: Lifecycle Refrigerant
Management (LMR), available at: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/lrm-90-billion-ton-opportunity-report-20221020.pdf.
    \87\ Daikin Reclaimed Refrigerant Initiative in partnership with
A-Gas, available at: https://www.chillaire.co.uk/reclaimed-refrigerant-initiative/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing that all refrigerant-containing equipment (i.e.,
100 percent) in the identified subsectors in this section use reclaimed
HFCs for their initial charge. EPA is also considering requiring a
certain percentage of some or all refrigerant-containing equipment in
the subsectors identified in this aspect of the proposal be met with
reclaimed HFCs for their initial charge. There may be certain
advantages to such an approach including if availability of specific
HFCs or HFC blends are not available in sufficient quantity to meet
demand. However, complying with a percentage-based requirement could be
challenging. Such an approach could also require additional
recordkeeping or reporting requirements. If EPA were to use a
percentage-based approach, in other words requiring for example 25, 50,
or 75 percent of the affected equipment be charged with reclaimed
refrigerant, EPA anticipates that for factory-charged equipment, the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements would be for the manufacturers
while for field-charged equipment the requirements would be for the
owners and operators. By proposing to require that all refrigerant-
containing equipment in the affected subsectors have reclaimed HFCs
used in their initial charge, additional recordkeeping requirements
would be avoided since OEMs and owners or operators could just purchase
reclaimed HFCs rather than keep track of the amount of reclaimed and
virgin HFCs they purchase for the initial charge of their equipment
throughout the year, as would be necessary if only a portion of the
affected equipment were required to be charged with reclaimed
refrigerant. EPA also understands that a variant on type of percentage-
based approach is used in California in a limited manner. EPA
understands that California requires those that manufacture certain
equipment (e.g., certain air-conditioning appliances) must purchase a
certain amount of reclaimed refrigerant. However, California does not
specify where or how the reclaimed refrigerants are used.
Subsectors in the RACHP Sector
    EPA is proposing to require use of reclaimed HFCs in initial
charges for new refrigerant-containing equipment the following
subsectors that will be installed in the United States:
     Residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps;
     Cold storage warehouses;
     Industrial process refrigeration;
     Stand-alone retail food refrigeration;
     Supermarket systems;
     Refrigerated transport; and
     Automatic commercial ice makers.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ EPA has proposed to restrict the use of certain higher-GWP
HFCs in these seven subsectors through a rulemaking under subsection
(i) of the AIM Act. (87 FR 76738, December 15, 2022). Although EPA
has not yet made final decisions regarding these subsectors, such
restrictions on higher-GWP HFCs could affect the use of such HFCs
for initial charge in these subsectors by 2028, even if these HFCs
were reclaimed prior to the initial charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The types of equipment that are in these subsectors may vary by
when the initial charge of the refrigerant is added to the equipment.
Some types of equipment in a given subsector may be charged with the
refrigerant before the equipment is sold or distributed (i.e., factory-
charged), while others within the same subsector or in a different
subsector may have the refrigerant charged in the field (i.e., field-
charged). For example, self-contained equipment (e.g., window air
conditioning units) in the residential and light commercial air
conditioning and heat pumps subsector are charged with refrigerant at
the factory and sold with the refrigerant in the equipment before it is
installed for its intended use. Larger pieces of equipment in the IPR
or supermarket systems subsectors, for example, have the refrigerant
charged in field. These larger pieces of equipment may be custom-built
to meet the specific needs of the application in which they are used,
and the refrigerant is charged during the installation of the
equipment. Additional detail on the types of

equipment and the applications in which they are used in the listed
subsectors is provided in the proposed Technology Transitions Rule (87
FR 76738, December 15, 2022). Although EPA has not yet issued a final
Technology Transitions rule, we also anticipate considering, where
appropriate, any further information provided on these types of
equipment, applications, and subsectors in any final Technology
Transitions rule as we are developing this rulemaking under subsection
(h) of the AIM Act, in an effort to promote consistency where
appropriate.
    EPA understands that, in practice, reclaimed HFCs meet the same
purity standards as their virgin counterparts and function the same
when used in equipment in the RACHP sector and other sectors. Comments
in response to EPA's NODA (87 FR 62843, October 17, 2022) and in
stakeholder meetings hosted by the Agency noted that there are not
significant barriers to using reclaimed HFCs in the initial charge of
equipment. Thus, EPA's proposal to require the use of reclaimed HFCs
regarding the installation of new equipment in the listed subsectors
would not have any significant technical limitations. EPA is aware that
the near-term capacity of reclaimed HFCs may not be sufficient to meet
the total demand of HFCs in all new equipment across the whole RACHP
sector and thus is proposing a subset of subsectors to be required to
use reclaimed HFCs in the initial charge for the installation of new
equipment. As described later in this section, the Agency also is
seeking comment on requiring a percent of equipment in the subsector
use reclaimed refrigerants rather than all equipment in that subsector
given EPA understands that there could be other factors, such as
introduction of new and/or patented refrigerants, that could affect the
decision on the use of reclaimed refrigerants. For example, EPA could
require manufacturers use reclaimed HFCs in 25, 50, or 75 percent of
their total product lines for the covered product categories. The
Agency describes later in this section in more detail and in the
Updated Draft Report--Analysis of the U.S. Hydrofluorocarbon
Reclamation Market: Stakeholders, Drivers, and Practices,\89\ the
anticipated demand of HFCs for new refrigerant-containing equipment in
these subsectors that would need to be met with reclaimed HFCs, and
notes that the proposed compliance date for these proposed requirements
would not be until 2028. The proposed compliance date provides industry
a transition period to facilitate necessary changes in the current
business practices and to allow for the HFC reclamation market to grow.
Further, based on the restrictions in the proposed Technology
Transition rule (87 FR 76738, December 15, 2022), industry should have
a good sense of what HFCs and blends containing HFCs would be being
used in new equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ EPA, 2023. Updated Draft Report--Analysis of the U.S.
Hydrofluorocarbon Reclamation Market: Stakeholders, Drivers, and
Practices. Available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0606) for this
proposed rulemaking at https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing requirements for the initial charge with reclaimed
HFCs in equipment in these seven subsectors within the RACHP sector
based on the Agency's assessment of available reclaimed HFCs available
to meet anticipated demand and that these are uses for which reclaimed
refrigerants are appropriate to use. For example, EPA understands for
certain subsectors, particularly those outside the RACHP sector, such
as for certain medical devices (e.g., metered-dose inhalers), reclaimed
HFCs would not be meet the specific quality and purification
requirements. In its outreach, EPA asked about any significant
challenges or barriers to using reclaimed HFCs as the initial charge of
refrigerant in equipment. The Agency received comments in support of
requiring reclaimed HFCs as the initial charge for equipment in
response to the October 2022 NODA and did not learn of any technical
barriers.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Comments submitted to response of NODA published on October
17, 2022 (87 FR 62843) are available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0606) for this proposed rulemaking at https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reclaimed HFCs are purified and tested to verify they meet the
levels as specified in appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart F (which
is based on AHRI 700-2016), as consistent with the definition of
reclaim in 40 CFR part 84, subpart A. The Allocation Framework Rule (86
FR 55116, October 5, 2021) also requires that virgin HFC refrigerants
meet this same standard. Therefore, their purity is indistinguishable.
By requiring the use of reclaimed HFCs in these seven subsectors, EPA
is providing opportunities to smooth transition to using reclaimed HFCs
in new equipment that would be installed.
    EPA estimated the demand for initial charge of HFCs for equipment
in the applicable subsectors in 2028 that would be required to be
fulfilled with reclaimed HFCs per this proposal. EPA estimates that the
total amount of reclaimed HFCs that would be required to meet demand
for the initial charge of refrigerant-containing equipment in the
covered subsectors would be approximately 23,300 metric tons, which is
equivalent to 31.0 MMTCO2e in 2028. The subsector with the
greatest amount of reclaimed HFCs needed to meet demand for the initial
charge of equipment is the residential and light commercial subsector,
at approximately 18,600 metric tons (18.6 MMTCO2e) of
reclaimed HFCs that would be required in 2028. Additional information
on the demand of HFCs for the initial charge of refrigerant-containing
equipment in the covered subsectors can be found in the Updated Draft
Report--Analysis of the U.S. Hydrofluorocarbon Reclamation Market:
Stakeholders, Drivers, and Practices in the docket for this rulemaking.
    EPA is requesting comment on all aspects of this rule. With regard
to the proposed requirements for using reclaimed HFCs in the initial
charge of certain refrigerant-containing equipment, EPA is requesting
comment on whether the requirement to use reclaimed HFCs in the initial
charge of certain equipment should exclude certain HFCs or HFC blends
because there are barriers to establishing the requisite availability
of reclaimed refrigerants by the proposed January 1, 2028, compliance
date. Such barriers could potentially include niche HFCs or HFC blends
that are not manufactured or reclaimed at significant volumes but are
key to certain subsectors, HFCs or HFC blends that were recently
commercialized such that the amount of used material is not yet
sufficient to provide the input to a supply of reclaim material, or
certain refrigerants that may be subject to specific types of patents.
EPA is also interested in comments regarding the proposed list of
covered subsectors that would be required to use reclaimed HFCs in the
initial charge of new equipment, and if EPA should consider any
additional subsectors or fewer subsectors. As discussed in section
IV.D.3., EPA noted that the Agency considered a percentage-based
approach for the reclaim requirements for initial charge. EPA is
requesting comment on this percentage-based approach where requirements
for using reclaimed HFCs for initial charge of equipment in the covered
subsectors could be phased in over time compared to the proposed
requirement to solely use reclaimed HFCs in the initial charge of
certain equipment. In other words, EPA could require, for example, 25,
50 or 75 percent of a subsector use reclaim for initial charge
indefinitely, or as an alternative example, that 25 percent do so in
2026, 50 percent in 2027, 75

percent in 2028, and 100 percent in 2029. EPA also requests comment on
the proposed compliance date of January 1, 2028 in general, for use of
reclaimed HFCs in the initial charge of new equipment in applicable
RACHP subsectors. EPA is interested in whether reclaimers anticipate
being able to meet the demand in 2028.
4. Proposed Requirements for Servicing and/or Repair of Existing
Equipment in Subsectors in the RACHP Sector
    EPA is proposing that the servicing and/or repair of refrigerant-
containing appliances in certain subsectors and applications in the
RACHP sector where HFCs (whether neat or in a blend) are being used be
done with reclaimed HFCs starting January 1, 2028. As noted in section
IV.D.3, these requirements are being proposed as part of implementing
subsection (h)(1) of the AIM Act. The proposed requirements discussed
in this section of the preamble would control practices, processes, and
activities regarding the servicing and/or repair of equipment and
involve HFCs and the reclaiming of HFCs used as a refrigerant by
requiring that such servicing and/or repair be done with reclaimed
HFCs. Existing equipment that is currently using HFCs or a blend
containing HFCs is anticipated to continue to need these substances as
the phasedown of the production and consumption of HFCs under other
provisions of the AIM Act progresses, such as for servicing needs. As
virgin HFC refrigerants become increasingly scarce, we expect industry
will rely on using reclaimed HFCs to meet their needs for servicing
existing equipment. EPA is proposing requirements that reclaimed HFCs
be used to service and/or repair equipment within certain RACHP
subsectors and applications.
    As noted in the prior section on reclaim requirements for initial
charge of equipment in certain RACHP subsectors, EPA is considering
many types of information in developing the proposed requirements for
reclaimed HFC refrigerants in the servicing and/or repair of equipment
in certain RACHP subsectors. For example, EPA is drawing on the past
data and history of the reclamation of ODS, as explained in section
IV.D.3. EPA is also considering the experience in California and the
EU. EPA also reflected on information submitted in response to the
October 2022 NODA and the recent report by a group of ENGOs referred to
previously. EPA is aware that as more reclaimed HFCs are used, either
as required per the proposed provision or otherwise used as virgin HFCs
become scarcer, market prices for reclaimed HFCs may shift. Lastly, EPA
considered the anticipated effect of the overall phasedown of the
production and consumption of HFCs and the vital role that reclaimed
HFCs will likely play to meet the continuing need for using HFCs as
refrigerants in the United States. EPA is requesting comment on these
considerations and any other considerations or information that would
be relevant to the proposed provisions for using reclaimed HFCs in the
servicing/repair of refrigerant-containing equipment.
    EPA is aware that industry, and, in particular, reclaimers will
need time to adjust and build capacity to reclaim HFCs to support this
upcoming demand for reclaimed HFCs. EPA is proposing a compliance date
of January 1, 2028, for the required use of reclaimed HFCs in the
servicing and/or repair of equipment in certain RACHP subsectors. As
explained in section IV.D.3. of this proposal, requiring compliance
with these requirements as of January 1, 2028, would allow industry to
transition to meet the increased demand for reclaimed HFCs and make
changes to their current practices prior to the significant reduction
in the production and consumption of HFCs in 2029.
Subsectors in the RACHP Sector
    EPA is proposing to require, for the servicing and/or repair of
refrigerant-containing equipment in the following subsectors, that
reclaimed HFCs be used:
     Stand-alone retail food refrigeration;
     Supermarket systems;
     Refrigerated transport; and
     Automatic commercial ice makers.
    As noted in section IV.D.3., EPA understands that reclaimed HFCs
function the same as virgin HFCs in refrigerant-containing equipment
and are required to meet the same purity levels as their virgin
counterparts, as specified in appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart F
(which is based on AHRI 700-2016) and consistent with the definition of
reclaim in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A. In particular in the RACHP
sector, it may already be a practice for refrigerant-containing
equipment to be serviced or repaired with reclaimed HFCs. Owners or
operators or the technicians they contract may be using reclaimed HFCs
during these practices, processes, or activities related to servicing
and/or repair without specifically seeking to use reclaimed HFC
refrigerants. In general, reclaimers do not specifically label their
reclaimed HFC products when they sell or distribute them directly to
technicians or a wholesaler or distributor; however, EPA is aware of at
least one reclaimer that already markets a specific product line of
reclaimed refrigerants.\91\ In most cases, EPA understands that owners
or operators or technicians may be purchasing refrigerant for servicing
and/or repair that is most cost-effective, which may involve purchasing
reclaimed refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Hudson Technologies, Emerald Refrigerants. More information
available at: https://www.hudsontech.com/refrigerants/emerald-refrigerants/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is aware that the current capacity of reclaimed HFCs may not be
sufficient to meet the total demand of HFCs for practices, processes,
or activities related to the servicing and/or repair of refrigerant-
containing equipment across the whole RACHP sector and is proposing a
subset of subsectors to be required to use reclaim in the servicing
and/or repair of equipment. The Agency describes later in this section
and in the Updated Draft Report--Analysis of the U.S. Hydrofluorocarbon
Reclamation Market: Stakeholders, Drivers, and Practices in the docket
for this rulemaking in more detail the anticipated demand of HFCs for
servicing and/or repair of refrigerant-containing equipment in these
subsectors that would need to be met with reclaimed HFCs, and notes
that the compliance date for these proposed requirements is not
proposed to occur until January 1, 2028. This compliance date would
provide industry a transition period to have enough reclaimed HFCs
available to meet the demand for servicing and/or repair of equipment.
    EPA is proposing requirements for the use of reclaimed HFCs in the
servicing and/or repair of equipment in four subsectors within the
RACHP sector. EPA acknowledges the needed increase in the amount of
HFCs available for the servicing and/or repair of equipment in these
subsectors, and notes that these proposed requirements further serve
one of the purposes identified in subsection (h), to maximize the
reclaiming of regulated substances. Reclaimed HFCs are purified and
tested to the levels as specified in appendix A to 40 CFR part 82,
subpart F (which is based on AHRI 700-2016), as consistent with the
definition of reclaim in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A and could be
required to be used in other subsectors as well. These four subsectors
in the RACHP sector provide opportunities for transitioning to using
reclaimed HFCs in the servicing and/or repair of refrigerant-containing
equipment as the phasedown of production and consumption virgin HFCs
progresses under the AIM Act. These subsectors are expected to

continue to use HFCs in the current existing equipment and are likely
to continue to have a steady demand for the HFCs in servicing and/or
repair of the equipment. Thus, these subsectors are appropriate for
proposing that the anticipated demand for servicing and/or repair of
equipment be met with reclaimed HFC refrigerant. As noted above, there
are likely already cases in which reclaimed HFC refrigerants are being
used to service and/or repair equipment in these subsectors.
    EPA estimated the demand for servicing and/or repair with HFCs for
refrigerant-containing equipment in the applicable subsectors in 2028
that would be required to be fulfilled with reclaimed HFCs per this
proposal.
    EPA estimates that the total amount of reclaimed HFCs that would be
required to meet the demand for the servicing and/or repair of
refrigerant-containing equipment in the covered subsectors would be
approximately 16,700 metric tons, which is equivalent to 46.8
MMTCO2e in 2028. The subsector with the greatest amount of
reclaimed HFCs needed to meet demand for servicing and/or repair of
equipment is supermarket systems, at approximately 12,900 metric tons
(33.6 MMTCO2e) of reclaimed HFCs that would be required in
2028. Additional information on the demand of HFCs for the servicing
and/or repair of refrigerant-containing equipment in the covered
subsectors can be found in the Updated Draft Report--Analysis of the
U.S. Hydrofluorocarbon Reclamation Market: Stakeholders, Drivers, and
Practices in the docket for this rulemaking.
    EPA is requesting comment on all aspects of this proposal.
Regarding the proposed requirements for using reclaimed HFCs in the
servicing and/or repair of certain refrigerant-containing equipment,
EPA is requesting comment on whether the requirement to use reclaimed
HFCs in the servicing and/or repair of certain equipment should exclude
certain HFCs or HFC blends because there are barriers to establishing
the requisite availability of reclaimed refrigerants by the proposed
January 1, 2028, compliance date. Such barriers could potentially
include niche HFCs or HFC blends that are not manufactured or reclaimed
at significant volumes but are key to certain subsectors, HFCs or HFC
blends that were recently commercialized such that the amount of used
material is not yet sufficient to provide the input to a supply of
reclaim material, or certain refrigerants that may be subject to
specific types of patents.
    EPA requests comment on other ways to structure the requirements to
use reclaimed refrigerant in certain subsectors. EPA requests comment
on whether the Agency should use a percentage-based approach and/or
phase the requirements in by requiring a percentage of the HFCs or HFC
blends used in the servicing and/or repair of refrigerant-containing
equipment be reclaimed HFCs, and then increasing that percentage over
time. In other words, EPA could require, for example, 25, 50 or 75
percent of a subsector use reclaim for servicing and/or repair
indefinitely, or as an alternative example, that 25 percent do so in
2026, 50 percent in 2027, 75 percent in 2028, and 100 percent in 2029.
Although this an option that the Agency is considering for the final
rule, EPA is not proposing that as the lead option because the Agency
has potential concerns, which are similar to those described in section
IV.D.3. Particularly, as related to servicing and/or repair of
equipment, the Agency has potential concerns about the recordkeeping
and/or reporting requirements necessary to track and verify compliance
with a percentage-based approach in relation to the policy goals of the
provision. By proposing to require that all refrigerant-containing
equipment in the affected subsector be serviced and/or repaired with
reclaimed HFCs, additional recordkeeping requirements would be avoided
since owners or operator could just purchase reclaimed HFCs rather than
keep track of the amount of reclaimed and virgin HFCs they purchase to
service their equipment throughout the year, as would be necessary if
only a portion of the affected equipment were required to be serviced
and/or repaired with reclaimed refrigerant. EPA requests comment on
what recordkeeping and/or reporting would be necessary to verify
compliance with a percentage-based option and which entities would
ultimately be responsible for that recordkeeping and/or reporting. EPA
also requests comment on the proposed compliance date of January 1,
2028 in general, for use of reclaimed HFCs in the servicing and/or
repair of equipment in applicable RACHP subsectors. EPA is interested
in whether reclaimers anticipate being able to meet the demand in 2028.

E. How is EPA proposing to establish an HFC emissions reduction program
for the fire suppression sector?

1. Background
    As described in greater detail in section IV.B., HFCs and
substitutes for HFCs are used in many different sectors, subsectors,
and applications beyond those in the RACHP sector, and EPA interprets
its authority under subsection (h) to include promulgating regulations
that control the types of practices, processes, or activities
identified in subsection (h)(1) in those sectors, subsectors, and
applications, with the limitation that we do not interpret our
regulatory authority under subsection (h) to extend to HFCs or
substitutes for HFCs when they are contained in foams. For example,
HFCs are also used in the fire suppression sector.
    EPA understands that different sectors use HFCs and their
substitutes differently, and as such, the timing for emissions and
mechanisms by which emissions occur can vary greatly across sectors.
HFCs used in the fire suppression sector are used as a fire suppressant
and should only be discharged from fire suppression equipment in the
event of a fire. If there is no event to cause the fire suppression
equipment to be used, the HFCs should not be discharged, and thus not
emitted. EPA considered these differences as well as the types of
equipment used for fire suppression in developing this proposed rule.
EPA is proposing certain requirements to address HFC management for
fire suppression under subsection (h).
    The Agency is not proposing any regulatory requirements under
subsection (h) for HFC and HFC substitutes used in sectors, subsectors,
and applications besides the RACHP and fire suppression sectors at this
time. However, the Agency will continue to monitor the use and
emissions of HFCs more generally and such information may inform future
rulemakings under subsection (h).
2. Nomenclature Used in This Section
    This section uses the term ``recycled'' or ``recycling'' to
describe the testing and/or reprocessing of HFCs used in the fire
suppression sector to certain purity standards.\92\ HFCs that are
recycled for fire suppression use include HFC-227ea, HFC-125, HFC-
236fa, and HFC-23. The term ``recycled'' or ``recycling'' as used in
the fire suppression sector is similar, but not identical, to the term
``reclaim'' as defined under the AIM Act. Under the AIM Act, the terms
``reclaim; reclamation'' are defined in subsection (b)(9) of the Act,
and that definition refers to the purity standards under AHRI Standard
700-2016 (or an

appropriate successor standard adopted by the Administrator) and the
verification of purity using, at a minimum, the analytical methodology
described in that standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ These industry standards may include NFPA 2001 (Standard on
Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems), NFPA 10 (Standard for
Portable Fire Extinguishers), ASTM D6064-11 (Standard Specification
for HFC-227ea), ASTM D6231/D6231M-21 (Standard Specification for
HFC-125), ASTM D6541-21 (Standard Specification for HFC-236fa), and
ASTM D6126/D6126M-21 (Standard Specification for HFC-23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fire suppression industry describes clean agents as ``a gaseous
fire suppressant that is electrically nonconducting and that does not
leave a residue upon evaporation,'' and the term ``clean agents''
includes HFCs, according to the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA).\93\ For the purposes of this section, EPA is generally
referring to the term, ``clean agents'' as HFCs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ National Fire Protection Association, NFPA Today, May 6,
2022, https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Publications-and-media/Blogs-Landing-Page/NFPA-Today/Blog-Posts/2022/05/06/Clean-Agent-System-Basics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Fire Suppression Background
    As part of implementing subsection (h)(1), EPA is proposing certain
regulatory requirements regarding the servicing, repair, disposal, or
installation of fire suppression equipment that contains HFCs, with the
purpose of minimizing the release of HFCs from that equipment, as well
as requirements related to technician training for servicing, repair,
disposal, or installation in the fire suppression sector. These
proposed requirements are similar to the halon emissions reduction
requirements found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart H. EPA regulations under
Title VI of the CAA prohibit the intentional release of halons during
testing, maintenance, servicing, repair, or disposal of halon-
containing equipment, or during the use of such equipment for
technician training (subject to certain exceptions). EPA's halon
emission reduction requirements at 40 CFR part 82, subpart H cover
technician training requirements and proper halon disposal and
recycling.\94\ These regulations also prohibit halon releases that
occur because an owner failed to maintain halon-containing equipment to
relevant industry standards. With the production and import of virgin
halons phased out in the United States since 1994, recycled halons have
been the primary supply of halons in the United States for nearly 30
years. Sources of recycled halons include recovered halons from
cylinders collected from decommissioned systems both in the United
States and abroad. Existing halon stocks are purchased by commercial
recyclers from decommissioned equipment, reprocessed to industry
specifications, and sold back into the market. Demand for halons has
been satisfied with recycled halons, ensuring equipment can be serviced
and investments are not stranded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ These regulations were established in 1998 (63 FR 11096,
March 5, 1998) and amended in 2020 (85 FR 15301, Mar. 17, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recycled halon is still available today, nearly 30 years after the
United States phased out production and consumption of halons. It is
this experience since the phaseout of the halons in 1994 that
demonstrates the important role recovery and recycling of fire
suppression clean agents can play by providing an ongoing supply of
HFCs in fire suppression applications especially where other
substitutes may not be suitable. EPA understands that this model has
carried over on a voluntary basis to the management of HFCs by many in
the fire suppression sector.\95\ In 2002, the fire suppression industry
developed a voluntary code of practice (VCOP) for the reduction of
emissions of fire suppression agents including HFCs. The VCOP was
developed by the Halon Alternatives Research Corporation (HARC), an
industry organization, in partnership with EPA, the Fire Suppression
Systems Association (FSSA), the Fire Equipment Manufacturers
Association (FEMA), and the National Association of Fire Equipment
Distributors (NAFED). Many of the practices have been voluntarily
adopted by the fire suppression sector, such as equipment manufacturers
or distributors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ EPA, 2023. American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of
2020--Subsection (h): Fire Suppression Sector. Draft Technical
Support Document. Available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0606) for
this proposed rulemaking at https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fire suppression agents must satisfy important environmental and
safety criteria, including but not limited to acceptable ODPs, GWPs,
and atmospheric lifetimes, be effective extinguishants, and, for spaces
where people would be present, have sufficiently low toxicity that
under normal use the discharge of agent in occupied spaces would not
harm people.\96\ Other important preferred features include being
electrically non-conductive, and ``clean,'' meaning leaving no non-
volatile residue that could damage high-value electronics, controls, or
other critical systems in the protected spaces. HFCs that satisfy the
above requirements are used in fixed systems for total-flooding
applications and for use in portable equipment as streaming agents.
These applications are generally described as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ UNEP, ``TEAP 2022 Assessment: Report of the Fire
Suppression Technical Options Committee,'' December 2022, available
at: https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/FSTOC-2022-Assessment.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Total flooding systems are designed to automatically
discharge a fire suppression agent by detection and related controls
(or manually by a system operator) and achieve a specified minimum
agent concentration throughout a confined space (i.e., volume percent
of the agent in air) that is sufficient to suppress development of a
fire.
     Streaming applications use portable fire extinguishers
that can be manually manipulated to discharge an agent in a specific
direction and release a specific quantity of extinguishing agent at the
fire.
    Guidelines for clean agents, including HFCs, have been published to
ensure the quality of the recycled fire suppression agents. According
to HARC's comment on the October 2022 NODA, fire suppression agent
recyclers follow industry standards and specifications that are
generally similar to section 608 and AHRI purity specifications. In
2016, HARC developed a voluntary recycling code of practice (RCOP).\97\
This code of practice includes the recommendation that prior to sale or
reuse as a fire suppressant, the recovered HFC should be tested and
processed to meet NFPA 2001 \98\ and NFPA 10 \99\ standards or American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications. These
specifications ensure that fire suppressants, including HFCs, are
recycled and tested to a certain purity level, before being sold or
reused as a fire suppressant. In addition, in 2018, the Montreal
Protocol's Technology and Economic Assessment Panel's (TEAP) Halons
Technical Options Committee (HTOC) (renamed in 2022 to the Fire
Suppression Technical Options Committee or FSTOC) published recommended
practices for recycling halons and other gaseous fire extinguishing
agents, including certain HFCs, which covers similar specifications for
testing and certification of the recycled agent prior to reuse.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ HARC, ``Code of Practice for Use of Recycled Halogenated
Clean Agents,'' 2016, available at: https://www.harc.org/_files/ugd/4e7dd1_4ab7295ac47e4bdea67020750f544f1b.pdf.
    \98\ NFPA 2001 Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing
Systems. Available at: https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards/detail?code=2001.
    \99\ NFPA 10 Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers. Available
at: https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards/detail?code=10.
    \100\ Technical Note #4, Revision 2--Recommended Practices for
Recycling Halons and Other Halogenated Gaseous Fire Extinguishing
Agents. Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/HTOC/technical_note4_2018.pdf.

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

    A recent report by the TEAP's FSTOC states that ``the HFC phasedown
in the US is having a large effect on the production and consumption of
HFC fire extinguishants,'' noting that ``what we have seen in the US is
that there has already been significant impact on cost of HFCs.'' \101\
FSTOC states that the reasons for this include that HFCs used for fire
extinguishing are high-GWP, that the allocation mechanism in the United
States is GWP-weighted, and that market commercial factors will mean
producers and importers will decide which HFCs to manufacture or import
based on GWP and future market needs. The reasons for this include the
extremely small use of HFCs in fire suppression compared to other uses.
Additional impacts to the fire suppression sector from the global
phasedown of HFCs ``could reduce the commercial viability of production
of some HFC fire extinguishing agents in the future.'' FSTOC notes that
``HFCs contained in fire protection equipment have historically enjoyed
a relatively high level of recycling and reuse'' and ``[as] the supply
of newly produced HFCs for fire protection decreases in response to
phase down regulations, recycling becomes even more important as an
alternative source of supply and is likely to increase in the future.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ UNEP, ``TEAP 2022 Assessment: Report of the Fire
Suppression Technical Options Committee,'' December 2022, available
at: https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/FSTOC-2022-Assessment.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Minimizing Releases of HFCs
    As part of implementing subsection (h)(1), EPA is proposing a
number of requirements to minimize releases of HFCs during the
servicing, repair, disposal, or installation of fire suppression
equipment containing HFCs or during the use of such equipment for
technician training. As previously discussed, EPA is proposing
requirements that are similar to the halon emissions reduction
requirements found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart H. The fact that recycled
halons have been the only supply of halons in the United States nearly
30 years after its production phaseout in 1994 demonstrates the
important role recovery and recycling of fire suppression clean agents
can play by providing an ongoing supply where substitutes may not be
suitable. EPA understands that this model has carried over on a
voluntary basis to the management of HFCs by many in the fire
suppression sector.
    To minimize releases of HFCs, EPA is proposing that covered
entities installing, servicing, repairing, or disposing of fire
suppression equipment containing a regulated substance may not release
into the environment any HFCs used in such equipment. EPA is also
proposing that owners and operators of fire suppression equipment
containing HFCs may not allow for the release of HFCs as a result of
failure to maintain such equipment. In the following sections, EPA
describes its proposal to require the use of recycled HFCs for initial
charge and servicing and/or repair of fire suppression equipment as
well as minimizing HFC releases during recycling; technician training;
recycling of HFCs prior to the disposal of fire suppression equipment
containing HFCs; and recordkeeping and reporting. These requirements
are proposed with a compliance date of January 1, 2025.
    Recognizing the extensive requirements for testing (e.g., Federal
Aviation Administration, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Defense) associated with the approval for use of fire suppressants in
certain applications, certain limited HFC releases for health, safety,
environmental, and other considerations would be exempted, including:
     Releases during the testing of fire suppression equipment
only if the following four criteria are met: (1) equipment employing
suitable alternative fire suppression agents are not available, (2)
release of fire suppression agent is essential to demonstrate equipment
functionality, (3) failure of the equipment would pose great risk to
human safety or the environment, and (4) a simulant agent cannot be
used in place of the regulated substance for testing purposes.
     Releases associated with qualification and development
testing during the design and development of equipment containing
regulated substances only when (1) such tests are essential to
demonstrate equipment functionality, and (2) a suitable simulant agent
cannot be used in place of the regulated substance for testing
purposes.
    In addition, these proposed requirements to minimize HFC releases
do not apply to emergency releases of HFCs for actual fire
extinguishing, explosion inertion, or other emergency applications for
which the equipment were designed.
    EPA requests comment on the proposed compliance date of January 1,
2025, for the proposed requirements in the fire suppression sector. As
discussed elsewhere in this section of the proposed rule, many covered
entities may already have procedures in place given the voluntary
program within the fire suppression sector as described previously. EPA
views this proposed compliance date as appropriate.
a. Proposed Requirements for Initial Charge of Equipment for Fire
Suppression
    EPA is proposing that for the fire suppression sector where HFCs
are used, the initial charge of fire suppression equipment, including
both total flooding systems and streaming applications, must be with
recycled HFCs starting January 1, 2025. EPA is also considering other
potential compliance dates, such as January 1, 2026 or January 1, 2027.
Specifically, for factory-charged equipment that use HFCs, EPA is
proposing that in order to install such equipment, the equipment would
be required to use recycled HFCs for the initial charge during the
manufacture of the equipment. These requirements would apply whether
the HFCs are used neat or in a blend. However, EPA notes that most
often, where clean agents are needed and HFCs are being used, these are
single component HFCs with some of the highest GWPs for the regulated
HFCs. Given the high GWPs for the commonly used HFC fire suppression
agents, this aspect of the proposal is anticipated to further minimize
emissions by requiring that only recycled HFCs be used in fire
suppression equipment.
    EPA understands that, in practice, recycled HFCs are required to
meet applicable purity standards and function the same as their virgin
counterparts when used in equipment in the fire suppression sector.
Currently, recycled HFCs are primarily used for the servicing and
recharge of existing fire suppression equipment. However, HARC's
comments on the October 2022 NODA indicate that it does not anticipate
major barriers to using recycled HFCs in new fire suppression equipment
and expects use of recycled HFCs in new equipment to increase as the
supply of virgin HFCs for fire suppression decreases.
    EPA notes that the proposed definition of ``fire suppression
equipment'' for purposes of subsection (h) excludes mission-critical
military end uses and systems used in deployable and expeditionary
applications, as well as space vehicles. Finalizing the proposed
definition would exempt those applications from this requirement, which
is consistent with EPA's intent to not include these

applications under the proposed requirements to use recycled HFCs in
the installation, servicing and/or repair of such fire suppression
equipment. This proposed exclusion is based on EPA's understanding that
there are situations in which the unique design and use of such
military equipment and space vehicles make it impossible to recover
fire suppression agent during the service, repair, disposal, or
installation of the equipment.
    Recognizing that application-specific HFC allowances are available
to other onboard aerospace fire suppression applications under
regulations at 40 CFR 84.13,\102\ EPA is not proposing to extend a
requirement to use recycled HFCs in the installation, servicing and/or
repair of such fire suppression equipment as long as they qualify for
application-specific allowances in 40 CFR 84.13. Because these other
onboard aerospace fire suppression applications would have the
necessary allowances for virgin HFCs through qualification for
application-specific allowances, these applications would not need to
use recycled fire suppressants containing HFCs for the installation,
servicing, and/or repair of fire suppression equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ On board aerospace fire suppression means use of a
regulated substance in fire suppression equipment used on board
commercial and general aviation aircraft, including commercial-
derivative aircraft for military use; rotorcraft; and space
vehicles. Mission-critical military end uses and systems used in
deployable and expeditionary applications, as well as space
vehicles, are applications that sometimes use HFCs and are therefore
currently eligible for application-specific allowances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is requesting comment regarding the proposed requirement for
using recycled HFCs in the initial charge of fire suppression
equipment. EPA is requesting comment on the proposed requirement to
solely use recycled HFCs in the initial charge of fire suppression
equipment or if EPA should consider an approach that either uses a
percentage-based approach for the affected fire suppression equipment
charged with recycled HFCs (e.g., 25, 50, or 75 percent of the fire
suppression equipment) or phases in the requirement for using recycled
HFCs over a period of time. As noted in section IV.D.3., if EPA were to
finalize a percentage-based and/or phased in approach, associated
recordkeeping and reporting may be required to ensure compliance with
such an approach. EPA is also requesting comment on whether recycled
HFCs should be used for the initial charge during the installation of
fire suppression equipment as EPA understands that HFCs are generally
not transferred from cylinders once in service. EPA also requests
comment on the proposed compliance date of January 1, 2025, and other
potential compliance dates such as January 1, 2026, or January 1, 2027,
for the use of recycled HFCs in the initial charge of fire suppression
equipment.
b. Proposed Requirements for Servicing and/or Repair of Existing
Equipment for Fire Suppression
    EPA is proposing to require the use of recycled HFCs for the
servicing and/or repair of fire suppression equipment, including both
total flooding systems and streaming applications, starting on January
1, 2025. EPA is also considering other potential compliance dates, such
as January 1, 2026, or January 1, 2027. EPA understands that the fire
suppression industry operates in accordance with requirements from NFPA
2001 or NFPA 10 or appropriate ASTM standards to recover and recycle
HFCs during servicing and/or repair of fire suppression equipment. NFPA
2001 is a voluntary industry standard containing the minimum
requirements for the design, installation, approval, and maintenance of
total flooding systems using listed clean agents including HFCs. It
includes requirements for inspection, servicing, testing, maintenance,
and training to ensure the safe use and operation of these systems.
Similarly, NFPA 10 is a voluntary industry standard containing the
minimum requirements that apply to the selection, installation,
inspection, maintenance, recharging, and testing of portable fire
extinguishers and fire suppression agents including HFCs. The ASTM
specifications cover the requirements (e.g., purity) for the fire
suppression agents, in this case the HFCs; the specifications do not
typically address the associated fire suppression equipment or hardware
that use the fire suppression agent or the conditions of using such
equipment (e.g., fixed total flooding systems, portable fire
extinguishers). None of these current industry standards or
specifications related to HFCs used in fire suppression contain
specific requirements to minimize releases of HFCs, including during
servicing or repair of the equipment. Efforts by the industry to
minimize emissions of HFCs used in the fire suppression sector have to
date been on a voluntary basis. For example, the VCOP includes as part
of its emission reduction strategies during storage, handling, and
transfer of HFCs to recover and recycle agents during servicing and to
adopt maintenance practices that reduce leakage as much as is
technically feasible. Considering these current voluntary practices to
minimize emissions, the proposed requirements would minimize emissions
of HFCs broadly within this sector of use. Covered entities are
required to evacuate, as applicable, all equipment used to recover,
store, and transfer HFCs prior to each use to prevent contamination,
arrange for destruction of the recovered HFCs as necessary (e.g.,
recovered HFCs that are too contaminated to be recycled), and collect
and dispose of wastes from recycling process. If the recycling of HFCs
is not practical, the disposal of HFCs would help to prevent releases
of used HFCs into the atmosphere.
    In 2015, data on recycling of HFC fire suppression agents were
collected as part of the HFC Emissions Estimating Program (HEEP), which
is voluntary data collection effort implemented by the fire suppression
industry. HEEP collects data on sales of fire suppression agents for
recharge in order to estimate annual emissions of HFCs. These data
showed that the HFC-227ea, HFC-125, HFC-236fa and HFC-23 are all
recycled for fire suppression use.\103\ In recent years, approximately
75 percent of HFCs sold for recharge came from recyclers, with 80
percent reported in 2020, based on data submitted voluntarily to HEEP
and may not include all entities in this sector.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ HARC comments on Notice of Data Availability Relevant to
Management of Regulated Substances under the American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act of 2020 are available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0606) for this proposed rulemaking at https://www.regulations.gov.
    \104\ HARC Report of the HFC Emissions Estimating Program (HEEP)
2002-2020 Data Collection, October 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of servicing and/or repairing fire suppression equipment,
recovery and recycling equipment is used to recover HFCs. EPA is also
proposing to require that covered entities must (1) operate and
maintain recovery and recycling equipment in accordance with
manufacturer specifications to ensure that the equipment performs as
specified; (2) repair leaks in HFC storage, recovery, recycling, or
charging equipment before use; and (3) ensure that cross-contamination
does not occur through the mixing of HFCs that may be contained in
similar cylinders. Recovery equipment collect HFCs from equipment and
recycling equipment remove contaminants from HFCs and this equipment is
used during servicing and/or repair. By ensuring that this equipment is
functioning properly, HFC releases can be minimized during the recovery
and recycling process. The proposed requirements would ensure that
releases from fire suppression equipment are minimized when

recycling HFCs during servicing and/or repairing fire suppression
equipment.
    EPA notes that the proposed definition of ``fire suppression
equipment'' for purposes of subsection (h) excludes mission-critical
military end uses and systems used in deployable and expeditionary
applications, as well as space vehicles. Finalizing the proposed
definition would exempt those applications from this requirement, which
is consistent with EPA's intent to not include these applications under
the proposed requirements to use recycled HFCs in the installation,
servicing and/or repair of such fire suppression equipment. This
proposed exclusion is based on EPA's understanding that there are
situations in which the unique design and use of such military
equipment and space vehicles make it impossible to recover fire
suppression agents during the service, repair, disposal, or
installation of the equipment.
    Recognizing that application-specific HFC allowances are available
to other onboard aerospace fire suppression applications under
regulations at 40 CFR 84.13,\105\ EPA is not proposing to extend a
requirement to use recycled HFCs in the installation, servicing and/or
repair of such fire suppression equipment as long as they qualify for
application-specific allowances in 40 CFR 84.13. Because these other
onboard aerospace fire suppression applications would have the
necessary allowances for virgin HFCs through qualification for
application-specific allowances, these applications would not need to
use recycled fire suppressants containing HFCs for the installation,
servicing, and/or repair of fire suppression equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ On board aerospace fire suppression means use of a
regulated substance in fire suppression equipment used on board
commercial and general aviation aircraft, including commercial-
derivative aircraft for military use; rotorcraft; and space
vehicles. Mission-critical military end uses and systems used in
deployable and expeditionary applications, as well as space
vehicles, are applications that sometimes use HFCs and are therefore
currently eligible for application-specific allowances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is requesting comment regarding the proposed requirements for
using recycled HFCs in the servicing and/or repair of fire suppression
equipment. In particular, EPA requests comments on the applicable fire
suppression equipment that would be required to use recycled HFCs in
the servicing and/or repair of fire suppression equipment. EPA is also
requesting comment on the proposed requirement to solely use recycled
HFCs in the servicing and/or repair of fire suppression equipment or if
EPA should consider an approach that phases in requirements for using
recycled HFCs. In addition, EPA requests comments on the practices to
minimize releases from HFC recycling during servicing and/or repair as
well as whether covered entities should be required to follow industry
standards including NFPA 2001 (Standard on Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishing Systems), NFPA 10 (Standard for Portable Fire
Extinguishers), ASTM D6064-11 (Standard Specification for HFC-227ea),
ASTM D6231/D6231M-21 (Standard Specification for HFC-125), ASTM D6541-
21 (Standard Specification for HFC-236fa), and ASTM D6126/D6126M-21
(Standard Specification for HFC-23). EPA also requests comment on the
proposed compliance date of January 1, 2025, and other potential
compliance dates, such as January 1, 2026, or January 1, 2027, for the
use of recycled HFCs for the servicing and/or repair of fire
suppression equipment.
c. Technician Training
    EPA is proposing to require all entities that employ fire
suppression technicians who service, repair, install, or dispose of
fire suppression equipment containing HFCs provide training regarding
HFC emissions reduction. This proposed requirement is intended to
control practices, processes, or activities regarding servicing,
repair, disposal or installation of such fire suppression equipment by
providing technicians with knowledge and skills to minimize releases of
HFCs during such practices, processes, or activities, and the proposed
requirements would involve a regulated substance. Fire suppression
technicians are an important part in any effort to control unnecessary
HFC emissions from fire suppression equipment while servicing,
repairing, installing, or disposing of such equipment. By training
technicians in the significance of minimizing unnecessary HFC releases
from fire suppression equipment and providing information on applicable
procedures such as the recovery and recycling or reclamation of HFCs
from the fire suppression equipment, technician training would support
EPA's effort to reduce HFC emissions from fire suppression equipment.
    EPA is proposing that HFC fire suppression technician training be
designed to cover: (1) an explanation of the purpose of the training
requirement, including the significance of minimizing releases of HFCs
and ensuring technician safety, (2) an overview of HFCs and
environmental concerns with HFCs, (3) a review of relevant regulations
concerning HFCs,\106\ including the requirements of the HFC emissions
reduction program for fire suppression equipment, and (4) specific
technical instruction relevant to avoiding unnecessary HFC emissions
during the servicing, repair, disposal or installation of fire-
suppression equipment at each individual facility. Starting as of
January 1, 2025, EPA is proposing that all entities that employ
technicians who maintain, service, repair, install, or dispose of fire
suppression equipment containing HFCs must provide HFC fire suppression
technician training to their technicians (as described in this section)
and ensure that their technicians complete this training. Technicians
hired after that date must be similarly trained within 30 days of
hiring, or by June 1, 2025. EPA is proposing this as a one-time
training requirement. EPA is requesting comment on the requirement for
technicians to be trained, the proposed content as described above, and
timing of this requirement for technician training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ These may include, but are not limited to, other EPA
regulations, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations,
codes and standards of NFPA, and other federal, state, or local
fire, building, safety, and environmental codes and standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Recycling of HFCs Prior to Disposal of Fire Suppression Equipment
Containing HFCs
    EPA is proposing requirements related to the disposal of fire
suppression equipment. The intent of these requirements is to ensure
that HFCs have been recovered and recycled from the equipment prior to
the final step of the disposal of the equipment so that HFCs are not
released during the disposal of the equipment. EPA is proposing to
require owners and operators of fire suppression equipment containing
HFCs (including an HFC blend) dispose of this equipment by recovering
the HFCs themselves or by arranging for HFC recovery by a fire
suppression equipment manufacturer, distributor, or a fire suppressant
recycler. EPA is also proposing that owners and operators dispose of
HFCs used as a fire suppression agent by sending it for recycling to a
fire suppressant recycler or a reclaimer certified under 40 CFR 82.164
or by arranging for its destruction using one of the controlled
processes listed in 40 CFR 84.29. The voluntary industry standards that
apply to the uses of HFCs in fire suppression equipment, NFPA 2001 for
fire suppression systems and NFPA 10 for fire extinguishers, contain no
current requirement for the recovery

and disposal of HFCs prior to disposal of equipment. Efforts by the
industry to minimize emissions of HFCs used in the fire suppression
sector have to date been on a voluntary basis. For example, the VCOP
includes as part of its emission reduction strategies during storage,
handling, and transfer of HFCs to recover the agents after the end of
the equipment's useful life and either recycle or destroy them. The
proposed requirements would minimize emissions of HFCs through recovery
of the agent prior to disposal of the equipment and ensure recycling or
proper disposal of the HFC occurs broadly within this sector of use.
Under the proposed requirements, the owners and operators of this
equipment (e.g., specialized fire suppression systems containing HFCs
that protect high value equipment, such as electronic server rooms or
oil and gas production facilities) must ensure that these HFCs are
recovered from the fire suppression equipment before it is sent for
disposal, either by recovering the HFCs themselves before sending the
equipment for disposal or by leaving the HFCs in the equipment and
sending it for disposal to a facility (e.g., fire suppression equipment
manufacturer, a distributor, or a fire suppressant recycler) operating
in accordance with industry standards, i.e., NFPA 10 and NFPA 2001
standards, as applicable. The proposal also would require that owner or
operators of fire suppression equipment recover any HFCs as part of the
disposal of such equipment be disposed of by sending it to a fire
suppressant recycler operating in accordance with the relevant industry
standards, which EPA understands to be the NFPA 10 and NFPA 2001
standards (depending on the type of equipment), by sending it to a
reclaimer certified under 40 CFR 82.164, or by arranging for its
destruction by a technology that is listed as an approved technology
for destruction of the relevant regulated substance in the regulations
at 40 CFR 84.29. These requirements are being proposed as part of
implementing subsection (h)(1) of the AIM Act, as they would control
practices, processes, or activities regarding the disposal of such
fire-suppression equipment by establishing certain requirements that
must be met as part of the disposal process and would involve a
regulated substance.
    Owners and operators of this fire suppression equipment who recover
HFCs prior to disposal may already be aware of the importance of HFC
recycling given prior communication efforts by the industry and may
already take steps to ensure recovery of HFCs prior to disposal. As
mentioned in section IV.E.3., the recycling of HFCs plays an important
role in providing the fire suppression sector with continued supply of
HFCs for fire suppression equipment during servicing. Industry trade
organizations have encouraged owners and operators of fire suppression
equipment and those disposing of HFCs to contact fire suppression
equipment manufacturers, distributors, or fire suppressant recyclers to
ensure that HFC is safely recovered from equipment and recycled for
future use. Therefore, the proposed requirements are likely consistent
with current industry practices. Most fire suppression systems and
extinguishers in use today are purchased, installed, and serviced by
fire suppression equipment distributors. EPA is aware that there are
established distribution channels within the commercial and industrial
sectors where these specialized systems are used and that industry
representatives indicate that the simplest way in their opinion to
ensure proper recycling of HFCs is to encourage equipment owners return
equipment containing HFCs to distributors.\107\ EPA values using
established industry practices where such practices exist and can be
used to meet the intended goals. EPA is requesting comment on the
requirement to recover and recycle HFCs prior to the final step of
disposal of the fire suppression equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ HARC comments, dated November 7, 2022, to Notice of Data
Availability Relevant to Management of Regulated Substances Under
the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 are available
in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0606) for this rulemaking at https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Recordkeeping and Reporting
    EPA is proposing to include recordkeeping and reporting
requirements on the fire suppression provisions under subsection (h)
for HFCs used in the installation of new equipment and servicing and/or
repair of existing equipment. These requirements are being proposed as
part of implementing subsection (h)(1) of the AIM Act, as these
provisions would control practices, processes, or activities regarding
servicing, repair, disposal or installation of fire suppression
equipment, and would involve a regulated substance. For example, the
requirements would control recordkeeping and reporting practices,
process, or activities for servicing and repair that involves HFCs. As
noted in section II.B. of this document, EPA's authority to require
recordkeeping and reporting under the AIM Act is also supported by
section 114 of the CAA, which applies to the AIM Act and rules
promulgated under it as provided in subsection (k)(1)(C) of the AIM
Act.
    EPA is proposing that covered entities in the fire suppression
sector provide data on HFCs to the Agency. The fire suppression
industry is familiar with data collection and reporting as some of the
entities in this industry are voluntarily reporting data to HEEP as
mentioned in section IV.E.4.b. Relevant reporting entities covered
under this requirement include entities that perform first fill of
equipment, service (e.g., recharge) equipment and/or recycle regulated
substances, such as equipment manufacturers, distributors, agent
suppliers or installers that recycle regulated substances. EPA is
proposing that these records related to the fire suppression sector be
maintained for three years. Specifically, EPA is proposing that the
covered entities report annually by February 14th of each year,
covering the prior year's activity from January 1 through December 31:
     The quantity of material (the combined mass of regulated
substance and contaminants) by regulated substance broken out by sold,
recovered, recycled, and virgin for the purpose of installation of new
equipment and servicing of fire suppression equipment,
     The total mass of each regulated substance broken out by
sold, recovered, recycled, and virgin; and
     The total mass of waste products sent for disposal, along
with information about the disposal facility if waste is not processed
by the reporting entity.