recovery of the ozone layer. These commenters stated that reducing the
leak rate as proposed will not contribute to the recovery of the ozone
layer and thus EPA cannot justify the burden on owners and operators of
such equipment. EPA anticipates that this action will contribute to the
recovery of the ozone layer and has calculated a reduction in ODP-
weighted emissions of 114 ODP tons. However, section 608 does not
require EPA to quantify the impact of this action on the ozone layer.
To the contrary, section 608(a) directs EPA to establish regulations
that reduce the use and emissions of ODS to the lowest achievable
level, without requiring separate evaluation of how each such reduction
would affect the recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer. Individual
actions such as reducing emissions from comfort cooling appliances fit
into the broader approach to ozone layer protection reflected in Title
VI of the Clean Air Act. As such, any action that reduces the use and
emissions of ODS can help the recovery of the ozone layer.
    EPA also received two comments regarding what is included under the
term other appliances. One commenter recommended that the Agency create
a defined term that includes refrigerated air dryers, non-food cold
storage, wind tunnels, electrical equipment room cooling, non-occupied
digital control rooms, computer server rooms with set point below
68[emsp14][deg]F, environmental chambers, growth chambers, turbine
inlet air cooling, test cells and chambers, and aquariums. That
commenter stated that thousands of regulated entities have identified
systems that potentially fall into that category. Another commenter
noted that humidity control in paint booths and air compressors could
be other appliances but are currently treated as IPR. This commenter
encouraged EPA to remove the other category and instead treat
appliances that do not fall under comfort cooling or commercial
refrigeration as IPR.
    At this time, EPA is not finalizing a definition of ``other
appliance.'' The owners or operators of some of the appliances included
in a definition may currently treat such appliances as IPR or
commercial refrigeration. While not all ``other appliances'' fall under
IPR, for those that do, moving them into an ``other appliances''
category would reduce their leak rate from 35 to 10 percent without
prior notice. More

fundamentally, EPA's current view is that it is appropriate for other
appliances to be regulated according to their function, such that those
that fit within the definition of IPR would be regulated as IPR and
those that fit within the definition of commercial refrigeration would
be regulated accordingly. That view is reflected in the regulatory text
finalized in this rule, which provides that the 10 percent leak rate
applies to ``other appliances'' with a full charge of 50 or more pounds
of refrigerant that are not covered by subparagraphs addressing IPR or
commercial refrigeration equipment.
6. Leak Rate Calculation and Seasonal Variances
    The first step in reducing refrigerant leaks is knowing whether the
appliance is leaking refrigerant and, if so, to what extent. The prior
regulations at Sec.  82.156(i) did not explicitly require technicians
or owners and operators to calculate the leak rate each time
refrigerant is added to an appliance. Recognizing that knowing the leak
rate is necessary for compliance with the leak repair provisions of
subpart F, EPA's Compliance Guidance for Industrial Process
Refrigeration Leak Repair Regulations under Section 608 of the Clean
Air Act from October 1995 states that ``[e]ach time you add refrigerant
to a system normally containing 50 pounds or more of refrigerant, you
should promptly calculate the leak rate.'' (emphasis in original).
Generally, the only time one can calculate the leak rate is when
refrigerant is added to the appliance.
    To reinforce this practice, EPA is clarifying in the revisions to
the regulatory text finalized in this rule that owners or operators of
appliances with 50 or more pounds of refrigerant must calculate the
leak rate every time refrigerant is added to those appliances. EPA is
also clarifying that the leak rate would not need to be calculated when
refrigerant is added immediately following a retrofit or the
installation of a new appliance or for a seasonal variance.
    Two commenters suggested that the leak rate calculation should not
be required on non-leaking appliances where all identified leaks are
repaired within 30 days of discovery. While EPA commends appliance
owners and operators who regularly repair all identified leaks within
30 days, calculating the leak rate each time refrigerant is added is
still necessary. Comments indicate that in some instances, appliance
owners and operators are unable to find significant leaks that may be
driving the high leak rate. Given this feedback, EPA concludes that
calculating the leak rate is needed to alert the appliance owner or
operator to the fact that, in the case of a continually high leak rate,
the typical repair and inspection attempts are not sufficiently
addressing the problem with the appliance. Moreover, because the
revisions to the leak repair rules as finalized in this action require
owners or operators to repair leaks to lower the leak rate below the
applicable threshold, calculating the leak rate on an ongoing basis
provides important information to help evaluate whether this
requirement has been satisfied. Not calculating the leak rate each time
refrigerant is added could also lead to confusion for technicians that
service more than one customer if each has different equipment subject
to different regulatory compliance requirements.
    EPA is also clarifying in this final rule how to handle seasonal
variances. In regions of the country that experience large temperature
swings during the year, refrigerant in some appliances can migrate from
the condenser to the receiver. This migration results in a need to add
refrigerant to an appliance to ``flood the condenser'' in the season of
lower temperature ambient conditions (fall or winter). In this case,
the added refrigerant would have to be removed when the weather returns
to design ambient conditions to prevent high head pressures. This
technique is often referred to as a winter-summer charge procedure or a
seasonal adjustment. Seasonal adjustments are not necessary for
appliances with properly sized system receivers because they can hold
the appliances' full charge, including the additional charge needed to
flood the condenser.
    Under this final rule, owners or operators can exclude from the
leak rate calculation the amount added that is less than or equal to
the amount removed during the prior season. In a properly charged, non-
leaking system, adding refrigerant during months with lower ambient
conditions (fall or winter) would require an equivalent amount of
refrigerant to be removed in the months with higher ambient conditions
(spring or summer). If more refrigerant is added in the fall/winter
than was removed in the prior spring/summer, the difference between the
two would be considered a leak and not a seasonal variance. Without
requiring that the amount added be equal to or less than the amount
removed to qualify for the exemption, there is no way to distinguish
legitimate seasonal variances from refrigerant leaks. For example, an
appliance owner removes 150 pounds of refrigerant during the spring.
Later that year, he adds 180 pounds to that same system to address a
seasonal variance. The owner would be able to consider 150 of the 180
pounds as a seasonal variance and the remaining 30 pounds as a leak.
    EPA expects only one removal and one addition of refrigerant to
account for seasonal variance. If the amount added is equal to or less
than the amount removed in the previous season, but an additional
amount is added in close proximity (typically within a few days to a
few weeks) to the addition being counted as a seasonal variance, and
the two additions together are less than or equal to the amount removed
in the previous season, the second addition would be considered part of
the same refrigerant addition unless the owner or operator could
document a leak.
    As discussed previously in this notice, EPA is defining a seasonal
variance as the removal of refrigerant from an appliance due to a
change in ambient conditions caused by a change in season, followed by
the subsequent addition of an amount that is less than or equal to the
amount of refrigerant removed in the prior change in season, where both
the removal and addition of refrigerant occurs within one consecutive
12-month period.
    EPA is finalizing in the revised regulations at Sec.  82.157(b)
that the leak rate does not need to be calculated when adding
refrigerant that qualifies as a seasonal variance. Both the addition
and prior removal of refrigerant due to seasonal variances must be
documented. Such additions and removals would already be accounted for
in service records provided by the technician to the owner/operator.
The recordkeeping requirements for this flexibility in calculating the
leak rate are located in Sec.  82.157(l)(2), and those for maintaining
records associated with the seasonal variance if it is excluded from
the leak rate calculation are at Sec.  82.157(l)(10).
    Commenters were generally supportive of this new flexibility, but
had some concerns, many of which are discussed in the definitions
section of this notice. Several commenters requested clarification on
whether the owner or operator would be responsible for this
requirement. Owners or operators must keep records of refrigerant added
and removed from an appliance. If they wish to claim a seasonal
variance, they must note in their records the amount of refrigerant
that was removed at the end of the last season for a seasonal variance.
This is likely to be one of the only reasons to remove refrigerant
without immediately adding additional refrigerant or without

mothballing, retiring or retrofitting an appliance.
7. Appliance Repair
    The prior regulations at Sec.  82.156(i) generally require owners
or operators to repair leaks within 30 days of the leak rate being
exceeded (i.e., the date of the refrigerant addition) to bring the leak
rate to below the applicable leak rate. In the proposed rule, EPA
discussed that owners or operators may not know that they have
performed sufficient repairs to bring the system below the leak rate,
or they may have completed the repairs but may find themselves out of
compliance if a separate leak occurs. To reduce emissions of
refrigerants to the lowest achievable level, and remove ambiguity
concerning compliance, EPA proposed to require a leak inspection of the
appliance and then repair all identified leaks. Recognizing that a
small amount of refrigerant can be released from an appliance even if
the refrigerant circuit is unbroken, EPA sought comments on not
requiring the repair of certain minor leaks. Specifically, EPA asked
whether it should exempt situations where sound professional judgment
indicates an individual identified leak is not the result of a faulty
component or connection and that refrigerant releases would not be
reduced from repair or adjustment.
    Many commenters requested that EPA differentiate between major
fixable leaks and minor unfixable leaks. They stated that it is
impossible to repair ``all leaks'' as many systems have minuscule leaks
that are not fixable. A couple of commenters suggested that EPA not
require the repair of leaks that meet the ASHRAE 147 standard, which
are those that are less than 0.1oz/year/joint. Another commenter
recommends a threshold of 10,000 ppm if using leak detection equipment,
or detection visible to the naked eye if using qualitative tests like a
soap bubble test. Other commenters supported EPA's proposed exception
that allows a technician to use best professional judgment to decide
that a leak is not caused by a faulty component or connection and that
the leak would not be reduced from repair or adjustment.
    Some commenters were concerned about the diminishing returns of
repairing all identified leaks. In some cases, small leaks may actually
require extensive repair activities and even component replacement.
Repairing all identified leaks will extend repair times, which for IPR
systems may increase the costs of the repair or, in the case of nuclear
generating facilities, increase the risk of conducting those repairs.
For those reasons, these commenters said owners and operators should be
provided flexibility to select which leaks to repair or make a good-
faith effort to repair leaks.
    In this final rule, after consideration of the comments, EPA is not
finalizing the proposed change to require repair of all identified
leaks. In the proposal, EPA acknowledged that a small amount of
refrigerant can migrate from an appliance even if the refrigerant
circuit is unbroken, and requested comment on whether there should be a
limited exception from the requirement. Instead, the regulations
finalized today contain the same requirement as in the original rule by
requiring that leaks be repaired such that the leak rate will be below
the applicable leak rate. Accordingly, EPA is not at this time setting
a final standard for what is, or is not, an actionable leak beyond the
applicable leak rate. In not finalizing this proposed change, EPA
considers that an owner or operator may have good reason to choose not
to repair a small leak. EPA also considers the original intent of the
leak repair provisions, as explained in the 1993 Rule. At that time the
Agency considered requiring the repair of all leaks ``which has the
benefit of simplicity and clarity'' but explained that without ``any
type of lower bound, however, this standard could result in huge
amounts of money being spent to repair even pinhole leaks in equipment
that may soon be obsolete . . . The intent of the leak repair
requirement in this rule is to assure that substantial leaks are
repaired.'' (58 FR 28680). Not finalizing this proposed requirement
reduces the number of leaks that are to be repaired and accordingly
will reduce the burden of the final rule compared with the proposed
rule for two reasons. First, the repair effort itself may take less
time. Second, fewer verification tests on the repairs, and
recordkeeping associated with such tests, will be needed.
    The final regulations include other provisions to help ensure that
leaks are repaired consistent with the Rule's provisions, and to
address compliance and enforceability of the leak repair provisions.
For example, the final regulations provide for initial and follow-up
verification tests, as discussed below. They also specify that the leak
rate must be confirmed upon the next refrigerant addition. EPA
recognizes that this will result in some uncertainty because the owner
or operator will not know whether the repair is successful until the
leak rate is measured at a future date. There are two instances in
which EPA will consider a repair to be successful beyond calculating
the leak rate upon the next refrigerant addition. The first instance is
if a subsequent leak inspection does not find any leaks at all.\24\ EPA
therefore strongly encourages the owner or operator to repair all
identified leaks, and this provision provides an incentive to repair
all identified leaks, although EPA is not finalizing this proposed
requirement. The second instance is if there has not been a refrigerant
addition in 12 months after the date of repair. If there is not a need
for another refrigerant addition for at least a year after the date of
repair (and thus the leak rate cannot be calculated for at least a
year) EPA will consider the repairs to have been successful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ As discussed previously in this notice, EPA is finalizing
the proposed requirement that the owner or operator conduct a leak
inspection of the appliance before considering the repair to be
complete. Conducting a comprehensive leak inspection is the only way
to ensure that the owner or operator can identify the repairs
necessary to bring the leak rate below the applicable level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If upon the next refrigerant addition the appliance is still
exceeding the threshold leak rate, EPA's presumption is that the repair
failed. The burden is on the owner or operator of the appliance to show
that leaks were repaired to bring the leak rate below the applicable
threshold and that those repairs held.
    One commenter stated that the greatest value of a leak inspection
is on a system with a known leak. A comprehensive leak inspection on an
appliance that has exceeded the applicable leak rate will ensure that
the technician does not stop an inspection when the first leak is
found. Another commenter encouraged EPA to be specific that the leak
inspection be conducted on the whole system not just where the original
leak was found. Another commenter stated that if a particular circuit
in a rack house is found to be leaking and is subsequently repaired and
passes the verification test, it would be nonsensical to require the
inspection of other circuits on that particular appliance.
    EPA agrees with these three commenters. The leak inspection must
encompass all visible and accessible components of an appliance, with
certain exceptions specified in the revised rule. The leak inspection
is not complete simply because a single suspected leak is identified.
Only through an inspection of the whole of the appliance can an owner
or operator know that the repairs that are to be made will be
sufficient to bring the appliance below the applicable leak rate.
However, a leak inspection need

not be performed on other appliances at that site. As discussed
previously in this notice, EPA is clarifying the definition of
appliance such that each separate circuit is a separate appliance.
While there could be a benefit to proactively searching for leaks on
all other circuits, there is no obligation to inspect the other
circuits if only one circuit is leaking and it has been repaired and
the repair verified.
8. Verification Tests
    The prior regulations at Sec.  82.156(i)(3) required verification
tests for repairs to IPR and federally owned commercial and comfort
cooling appliances containing an ODS refrigerant. Verification tests
are performed on appliances, or portions thereof, shortly after they
are repaired to confirm that leaks have been fixed. Without
verification tests, it may take additional time for the owner and
operator to realize that a repair has been unsuccessful and during that
time refrigerant could continue to leak from the appliance. EPA is
extending this requirement to all required repairs because ensuring
that the repairs are done correctly the first time is vital to reducing
refrigerant emissions, regardless of whether the appliance is used for
IPR, commercial refrigeration, comfort cooling, or is in the category
of ``other appliances.''
    EPA is finalizing the requirement at Sec.  82.157(e) that owners or
operators of all types of appliances that are subject to the leak
repair requirements (including those using an ODS or non-exempt
substitute refrigerant) perform both an initial and follow-up
verification of repairs every time the applicable leak rate is exceeded
(unless a retrofit or retirement plan is being developed). Most
commenters on this issue supported the requirement for a follow-up
verification test. Commenters agreed that the combination of an initial
and a follow-up verification test provides effective confirmation of
successful repair. One commenter stated that requiring the verification
of all repairs would be excessively burdensome. The commenter discusses
this burden in the context of the proposal to repair ``all identified
leaks.'' The commenter continues that if amendments to the rule for
inspections and repairs are adopted in any form, EPA should adopt
verification provisions that are limited to significant leaks or adopt
an 80/20 rule to assure that the majority of leak repairs are verified
by a certified technician or qualified plant personnel.
    EPA disagrees with the comment about limiting verification
provisions to significant leaks or adopting an 80/20 rule. Because EPA
is not requiring the repair of all identified leaks in the final rule,
the number of verification tests should be reduced. However, as
explained above, it is important that all repairs be verified both for
purposes of compliance and enforceability and for purposes of avoiding
emissions from leaking appliances. Since owners or operators have
flexibility to determine which leaks to repair as long as they can meet
the obligation to bring the leak rate below the applicable threshold,
they may generally consider what are significant leaks in their repair
effort. The verification tests would only apply to the leaks that were
repaired.
    One commenter stated that a follow-up verification test is
unnecessary if there are periodic leak inspections and thus they should
be eliminated. EPA disagrees with this comment because a follow-up
verification test and a leak inspection serve two separate purposes.
The verification test is conducted shortly after the repairs to confirm
the success of those repairs. The leak inspections are to identify over
the next year or longer whether new leaks have developed or whether
minor leaks have become more significant and to determine the location
of such leaks.
    EPA requested comments on whether to require a minimum time between
initial and follow up verification tests, such as one to three hours,
to allow an appliance to return to normal operating characteristics and
conditions. Many commenters recommended that EPA not establish a
minimum time. Commenters suggested that the follow-up verification test
be allowed as soon as the appliance returns to normal operating
characteristics and conditions. Requiring a waiting period would
increase costs by requiring an additional service call. Furthermore,
high pressure systems will reveal whether a leak was properly repaired
almost immediately.
    EPA has considered the burden of conducting verification tests on
all appliances. The Agency understands that most technicians pressure
check appliances immediately following repairs. Such pressure checks
would satisfy the initial verification requirements. EPA is concerned
that follow-up verifications may not be a part of normal operating
procedures for all repairs. This final rule would allow both initial
and follow-up verification tests to be conducted during the same
service appointment. Accordingly, EPA does not expect the requirement
for verification tests to result in a longer servicing event and thus
we do not expect this requirement to result in incremental labor costs.
However, the final rule provides, and EPA reiterates, that the
technician must wait until the appliance returns to normal operating
characteristics and conditions, which includes operating temperatures,
pressures, fluid flows, speeds, and other characteristics, including
full charge of the appliance, that would be expected for a given
process load and ambient condition during normal operation.
    Some commenters requested that EPA add a reporting requirement for
technicians to provide owners or operators with the results of the
verification tests. These commenters expressed that it is difficult to
get all of the documentation that they are required to maintain from
the technicians who generate those records. EPA agrees with the need to
harmonize the recordkeeping provisions between technicians and owners
and operators and understands that in order for owners and operators to
maintain the required records of the verification tests, they would
need to obtain relevant information from the person conducting those
tests. For these reasons, EPA is adding a requirement for technicians
to provide documentation at the conclusion of each service visit to
Sec.  82.157(l)(5).
    Two commenters suggested that EPA provide an exception for
situations where a follow-up verification test is impossible, for
example, when it would be unsafe to be present when the system is at
normal operating characteristics and conditions. One of the commenters
recommended that EPA allow a standing deep vacuum test in lieu of a
follow-up verification test. EPA responds that the Agency attempted to
address similar concerns from commenters in 1995. Examples included
leaks inside a heat exchanger, compressor internals, locations that
must be insulated prior to start-up, and locations in close proximity
to dangerous hot equipment or moving parts where access is not possible
after reassembly (See 60 FR 40429). At that time, the Agency amended
the regulation at Sec.  82.156(i)(3) to state that ``[i]n all cases,
the follow-up verification test shall be conducted at normal operating
characteristics and conditions, unless sound professional judgment
indicates that tests performed at normal operating characteristics and
conditions will produce less reliable results, in which case the
follow-up verification test shall be conducted at or near the normal
operating pressure where practicable, and at or near the normal
operating temperature where practicable.'' EPA had proposed to remove
that provision to make the regulation clearer and less ambiguous.

Instead, EPA is modifying that provision in the revised regulations at
Sec.  82.157(e)(2) to more clearly address the concern about safety
raised by the commenters as well as the original intent of that
provision.
    EPA is also finalizing the proposed change to clarify that owners
or operators may conduct as many repair attempts as needed within the
initial 30 days (or longer if an extension is available) to repair the
appliance. Consequently, the Agency is explicitly allowing unlimited
verification tests within the required repair window. Commenters were
supportive of this clarification.
9. Extensions to the 30-Day (or 120-Day) Repair Requirement
    The prior regulations contained extensions to the repair or
retrofit/retirement deadlines under four conditions:
     The appliance was mothballed (available for all
appliances) (Sec.  82.156(i)(10));
     The appliance was located in an area subject to
radiological contamination or where shutting down the appliance would
directly lead to radiological contamination (available for federally
owned appliances) (Sec.  82.156(i)(1)(ii) and (i)(5)(ii));
     Applicable federal, state, or local regulations made a
repair within 30 or 120 days impossible (available for IPR) (Sec.
82.156(i)(2)(i)); or
     Parts were unavailable (available for IPR) (Sec.
82.156(i)(2)(i)).
    While not an extension, IPR facilities were also allowed an initial
repair period of 120 days rather than 30 days if an industrial process
shutdown is required to complete the repair. In addition, an exemption
to the repair requirement was allowed for all types of appliances if a
dated retrofit or retirement plan is developed within 30 days and is
then implemented within one year of the date developed.
    EPA proposed to provide these extensions to all appliance
categories, not just IPR and federally owned equipment. EPA is
finalizing these proposed extensions, with some changes from the
proposal. Based on comments received, EPA is finalizing a modified
version for the extension for when necessary parts are unavailable.
More specifically, EPA is clarifying that the extension is allowed when
components that must be replaced as part of the repair are not
available within the initial 30 day (or 120 day) repair time frame.
Also based on comments, EPA is modifying the proposed changes to allow
these extensions upon notification to EPA, unless EPA notifies the
source otherwise, rather than requiring owners or operators to request
an extension and wait for EPA approval. Taken together, these changes
significantly reduce the burden of the leak repair regulations on
owners of comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances and
to a lesser extent IPR.
    Based on comments received, EPA is modifying the extension for when
necessary parts are unavailable. Many commenters supported EPA's
proposal to allow additional time to acquire and install a replacement
for a leaking component. While EPA views installing a component as a
type of repair, the comments indicate that some owners or operators
consider the replacement of a component as different than the repair of
an appliance. Replacing a component is more costly, requires more time
to order, and requires more system downtime to install. Owners or
operators may attempt to repair a leak but upon a failed follow-up
verification test may ultimately decide that the whole component where
the leak is located needs to be replaced. By the time a decision is
made to replace the whole component, there is little time remaining
within the initial 30 day repair window to procure and install that
component.
    Based on these comments, EPA is modifying the extension for when
necessary parts are unavailable by clarifying that the extension is
allowed when components that must be replaced as part of the required
repair are not available within the initial 30 day time frame (or 120
days if an industrial process shutdown is required). This extension
encourages the proper repair of an appliance, which in EPA's view,
includes the replacement of major components if necessary, rather than
simply patching those components, an approach which may not be
successful in the longer term. Furthermore, some owners or operators
would prefer to replace a faulty component before they are required to
retrofit or retire an entire appliance and believe this could, in many
instances, be an equally effective means to address needed repairs.
This extension should also reduce the potentially large burden upon
owners or operators of requiring a large-scale retrofit or retirement
when replacing the leaking component might satisfactorily repair the
appliance.
    The extensions for repair in the prior regulations are open-ended.
While those regulations provided only the additional time needed to
receive delivery of the necessary parts, it did not set an outer limit
for delivery nor did it clearly provide time to install the components
once they are received. EPA is finalizing its proposal to set a limit
on the extension for the installation of a necessary component. The
owner or operator must complete the repair within 30 days after
receiving delivery of the component and the total extension may not
exceed 180 days (or 270 days if an IPR shutdown is required).
    To qualify for any of the extensions in this section, owners or
operators must perform all repairs that can be completed within the
initial 30 or 120 day period. Initial verification tests must be
performed on all completed repairs. A final verification test may not
be appropriate for the completed repairs depending on the nature of the
remaining repairs and state of the appliance. The owner or operator
must also document all such repair efforts and the reason for the
inability to make the repair. This would include a written statement
from the appliance or component manufacturer or distributor stating the
unavailability of the necessary component and the expected delivery
date.
    Some commenters stated that any changes to nuclear generating
stations must undergo extensive engineering and risk review processes,
which recommends against the requirement to retrofit if they cannot
repair the system. The commenter noted that extended downtime of safety
systems in such facilities will increase risk to workers and may
conflict with federal regulations. EPA responds that the Agency is
providing extensions for any appliance type subject to radiological
contamination. Previously, this extension was available only for
federally owned appliances. EPA is also not changing the open-ended
nature of the extensions due to radiological contamination or
compliance with applicable federal, state, or local regulations.
Together, this should allow repairs in accordance with the commenter's
schedule.
    In some instances, encouraging repair may be a preferable
environmental outcome to requiring the retrofit or retirement of a
leaking system. Appliances that are to be retired are not required to
be repaired. Thus, an appliance may continue to leak for up to a year
(in addition to extension opportunities). Under this final rule, leaks
must be repaired to bring the leak rate below the applicable threshold
within 30 days and any component replacement must occur within 6
months. The extension could accelerate the time by which the appliance
will stop releasing refrigerants by making leak repair seem more
attractive or

feasible for some owners or operators compared with retrofit or
retirement of a leaking system.
    Based on the comments received, EPA is allowing these extensions to
be automatic, so long as EPA is notified. Previously, owners or
operators would have to request these extensions from EPA and wait for
them to be approved. One commenter requested that EPA automatically
grant the extension where there are limiting federal, state, or local
laws so long as the owner or operator maintains the proper
documentation that demonstrates they satisfy the condition. Another
commenter requested that EPA harmonize the timing of the request with
the 30 day time frame to repair. Previously, a request had to be made
within 30 days of exceeding the leak rate but EPA had an additional 30
days to approve or deny the request. There was no clear tolling of the
30 day repair clock which meant a system could be denied an extension
after the repair deadline expired. EPA is resolving these conflicting
schedules by considering repair requests approved unless EPA notifies
the owner or operator that it is not approved.
    Owners or operators must provide the same information to EPA as was
contained in a request for an extension under the prior regulations.
The request must include: Identification and address of the facility;
the name of the owner or operator of the appliance; the leak rate; the
method used to determine the leak rate and full charge; the date a leak
rate above the applicable leak rate was discovered; the location of
leak(s) to the extent determined to date; any repair work performed
thus far, including the date that work was completed; the reasons why
more than 30 days are needed to complete the repair; and an estimate of
when the work will be completed.
    If an extension to the earlier submitted completion date is
necessary, the owner or operator must still submit a request to EPA
with a new estimated date of completion and documentation of the reason
for that change. The request must be within 30 days of identifying that
further time is needed. The owner or operator must keep a dated copy of
this submission and proof that it was submitted.
10. Retrofit or Retirement Plans
    The previous regulations at Sec.  82.156(i)(6) required an owner or
operator of an appliance that exceeds the applicable leak rate to
develop a retrofit or retirement plan generally within 30 days if they
were unable to repair the leak or simply choose not to repair the leak
and instead retire the appliance. EPA proposed four revisions to the
retrofit/retirement provision. First, EPA proposed to remove the
requirement to retrofit or retire an appliance after a failed follow-up
verification test. Second, EPA proposed to remove the requirement to
use a substitute with a lower or equivalent ODP. Third, EPA proposed to
establish explicit elements of a retrofit/retirement plan. Fourth, EPA
proposed to require that all identified leaks be repaired as part of
implementing any retrofit plan. EPA is finalizing these four proposals,
with some modifications based on comments.
    Failed Verification Tests. The prior regulations required owners or
operators of IPR using an ODS refrigerant that have failed a follow-up
verification test to develop a retrofit or retirement plan within 30
days of the failed verification test and implement the plan within one
year. Owners or operators of comfort cooling and commercial
refrigeration appliances were not required to perform verification
tests on their repairs and therefore were not subject to this trigger
to develop a retrofit or retirement plan. As discussed in Section
IV.F.8 of this notice, EPA is extending the requirement to conduct
verification tests on repairs made to commercial refrigeration and
comfort cooling appliances, increasing the potential universe of
appliances affected.
    Both prior to initiating this rulemaking and through comments
received on the proposed rule, appliance owners/operators have
expressed their concern to EPA that the requirement to retrofit or
retire an entire appliance because it has failed a verification test is
not always practical or necessary. In their view, a failed verification
test should indicate to a technician that further repair work needs to
be performed to properly fix the leak, not a regulatory requirement to
begin retrofitting or retiring the appliance. As EPA discusses in the
section on follow-up verification tests, in the revisions finalized in
this rule EPA is allowing as many repairs and follow-up verification
tests as are necessary to fix the appliance within the required time
frame. Accordingly, consistent with these comments, the revised
regulations no longer require an owner or operator to retrofit or
retire an entire appliance simply because it has failed a verification
test.
    EPA proposed that failing to comply with ``paragraphs (e) and (f)
of this section,'' which included the proposed requirement to repair
all identified leaks and verify all repairs, would trigger a
requirement to develop a retrofit or retirement plan within 30 days,
rather than a failed verification test. As discussed above, EPA is not
finalizing the proposal to repair all identified leaks; therefore, EPA
is modifying the trigger to develop a retrofit or retirement plan
accordingly. In this final rule, a plan must be developed within 30
days of discovering that an appliance continues to leak above the
applicable leak rate after having conducted the necessary repairs and
verification tests. This provision as finalized is also narrower and
clearer than a ``failure to comply with paragraphs (e) and (f) of this
section,'' which EPA proposed, because the proposed language could have
been interpreted to also include failure to maintain records rather
than failure to repair the appliance. EPA has added a provision to
clarify that owners or operators are still required to develop a
retrofit or retirement plan even if they do not affirmatively choose to
retrofit, retire, or repair their leaking appliance.
    Retrofit/Retirement ODP. EPA's prior regulations required that
appliances containing an ODS refrigerant, when being retrofitted or
retired/replaced, use a refrigerant with an equivalent or lower ODP.
EPA created this provision to foster the transition from refrigerants
with high ODPs to ones with a lower or zero ODP.
    EPA proposed to remove this requirement and allow for retrofits or
retired/replaced appliances to use any refrigerant (other than the one
currently used in that appliance in the case of retrofits), so long as
it is acceptable for use under SNAP. This proposed revision would not
relax the prior requirements with respect to HCFCs since the
regulations implementing sections 605 and 606 of the CAA already
prohibit the use of virgin HCFCs in appliance manufacture (as of
January 1, 2010, for HCFC-142b and HCFC-22; and as of January 1, 2020,
for other HCFCs) and thus installation and retrofit of such appliances
would not occur. As explained in the proposal, requiring the use of a
refrigerant with a lower or equivalent ODP could be problematic if the
requirement were read strictly because some non-exempt substitutes like
HFOs that are not classified as an ODS have a negligible, but non-zero,
ODP. For example, trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (also known
as 1233zd(E)) has an ODP between 0.00024 to 0.00034 and a GWP between
4.7 to 7 (see 77 FR 47768). Under a strict interpretation, an owner/
operator would not be able to replace an R-134a chiller with a
1233zd(E) chiller in the future because R-134a has an ODP of zero and
the olefinic refrigerant has an ODP greater than zero. This

could prevent transition to low-GWP alternatives.
    Some commenters suggested that EPA should require a retrofit to an
acceptable substitute under SNAP, with one commenter suggesting that it
be a lower GWP alternative than the refrigerant currently being used.
Another commenter suggested that if the SNAP-approved refrigerant with
the lowest available GWP is being used, EPA should allow for documented
repairs and quarterly leak inspection in place of forced system
retirement.
    Other commenters questioned the value of retrofitting a system that
already uses substitute refrigerants and suggest that retrofit plans
should not be required for non-ODS equipment. One commenter viewed the
existing rules as providing an opt-out incentive to owners that
voluntarily retrofit to a non-ODS. The commenter requested that EPA
retain this feature so that owners that switch from a high-GWP
refrigerant to a low-GWP refrigerant similarly benefit. Similarly, a
commenter questioned how retrofitting helps the owner/operator if the
rules for HFCs are the same as for ODS.
    EPA responds that the Agency is finalizing provisions that
encourage the repair of leaking systems instead of requiring the
retrofitting or retirement of those systems. Most significantly, EPA is
finalizing the proposal to allow all comfort cooling, commercial
refrigeration, and IPR appliances the opportunity to extend the
deadline to repair leaking appliances beyond 30 days (or 120 days if an
industrial process shutdown is required). It is not the Agency's
intention to use the retrofit or retirement requirements in the subpart
F regulations to dictate specific refrigerant choices. The revisions to
these regulations are intended to provide as much flexibility to the
owner or operator to decide what is appropriate for their system.
    Elements of a Retrofit or Retirement Plan. EPA has not previously
specified what elements should be included in a retrofit or retirement
plan. Due to the complex nature of refrigeration appliances, an
exhaustive list may not fit all types of appliances considering the
wide array of configurations and refrigerant choices. Based on requests
from stakeholders, EPA proposed a minimum set of information that is
likely to be needed during any type of retrofit or retirement to be
included in a plan, including:
     Identification and location of the appliance;
     Type (i.e., ASHRAE number) and full charge of the
refrigerant currently used in the appliance;
     Type (i.e., ASHRAE number) and full charge of the
refrigerant to which the appliance will be converted, if retrofitted;
     Itemized procedure for converting the appliance to the new
refrigerant, including changes required for compatibility (for example,
procedure for flushing old refrigerant and lubricant; and changes in
lubricants, filters, gaskets, o-rings, and valves), if retrofitted;
     Plan for the disposition of recovered refrigerant;
     Plan for the disposition of the appliance, if retired; and
     Schedule for completion within one year of the appliance
retrofit or retirement.
    Some commenters stated that this is excessively detailed and
includes information that is unlikely to be known immediately upon
deciding to retrofit or retire an appliance. One commenter noted that
it will take time to perform the necessary engineering evaluations and
investigate the costs and timing associated with the available options.
The commenter provided revised regulatory text to remove reference to
the type of refrigerant and full charge for the retrofitted system, the
procedure for converting the appliance to a new refrigerant, and the
schedule for conducting the retrofit or retirement.
    EPA responds that the shortest time frame in which a retrofit or
retirement plan would have to be developed is when, upon discovering a
leak, the owner or operator immediately chooses to retrofit or retire
the appliance upon discovering that leak. In that circumstance the plan
would be developed within 30 days. In all other circumstances, the
owner will have 30 days from when repair attempts have failed,
including repairs attempted under various extensions, to develop the
plan.
    While some information may not be available in that time frame, the
owner or operator can develop an initial plan within 30 days and then
modify it as additional information is determined. For example, owners
or operators may not know within the allotted time frame what the
itemized procedure will be until they finalize plans for the retrofit
or retirement. The plan could indicate what steps must be taken in
order to have enough information to make the necessary determinations.
The information required in the plan is not excessively detailed
because the owner or operator will need to know this information in
order to properly dispose of the old appliance and install the
replacement.
    One commenter also stated that the plan does not need to be kept
onsite with the appliance, so long as it can be made available to EPA
and that it is also unnecessary for a plan to be signed because staff,
including the person who initially signed the plan, could change. The
commenter believes it is sufficient for EPA to be told who is
responsible for the plan when it is provided to the Agency. EPA
responds that it is appropriate for the plan to be accessible at the
site of the appliance. The previous rules required that the original
plan or a legible copy be kept at the site of the appliance. This could
imply maintaining a printed version of the plan with the appliance. EPA
is finalizing the proposal to allow for the plan to be ``accessible''
at the site of the appliance, which includes an option to have the plan
be ``accessible'' in electronic format. This provides sufficient
flexibility for the plan's storage while still allowing for the plan to
be quickly available upon request. It is also important that the plan
be signed so that the authorized representative has taken
responsibility for the plan and so that EPA can identify who that
person is and the date the plan was created.
    Requirement to Repair Appliances Undergoing Retrofit. Under the
prior regulations at Sec.  82.156(i)(6), owners or operators were not
required to repair leaks if they developed a retrofit or retirement
plan. EPA proposed to require that all identified leaks be repaired as
part of any retrofit under such a plan. EPA is finalizing the
requirement that a system being retrofitted must be simultaneously
repaired as part of the retrofit. EPA is also finalizing the proposed
requirement that the owner or operator repair ``all identified leaks''
as part of the retrofit, rather than allowing selective repairs that
would bring the appliance below the applicable leak rate. Although this
differs from the requirements for leak repair discussed in Section
IV.F.7, a retrofit is a more extensive change to a system, during which
time components may be replaced and more comprehensive leak repair can
be performed.
11. Extensions To Retrofit or Retire Appliances
    Under the prior regulations at Sec.  82.156(i)(6), an owner or
operator generally was required to complete the retrofit or retirement
of a leaking appliance containing an ODS within one year of creating a
retrofit or retirement plan. Extensions were available in the following
circumstances:

     If delays were caused by requirements of other applicable
federal, state, or local laws or regulations (available for IPR);
     If a suitable replacement refrigerant with a lower ODP was
unavailable (available for IPR);
     If the supplier of the appliance or a critical component
quoted a delivery time of more than 30 weeks from when the order was
placed (available for IPR);
     If complications presented by the appropriations and/or
procurement process resulted in a delivery time of more than 30 weeks
(available for federally owned appliances); or
     If the appliance was located in an area subject to
radiological contamination and creating a safe working environment will
require more than 30 weeks (available for federally owned appliances).
    EPA proposed at Sec.  82.157(i) four substantive revisions to these
extensions. First, as with all other leak repair provisions, EPA
proposed to apply these extensions to appliances containing non-exempt
substitute refrigerants. EPA is finalizing this revision, as proposed.
    Second, EPA proposed to remove the extension for when a suitable
replacement refrigerant with a lower ODP is not available. EPA
established this extension when certain applications using CFCs did not
have a suitable HCFC substitute. Today, there are many more substitutes
for ODS refrigerants. In fact, few appliances can be newly installed or
retrofitted with virgin ODS because of the HCFC use restrictions
implementing section 605 of the CAA. As discussed previously in this
notice, EPA is removing the requirement that a retrofit use a
refrigerant with a similar or lower ODP. Therefore, the rationale for
this extension no longer exists and EPA is removing it as proposed. EPA
is accordingly also removing the term suitable replacement refrigerant
from the definitions in Sec.  82.154, as proposed.
    Third, EPA proposed a new extension at Sec.  82.157(i)(1) if the
appliance is to be retrofitted to or replaced with a refrigerant that
is exempt from the venting prohibition as listed in Sec.  82.154(a). In
that situation, EPA proposed to allow an extension up to 18 months.
Whereas the prior extensions were only available to IPR and federally
owned appliances, EPA proposed to make this extension available to
comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances as well.
    Some commenters were supportive of this proposal as a way to
encourage transition to zero-ODP and low-GWP refrigerants. Other
commenters were opposed to the proposal because it encourages the use
of refrigerants that are more toxic, hazardous, or flammable than HFCs.
    EPA responds that the first comment is correct that the
refrigerants that are exempt from the venting prohibition, such as
carbon dioxide (R-744), and the hydrocarbon refrigerants ethane (R-
170), propane (R-290), isobutane (R-600a), and R-441A in certain uses,
have an ODP of zero and low GWPs ranging from one to eight. EPA further
notes that subject to 40 CFR subpart G, many of the refrigerants exempt
from the venting prohibition are not acceptable when retrofitting
certain types of equipment; hence, in most cases these exempt
refrigerants would be used in new equipment replacing the leaking
system. One reason to provide more time for retrofitting or
replacements for exempt substitutes is to allow time to purchase and
install new equipment. With respect to the points made by the second
comment, the refrigerant must be approved under SNAP for the end-use in
order to be used. A company choosing to move to one of these
alternatives would reasonably be expected to consider safety
characteristics of the refrigerant. Moreover, for refrigerants that are
exempt from the venting prohibition, the Agency has already determined
that the release of these substances do not pose a threat to the
environment as part of the decision to exempt them from the venting
prohibition. Accordingly, EPA is finalizing this extension as proposed.
    Fourth, the prior regulations at Sec.  82.156(i)(3)(v) relieved
owners and operators of IPR appliances of the requirement to retrofit
or retire their appliances if they established that the appliance's
leak rate is below the applicable rate within 180 days of an initial
failed follow-up verification test and they notified EPA within 30 days
of that determination. EPA proposed to remove this provision because it
was infrequently used and because other extensions, in particular the
extension to receive a replacement component, should provide sufficient
flexibility for IPR and other appliances.
    Multiple commenters recommended that EPA retain this exemption
because there may be situations where the root cause of a leak is not
identified until after a retrofit/retirement plan is developed. The
commenters stated that an appliance need not be retrofitted or retired
if it can be demonstrated that it is repaired.
    Based on these comments, EPA is not finalizing its proposal to
remove that provision. Just because it is not frequently used does not
mean that it may not be used in the future, especially since EPA is
expanding the universe of appliances subject to the retrofit/retirement
plan requirements to include those that use non-exempt substitute
refrigerants. EPA agrees that an appliance need not be retrofitted or
retired if it can be demonstrated that the repairs bring the leak rate
of the appliance below the threshold leak rates. In the instance of a
retrofit, because EPA is requiring that all identified leaks be
repaired, it is possible that the appliance could be repaired to such
an extent as to not need to complete the retrofit.
    EPA is concerned, however, about whether this provision could
provide a mechanism to delay repairs. To discourage this, EPA is
requiring that all identified leaks be repaired consistent with the
retrofit requirements, rather than merely fixing leaks sufficient to
bring the appliance below the applicable leak rate, which is what EPA
is finalizing for repairs required under Sec.  82.157(d). EPA is also
revising the reporting elements that were found in the prior
regulations related to this provision. Rather than allowing the owner
or operator to merely provide notice to EPA, the Agency is requiring
that the owner or operator request that EPA relieve them of the
obligation to retrofit or retire the appliance. Like other requests in
the leak repair provisions, the request will be considered approved
unless EPA notifies the owners or operators otherwise within 60 days of
receipt. The request must also provide other information about the
equipment and the repair, such as an explanation of why the repair was
not conducted within the time frames required under Sec.  82.157(d) and
(f). This approach provides flexibility for owners and operators while
avoiding it becoming simply an extension of the duty to repair because
of the increased level of repair and the information requirements
associated with its use. EPA anticipates this will be most useful in
situations where the root cause of the leak is not identified until
after a retrofit/retirement plan is developed.
    Finally, EPA proposed to revise the extension for IPR to implement
a retrofit plan where a supplier of the appliance or a critical
component has quoted a delivery time of more than 30 weeks from when
the order is placed. EPA proposed to modify this to mirror the
extension allowed for the repair of an appliance in this situation,
such that the appliance or appliance components would have to be
installed on the retrofitted appliance within 120 days after receiving
delivery of the necessary parts. Previously, this extension allowed

for one additional year beyond the one-year retrofit period. EPA
inadvertently removed a provision, found previously at Sec.
82.156(i)(7)(iii), that further extended this extension for the
delivery and installation of critical components without discussion in
the notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA is restoring that provision at
Sec.  82.157(i)(2)(iii). EPA notes that the Agency correctly proposed a
similar extension for federally owned appliances in Sec.
82.157(i)(3)(iii).
12. Chronically Leaking Appliances
    EPA proposed to add a total leak limit to the repair requirement to
address chronically leaking systems. Under that proposal, an appliance
containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant may not leak more than 75
percent of its full charge in two consecutive twelve-month periods and
remain in use. If an appliance exceeded the two year leak limit, the
owner or operator would be out of compliance until the appliance was
retired or mothballed and later retired.
    For the proposed rule, EPA reviewed data reported to CARB to
determine whether such a total leak limit would be necessary and, if
so, what the limit should be. In 2013, approximately 8 percent of
reporting appliances had leaked more than 75 percent of their full
charge over the calendar year and were responsible for 38 percent of
total reported emissions. Due to the high chronic leaks of such
appliances, the environmental benefit of establishing a cumulative leak
limit could be large. Nonetheless, the number of appliances affected by
this proposed limit should be low.
    Environmental NGOs and state pollution control agencies were
supportive of the proposed two year leak limit, with one NGO suggesting
a leak limit of 55 percent instead of 75 percent. A chemical
manufacturer was also supportive if the proposal allowed an exemption
for unavoidable catastrophic leaks. Many other commenters expressed
strong opposition to the proposed two year leak limit, describing it as
redundant, unnecessary, or punitive. Commenters state that there are
many reasons why an appliance may leak in excess of 75 percent for two
consecutive years even though the appliance is in good condition. For
example, commenters expressed that it is possible for two large volume
leaks to occur from unrelated components. Multiple commenters stated
that owners should not have to mothball an appliance where the cause of
the leak can be remedied by the replacement of a component. Commenters
that operate supermarkets were especially concerned about the
requirement to retire the appliance given that EPA's definition of
appliance includes all of the display cases and coolers attached to the
refrigerant circuit. This requirement would result in the scrapping and
replacement of perfectly good components. Another commenter for similar
reasons suggested that IPR be exempt from the retirement responsibility
due to their unique nature, although the commenter believed comfort
cooling and commercial refrigeration could remain subject to the 2 year
leak limit. If EPA chose to finalize this leak limit, many commenters
requested an off-ramp provision from the automatic retirement for
catastrophic leaks resulting from accidents, vandalism, acts of nature,
non-mechanical failures, or on a case-by-case decision upon notifying
EPA.
    In response to the significant concerns raised by commenters, EPA
is not finalizing this proposed two year leak limit. EPA is aware of
the many situations in which a system can leak large quantities of
refrigerant in consecutive years. For instance, it is possible, though
rare, for two catastrophic leaks to occur on the system through no
fault of the operator. Although EPA requested comments on a possible
exemption for catastrophic leaks, it is clear from the comments that
there is a wide range of opinions about what a catastrophic leak is,
and what can cause such a leak. Because EPA is not finalizing this
provision, it is not defining the term catastrophic leak at this time.
    EPA also assumed that, absent catastrophic leaks, it was unlikely
for a system to be in compliance with other parts of subpart F while
still leaking at this rate. EPA generally anticipates that a leaking
appliance will be repaired within 30 days to six months. However, the
leak repair regulations contemplate situations in which an owner or
operator is unable to repair or subsequently retrofit a system in a
timely fashion (e.g., federally owned equipment located in areas
subject to radiological contamination, unavailability of necessary
parts for IPR, or adherence to local, State, or federal laws hinder
repairs for IPR). Based on feedback from stakeholders from meetings
docketed in this rule, EPA is aware of instances where appliances leak
refrigerant in excess of 75 percent but are still in compliance with
the other leak repair regulations.
    While EPA wishes to reduce chronically leaking systems, EPA
believes other practices required under this final rule will help
address chronic leakers. For example, strengthening the leak repair
regulations by lowering the rate at which the initial repairs must be
performed, requiring leak inspections prior to those repairs,
verification tests of those repairs, and subsequent leak inspections
after the repair, will reduce the number of chronically leaking
systems.
    Data received from CARB and other sources indicate that there are
systems that may not be adhering to the leak repair requirements of
subpart F. Some commenters, even those opposed to the specific proposal
offered by EPA, agree that the worst chronic leaking systems may
warrant special consideration. However, they found the proposed
provision both overly broad and overly harsh in its outcome. Some
commenters proposed alternate methods of addressing chronically leaking
systems. One commenter stated that a requirement to properly document
causes for large leaks and to establish corrective actions would likely
be more effective at reducing large leaks than simply imposing a two
year leak limit that would result in a unit being retired. CARB
recommended that if both (a) the annualized leak rate exceeds 100
percent more than 4 times in the previous 365 days and (b) more than
120 percent of the total charge has been added in the previous 365
days, the system or faulty component should be retired. EPA considered
CARB's approach and finds it attractive for a couple of reasons. This
alternative has the benefit of considering the number of refrigerant
additions in addition to the total amount of refrigerant released,
thereby removing appliances affected by catastrophic leaks. It also
would take effect after one year, which will cut in half the time in
which refrigerant is being released into the environment. However, this
approach would still require the automatic retirement of these systems,
which some commenters found to be too strict a penalty.
    The chronically leaking appliance provision, as proposed, would
apply to appliances containing 50 pounds or more of refrigerant that
leak more than 75 percent of the full charge in each of two consecutive
twelve-month periods. Based on the comments, EPA is revising the
chronically leaking appliance provision. EPA is requiring that owners
or operators of appliances that leak 125 percent of their full charge
in a calendar year submit a report to EPA detailing their repair
efforts. The reports must be submitted no later than March 1 of the
year following the 125 percent or greater leak. Through that report,
the owner or operator must demonstrate that they are

in compliance with the repair provisions or the retrofit or retirement
provisions in this section. In some cases, owners or operators may have
already provided information to EPA as part of a repair or retrofit
extension request.
    By raising the threshold, EPA intends to avoid capturing appliances
affected by unavoidable losses of full charge. Systems would have to
lose their full charge and then a significant quantity more. Using CARB
data and scaling up to the whole U.S., EPA estimates that 1,425
appliances (or 0.1 percent of all appliances with 50 or more pounds of
refrigerant) would be affected at 125 percent of full charge.
    Like CARB's approach, this would apply after one year rather than
waiting for a second year of high leaks. As such, it will catch chronic
leakers sooner than the provision EPA proposed. Several commenters
contended the opportunity for a case-by-case determination is necessary
to account for the variety of situations that might trigger the
chronically leaking appliance provisions. They contended that without
the opportunity for a case-by-case determination, the provision will
force the retirement of working equipment. EPA's revised approach is
similar to what many commenters suggested in that it allows for a case-
by-case discussion after notifying EPA. Adding this reporting
requirement also furthers EPA's goal of revising these regulations to
improve enforcement and compliance of the regulations in subpart F.
This will incentivize many owners and operators to improve their
systems to ensure that they do not trigger this reporting requirement.
    Comments were mixed as to whether the chronically leaking appliance
provisions should be calculated based on calendar year, 12-month
consecutive periods, or whether regulated entities should be given the
discretion to choose one or the other. These concerns are partially
moot, given that EPA has changed this requirement to allow for
reporting to EPA in lieu of a retrofit or retirement. EPA is finalizing
provisions stating that the 125 percent is based on calendar year so
that entities do not need to calculate refrigerant additions on a
rolling basis.
13. Recordkeeping
    The prior regulations contained recordkeeping and reporting
provisions for all of subpart F at Sec.  82.166. As proposed, EPA is
finalizing a recordkeeping paragraph at Sec.  82.157(l) and a reporting
paragraph at Sec.  82.157(m) within the leak repair section to make
these requirements easier to locate.
    The prior regulations also required that certain records be kept in
hard copy at the site of the appliance. Under the revisions finalized
in this rule, EPA is explicitly allowing, though not requiring,
electronic records in this final rule. EPA recognizes that many
companies employ electronic databases to store and track records. An
electronic recordkeeping system has advantages to paper records, and
EPA encourages owners and operators of appliances to use one of these
systems to track refrigerant additions and other required records.
Electronic systems allow for more comprehensive refrigerant management
and can help identify leaky appliances earlier. These records must
still be accessible onsite if an EPA inspector visits a facility, but
that access can occur through downloading or printing the records from
an online system.
    Owners and operators. The previous rules required owners and
operators to maintain service records documenting the date and type of
service, as well as the quantity of ODS refrigerant added. EPA proposed
to add specific recordkeeping requirements to ensure that the owner or
operator is aware of the leak rate. EPA also proposed to require that
the owner or operator maintain records of all calculations,
measurements, and assumptions used to determine the full charge and any
revisions made to the full charge over time. EPA also proposed records
for the leak inspections or automatic leak detection equipment,
verification tests, and seasonal variances.
    Some commenters stated that the recordkeeping for the newly
proposed requirements will be a significant burden. One commenter
stated that the recordkeeping from all of the leak inspections would be
a large burden and urged EPA to minimize that burden in the final rule.
Another stated that requiring detailed information on the location of
all repaired leaks with the type of verification test would be a
substantial burden and would require enhanced service records tailored
to individual equipment. The commenter suggested EPA require instead
only the date and results of initial and follow-up verification tests.
    EPA responds that the Agency recognizes the concerns about the
extent of the proposed recordkeeping burden. EPA is finalizing the
recordkeeping requirements as proposed but is modifying the final rule
to reduce the number of such records. First, EPA is only requiring leak
inspections on systems that have exceeded the applicable leak rate,
rather than on all appliances. EPA estimates that the universe of
affected appliances will decrease by 81 percent relative to the
proposal (from 1.5 million to 282,000 appliances). Though there are
fewer leak inspections, EPA estimates a higher total burden because the
Agency has increased the estimates for the costs of each inspection
based on public comments. Second, EPA is only requiring repairs
sufficient to bring the leak rate below the threshold leak rate, rather
than requiring the repair of all identified leaks (unless the owner or
operator chooses to calculate their leak rate using the Rolling Average
method). There should be fewer verification tests and thus less to
record.
    EPA is finalizing the leak inspection records as proposed.
Specifically, owners or operators must keep records of leak inspections
that include the date of inspection, the method(s) used to conduct the
leak inspection, a list of the location of each leak that was
identified, and a certification that all visible and accessible parts
of the appliance were inspected. The specificity of the leak inspection
documentation is appropriate because this information will help
demonstrate that the repair has brought the appliance's leak rate below
the threshold leak rate. This information would allow the owner or
operator to demonstrate, if needed, that a further exceedance of the
leak rate threshold after repairing leaks is due to a new leak rather
than a leak that was previously identified but not repaired.
    EPA is also finalizing the verification test records as proposed.
Specifically, owners or operators must maintain records that include
the location of the appliance, the date of the verification tests, the
location of all repaired leaks that were tested, the type of
verification test used, and the results of those tests. It is important
to document that each specific repair was verified so as to determine
whether a repair was successful and whether the leak has been
addressed. EPA is not requiring such specificity as a schematic of that
individual appliance showing the locations of all repairs and
verification tests. However, information should allow a technician to
generally know which components of the appliance were repaired.
    In this final rule, EPA is establishing the recordkeeping
requirements described generally in this section for owners and
operators of appliances normally containing 50 or more pounds of class
I, class II, or non-exempt substitute refrigerant. All records required
in Sec.  82.157(l) must be maintained for at least three years.
     Maintain records documenting the full charge of
appliances;

     Maintain records, such as invoices or other documentation
showing when refrigerant is added or removed from an appliance, when a
leak inspection is performed, when a verification test is conducted,
and when service or maintenance is performed;
     If using an automatic leak detection system, maintain
documentation that the system is installed and audited or calibrated
annually and records of when the monitoring system identifies a leak
and the location of the leak;
     Maintain retrofit and/or retirement plans;
     Maintain retrofit and/or extension requests submitted to
EPA;
     If a system is mothballed to suspend a deadline, maintain
records documenting when the system was mothballed and when it was
brought back on-line (i.e., when refrigerant was added back into the
appliance);
     Maintain records of purged and destroyed refrigerant if
excluding such refrigerant from the leak rate;
     Maintain records to demonstrate a seasonal variance; and
     Maintain copies of any reports submitted to EPA under
Sec.  82.157(m).
    Technicians. The prior rules required technicians to provide an
invoice or other documentation that includes the amount of ODS
refrigerant added to the owner or operator. This would likely already
include information on the system serviced, the date, and the company/
person servicing the appliance. It would likely also include some
description of the service provided. However, the information that the
technician was required to provide did not match the information that
the owner or operator was required to maintain. The limited records
that the prior regulations required from service technicians also did
not provide information needed by the owner or operator to make
decisions on the fate of the appliance. EPA proposed to align the
records that the technician must provide to the owner or operator with
the ones that the owner or operator are required to maintain.
    Multiple commenters noted that owners or operators must expend a
tremendous amount of effort to obtain good records from outside service
providers. Often facility owners are provided incorrect or incomplete
paperwork or are unable to obtain paperwork at all. The commenters were
generally supportive of EPA's proposal that would make it a requirement
for technicians to provide the necessary information to the owner or
operator of the appliance. However, one commenter stated that the
record for the proposed rule does not justify the extent of records
that technicians must provide to owners/operators and suggested that
EPA maintain only the current recordkeeping requirements for
technicians.
    Multiple commenters requested that EPA remove the proposed
requirement that technicians provide the owner or operator with the
full charge of the appliance or the leak rate calculations because
technicians often do not have sufficient information, such as the date
of last service, to make those calculations. Other commenters requested
that the Agency require the technician provide the owner or operator
with information about the initial and follow-up leak repair
verification tests that matches what EPA proposed to require the owner
or operator to maintain.
    After considering the comments, EPA is finalizing its proposal to
align the records that the technician must provide to the owner or
operator with the records that the owner or operator are required to
maintain, with a few exceptions described below. In response to the
comment that EPA maintain only the current recordkeeping requirements
for technicians, the service technician is generally in the better
position to generate those records as they are performing the service
activities and usually are the expert that the appliance owner or
operator is relying on to make informed decisions about their
appliances. Finalizing these requirements for technicians should help
ensure that the appropriate records are created so that they can be
maintained.
    Specifically, EPA is requiring that whenever an appliance with 50
or more pounds of refrigerant is maintained, serviced, repaired, or
disposed of, the technician must provide the owner or operator with an
invoice or other documentation that indicates (1) the identity and
location of the appliance; (2) the date and type of maintenance,
service, repair, or disposal performed, including the location of
repairs and the results of any verification tests or leak inspections
(if applicable); (3) the name and contact information of the person
performing the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal; and (4) the
amount and type of refrigerant added to and/or removed from the
appliance (if applicable).
    Based on the comments, EPA is not finalizing a requirement that the
technician calculate the leak rate or provide the owner or operator
with a record indicating the full charge of the appliance. The rules as
finalized require the technician to provide information that they are
best positioned to gather and that is relevant to calculating the leak
rate and full charge, but the owner or operator is well positioned to
determine those numbers because they should have the historical
information that informs that calculation. Accordingly, it is not
necessary for the technician to calculate the leak rate and EPA has
modified the requirement at Sec.  82.157(b) to explicitly state that it
is the owner or operator's responsibility to calculate the leak rate.
Because the owner and operator is also required to calculate the full
charge it is no longer a relevant record for the technician to provide.
    The final rule also explicitly requires that persons conducting the
initial or follow-up leak repair verification test must, upon
conclusion of that service, provide the documentation needed to meet
the owner or operator's recordkeeping requirements. This furthers the
goal of aligning the technician and owner or operator's recordkeeping
requirements.
14. Reporting
    The existing regulations require that owners or operators report to
EPA in certain circumstances. EPA is not making changes to those
reporting requirements in this final rule:
     If the owner or operator is requesting an extension to the
30-day (or 120-day) requirement to complete repairs pursuant to Sec.
82.157(f);
     If the owner or operator is requesting an extension to
complete a retrofit or retirement of an appliance pursuant to Sec.
82.157(i); or
     If the owner or operator is excluding purged refrigerants
that are destroyed from annual leak rate calculations pursuant to Sec.
82.157(k).
    EPA is also finalizing two reporting requirements that were not
contained in the proposed rule. First, EPA is requiring at Sec.
82.157(j) that owners or operators submit a report if their appliance
leaks 125 percent or more of the full charge in a calendar year and
thereby triggers the chronically leaking appliances provision. EPA is
adding this report to provide added flexibility, so that appliances
that have leaked 125 percent of their full charge or greater do not
necessarily need to be retired or retrofitted provided there is an
explanation for the leak. This report must explain the reason for the
leak rate of 125 percent or greater and could potentially include,
among other things, the documentation prepared to extend the repair
requirement or a description of catastrophic events. As discussed
earlier in this notice, this reporting requirement is based on comments
received to remove the two-year leak

limit and allow for case-by-case evaluations.
    Second, this final rule contains a provision allowing owners or
operators who are retrofitting or retiring an appliance to request that
EPA relieve them of that obligation if they can establish within 180
days of the plan's date that the appliance no longer exceeds the
applicable leak rate. This provision is contained in the prior
regulations. EPA had proposed to remove it, but based on comments
requesting that it be left in place, EPA is not finalizing the proposal
to remove it. EPA is requiring information be included in the report
that is similar to the previously existing requirement except EPA is
additionally requiring a description of why the repair was not
conducted within the time frames required under paragraphs (d) and (f)
of this section. In addition, it must include a signed statement that
all identified leaks will be repaired and an estimate of when those
repairs will be completed (not to exceed one year from date of the
plan). These additional elements are necessary to ensure that this
provision is not used as a way to circumvent the required time frames
for repair.
    EPA is not finalizing the proposed requirement for the report that
would have accompanied an extension request from federal agencies to
conduct less frequent leak inspections in the proposed rule. EPA is not
finalizing this proposed extension and thus the reporting element is no
longer necessary.
    EPA is also finalizing the requirement that all reports be
submitted to EPA via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>as proposed. If the
submission contains confidential business information, reports can be
mailed to the address in Sec.  82.160. This should reduce costs and
streamline the reporting process for both EPA and those reporting. It
is also consistent with EPA's Next Generation Compliance initiative.
Commenters generally supported the move towards electronic reporting
and recordkeeping.
    Two commenters requested that the Agency require that owners and
operators keep a record of the amount of refrigerant leaked annually to
the atmosphere by refrigerant type and that this information be
reported to EPA. Additionally, the commenters requested that EPA make
the data related to the emissions of refrigerants publicly available.
In accordance with the transparency element of the Next Generation
Compliance initiative, the general public could then point out
violations and owners and operators would have an incentive to correct
excessively leaking appliances.
    EPA responds that in general, EPA is not requiring that owners or
operators calculate the sum total of refrigerant leaked annually or
submit those data to EPA. The volume of reporting would be substantial
and for a majority of appliances would be of limited value to EPA or
the general public. However, owners or operators of equipment that
leaks 125 percent of the total charge in a calendar year will have to
calculate their total refrigerant additions to determine whether they
have met that threshold. EPA finds that there is merit for those
chronically leaking systems to perform this calculation and report to
EPA because that will encourage those owners or operators to take steps
to ensure they do not meet or exceed that threshold.

G. Revisions to the Standards for Recovery and/or Recycling Equipment
in Sec.  82.158

1. Background
    Under the prior regulations, all refrigerant recovery and/or
recycling equipment manufactured or imported on or after November 15,
1993, and used during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of
appliances containing an ODS refrigerant must be certified by an
approved equipment testing organization to ensure that it meets certain
performance standards. These standards may vary for certain equipment
intended for use with the disposal of small appliances. These
performance standards were contained in tables 2 and 3 of Sec.  82.158,
as well as appendices B1, B2, and C of subpart F. EPA based these
standards in large part on ARI (now AHRI) Standard 740-1993 and ARI
Standard 740-1995. Recovery and/or recycling equipment intended for use
during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of MVAC and MVAC-
like appliances must meet the standards in subpart B. The regulations
pertaining to MVACs refer to subpart B and state that such recovery
and/or recycling equipment must meet the standards of Sec.  82.36(a).
2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants
    In the revisions finalized in this rule, EPA is requiring that all
recovery and/or recycling equipment manufactured or imported for use
during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances
(except small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances) that contain
non-exempt substitute refrigerants be certified by an approved
equipment testing organization as being capable of meeting certain
performance standards. EPA is requiring that after January 1, 2017, all
newly manufactured or imported recovery and/or recycling equipment used
during the disposal of all appliances, including MVACs and MVAC-like
appliances, also be certified. One commenter agreed that recovery and/
or recycling equipment for use with non-exempt substitute refrigerants
should be certified. This comment supports EPA's approach.
    EPA proposed that all existing recovery and/or recycling equipment
that met certification requirements for ODS prior to this rulemaking
would be considered as certified for non-exempt substitute
refrigerants. EPA is further clarifying that if a person who recovers
refrigerant has recovery equipment that was certified as meeting the
requirements for an ODS refrigerant, it can be used to recover other
non-flammable refrigerants in that pressure category. For example,
recovery equipment manufactured in 2015 that was certified to recover
HCFC-22 can be used to recover other non-ODS refrigerants like R-407A,
R-407C, or R-410A. However, proper care should be taken to prevent
refrigerant mixing if using the same recovery device with multiple
refrigerants.
    One commenter noted that additional equipment testing would be
required if the equipment manufacturers want older equipment to handle
newer non-exempt substitute refrigerants. EPA responds that all
equipment manufactured or imported on or after January 1, 2017, must be
tested under the new standards. This is true of older equipment designs
previously certified for ODS which have not been tested for substitute
refrigerants. However, any equipment manufactured or imported prior to
the effective date is grandfathered and does not have to be
recertified. Technicians can continue to use previously certified
recovery equipment that they already own. As has been the case when EPA
has previously changed equipment standards, EPA does not require
technicians to recertify or replace their existing equipment.
    EPA is adding appendices B3 and B4, based on the AHRI Standard 740-
2016, Performance Rating of Refrigerant Recovery Equipment and
Recovery/Recycling Equipment. The recovery standard is the same in both
appendices; the difference between the two, as discussed later in this
notice, is that appendix B4 contains additional safety standards for
flammable refrigerants. EPA proposed to base appendices B3 and B4 on
AHRI Standard 740-2015 but is using the most recent version of that
standard for the final rule. All new equipment manufactured or imported
on or after

January 1, 2017, must meet the standards in appendices B3 or B4 and
table 2. The evacuation level would depend upon the saturation pressure
of the refrigerant. EPA is also updating appendix C ``Method for
Testing Recovery Devices for Use with Small Appliances'' to reference
all refrigerants, instead of the previously referenced CFC-12.
    Certifying refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment for use
with non-exempt substitutes serves multiple purposes. First,
certification provides reliable information on the ability of equipment
to minimize emissions of these substitute refrigerants, by measuring
and/or establishing standards for recovery efficiency (vacuum level)
and maximum emissions from air purging, oil draining, equipment
clearing, and hose permeation. The fact that the equipment minimizes
emissions is part of our consideration of whether emissions associated
with using recovery equipment are considered de minimis releases.
Second, certification provides reliable information on the equipment's
ability to clear itself when switching between refrigerants. Without
sufficient clearing capability, equipment may retain residual
refrigerant in its condenser, which would then be mixed with the next
batch of refrigerant recovered by the equipment. Because mixed
refrigerant can be difficult if not impossible to reclaim (depending on
how cross-contaminated the mixed refrigerant is) and expensive to
destroy, it is much more likely than unmixed refrigerant to be vented
to the atmosphere. Third, certification provides reliable information
on the equipment's recovery speed. Without such information,
technicians may purchase equipment that recovers too slowly, tempting
them to interrupt recovery before it is complete. As discussed in the
1993 Rule, where EPA established the equipment certification
requirements, the information on equipment performance provided by an
independent third-party testing organization is more reliable than that
provided by other sources, such as equipment manufacturers (58 FR
28686-28687).
    Finally, certification embraces Next Generation Compliance
principles. Users of certified equipment, when following the
manufacturer's instructions, will be in compliance with the regulatory
standards for the evacuation of refrigerant.
    Flammable Refrigerants. Different treatment is warranted for non-
exempt flammable refrigerants. As proposed, EPA is adding standards for
the recovery of flammable non-exempt refrigerants to appendix B4.
Currently, six flammable non-exempt substitute refrigerants are
approved for use in stationary refrigeration and air-conditioning
equipment: HFC-32, HFC-152a, R-406A, R-411A, R-411B, and HFO-1234ze(E).
    EPA is using AHRI Standard 740-2016 as the basis for the recycling
and/or recovery equipment requirements in appendix B3. This standard
does not address the safety of recovering flammable refrigerants. EPA
is therefore creating appendix B4, which requires the recovery/
recycling performance of appendix B3 and the safety performance of
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard 1963-2011, Supplement SB--
Requirements for Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment Intended for
Use with a Flammable Refrigerant. All recycling and/or recovery
equipment manufactured or imported after January 1, 2017, that are to
be used with flammable non-exempt substitute refrigerants must meet
this new standard. EPA is incorporating UL 1963 by reference and
modifying the testing protocol in appendix B3 to account for
flammability concerns during testing.
    Two testing organizations supported using UL 1963 to address
flammable refrigerants. One commenter preferred that EPA reference UL
1963 directly within appendix B4 rather than establishing separate
requirements in appendix B4 that are based on that standard. Separate
requirements published outside of that standard would make it more
difficult to apply the standard. EPA responds that appendix B4 refers
to UL 1963, Supplement SB, and does not reproduce the standard in the
appendix due to copyright concerns.
    Another commenter strongly recommended that a label be required on
all products certified to handle flammable refrigerants. EPA responds
that UL 1963, Supplement SB has requirements for markings that must be
placed on recovery and/or recycling equipment certified to handle
flammable refrigerants. Because EPA is incorporating those standards in
appendix B4 by reference, EPA is requiring those markings.
3. Removing the Certification by Owners of Recovery and/or Recycling
Equipment
    As proposed, EPA is removing the requirement under Sec.  82.162
that anyone who maintains, services, repairs, or disposes of appliances
containing an ODS submit a signed statement to the appropriate EPA
Regional office stating that they own recovery and/or recycling
equipment and are complying with the applicable requirements of subpart
F. EPA received one comment in support of taking this action.
    EPA created this provision in 1993 when the Agency first required
that recovery and/or recycling equipment be certified and that
technicians use certified equipment. At the time, the use and
availability of recovery and/or recycling equipment was not as
commonplace as it is today. Equipment certification by owners
demonstrated to EPA that equipment was available for use by certified
technicians. In particular, EPA was interested in the capabilities of
grandfathered, or pre-1993, equipment. Since certified recovery and/or
recycling equipment is now commonly available, EPA no longer needs the
information contained in the certification statement such as the number
of service trucks and personally identifiable information of equipment
owners.
4. Clarifications and Edits for Readability
    EPA is reorganizing Sec.  82.158 by appliance type. EPA is also
combining tables 2 and 3, which contain the levels of evacuation that
must be achieved by recovery and/or recycling equipment, to remove
inconsistencies in terminology and formatting.
    EPA also revised how the requirements for recovery equipment used
on small appliances are written. In general, the requirement is that
the equipment is capable of recovering 90 percent of the refrigerant in
the test stand when the compressor of the test stand is operational and
80 percent of the refrigerant when the compressor of the test stand is
not operational. In addition, there are secondary considerations that
could allow for the certification of recovery equipment based on when
that equipment was manufactured or imported.

H. Revisions to the Standards for Equipment Testing Organizations in
Sec.  82.160

    EPA relies on independent third party organizations approved by the
EPA Administrator to certify that refrigerant recovery and/or recycling
equipment meets the standards in subpart F. Any equipment testing
organization may apply for approval so long as they can verify that
they have the expertise and technical capability to verify the
performance of the recovery and/or recycling equipment, have no
conflict of interest (e.g., with equipment manufacturers), and receive
no direct or indirect financial benefit from the outcome of
certification testing.

    Any new certifying organization must have expertise to certify
equipment that is used to recover or recycle refrigerants that are
subject to this subpart. This means that they must be able to evaluate
and certify HFCs and other non-exempt substitute refrigerants,
including flammable refrigerants. Because the same expertise is needed
to test equipment used for ODS and substitute refrigerants, equipment
certifying organizations that have already been approved by EPA may
continue to certify equipment designed for substitute refrigerants
without needing to re-apply. In comments on the proposed rule, two
certifying organizations agreed that currently approved organizations
should not have to reapply to certify equipment used to recycle and/or
recover substitute refrigerants and that the same expertise is needed
to test equipment used for ODS and substitutes.
    EPA is removing the requirement that organizations provide a list
of all certified equipment to EPA within 30 days of the organization's
approval by EPA and annually at the end of each calendar year
thereafter. Instead, EPA is requiring that the certified equipment
testing organizations publish online a list of equipment that meets EPA
requirements. This list must include the manufacturer and the name and/
or serial number of a newly certified model line, which is the
information that the certifying organizations had to provide to EPA.
This list must be updated no less than once per year, but an
organization can choose to update the list more frequently. Online
lists must contain certified equipment until three years after that
equipment is no longer offered for sale. Making the information
available online will be no more burdensome for the testing
organization than submitting the list to EPA. Online publication is
also a better method of communicating these findings to the public and
the service/repair industry than sending the information to EPA. Two
certifying organizations commented that they support these revisions
because they already make the information publicly available through
their Web sites.
    EPA is also adding to the regulatory text the timing for records
retention that had previously only been found in guidance documents.
The regulation now specifies that all records must be maintained for
three years after the equipment is no longer offered for sale. EPA is
adopting a similar timeframe for the online lists of certified
equipment.
    EPA also encourages the use of electronic reporting and has
established the email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive
applications from organizations seeking to be approved under this
section and the required notification if a previously certified model
line fails to meet the standards upon retesting.

I. Revisions to the Technician Certification Requirements in Sec.
82.161

1. Background
    The prior regulations at Sec.  82.161 required the certification of
all individuals who maintain, service, or repair air-conditioning and
refrigeration equipment containing an ODS, other than MVACs which are
addressed in a separate subpart of the regulations. This group includes
installers, contractor employees, in-house service personnel, and
anyone else who performs installation, service, maintenance, or repair
that might reasonably have the opportunity to release ODS refrigerants
to the environment. In addition, individuals disposing of air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment other than small appliances,
MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances must be certified. Individuals
disposing of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances do not
need to be certified.
    Under those rules, technicians become certified by passing a test
containing questions drawn from a bank developed by EPA with input from
industry educational organizations with a certification program
approved by EPA. The test includes questions on the role of CFCs and
HCFCs in stratospheric ozone depletion, the requirements of the subpart
F, and proper techniques for recycling and conserving refrigerant. EPA
makes the question bank available to certifying organizations that
demonstrate that they can properly generate, track, administer, and
grade tests; issue certificates; and keep records.
2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants
    In this final rule, EPA is finalizing its proposal to extend the
certification requirements to technicians who work with non-exempt
substitute refrigerants.
    Persons who are not certified technicians are more likely to
intentionally or inadvertently release refrigerant in the course of
servicing, maintaining, repairing, or disposing of refrigeration and
air conditioning equipment. One commenter stated that they believe most
of the intentional venting of refrigerant is done by individuals who
are not certified technicians. Another commenter noted that they have
observed a lack of competence within the equipment servicing sectors
leading in many instances to the improper handling of refrigerants or
servicing of mechanical equipment.
    EPA responds that these comments support the importance of
extending the technician certification requirement, as well as other
provisions of the refrigerant management rules, to non-exempt
substitute refrigerants. Certified technicians are more likely to
understand how and why to recover and recycle refrigerants and to have
the proper equipment to do so. Technician certification helps ensure
that technicians know refrigerant recovery requirements and techniques.
The prior regulations did not specifically prohibit an uncertified
individual from opening an air conditioner that contains a substitute
refrigerant in order to add a substitute refrigerant or replace
components. Similarly, the regulations did not specifically prohibit an
uncertified individual from opening an air conditioner that contains an
ODS refrigerant to add ODS refrigerant (assuming a certified technician
purchased the ODS refrigerant). While the venting prohibition generally
applies to these actions, without training or certification the
individual performing such servicing activities may not even be aware
of the prohibition against knowingly venting or otherwise releasing
refrigerant.
    Tips reported to the Agency indicate that servicing by uncertified
individuals occurs. One commenter asserted that a substantial number of
technicians, possibly up to 25 percent, are operating without
certification. EPA responds that this information, if true, would
further support the extension of the technician certification
requirement to non-exempt substitute refrigerants. Requiring that
anyone opening an appliance (except those containing only exempt
substitute refrigerants) be a certified technician will reduce
emissions caused by uninformed service personnel and will facilitate
enforcement of the venting prohibition, especially when coupled with
the recordkeeping requirement for appliances containing more than five
and less than 50 pounds of refrigerant.
    Many companies require certification of their technicians
regardless of the type of refrigerant being used. The principles of
proper handling, recovery, and disposal of non-exempt substitute
refrigerants are similar if not identical to those for ODS
refrigerants, except that additional safeguards are advisable for
flammable refrigerants. The fact that some individuals may be working
on non-ODS appliances without certification and without following safe
handling practices places them at a disadvantage with respect to

compliance. Because there is a reasonable expectation that an ODS or
non-exempt substitute refrigerant could be released into the
environment in the course of that work if appropriate precautions and
practices are not followed, requiring technician certification for
individuals performing such work ensures that they have the information
necessary to comply with the regulatory requirements and with the
venting prohibition, as well as to minimize emissions. Accordingly, to
promote proper practices or at least remove barriers for compliance and
for environmental protection, EPA is requiring certification for anyone
working on an appliance that contains a non-exempt refrigerant.
    Many commenters supported extending the technician certification
requirement for the handling of substitute refrigerants. While some
commenters stated that EPA does not have authority to extend section
608 regulations to substitutes, those commenters did not raise the
specific issue of technician certification. EPA addresses those general
comments about its authority for this action in Section III of this
notice. Two commenters recommended extending the technician
certification requirement to flammable refrigerants. Three commenters
urged EPA to extend the technician certification requirement for the
handling of all refrigerants, even if they are exempt from the venting
prohibition. These commenters stated that treating all refrigerants
equally will provide consistency and clarity in the industry. Other
commenters stated that many of the exempt refrigerants have special
considerations such as flammability or toxicity that require care
during handling and servicing. As noted previously, some commenters
stated that the sales restriction should be extended to hydrocarbons.
These commenters noted that the flammability of these refrigerants
poses far greater risks than that of R-22 when handling it and
servicing equipment. One commenter recommended that if the sales
restriction was extended to flammable refrigerants then it should be
extended to all exempt refrigerants.
    As stated in the proposed rule, EPA is not extending the technician
certification requirement (and thus the sales restriction) to
individuals maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of
appliances containing substitute refrigerants that are exempt from the
venting prohibition. EPA has exempted substitutes, at least in the
specified end-uses, from the venting prohibition because the Agency has
determined for purposes of section 608(c) that they do not pose a
threat to the environment when released. For water or nitrogen,
technician certification would provide no environmental benefit nor
would it increase technician safety. For ammonia or chlorine, other
regulations address the risks related to those specific compounds (for
example, OSHA regulations that address risk to technician safety). The
types of refrigeration equipment that use these exempt substitute
refrigerants are also significantly different from an engineering
standpoint from the equipment that uses ODS or HFC refrigerants.
Therefore, there is little potential for ODS and these exempt
substitute refrigerants to be mixed and intentionally released to the
environment.
    Hydrocarbon refrigerants may be different than the other substitute
refrigerants. EPA notes that all end-uses for hydrocarbons currently
authorized under SNAP are also exempted under the venting prohibition.
The Agency did not propose and is not establishing a technician
certification requirement or sales restriction for those exempt
substitute refrigerants. The Agency may consider in future whether
there are any regulatory or other measures that would be appropriate to
address the handling of exempt flammable refrigerants.
    As a result of today's action, flammable substitutes that have not
been exempted from the venting prohibition in a particular end-use are
subject to the requirements of subpart F, including the sales
restriction and the technician certification requirements. Unlike the
other exempt substitutes, hydrocarbons are being sold to service
existing ODS and HFC equipment for which this refrigerant is not listed
as acceptable under SNAP. Specifically, R-22a, which is propane, in
some cases mixed with isobutane and an odorant, has been marketed as a
``drop-in'' (or more appropriately termed a ``retrofit'') replacement
for existing equipment designed for use with HCFCs and/or HFCs. Often
these are MVACs or residential split systems.
    R-22a has not been submitted to SNAP for review for these uses, and
EPA has not listed propane as acceptable for these end-uses under the
SNAP program. Accordingly, EPA considers its introduction into
interstate commerce for this use a violation of the SNAP regulations.
In addition, EPA has not exempted R-22a or propane used as a retrofit
in existing HCFC-22 appliances from the venting prohibition. As a
result, R-22a and propane are subject to the requirements of subpart F
in such non-exempt end-uses, including the sales restriction and the
technician certification requirements.
    The Agency has learned through its recent enforcement actions
against Enviro-Safe and Northcutt, two distributors of R-22a, and
through other investigations that R-22a is being sold to both consumers
and technicians. Often the buyers are not aware there is a difference
between R-22 and R-22a, or even that R-22a is flammable. As a result,
appliances have exploded and technicians have been injured. Technicians
need to be aware of the safety concerns of using such refrigerant for
themselves or subsequent technicians who service ODS or HFC equipment
that inappropriately contains hydrocarbons. Consumers must also not
have easy access to this refrigerant for their own safety. Applying the
sales restriction to unapproved uses of hydrocarbon refrigerants and
educating technicians through the certification program will reduce
safety risks and prevent the mixing (and subsequent venting) of ODS and
HFC refrigerants with these unapproved alternatives.
    One commenter, while supportive of extending the technician
certification requirements to those working with non-exempt substitute
refrigerants, disagreed with the premise that failing to require
certification will result in the release and mixture of ODS and non-ODS
refrigerants.
    EPA responds that information about the illegal use of R-22a as a
replacement for R-22 indicates to EPA that people are purchasing their
own refrigerant and mixing it with HCFCs. The consequences of
inappropriately mixing refrigerants include significant losses in
performance and energy efficiency, damage to equipment, the lost value
of the mixed refrigerant (which is at best difficult, and often
impossible, to separate into the component refrigerants), and costs for
destroying mixed refrigerants. Refrigerant mixture also leads both
directly and indirectly to refrigerant release. Mixture leads directly
to release because mixtures of certain refrigerants, such as R-22 and
R-134a, have higher pressures than either component alone. Thus,
pressure-sensitive components such as air purge devices on recycling
machines and relief devices on appliances may be activated by these
mixtures, venting the refrigerant to the atmosphere. Purge devices in
particular are often set to open when the pressure of the recovery
cylinder's contents rises more than 5-10 psi above the expected
saturation pressure for the refrigerant; this margin is exceeded by R-
22/R-134a mixtures containing more than ten percent of the
contaminating refrigerant.

    Refrigerant mixture also reduces recycling and leads indirectly to
release. First, mixed refrigerants lose their value for reclamation
because it is difficult to separate the component refrigerants.
Typically, reclaimers will pay refrigerant distributors for recovered
refrigerant. Reclaimers may actually charge money to accept highly
mixed refrigerant or not take it at all. Mixed refrigerants cost money
to reclaim or destroy and this cost could provide a financial incentive
for illegal venting. Second, the direct releases and equipment
breakdowns caused by contamination lead to increased equipment
servicing, which itself leads to unavoidable releases of refrigerant.
Thus, failure to require certification for people working with
substitute refrigerants would increase the probability of both
substitute and ozone-depleting refrigerants being emitted to the
atmosphere.
    As noted previously in this notice, certified technicians are more
likely to understand how and why to recover and recycle refrigerants
and to have the proper equipment to do so. The skills and knowledge
that certified technicians have reduces the likelihood that they would
mix or release ODS and non-ODS refrigerants. For these reasons, EPA is
requiring technician certification for persons working with non-exempt
substitutes.
3. Updated Test Bank
    EPA is currently updating the technician certification test bank
through a process separate from this rulemaking. While this is not a
regulatory change--the Agency can update the test bank when appropriate
without promulgating a new regulation--it aligns with EPA's efforts to
extend the refrigerant management regulations to substitute
refrigerants. Currently, the questions focus on CFCs and HCFCs, even
though CFCs have been phased out for nearly twenty years and the
predominant HCFC, HCFC-22, will be phased out by 2020.
    As part of the public participation process for this rule,
stakeholders provided input regarding updating the test bank questions.
Many commenters supported updating the test bank, especially given the
new refrigerants and technologies that have become available since the
test was initially developed. Commenters provided suggestions for
numerous topics that should be covered by the exam. These include
placing greater focus on the venting prohibition, recovery best
practices, safe handling of flammable refrigerants, use of new
refrigerants, financial benefits of refrigerant recycling, and the
costs of non-compliance related to equipment efficiency, equipment
life, and environmental harm. One commenter observed that the core,
Type II, and Type III tests should now include questions on
verification testing since this will be a new requirement of
technicians servicing comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration
appliances under the leak repair provisions.
    EPA responds that all of these suggested topics fit into the
testing topics listed in appendix D. EPA intends to consider these
potential topics when updating the test bank questions. EPA has begun
reviewing the test bank and consulting with certification and training
organizations to identify questions that should be updated, replaced,
or removed. EPA also intends to incorporate new and revised elements of
the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program that are being
finalized in this action in the updated test bank. As such, the test
bank will not be completed until after publication of the final rule.
Testing organizations have requested time to update their training and
testing materials before the new questions go into effect. EPA
anticipates the new questions will be added to all exams by mid- to
late 2017.

J. Revisions to the Technician Certification Program Requirements in
Sec.  82.161

1. Background
    The regulations at Sec.  82.161 require that organizations
operating technician certification programs apply to EPA to have their
programs approved. The application process ensures that technician
certification programs meet minimum standards for generating, tracking,
and grading tests, as well as keeping records. Approved technician
certification programs must keep records of the names of technicians
they have certified and the unique numbers assigned to each technician
certified through their programs. These records allow both the Agency
and the certification program to verify certification claims and to
monitor the certification process. Approved technician certification
programs also must submit reports to EPA every six months containing
information on the number of students certified and the pass/fail rate.
Such reports allow the Agency to monitor program compliance.
2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants
    As discussed previously, EPA is requiring in this final rule that
technicians who work with non-exempt substitute refrigerants be
certified. By extension, EPA is also requiring that technician
certification programs offer tests to certify those technicians. This
should not require significant changes to current practices other than
using the updated test bank once available and the revisions discussed
in this section. EPA is not requiring that current certification
programs recertify based on any of the revisions in this final rule.
EPA did not receive comment specifically on these proposed revisions.
3. Posting Lists of Certified Technicians
    In regulatory revisions finalized in this rule, EPA is requiring
that certifying organizations publish online lists of the technicians
certified by that organization. However, EPA is not establishing a
single ``database'' nor requiring certified organizations to create
their own databases as was contemplated in the proposed rule. The
primary intent of these published lists is to assist technicians who
have lost their certification cards and reduce the burden currently
facing the Agency and technician certification programs in assisting
technicians who have lost their certification cards as described in the
proposed rule. These goals can be accomplished for all future
technicians through the publication of limited information online.
Technicians should be able to find out who certified them through a
simple web search.
    In the proposed rule, EPA described this as a database and
discussed one of its possible uses as a tool refrigerant wholesalers
could use to verify their customer is a certified technician. Many
commenters supported the creation of a single technician database
maintained by EPA. A few of those commenters encouraged EPA to include
all certified technicians, not just newly certified technicians,
because an incomplete list would have only marginal value for anyone
referencing the list prior to selling refrigerant. Some refrigerant
distributors wanted assurance that their refrigerant sales would not be
adversely affected or that they would not be held responsible for
errors or omissions in the technician database. One commenter who
employs in-house technicians stated that their technicians would prefer
not to be included in such a database. The commenter requested that
there not be a database, or if there is one that technicians should
have to affirmatively opt in, rather than being given the option of
opting out.
    EPA responds that the Agency did consider the possibility of a
database that could be used to enforce the sales restriction. EPA
agrees that in order to be used for regulatory purposes the

content of the database would need to be complete and continuously
updated. The only manner the Agency could ensure a complete list of
technicians would be to require technicians to recertify, which EPA did
not propose. EPA did not propose to require that certification programs
list everyone currently in their records. While this may assist current
technicians who have lost their cards, listing the hundreds of
thousands of technicians certified over the last twenty-two years could
be overly burdensome. This would also not provide technicians with the
opportunity to opt out.
    As this requirement is primarily for the benefit of the technician,
EPA is requiring technician certification programs to notify
individuals taking the certification exam that information will be
posted online and allow them to opt out. Allowing the opt out is
sufficient for those technicians who do not want to be listed;
requiring an opt in to be listed, on the other hand, would reduce the
utility of the lists. EPA is also exempting federal government-run
programs from this requirement as proposed. The public release of
government and military personnel names linking them to their federal
employment could present significant privacy and security concerns.
    EPA did not receive comment on the proposed information that would
need to be published. EPA is therefore finalizing as proposed the
following information requirements: The first name, middle initial, and
last name of the certified technician, the technician's city of
residence when taking the test, the type(s) of certification received,
and the date each certification was received. EPA is not requiring any
specific format for providing this information. EPA is aware that some
certifying organizations already provide this information online to
their technicians and the Agency does not intend to require that they
change how they offer the information so long as the required data
elements are included. Rather than continuous updating, as would have
been required of a database, EPA is requiring that the lists be updated
annually, although individual organizations may choose to update their
lists more frequently.
4. Grandfathering Provisions
    In this rulemaking, EPA is finalizing its proposal to remove
provisions related to voluntary certification programs at Sec.
82.161(g). This program was created to allow technicians who were
trained prior to the establishment of approved technician certification
programs to be recognized as certified technicians. This program
expired in 1994 and is no longer necessary. EPA did not receive any
comments on this proposal.
5. Certification Cards
    As proposed, EPA is finalizing revisions to the requirements for
the required text that is printed on certification cards. Some
organizations told EPA prior to publication of the proposed rule that
the language used on the certification card implies that a technician
as defined in subpart F may be trained in other aspects of equipment
installation. The primary purpose of the 608 certification card is for
a technician to prove to a vendor that they understand the
environmental impacts of mishandling refrigerants and are legally
permitted to perform the necessary maintenance, servicing, repair, or
disposal work under CAA section 608. While this certification qualifies
an individual to maintain, service, repair, or dispose of appliances
containing certain refrigerants for purposes of CAA section 608, the
608 exam is less focused on the operational and engineering aspects of
refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment. Accordingly, the 608
certification is not intended to serve as a general license for
individuals who work on such equipment.
    To more accurately reflect the knowledge needed to obtain the
certification, EPA is updating the card to read: ``[Name of person] has
successfully passed a [Type I, Type II, Type III, and/or Universal, as
appropriate] exam on how to responsibly handle refrigerants as required
by EPA's National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program.''
    EPA stated in the 1993 Rule establishing the technician
certification requirements that standardized language will decrease
administrative costs and aid in enforcement. In addition, it was
intended to ease burden on refrigerant wholesalers who must inspect the
cards to verify the certification of technicians. Those principles also
apply to this rulemaking, and updating the information required on the
certification card should improve clarity and should not result in any
new administrative costs. EPA notes that the Agency is not requiring
that currently certified technicians obtain new cards with the updated
language. The new language applies only to cards issued to newly
certified technicians. In the event where a technician is requesting a
replacement for a lost card, EPA encourages that the certifying
organization use the updated language whenever feasible.
6. Updates to Appendix D
    In this rulemaking, EPA is also finalizing minor edits to appendix
D ``Standards for Becoming a Certifying Program for Technicians.'' EPA
did not receive any comments on this element of the proposal and is
finalizing the revisions as proposed. More specifically, EPA is
updating the description of test content to include the environmental
impact of not just ODS but also substitute refrigerants. EPA is
removing paragraphs (i) through (k) on approval process,
grandfathering, and sample application as they are outdated, redundant,
or self-explanatory. EPA is removing the reference that EPA will
periodically publish information on the fees charged by the programs as
the Agency no longer collects this information. To protect the private
information of technicians and minimize the potential for fraud, EPA is
removing social security numbers as an acceptable form of
identification for Type I technicians using the mail-in format and
stating that social security numbers cannot be used in the unique
certification number assigned to newly certified technicians. EPA also
is requiring that certifying organizations provide a hand-out or
electronic communication to technicians after they have taken the
certification test explaining who provided the training, who to contact
with questions regarding the certification process, and when they
should expect to receive their score, and if they passed, their
certification cards.

K. Revisions to the Reclamation Requirements in Sec.  82.164

1. Background
    The regulations at Sec.  82.164 required that anyone reclaiming
used ODS refrigerant for sale to a new owner, except for people
properly certified under subpart F prior to May 11, 2004, is required
to reprocess refrigerant to standards laid out in appendix A (based on
ARI Standard 700-1995, Specification for Fluorocarbons and Other
Refrigerants), release no more than 1.5 percent of the refrigerant
during the reclamation process, dispose of wastes from the reclamation
process in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, and
adhere to specific recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
2. Extension to Additional Substitute Refrigerants
    In this final rule, EPA is extending the reclamation standards for
refrigerants in appendix A to additional non-ozone depleting substitute
refrigerants. Most of the refrigerants in appendix A were

single component ODS refrigerants or blends containing an ODS
component. However, appendix A had previously contained a few commonly
used substitute refrigerants that have been used for a long time, such
as R-407C and R-410A. EPA is updating appendix A to include newer HFCs,
PFCs, HFOs, and other refrigerants based on the standards contained in
the latest AHRI Standard 700, Specifications for Refrigerants. EPA
proposed to base appendix A on AHRI Standard 740-2015, with the
exception that the Agency would maintain the current unsaturates limit
of 0.5 percent by weight. Recently AHRI released Standard 740-2016
which includes additional refrigerants and an impurity standard for R-
40. EPA is finalizing appendix A based on the recent AHRI Standard 740-
2016 by adding the new refrigerants, but not the unsaturates limit or
R-40 impurity standard.
    The standard in the previously existing rules was adopted in 1995.
It is appropriate to update this standard to ensure that refrigerants
developed in the last twenty years are reclaimed properly. While
industry has established standards for these new refrigerants, EPA's
regulations have not kept pace. Therefore, reclaimers have not had a
legal obligation to achieve such standards. Instilling confidence in
the market that reclaimed refrigerant is as good as virgin refrigerant
is crucial to its widespread use. Ensuring a healthy market for
reclaimed refrigerant is also crucial to support the value of used
refrigerant and provide incentives through market forces to recover
used gas from appliances during their maintenance, servicing, repair,
or disposal.
    Many refrigerant reclaimers and distributors commented that the
current 0.5 percent unsaturates limit is appropriate. One commenter
specifies that the reclamation industry as a whole has delivered more
than 200 million pounds of reclaimed refrigerant at that unsaturates
level without any known issues. Another commenter expressed concern
that lowering the unsaturates limit will make successful reclamation
impossible. Other commenters encouraged EPA to incorporate the AHRI
Standard 700-2015, Specifications for Refrigerants, by reference and
establish a process to automatically adopt the latest version of the
AHRI-700 standard. These commenters explained that typically, the
standard is updated to establish purity specifications for each new
substitute refrigerant as it is developed and approved. The commenters
state that this will prevent reclaimers from having to comply with
regulations requiring that they reclaim new refrigerants without any
EPA required standard for those refrigerants.
    EPA responds that it is not incorporating either the AHRI Standard
700-2015, Specifications for Refrigerants, or the current AHRI Standard
700-2016, Specifications for Refrigerants by reference. This is because
ASHRAE and AHRI are still conducting further studies on whether and how
to amend the unsaturates limit. It is important to maintain the 0.5
percent unsaturates limit while the standard is still being debated.
Accordingly, rather than incorporating the AHRI Standard 700-2016 by
reference, EPA is updating appendix A to include HFCs, PFCs, HFOs, and
other refrigerants based on the standards contained in AHRI Standard
700-2016. In response to the comment about establishing a process to
automatically update the standards, it is important to understand that
EPA cannot automatically incorporate future standards by reference. EPA
appreciates the commenters' concerns that the Agency has not updated
the standard in twenty-one years. However, any updated standard must