methods may be necessary to accurately determine the full charge. In
addition, EPA is not proposing that owners or operators commit to the
same method for the life of the appliance. However, as discussed later
in this notice, EPA is proposing to require a written record of the
full charge, the method(s) used to determine the full charge, and any
changes to that amount.
High-Pressure Appliance
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term high-pressure
appliance to update the list of example refrigerants. The proposed
changes to the terms appliance and refrigerant carry over into this
term as well. Therefore, under the proposed revisions high-pressure
appliances would include those that use ODS and non-ODS refrigerants.
EPA is proposing to update the list of example refrigerants with the
most common types currently used in these systems, including ODS and
non-ODS refrigerants. Specifically, these are R-22, R-407A, R-407C, R-
410A, and R-502.
Industrial Process Refrigeration
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term industrial
process refrigeration to make minor clarifications for readability and
to remove a citation to a section of the regulation that has moved. EPA
is proposing to define industrial process refrigeration as complex
customized appliances that are directly linked to the processes used
in, for example, the chemical, pharmaceutical, petrochemical, and
manufacturing industries. This sector also includes industrial ice
machines, appliances used directly in the generation of electricity,
and ice rinks. Where one appliance is used for both industrial process
refrigeration and other applications, it will be considered industrial
process refrigeration equipment if 50 percent or more of its operating
capacity is used for industrial process refrigeration.
Industrial Process Shutdown
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term industrial
process shutdown to remove a citation to a section of the regulation
that has moved.
Initial Verification Test
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term initial
verification test to remove duplicative text covered in the required
practices section of the regulation. The proposed revisions describe in
general terms what the test is, not what the requirements of the test
are. The purpose of the test is to verify that an appliance has been
repaired prior to adding refrigerant back into the system. The
requirements for an initial verification test are described in Section
IV.F.10 of this preamble. EPA is proposing to define initial
verification test as those leak tests that are conducted as soon as
practicable after the repair is finished to verify that a leak or leaks
have been repaired before refrigerant is added back to the appliance.

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

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

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

B. Proposed Changes to the Venting Prohibition in Section 82.154

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. Proposed Changes to the Evacuation Requirements in Section 82.156

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

conducted by certified technicians, but the agency would recommend some
training for the person to ensure they are knowledgeable of the various
leak inspection methods. EPA requests comments on whether there are
methods of leak detection other than these three that would be
sufficient for the purposes of this rule, and if these three methods
are all appropriate.
    Some owners, especially for large, complex appliances, will
evacuate the system periodically to inspect for leaks and to determine
the full charge of an appliance. EPA seeks comment on whether this
should be added as another viable leak inspection technique. This
option may be appropriate because of EPA experience administering a
consent decree. One company was required as part of a consent decree to
evacuate an appliance to determine the full charge and inspect for
leaks. The Agency's understanding is that the company found the
practice to be a useful way to also find and fix leaks earlier, and now
evacuates the system annually to inspect for leaks. As a result, the
company has been able to keep the leak rate of the affected appliance
significantly lower, saving money on refrigerant and keeping equipment
operating more efficiently. EPA is not proposing to require such
evacuation, but is seeking comment on whether evacuation of an
appliance should be another leak inspection option. EPA also seeks
comment on the best way to describe this option in the regulation.
Generally, EPA intends to allow leak inspections to be conducted by
people who are not certified technicians. This option, however, would
require a certified technician to do the work. EPA can see value in
providing additional flexibility for owners and operators if they
already conduct comprehensive leak inspections periodically by
evacuating the appliance.
    EPA is proposing to require that owners or operators of commercial
refrigeration appliances or IPR normally containing 500 or more pounds
of refrigerant conduct quarterly leak inspections of the appliance,
including the appliance's refrigerant circuit. Inspections would be
annual for commercial refrigeration appliances and IPR containing 50
pounds or more but less than 500 pounds of refrigerant, as well as
comfort cooling appliances and other appliances normally containing 50
or more pounds of refrigerant. More frequent monitoring is important
for larger commercial refrigeration appliances or IPR because those
systems tend to have more leaks than comfort cooling appliances and
because the amount of refrigerant that would be lost in a leak is
greater.
    The proactive quarterly or annual leak inspections, as currently
proposed, are distinct from the leak inspection that EPA is proposing
to require at Sec.  82.157(e)(1) that occurs after discovering the leak
rate had exceeded the applicable leak rate.
    EPA recognizes that some appliances are more leak tight than
others. Therefore, EPA is proposing to allow annual rather than
quarterly inspections for commercial refrigeration appliances or IPR
normally containing 500 or more pounds of refrigerant if they satisfy
one condition: Refrigerant has not been added to the appliance for more
than 365 days (excluding an addition for a seasonal variance as defined
in this proposal). Not needing to add refrigerant is an indication that
the system is not leaking. However, once refrigerant is added to an
appliance, the appliance owner or operator must resume quarterly leak