dramatic expansion of the exemption to the venting prohibition. The
commenter states that establishing a separate class of equipment that
does not require proper refrigerant management practices will only
increase confusion in the field and exacerbate the problem of illegal
venting.
    EPA agrees with the comments that the extension of the subpart F
regulations increases clarity. EPA disagrees that its clarification
that exempt substitutes are not subject to the subpart F requirements
is an expansion of the exemption since the service practices and
requirements in subpart F had previously only applied to ODS
refrigerant. There are a couple of reasons for EPA's present view that
it is appropriate not to extend the provisions of subpart F to
refrigerants that have been exempted from the venting prohibition.
First, EPA has previously determined that the release of these
substances do not pose a threat to the environment or are already
controlled by other authorities. (See 69 FR 11949, 80 FR 19454, and 81
FR 22810). Given those decisions, it would generally not make sense to
require all procedures for recovery or safe disposal, or to apply all
other provisions of subpart F to those exempt refrigerants. This is
consistent with the intent of section 608(c)(2), which states that
substitutes may be exempted from the venting prohibition if the
Administrator determines that not just the venting but also the
``releasing, or disposing'' of such substance does not pose a threat to
the environment.
    Second, the refrigerant management practices in subpart F may be
inappropriate for some of the exempted refrigerants. For example, the
venting of exempt hydrocarbon refrigerants in certain end-uses may be
the safest option for technicians at this time, considering that such
refrigerants are flammable but most existing recovery equipment were
not designed and constructed, e.g. with spark-proof components, for use
on flammable refrigerants. As long as the Administrator has determined
that such venting of those substances in those end-uses does not pose a
threat to the environment, such venting is legal and may be safer than
following the subpart F requirements in some circumstances.
4. Releases From Containers
    EPA is moving the previous regulatory provision in Sec.
82.154(a)(2) that states that the venting prohibition applies to the
release of refrigerant (both ODS and non-exempt substitute
refrigerants) after its recovery from an appliance. EPA is moving this
provision to a separate paragraph (Sec.  82.154(a)(3)) rather than its
previous location in the description of a de minimis release. Standing
alone should make the provision clearer that it is a violation of the
venting prohibition to vent or otherwise release refrigerant after that
refrigerant is recovered from an appliance, whether from cylinders,
recovery equipment, or any other storage container or device. The
venting prohibition cannot be circumvented by using a recovery device
and subsequently releasing the refrigerant. This is especially
important because refrigerant recovered from appliances may be
contaminated or be a mixture of multiple refrigerants. Such refrigerant
may be difficult to reclaim or may require a fee for proper disposal or
destruction. In light of those difficulties, it is important to
emphasize that venting this refrigerant, even though it is in a
cylinder and not an appliance, is illegal. EPA did not receive any
comments on this provision and is finalizing it as proposed.

C. Revisions to the Refrigerant and Appliance Sales Restrictions in
Sec.  82.154

1. Background
    Under the prior regulations at Sec.  82.154(m), the sale or
distribution of a refrigerant containing a class I or class II
substance, such as R-12 or refrigerant blends that include HCFCs, is
restricted to technicians certified under sections 608 or 609 of the
CAA. The sale or distribution of any class I or class II substance
suitable for use in an MVAC that is in a container of less than 20
pounds may only be sold to technicians certified under section 609.
    The prior regulations at Sec.  82.154(g) also restricted the sale
of used ODS refrigerant sold for reuse unless certain conditions are
met, the most important of which is that the refrigerant has been
reclaimed. Sections 82.154(j) and (k) prohibited the sale of appliances
containing an ODS refrigerant unless the appliance has a servicing
aperture or process stub to facilitate the removal of refrigerant at
servicing and disposal. Section 82.154(p) prohibited the manufacture or
import of one-time expansion devices that contain any refrigerant (ODS
or non-ODS), other than exempted refrigerants.
2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants
    Through today's rule, EPA is extending the sales restriction to
HFCs and other non-exempt substitute refrigerants. This sales
restriction applies to non-exempt substitute refrigerants sold in all
sizes of containers for use in all types of appliances, including
MVACs. EPA is creating an exception for small cans (two pounds or less)
of refrigerant intended to service MVACs, so long as the cans are
equipped with a self-sealing valve. EPA is also restricting the sale of
used non-exempt substitute refrigerants.
    Since 1993, EPA has restricted the sale of ODS refrigerant to
certified technicians as a means of ensuring that only qualified
individuals--those who have sufficient knowledge of the safe handling
regulations--actually handle refrigerant. EPA considers the restriction
on the sale of ODS refrigerant to be important for ensuring compliance
with and aiding enforcement of the regulations issued under sections
608 and 609 of the CAA. This requirement also relates to EPA's Next
Generation Compliance strategy since compliance with this requirement
is largely carried out by distributors who sell refrigerant to
technicians. In this rulemaking, EPA is choosing to apply the same
requirements for sales of ODS and non-exempt substitutes. Limiting the
sale of non-exempt substitute refrigerants to technicians who have
demonstrated knowledge of safe handling practices helps minimize the
release of refrigerants during the maintenance, servicing, and repair
of appliances containing such substitute refrigerants. A sales
restriction for non-exempt substitute refrigerants also provides
important support to the extension of the technician certification
requirements to individuals working with non-exempt substitute
refrigerants.
    Generally, commenters are supportive of EPA's proposal and agree
with EPA's rationale. Commenters who are generally opposed to extending
EPA's regulations under section 608 to substitutes did not specifically
raise the issue of whether EPA had authority to extend the sales
restriction to HFCs and other non-exempt substitute refrigerants. EPA
addresses the general comments about its authority for extending the
refrigerant management regulations, as appropriate, to non-exempt
substitute refrigerants in Section III of this notice. Some commenters
stated that the sales restriction should be extended to hydrocarbons.
These commenters noted that the flammability of these refrigerants
poses far greater risks than that of R-22 when handling it and
servicing equipment. Because the sales restriction is an element of the
broader technician certification provisions of subpart F, EPA responds
to comments concerning the sale and

handling of flammable refrigerants in Section IV.I of this notice.
3. Sales of Small Cans
a. What is EPA finalizing concerning small cans of MVAC refrigerant?
    Historically, individuals have been able to purchase small cans of
non-ODS refrigerant to service their own vehicles. This do-it-yourself
(DIY) servicing is unique in the air-conditioning and refrigeration
sector to the MVAC end-use. As mentioned previously in this notice, EPA
is finalizing the extension of the sales restriction to non-exempt
substitutes. EPA is also finalizing an exemption from the sales
restriction for small cans of MVAC refrigerant that are manufactured
with a self-sealing valve to minimize the release of refrigerant during
servicing because the Agency has concluded that restricting the sale of
small cans of refrigerant for use in servicing MVAC would be
unnecessarily burdensome. If EPA extended the sales restriction to
substitute refrigerants without exempting small cans, the sale of both
small containers of refrigerant, which are used for DIY servicing of
MVAC systems, and typical size (e.g., 25- or 30-pound) cylinders of
refrigerant used by technicians to service MVAC and other appliances
would be limited to certified technicians.
    In the United States, HFC-134a has been used in all newly
manufactured vehicles with air-conditioning systems since 1994 and
almost all small cans of refrigerant sold for MVAC DIY use are cans of
HFC-134a.\18\ More recently, the SNAP program listed HFO-1234yf, HFC-
152a, and carbon dioxide (CO2 or R-744), three climate-
friendly alternatives for MVAC, as acceptable subject to use conditions
for use in new light-duty vehicles. Manufacturers are currently
producing or are actively developing light-duty models using these
three refrigerants. As finalized in this rule, the exception
for small cans would apply to HFC-134a, HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, as well
as any additional MVAC refrigerants listed as acceptable subject to use
conditions under SNAP that are not exempt from the venting prohibition.
Because CO2 is exempt from the venting prohibition, it is
not subject to the sales restrictions and certification is not required
for its purchase in any size container. EPA has not received a
submission of a unique fitting for use on a small can of HFO-1234yf;
therefore, at this time this refrigerant cannot be sold in small cans
to individuals, regardless of the exemption finalized in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ ODS refrigerant for MVAC servicing that is sold in
cylinders less than 20 pounds is currently restricted to technicians
certified under section 609 of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the NPD Automotive Aftermarket Industry Monitor, 2008,
approximately 14 million small cans are sold each year. If EPA were to
extend the sales restriction to small cans without the exemption for
small cans with self-sealing valves, individuals who normally service
their own MVAC would be required to either seek certification under
section 609 or take their car to a technician to be serviced. EPA
estimates that the cost associated with those two actions could be as
much as $1.5 billion per year. For more details, see Analysis of the
Economic Impact and Benefits of Final Revisions to the National
Recycling and Emission Reduction Program in the docket.
    EPA's proposal to exempt small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC
systems that are equipped with a self-sealing valve was informed by
input from the Auto Care Association and the Automotive Refrigeration
Products Institute, two associations that represent the vast majority
of manufacturers of small cans in the United States. EPA also reached
out to CARB and other industry representatives as discussed in the
NPRM. Based on California's experience, EPA proposed the exemption for
small cans equipped with self-sealing valves as an effective way to
reduce emissions of HFCs used to service MVACs without limiting sales
to certified technicians. These valves reduce the release of
refrigerant during servicing and reduce releases from the can after the
servicing is complete.
    Manufacturers already produce small cans with self-sealing valves
to meet California's requirements. According to industry
representatives and CARB, self-sealing valves are estimated to cost
$0.25 per can. In light of that information, EPA does not find it to be
unduly burdensome to add self-sealing valves to all small cans produced
for sale in the United States, especially as compared to an extension
of the sales restriction that would prohibit the sale of small cans to
non-certified persons. Because they are incorporated into the product,
consistent with EPA's Next Generation Compliance principles, the
individual servicing her or his personal MVAC would reduce emissions
without any additional effort or training, as compared to using small
cans of refrigerant on the market today that do not employ a self-
sealing valve. Thus, EPA has determined that self-sealing valves are an
effective mechanism for controlling the release of non-exempt
substitute refrigerants to the atmosphere, making it unnecessary to
impose burdensome training and/or certification requirements more
broadly at this time.
    As described in Analysis of the Economic Impact and Benefits of
Final Revisions to the National Recycling and Emission Reduction
Program, EPA estimates that a nationwide requirement to use self-
sealing valves on all small cans will reduce emissions by more than
0.657 MMTCO2eq. per year. EPA also anticipates there could
be additional emissions reductions to the extent the self-sealing
valves allow individuals to store and re-use the same can of
refrigerant, reducing the need to buy additional small cans. Currently,
a small can is typically used in one vehicle and then discarded with
some refrigerant still remaining in the can -from which it will
ultimately be released to the environment. EPA estimates that the
annual cost for this requirement would be approximately $3 million with
the cost decreasing over time as manufacturers increase production and
achieve greater economies of scale.
    EPA is finalizing a new appendix E establishing a standard for
self-sealing valves that is based largely on CARB's Test Procedure for
Leaks from Small Containers of Automotive Refrigerant, TP-503, as
amended January 5, 2010. To be consistent with the CARB standard and
existing small cans that are already on the market, the leakage rate
may not exceed 3.00 grams per year when the self-sealing valve is
closed. This leakage rate applies to full containers as well as
containers that have been used and are partially full.
b. How is EPA responding to comments about this topic?
    EPA received comments from several manufacturers, distributors, and
retailers of automotive refrigerant, and associations representing
them, in support of requiring that the small cans be outfitted with
self-sealing valves and not restricting the sale of small cans to
certified technicians. EPA also received comments from multiple
industry associations and CARB supporting these provisions.
    Two environmental organizations were opposed to the proposed
exemption for small cans equipped with self-sealing valves. The
commenters recommend that only certified technicians be allowed to
purchase MVAC refrigerant, regardless of the container size. The
commenters believe that the DIY community is a large source of
emissions of automotive refrigerant. Specifically, they claimed that
emissions occur because DIYers are untrained in the use of the product,
they

vent remaining refrigerant from the MVAC prior to recharging it because
they do not own recovery and recycling equipment, and they are merely
filling, rather than repairing, a leaking system. One of the commenters
estimated the annual emissions of automotive refrigerant at 18
MMTCO2eq.
    EPA responds that DIY servicing is unique to the MVAC end-use, as
discussed previously in this notice. EPA did not propose to restrict
the sale of small cans of MVAC refrigerant to certified technicians,
explaining its concerns that such a requirement could be unnecessarily
burdensome (80 FR 69479; Nov. 9, 2015). If EPA were to prohibit DIY
servicing, individuals who normally service their own MVAC would be
required to either seek certification under section 609 or take their
car to a technician to be serviced. EPA estimates that the cost
associated with those two actions could be as much as $1.5 billion per
year. In the short term, EPA has concluded that requiring small cans of
refrigerant to have self-sealing valves is an effective mechanism for
controlling the release of refrigerant to the atmosphere by DIYers from
the can of refrigerant. In the longer term, the transition to new MVAC
refrigerants will reduce emissions of high GWP refrigerants from DIY
servicing at little to no cost for DIYers.
    EPA has estimated that the requirement for self-sealing valves on
small cans of refrigerant will reduce refrigerant emissions by 0.657
MMTCO2eq. per year compared to the current status. Self-
sealing valves prevent emissions of the gas remaining in the can after
the system is fully filled. Currently, if a system takes 1.5 cans to
fill, the DIYer will have no choice but to allow the extra 0.5 can to
be released to the environment after detaching it. Furthermore, because
self-sealing valves allow individuals to store and re-use the same can
of refrigerant, there may be less need to buy additional small cans.
CARB has claimed benefits of 0.25-0.47 MMTCO2eq for their small can
program in 2020. However, because their program includes more than just
self-sealing valves (e.g., refundable deposits), the benefits are not
directly comparable. CARB has noted a reduction in sales of small cans
of 1.1 million to 1.9 million cans, which they attribute to the
effectiveness in the valves and the displacement of new purchases by
later use of the remaining heel.
    EPA received one comment from a chemical manufacturer stating that
they would support the continued sale of small cans without self-
sealing valves but limit those sales to certified technicians under
section 609. EPA does not see the benefit of restricting the sale of
small cans to people certified under section 609 since small cans of
refrigerant that do not have self-sealing valves are inherently
emissive. Being certified under section 609 would not prevent the
emission of the refrigerant from the heel of the can.
    Commenters who oppose the sale of small cans generally do support
the requirement to use self-sealing valves if there is not a total ban
on sales. One commenter also strongly recommended that EPA allow the
sale of small cans of HFO-1234yf and HFC-152a so that DIY consumers
will not be enticed to recharge their HFO-1234yf system with HFC-134a
for the lack of any alternative. EPA responds that the regulations at
Sec.  82.154(c)(1)(x) as revised in this action include any non-exempt
substitute refrigerant that is intended for use in an MVAC. Therefore,
small cans of HFO-1234yf and HFC-152a would be exempt from the sales
restriction but also have the same requirements for unique fittings and
self-sealing valves under section 608. As discussed previously in this
notice, HFO-1234yf cannot currently be sold in small cans because a
submission has not yet been made to SNAP for a unique fitting for small
cans of HFO-1234yf. This action under section 608 does not prohibit the
sale of any MVAC refrigerant alternative in a small can; however,
refrigerants must be listed as acceptable or acceptable subject to use
conditions for MVAC and unique fittings for small cans must be
established under section 612 of the CAA prior to use\19\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ ``Use'' is defined at 40 CFR 82.172 to include ``use in a
manufacturing process or product, in consumption by the end-user, or
in intermediate uses, such as formulation or packaging for other
subsequent uses.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Small cans of refrigerant sold for MVAC servicing are different
from containers of refrigerant sold for stationary refrigeration and
air-conditioning in that the small cans for MVAC are required to have
unique fittings. The SNAP program requires as a use condition for MVAC
refrigerants that the container and the MVAC system use unique fittings
to prevent cross-contamination. If used properly, the unique fittings
will not allow for the introduction of HFC-134a refrigerant into a
system using any other refrigerant, including CFC-12, HFO-1234yf, or
another approved substitute refrigerant. Using an adapter or
deliberately modifying a fitting to use a different refrigerant is a
violation of the SNAP use conditions. Unique fittings will also reduce
the likelihood that a small can will be used to service appliances
other than MVACs that use non-exempt substitute refrigerants, which
would be in contravention of the sales restriction.
    Refrigerant sold for MVAC servicing is also different than other
refrigerant because of the limited types of equipment that could be
serviced with a small can. First, many household appliances that use
refrigerants are hermetically sealed, like a refrigerator. Someone who
wanted to open that appliance would need greater skill and specialized
equipment to service the appliance since there would not be a servicing
port to access. This makes it less likely that homeowners would attempt
to use a small can to service other small household appliances. Larger
appliances that use HFC-134a that are not hermetically sealed, like a
reach-in cooler, would need more than one small can to fully charge the
appliance. Because of the cost and the added effort to use multiple
small cans to charge a larger appliance, it is not practical for
someone to use a small can. This would likely lead the person to
purchase a larger container of refrigerant, which would require that
the person be a certified technician.
    Commenters, including CARB, supported the use of CARB's standards.
One commenter representing the manufacturers of small cans noted that
this standard was developed in a cooperative effort between CARB and
the refrigerant industry and that the procedures described in the
standard have been used since 2010 to certify small cans sold in the
California market. The commenter also stated that adopting the
California standard would also allow for a quicker transition to cans
with self-sealing valves, while development and adoption of a new
standard would require a longer transition time and therefore, EPA
should provide a later compliance date.
    EPA agrees with the commenters and has determined that the
establishment of the standard in appendix E, which is based on CARB's
Test Procedure for Leaks from Small Containers of Automotive
Refrigerant, TP-503, is appropriate. This provides for one uniform
standard across the nation, thus simplifying compliance and avoiding
potential burdens associated with complying with two different
standards, one in California and another in the rest of the country. No
commenter identified any other standard for self-sealing valves. EPA is
finalizing the provisions in the newly created appendix E without any
changes from the proposal.
    EPA requested comment on whether the final rule should exempt the
sale of

HFC-134a only or of all MVAC substitute refrigerants in small cans. One
commenter responded that the exemption should apply to all refrigerants
for use in MVAC and MVAC-like appliances because the rationale applies
equally to other MVAC refrigerants. The minimal leakage and venting
from small cans of other refrigerants is relatively the same as from
small cans of HFC-l34a, and the commenters know of no technical reason
why a self-sealing valve could not be created for those cans also. EPA
appreciates the commenters' support for the proposal to apply the
exemption to all MVAC substitute refrigerants. EPA is finalizing the
exemption as proposed. It will apply to all MVAC substitute
refrigerants, except those exempt from the venting prohibition. EPA
also notes that refrigerants for use in MVAC-like appliances are not
exempt from the sales prohibition, consistent with EPA's approach to
MVAC-like appliances historically. Under section 609, technician
certification is required only when a person is servicing an MVAC
system for consideration whereas MVAC-like appliances must always be
serviced by a certified technician.
4. Servicing Apertures and Process Stubs
    EPA is finalizing revisions that require that new appliances
containing a non-exempt substitute refrigerant (including a used non-
exempt substitute refrigerant) have a servicing aperture or process
stub to facilitate the recovery of refrigerant at servicing and
disposal. Including these design features on appliances containing such
substitutes facilitates compliance with the section 608(c) prohibition
against the venting, release, or disposal of substitute refrigerants
into the environment. These access points allow for the proper
evacuation or recovery of substitute refrigerant, preventing releases
to the atmosphere in the course of maintaining, servicing, repairing,
or disposing of the appliance. Without these access points, it would be
harder for persons maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of
such appliances to properly evacuate the refrigerant in accordance with
Sec.  82.156(b). For example, these access points provide the person
disposing of an appliance the opportunity to properly remove the
refrigerant prior to crushing or shredding and thus avoid a knowing
release. EPA did not receive comments on this provision. The
manufacture or import of one-time expansion devices that contain any
refrigerant (ODS or non-ODS), other than exempted refrigerants, was
prohibited under the prior regulations. One-time expansion devices, by
design, release their refrigerant charge to the environment in order to
provide a cooling effect. Examples include self-chilled beverage
containers that must be disposed of or recycled after each use, as well
as reusable containers. EPA is finalizing minor edits to this
prohibition that reference the list of exempt refrigerants as proposed.
EPA did not receive any comments on this provision.

D. Revisions to the Safe Disposal Provisions in Sec.  82.155

1. Background
    In the 1993 Rule, EPA established specific requirements for the
safe disposal of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances
containing ODS refrigerant since they typically enter the waste stream
with the refrigerant charge intact. Under the prior rules at Sec.
82.156(f), persons who took the final step in the disposal process of
such appliances had to either recover any remaining refrigerant in the
appliance or verify that the refrigerant has previously been recovered
from the appliance or shipment of appliances. If they verified that the
refrigerant has been recovered previously, they had to retain a signed
statement attesting to this or a contract from the supplier of the
appliances for three years. While recovery equipment used to remove the
refrigerant had to be certified under Sec.  82.158, persons recovering
the refrigerant at disposal did not need to be certified technicians.
2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants
    EPA is extending the preexisting safe disposal provisions
previously found at Sec.  82.156(f) for small appliances, MVACs, and
MVAC-like appliances containing ODS refrigerants to the same types of
appliances that contain non-exempt substitute refrigerants. Generally,
commenters support EPA's proposal and agree with EPA's rationale.
Commenters who stated that EPA does not have authority to extend
section 608 regulations to substitutes were silent on the specific
issue of the safe disposal provisions. A fuller and more general
discussion of the authority for this action is found in Section III of
this notice.
    Safely disposing of both ODS and substitute refrigerant in small
appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances is important for the
environment and public health. According to EPA's Vintaging Model,\20\
EPA projects that the GWP-weighted amount of refrigerant contained
within MVACs and small appliances in use in 2015 was more than 260
MMTCO2eq and 175 MMTCO2eq, respectively. This
constitutes 12 and 8 percent, respectively, of the total GWP-weighted
amount of refrigerant contained within all appliances in the United
States in 2015. On an ODP-weighted basis, EPA estimates that more than
1,400 ODP-weighted metric tons of refrigerant were contained within
small appliances in 2015, representing 5 percent of the refrigerant
contained within all appliances in the United States. While EPA
projects that these amounts will decrease over time as zero-ODP and
low-GWP substitute refrigerants penetrate the market, the need for
robust safe disposal requirements remains because these appliances are
used for a long time. One commenter agreed, noting that forty percent
of the refrigerators sent to their recovery facility were manufactured
prior to 1993 and contain CFCs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ EPA's Vintaging Model estimates the annual chemical
emissions from industry sectors that have historically used ODS,
including air-conditioning and refrigeration. The model uses
information on the market size and growth for each of the end-uses,
as well as a history and projections of the market transition from
ODS to alternatives. The model tracks emissions of annual
``vintages'' of new equipment that enter into operation by
incorporating information on estimates of the quantity of equipment
or products sold, serviced, and retired or converted each year, and
the quantity of the compound required to manufacture, charge, and/or
maintain the equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter approves of the clear signal that the rule sends for
appliances containing exempt refrigerants. However, this commenter asks
how a recipient of a component of such an appliance for disposal would
be aware that the subpart F requirements do not apply to that
component. EPA responds that the only likely exempt refrigerant in that
scenario is a small appliance containing a flammable refrigerant. As
required under the SNAP use conditions, the component would have
markings such as red tubing or a warning label that would distinguish
that component from other components. The labels must be placed on the
outside of the appliance, on the inside of the appliance near the
compressor, on or near any evaporators that can be contacted by the
consumer, near the machine compartment, and near any and all exposed
refrigerant tubing.
3. Clarifications to the Existing Program
    The safe disposal regulations require actions of three separate
groups of people: The final processor, the supplier of appliances for
disposal, and the person who recovers the refrigerant. The final
processor is the person who takes the final step in the disposal
process,

typically a scrap recycler or landfill operator. Final processors may
receive appliances with a charge or without a charge. The supplier is
the person dropping off the appliance (or shipment of appliances) for
disposal. The person who recovers the refrigerant may be the final
processor, the supplier, or a separate third entity. EPA is finalizing
as proposed regulatory text to help clarify the different actors.
    Refrigerant may be recovered at any stage in the disposal process,
even prior to the supplier taking possession. As EPA stated in the 1993
Rule, ``the supplier to the final processor does not have to remove the
refrigerant but then must assure, through an accompanying
certification, that refrigerant has been removed earlier in the
disposal chain. Any copies of the certificate of removal provided to
the supplier could be passed on to the final processor.'' (58 FR 28704-
28705). EPA's intent has been to provide the flexibility needed to
permit the recovery of refrigerant by the entity in the disposal chain
that can accomplish that task most efficiently while at the same time
establishing a mechanism to help ensure that the refrigerant has not
simply been illegally vented. This flexibility is important for the
disposal sector, which is highly diverse and decentralized. This signed
certification serves both goals.
    EPA is revising the regulations to clarify what must be in the
contract stating that refrigerant will be removed prior to delivery.
EPA is replacing the word ``remove'' which appears repeatedly in these
provisions with ``properly recover.'' These revisions clarify the
provisions' intent that the refrigerant is recovered to the required
evacuation levels using the appropriate equipment. EPA is also stating
explicitly that the contract should provide that the supplier of the
appliances is responsible for recovering any remaining refrigerant or
verifying that the refrigerant has already been evacuated. As discussed
in the 1993 Rule, the supplier to the final processor does not have to
remove the refrigerant but must assure, through accompanying
certifications, that the refrigerant has been removed earlier in the
disposal chain.
    EPA notes here that a contract is appropriate for businesses to
streamline transactions in cases where they maintain long-standing
business relationships. A contract would be entered into prior to the
transaction, such as during the set-up of a customer account, not
simultaneously with the transaction. A signed statement is more
appropriate for one-off transactions between the supplier and the final
processor.
    EPA is also clarifying the format that the records required under
this section may take. In general, where the regulations in subpart F
require an individual to maintain records, the Agency intends for them
to do so either in an electronic or paper format, preferably in an
electronic system. EPA is clarifying this point explicitly in the
recordkeeping provision at Sec.  82.155(c).
    One commenter stated that the new Sec.  82.155 will remain unclear
if EPA does not review the relevant applicability determinations for
potential inclusion in the regulatory text. EPA responds that
applicability determinations are only applicable to the person
requesting the determination from EPA. However, in response to the
comment, EPA has reviewed and is incorporating information from
specific applicability determinations into the regulatory text where
the Agency finds it will increase clarity to the industry as a whole.
    Two applicability determinations address the situation where
refrigerant has leaked out of an appliance prior to arriving at the
final disposer. Applicability determination number 608-8 addresses
whether a verification statement is needed where all of the refrigerant
has already leaked out due to a break in the refrigerant circuit.
Applicability determination number 608-9 addresses whether the term
leaked out includes instances in which the line has been cut prior to
the delivery of the appliance. EPA's determination in 1993 was that if
all the refrigerant has leaked out, the signed statement need not
contain the name and address of the person who performed the recovery
as no such person exists. The signed statement must, however, clearly
state that all the refrigerant in the appliance had already leaked out.
EPA also determined that ``leaked out'' means those situations in which
the refrigerant has escaped because of system failures, accidents, or
other unavoidable occurrences not caused by a person's deliberate acts
or negligence, such as deliberately cutting refrigerant lines. Scrap
processors may accept appliances whose lines have been cut as long as
they obtain a signed statement from the supplier. This includes
appliances that have been vandalized. EPA is incorporating information
from these determinations into the regulatory text at Sec.
82.155(b)(2)(iii).
    Two applicability determinations address whether the verification
statements are needed for appliances that arrive at the final processor
in various conditions. Applicability determination number 608-8
pertains to the situation where the entire refrigeration circuit has
been removed from the appliance prior to delivery. Applicability
determination number C040001 pertains to (1) receipt of an appliance in
which some components of the refrigerant circuit have been removed; (2)
receipt of portions of the refrigerant circuit (e.g., compressor); (3)
receipt of an appliance in which the entire refrigerant circuit has
been removed; and (4) receipt of an appliance which has previously been
through a process in which refrigerant would have been released or
recovered.
    EPA's determinations in 1993 and 1996 were that the first two
situations would be subject to the safe disposal regulations and the
third and fourth situations would not be. Any equipment that contained
refrigerant is subject to the safe disposal requirements. This includes
a complete appliance with an intact refrigerant circuit, an appliance
with a broken refrigerant circuit such as one with a component removed,
or a single component that would contain refrigerant in an appliance.
In all such instances the intent of the safe disposal program--to
verify that the refrigerant was recovered properly--still applies.
    Consistent with these determinations, EPA interprets its
regulations such that items that have had the entire refrigerant
circuit removed, such as the outer housing of an air conditioner or the
structural shell of a refrigerator, are not subject to the safe
disposal regulations, as these items do not meet the definition of
appliance. Similarly, shredded material, baled scrap, or crushed cars
are not subject to the safe disposal regulations. The person
responsible for compliance with the safe disposal regulations is the
entity upstream that conducted the final processing where the appliance
was shredded, crushed, flattened, baled, or otherwise demolished and
where the refrigerant would have been previously recovered in
accordance with the regulations.
4. Hazardous Wastes
    One commenter requested that EPA exclude hydrocarbon refrigerants
that are vented from the definition of hazardous waste. The commenter
reacted to a discussion in the proposed rule that household appliances
containing a hydrocarbon refrigerant would be exempt as a household
hazardous waste under the federal hazardous waste regulations at 40 CFR
261.4(b)(1) (although States may have more stringent regulations) and
therefore, could generally be vented upon disposal under both RCRA and
CAA regulations. The commenter notes

that a household-type appliance may also originate from institutional
and commercial settings and therefore would not qualify for the
household waste exclusion under RCRA.
    EPA responds that these refrigerants may be subject to regulation
as hazardous waste, with the exception of refrigerants that are
directly reused. The Agency did not propose to amend the regulations
issued under RCRA in the proposal to this final action and has not
undertaken the analysis to do so at this time. This comment is also
outside the scope of this rulemaking, which relates to regulations
under section 608 of the CAA, not to regulations under RCRA.
5. Restructuring and Edits for Readability
    EPA is creating a single section, Sec.  82.155, for all safe
disposal provisions, including the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. One commenter supported moving the refrigerant recovery
requirements for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances into
a single section. The commenter suggested the section be titled ``Safe
Disposal of Refrigerant'' rather than ``Safe Disposal of Appliances''
as they stated that the CAA does not contain the concept of safe
disposal of appliances. While it is true that section 608(c) is
concerned with the entry of refrigerants into the environment, it
addresses such releases in the context of ``disposing of an
appliance.'' EPA disagrees that it is necessary to change the name of
the section. However, EPA has reorganized the section to put up front
the general requirement that refrigerant be evacuated from appliances
before describing the requirements of the final processor.

E. Revisions to the Evacuation Requirements in Sec.  82.156

1. Background
    Under EPA's existing regulations at Sec.  82.156(a), ODS
refrigerant must be transferred to a system receiver or to a certified
recovery and/or recycling machine before appliances are opened for
maintenance, service, or repair. The same requirement applies to
appliances that are to be disposed of, except for small appliances,
MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances which were subject to separate
requirements under Sec.  82.156(g) and (h). To ensure that the maximum
amount of refrigerant is captured rather than released, EPA requires
that air-conditioning and refrigeration appliances be evacuated to
specified levels of vacuum.
2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants
    EPA is finalizing revisions in this action that extend the existing
requirements at Sec.  82.156 to appliances containing non-exempt
substitute refrigerants. Therefore, before appliances containing non-
exempt substitute refrigerants are opened for maintenance, service, or
repair, the refrigerant in either the entire appliance or the affected
part (when it can be isolated) must be transferred to a system receiver
or to a certified recovery and/or recycling machine. The same
requirements apply to appliances that are to be disposed of, except for
small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances, which have separate
requirements.
    Generally, commenters were supportive of EPA's proposal and agreed
with EPA's rationale. Commenters who stated that EPA does not have
authority to extend section 608 regulations to substitutes were silent
on the specific issue of evacuation requirements. EPA addresses general
comments about its authority for this action in Section III of this
notice.
i. Evacuation Levels for Appliances Other Than Small Appliances, MVACs,
and MVAC-Like Appliances
    EPA is finalizing revisions to Sec.  82.156(a) such that appliances
other than small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances containing
non-exempt substitute refrigerants must be evacuated to the levels
established for CFCs and HCFCs with similar saturation pressures. These
levels are based on the saturation pressures of the refrigerant, which
is a characteristic independent of whether or not the refrigerant is an
ozone-depleting substance. As is the case for CFCs and HCFCs, the
appropriate evacuation levels for HFCs and other substitutes depends
upon the size of the appliance and the date of manufacture of the
recovery and/or recycling equipment. EPA did not receive comment
expressing any technical concerns with extending the evacuation
requirements to substitute refrigerants. Some commenters stated that
they currently treat ODS and HFC appliances in the same manner,
including the level of evacuation.
ii. Evacuation Levels for Small Appliances
    EPA is finalizing revisions to Sec.  82.156(b) to establish the
same evacuation requirements for servicing small appliances charged
with non-exempt substitute refrigerants as had previously existed only
for small appliances charged with ODS refrigerants. Technicians opening
small appliances for service, maintenance, or repair are required to
use equipment certified either under appendix B, based on AHRI 740, or
under appendix C, Method for Testing Recovery Devices for Use with
Small Appliances, to recover the refrigerant.
    Technicians using equipment certified under appendix B have to pull
a four-inch vacuum. Technicians using equipment certified under
appendix C have to capture 90 percent of the refrigerant in the
appliance if the compressor is operational, and 80 percent of the
refrigerant if the compressor is not operational. Because the
percentage of refrigerant recovered is very difficult to measure on any
given job, technicians would have to adhere to the servicing procedure
certified for that recovery system under appendix C to ensure that they
achieve the required recovery efficiencies.
    One commenter specifically expressed support for extending the
evacuation requirements to small appliances charged with non-exempt
substitutes but not to small appliances containing exempt refrigerants.
The commenter notes that the technician would be required to use
appropriately certified equipment to recover the refrigerant. EPA did
not propose to require the recovery of exempt refrigerants and agrees
that it would not be appropriate to finalize such a requirement in this
rule, as the venting prohibition does not apply to these substances.
    EPA is also revising Sec.  82.156(b) to establish the same
evacuation requirements for disposing of small appliances that are
charged with non-exempt substitute refrigerants as currently exist for
small appliances charged with ODS refrigerants. Small appliances must
have 80 or 90 percent of the refrigerant in them recovered (depending
on whether or not the compressor was operational) or be evacuated to
four inches of mercury vacuum.
    EPA is also finalizing revisions to the regulations to simplify the
evacuation requirements for small appliances so that they are the same
for both servicing and disposal. This new provision applies to both ODS
and non-exempt substitute refrigerants. Prior to this rulemaking, a
technician servicing a small appliance containing an ODS needed to only
recover 80 percent of the refrigerant when using recovery equipment
manufactured before November 15, 1993. At the same time, there was no
established level of evacuation in the disposal requirements when using
pre-1993 recovery

equipment. EPA is allowing that 80 percent level of evacuation for
disposal to simplify and unify the requirements. This revision will
have minimal effect as few people continue to use recovery equipment
manufactured prior to that date.
    One commenter stated that there should not continue to be separate
evacuation levels for recovery equipment manufactured before 1993. This
commenter saw such equipment being used only rarely and only to avoid
the deeper evacuation requirements. This commenter also stated that
pulling a 4-inch vacuum on a small appliance is not equal to 80 percent
refrigerant recovery. EPA responds that the proposal explicitly stated
that EPA was not proposing to amend the required levels of evacuation
in Table 1, change the circumstances that would allow for alternate
evacuation levels, or to revise those alternate levels. EPA understands
the concerns raised by the commenter, but removing the older evacuation
levels at this time is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
iii. Evacuation Levels for MVACs and MVAC-Like Appliances
    Technicians repairing or servicing MVACs for consideration and
MVAC-like appliances containing an ODS or a non-exempt substitute
refrigerant are subject to the requirement to ``properly use'' (as
defined at Sec.  82.32(e)) servicing equipment approved pursuant to
Sec.  82.36(a). All persons recovering refrigerant from MVACs and MVAC-
like appliances for purposes of disposal of these appliances must
reduce the system pressure to or below 102 mm of mercury vacuum or use
refrigerant recycling equipment dedicated for use with MVAC and MVAC-
like appliances approved pursuant to Sec.  82.36(a). The proposed rule
incorrectly extended the MVAC servicing requirement to all persons, not
just those servicing MVACs for consideration. EPA has revised the final
rule to properly distinguish between the two.
    EPA received a comment that section 608 of the CAA does not apply
to MVACs. As discussed above in Section III of this notice, section
608(c) provides EPA authority to regulate the disposal of MVACs, which
are a type of appliance. With respect to disposal of MVACs, this final
rule, like the prior regulations, only specifies evacuation levels for
such appliances when they are disposed.
3. Records for Disposal of Appliances With a Charge of More Than 5 and
Less Than 50 Pounds
    EPA is adding new recordkeeping requirements at Sec.  82.156(a)(3)
for the disposal of appliances with a full charge of more than five and
less than 50 pounds of either ODS or non-exempt substitute refrigerant.
Most appliances this size are disassembled in the field and as such
must have the refrigerant recovered in the field. EPA is requiring
records that document the name of the company that employs the
technician, the location of the appliance being disposed of, the date
of recovery, and the type of refrigerant removed from each appliance
prior to disposal. The technician who evacuated the refrigerant, or the
company employing that technician, must also maintain records
indicating the quantity and type of refrigerant transferred for
reclamation, the company that they transferred the gas to, and the date
of the transfer. The technician, or the company employing the
technician, would be required to maintain these records for three
years. By company employing the technician, EPA means the person paying
the technician's salary or wage, not the appliance owner or operator
who has hired the technician for that specific service. The finalized
regulations have one change compared to the proposal: EPA is not
requiring records indicating the amount and type of refrigerant
recovered from each separate appliance but rather the total amount and
types recovered from all appliances disposed of in each calendar month.
As described in more detail below, this modification from the proposed
revision was made after consideration of public comments.
    Comments in support of this proposed recordkeeping requirement
agreed with EPA's goal of improving the enforceability of the venting
prohibition. One commenter stated that EPA's rationale to improve
compliance with the venting prohibition and facilitate enforcement
against those who do vent is insufficient and not adequately supported
in the record. Another commenter believes that venting is not as
prevalent as EPA thinks it is and that to the extent that it does
occur, it is done by individuals who are not certified technicians.
    EPA responds that the Agency has heard from people throughout the
HVAC/R industry that venting regularly happens in appliances with more
than 5 and less than 50 pounds of refrigerant. One commenter to this
rule who regularly addresses contractor and service technician groups
hears from them that the venting prohibition is widely disregarded. At
a recent meeting EPA attended with air-conditioning and refrigeration
contractors, an industry speaker asked attendees what percentage of
technicians recover refrigerant. The estimates individuals offered were
generally between 10 to 30 percent, with the caveat that recovery is
much more common in the refrigeration industry than the air-
conditioning industry. EPA also receives numerous tips each year of
someone cutting refrigerant lines to quickly and illegally dispose of
appliances of this size. This feedback indicates a likelihood that
venting regularly occurs.
    At times, including in public fora such as the public meeting in
November 2014, stakeholders have requested that EPA increase
enforcement of the venting prohibition. At that meeting, some
stakeholders indicated that technicians will knowingly and illegally
vent refrigerant if they think EPA will not bring an enforcement
action. Multiple commenters urged the Agency to do a better job of
enforcing the venting prohibition. This request came from a broad cross
section of the air conditioning and refrigeration community including
refrigerant reclaimers, recycling and recovery equipment certifiers,
and appliance manufacturers and distributors. Some of these comments
stated that good actors who comply with the law are placed at a
competitive disadvantage by entities who can operate more cheaply by
skipping the required recovery practices and choose instead to
illegally vent refrigerant.
    The Agency has recently brought successful cases against
individuals who have illegally vented refrigerant. However, the
availability of the records required under this provision would enhance
the Agency's ability to enforce the venting prohibition because these
records could be used to demonstrate whether or not refrigerant has
been recovered and sent for reclamation. If refrigerant cannot be
accounted for, a company or technician may not be able to show that
they complied with the venting prohibition.
    Some commenters who objected to this proposal stated that EPA did
not provide sufficient justification and that EPA underestimated the
burden to technicians. EPA responds that it is reasonable to require
technicians and the companies employing technicians to maintain records
of the amount of refrigerant that they recover and send for reclamation
to enhance compliance with and enforceability of the venting
prohibition. There is a significant environmental benefit to ensuring
that ODS and HFC refrigerant are recovered from existing appliances of
this size at the time of disposal. Using EPA's Vintaging Model, EPA
estimated the number of appliances in this size category that are
disposed of annually,

the full charge of those appliances, and the type of refrigerant they
contain. EPA estimates that 7.3 million appliances of this size, with a
total charge of 27,300 MT of refrigerant, are disposed of annually.
This is equal to 960 ODP-weighted metric tons and 49.5
MMTCO2eq. This represents 45 percent of the total amount of
ODS and HFC refrigerants contained within all appliances from all size
categories that are disposed of annually.
    EPA's benefits assessment for the proposed rule did not calculate
any additional emissions reductions because the existing regulations
already require recovery when appliances are disposed. However, in
practical terms, requiring a record from each disposal event may drive
more technicians to comply with the venting prohibition because the
recordkeeping requirement places extra emphasis on the prohibition and
on the risks of violating it. Even slight improvements to compliance
could produce substantial environmental benefits.
    Another commenter stated that some IPR facilities may have hundreds
or even a thousand of these smaller 5-50 pound appliances and that
requiring additional tracking or recordkeeping would be unnecessary and
overly burdensome. Furthermore, the commenter continued, because
industry has the burden of proof that it is in compliance with the
venting prohibition, industry has established basic recordkeeping that
can meet the intent of this rule without requiring additional or
duplicative information. A couple of commenters similarly noted that it
is good business practice to recover refrigerant from such units prior
to disposal.
    EPA responds that the incentive to illegally vent may be less if
the owner has hundreds of appliances or uses in-house technicians. In
that situation, it may be good business practice to recover refrigerant
from a system being disposed of because that refrigerant can be reused
in that owner's other appliances. The desire to fit more service calls
into a day is also perhaps less when using in-house personnel. However,
in cases where a technician is getting paid by the job, there is an
economic incentive to minimize the time spent at each job-site which
could include venting refrigerant. EPA disagrees that such facilities
will require burdensome new tracking and recordkeeping. While a
facility may have many appliances, the records that EPA is requiring in
this rule are only necessary once--upon disposal--and only a small
subset of the total number of appliances is likely to be disposed of in
a given year.
    EPA has considered ways to minimize the burden to technicians in
light of commenters' concerns. EPA is modifying the final rule so as to
require records that are generated through normal operations in the
field. Therefore, EPA is removing the requirement to determine the
amount of refrigerant recovered from each appliance. Entities would not
be required to weigh cylinders or otherwise calculate how much
refrigerant they recovered at each and every site, which was the most
time consuming element of the proposed recordkeeping requirements.
Instead, EPA's goals can be achieved by requiring records of the amount
recovered in each calendar month. This way, recovery cylinders can be
weighed less frequently and at a centralized location or recovery
cylinders can simply be tallied if the amount of refrigerant in them is
known.
    One commenter encouraged EPA to consider exempting residential
systems from the recordkeeping requirements due to the nature of their
servicing. EPA responds that this recordkeeping requirement does not
apply to regular servicing, only disposal, which occurs much less
frequently.
    A couple of commenters requested clarification of who must maintain
records. One commenter did not support this requirement because they
believed it would require records be kept by homeowners. Another
commenter suggested that third-party collection sites not have
recordkeeping requirements so as to not discourage wholesalers and
storefronts from serving in the collection chain.
    EPA responds that the recordkeeping requirements finalized for this
provision apply solely to the company employing the technician (or to
the technician, if operating independently) who is disposing of the
appliance in both commercial and residential settings. This could be
the owner or operator of the appliances or it could be a contractor who
is hired to dispose of the appliance. When that company transfers the
refrigerant for reclamation they may have to receive records from other
entities (such as reclaimers or third-party collection sites) but those
receiving refrigerant are not obligated to maintain any records
themselves. EPA is not requiring any recordkeeping by the owners of the
appliance unless the owner of the appliance and the employer of the
technician are the same entity.
    One commenter suggested that EPA extend the proposed recordkeeping
requirements to those who collect at least 100 pounds of refrigerant
per year from small appliances. This commenter also suggested less
detailed records be kept in such instance, specifically (1) the
quantity of refrigerant recovered monthly, (2) the number of units
disposed of, and (3) the name of the certified reclaimer to whom they
transferred the recovered refrigerant. EPA disagrees that extending
this requirement to small appliances is necessary. Certification and
recordkeeping requirements currently exist for the disposal of small
appliances. These records are held by the final disposer, who is best
suited to maintain them. In addition, EPA does not require that small
appliances be evacuated by a certified technician when being disposed
of.
    Two commenters suggested that EPA extend the recordkeeping
requirement to appliances containing more than 50 pounds as well. One
of the commenters was concerned that contractors who collect from both
smaller 5-50 pound and larger 50-plus pound appliances would have to
separate or otherwise distinguish between what was recovered from each
when transferring their refrigerant to a reclaimer. EPA finds that it
would not be necessary to distinguish between these two size
categories. A single record of all refrigerant transferred for
reclamation is sufficient because EPA is not requiring an accounting of
all recovered refrigerant as it moves through the market.
    After consideration of these comments, EPA is requiring records
that are regularly generated by technicians or companies recovering
refrigerant while disposing of appliances as a practical way to improve
the Agency's ability to enforce the venting prohibition without
imposing an undue burden on regulated entities that are already
complying fully with the venting prohibition. To avoid imposing an
undue burden on good actors, especially out in the field where there
may already be pressure to cut corners, EPA is not finalizing the
proposed requirement that records be kept of how much refrigerant is
recovered from each appliance. Weighing or otherwise calculating the
amount of refrigerant recovered at each job site could increase burden
of these requirements by consuming additional time.
4. Clarifications and Edits for Readability
    As proposed, EPA is moving the provisions that were found in Sec.
82.156 ``Required Practices'' in the prior rules into three separate
sections: Sec.  82.155 to address the safe disposal of small
appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like

appliances; Sec.  82.157 to address appliance maintenance and leak
repair for appliances containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant; and
Sec.  82.156 to address the proper evacuation of refrigerant from
appliances. These provisions tend to affect different stakeholders so
separating them into different sections will make the required
provisions easier to find.

F. Revisions to the Leak Repair Requirements in Sec.  82.157

1. Background
    A central component of EPA's longstanding program to properly
manage ODS refrigerants is the requirement to repair leaking appliances
within 30 days of determining that a certain leak rate has been
exceeded. Owners and operators of appliances normally containing 50 or
more pounds of ODS refrigerant must repair their appliances if they
leak above a certain rate or take other actions to reduce the emissions
such as retrofitting, retiring, or mothballing the appliance. Under the
prior regulations, the leak rate at or above which action was required
was 35 percent for commercial refrigeration appliances and IPR and 15
percent for comfort cooling and other appliances. If the attempt to
repair failed to bring the appliance's leak rate below the applicable
leak rate within that time frame, the owner or operator must develop a
retrofit or retirement plan and implement it within one year of the
plan's date. Owners or operators also had the option of developing a
retrofit or retirement plan within thirty days of identifying that the
leak rate has been exceeded. Owners or operators of IPR or federally
owned appliances may have more than 30 days to complete repairs and
more than one year to retrofit appliances where certain conditions
applied (e.g., equipment located in areas subject to radiological
contamination, unavailability of necessary parts, and adherence to
local or state laws that may hinder immediate repairs). The full suite
of the prior requirements are found at Sec.  82.156(i).
    EPA recognizes that refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment
often do leak. This is particularly likely for larger and more
complicated appliances like those subject to the subpart F leak repair
provisions. However, leaks from such appliances can be significantly
reduced. Multiple factors support this conclusion. Concrete evidence
that leaks can be significantly reduced include experience with the
GreenChill program, an EPA partnership designed to encourage
supermarkets to reduce emissions of refrigerants and transition to low-
GWP and low-charge refrigeration appliances; reports from facilities
regulated under California's Refrigerant Management Program; and
feedback from stakeholders prior to publishing the proposed rule. The
revised leak repair provisions in this action will reduce refrigerant
releases of ODS and non-exempt substitute refrigerants by ensuring
effective repairs and ongoing monitoring of leaking systems.
2. Restructuring and Edits for Readability
    The regulatory text has been modified several times since EPA first
established the program in 1993. The regulation now contains numerous
cross-references to other provisions in Sec.  82.156(i), making the
requirements difficult to follow and in some places potentially leading
to differing interpretations. Many important provisions are not readily
apparent, such as the primary requirement that repairs must occur
within 30 days, which appears explicitly only at the end of the leak
repair requirements at Sec.  82.156(i)(9). Therefore, EPA has rewritten
the regulation and moved the provisions to a single new section of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to make it easier for stakeholders to
locate and understand the requirements.
    EPA recognizes that changing the text so significantly may make
stakeholders who are familiar with the existing requirements wonder how
these revisions affect their current compliance monitoring systems and
protocols. EPA emphasizes that the Agency did not intend to alter the
substance of the requirements while restructuring except where
specified. EPA discusses the intended amendments to the requirements in
this section of the notice. In general, commenters were supportive of
EPA's efforts to rewrite and simplify the leak repair provisions.
    To avoid both ambiguity and cumbersome language throughout, EPA
establishes from the outset in Sec.  82.157(a) that the provisions of
Sec.  82.157 apply to owners and operators of all appliances containing
50 or more pounds of refrigerant, unless otherwise specified. One
commenter stated that EPA should clarify throughout the rule whether
the owner/operator or the technician is responsible. EPA responds that
the final rule makes clearer that the owner or operator is responsible
for conducting the leak inspection or repairing the appliance even when
it is the technician who will be performing those actions. When a
provision applies to technicians or people servicing equipment, the
provision so specifies.
    Multiple commenters requested that EPA define owner/operator and
one commenter requested that EPA clarify who is responsible if the
owner is different from the operator. EPA responds that the Agency is
not defining owner or operator because these terms are widely
understood in the public and regulated community. If the owner and the
operator are separate entities, both are responsible for complying with
the applicable leak repair provisions. EPA notes that the owner of the
system chooses the operator of the system, or passes that
responsibility to someone else (e.g., a tenant in a building may be
provided authority to operate an air conditioning system even though
that tenant does not own the building or the air conditioning system).
EPA does not want to hinder the ability of the owner and operator of
the system to make the decision as to who would be responsible for
complying with these requirements, and, therefore, the Agency has
maintained the existing language that places responsibility for such
compliance with requirements on both parties.
    The existing regulations also inconsistently described the leak
repair requirements as applying to appliances with ``50 or more
pounds'' or ``more than 50 pounds'' of refrigerant. The proposed
revisions consistently use ``50 or more pounds of refrigerant.'' EPA
received a comment from CARB that the California regulations are based
on EPA's ``more than 50 pounds,'' but CARB stated they can address any
potential inconsistencies created by this revision. As such, EPA is
finalizing consistent use of the phrase ``50 or more pounds of
refrigerant'' in the revised regulations.
3. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants
    EPA proposed to extend the leak repair provisions previously found
at Sec.  82.156(i) to appliances containing non-exempt substitute
refrigerants. EPA is finalizing this extension in the revised leak
repair regulations (now found at Sec.  82.157). As such, the other
provisions related to leak repair and maintenance finalized in this
rule (e.g., verification tests, reporting by chronic leakers, etc.)
apply to appliances containing ODS and non-exempt substitute
refrigerants as well. Consistent with discussions elsewhere in this
notice, EPA is not extending these requirements to appliances using
substitute refrigerants in a specific end-use for which the substitute
refrigerant used has been exempted from the venting prohibition. These
exemptions are listed in the regulations at Sec.  82.154(a)(1). For
example, these

requirements would not be extended to water in any application, or to
ammonia in commercial or industrial process refrigeration or in
absorption units.
    Extending the leak repair requirements to non-exempt substitute
refrigerants will lead to significant environmental benefits because
these substances pose a threat to the environment when released. Like
ODS, HFCs and PFCs also have the ability to trap heat that would
otherwise be radiated from the Earth back to space. This ability gives
both HFCs and PFCs relatively high GWPs. The 100-year GWPs of saturated
HFCs used as refrigerants range from 124 (for HFC- 152a) to 14,800 (for
HFC-23), and the GWPs of PFCs used as refrigerants range from 7,390
(for PFC-14) and higher. HFC-134a, the most common individual HFC used
in air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment, has a GWP of 1,430.
See Section II.C.2 of this notice for further discussion related to the
environmental effects of greenhouse gases.
    In determining whether to exempt HFC and PFC refrigerants from the
venting prohibition in 2004, EPA examined the potential effects of the
refrigerant from the moment of release to its breakdown in the
environment, considering possible effects on workers, building
occupants, and the environment. EPA concluded that the release of HFCs
and PFCs poses a threat to the environment due to their high GWPs. For
that reason, and because of a lack of regulation governing the release
of such refrigerants, EPA did not exempt the release of HFC or PFC
refrigerants from the statutory venting prohibition. Therefore,
knowingly venting or otherwise releasing into the environment of HFC
and PFC refrigerants during the maintenance, service, repair, or
disposal of appliances remains illegal. The venting prohibition focuses
on knowing venting or release during the maintenance, service, repair,
or disposal of appliances and thus does not account for all HFC (and
PFC) refrigerant emissions. For instance, in previous rules we have not
assumed that emissions of HFCs that occur due to appliance leaks
constitute knowing releases. However, as discussed elsewhere in this
rulemaking, EPA is broadening its interpretation of what is considered
a knowing release under section 608(c) for purposes of appliance leaks.
In addition, the requirements to calculate leak rates and monitor
leaking systems that EPA is finalizing in this action provide knowledge
to appliance owners and operators and thereby broaden the set of
refrigerant releases for which they would be liable for a knowing
release.
Consideration of Costs
    Based on the evidence discussed later, the reported leak rate
performance of today's comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration, and
IPR appliances with full charges of 50 or more pounds argues for
lowering the leak rates. The evidence discussed later demonstrates that
the leak rates of 35 percent for IPR and commercial refrigeration and
15 percent for comfort cooling are considerably above the ``lowest
achievable level of emissions'' envisioned in CAA section 608(a)(3)(A).
    While section 608(a)(3) does not require EPA to perform a cost-
benefit analysis to determine what leak rate(s) would constitute the
``lowest achievable level of emissions,'' in general, EPA has balanced
the benefits from reducing emissions of refrigerants with the costs of
these requirements. EPA has determined that the costs are reasonable
given the significant benefits that accrue (both private in the form of
cost savings and public in the form of improved health and
environmental protection from reduced GHG and ODS emissions).
Specifically, EPA reviewed data from the lowest-emitting equipment to
gauge technological feasibility and then reviewed other datasets, such
as CARB data and consent decree requirements, to determine a reasonable
set of requirements. EPA then assessed the costs and benefits
associated with extending the existing requirements to appliances using
substitute refrigerants. EPA also assessed the tighter requirements
applicable to appliances containing ODS or non-exempt substitute
refrigerants such as lower leak rates, the requirement to repair leaks
once the applicable leak rate is exceeded, the requirement to conduct
verification tests on all types of appliances, and periodic leak
inspections for appliances that had exceeded the leak rates.
    Based on the comments received, EPA considered ways to reduce the
cost of these requirements, as compared to the proposal. These changes
are discussed in full later in this section and include: Limiting
periodic leak inspections to appliances that have exceeded the
applicable leak rate, rather than requiring all appliances to be
inspected; finalizing a leak rate for IPR of 30 percent rather than 20
percent; allowing greater flexibility for owners and operators to
determine which leaks to repair rather than requiring the repair of all
leaks; and modifying the proposed chronic leaker provision so that it
results in reporting to EPA rather than automatic retirement of the
appliance.
    This rule also provides flexibility that will reduce the cost of
complying with the existing regulations. For comfort cooling and
commercial refrigeration appliances, EPA is allowing an extension to
the 30-day repair requirement if the arrival of a part is delayed,
recognizing that the short additional time needed for delivery of a
part can result in a nearer-term and less costly emission reduction
than a retrofit. EPA is also allowing an extension to implement a
retrofit or retirement for any appliance that transitions to a non-
exempt substitute refrigerant.
4. Leak Inspections
    The prior regulations at Sec.  82.156(i) focused on actions an
appliance owner or operator must take after discovering an appliance
has a leak. EPA proposed to require annual or quarterly leak
inspections as a proactive maintenance practice depending on the type
and size of the appliance. More specifically, EPA proposed to require
that owners or operators of commercial refrigeration appliances or IPR
normally containing 500 or more pounds of refrigerant conduct quarterly
leak inspections of the appliance, including the appliance's
refrigerant circuit. Inspections would be annual for commercial
refrigeration appliances and IPR containing 50 pounds or more but less
than 500 pounds of refrigerant, as well as comfort cooling appliances
and other appliances normally containing 50 or more pounds of
refrigerant.
    The purpose of the proposed leak inspection requirement was to
determine the location of refrigerant leaks. This proposal was designed
with Next Generation Compliance objectives in mind (see Section
II.D.3). The Agency anticipated that many appliance owners and
operators would take action earlier if leaks were identified because it
is in their financial interest to do so and would reduce emissions and
refrigerant costs. Repairing leaks earlier could also prevent that
appliance from being pulled into the proposed regulatory requirements
at Sec.  82.157 for exceeding the applicable leak rate. EPA also
proposed to allow owners or operators to forgo periodic leak
inspections if they installed and operated an automatic leak detection
system that continuously monitors the appliance for leaks.
    Frequency of Leak Inspections. State regulatory agencies and
environmental organizations supported the proposed requirement to
conduct periodic leak inspections. Two such commenters suggested that
EPA require quarterly leak inspections for systems with 200

pounds or more to harmonize the leak inspection requirements with
California's Refrigerant Management Program. However, many other
commenters expressed strong opposition to mandatory quarterly or annual
leak inspections, asserting that requiring inspections of all
appliances imposes unnecessary costs, especially for systems that are
not leaking. Those commenters estimated the cost of an inspection for a
large supermarket could exceed $5,000. Another commenter stated that
companies do not need a regulatory requirement to inspect and maintain
their refrigeration equipment and that since EPA did not require repair
of leaks identified in a leak inspection for appliances that do not
exceed the applicable leak rate, there is not a reasonable relationship
between the proposed requirement and the goal of emissions reduction.
One commenter stated that leak inspections are unnecessary, at least
for chemical manufacturing, because temperatures and pressures must be
maintained within tight tolerances for reactions to proceed.
Furthermore, any changes in temperature and pressure would trigger an
alarm or shutdown the process.
    Other commenters expressed qualified support for annual leak
inspections, especially if it is phased in, starting with larger
systems or if a company can provide evidence that they have not added
refrigerant to a system in over a year. Another commenter stated that
leak inspections should only be annual, unless the equipment exceeds
the applicable leak rate for that system. That commenter believes that
the inspections should return to being an annual requirement after the
leak rate has been reduced below the threshold for two years. One
commenter stated that the greatest value of a leak inspection is on a
system with a known leak.
    Based on these comments relating to the expense and value of
conducting leak inspections on all appliances, EPA is finalizing the
leak inspection requirement only for appliances that have been found to
be above the applicable leak rate. EPA proposed to only require that
the leaks identified from a leak inspection be repaired when the
applicable leak rate is exceeded. EPA's proposal observed that the
costs of repairing all leaks when the leak rate is below the applicable
leak rate may be higher than the benefits, especially when the leak is
a series of small pinhole leaks and the leak rate is very low, as may
often be the case. As stated in the proposed rule, when the applicable
leak rate is exceeded, the benefits of repairing those leaks are
significant--both for the environment and for the owner/operator (in
decreased refrigerant replacement costs)--and do result in significant
savings, which supports repair of leaks. EPA appreciates the concern
raised by commenters who question the value of conducting leak
inspections on appliances that are known to not be leaking, or leaking
at a low rate that would not trigger a requirement for repair under the
regulations. Periodic leak inspections are a best practice within the
industry to reduce emissions of refrigerants and the Agency continues
to recommend periodic leak inspections for all appliances as even well-
maintained appliances might leak.\21\ EPA did not quantify any benefits
for systems that had a leak rate below the applicable leak rate because
the Agency did not propose that the leaks that were discovered in those
systems needed to be repaired. While requiring proactive leak
inspections would generally reduce leaks because companies would find
leaks and could repair them before the applicable leak rate was
exceeded, EPA is not finalizing the periodic leak inspections for all
appliances, as proposed. Many of the specific comments about timing of
leak inspections no longer apply because of this change. However, EPA
has reconsidered the cost of conducting a leak inspection, as discussed
further in Section VI of the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See GreenChill's Best Practices Guidelines: Commercial
Refrigeration Leak Prevention & Repairs, May 2011, available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is finalizing a requirement at Sec.  82.157(d)(1) to conduct a
leak inspection after discovering the leak rate had exceeded the
applicable leak rate. Thereafter, EPA is requiring episodic leak
inspections based on the full charge size and type of appliance on the
same schedule as in the proposed Sec.  82.157(b)(1)-(3), but in this
final rule EPA added a provision clarifying that this requirement ends
if the appliance remains below the applicable leak rate for a specific
time. More specifically, following a leak rate exceedance, EPA is
requiring quarterly leak inspections for IPR and commercial
refrigeration appliances containing 500 or more pounds of refrigerant
until there are four quarters in a row where the appliance has not
exceeded the applicable leak rate. For IPR and commercial refrigeration
appliances containing between 50 and 500 pounds of refrigerant, and for
all comfort cooling appliances or other remaining appliances normally
containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant, EPA is requiring annual
leak inspections following a leak rate exceedance until the owner or
operator can demonstrate that the appliance has not exceeded the
applicable leak rate for one year. More frequent monitoring is
important for larger commercial refrigeration appliances and IPR
because those systems tend to have more leaks than comfort cooling
appliances and because the amount of refrigerant that would be lost in
a leak is generally greater for those systems.
    In our view, and based on our review of comments, limiting
inspections to those appliances that are known to have leaked and
triggered the repair requirements appropriately tailors the leak
inspection requirement to those systems that are most likely to leak
and provides important information about whether the leak repairs have
held over the longer term. EPA is not finalizing the proposed revision
allowing for annual leak inspections when refrigerant has not been
added to the appliance for more than a year as EPA is not finalizing
the periodic leak inspection requirement for systems that are below the
applicable leak threshold. As discussed later, EPA is finalizing the
proposed revision allowing the use of automatic leak detection systems
in lieu of quarterly or annual leak inspections.
    EPA proposed to establish a process that would allow less frequent
leak inspections for federally owned appliances that are located in
remote locations or are otherwise difficult to access for routine
maintenance. One commenter disagreed with the proposal to allow a
reduced inspection schedule for federally owned appliances. Other
commenters requested that EPA provide a similar exemption to privately
owned appliances.
    Because EPA is not finalizing periodic leak inspections for
appliances below the applicable leak threshold, EPA is also not
finalizing the reduced leak inspection schedule for federally owned
appliances. EPA is requiring that federally owned equipment that has
leaked in excess of the applicable leak rate be subject to the same
periodic leak inspection schedule as privately owned equipment. The
concerns about burden raised by federal agencies during the development
of the proposal are addressed by removing the proposed requirement that
leak inspections be conducted on all appliances. The number of
appliances leaking above the final leak thresholds is less than 20
percent of the total number of installed appliances with charges of 50
pounds or greater.
    Description of leak inspections. Many commenters requested
clarification

about the types of methods that can be used to conduct a leak
inspection. EPA responds to those comments in the section of this
notice that addresses comments on the proposed definitions. As
described there, the revised definition includes examples of methods
that may be appropriate for leak inspections.
    EPA proposed that periodic leak inspections would not need to be
performed by certified technicians and took comment on that idea. Two
commenters agreed that leak inspections should not be required to be
conducted by certified technicians. Reasons stated for not requiring
the inspection to be done by a certified technician are that they are
more expensive than in-house personnel, they may be less familiar with
the appliance, and that the person doing the inspection will not
necessarily be performing activities that can only be performed by a
certified technician such as adding or removing refrigerant or making
any repairs to the appliance. Another commenter believes that leak
inspections should be performed by someone trained to fix leaks, and
thus that the persons performing leak inspections must be a certified
technician.
    In this final rule, EPA is requiring that the required leak
inspections be performed by certified technicians. EPA is making this
change from the proposal for several reasons. First, required leak
inspections are now limited to appliances that are known to have been
leaking. It is now very likely that a technician will have to add
refrigerant or make additional repairs after the leak inspection. This
is certainly the case for the inspection triggered by discovering that
the leak rate exceeds the threshold. Second, because EPA is no longer
requiring the repair of all identified leaks, the person inspecting the
system must also be qualified to determine which leaks must be repaired
to bring the leak rate below the applicable level. Third, while
certified technicians may be more expensive to hire, the overall burden
of the leak inspection requirement is less since many fewer appliances
must be inspected than originally proposed. Under the proposal, all
appliances of a certain size would require leak inspections, which EPA
estimated to be approximately 1.5 million. Under the finalized
provisions, that number drops to approximately 282,000 appliances. EPA
has considered the comments about the cost of performing a leak
inspection and has updated the technical support document accordingly.
Finally, EPA is not specifying a single method but rather allowing the
person conducting the inspection to determine the method(s) that are
appropriate for that appliance. This technical judgment requires
someone trained in the methods of leak detection, which is more likely
to be the case for a certified technician.
    Many commenters requested clarification on what portions of an
appliance are subject to a leak inspection. The proposed regulatory
text was silent on this issue but the notice of proposed rulemaking
discussed inspecting visible components and the proposed definition of
leak inspection included an examination of ``all visible components of
an appliance.'' The proposal did not define ``visible'' or address the
treatment of components that are only visible if intermediary steps are
taken (e.g., clearing ice or elevating monitoring personnel).
Commenters noted that refrigerant lines may be insulated and thus the
piping is not visible and that lines may run along the ceiling of a
store and are not observable or are difficult to access. One commenter
proposed a definition that would limit inspections to areas that are
visible and accessible without the use of equipment. The commenter
states that the vast majority of components in commercial
refrigeration, and those most prone to refrigerant leakage, are
accessible directly from floor or roof level. One commenter requested
that EPA define visible components as those that are readily accessible
to be viewed and accessed during normal preventative maintenance
activities for the appliance. One commenter suggested that the leak
inspection be ``consistent with good industry practice.'' Another
commenter expressed concern that requiring the inspection of all
visible components may necessitate the appliance be shut down.
    Another commenter requested specific exceptions for components that
are difficult to monitor, insulated, unsafe to monitor, or otherwise
not accessible. Consistent with other leak detection and repair
programs for New Source Performance Standards, Subparts VV and VVa,
which relates to equipment leaks of VOC in synthetic organic chemicals
manufacturing, the commenter suggests that the following sources be
exempt from inspection: (1) Components that require monitoring
personnel to be elevated more than 2 meters above a support surface;
(2) components that are insulated; (3) components that are determined
to be un-safe to monitor as determined by site personnel; (4)
components that are under ``ice'' that forms on the outside of
equipment. A couple of commenters also expressed concern about
requiring leak inspections on equipment that cannot be accessed due to
radiological concerns.
    EPA appreciates the difficulties associated with inspecting the
entirety of an appliance, which these comments illustrate. EPA proposed
a definition of leak inspection that includes ``all visible
components.'' EPA is modifying that proposed definition to remove the
reference to ``all visible components.'' Also, in light of the points
raised in the comments, EPA is clarifying in the final rule that a leak
inspection must be conducted on all visible and accessible components
of an appliance, with some exceptions. EPA did not propose any
exceptions but did state in the notice of proposed rulemaking that the
inspection should occur on all visible and accessible components of an
appliance. The exceptions finalized in this rulemaking clarify what is
not considered visible or accessible: 1) Where components are
insulated, under ice that has formed on the outside of equipment,
underground, behind walls, or are otherwise inaccessible; (2) where
personnel must be elevated more than 2 meters above a support surface;
or (3) where components are unsafe to inspect, as determined by site
personnel. This clarification takes into consideration risks to the
person conducting the inspection. The Agency does not expect that an
appliance be shut down in order to fulfill the obligation of inspecting
all visible components.
    Automatic Leak Detection. EPA proposed to not require periodic leak
inspections if owners or operators install and operate an automatic
leak detection system that continuously monitors the appliance for
leaks. Although EPA is removing the periodic leak inspection
requirements for many appliances, EPA will continue to allow the use of
automatic leak detection equipment to continuously monitor whole
appliances or portions of appliances in lieu of the required periodic
inspections for that appliance or that portion of the appliance. Use of
such equipment can minimize releases of refrigerant because it
discovers leaks sooner than a quarterly or annual leak inspection can.
Using their 2014 Refrigerant Management Program (RMP) data, CARB
commented that they found that leaking systems using automatic leak
detection had a 25 percent lower annual leak rate than those without.
This comment provides further support for including this option to use
automatic leak detection equipment to continuously monitor an appliance
or portion of an appliance in the final rule.

    A few commenters encouraged EPA to require automatic leak detection
equipment on appliances with more than 2,000 pounds of refrigerant to
harmonize EPA's requirements with California's. EPA responds that while
this rule does not impose requirements that are inconsistent with
CARB's program, EPA has not included all of CARB's requirements in this
rule. EPA is requiring that automatic leak detection systems meet the
same level of detection (10 parts per million of vapor) and
notification thresholds (100 parts per million of vapor, a loss of 50
pounds of refrigerant, or a loss of 10 percent of the full charge) as
CARB requires. EPA knows that such equipment is already available on
the market and capable of meeting those standards, which allows
companies wishing to install automatic leak detection equipment to do
so sooner than if EPA established different standards in this rule. It
also means that installed equipment that meets California's
requirements will meet EPA's requirements. EPA disagrees, as discussed
later, with the comment suggesting it require the use of automatic leak
detection equipment.
    Some commenters were opposed to requiring automatic leak detection.
One such commenter stated that it does not work well outdoors and that
it may be hazardous to enclose a system to facilitate leak detection.
It can also be expensive and EPA did not estimate the costs of
requiring it. One nuclear power producer commented that any
modifications to nuclear generating stations must undergo extensive
engineering and risk review processes. This argues against requiring
the installation of monitoring equipment. Another commenter stated that
it has not been able to identify any reliable information confirming
that such automatic leak detection devices are available, cost-
effective, and capable of satisfying EPA's requirements.
    EPA responds that the Agency is not requiring the use of automatic
leak detection equipment in this final rule. Rather, this is an option
that an owner or operator can choose to pursue in lieu of conducting
periodic leak inspections. EPA agrees that automatic leak detection
equipment may not be appropriate for all systems, and the Agency is not
suggesting that components be enclosed in order to allow for automatic
leak detection equipment where it would be hazardous to do so. The
decision to install such equipment is up to the owner/operator. With
regard to availability, EPA responds that California's existing
requirements for use of such systems have been in place since 2011 and
include the same standards as those EPA is finalizing in this rule, so
equipment meeting these requirements is already available and in use.
EPA encourages anyone interested in using automatic leak detection to
consult entities in California regarding the availability and
performance of such equipment. Another commenter notes that electronic
leak detection equipment is currently installed in thousands of
supermarkets, further supporting the idea that such equipment is
available and in use.
    Many commenters supported automatic leak detection equipment in
lieu of periodic leak inspections but were concerned that the systems
they currently have installed do not meet the requirements of the
proposed rule because the entire refrigeration system is not within the
building envelope. EPA proposed that automatic leak detection equipment
systems that directly detect the presence of a refrigerant in air could
only be used where the entire appliance or the compressor, evaporator,
condenser, or other component with a high potential to leak is located
inside an enclosed building or structure. Multiple commenters requested
that EPA still allow the option of using automatic leak detection for
those components that are not outdoors. The outside components would
then be the only portion of the system that would be subject to
periodic inspections. EPA agrees that automatic leak detection
equipment should be allowed for enclosed components even if only
portions of an appliance are enclosed and the proposed rule was
intended to cover that situation. EPA has revised the final rule to
more clearly allow for this and to clarify that in such situations, the
automatic leak detection equipment would only be used to monitor
components located in an enclosed building or structure but the other
components would continue to be subject to any applicable leak
inspection requirements.
    One commenter encouraged EPA to require that the leak detection
system be certified. There are third party systems on the market that
claim to check charges, but the commenter believes some may be
inaccurate. The commenter recommends referencing ASHRAE 207P, which
will allow for verification of the charge checking systems. EPA
responds that the referenced ASHRAE standard is still under development
and we are unaware of any certification programs that exist or that are
planned to reference that standard once finalized. Requiring
certifications for leak detection systems is therefore not appropriate
at this time. EPA is finalizing the proposal to require that the owner
or operator calibrate the automatic leak detection system annually and
keep records documenting the calibration.
5. Lowering Leak Rates
    The leak rate is the rate at which an appliance is losing
refrigerant, measured between refrigerant charges. If the leak rate for
an appliance is above a specified threshold, the regulatory revisions
finalized in this rule require certain actions, such as leak repair,
from the owner/operator.
    EPA is lowering the leak rates for IPR, commercial refrigeration,
and comfort cooling and other appliances containing ODS refrigerants
and is establishing those same leak rates for appliances using non-
exempt substitute refrigerants. EPA is lowering the leak rates to 30
percent (from 35 percent) for IPR, 20 percent (from 35 percent) for
commercial refrigeration appliances and 10 percent (from 15 percent)
for comfort cooling and all other appliances with a full charge of 50
pounds or more of ODS or non-exempt substitute refrigerant. For the
reasons discussed below, EPA is finalizing a higher leak rate for IPR
than proposed while finalizing the same rates as proposed for
commercial refrigeration and comfort cooling. In making this decision,
EPA has assessed the compliance costs, cost savings, and environmental
benefits and has found that the aggregated costs are reasonable, and
that lowering leak rates will result in fewer emissions of both ODS and
non-exempt substitute refrigerants.
    EPA reviewed data submitted under California's RMP, the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), GreenChill partners, consent
decrees for both commercial refrigeration and IPR for companies found
to be in violation of subpart F regulations, EPA's Vintaging Model,
conversations with potentially affected stakeholders, and comments on
this and past proposed rules. See the technical support document
Analysis of the Economic Impact and Benefits of Final Revisions to the
National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program for a complete
discussion. EPA presents here background on two data sources (CARB and
SCAQMD) that EPA relied on for multiple types of appliances and then
discusses appliance-specific data separately.
    California's RMP requires that owners or operators of any appliance
with more than 50 pounds of ODS or HFC refrigerant repair leaks,
conduct leak inspections or install automatic leak detection equipment,
and report their

refrigerant usage and repairs.\22\ In addition, any facility with a
refrigeration appliance containing more than 50 pounds of refrigerant
must report all service records annually to California. CARB has
categorized facilities based on the facility's largest appliance.
Facilities that have at least one appliance with a full charge of 2,000
pounds or more (classified as ``large'' facilities under the RMP) began
reporting in 2012 (for 2011 service records). These large facilities
must submit service records for any appliance that has a full charge
greater than 50 pounds. ``Medium'' facilities have at least one
appliance with a full charge of 200 or more pounds but less than 2,000
pounds and they started reporting in 2014. ``Small'' facilities have at
least one appliance between 50 and 200 pounds and will have begun
reporting in 2016. California's reporting program provides insight into
the use and emissions of ODS and substitute refrigerants from
refrigeration appliances in the state, across a broad range of sectors
that use refrigeration appliances. For the proposed rule, EPA reviewed
the 2013 data, the most recent dataset available at that time, which
contained information from 11,166 appliances at large and medium
facilities. EPA has subsequently reviewed the 2014 data, containing
data on 12,605 appliances, and found it to be substantially similar. A
series of charts showing the aggregated California data has been
included in the technical support document. EPA has analyzed these data
in developing the revised leak rates for IPR, commercial refrigeration,
and comfort cooling appliances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Among other requirements, the RMP establishes leak repair
requirements for appliances with more than 50 pounds of refrigerant.
More detail on the RMP is provided in the technical support document
in the docket titled Analysis of the Economic Impact and Benefits of
Final Revisions to the National Recycling and Emission Reduction
Program and online at www.arb.ca.gov/stoprefrigerantleaks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California's South Coast Air Quality Management District is an air
pollution control agency that services the areas of Orange County and
the urban portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino
counties, which contained approximately half of the population of
California at that time. SCAQMD had issued Rule 1415 to reduce
emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants from stationary refrigeration
and air-conditioning systems. The rule required any person within
SCAQMD's jurisdiction who owns or operates a refrigeration system to
minimize refrigerant leakage. A refrigeration system is defined for the
purposes of that rule as ``any non-vehicular equipment used for cooling
or freezing, which holds more than 50 pounds of any combination of
class I and/or class II refrigerant, including, but not limited to,
refrigerators, freezers, or air-conditioning equipment or systems.''
    Under Rule 1415, SCAQMD collected the following information every
two years from owners or operators of such refrigeration systems:
Number of refrigeration systems in operation; type of refrigerant in
each refrigeration system; amount of refrigerant in each refrigeration
system; date of the last annual audit or maintenance performed for each
refrigeration system; and the amount of additional refrigerant charged
every year. For the purposes of Rule 1415, additional refrigerant
charge is defined as the quantity of refrigerant charged to a
refrigeration system in order to bring the system to a full capacity
charge and replace refrigerant that has leaked. This reporting
requirement has now been replaced by the statewide RMP reporting.
    EPA analyzed the SCAQMD data on ODS-containing appliances for the
proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule. The analysis prepared for that rule can
also be found in the docket for today's rulemaking. The dataset
contains information on over 4,750 appliances from 2004 and 2005 with
ODS refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds. The data included
refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances that meet EPA's
definitions of IPR (e.g., food processing industry, pharmaceutical
manufacturing), commercial refrigeration (e.g., refrigerated
warehouses, supermarkets, retail box stores), and comfort cooling
(e.g., office buildings, universities, hospitals) from businesses of
all sizes. EPA has considered the previous analysis of those data in
developing the revised leak rates for IPR, commercial refrigeration,
and comfort cooling appliances in this final rule.
i. Industrial Process Refrigeration
    In the proposed rule, EPA discussed reducing the leak rate for IPR
and commercial refrigeration from 35 percent to 20 percent. EPA
specifically sought comments on whether a 20 percent leak rate was
appropriate, or whether a leak rate higher than 35 percent or as low as
10 or 15 percent would be appropriate. After considering the comments
received and upon further analysis of the CARB data, EPA is finalizing
a leak rate of 30 percent.
    Some commenters supported the lower leak rates noting that real-
world experience shows that the lower leak thresholds are technically
and practically achievable. Some industry members encouraged EPA to
explore the feasibility of further lowering rates for IPR in the
future, consistent with improved and available industry best practices.
Other commenters stated that data from GreenChill and consent decrees
are not representative of IPR facilities. One commenter also stated
that CARB data do not support that a 20 percent threshold is achievable
because one third of the reporting facilities are not achieving such
performance. As a result, the commenter stated that EPA has not shown
that lowering the leak rate for IPR from 35 to 20 percent is necessary
nor economically or practically feasible.
    Some commenters suggested EPA distinguish between old and new
equipment. One commenter noted that existing IPR equipment can meet the
35 percent leak rate but not all could achieve the 20 percent leak
rate. Thus, the proposed leak rate would strand significant investment
in custom-designed refrigeration process equipment. Another commenter
stated that older IPR facilities were designed when refrigerant
tightness was not a critical design element. Facilities have been
upgraded and maintained to achieve 35 percent leak rates but further
upgrades and repairs to bring them to a lower rate would be costly if
not impossible. The commenter also stated that it would not be cost
effective since many are near the end of their useful lives. A few
commenters suggested that EPA follow the 1998 proposal and allow for
the 35 percent rate if the appliance meets all of the following
criteria: (1) The refrigeration system is custom-built; (2) the
refrigeration system has an open-drive compressor; (3) the
refrigeration system was built in 1992 or before; and (4) the system is
direct-expansion (contains a single, primary refrigerant loop). Another
commenter recommended keeping the leak rate at 35 percent for systems
using substitute refrigerants, stating that companies that retrofitted
from ODS to HFC refrigerants should be recognized for that prior
environmental advancement.
    In response to the comment that some of the data are not
representative of IPR facilities, EPA responds that the Technical
Support Document for the proposal did distinguish between IPR and
commercial refrigeration. EPA did not use GreenChill's commercial
refrigeration data or consent decrees for commercial refrigeration as a
basis for the proposal on IPR. In the final Technical Support Document,
as well as the discussion that immediately follows, EPA has further
separated out the analysis for IPR.

    After considering these comments and further reviewing the CARB
data, EPA is finalizing a leak rate of 30 percent for IPR, rather than
20 percent as proposed. The potential benefits of lowering the leak
rate to 20 percent are small in relation to the potential costs
incurred by those small number of facilities that could be affected.
    EPA's model, informed by the 2013 CARB data, indicates that 92
percent of IPR appliances have leak rates below 30 percent. Almost 10
percent of ODS-containing appliances would trigger the leak repair
requirements if the leak rate were lowered from 35 to 20 percent, as
proposed. However, if the leak rate is lowered from 35 to 30 percent
only 0.6 percent more ODS-containing IPR appliances would trigger the
leak repair requirements.
    Viewed another way, using the California data as a proxy for the
entire United States' IPR systems, the proposed 20 percent leak rate
could affect up to 9 percent of all IPR appliances (though only a small
subset of IPR systems above 20 percent using ODS refrigerant would be
newly affected because they were already subject to the 35 percent leak
rate). Appliances that leaked more than 20 percent are responsible for
86 percent of emissions in the CARB data. Changing the leak rate
threshold to 30 percent, as EPA is finalizing in this rule, would
affect 7 percent of all IPR appliances and an even smaller subset of
ODS-containing equipment (only 0.6 percent). In the CARB records,
appliances leaking more than 30 percent are responsible for 75 percent
of emissions.
    EPA's review of the 2004 and 2005 data submitted to the SCAQMD from
349 IPR facilities also indicate that 81 percent of ODS-containing IPR
appliances had leak rates below 30 percent. Slightly less than 5
percent of ODS-containing appliances would trigger the leak repair
requirements if the leak rate was lowered from 35 to 20 percent, as
proposed. In this final rule, only 1.5 percent of ODS-containing
appliances would trigger the leak repair requirements if the leak rate
was lowered from 35 to 30 percent. However, by extending the leak
repair requirements to IPR appliances containing non-exempt substitute
refrigerants, a 30 percent leak rate would also trigger all IPR
facilities using non-exempt substitute refrigerants above that
threshold, not just the incremental difference of facilities operating
between 30 and 35 percent.
    EPA calculates leak inspection and repair costs of a 20 percent
leak rate for IPR to be $7.0 million, with annual emissions reductions
equal to 0.63 MMTCO2eq and 8.0 ODP tons. EPA calculates the
leak inspection and repair compliance costs of a 30 percent leak rate
for IPR to be $5.5 million, with annual emissions reductions equal to
0.44 MMTCO2eq and 5.4 ODP tons. Finally, EPA analyzed
retaining the current 35 percent leak rate for IPR, as applied to IPR
using substitute refrigerants. In that scenario, the leak inspection
and repair costs would be $5.1 million, with annual emissions
reductions equal to 0.26 MMTCO2eq and 0 ODP tons. Lowering
the leak rate from 35 to 30 percent provides significantly more
environmental benefits, including reductions in emissions of ozone-
depleting substances, for the costs. Lowering the leak rate further
provides diminishing returns.
    EPA recognizes that some IPR transitioned to HFCs from ODS
refrigerants. This may have been an environmental decision for some,
but other commenters stated that this was done to avoid being covered
by the subpart F regulations. For whatever reasons, these facilities
transitioned to a substitute refrigerant and therefore were no longer
required to maintain a leak rate below 35 percent. EPA's analysis
described above indicate that that a majority of the new IPR equipment
affected by the rule will be those using substitute refrigerants. At a
30 percent leak rate, EPA estimates that there will be 492 newly
affected systems containing ODS refrigerant but 5,938 systems
containing HFC refrigerants.
    While the number of affected IPR facilities may be small (EPA
estimates there are 1.5 million appliances with a charge size of at
least 50 pounds of an ODS or non-exempt substitute refrigerant), the
challenges faced by IPR facilities to upgrade or improve their system
are more substantial that those faced by other appliance types. In
general, leak rates are highest for IPR systems for a number of
factors. First, such appliances are generally custom-built and
assembled at the site where they are used rather than in a factory
where standard manufacturing practices can be put in place to reduce
leaks. Appliances used in IPR are custom-designed for a wide spectrum
of processes and facilities, including applications such as flash
freezers aboard commercial fishing vessels to cooling processes used in
the manufacture of pharmaceuticals. This results in the sector having
an extraordinarily broad range of equipment configurations and designs.
Custom designed equipment may also present more challenges to original
equipment manufacturers who wish to systematically implement leak
reduction technologies. Second, these appliances generally use a long,
single refrigerant loop for cooling that is not enclosed within a piece
of equipment. This tends to raise average leak rates, particularly when
the refrigerant loop flows through inaccessible spaces, such as
underneath floors, or when used in challenging climates and operating
conditions. Third, these appliances are often integrated into
production plants or other applications and typically operate
continuously. This need for continuous operation can make repairing
certain leaks more difficult and costly, possibly requiring
manufacturing processes to be shut down and long lead times. Multiple
commenters agreed with and provided comments supporting EPA's
assessment that IPR facilities can be leakier and more challenging to
repair than commercial refrigeration and comfort cooling appliances.
    In response to comments requesting different leak rates for old and
new appliances, EPA is not distinguishing between old and new
appliances in the regulations for the following reasons. First, CARB
data indicate that older IPR equipment is not necessarily leakier than
newer IPR equipment. While newer systems can generally be designed with
leak tightness in mind, EPA has also found that the quality of the
construction and the operation and maintenance of the appliance plays a
larger role in whether the appliance leaks than the age of the
equipment per se. Leakage can be reduced even on older equipment by
taking appropriate measures. Second, in EPA's experience with the HCFC
phaseout, it has been challenging in some circumstances for owners and
operators to determine whether an appliance is existing or new.
    For clarity and to facilitate compliance, and consistent with the
proposal, EPA is not finalizing a distinction between old and new IPR
appliances in the leak thresholds finalized in this rulemaking. In
response to the commenters encouraging EPA to explore the feasibility
of further lowering IPR rates in the future, EPA will take this under
advisement for future analyses and such a future analysis may include
the age of the facility and refrigeration technology used. Further
gradation of the IPR category is not necessary at this time.
ii. Commercial Refrigeration Appliances
    EPA proposed to lower the leak rate for commercial refrigeration
appliances from 35 percent to 20 percent. Based on the data analysis
discussed in this

section and comments, EPA is finalizing that rate as proposed.
    First, EPA reviewed data from GreenChill, an EPA partnership with
food retailers to reduce refrigerant emissions and decrease their
impact on the ozone layer and climate change. Established in 2007, this
partnership has 27 member companies comprising almost 30 percent of all
supermarkets in the United States. GreenChill works to help food
retailers voluntarily (1) transition to environmentally friendlier
refrigerants; (2) lower refrigerant charge sizes; (3) eliminate leaks;
and (4) adopt green refrigeration technologies and best environmental
practices. One of the GreenChill partnership's programs that helps food
retailers reduce their refrigerant emissions is the Food Retailer
Corporate Emissions Reduction Program. Under this program, partners
report their corporate-wide average leak rate for all refrigerants. A
corporate-wide average leak rate is the sum of all refrigerant
additions in a given time period for all of the commercial
refrigeration appliances owned by a corporate entity, divided by the
full charge for all of the commercial refrigeration appliances owned by
that same corporate entity during that time period.
    Between 2007 and 2014, the corporate-wide average leak rate for all
reporting GreenChill partners remained within a relatively narrow range
of between 12.6 percent and 13.8 percent. Remarkably, when new partners
joined, the reported corporate-wide average leak rate across all
partners remained level. Several supermarket chains in the GreenChill
program, including some having hundreds of stores, have consistently
reported a corporate-wide leak rate below 10 percent. These data
support the conclusion that leak rates in commercial refrigeration
appliances can be considerably lower than 35 percent and that a 20
percent leak rate is reasonable.
    Some commenters found GreenChill data unpersuasive because they are
self-reported and unverified and because they represent the average
performance of multiple appliances rather than the performance of
individual systems. Another commenter stated that GreenChill data are
not representative of the supermarket industry as a whole and do not
consider the capabilities of independent operators or small businesses.
    EPA disagrees with the comments regarding the use of GreenChill
data. It is appropriate to use the GreenChill data to inform EPA's
consideration of achievable leak rates for commercial refrigeration.
The average performance of multiple appliances is relevant to
understanding how well individual appliances, on average, perform. This
dataset represents almost a third of the supermarket industry,
including a few smaller independent operators, over multiple years and
locations across the United States. Even if the data were biased
towards larger chains and organizations that have proactively sought to
reduce their emissions below the prior regulatory rate of 35 percent,
these data give an indication of what is achievable when companies seek
to reduce leak rates. Further, these data demonstrate that leak rates
well below 20 percent are not just achievable but may be consistently
maintained. A leak rate is not inherent to a particular piece of
equipment but rather includes factors such as how that appliance is
operated and maintained.
    One commenter representing the supermarket industry supported
lowering the leak rate threshold but stated that 20 percent may be
burdensome for small businesses and independent retailers. Other
commenters in the supermarket industry supported the proposed 20
percent leak rate and one stated that they currently meet that rate for
both ODS and HFC equipment. CARB submitted comments suggesting that EPA
lower the leak rate to 10 percent for commercial refrigeration, or
totally eliminate the threshold. Based on their 2014 RMP data, lowering
the threshold to 10 percent would raise the number of affected systems
in California from 5,500 to 6,342 (out of more than approximately
20,000 systems) while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 0.11
MMTCO2e. Another commenter urged EPA to establish a leak
rate of 10 percent for new commercial refrigeration to incentivize
improved design, installation, and maintenance. The commenter refers to
the GreenChill program at least 125 stores currently certified as
Silver or above, and with Platinum certified stores achieving leak
rates below 5 percent and to a supermarket chain in the UK that has a
corporate-wide leak rate of 7.1 percent in 2013.
    EPA responds that the average leak rate across all GreenChill
commercial refrigeration appliances does not rise appreciably when new
companies joined the partnership, which indicates that companies
operating outside of the GreenChill partnership are operating with leak
rates well below 35 percent.\23\ EPA's standard presumption, based on
CARB data, is that the average leak rate for all commercial
refrigeration is 25 percent. That some commenters say they operate
their commercial refrigeration with leak rates below 20 percent for
both ODS and HFC equipment is further support that private incentives
drive lower leak rates and that a 20 percent rate is clearly
achievable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See the document GreenChill Partnership's 2014 Data:
Benchmarks, Results, and Trends in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on data in the record, EPA does not agree that a 10 percent
leak rate would be appropriate for commercial refrigeration. GreenChill
partners have lower leak rates than the industry average, yet the
average rate among all commercial refrigeration appliances in
GreenChill is around 13 percent. There are only nine supermarkets that
have achieved the Platinum level certification. EPA therefore does not
believe that 10 percent is currently regularly achievable industry-
wide. EPA also appreciates the concept raised by the commenter that
establishing lower leak rates for future appliances could be a way to
encourage innovation. EPA did request comment on whether there are
other regulatory incentives that could provide a basis to go with a
leak rate lower than 20 percent and establishing a target rate to
achieve in the future is an intriguing concept. EPA will take this
comment under advisement. However, in today's final rule EPA is basing
the revised leak rates on what appliances are currently able to
regularly achieve.
    The data submitted to the SCAQMD from 1,722 commercial
refrigeration appliances indicate that 77 percent of ODS-containing
comfort cooling appliances had leak rates below 20 percent. Only 8
percent of ODS-containing appliances would trigger the leak repair
requirements if the leak rate was lowered from 35 to 20 percent. In
2010, when EPA analyzed the data, EPA found that the SCAQMD leak repair
data for commercial refrigeration appliances was consistent with EPA's
analysis of the commercial refrigeration sector.
    EPA has also reviewed how companies agreed to manage refrigerants
through recent consent decrees with the Agency. In consent decrees with
Safeway and Costco, the two companies agreed to bring their corporate-
wide leak rates from about 25 percent to 18 and 19 percent,
respectively. In a recent consent decree with Trader Joe's, the company
agreed to achieve and maintain an annual corporate-wide average leak
rate of 12.1 percent through 2019. One commenter was unpersuaded by the
use of consent decrees because they are aspirational and do not reflect
actual operation. EPA agrees that the corporate-wide leak rates to be
obtained under these consent decrees are not data

of actual operations, per se, but they are more than merely
aspirational. Consent decrees are legally binding and the companies
would not have committed to them if they thought they were
unachievable. These consent decrees provide additional support for the
proposition that a 20 percent leak rate for commercial refrigeration is
reasonably achievable. These consent decrees are available in the
docket.
iii. Comfort Cooling and Other Appliances
    EPA proposed to lower the leak rate for comfort cooling appliances
and all other refrigeration appliances normally containing 50 pounds or
more of refrigerant that do not fit into the commercial refrigeration
or IPR categories from 15 percent to 10 percent. Based on the data
analysis discussed in this section and comments, EPA is finalizing that
rate as proposed.
    Some commenters recommended keeping the leak rate at 15 percent
because some older systems may not be able to achieve a lower leak
rate. These commenters stated that large chillers from the 1990s have a
leak rate of 8 to 10 percent due to the seal lubrication design and
that as chillers age, the leak rate increases. They asserted EPA should
therefore consider the equipment's date of manufacture, the compressor
configuration, and whether the equipment is custom built. Another
commenter recommended a 5 percent leak rate for comfort cooling and
cited multiple data sources. This commenter pointed to sources of data
showing a 0.5 percent leak rate for HCFC-123 chillers, as well as a
2009 CARB analysis showing a leak rate of 1 percent and the 2005 IPCC/
TEAP Special Report which shows average annual leak rates for best
practice in large commercial air-conditioning to be 0.5 percent.
Another commenter indicated support for the 10 percent leak rate and
noted that the threshold could be lowered further without creating
undue burden, but did not provide any technical data concerning average
leak rates.
    EPA responds that the Agency does consider factors such as the date
of manufacture and the compressor configuration for establishing a leak
rate applicable to all comfort cooling appliances. Since as far back as
1998, EPA found that comfort cooling appliances leaked less than five
percent per year, with many new comfort cooling appliances leaking
around two or even one percent per year. The highest leak rates
reported from new equipment back in 1998 was high pressure chillers
with open-drive compressors with leak rates ranging from four to seven
percent. (63 FR 32066). This assessment continues to be valid based on
industry feedback on EPA's Vintaging Model. On the other side of the
spectrum, the ultralow leak rates (e.g., 1 percent or lower) cited by
the other commenter are generally best-practice leak rates or average
leaks rates across new or low-pressure chillers and do not necessarily
represent the full range of chillers, by type and age, that are subject
to these regulations. The HCFC-123 chillers cited by the commenter
operate at a lower pressure than the other systems and thus might not
be representative of achievable leak rates for HFC and other HCFC
equipment which operate under higher pressures.
    A few commenters stated that EPA lacks definitive data on typical
and economically achievable leak rates for comfort cooling appliances.
These commenters asserted that the CARB and GreenChill data presented
in the proposed rule are primarily related to commercial refrigeration
and IPR, and that SCAQMD's data is not nationally representative
because those appliances have been subject to leak regulations since
1991.
    EPA responds that the Agency has analyzed average leak rates
specifically of comfort cooling appliances as reported to SCAQMD and
CARB, and as estimated in the Vintaging Model. As reflected in this
analysis, these three sources indicate that most comfort cooling
appliances can regularly achieve an annual leak rate of 10 percent.
This memo also cites other industry estimates of leak rates in comfort
cooling appliances. The majority of these estimates range between 2 and
5 percent with three of the fourteen estimates estimating leak rates
above 10 percent.
    The data submitted to the SCAQMD from 2,700 comfort cooling
appliances indicate that 87 percent of ODS-containing comfort cooling
appliances had leak rates below 10 percent. Only 1.5 percent of ODS-
containing appliances would trigger the leak repair requirements if the
leak rate was lowered from 15 to 10 percent.
    EPA agrees that appliances in California or in the SCAQMD may have
lower leak rates than appliances nationally, given the refrigerant
management regulations that have existed in the state for many years.
EPA therefore compared California data with the national assumptions in
the Vintaging Model and found that the two correlate closely. The
Vintaging Model is updated frequently with data supplied by refrigerant
industry stakeholders. Therefore, any difference is not likely to be
significant. This comparison is found in the final technical support
document in the docket.
    Commenters also stated that previous actions are leading the