inspections.
    As part of this proposal, EPA would not require periodic leak
inspections if owners or operators install and operate an automatic
leak detection system that continuously monitors the appliance for
leaks. The leak detection system must meet the requirements described
below, and the owner or operator must calibrate the system annually and
keep records documenting the calibration. A system that meets these
requirements and is properly operated will provide continuous
information about whether a system is leaking, and thus quarterly
inspections would be unnecessary.
    EPA considered CARB's RMP when developing this proposal. The RMP's
leak inspection provisions, which only cover refrigeration appliances
with a full charge of more than 50 pounds, require the following:
     An automatic leak detection system that continuously
monitors appliances normally containing 2,000 pounds or more of
refrigerant;
     Quarterly leak inspections for all appliances with 200 or
more pounds of refrigerant (unless an automatic leak detection system
is installed) and annually for appliances with 50 to 199 pounds; and
     Leak inspections before adding refrigerant to an appliance
and after a leak is repaired.
    EPA's proposal for automatic leak detection equipment is based on
CARB's requirements. EPA is proposing to use the same level of
detection (10 parts per million of vapor) and notification thresholds
(100 parts per million of vapor, a loss of 50 pounds of refrigerant, or
a loss of 10 percent of the full charge) as in CARB's requirements.
Such equipment is already available on the market and capable of
meeting those standards.
    Leak inspections have been seen within the industry as a best
practice to reduce emissions of refrigerants and many facilities use
this strategy. For example, numerous GreenChill partners have used this
best practice with success to keep their leak rates down.\13\ The 2014
corporate-wide average leak rate among all GreenChill partner stores
was under 14 percent. While the Agency recommends fixing all leaks once
they've been found, EPA recognizes that even well-maintained appliances
subject to these provisions leak. Given that fact, EPA's lead proposal
is to only require that all identified leaks from a leak inspection be
fixed when the applicable leak rate is exceeded. EPA is proposing this
option because the costs of repairing all leaks when the leak rate is
below the applicable leak rate may not justify the benefits, especially
when the leak is a series of small pinhole leaks and the leak rate is
very low, as may often be the case. When the applicable leak rate is
exceeded, the benefits are significant and do result in significant
enough savings--both for the environment and for the owner/operator (in
decreased refrigerant replacement costs), to warrant repair of all
identified leaks. This proposal is also consistent with the current
leak repair requirements: Owners and operators of appliances are only
required to repair leaks once the applicable leak rate has been
exceeded. This familiarity will reduce confusion and encourage
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See GreenChill's Best Practices Guidelines: Commercial
Refrigeration Leak Prevention & Repairs, May 2011, available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This lead proposal was designed with Next Generation Compliance
objectives in mind. Even if EPA does not require the repair of all
leaks that are identified during leak inspections, the Agency
anticipates that many appliance owners and operators would take action
earlier if leak leaks are identified because it is in their financial
interest to do so and would reduce emissions and refrigerant costs.
Repairing leaks earlier could also prevent that appliance from being
pulled into the regulatory requirements at Sec.  82.157 for exceeding
the applicable leak rate.
    EPA is proposing to require that the following records be
maintained as part of the leak inspection requirements. First, owners
or operators must keep records of leak inspections that include the
date of inspection and any component(s) where the leak(s) are

discovered. For systems that use an automatic leak detection system, a
record must be kept of the annual calibration of the leak detection
system. EPA seeks comment on whether it should require that continuous
readings from the automatic leak detection equipment be maintained for
some period of time (as few as three months or as long as three years)
so the Agency can verify the automatic detection equipment is in fact
being used continuously.
    EPA has authority under section 608(a)(3) to establish
``requirements that reduce the use and emission of [ODS] to the lowest
achievable level.'' Leaks will be identified sooner when appliances
containing ODS refrigerant are regularly inspected. Leaks that are
determined to be above the applicable leak rate must be repaired and it
is likely that smaller leaks may also be fixed. As a result, leak
inspections will reduce the emissions of ODS refrigerant. Additionally,
providing a consistent standard for ODS and substitute refrigerants
will reduce the incidence of failures to follow the requirements for
ODS appliances and in turn reduce the emissions of ODS. For these
reasons, EPA is relying in part on section 608(a) for authority to
require leak inspections for appliances containing non-exempt
substitutes.
    Section 608(c) provides an exception from the venting prohibition
for de minimis releases during maintenance, service, repair, and
disposal. EPA has implicit authority to issue regulations explaining
the contours of this exception. Leak inspections are themselves a form
of maintenance and actions taken to address a leak are a type of repair
or service. By performing periodic leak inspections, and repairing
leaks as would be required in this proposal, the owners and operators
both limit the immediate leakage and decrease the likelihood of leaks
during future maintenance or servicing. Whether owners and operators
are taking proactive leak prevention steps by inspecting for leaks as a
regular maintenance practice is relevant to whether any emissions that
do occur may be considered de minimis under section 608(c). Section
301(a) supplements EPA's authority under 608(a) and 608(c) as described
previously.
    EPA seeks comments on the proposed requirement for leak
inspections. Specifically, EPA seeks comment on the frequency of leak
inspections: Does the quarterly/annual requirement make sense, or
should EPA require more frequent for some appliances (as frequent as
once per month), or less frequent (as infrequent as once every six
months) inspections? EPA also seeks comment on the whether all systems
should have to conduct leak inspections using the same frequency, or
with different requirements based on full charge. EPA also seeks
comment on the 500 pounds full charge threshold for requiring quarterly
inspections. Specifically, should EPA establish a lower full charge
threshold (as low as 200 pounds), or a higher full charge threshold (as
high as 1,000 pounds)? EPA also seeks comment on the proposed criteria
for the exemption from the quarterly leak inspection requirement. The
agency has proposed to base this on refrigerant additions in the past
365 days. However, EPA takes comment on whether basing this exemption
on four consecutive quarters under the applicable leak rate or four
consecutive quarters without identifying a leak would be more
appropriate. EPA also seeks comment on whether a periodic (quarterly or
annual) leak inspection should satisfy the requirement to conduct a
leak inspection upon discovering a leak rate in excess of the
applicable leak rate if the periodic leak inspection alerts the owner
to the fact that the applicable leak rate has been exceeded and all
identified leaks during the inspection are documented. Similarly, EPA
seeks comment on whether a leak inspection conducted after the
applicable leak rate was exceeded should replace a typically-scheduled
quarterly or annual leak inspection. EPA also seeks comment on whether
the agency should require the repair of all leaks identified during
leak inspections regardless of whether the applicable leak rate has
been exceeded, or only if the leak rate is above the applicable leak
rate. For commenters on all of these alternative proposals, please
provide as much specificity as possible and the reason why these
changes would be more appropriate than the lead proposal, with special
attention to the environmental outcomes resulting from the change.
    EPA also seeks comments on alternative proposals for automatic
detection equipment including: (1) Whether automatic detection systems
should be inspected and calibrated more frequently than annually to
ensure it is functioning properly (as frequently as quarterly); (2)
whether EPA should require the installation of automatic leak detection
systems for appliances with a full charge of 2,000 pounds or more,
similar to California's requirement, instead of just requiring periodic
leak inspections; and (3) whether owners and operators using automatic
leak detection systems should be required to keep records of when a
leak is identified and what actions were taken to repair that leak.
i. Extensions for Less Frequent Inspections
    Consistent with past regulations implementing CAA section 608, EPA
is proposing to establish a process that would allow owners or
operators to request less frequent leak inspections for certain
federally-owned appliances that are located in remote locations or are
otherwise difficult to access for routine maintenance. Specifically,
EPA is proposing that owners or operators of appliances in these unique
situations would be allowed to request a less frequent leak inspection
schedule (not to be less frequent than once every three years instead
of the proposed annual or quarterly requirement that would otherwise
apply). EPA is also considering establishing two years as the maximum
amount of time that can pass between inspections, instead of three.
None of the other appliance maintenance and leak repair requirements
would be affected by this extension.
    Any owner or operator of an appliance requesting an extension would
have to show that the appliance has a history of minimal leakage and is
remotely located or is otherwise difficult to access for routine
maintenance. Additionally, the extension request should explain why
installation of automatic leak detection equipment is not practical and
what leak inspection schedule would be reasonable given the
circumstances (not to exceed three years). EPA seeks comments on the
establishment of this extension request process, if there are other
conditions that should be established to gain approval from EPA,
whether the longest interval between inspections should be two years
instead of three, and whether this extension should only be available
for comfort cooling appliances, since they are the most likely to be in
locations that are remote or difficult to access routinely.
    Given the attempt to harmonize appliance maintenance and leak
repair extension requests elsewhere, EPA also seeks comments on whether
privately-owned appliances face unique situations that make routine
leak inspections or the installation of automatic leak detection
equipment difficult, and whether EPA should apply this proposed
extension request process to non-federally owned appliances as well.
EPA may decide to finalize the proposed request process or a similar
process for such unique situations. Commenters supporting such an

extension should provide as much specificity as possible about these
unique situations, the appliances at issue, why those appliances might
qualify for an extension, and why installation of automatic leak
detection equipment is not practical in these situations.
6. Two-Year Leak Limit
    EPA is proposing a new requirement to address appliances that leak
in excess of the applicable leak rate despite being repaired
frequently. Under the existing rules at Sec.  82.156(i), an appliance
can exceed the leak rate as long as leaks are repaired in accordance
with the regulations. If leaks frequently occur in multiple areas, this
can result in appliances that have high leak rates on an annual basis
yet are still in compliance with regulatory requirements through means
of continuous repair. EPA is proposing to add a total leak limit to the
repair requirement to address these chronically leaking systems.
    Under this 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. Take, for example,
an appliance that loses 95 percent of its full charge between June 1,
2017, and May 31, 2018 (measured by the cumulative refrigerant
additions excluding seasonal adjustments). Between June 1, 2018, and
May 31, 2019, that appliance would not be permitted to leak more than
75 percent of its full charge. If the amount lost in June 1, 2018,
through May 31, 2019, exceeded 75 percent of the full charge, the owner
or operator would be out of compliance starting June 1, 2019, until the
appliance was retired or mothballed and later retired.
    EPA reviewed data reported to CARB to determine whether a leak
limit was 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. As discussed,
these appliances would not be out of compliance unless they were over
75 percent in two consecutive twelve-month periods. EPA looked only at
a single one-year period because 2012 and 2014 data were not available
at the time the proposal was developed. The data do support the fact
that a small percentage of appliances are responsible for a larger
proportion of emissions. EPA also looked at the percentage of
appliances that had leaked more than 35, 55, and 100 percent over the
calendar year to see how many appliances could be affected and what
percentage of leaks they are responsible for. EPA seeks comment on
whether it should finalize a higher or lower two-year leak limit.
    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. First, using a two-year limit should exclude appliances
that suffered from a one-time catastrophic leak, many of which are
largely unpreventable. A leak limit that is evaluated over two
consecutive twelve-month periods allows for the possibility of an
unpreventable catastrophic leak in one year without violating the
prohibition, as long as leaks are reduced below the limit in the
following year. Second, if the appliance maintenance and leak repair
requirements proposed in this notice are finalized, they should prevent
the leak limit from being reached. Only when an owner or operator
continues to add refrigerant to a system without taking steps to repair
the leaks would an appliance reach the two-year leak limit. Third, due
to the proposed calculation and recordkeeping requirements discussed
below, appliance owners or operators would be on notice that their
appliance was leaking at an unacceptable level after the first year,
and should have ample time to bring leaks down below the 75 percent
leak limit in the following year. An appliance owner or operator that
did not take action based on the calculation and recordkeeping
requirements in order to meet the two-year limit would be participating
in the knowing release of refrigerant during maintenance and servicing
of the appliance.
    EPA seeks comments on creating a leak limit and on the leak amount
that should be used for such a leak limit. EPA seeks comments on
whether it should finalize a leak limit that is lower or higher (as low
as 35 percent, or as high as 100 percent). EPA seeks comments on
whether it should establish a limit based on two consecutive 6-month
periods or on just one year, instead of two consecutive twelve-month
periods. EPA also seeks comments on whether the Agency should allow
owners or operators to stay in compliance after exceeding the leak
limit if they develop a retrofit or retirement plan and implement it
within one year instead of being required to retire the appliance or
mothball and later retire the appliance. This option would provide
owners and operators with additional flexibility to remain in
compliance while decreasing emissions of refrigerant. EPA also seeks
comment on whether it should allow owners and operators to continue
operating their appliance beyond the two-year (or shorter) period if
they notify EPA that the reason they went over the leak limit was only
because of one or more catastrophic leaks that were unavoidable. Under
this alternative proposal, EPA would have to review the notification
and determine whether there is enough documentation to verify that the
leak or leaks were in fact catastrophic and could not have been
prevented. If comments indicate an exception for catastrophic leaks
should be provided, the agency would likely finalize a lower leak limit
and would potentially shorten the timeframe over which the requirement
would apply (i.e., two consecutive six-month periods instead of two
consecutive twelve-month periods). Finally, EPA seeks comment on
whether the period, whether six months or twelve months, should be
aligned with the calendar year, such that the first twelve month period
would always be January 1 through December 31, or whether EPA should
allow owners and operators to determine when each period begins. EPA
sees advantages to both options (simplicity in the former option, but
flexibility in the second).
7. Leak Rate Calculation
    The existing regulations at Sec.  82.156(i) do not explicitly
require technicians or owners and operators to calculate the leak rate
each time refrigerant is added to an appliance using an ODS
refrigerant. Such action is implied since owners or operators may not
be able to determine compliance without calculating the leak rate each
time refrigerant is added to the appliance. For example, if a
commercial refrigeration appliance owner adds refrigerant to the
appliance but does not calculate the leak rate, the owner would have no
means of determining if the appliance's leak rate was below 35 percent.
Hence, the owner would not know if further action was warranted.
    To reinforce the required practices, EPA is proposing to explicitly
require owners or operators of appliances with 50 or more pounds of
refrigerant to calculate the leak rate each time refrigerant is added
to an appliance. EPA is proposing this requirement for appliances that
use an ODS or non-exempt substitute refrigerant. EPA would provide
exceptions for when refrigerant is added immediately following a
retrofit, the installation of a new appliance, or to counter a seasonal
variance (where records documenting

the seasonal variance are maintained as proposed in this rule).
    EPA is also proposing to add specific recordkeeping requirements to
ensure that the owner or operator is aware of the leak rate. The
limited records currently required from service technicians may not
provide information needed by the appliance owner or operator to make
decisions on the fate of the appliance. In addition, the records that
are currently required to be provided by the technician do not match
the records that are currently required to be maintained by the owner
or operator. EPA is therefore proposing to require that service
technicians provide more detailed records to the owner or operator of
the appliance. The additional records would match the records that
owners and operators of appliances must maintain. The service
technician is generally in the better position to generate those
records as they usually are the expert that the appliance owner or
operator is relying on to make informed decisions about their
appliances. With the addition of these requirements, an appliance owner
or operator that failed to take required leak repair actions would be
participating in the knowing release of refrigerant during maintenance,
service, or repair of the appliance.
    Specifically, EPA is proposing 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; (4) the
amount and type of refrigerant added to and/or removed from the
appliance (if applicable); (5) the full charge of the appliance (if
refrigerant is added); and (6) the leak rate and the method used to
determine the leak rate (if refrigerant is added). EPA is proposing
identical recordkeeping requirements for appliance owners or operators
who use in-house service personnel. EPA is also proposing 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.
    These proposed records are likely already provided by many service
personnel and/or are being maintained by owners and operators. The
current regulations already require 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. Owners and operators must already maintain
service records documenting the date and type of service, as well as
the quantity of ODS refrigerant added. Therefore, the only new
information in most service instances for ODS systems would be the
appliance's full charge and the leak rate, which would both be
relatively simple since the owners and operators are required to have
both available on-site. This will require communication between the
owner/operator and the technician and/or access to past service records
to ensure the technician can calculate the leak rate.
    EPA seeks comments on this proposed change. In particular, EPA
solicits comments on whether invoices containing this information are
common practice and whether these records would be useful for owners
and operators in determining what actions they should take to properly
maintain their appliances or determining whether an appliance should be
repaired or replaced.
8. 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.
    As discussed above, EPA has proposed to define seasonal variance as
the addition of refrigerant to an appliance due to a change in ambient
conditions caused by a change in season, followed by the subsequent
removal of an equal amount of refrigerant in the corresponding change
in season, where both the addition and removal of refrigerant occurs
within one consecutive 12-month period.
    EPA is proposing only to allow owners or operators to exclude the
amount added from the leak rate calculation if the amount removed is
equal to or greater than the amount added 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 less is removed in the
spring/summer than was added at the start of fall/winter, the
difference between the two would be considered a leak and not a
seasonal addition. Without requiring that the amount added be equal to
the amount removed to qualify for the exemption, there is no way to
distinguish legitimate seasonal variances from refrigerant leaks. EPA
expects only one addition and one removal 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, it would be
considered part of the same refrigerant addition unless the owner or
operator could document a leak.
    EPA is proposing at Sec.  82.157(c) to recognize that the leak rate
does not need to be calculated when adding refrigerant to account for a
seasonal variance. Both the addition and subsequent 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. EPA is
proposing to state the recordkeeping requirement explicitly in Sec.
82.157(l)(4).
    EPA proposed to allow for seasonal variance in the proposed 2010
Leak Repair Rule and received two comments on that rule. One commenter
indicated support, while the other commented that the amount added in
one season may not always match the amount removed later in the year,
but provided no additional support for this assertion.
    EPA seeks comments on the need for a limited exclusion to the
requirement to calculate the leak rate upon addition of refrigerant for
seasonal variance. EPA also seeks comment on whether the seasonal
variance provision should be a limited exclusion from the requirement
to calculate leaks as discussed above, or

if the provision should establish a two-step test. First, the owner or
operator would have to determine if the amount added is equal to or
less than the amount removed from the appliance in the previous season.
If the amount was lower, they would not have to calculate the leak
rate. If it was above, they would have to calculate the leak rate for
the appliance using the difference between the amount added and the
amount removed in the previous season. EPA also seeks comments on the
need to document the capacity of the receiver, as well as a requirement
making the exemption contingent upon an equivalent amount of
refrigerant being removed and added over a consecutive 12-month period.
9. Appliance Repair
    The existing required practices at Sec.  82.156(i) generally
require owners or operators of IPR (Sec.  82.156(i)(2)), comfort
cooling appliances (Sec.  82.156(i)(5)), and commercial refrigeration
appliances (Sec.  82.156(i)(1)) with refrigerant charges of more than
50 pounds to repair leaks within 30 days, unless owners or operators
decide to immediately retrofit or retire the appliance. Retrofit or
retirement plans must be developed within 30 days of discovering the
leak and must be fully implemented within one year of the plan's date.
For those appliances not undergoing retrofit or retirement, the repairs
must bring the leak rate to below the current applicable leak rate of
35 or 15 percent.
    This existing requirement has allowed a scenario where owners or
operators could decide to not repair all known leaks within an
appliance, as long as repair efforts brought the leak rate of the
appliance below the applicable leak rate. The challenge with such a
scenario is that owners or operators may assume that they have done
sufficient repairs to comply with the leak repair requirements, or may
be in temporary compliance, but may find themselves out of compliance
if they are mistaken about what the current leak rate was such that the
repair was not sufficient, or if another leak resulting in a calculated
leak rate greater than the applicable leak rate occurs shortly after
the initial repair effort was completed.
    EPA is proposing to require the repair of all identified leaks once
the applicable leak rate at Sec.  82.157(d)(2) is exceeded, not just
repairs sufficient to bring the leak rate below the applicable leak
rate. Leaving some appliance leaks unaddressed in such situations does
not reduce emissions of refrigerants to the lowest achievable level and
does not prevent knowing releases of refrigerant during current or
future maintenance, service, or repair. Since selective repairs can
result in preventable refrigerant emissions, and therefore knowing
releases of refrigerant to the atmosphere, with associated human health
and environmental effects, and may be inconsistent with the venting
prohibition, EPA is proposing to require that owners or operators of
appliances normally containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant repair
all identified leaks within 30 days of exceeding the applicable leak
rate.
    If finalized, this revision would mean that appliance owners or
operators cannot be selective about repairs made to appliances that
leak in excess of the applicable leak rate. This will remove ambiguity
concerning compliance with the leak repair requirements and remove
potential questions that could arise as to whether a repair attempt was
sufficient to comply with the rules.
    Many owners or operators (particularly of commercial refrigeration
appliances and IPR) have stated that they always repair leaks, and must
do so for their businesses to remain viable. EPA agrees that many
businesses depend on the prompt repair of leaks and that it may not be
in the financial interest of many appliance owners or operators to
allow their appliances to continue to leak. However, there are
appliance owners and operators that do not take appropriate steps to
minimize refrigerant leaks. Hence, the Agency views the leak repair
requirements as both a backstop to current repair practices for
appliances that are well maintained, and necessary to ensure that
refrigerant leaks during maintenance, service, and repair are kept to
the lowest achievable level for appliances that are not as well
maintained.
    EPA reviewed comments received on the proposed 2010 Leak Repair
Rule during the development of this proposal. The comments tend to fall
into three categories: Practicality of fixing all leaks; time needed to
fix all leaks; and clarification on when all leaks must be fixed.
First, on the practicality of fixing all leaks, several commenters
noted that some leaks cannot be identified without shutting down and
fully evacuating and inspecting an appliance. Others noted that some
leaks may be trivial and located on seals, gaskets, valves, and
fittings where leakage occurs regardless of repairs. One commenter
stated that all leaks should be fixed regardless of the location.
Others raised concern about the cost and the diminishing value of
fixing ever smaller leaks. Several of these commenters recommended the
Agency focus on ``identified'' or ``known'' leaks, or alternatively, on
setting the requirement at ``making a best effort'' to repair all
leaks.
    In considering these comments, EPA is proposing to require a leak
inspection whenever the applicable leak rate is exceeded. EPA is not
proposing to require evacuating or shutting down the appliance to
conduct that leak inspection, although that would be an option
available to owners and operators. The leak inspection would involve
identifying and creating a record of leaks that must be repaired within
30 days. EPA recognizes that a small amount of refrigerant can migrate
from an appliance even if the refrigerant circuit is unbroken. EPA is
seeking comments on whether the agency should create a limited
exception, which would provide that if upon further inspection (through
bubble tests or other means), 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, the leak would not need to be repaired. If this
proposal is finalized, EPA would likely require that the justification
for the determination be noted in the appliance's service records. EPA
notes that there are certain types of situations that would never meet
these conditions, including but not limited to when a component has
holes, cracks, or improperly seated seals. All other leaks would still
need to be repaired if the applicable leak rate is exceeded.
    In addition to reducing emissions of high-GWP and ozone-depleting
refrigerants, a refrigerant management program saves money in
refrigerant and potentially energy expenses. EPA discusses the costs
and savings later in this preamble, but preventive maintenance can save
a significant amount of money even when factoring in the added cost of
a more vigilant refrigerant management program, especially as the cost
of some refrigerants such as HCFC-22 rises. Proposals to require repair
of all identified leaks and conduct periodic leak inspections should
incentivize owners and operators to develop a refrigerant management
plan to proactively fix leaks before they become big enough to exceed
the applicable leak rate. EPA's experience with several recent consent
decrees indicates leak rates, even in complicated IPR applications, can
be brought below the applicable leak rates proposed in this rule with a
refrigerant management program that identifies and fixes leaks early.

    Finally, it is possible that some leaks may not be fixable in 30
days. Later in this notice, EPA discusses the possible extensions to
the 30-day leak repair requirement, including allowing these extensions
for the repair of commercial refrigeration and comfort cooling
appliances. Regardless, owners and operators should be fixing leaks as
a normal course of business, which would largely prevent many of these
requirements from ever being triggered. As noted above, the periodic
leak inspections would help identify leaks earlier for repair, before
those leaks are big enough to exceed the applicable leak rate.
    EPA requests comments on the proposed requirement to repair all
identified leaks when the appliance leaks above the applicable leak
rate.
10. Verification Tests
    Verification tests are performed on appliances after they are
repaired to ensure that leaks have been fixed. The regulation at Sec.
82.156(i)(3) currently requires verification tests only for repairs to
IPR and Federally-owned commercial and comfort cooling appliances
containing an ODS refrigerant and only when extensions to the 30 day
deadline (or 120 day deadline when an IPR shutdown is required) are
needed. Limiting the verification tests to such a narrow set of
appliances is problematic, so EPA is proposing that all repairs should
be verified.
    First, the lack of verification may leave owners or operators of
comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances uncertain as to
whether their repair efforts have brought them into compliance with the
leak repair requirements. A lack of verification could allow for
insufficient or incomplete repairs, which could lead to ongoing or
future leaks during maintenance, service, or repair. Ongoing leaks,
especially when they are at the same location or component in the
appliance, could result in noncompliance with the current requirements
if repairs did not actually bring the leak rate of the entire appliance
beneath the applicable leak rate.
    Second, EPA has considered the burden of conducting verification
tests on all types of equipment and addresses that issue below. EPA
cannot identify a reason why the burden could more easily be borne in
those narrow circumstances in which verification is currently required
by the regulations, given that some type of verification is generally a
standard practice across all types of appliances. Third, the
environmental benefit of verifying repairs applies to comfort cooling
and commercial refrigeration appliances as well as IPR.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing to require at 82.157(f) 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).
    EPA sought comments on this same proposal in the proposed 2010 Leak
Repair Rule and received three comments. All were in support of
extending verification tests to all covered appliances. EPA again seeks
comments on requiring verification tests on all appliances normally
containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant. EPA sees a potential
benefit in requiring both an initial and follow-up verification test to
ensure a leak is repaired and that the repair will hold. EPA seeks
comments whether both an initial and follow-up verification test are
needed in all situations and seeks comments on requiring a minimum time
between tests such as one to three hours to allow an appliance to
return to normal operating characteristics and conditions.
    EPA is also clarifying 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 proposing to explicitly allow unlimited verification tests
within the required repair window. This is discussed further in the
preamble section on retrofit and retirement plans.
    The Agency understands that most technicians pressure check
appliances immediately following repairs. EPA is proposing that such
pressure checks would satisfy the initial verification requirements.
EPA's concern is that follow-up verifications may not be a part of
normal operating procedures for all repairs. Follow-up verifications
require a technician to perform a second test after the appliance has
returned to normal operating characteristics and conditions. A follow-
up verification is an indicator of the success of repairs. Thus, EPA
intends to require such verification for all appliances that have
leaked refrigerant above the applicable leak rate.
    EPA currently has not set a minimum amount of time that must pass
between the initial and follow-up verifications. In the proposed 2010
Leak Repair Rule EPA proposed that the two tests be separated by at
least 24 hours. Based on comments to that rule, the Agency is taking
comment in this action on whether a shorter time such as one to three
hours after the appliance is brought back on-line would be more
appropriate. Regardless of whether EPA specifies an amount of time that
must pass, all follow-up verification tests must take place after the
appliance has returned to normal operating characteristics and
conditions--both currently for IPR, and under the proposed change to
require verification tests for repairs on all types of appliances with
50 or more pounds of class I, class II, or substitute refrigerant. EPA
is also proposing to require follow-up verification tests to occur
within 10 days of the successful initial verification test or 10 days
of the appliance reaching normal operating characteristics and
conditions.
11. Extensions to the 30-Day (or 120-Day) Repair Requirement
    EPA currently provides extensions to the repair or retrofit/
retirement deadlines for IPR and Federally-owned appliances under
certain conditions. EPA has identified four conditions that exist in
the current regulations:
     The appliance is mothballed (available for all appliances)
(Sec.  82.156(i)(10));
     The appliance is located in an area subject to
radiological contamination or where shutting down the appliance will
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 make a
repair within 30 or 120 days impossible (available for IPR) (Sec.
82.156(i)(2)(i)); or
     Parts are unavailable (available for IPR) (Sec.
82.156(i)(2)(i)).
    While not an extension, IPR facilities are 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 is allowed for all types of appliances if a
dated retrofit or retirement plan is developed and is implemented
within one year of the date developed.
    EPA is proposing at Sec.  82.157(g) to make these extensions to the
repair deadlines available to all appliance categories. EPA has heard
from owners of commercial refrigeration appliances, for example, that
they occasionally are unable to complete a repair due to the temporary
unavailability of a component. They were therefore required to develop
a retrofit and retirement plan even though a

component could be acquired shortly after 30 days. While IPR may
require custom components, the need for components is not unique to
IPR. It does not make sense to require the retrofit or retirement of an
appliance that can be repaired in situations such as when a single
component is the problem and can be procured shortly after 30 days.
    The extension for the delivery of components is open-ended in the
current regulation. While the regulation provides only the additional
time needed to receive delivery of the necessary parts, it does not set
an outer limit for delivery nor does it clearly provide time to install
the components once received. EPA is proposing at Sec.
82.157(g)(1)(iii) to modify the extension so that the owner or operator
must complete the repair within 30 days after receiving delivery of the
necessary part and the total extension may not exceed 180 days (or 270
days if an IPR shutdown is required). As proposed, this extension may
be more stringent for IPR because IPR owners/operators would be time-
limited in conducting those repairs. EPA is not proposing to change the
open-ended nature of the extensions due to radiological contamination
or compliance with applicable Federal, state, or local regulations.
    To qualify for an extension, owners or operators must perform all
repairs that can be completed within the initial 30 or 120 day period.
All repairs must be verified if possible and the owner or operator must
document all such repair efforts. The owner or operator must maintain a
written statement from the appliance or component manufacturer or
distributor stating the unavailability of parts and the expected
delivery date as part of the reason why more than 30 days are needed.
EPA is not proposing to change the elements of the request for an
extension that is submitted to EPA. Requests must continue to 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 that has been 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 requesting an extension to the earlier
submitted completion date, a new estimated date of completion and
documentation of the reason for that change must be submitted to EPA
within 30 days. The owner or operator must keep a dated copy of this
submission and proof that it was submitted.
    EPA requests comments on applying the extensions to all appliance
types, including whether such extensions should not be extended to
certain appliances. EPA also seeks comments on the scope and amount of
time allowed for each extension, and whether there are additional
extension types that the Agency should consider allowing. Commenters
supporting the creation of a new extension should provide detailed
reasoning and cost implications (both for the environment and an owner/
operator) in their comment.
12. Retrofit or Retirement Plans
    EPA's regulations at Sec.  82.156(i)(6) currently require an owner
or operator of an appliance that exceeds the applicable leak rate to
develop and implement a retrofit or retirement plan generally within 30
days if they are unable to repair the leak. EPA is proposing at Sec.
82.157(h) three changes to the retrofit/retirement provision. First,
EPA is proposing to remove the requirement to retrofit an appliance
after a failed follow-up verification test. EPA is proposing to replace
that provision with a requirement to retrofit an appliance if the owner
or operator is unable to repair all identified leaks within 30 days
after discovering the applicable leak rate is exceeded (unless
additional time is allowed under one of the proposed extensions).
Second, EPA is proposing to remove the requirement to use a substitute
with a lower or equivalent ODP. Third, EPA is proposing to establish
explicit elements of a retrofit/retirement plan. These three proposals
are discussed below.
    Failed Verification Tests. EPA's regulations currently require
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. Under these plans, owners or operators must identify
how and when they will retire or retrofit their appliance. Owners or
operators of comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances
are currently not required to perform verification tests and, in lieu
of making repairs within 30 days, are given the option to draft and
implement a retrofit or retirement plan within 30 days of discovering a
leak rate greater than the applicable leak rate.
    EPA has heard concerns from appliance owners/operators that the
requirement to retrofit or retire an entire appliance because it has
failed a verification test may not always be practical or necessary.
For example, 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. The Agency wishes to 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. Therefore, EPA is proposing
to provide an owner or operator additional flexibility if they are
unable to initially fix all identified leaks after discovering the
applicable leak rate is exceeded.
    This proposal would allow owners or operators to attempt as many
repairs as necessary within the initial 30 days of discovering that an
appliance's leak rate exceeds the applicable leak rate. This could
include replacing a component. If that component cannot arrive within
the initial 30 day period, the owner or operator could request
additional time under the proposed provisions related to extensions
discussed previously in this preamble. An owner or operator of an
appliance would only have to retrofit or retire the appliance if the
component replacement was unsuccessful and they could not repair all
leaks that were identified in the leak inspection triggered by
discovering that the applicable leak rate was exceeded.
    This approach is based, in part, on feedback received from past
proposals. In comments on the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule, several
commenters supported additional flexibility to conduct repairs and/or
component replacements before being required to retrofit or retire an
appliance. Stakeholders have stated that a facility should be allowed
an unlimited number of repair attempts to equipment within the 30 day
time period. These stakeholders supported an option in the proposed
2010 Leak Repair Rule that would have allowed additional flexibility to
replace components before being required to retrofit or retire a
leaking appliance. The approach proposed in today's notice provides
similar flexibility.
    Because the retrofit/retirement plan requirements allow an
appliance to leak without repairs for up to a year (in addition to
extension opportunities), this change would likely increase the speed
at which appliance repairs take place, thereby reducing emissions of
refrigerants. This proposal also would eliminate the possibility of
mandatory retrofitting or retirement in cases where it might not be
warranted because the owner or operator would have the

flexibility to determine if component replacement would be the best
means of addressing a leaking appliance.
    As discussed in the prior section, EPA is proposing to extend the
requirement for verification tests to repairs made by owners or
operators of commercial refrigeration and comfort cooling appliances
using both an ODS and non-exempt substitute refrigerant. EPA is also
proposing to extend the approach to retrofit and retirement described
above to owners or operators of commercial refrigeration and comfort
cooling appliances. Extending this approach to all appliances will
reduce refrigerant emissions while establishing a consistent set of
regulatory required practices.
    Retrofit/Retirement ODP. EPA's regulations currently require 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 ODP. EPA is proposing 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 by SNAP. This change would not relax the current requirements with
respect to HCFCs since the regulations implementing sections 605 and
606 of the CAA already prohibit the manufacture (and therefore
installation) of appliances using virgin HCFCs (as of January 1, 2010,
for HCFC-142b and HCFC-22; and as of January 1, 2020, for other HCFCs).
Requiring the use of a refrigerant with a lower or equivalent ODP could
be problematic if the requirement were read strictly because some HFO
refrigerants that are not classified as an ODS have an ODP even though
the ODP is negligible. For example, HFO-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, if an owner/operator wanted to replace an R-
134a chiller with an HFO-1233zd(E) chiller in future, he/she would not
be able to switch from R-134a, which has an ODP of zero, to the HFO
since the HFO has an ODP that, though negligible, is higher than zero.
This could prevent transition to low-GWP alternatives.
    EPA also wishes to clarify that the current requirement to retrofit
with a refrigerant of the same or lower ODP does not mean that the same
refrigerant can be used. Such actions do not satisfy the regulatory
intent or the proposed definition of ``retrofit.'' The requirement to
retrofit means the owner or operator must switch refrigerants. While
the Agency is proposing to allow flexibility in refrigerant choices,
the intent is not to allow the continued use of the same refrigerant in
the retrofitted appliance. In cases where the owner/operator wants to
use the same refrigerant and that refrigerant can continue to be used
consistent with other applicable statutory and regulatory requirements,
the owner/operator would have the option of retiring and replacing the
appliance.
    If an owner/operator chooses to retire and replace a system, EPA is
not proposing to require under Subpart F that a different refrigerant
be used because eventually there may not be a refrigerant to switch to
that is better for the environment. At this time, EPA intends to rely
on other 40 CFR part 82 regulatory requirements that do prohibit the
use of some refrigerants, (e.g., the prohibition on manufacture of
systems using HCFC-22 under subpart A).
    Elements of a Retrofit or Retirement Plan. Stakeholders have asked
EPA what should be included in a retrofit or retirement plan. The
Agency has not previously provided a specific list of elements to be
included 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. However, EPA
finds merit in specifying a minimum set of information that is likely
to be needed during any type of retrofit or retirement.
    EPA is proposing at Sec.  82.157(h)(2) to require that a retrofit
or retirement plan include the following minimum set of information:
     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
     One-year schedule for completion of the appliance retrofit
or retirement.
    Such requirements are a minimum of what should be considered by any
owner or operator when retrofitting or retiring a leaking appliance. A
retrofit or retirement plan may contain additional elements related to
the specific characteristics of that appliance but EPA is not proposing
requirements for those elements because they would more appropriately
be determined on a case-by-case basis.
    The Agency's preference would be to have a complete plan developed
within 30 days. However, EPA recognizes that some information may not
be available in that timeframe. 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. Under
the itemized procedure heading, EPA is considering whether to allow
owners or operators to include a placeholder such as ``Engineer
consulted to evaluate retrofit and replacement options on [X] date.
Engineers report expected in three months.'' Shortly after that report
is delivered, the owner or operator would need to update the plan
accordingly to indicate the procedure for retrofit or retirement and
replacement.
    EPA seeks comments on these proposed changes to the retrofit and
retirement plans including the following questions: Should EPA allow
for multiple repairs within the 30 day repair window? Should EPA apply
the proposed changes to all appliance types? Should EPA remove the
requirement to switch to a refrigerant with a lower or equivalent ODP?
Should EPA require the use of a refrigerant with a lower or equivalent
GWP?
    The Agency also requests comments on the proposed minimum
requirements of a retrofit or retirement plan. Are there other factors
that should be considered when developing a retrofit/retirement plan?
Is this information available within 30 days of deciding to retrofit or
retire an appliance? Should EPA allow for the retrofit/retirement plan
to have placeholders for some elements until the information is
available, by noting specific actions that are needed to accurately
document the plan?
13. Extensions To Retrofit or Retire Appliances
    Under the current regulations at Sec.  82.156(i)(6), an owner or
operator must generally complete the retrofit or retirement of a
leaking appliance containing an ODS within one year of creating a
retrofit or retirement plan. There are extensions available in the
following circumstances:
     If delays are 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 is
unavailable (available for IPR);
     If the supplier of the appliance or a critical component
has quoted a delivery time of more than 30 weeks from when the order is
placed (available for IPR);
     If complications presented by the appropriations and/or
procurement process results in a delivery time of more than 30 weeks
(available for Federally-owned appliances); or
     If the appliance is 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 is proposing at Sec.  82.157(i) four substantive changes to
these extensions. First, as in all other leak repair provisions, EPA is
proposing to apply these extensions to appliances containing non-exempt
substitute refrigerants. As discussed in section III of this notice,
providing a consistent standard for ODS and substitute refrigerants
will facilitate the recovery of both ODS and non-ODS refrigerants and
reduce the environmental harm caused by the emissions of these
refrigerants.
    Second, EPA is proposing to remove the extension offered when a
suitable replacement refrigerant with a lower ODP is not available. EPA
established this extension because there were certain applications
using CFCs that did not have a suitable HCFC substitute. Today, there
are many more substitutes for ODS refrigerants than when EPA
established the refrigerant management program. In fact, few appliances
can be newly-installed or retrofitted with virgin ODS because of the
HCFC use restrictions implementing sections 605-606 of the CAA. As
discussed above, EPA is not requiring that a retrofit use a refrigerant
with a similar or lower ODP. Therefore, the rationale for this
extension no longer exists. Because EPA is proposing to remove this
requirement, EPA is also proposing to remove from the definitions in
Sec.  82.154 the term suitable replacement refrigerant.
    Third, EPA is also proposing 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 is proposing to allow an extension up
to 18 months. Whereas the existing extensions are only available to IPR
and Federally-owned appliances, EPA is proposing to make this
extension, and all other extensions, available to comfort cooling and
commercial refrigeration appliances as well.
    Section 608(a)(3) provides authority to EPA to issue regulations
that may include requirements to use alternative substances to ODS.
Given this authority, and the distinction between exempt and non-exempt
substitutes in section 612(c), the Agency is taking action to encourage
the use of substances that do not pose a threat to the environment when
released. Since many refrigerants have an ODP, a high GWP, or both, it
is appropriate to allow more time to install a refrigerant that is
exempt from the venting prohibition as an incentive for that type of
transition. The refrigerants that are exempt from the venting
prohibition, such as carbon dioxide (R-744), and the hydrocarbon
refrigerants propane (R-290), isobutane (R-600a), and R-441A in certain
uses, have no ODP and low GWPs ranging from one to eight. While the
Agency would be allowing for potentially greater emissions in the short
term by not requiring all repairs be completed for the 18 months
allowed for a replacement with an exempt substitute, once the new
appliance is installed, it will be using a zero ODP and very low-GWP
refrigerant that does not pose a threat to the environment for a much
longer period than the 18 month extension.
    Fourth, while not an extension, per se, the current regulations at
Sec.  82.156(i)(3)(v) relieve owners and operators of IPR appliances of
the requirement to retrofit or retire their appliances if they
establish that the appliance's leak rate is below the applicable rate
within 180 days of an initial failed follow-up verification test and
they notify EPA within 30 days of that determination. Affected entities
must report to EPA when they use this exemption and EPA has not
received any reports on the subject in at least the last three to five
years. Therefore, EPA is proposing to remove this exception entirely.
The other proposed extensions, in particular the extension to receive a
replacement component, should provide sufficient flexibility for IPR
and other appliances.
    EPA seeks comments on its proposals to restructure and simplify the
extensions to retrofit or retire appliances. EPA also seeks comments on
its proposal to remove the extension for transitioning to a suitable
replacement refrigerant and the removal of Sec.  82.156(i)(3)(v) as
well as creating an extension for transitioning to a substitute
refrigerant that is exempt from the venting prohibition.
14. Recordkeeping and Reporting
    EPA is proposing to create a recordkeeping and reporting paragraph
at Sec.  82.157(m) to make these requirements easier to identify. Many
of these requirements are identical to those currently included at
Sec.  82.166 for appliances containing ODS. In summary, EPA is
proposing to establish the following recordkeeping requirements for
owners and operators of appliances normally containing 50 or more
pounds of class I, class II, or substitute refrigerant:
     Maintain documentation from leak inspections or that an
automatic leak detection system is installed and inspected annually and
recalibrated as needed in accordance with the leak inspection
requirements;
     Maintain leak inspection extension requests submitted to
EPA.
     Maintain records documenting the full charge of
appliances;
     Maintain invoices or other documentation when refrigerant
is added or removed from an appliance, when a leak inspection is
performed, and when a verification test is conducted, and when service
or maintenance is performed;
     Maintain retrofit and/or retirement plans;
     Maintain retrofit and/or extension requests submitted to
EPA;
     Maintain records documenting when the system was
mothballed and when it was brought back on-line (i.e. refrigerant was
added back into the appliance);
     Maintain records of purged refrigerant if excluding such
refrigerant from the leak rate; and
     Maintain all of the above-listed records for a minimum of
three years.
    Additionally, the proposed revisions would require persons
servicing, maintaining, repairing, or disposing of such appliances to
provide the owner or operator of such appliances with an invoice or
other documentation when refrigerant is added or removed from an
appliance, when a leak inspection is performed, and when a verification
test is conducted, and when service or maintenance is performed.
    Stakeholders have also told EPA that the Agency should make
explicit our view that records can be kept electronically. 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. Given that fact, EPA is proposing to
explicitly allow for electronic records. These records must still be
accessible onsite if an EPA inspector visits a facility, but they can
also be downloaded or printed from an online system if necessary.
Having records accessible onsite is also important to facilitate
accurate calculation of the leak rate by technicians.
    For reporting, EPA is proposing to require that all reports be
submitted to EPA via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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. It is also consistent with EPA's Next Generation
Compliance initiative. EPA is also proposing to require reporting in
the following circumstances:
     If the owner or operator is requesting an extension to the
30-day (or 120-day) requirement to complete repairs pursuant to the
proposed Sec.  82.157(g);
     If the owner or operator is requesting an extension to
complete a retrofit or retirement of an appliance pursuant to the
proposed Sec.  82.157(i); or
     If the owner or operator is excluding purged refrigerants
that are destroyed from annual leak rate calculations pursuant to the
proposed Sec.  82.157(k).
     If the owner or operator is submitting an extension
request to EPA to conduct leak inspections less frequently pursuant to
the proposed Sec.  82.157(b)(5).
    These proposed records and reports are essential to ensure
compliance with section 608 of the CAA. EPA seeks comments on the
specific recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Sec.  82.157(l)
and (m). EPA also seeks comments on the changes to require electronic
reporting and to allow and encourage electronic recordkeeping, so long
as it is accessible at each facility regulated by these requirements
during an onsite inspection.

G. Proposed Changes to the Standards for Recovery and/or Recycling
Equipment in Section 82.158

1. Background
    Currently, all ODS 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 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 are currently found in tables 2
and 3 of Sec.  82.158, as well as appendix 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 in subpart F simply refer to that subpart and state
that the such recovery and/or recycling equipment must meet the
standards of Sec.  82.36(a).
2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants
    EPA is proposing to require that all recovery and/or recycling
equipment used during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of
appliances, other than MVACs and MVAC-like appliances, that contain
non-exempt substitute refrigerants also be certified by an approved
equipment testing organization that it meets certain performance
standards. EPA is proposing to allow all recovery and/or recycling
equipment that met certification requirements for ODS prior to this
rulemaking to be certified for non-exempt substitute refrigerants.
Since most recovery equipment is already certified for use with non-
exempt substitute refrigerants, this proposal would merely update the
standards to reflect current practices.
    EPA is also proposing to add appendices B3 and B4, based on the
AHRI Standard 740-2015, Performance Rating of Refrigerant Recovery
Equipment and Recovery/Recycling Equipment. All new equipment
manufactured or imported on or after the effective date of this rule
would be required to meet the standards in appendix B and table 2. The
evacuation level would depend upon the saturation pressure of the
refrigerant. EPA is also proposing to update appendix C ``Method for
Testing Recovery Devices for Use with Small Appliances'' to reference
all refrigerants, instead of the currently referenced CFC-12.
    Certifying refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment for use
with non-exempt substitutes serves multiple purposes. First,
certification would provide 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. Second, certification would provide
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 would
provide 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).
    Certification of recovery equipment used with non-exempt substitute
refrigerants would also maximize recycling and minimize emissions of
ODS refrigerants. There is no physical difference between ozone-
depleting refrigerants and their fluorocarbon substitutes that would
prevent a technician from purchasing and using HFC recovery equipment
on CFCs or HCFCs, except in the case of flammable refrigerants.
    Because different treatment is warranted for flammable
refrigerants, EPA is proposing to add standards for the recovery of
flammable non-exempt refrigerants. Currently, EPA is only aware of two
flammable non-exempt substitute refrigerants that are approved for use
in stationary refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment: HFC-32 and
HFO-1234ze(E). However, EPA expects this number to grow in the future.
Additionally, EPA notes that the AHRI Standard 740-2015 that is being
used as the basis for the recycling and/or recovery equipment
requirements in appendix B3 does not apply to flammable refrigerants.
To address this, EPA is proposing several options that could be used
for flammable non-exempt substitute refrigerants like HFC-32. EPA could
require that all recycling and/or recovery equipment used with

flammable non-exempt substitute refrigerants must:
--meet a new standard that requires the recovery/recycling performance
of appendix B3 (based on AHRI Standard 740-2015) and the safety
performance of Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard 1963, Supplement
SB--Requirements for Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment Intended
for Use with a Flammable Refrigerant;
--meet the standards in appendix C (80 percent of the refrigerant must
be recovered if the compressor is not functioning; 90 percent of
refrigerant must be recovered if the compressor is functioning);
--meet the requirements in a flammable refrigerant recovery standard
from another organization like the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), AHRI, or ASHRAE, if available;
--use equipment that is certified for another refrigerant within the
same pressure category; or
--recover flammable refrigerants, but without a standard or
certification until standards are developed.
    Creating an appendix B4 that combines the requirements of appendix
B3 with the requirements in Supplement SB of UL 1963 could be the most
appropriate option. EPA would incorporate certain aspects of UL 1963 by
reference and potentially modify the testing protocol in appendix B3 to
account for flammability concerns during testing.
    When refrigerants are removed from the appliances, whether destined
for reclamation or disposal, they must be managed properly. One of the
first steps in proper management is to determine whether or not the
refrigerants are a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and its corresponding regulations. It is the
facility's responsibility to make this waste identification. Under the
regulations, a facility may either test the waste or use knowledge to
make this determination. If the material is determined to be a
hazardous waste, then the facility is a hazardous waste generator and
is subject to the generator regulations at 40 CFR part 261.5 or 40 CFR
part 262, depending on the amount of hazardous waste generated in a
month. For details on the Federal generator regulations, see http://www2.epa.gov/hwgenerators. Some spent alternative refrigerants such as
HFC-32 most likely exhibit the hazardous waste characteristic of
ignitability. This would also likely hold true for some exempt
substitute refrigerants, like propane and isobutane.
    In the case of household appliances, repair and disposal of
hydrocarbon refrigerant would not be considered hazardous waste
management because the appliance is exempt under the household
hazardous waste exemption at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1) (although States may
have more stringent regulations). However, a facility must be careful
not to mix the household hazardous waste with regulated hazardous waste
in order for the household appliances to remain exempt.
    Certifying recovery and/or recycling equipment used with substitute
refrigerants is important to further implementing section 608(c)(2) and
608(a). In particular, the proposed revisions would make clear that
proper use of certified equipment would be considered a good faith
effort to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of non-exempt
substitute refrigerants when maintaining, servicing, repairing, or
disposing of an appliance, in order to comply with the prohibition on
venting of substitute refrigerants. Part of making a good faith effort
to recover such refrigerants involves using equipment that minimizes
emissions of substitute refrigerants and prevents the mixture of
substitute refrigerants and ODS refrigerants during the recovery and
recycling process. It also involves using equipment that recovers
refrigerant quickly enough that the recovery process can be completed
in a reasonable amount of time from a given appliance. Certification of
such equipment will help ensure that technicians use equipment that is
suited to these goals.
    EPA requests comments on whether removing earlier appendices for
older equipment and using the updated AHRI standards for newly
certified recovery and/or recycling equipment is appropriate. EPA also
requests comments on its proposal to require all recovery and/or
recycling equipment used on appliances containing substitute
refrigerants (with the potential exception of flammable refrigerants)
to be certified by an independent third party and on the following
questions: What equipment is currently being used on appliances
containing substitutes? Would providing a uniform standard for recovery
and/or recycling equipment be beneficial to product manufacturers or
service technicians? Has mixing of ODS refrigerants and/or substitute
refrigerants been a problem using the currently available equipment?
Are there any recovery devices suitable for use with flammable non-
exempt refrigerants? Are there any other standards that EPA should
considers before finalizing recovery standards (i.e., ISO, AHRI,
ASHRAE)? EPA also seeks comment on what standards should be used for
the recycling and/or recovery of flammable non-exempt refrigerants like
HFC-32. Comments should address the safety and efficacy of the various
standards and whether the standard would facilitate or deter the use of
flammable refrigerants.
3. Clarifications and Edits for Readability
    EPA is proposing to reorganize Sec.  82.158 by appliance type. EPA
is also proposing to combine tables 2 and 3. Table 2 contains the
levels of evacuation that must be achieved by recovery and/or recycling
equipment manufactured on or after November 15, 1993, and table 3
contains levels for equipment manufactured before that date. The
combined table removes inconsistencies in terminology and formatting.
    EPA is also proposing to re-write Sec.  82.158 for clarity the
requirements for recovery equipment used on small appliances. In
general, the requirement is that the equipment is capable of recovering
90% of the refrigerant in the test stand when the compressor of the
test stand is operational and 80% 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. EPA's intent was to remove redundancy and not to change the
standards when modifying this section.
    EPA notes that the existing term is ``operating'' rather than
``operational.'' EPA discusses this proposed change above in section
IV.D above where it describes the proposed changes to the evacuation
requirements for small appliances.
    EPA is also proposing to remove a provision stating that EPA will
maintain a list of equipment certified under this section by
manufacturer and model. EPA is proposing instead to require that the
certified equipment testing organizations publish online a list of
equipment that meets EPA requirements. This proposal is discussed in
the next section of this notice.
4. Removing the Certification by Owners of Recovery and/or Recycling
Equipment
    EPA currently requires 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 is proposing to remove this
requirement.
    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 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 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. EPA
is therefore proposing to remove this certification requirement. EPA
solicits comments on this proposed revision.

H. Proposed Changes for Equipment Testing Organizations in Section
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 and have no
conflict of interest with the equipment manufacturers.
    EPA is proposing to make only a few substantive changes to these
regulations. First and foremost, a certifying organization must have
expertise to certify any new equipment affected by this proposed rule.
Thus, an organization must be capable of certifying equipment that is
used to recover or recycle HFCs and other substitute refrigerants. EPA
is proposing to allow equipment certifying organizations that have
already been approved by EPA to continue certifying equipment without
need to re-apply. Organizations that are currently certified have
sufficient expertise because the same expertise is needed to test
equipment used on ODS and substitute refrigerants.
    EPA is also proposing changes that would reduce the reporting
burden for these entities. EPA currently requires a list of all
certified equipment to be submitted to EPA within 30 days of the
organization's approval by EPA and annually at the end of each calendar
year thereafter. EPA is proposing to remove those requirements. EPA is
proposing instead to require that the certified equipment testing
organizations publish online a list of equipment that meets EPA
requirements. This list would include the manufacturer and the name
and/or serial number of a newly certified model line, which is the
information that the certifying organizations must currently 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. 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 than
sending the information to EPA.
    EPA is also encouraging 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 notifications that a previously certified model fails to
meet the standards upon retesting. EPA is also proposing to remove
language in the regulation stating that applications must include
written information.
    EPA requests comments on its proposal not to require equipment
certification companies to reapply for approval so as to be able to
certify equipment used with substitute refrigerants. EPA also requests
comments on the proposal to remove the existing reporting requirements
and instead require that certifying organizations publish lists of
certified equipment online.

I. Proposed Changes to the Technician Certification Requirements in
Section 82.161

1. Background
    The regulations at Sec.  82.161 currently require the certification
of all individuals who service air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment containing an ODS, other than MVACs, which are addressed
separately. 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.
    Technicians become certified by passing a test containing questions
drawn from a bank developed jointly by EPA and industry educational
organizations with a certification program approved by EPA. The test
includes questions on the role of CFCs and HCFCs in ozone depletion,
the requirements of the refrigerant recycling rule, 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, and grade tests; issue
certificates; and keep records.
2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants
    EPA is proposing to extend the certification requirements for
technicians who work with ODS refrigerants to technicians who work with
non-exempt substitute refrigerants. Requiring certification of
technicians who work with non-exempt substitute refrigerants is
important to effectively implement and enforce both section 608(c) and
section 608(a)(2).
    As discussed above, section 608(c) prohibits the knowing release of
substitute refrigerants during the service, maintenance, repair, or
disposal of appliances, except for de minimis releases associated with
``good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose'' of
the refrigerants. Acts performed by an individual who has become a
certified technician that comply with the applicable regulatory
requirements would be defined as ``good faith attempts to recapture and
recycle or safely dispose'' and thus any associated releases would
qualify as de minimis. This interpretation is consistent with EPA's
interpretation of the same statutory language as it applies to ozone-
depleting refrigerants.
    The technician certification program is one of the key elements in
ensuring the proper recapture and recycling of refrigerant. As stated
in the 1993 Rule establishing the program, a technician certification
program increases the probability that technicians receive adequate
training concerning the requirements of subpart F and the proper
operation of recycling equipment, leading to reduced emissions through
increased regulatory compliance. Certification does not prevent the
violation of the venting prohibition, but it improves the likelihood of
compliance through greater awareness. Certification also enhances EPA's
ability to enforce against intentional noncompliance by allowing the
Agency to revoke the technician's certification under the procedure in
Sec.  82.169. Finally,

certification increases fairness by seeking to ensure that all
technicians are complying with the provisions of subpart F.
    Persons who are not certified technicians are far more likely to
intentionally or inadvertently release refrigerant. Certified
technicians are much 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 are
knowledgeable in refrigerant recovery requirements and techniques. The
existing regulations do not specifically prohibit an untrained
individual from opening an air conditioner containing a substitute
refrigerant to add a substitute refrigerant (or potentially even an ODS
refrigerant, assuming a certified technician purchased the ODS
refrigerant) or replace components. While the venting prohibition still
applies, the individual may not even be aware that there is a
prohibition against venting refrigerant. Tips reported to the Agency
indicate this occurs. Requiring that anyone opening an appliance 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 proposed recordkeeping requirement
discussed in section IV.D.3 of this notice.
    Based on stakeholder input prior to this proposal, EPA is aware
that 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 those most likely to minimize emissions at a
disadvantage. One goal of this rulemaking is to incentivize the proper
practices or at least remove disincentives to compliance and to
environmental protection. EPA is therefore proposing to require
certification for anyone working on an appliance where there is a
reasonable expectation that an ODS or non-exempt substitute refrigerant
will be released into the environment in the course of that work.
    The mechanism by which EPA is extending the technician
certification requirement to appliances containing non-exempt
substitute refrigerants is through the amended definition of the terms
refrigerant and appliance. As discussed in the definition section, EPA
is proposing to update the term appliance to include substitutes in
addition to class I and class II substances. EPA is not proposing any
changes to the regulatory text in Sec.  82.161 to effectuate this
proposal.
    EPA notes that this proposal would not extend the technician
certification requirement to individuals servicing or disposing of
appliances containing refrigerants that are exempt from the venting
prohibition. However, expanding the certification program to cover
those working on equipment containing non-exempt substitutes could
decrease the likelihood of untrained technicians working with equipment
containing any type of refrigerant, including hydrocarbons. Therefore,
individuals would not need to be certified under section 608 of the CAA
to work on hydrocarbons in those specific end-uses and appliances
approved under SNAP. EPA discusses whether the agency should initiate a
rulemaking in future to require certification of technicians using
exempt substitutes in Section VI of this preamble.
    Consistent with the discussion in Section III above, requiring
certification for technicians who work with substitute refrigerants is
also necessary to implement the section 608(a) requirements for EPA to
promulgate regulations that reduce emissions of class I and II
refrigerants to the lowest achievable levels and maximize recapture and
recycling of such substances. Technician certification requirements for
handling substitute refrigerants would directly reduce some releases of
class I and II refrigerants. It would also protect against refrigerant
mixture, which otherwise is likely to cause additional releases of
class I and II refrigerants.
    Failure to require technician certification may lead to increased
emissions and reduced recycling of ozone-depleting substances,
especially if the person who is violating the refrigerant circuit is
not aware of refrigerant recovery requirements and best practices.
Uncertified technicians working primarily with HFCs or other
substitutes may overlook the restrictions on their ability to work with
ozone-depleting refrigerants. Because of the absence of a certification
requirement for substitute refrigerants they might be unaware of the
existence or scope of the restrictions. Thus, they might fail to
recover or recycle class I and class II refrigerants properly, if at
all.
    Uncertified technicians are currently able to purchase HFC and
other substitute refrigerants which they could end up using to retrofit
appliances containing ozone-depleting substances. Such uncertified
technicians may be more likely to vent the ozone-depleting substance
prior to retrofitting, given their probable lack of knowledge and the
fact that return of the substance to a reclaimer would reveal that they
were handling it illegally. Failure to require technician certification
to work with substitute refrigerants is also likely to encourage the
inappropriate mixture of substitute and ozone-depleting refrigerants.
In this scenario, refrigerant mixture could occur because uncertified
technicians might wish to service CFC or HCFC equipment, but would have
access only to HFCs due to the sales restriction on ODS refrigerants.
Lacking proper education or knowledge, these technicians would probably
have a poor understanding of the consequences of mixing refrigerants,
and would therefore be more likely than certified technicians to add
HFCs to CFC or HCFC systems.
    The consequences of such inappropriate mixture include significant
losses in performance and energy efficiency in equipment serviced with
mixed refrigerants, 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 not only lose their value but cost
money to reclaim or destroy, which 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 impose a certification requirement on persons working
with substitute refrigerants would increase the

probability of both substitute and ozone-depleting refrigerants being
emitted to the atmosphere.
    For these reasons, EPA is proposing a technician certification
requirement for persons working with non-exempt substitutes in order to
further implement sections 608(a) and 608(c), using the authority under
these sections. EPA requests comments on the likelihood that failure to
impose a technician certification requirement on persons working with
HFCs and other substitutes would lead to release and mixture of both
ozone-depleting refrigerants and substitutes.
3. Updated Test Bank
    EPA is planning to update the technician certification test bank
with more questions on handling substitutes, including flammable
substitute refrigerants, and on the impacts of climate change. 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 proposal 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.
    EPA has begun reviewing the test bank and consulting with
certification and training organizations to identify questions that
should be updated, replaced, or removed, with an eye toward questions
on the proper handling and recovery of HFCs and other substitute
refrigerants. The updated test bank will incorporate new and revised
elements of the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program that
are being proposed in this action, once finalized. For this reason, EPA
is waiting to update the test bank until after this rule is finalized.
    EPA intends to use a similar process to the one used when initially
creating the test bank. EPA will work with industry and trade
associations to develop and evaluate new questions as well as remove or
update questions that may be out of date. EPA invites participation
from the regulated community in this process.

J. Proposed Changes to the Technician Certification Program
Requirements in Section 82.161

1. Background
    The current regulations at Sec.  82.161 require that organizations
operating technician certification programs must 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 the pass/fail rate and testing schedules. Such
reports allow the Agency to evaluate certification programs and modify
certification requirements if necessary.
2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants
    EPA is proposing to require that technicians who work with non-
exempt substitute refrigerants be certified. By extension, EPA is
proposing to require that technician certification programs offer tests
for those technicians. This should not require significant changes to
current practices other than using the updated test bank and the
changes discussed below. EPA is not proposing as a lead option to
require certification programs to recertify based on this or any other
proposed changes in this rule, but seeks comments on whether such
recertification requirements would be appropriate.
3. Technician Database
    In developing this proposed rule, EPA asked technician
certification programs whether the Agency should establish a national
database of certified technicians. EPA considered creating a database
to reduce the burden currently facing the Agency and technician
certification programs in assisting technicians who have lost their
certification cards. EPA receives on average five inquiries a day from
technicians who are seeking a copy of their card. EPA does not maintain
records of who has been certified; this is currently the responsibility
of the certification programs. EPA can only direct technicians to a
list of the approved certification programs on the Agency's Web site,
but in some cases the technician does not remember the name of the
program that issued their card. EPA is aware that many certification
programs also get numerous inquiries from technicians.
    Establishing a publicly searchable database would help technicians
find replacement certification cards. Certification programs themselves
are generally better suited to maintain such information. Currently,
certification programs must maintain records of the names and addresses
of all individuals taking the tests, as well as the scores, dates, and
locations of all administered tests. A publicly-available database that
contains components of these records should be sufficient for a
technician to locate themselves. EPA is proposing that this database,
which could be as simple as a list, contain 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 test was completed. EPA is
proposing to exempt Federal government-run programs from this
requirement because the public release of government and military
personnel names linking them to their Federal employment could present
significant privacy and security concerns, especially for military and
other government personnel who may be based, deployed, or traveling to
hostile regions throughout the world.
    Because this database is primarily for the benefit of the
technician, EPA is offering the option for the technician to opt out.
The technician certification program must therefore provide notice to
technicians that they will be included in that database and give
technicians the ability to opt out. EPA seeks comment on whether
technicians should be allowed to opt out.
    EPA is not proposing 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. Therefore, EPA is proposing that the
certification programs only be required to include technicians
certified after the effective date of a rule finalizing this proposal.
EPA would encourage certification programs to work with technicians
they have previously certified to see if they could be added to an
online database or list.
    EPA is not proposing to require any specific format for providing
this database or list. 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.
    An online database or list of certified technicians can also assist
refrigerant

wholesalers to enforce the sales restriction. For example, if a vendor
has any doubt about a new customer, they could confirm that the
technician is certified by comparing the customer's ID with the
information online. The online information can also be printed and
maintained as a record by the vendor.
    EPA invites comments on the proposal to require certifying
organizations to publish and maintain an online searchable database or
list of technicians they certify going forward. EPA requests comments
on whether such databases could be useful to technicians and
refrigerant wholesalers while allowing for preservation of technicians'
privacy as afforded by the Privacy Act. EPA also seeks comment on
whether it should allow technicians to opt out of being included on a
public list.
4. Grandfathering Provisions
    EPA is proposing 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. In order to have their voluntary programs
considered for approval, applications both for approval as a technician
certification program and for approval as a voluntary program were due
in 1994. EPA is proposing to remove this provision because it is
expired and no longer necessary.
5. Certification Cards
    EPA is proposing to change the required text that is printed on
certification cards. Currently, the card states that ``[Name of person]
has been certified as a [Type I, Type II, Type III, and/or Universal,
as appropriate] technician as required by 40 CFR part 82, subpart F.''
Some organizations believe 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. While this certification also
grants an individual the right to maintain, service, repair, or dispose
of appliances, the 608 exam is less focused on the operational and
engineering aspects of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment.
    EPA is proposing to amend the language found on the certification
card to more accurately reflect the knowledge needed to obtain the
certification. Therefore, EPA is proposing that the card 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
would ease burden on refrigerant wholesalers who must inspect the cards
to verify the certification of technicians. Updating the information on
the certification card should not result in any new administrative
costs or generate confusion.
    The requirements for certification cards appears in both Sec.
82.161 and appendix D. EPA is proposing to remove the redundant
requirement from Sec.  82.161 and make the updates proposed in this
section to appendix D, as descried in more detail below.
6. Updates to Appendix D
    EPA is proposing minor edits to appendix D ``Standards for Becoming
a Certifying Program for Technicians.'' EPA is proposing that the
description of test contents includes the environmental impact of not
just ODS but also substitute refrigerants. EPA is also proposing to
remove outdated, redundant, or self-explanatory provisions. This
includes removing paragraphs (i) through (k) on approval process,
grandfathering, and sample application. EPA is proposing to remove 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 also proposing to remove
social security numbers as an acceptable form of identification for
Type I technicians using the mail-in format and state that social
security numbers cannot be used in the unique certification number
assigned to newly-certified technicians. EPA is also proposing
clarifying changes and other small changes, including changing the
reporting deadline from June 30 of each year to July 30 of each year.
    Finally, to help technicians better identify who certified them,
EPA is also proposing to require that certifying organizations provide
a hand-out or electronic communication to technicians after they have
taken the test explaining who provided the training, who to contact
with questions, and when they should expect to receive their score, and
if they passed, their certification cards. EPA requests comments on the
proposed revisions to appendix D.
7. Edits To Improve Readability
    EPA is proposing to make minor edits to improve the readability of
this section. Notably, EPA is proposing to divide the requirements into
two sections. The first would be provisions related to responsibilities
of technicians and the second would be provisions related to technician
certification programs. It is not EPA's intent to place new
requirements on either party through this reorganization of content.
    EPA also considered proposing to incorporate the provisions of
appendix D into Sec.  82.161 itself and removing appendix D in its
entirety but is not proposing to do so at this time. EPA invites
comments on the revised language.

K. Proposed Changes to the Reclamation Requirements in Section 82.164

1. Background
    The regulations at Sec.  82.164 currently require 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
    EPA is proposing to extend the reclamation standards for
refrigerants in appendix A to additional non-ozone-depleting
substitutes. Most of the refrigerants addressed in appendix A are
single component ODS refrigerants or a blend containing an ODS
component, with a few exceptions such as R-407C and R-410A. It is
appropriate to update this 1995 standard to ensure that refrigerants
developed in the last twenty years are reclaimed properly. While
standards have been developed for these new refrigerants, reclaimers
may not have to achieve such standards without that standard being
incorporated into the subpart F regulations.
    In a recent proposed rule to issue allowances for the production
and

import of HCFCs, EPA sought comments on referencing AHRI Standard 700-
2012 Specification for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants directly, a practice
known as incorporation by reference, rather than reproducing the
standard in appendix A (78 FR 78095; December 24, 2013). EPA noted at
the time that incorporation by reference, and deletion of the text in
appendix A, has several advantages. AHRI standards are published,
widely known to and used by the persons affected by this regulation,
and available free of charge online at www.ahrinet.org/standards.aspx.
Referencing the AHRI standard, in lieu of duplicating it in appendix A,
would reduce potential confusion about the relationship between the two
sets of requirements. On the other hand, EPA recognizes that there is
an advantage to including the requirements of the standard in an
appendix to the regulation, avoiding the need to search for the
specific version of the AHRI standard referenced, and providing
certainty that compliance with appendix A (although possibly outdated)
constitutes compliance with EPA regulations.
    In response to EPA's proposal, five commenters supported using the
updated testing procedures and protocols, while six commented that the
newer halogenated unsaturated volatile impurities limit of 40 ppm by
weight (0.004% by wt), as compared to the previous limit of 0.5% by
weight, created undue expense and difficulty for reclaimers to achieve.
Those commenters noted that ASHRAE and AHRI were still conducting
further studies on the unsaturates limit. In the final rule issuing
HCFC allowances, EPA did not incorporate AHRI 700-2012 by reference,
noting concerns about the unsaturates limit and the ongoing unsaturates
study (79 FR 64281; October 28, 2014).
    At this time, recognizing that the unsaturates study has not been
finalized, EPA is proposing to update appendix A to include HFCs, PFCs,
HFOs, and other refrigerants based on the standards contained in AHRI
Standard 700-2015, Specifications for Refrigerants, while keeping the
unsaturates limit to be 0.5% by weight. If the unsaturates study is
published before this final rule is issued, EPA would consider
incorporating the full standard by reference.
    EPA seeks comments on whether the updated standard, AHRI Standard
700-2015 Specifications for Refrigerants, along with Appendix C to
AHRI-700 2015, should be directly incorporated by reference, or whether
appendix A should be updated to include HFCs, PFCs, HFOs, and other
refrigerants based on the 2015 version of the AHRI 700 standard,
including the appendix. EPA also seeks comment on whether the agency
needs to keep section 5.3.2 titled ``Alternative Method'' in Appendix A
to subpart F.
3. Changes to Recordkeeping and Reporting
    Under the current regulations at Sec.  82.164(b), reclaimers must
certify that the refrigerant reclaimed meets the specifications in AHRI
Standard 700-1995 using the analytical methodology prescribed in
appendix A. In addition to updating the standard to AHRI Standard 700-
2015, EPA is proposing to clarify that the analysis must be conducted
on each batch of refrigerant being reclaimed. EPA is also proposing to
require that reclaimers maintain records of these analyses. Requiring
reclaimers to maintain records helps to ensure that refrigerant is
being reclaimed to the appropriate specifications. Reclaimers currently
analyze by batch, and already generate records when doing so, so these
proposed changes update the regulations to reflect current practices
and clarify the existing requirements for ODS, and do not add
additional burden.
    EPA is also proposing to specify that all recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for reclaimers be maintained by refrigerant type
(i.e. ASHRAE number), as information kept in this format will provide
more clarity on the types and quantities of refrigerants being
reclaimed when aggregated information is reported. EPA is also
clarifying what aggregate information must be reported annually to the
Agency, and removing a redundant recordkeeping provision related to
that report.
    EPA requests comments on these proposed changes to the
recordkeeping and reporting provisions.
4. Clarifications and Edits for Readability
    EPA is proposing to consolidate provisions related to refrigerant
reclaimers into a single section. Specifically, EPA is proposing to
move prohibitions found in Sec.  82.154(i) and recordkeeping and
reporting requirements found in Sec.  82.166(g) and (h) into Sec.
82.164. This proposal also clarifies what is required of the reclaimer.
The current regulation requires a reclaimer to certify that he or she
will meet a certain set of standards and engage in certain behaviors.
The revised regulation requires first that a reclaimer meet those
standards and behaviors and second that they certify to having done so.
EPA is making this change to improve the enforceability of these
provisions. None of these underlying requirements themselves would
change, other than the updated AHRI standard and that the clarification
that the analysis be conducted on each batch of refrigerant, as
discussed above.

L. Proposed Changes to the Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements in
Section 82.166

1. Background
    The current regulations include all recordkeeping and reporting
provisions in one section of subpart F (Sec.  82.166). While having all
the provisions in one place is useful, the individual pieces are
separated from the required practices that the records/reports are
intended to help enforce. This can create confusion for the regulated
community when they are trying to understand what they must do and what
records they must keep to remain in compliance with the section 608
requirements. This is especially true when a recordkeeping or reporting
provision directly references a requirement in another section of
subpart F. To improve the readability and clarity of the recordkeeping
and reporting provisions, EPA is proposing to move the requirements
that are currently in Sec.  82.166 to the relevant section describing
the required practices. For example, EPA is proposing to move the
amended recordkeeping and reporting requirements for Appliance
Maintenance and Leak Repair to the section where those required
practices are listed, specifically Sec.  82.157. This should allow the
regulated community to more easily align the required practices with
their recordkeeping/reporting obligations without having to reference
requirements in other sections. EPA summarizes the amended
recordkeeping and reporting provisions below. EPA is also proposing a
new recordkeeping and reporting requirement for anyone disposing of
appliances with between five and 50 pounds of refrigerant.
2. Summary of Recordkeeping Provisions
    EPA has developed numerous recordkeeping requirements to document
compliance with the section 608 regulations. A summary of the proposed
requirements is included below. Please refer to other sections of this
notice to read about the proposed changes to the existing requirements.
All of the proposed requirements would apply to all refrigerants unless
the refrigerant is exempt from the venting prohibition. Unless
otherwise noted, all

records must be maintained for at least three years.
     Disposal of Small Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like
Appliances: Persons who take the final step in the disposal process of
such appliances must keep a copy of all the signed statements
indicating refrigerant was recovered properly. This statement must
include the name and address of the person who recovered the
refrigerant and the date the refrigerant was recovered. Alternatively,
the statement may be a signed contract stating that the supplier will
recover any remaining refrigerant from the appliance prior to delivery.
     Disposal of Appliances Containing Five to 50 Pounds of
Refrigerant: Persons evacuating refrigerant from appliances normally
containing five to 50 pounds of refrigerant for purposes of disposal of
that appliance must maintain records documenting their company name,
location of the equipment, date of recovery, amount and type of
refrigerant recovered for each appliance and the quantity and type of
refrigerant transferred for reclamation and/or destruction.
     Leak Inspection: Owners or operators of appliances
normally containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant must maintain
documentation from quarterly or annual leak inspections that includes
the date of inspection and the component(s) where leaks were
discovered. Alternatively, owners or operators may install an automatic
leak detection system and maintain records showing that the system is
calibrated annually.
     Extension Requests to the Periodic Leak Inspection
Requirement: Owners or operators of federally-owned appliances
containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant must maintain copies of
extension requests submitted to EPA to conduct leak inspections less
frequently until three years after the less frequent leak inspection
schedule is no longer being followed.
     Full Charge: Owners or operators of appliances normally
containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant must maintain records
documenting what the full charge amount is for appliances with 50 or
more pounds of refrigerant. The record for the current full charge must
be maintained until three years after the appliance is retired.
     Service Records Provided by Technicians: Persons adding or
removing refrigerant from an appliance normally containing 50 or more
pounds of refrigerant must provide the owner or operator with
documentation containing the identity and location of the appliance;
the date and type of maintenance, service, repair, or disposal
performed; the name of the person performing the maintenance, service,
repair or disposal; the amount and type of refrigerant added to or
removed from the appliance; the full charge of the appliance; and the
leak rate and the method used to determine the leak rate (unless
disposing of the appliance).
     Service Records Maintained by Owners and Operators: The
appliance owner or operator must maintain service records provided by
technicians and the identification of the owner or operator of the
appliance; the full charge of the appliance and the method for how full
charge was determined; the original range for the full charge of the
appliance, its midpoint, and how the range was determined (if using
method 4, as described in Sec.  82.152, for determining full charge);
any revisions of the full charge and how they were determined; and the
dates such revisions occurred.
     Verification Tests: Owners or operators of appliances
normally containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant must maintain
records of the dates, types, and results of all initial and follow-up
verification tests. Under this proposed rule, this would apply to all
types of equipment, not just IPR.
     Retrofit/Retirement Plans: Owners or operators of
appliances normally containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant that
cannot be repaired must maintain retrofit or retirement plans. The plan
must, at a minimum, contain the following information: Identification
and location of the appliance; type and full charge of the refrigerant
used; type and full charge of the refrigerant to which the appliance
will be converted, if retrofitted; itemized procedure for converting
the appliance to a different refrigerant, including changes required
for compatibility with the new substitute, if retrofitted; plan for the
disposition of recovered refrigerant; plan for the disposition of the
appliance, if retired; and one-year schedule for completion of the
appliance retrofit or retirement.
     Extension Requests to Repair or Retrofit/Retire
Appliances: Owners or operators of appliances normally containing 50 or
more pounds of refrigerant must maintain copies of extension requests.
     Mothballing: Owners or operators of appliances normally
containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant that mothball an appliance
must keep records documenting when the system was mothballed and when
they add refrigerant back into the appliance.
     Purged Refrigerant: Owners or operators of appliances
normally containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant that exclude
purged refrigerant that are destroyed from their leak rate calculation
must maintain records to demonstrate that a 98 percent or greater
destruction efficiency is met. At a minimum this includes flow rate,
quantity or concentration of the refrigerant in the vent stream, and
periods of purge flow.
     Lists of Certified Recovery Equipment and Testing Results:
Organizations that are approved to certify refrigerant recovery and/or
recycling equipment must maintain records of equipment testing and
performance and a list of equipment that meets EPA requirements. These
records must be maintained for three years after the equipment is no
longer offered for sale.
     Proof of Certification for Technicians: Technicians who
have passed the section 608 Type I, II, III or Universal test, must
keep a copy of their certification at their place of business. These
records must be maintained for three years after a certified individual
no longer operates as a technician.
     Sales Restriction: Anyone selling ODS or substitute
refrigerant must document the name of the purchaser, the date of sale,
and the quantity of refrigerant purchased. In instances where the buyer
employs a certified technician, the seller must keep the information
provided by the buyer that at least one technician is properly
certified. Copies of technician certifications must be maintained for
at least three years after a technician or person employing a
technician stops purchasing refrigerant.
     Small Cans of Refrigerant for MVAC Servicing: Anyone
manufacturing small cans of refrigerant with a self-sealing valve must
maintain records verifying that the self-sealing valves do not leak
more than 3.00 grams per year when the self-sealing valve is closed as
required in the newly-proposed Appendix E to subpart F. Records must be
maintained for three years after a certified product is no longer
offered for sale.
     Technician Certification Programs: Organizations that
certify technicians must maintain records of who they certify, the
scores of all certification tests administered, and the dates and
locations of all tests administered. These records must be maintained
as long as they are in operation, not just for three years.
     Reclaimers: Reclaimers must maintain records of the
analyses conducted to verify that reclaimed refrigerant meets the
necessary specifications. On a transactional basis, reclaimers must
maintain records of the

names and addresses of persons sending them material for reclamation
and the quantity of the material (the combined mass of refrigerant and
contaminants) by refrigerant type sent to them for reclamation.
    EPA requests comments on the clarity and necessity of these
recordkeeping provisions to ensure compliance with the section 608
regulatory requirements.
4. Summary of Reporting Provisions
    EPA has also proposed several reporting provisions. Reporting is an
important component of the National Recycling and Emission Reduction
Program and allows EPA to track compliance with the requirements. In
this action, EPA has attempted to propose reporting requirements only
when necessary to avoid significantly increasing burden on the
regulated community. A summary of the proposed reporting requirements
is included below. All of these reporting requirements are new for non-
exempt substitute equipment. However, all of the proposed requirements
are similar to those that exist currently for ODS equipment.
Additionally, EPA has proposed to remove the requirement (1) for
technicians to certify to the Administrator that they own certified
refrigerant recovery equipment and (2) for programs certifying recovery
and/or recycling equipment to report to EPA annually on the equipment
they approve. Both of these requirements are no longer needed. Unless
the information is claimed as confidential business information or as
otherwise noted, all notifications must be submitted electronically to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Electronic submission of reports should decrease
burden on both EPA and the regulated community.
     Extensions to the 30-day or 120-day Leak Repair
Requirement: Owners or operators of appliances normally containing 50
or more pounds of refrigerant must notify EPA when seeking an extension
of time to complete repairs. The request must include the following
information: 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 that has been performed thus
far, including the date that work was completed; the reasons why more
time is needed to complete the repair; and an estimate of when the work
will be completed.
     Extensions to Retrofit or Retire Appliances: Owners or
operators of appliances normally containing 50 or more pounds of
refrigerant must notify EPA when seeking an extension of time to
complete a retrofit or retirement.
     Purged Refrigerant: Owners or operators of appliances
normally containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant that exclude
purged refrigerant that are destroyed from their leak rate calculation
must provide a one-time report to EPA that includes the identification
of the facility and a contact person; a description of the appliance; a
description of the methods used to determine the quantity of
refrigerant sent for destruction and type of records that are being
kept; the frequency of monitoring and data-recording; and a description
of the control device, and its destruction efficiency.
     Extensions to the Periodic Leak Inspection Requirement:
Owners or operators of federally-owned appliances containing 50 or more
pounds of refrigerant must submit a request to EPA if they wish to
conduct leak inspections less frequently than quarterly or annually
(depending on the full charge and type of appliance). The extension