[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 216 (Monday, November 9, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69457-69558]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26946]

Vol. 80

Monday,

No. 216

November 9, 2015

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 82

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What action is the Agency taking?
    C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
    D. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?
II. Background
    A. What are ozone-depleting substances?
    B. What is the National Recycling and Emission Reduction
Program?
    C. What developments have occurred since EPA first established
the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program?
    D. What are the goals of this proposed rule?
    E. Stakeholder Engagement
    F. What are the major changes EPA is proposing?
III. The Clean Air Act and EPA's Authority for the Proposed
Revisions
IV. The Proposed Rule
    A. Proposed Changes to the Definitions in Section 82.152
    B. Proposed Changes to the Venting Prohibition in Section
82.154(a)
    C. Proposed Changes to the Refrigerant and Appliance Sales
Restrictions in Section 82.154
    D. Proposed Changes to the Evacuation Requirements in Section
82.156
    E. Proposed Changes to the Safe Disposal Provisions in Section
82.156(f)
    F. Proposed Changes to Leak Repair Requirements in Section
82.156(i)
    G. Proposed Changes to the Standards for Recovery and/or
Recycling Equipment in Section 82.158
    H. Proposed Changes for Equipment Testing Organizations in
Section 82.160
    I. Proposed Changes to the Technician Certification Requirements
in Section 82.161
    J. Proposed Changes to the Technician Certification Program
Requirements in Section 82.161
    K. Proposed Changes to the Reclamation Requirements in Section
82.164
    L. Proposed Changes to the Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements in Section 82.166
    M. Proposed Effective and Compliance Dates
V. Economic Analysis
VI. Possible Future Changes to Subpart F
    A. Appliance Maintenance and Leak Repair
    B. Refrigerant Reclamation
    C. Safe Disposal of Small Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-Like
Appliances
    D. Technician Certification
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and 1 CFR
part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

List of Acronyms

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

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

B. What action is the Agency taking?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. Background

A. What are ozone-depleting substances?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. What are the goals of this proposed rule?

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

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

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

E. Stakeholder Engagement

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

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

F. What are the major changes EPA is proposing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authority for Extending 608 to Substitutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authority for Amendments to Provisions Related to ODS

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

How CAA Sections 608 and 609 Work Together

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

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

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

IV. The Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Changes to the Definitions in Section 82.152

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

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

environment. This proposed change is intended to cover activities such
as vandalism or the cutting of refrigerant lines, both to steal metal
and to vent the refrigerant. EPA is also proposing to clarify that the
disassembly of an appliance for recycling, as well as reuse, is part of
the disposal process. EPA does not believe that these changes alter the
current understanding of the term and is proposing them to increase
clarity.
Follow-Up Verification Test
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term follow-up
verification test to remove duplicative text covered in Sec.  82.156
``Required Practices.'' The proposed revisions describe what the test
is and how it is conducted and not what the regulatory requirements of
the test are, which this rule proposes to move to Sec.  82.157(f). EPA
is proposing to define follow-up verification test as those tests that
involve checking the repairs to an appliance after a successful initial
verification test and after the appliance has returned to normal
operating characteristics and conditions to verify that the repairs
were successful. Follow-up verification tests include, but are not
limited to, the use of soap bubbles, electronic or ultrasonic leak
detectors, pressure or vacuum tests, fluorescent dye and black light,
infrared or near infrared tests, and handheld gas detection devices.
    EPA is not proposing to specify one test that would satisfy the
definition of follow-up verification. In addition, these methods are
not meant to be all-inclusive, but are intended to provide examples of
known methodologies of performing leak repair verification tests.
Full Charge and Seasonal Variance
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term full charge to
account for seasonal variances and to make minor edits for readability.
EPA noted in the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule that owners or
operators of commercial refrigeration appliances and IPR have expressed
concerns that the full charge may not be accurately determined due to
seasonal variances that may alter the amount of refrigerant in an
appliance. Seasonal variances in ambient temperature and pressure have
the effect of forcing refrigerant to different appliance components
(for example, from an appliance's receiver to the condenser).
    EPA proposed in 2010 to allow owners or operators to estimate the
effect that seasonal variances have on appliance components by making
calculations based on component sizes, density of refrigerant, volume
of piping, and other relevant considerations. EPA continues to believe
that owners or operators should be able to take seasonal variances into
account in determining the full charge. Unlike the 2010 proposal, EPA
is proposing that seasonal variances be accounted for using the actual
amount of refrigerant added to or evacuated from the appliance, rather
than estimates.
    EPA is proposing to define full charge as the amount of refrigerant
required for normal operating characteristics and conditions of the
appliance as determined by using one or a combination of the following
four methods:
    (1) Use of the equipment manufacturer's determination of the full
charge;
    (2) Use of appropriate calculations based on component sizes,
density of refrigerant, volume of piping, and other relevant
considerations;
    (3) Use of actual measurements of the amount of refrigerant added
to or evacuated from the appliance, including for seasonal variances;
and/or
    (4) Use of an established range based on the best available data
regarding the normal operating characteristics and conditions for the
appliance, where the midpoint of the range will serve as the full
charge.
    EPA is proposing to create a defined term seasonal variance to mean
the addition of refrigerant to an appliance due to a change in ambient
conditions caused by a change in season, followed by the subsequent
removal of an equal amount of refrigerant due to a later corresponding
change in season, where both the addition and removal of refrigerant
occurs within one consecutive 12-month period. The proposal to account
for seasonal variance when calculating appliance leak rates is
discussed further in Section IV.F. of this preamble.
    Unlike in the 2010 proposal, EPA is not proposing to require that
an owner or operator choose solely one method rather than a combination
of methods to determine full charge. There are instances where multiple