[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 190 (Monday, October 1, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49332-49344]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21084]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0629; FRL-9984-55-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT81

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Revisions to the Refrigerant
Management Program's Extension to Substitutes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) prohibits knowingly venting or
releasing ozone-depleting and substitute refrigerants in the course of
maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances or
industrial process refrigeration. On November 18, 2016, EPA finalized a
rule that updated the existing refrigerant management requirements and
extended requirements that previously applied only to refrigerants
containing an ozone-depleting substance (ODS) to substitute
refrigerants such as hydrofluorocarbons that are subject to the venting
prohibition (i.e., those that have not been exempted from that
prohibition). The Agency is revisiting the aspects of the 2016 Rule
that apply to equipment containing such substitute refrigerants. This
action proposes changes to the legal interpretation that supported that
rule and amendments to the regulations based on the revised
interpretation. More specifically, in connection with the proposed
changes to the legal interpretation, EPA is proposing to revise the
appliance maintenance and leak repair provisions so they apply only to
equipment using refrigerant containing a class I or class II substance.
Based on this proposed limitation of the leak repair requirements, this
document further proposes to revise the list of practices that must be
followed in order for refrigerant releases to be considered de minimis
to clarify that the reference to following leak repair practices only
applies to equipment that contains ODS refrigerant. EPA is also taking
comment on whether, in connection with the proposed changes to the
legal interpretation, the 2016 Rule's extension of subpart F
refrigerant management requirements to such substitute refrigerants
should be rescinded in full. Additionally, EPA is proposing to extend
by six to twelve months the January 1, 2019 compliance date for when
appliances containing only substitute refrigerants subject to the
venting prohibition must comply with the appliance maintenance and leak
repair provisions.

DATES: Written comments must be received by November 15, 2018. EPA will
hold a public hearing on or before October 16, 2018. The hearing will
be held in Washington, DC. More details concerning the hearing can be
found at www.epa.gov/section608.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0629, at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (e.g., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremy Arling by regular mail: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division
(6205T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; by
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by email: [email protected].

I. General Information

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

    Section 608 of the CAA, titled ``National Recycling and Emissions
Reduction Program,'' has three main components. First, section 608(a)
requires EPA to establish standards and requirements regarding the use
and disposal of class I and class II substances.\1\ The second
component, section 608(b), requires that the regulations issued
pursuant to subsection (a) contain requirements for the safe disposal
of class I and class II substances. The third component, section
608(c), prohibits the knowing venting, release, or disposal of ODS
refrigerants \2\ and their substitutes \3\ in the course of
maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances or
industrial process refrigeration (IPR). This third component is also
referred to as the ``venting prohibition'' in this proposal. Section
608(c)(1) includes an exemption from this prohibition for ``[d]e
minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to recapture and
recycle or safely dispose'' of class I or class II substances, and
section 608(c)(2) extends 608(c)(1) to substitute refrigerants. Section
608(c)(2) also includes a provision that allows the Administrator to
exempt a substitute refrigerant from the venting prohibition if he or
she determines that such venting, release, or disposal of a substitute
refrigerant ``does not pose a threat to the environment.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A class I or class II substance refers to an ozone-depleting
substance listed at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A, appendix A or appendix
B, respectively. This proposal refers to class I and class II
substances collectively as ozone-depleting substances, or ODS.
    \2\ The term ``ODS refrigerant'' as used in this proposal refers
to any refrigerant or refrigerant blend in which one or more of the
components is a class I or class II substance.
    \3\ The term ``substitute'' is defined at 40 CFR 82.152. In the
context of the subpart F regulations, any refrigerant or refrigerant
blend in which none of the components is a class I or class II
substance is treated as a substitute, while any refrigerant or
refrigerant blend in which one or more the components is a class I
or class II substance is regulated as an ODS refrigerant.
    \4\ EPA is using the term ``non-exempt substitute'' in this
document to refer to substitute refrigerants that have not been
exempted from the venting prohibition under CAA section 608(c)(2)
and 40 CFR 82.154(a) in the relevant end-use. Similarly, the term
``exempt substitute'' refers to a substitute refrigerant that has
been exempted from the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2)
and Sec.  82.154(a) in the relevant end-use. A few exempt
substitutes have been exempted from the venting prohibition in all
end-uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA first issued regulations under section 608 of the CAA on May
14, 1993 (58 FR 28660, ``1993 Rule''), to establish the national
refrigerant management program for ODS refrigerants recovered during
the service, repair, or disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration
appliances. These regulations were intended to substantially reduce the
use and emissions of refrigerants that are ODS.

    The 1993 Rule required that persons servicing air-conditioning and
refrigeration equipment containing ODS refrigerants observe certain
practices that reduce emissions. It established requirements for
refrigerant recovery equipment, reclaimer certification, and technician
certification, and also restricted the sale of ODS refrigerant so that
only certified technicians could purchase it. In addition, the 1993
Rule required that ODS be removed from appliances prior to disposal,
and that all air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment using an ODS
be provided with a servicing aperture or process stub to facilitate
refrigerant recovery. The 1993 Rule also established a requirement to
repair leaking appliances containing more than 50 pounds of ODS
refrigerant. The rule set an annual leak rate of 35 percent for
commercial refrigeration appliances and IPR and 15 percent for comfort
cooling appliances. If the applicable leak rate is exceeded, the
appliance must be repaired within 30 days. Further, consistent with CAA
section 608(c)(1), the 1993 Rule included a regulatory provision
prohibiting the knowing venting or release of ODS refrigerant by any
person maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance.
58 FR 28714; 40 CFR 82.154(a) (1993). It also provided that such
releases would be considered de minimis, and therefore not subject to
the prohibition, if they occurred when certain regulatory requirements
were followed. 40 CFR 82.154(a) (1993).
    EPA revised these regulations, which are found at 40 CFR part 82,
subpart F (``subpart F''), through subsequent rulemakings published on
August 19, 1994 (59 FR 42950), November 9, 1994 (59 FR 55912), August
8, 1995 (60 FR 40420), July 24, 2003 (68 FR 43786), March 12, 2004 (69
FR 11946), January 11, 2005 (70 FR 1972), April 13, 2005 (70 FR 19273),
May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29682), April 10, 2015 (80 FR 19453), and November
18, 2016 (81 FR 82272). In the April 2005 rulemaking, EPA revised the
regulatory venting prohibition in 40 CFR 82.154, so that it also
applied to non-exempt substitute refrigerants, and included such
substitutes in the regulatory provision implementing the de minimis
exemption, so that it exempted ``de minimis releases associated with
good faith attempts to recycle or recover refrigerants or non-exempt
substitutes'' from the prohibition. 70 FR 19278. However, in contrast
to how these regulations applied to ODS refrigerants, they did not
provide that releases of non-exempt substitute refrigerants would be
considered de minimis if certain regulatory requirements were followed.
Additionally, the 2004 and 2005 rules exempted certain substitute
refrigerants from the venting prohibition either in specific end uses
or in all end uses. See 69 FR 11953-11954; 70 FR 19278; 40 CFR
82.154(a) (June 2005). This regulatory list of exemptions from the
venting prohibition in 40 CFR 82.154(a) has been periodically updated
since 2005. EPA also issued proposed rules to revise the regulations in
subpart F on June 11, 1998 (63 FR 32044), elements of which were not
finalized, and on December 15, 2010 (75 FR 78558), for which no
elements were finalized. A more detailed history of these regulatory
updates can be found at 81 FR 82275. Prior to the 2016 Rule, EPA
regulations did not address how regulated entities could avail
themselves of the de minimis exemption for non-exempt substitutes. See,
e.g., 81 FR 82283-82285.
    On November 18, 2016, EPA published a rule updating the refrigerant
management requirements and extending requirements that previously
applied only to refrigerants containing an ODS to non-exempt substitute
refrigerants, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and hydrofluorolefins
(HFOs) (81 FR 82272) (``2016 Rule''). The 2016 Rule also made a number
of revisions to improve the efficacy of the refrigerant management
program as a whole, such as revisions of regulatory provisions for
increased clarity and readability, and removal of provisions that had
become obsolete.

B. Does this action apply to me?

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

                                     Table 1--Potentially Affected Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            North American Industry
               Category                  Classification System (NAICS)       Examples of regulated entities
                                                     code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial Process Refrigeration (IPR)  111, 11251, 11511, 21111,       Owners or operators of refrigeration
                                         2211, 2212, 2213, 311, 3121,    equipment used in agriculture and crop
                                         3221, 3222, 32311, 32411,       production, oil and gas extraction, ice
                                         3251, 32512, 3252, 3253,        rinks, and the manufacture of frozen
                                         32541, 3256, 3259, 3261,        food, dairy products, food and
                                         3262, 3324, 3328, 33324,        beverages, ice, petrochemicals,
                                         33341, 33361, 3341, 3344,       chemicals, machinery, medical
                                         3345, 3346, 3364, 33911,        equipment, plastics, paper, and
                                         339999.                         electronics.
Commercial Refrigeration..............  42374, 42393, 42399, 4242,      Owners or operators of refrigerated
                                         4244, 42459, 42469, 42481,      warehousing and storage facilities,
                                         42493, 4451, 4452, 45291,       supermarkets, grocery stores, warehouse
                                         48422, 4885, 4931, 49312,       clubs, supercenters, convenience
                                         72231.                          stores, and refrigerated transport.
Comfort Cooling.......................  45211, 45299, 453998, 512,      Owners or operators of air-conditioning
                                         522, 524, 531, 5417, 551,       equipment used in the following:
                                         561, 6111, 6112, 6113, 61151,   hospitals, office buildings, colleges
                                         622, 7121, 71394, 721, 722,     and universities, metropolitan transit
                                         813, 92.                        authorities, real estate rental &
                                                                         leased properties, lodging and food
                                                                         services, property management, schools,
                                                                         and public administration or other
                                                                         public institutions.
Plumbing, Heating, and Air-             238220, 811111, 81131, 811412.  Plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning
 Conditioning Contractors.                                               contractors, and refrigerant recovery
                                                                         contractors, including automotive
                                                                         repair.
Manufacturers and Distributors of       325120, 441310, 447110........  Automotive parts and accessories stores
 Small Cans of Refrigerant.                                              and industrial gas manufacturers.
Reclaimers............................  325120, 423930, 424690,         Industrial gas manufacturers, recyclable
                                         562920, 562212.                 material merchant wholesalers,
                                                                         materials recovery facilities, solid
                                                                         waste landfills, and other chemical and
                                                                         allied products merchant wholesalers.

Disposers and Recyclers of Appliances.  423990, 562212, 562920........  Materials recovery facilities, solid
                                                                         waste landfills, and other
                                                                         miscellaneous durable goods merchant
                                                                         wholesalers.
Refrigerant Wholesalers...............  325120, 42, 424690............  Industrial gas manufacturers, other
                                                                         chemical and allied products merchant
                                                                         wholesalers, wholesale trade.
Certifying Organizations..............  541380........................  Environmental test laboratories and
                                                                         services.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your facility, company, business, or
organization could be affected by this action, you should carefully
examine the regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F and the proposed
revisions below. If you have questions regarding the applicability of
this action, if finalized, to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

C. What action is the agency taking?

    Subpart F contains a comprehensive set of specific refrigerant
management requirements, including provisions that: Restrict the
servicing of appliances and the sale of refrigerant to certified
technicians; specify the proper evacuation levels before opening an
appliance; require the use of certified refrigerant recovery and/or
recycling equipment; require the maintenance and repair of appliances
that meet size and leak rate thresholds; require that refrigerant be
removed from appliances prior to disposal; require that appliances have
a servicing aperture or process stub to facilitate refrigerant
recovery; require that refrigerant reclaimers be certified to reclaim
and sell used refrigerant; and establish standards for technician
certification programs, recovery equipment, and quality of reclaimed
refrigerant (40 CFR part 82 subpart F).
    Based on feedback from some in the regulated community, the Agency
reviewed the 2016 Rule, focusing in particular on whether the Agency
had the statutory authority to extend the full set of subpart F
refrigerant management regulations to non-exempt substitute
refrigerants, such as HFCs and HFOs. Based on that review,
Administrator Pruitt signed a letter on August 10, 2017 stating that
EPA is ``planning to issue a proposed rule to revisit aspects of the
2016 Rule's extension of the 40 CFR part 82 subpart F refrigerant
management requirements to non-exempt substitutes.'' \5\ Consistent
with the Administrator's letter, the Agency is now proposing to
withdraw the recent extension of the appliance maintenance and leak
repair provisions at 40 CFR 82.157 \6\ to appliances using only non-
exempt substitute refrigerants.\7\ This proposal would relieve
businesses from having to conduct leak inspections, repair leaks, and
keep records for appliances containing 50 or more pounds of non-exempt
substitute refrigerant. EPA is also taking comment on whether to
withdraw the extension of the full set of subpart F provisions to non-
exempt substitute refrigerants. EPA is not proposing any changes to the
refrigerant management program as it relates to requirements for ozone-
depleting refrigerants or appliances containing or using any amount of
ODS. Accordingly, none of the proposed changes would affect
requirements for ODS under CAA section 608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Letter from EPA to National Environmental Development
Association's Clean Air Project and the Air Permitting Forum (Aug.
10, 2017), available at www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/608_update_letter.pdf and in the docket to this rule.
    \6\ For ease of reference, in this document EPA uses the terms
``leak repair provisions'' or ``leak repair requirements'' to refer
to the appliance maintenance and leak repair provisions at 40 CFR
82.157.
    \7\ Ozone-depleting refrigerants and appliances that contain or
use any amount of class I or class II ODS would continue to be
subject to the ODS requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    These proposed revisions to the regulations found at 40 CFR part
82, subpart F are based on proposed changes to EPA's interpretation of
its authority under CAA section 608. In particular, in the 2016 Rule
EPA had for the first time adopted an interpretation of CAA section 608
to support the extension of the full set of subpart F refrigerant
management requirements to non-exempt substitute refrigerants. Under
the interpretation proposed in this document, EPA now proposes to
conclude that its authority to regulate substitutes under section 608
does not extend as far as its authority to regulate ODS. Specifically,
EPA would conclude, as a legal matter, that the extension of the full
set (that is, the entirety) of subpart F requirements to non-exempt
substitute refrigerants exceeds EPA's statutory authority. In
connection with the proposed changes in its legal interpretation, EPA
is proposing to rescind the 2016 Rule's extension of the leak repair
requirements to non-exempt substitutes, while retaining the extension
of the remaining subpart F requirements. In light of the questions
regarding the scope of EPA's authority to regulate non-exempt
substitute refrigerants under section 608, EPA is also taking comment
on whether it would be appropriate and warranted for the agency to
instead rescind the entire extension of the subpart F requirements to
non-exempt substitutes at this time. EPA is not, however, proposing to
change the interpretation that EPA has authority to interpret the
venting prohibition and the de minimis exemption in section 608(c) and
to explain how that prohibition and that exemption apply to non-exempt
substitute refrigerants.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Section 608(c) does not expressly provide that EPA may write
regulations under that section. Section 301, however, states that
the ``Administrator is authorized to prescribe such regulations as
are necessary to carry out his functions under [the Clean Air
Act].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's authority for this proposed action is further supported by
the Agency's authority to revisit and revise existing regulations and
legal interpretations. More detail on EPA's authority for this action
is provided in subsequent sections of this document, including in
sections II.D and II.E below, discussing EPA's authority under CAA
sections 608(c) and 608(a), respectively.

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

    By rescinding the extension of the leak repair provisions to
substitutes, the proposed rule would reduce the burden associated with
the 2016 Rule by $39 million per year. EPA also estimates this rule
would increase the need to purchase non-exempt substitute refrigerant
for leaking appliances, at an overall cost of approximately $15 million
per year. Thus, incremental compliance savings and increased
refrigerant costs combined are estimated to be a reduction of at least
$24 million

per year. EPA estimates that this proposed action would result in
foregone annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions benefits of
at least 3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MMTCO2e). This proposed rule to rescind the extension of
the leak repair provisions to substitutes would not directly affect the
stratospheric ozone layer.
    EPA is also taking comment whether the agency should rescind the
entire extension of the subpart F requirements to non-exempt
substitutes and any additional cost savings associated with that
action. This would reduce the burden associated with the 2016 Rule by
at least an additional $4 million per year (for a total annual burden
reduction of at least $43 million per year). EPA estimates withdrawing
subpart F regulations of non-exempt substitute refrigerants to result
in additional foregone annual GHG emissions reductions of 0.7
MMTCO2e associated with the use of self-sealing valves for a
total foregone emissions reduction of at least 3.6 MMTCO2e.
    Table 2 presents a summary of the annual costs and benefits
associated with two scenarios including rescinding the extension of the
leak repair provisions to non-exempt substitutes and rescinding the
extension of all Subpart F provisions to non-exempt substitutes.

                   Table 2--Summary of Annual Costs and Benefits With 7% and 3% Discount Rates
                                                     [2014$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Rescinding extension of leak         Rescinding extension of all Subpart F
                                repair provisions to non-exempt        provisions to non-exempt substitutes
                                          substitutes           ------------------------------------------------
                              ----------------------------------
                                 7% Discount      3% Discount      7% Discount           3% Discount rate
                                     rate             rate             rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden Reduction.............  $38,958,000....  $35,264,000....  $43,014,000....  $39,320,000
Refrigerant Replacement Cost.  -$14,874,000...  -$14,874,000...  -$14,874,000...  -$14,874,000
Forgone Emissions Reductions.  2.946 MMTCO2e..  2.946 MMTCO2e..  3.603 MMTCO2e..  3.603 MMTCO2e
Annual Cost Savings..........  $24,084,000....  $20,390,000....  $28,140,000....  $24,446,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional information on these analyses can be found in Section
III of this document and the technical support document in the docket.

II. The Proposed Rule

A. History of the Extension of the Subpart F Requirements to Non-Exempt
Substitutes

    On November 18, 2016, EPA published a rule updating existing
refrigerant management requirements and extending the full set of the
subpart F refrigerant management requirements, which prior to that rule
applied only to ODS refrigerants,\9\ to non-exempt substitute
refrigerants, such as HFCs and HFOs (81 FR 82272). As such, as part of
the 2016 Rule, EPA extended the ``appliance maintenance and leak
repair'' provisions, currently codified at 40 CFR 82.157, to appliances
that contain 50 or more pounds of non-exempt substitute refrigerant.
Included in the leak repair provisions are requirements to conduct leak
rate calculations when refrigerant is added to an appliance, repair an
appliance that leaks above the threshold leak rate applicable to that
type of appliance, conduct verification tests on repairs, conduct
periodic leak inspections on appliances that have exceeded the
threshold leak rate, report to EPA on chronically leaking appliances,
retrofit or retire appliances that are not repaired, and maintain
related documentation to verify compliance. Although the 2016 Rule took
effect on January 1, 2017, it included later compliance dates for some
of the revised regulations, including the leak repair provisions. Under
the 2016 Rule, owners and operators of appliances that contain 50 or
more pounds of refrigerant must comply with these revised appliance
maintenance and leak repair provisions beginning January 1, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The only subpart F requirements that applied to substitute
refrigerants prior to the 2016 Rule were the venting prohibition and
certain exemptions from that, as set forth in Sec.  82.154(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two industry coalitions, National Environmental Development
Association's Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP) and the Air Permitting Forum
(APF), filed petitions for judicial review of the 2016 Rule in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the cases
have been consolidated. See NEDA/CAP v. EPA, No. 17-1016 (D.C. Cir.
filed January 17, 2017); APF v. EPA, No. 17-1017 (D.C. Cir. filed
January 17, 2017). The Chemours Company, Honeywell International Inc.,
the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Alliance for Responsible
Atmospheric Policy are participating as intervenor-respondents in that
litigation, in support of the 2016 Rule. In addition, APF has filed a
petition with EPA for administrative reconsideration of the 2016 Rule.
The petition for reconsideration is available in the docket for this
action and raises several issues regarding changes made in the 2016
Rule, including EPA's statutory authority for its decision in the 2016
Rule to expand the scope of the refrigerant management requirements--
including, but not limited to, leak repair requirements--to cover non-
exempt substitute refrigerants. Honeywell International Inc. submitted
a document styled as a response to APF's petition for reconsideration,
which is also available in the docket for this action.

B. Legal Background

    The discussion of EPA's statutory authority to extend refrigerant
management requirements to non-exempt substitute refrigerants in the
2016 Rule focused primarily on CAA section 608, especially on sections
608(c) and 608(a). See generally 81 FR 82284-82288.
    Section 608(a) requires EPA to establish standards and requirements
regarding use and disposal of class I and class II substances. With
regard to refrigerants, EPA is to promulgate regulations establishing
standards and requirements for the use and disposal of class I and
class II substances during the service, repair, or disposal of air-
conditioning and refrigeration appliances or IPR. Regulations under
section 608(a) are to include requirements to reduce the use and
emission of ODS to the lowest achievable level, and to maximize the
recapture and recycling of such substances. Section 608(a) further
provides that ``[s]uch regulations may include requirements to use
alternative substances (including substances which are not class I or
class II substances) or to minimize use of class I or class II
substances, or to promote the use of safe

alternatives pursuant to section [612] or any combination of the
foregoing.''
    Section 608(c) establishes a self-effectuating prohibition,
commonly called the ``venting prohibition.'' \10\ Section 608(c)(1),
effective July 1, 1992, makes it unlawful for any person in the course
of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance or
IPR to knowingly vent, release, or dispose of any ODS used as a
refrigerant in such equipment in a manner that permits that substance
to enter the environment. Section 608(c)(1) also includes an exemption
from this prohibition for ``[d]e minimis releases associated with good
faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose'' of such a
substance. Section 608(c)(2) states that, effective November 15, 1995,
``paragraph (1) shall also apply to the venting, release, or disposal
of any substitute substance for a class I or class II substance by any
person maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance
or [IPR] which contains and uses as a refrigerant any such substance,
unless the Administrator determines that venting, releasing, or
disposing of such substance does not pose a threat to the
environment.'' EPA interprets section 608(c)(2)'s extension of section
608(c)(1) to substitute refrigerants to extend both the prohibition on
venting and the de minimis exemption to non-exempt substitute
refrigerants. This is a long-held position and EPA is not proposing to
revisit it. See, e.g., 69 FR 11949 (March 12, 2004); 70 FR 19274-19275
(April 13, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In this context, EPA uses the term ``self-effectuating'' to
mean that the statutory prohibition on venting is itself legally
binding even in the absence of implementing regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2016 Rule, EPA interpreted section 608 of the CAA as being
ambiguous with regard to EPA's authority to establish refrigerant
management regulations for non-exempt substitute refrigerants because
Congress had not precisely spoken to this issue. Accordingly, EPA took
the view that it had the discretion under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v.
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-44 (1984), to
interpret section 608 as providing EPA with authority to extend all
aspects of its refrigerant management regulations under section 608 to
non-exempt substitute refrigerants, including those regulations that
had previously only applied to ODS refrigerants. See 81 FR 82283. The
2016 Rule explained that EPA had established the subpart F standards
for the proper handling of ODS refrigerants during service, repair, or
disposal of an appliance to maximize the recovery and/or recycling of
such substances and reduce the use and emission of such substances
primarily under section 608(a). Section 608(a) expressly requires EPA
to issue regulations that apply to class I and class II substances, but
does not expressly address whether EPA could establish the same
refrigerant management practices for substitute substances. On the
other hand, section 608(c)(2) explicitly mentions substitute
refrigerants and directly applies the provisions for ODS refrigerants
in section 608(c)(1) to them.
    In the 2016 Rule EPA grounded its authority for the extension of
refrigerant requirements to non-exempt substitute refrigerants largely
on section 608(c), which EPA interpreted to provide it authority to
promulgate regulations that interpret, explain, and enforce the venting
prohibition and the de minimis exemption as they apply to non-exempt
substitute refrigerants. See 81 FR 82283-82284. In reaching this
interpretation, EPA relied in part on a policy rationale that by
establishing a comprehensive and consistent framework that applies to
both ODS and non-exempt substitute refrigerants, the 2016 Rule would
provide clarity to the regulated community concerning the measures that
should be taken to comply with the venting prohibition for non-exempt
substitutes and would thus reduce confusion and enhance compliance for
both ODS and non-exempt substitutes. EPA further explained its view in
the 2016 Rule that the extension of requirements under section 608 to
non-exempt substitutes was also supported by section 608(a) because
having a consistent regulatory framework for non-exempt substitutes and
ODS is expected to reduce emissions of ODS refrigerants, as well as
non-exempt substitutes. In addition, EPA located supplemental authority
for the 2016 Rule in section 301(a), which provides authority for EPA
to ``prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out [the EPA
Administrator's] functions'' under the Act. Id. Further, EPA located
supplemental authority to extend the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements to non-exempt substitutes in section 114, which provides
authority to the EPA Administrator to require recordkeeping and
reporting in carrying out provisions of the CAA. Id.

C. EPA's Authority To Revisit Existing Regulations and Interpretations

    EPA's ability to revisit existing regulations is well-grounded in
the law. Specifically, EPA has inherent authority to reconsider,
repeal, or revise past decisions to the extent permitted by law so long
as the Agency provides a reasoned explanation. The CAA complements
EPA's inherent authority to reconsider prior rulemakings by providing
the Agency with broad authority to prescribe regulations as necessary
in CAA section 301(a). The authority to reconsider prior decisions
exists in part because EPA's interpretations of statutes it administers
``[are not] instantly carved in stone,'' but must be evaluated ``on a
continuing basis.'' Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837,
863-64 (1984). This is true when, as is the case here, review is
undertaken ``in response to . . . a change in administrations.''
National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X internet Services,
545 U.S. 967, 981 (2005). Indeed, ``[a]gencies obviously have broad
discretion to reconsider a regulation at any time.'' Clean Air Council
v. Pruitt, 862 F.3d 1, 8-9 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Similarly, the fact that
an agency has previously adopted one interpretation of a statute does
not preclude it from later exercising its discretion to change its
interpretation. National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n, 545 U.S. at
981.
    In accordance with the Administrator's statement in the August 10,
2017 letter that EPA planned to issue a proposed rule to revisit
aspects of the 2016 Rule's extension of the subpart F refrigerant
management requirements to non-exempt substitutes, EPA has reassessed
its decision to extend those requirements to non-exempt substitutes and
the interpretations supporting that extension. The main considerations
leading to the Agency's decision to reassess the 2016 Rule's extension
of subpart F requirements to non-exempt substitute refrigerants are
questions about whether extending the full set of subpart F
requirements exceeded EPA's statutory authority under CAA section 608.
The subpart F requirements, including the leak repair requirements,
were originally established for ODS based primarily on authority under
CAA section 608(a). Sections 608(a)(1) and (2) explicitly require EPA
to regulate ODS but make no mention of substitutes. Section 608(c)(2)
does expressly mention substitute refrigerants. However, that provision
focuses on prohibiting knowing releases of substitute refrigerants in
the course of maintenance, service, repair, and disposal activities and
on providing an exemption for de minimis releases.
    Thus, the structure of section 608, specifically the inclusion of
the term ``substitutes'' in section 608(c) but not section 608(a),
contrasted with the express references to ODS (class I and class II
substances) in both subsections,

suggests that EPA's authority to address substitutes under section 608
is more limited than its authority to address ODS. If Congress had
intended to convey authority to EPA to promulgate the same, full set of
refrigerant management requirements for substitutes as for ODS, it is
reasonable to expect that Congress would have expressly included
substitutes in section 608(a), as it did for section 608(c)--but it did
not. On the other hand, section 608(a) requires the Agency to issue
regulations that reduce the use and emission of ODS to the lowest
achievable level and maximize the recapture and recycling of such
substances. While section 608(a) contains discretionary language about
what requirements those regulations may include, it does not contain
any more specific mandates about how the required objectives should be
achieved. To the extent that the extension of certain subpart F
requirements to non-exempt substitutes is necessary to reduce the use
and emission of ODS to the lowest achievable level or to maximize the
recapture and recycling of such substances, EPA is proposing to
conclude, as in the 2016 Rule, that such an extension would be
authorized by section 608(a). In addition, EPA believes that section
608(c) is reasonably construed as providing the Agency discretionary
authority to interpret and apply the venting prohibition and the de
minimis exemption, as they are expressly incorporated as relating to
substitutes under section 608(c)(2). However, EPA believes that its
statutory authority under section 608, taking that authority as a
whole, does not extend as far with respect to substitutes as it does
with respect to ODS, and specifically believes that section 608 is
ambiguous with respect to the extent to which, if at all, Congress
authorized EPA to issue refrigerant management regulations for
substitutes.
    In light of these considerations, the Agency has re-examined its
authority for aspects of the 2016 Rule. In particular, EPA has
carefully reviewed the specific requirements under subpart F that were
extended to non-exempt substitute refrigerants and evaluated whether
those extensions were within the scope of EPA's statutory authority
under sections 608(a) and 608(c).
    While EPA believes the scope of its authority for substitutes under
section 608 is narrower than that for ODS, EPA maintains that section
608 is ambiguous with respect to the extent of its authority to apply
refrigerant management requirements to non-exempt substitute
refrigerants. EPA is proposing to change some of the interpretations
that supported the 2016 Rule. Specifically, EPA is proposing to
conclude that the extension of the leak repair requirements in Sec.
82.157 to non-exempt substitute refrigerants exceeds EPA's legal
authority and furthermore is not necessary to fulfill the purposes of
section 608(a). EPA proposes to conclude that these changes in
interpretations are appropriate interpretations of sections 608(a) and
(c) in light of the statutory text, context, and EPA's historical
views. With regard to section 608(a), EPA is also taking comment on an
alternative legal interpretation under which the agency would not rely
on section 608(a) for any extension of the refrigerant management
regulations to substitute refrigerants.
    In light of EPA's proposed legal interpretations, EPA's proposal
for amending the 2016 Rule is to rescind the extension of the leak
repair requirements to non-exempt substitutes, while retaining the
extension of the remaining subpart F requirements. EPA is also
requesting comment on whether the agency should rescind the entire
extension of the subpart F requirements to non-exempt substitutes.
These points, and EPA's proposed legal interpretations, are discussed
further below in the context of specific authority under sections
608(c) and (a), respectively.

D. Authority Under CAA Sec.  608(c) To Extend Refrigerant Management
Provisions to Non-Exempt Substitute Refrigerants

    EPA is proposing to change aspects of the interpretation of CAA
section 608(c) that it adopted in the 2016 Rule. Under the
interpretation proposed in this action, the Agency exceeded its
statutory authority under section 608(c) in the 2016 Rule by extending
the leak repair (Sec.  82.157) requirements to appliances that use only
substitute refrigerants.
    As in prior actions under section 608, EPA continues to interpret
section 608(c) to provide it some authority to interpret, explain, and
enforce the venting prohibition and the de minimis exemption, as these
are both provisions in a statutory regime that EPA is entrusted to
administer. However, EPA also recognizes that sections 608(a) and
608(c) differ from one another in some key respects, including the fact
that 608(a)(1) and (2) expressly require EPA to issue regulations for
class I and class II substances, but include no such requirement for
(or, indeed, any mention of) substitutes.\11\ In contrast, 608(c) does
explicitly apply to substitute refrigerants, but that subsection leaves
EPA discretion as to whether to promulgate regulations implementing its
provisions. In light of these differences in wording between 608(a) and
608(c), EPA is proposing to conclude that the 2016 Rule exceeded the
agency's authority under section 608 by extending the full set of the
subpart F requirements to substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Section 608(a)(3) does provide that the regulations issued
under section 608(a) ``may include requirements to use alternative
substances (including substances which are not class I or class II
substances), . . . or to promote the use of safe alternatives
pursuant to section [612].'' (In implementing Title VI, EPA has at
times used the terms ``alternative'' and ``substitute''
interchangeably. See, e.g., 81 FR 86779, n.1; 81 FR 82276, 82291.)
EPA is not relying upon these provisions in 608(a)(3) in this
document, as the proposed regulatory changes do not relate to
requirements to use substitutes or promote their use pursuant to
section 612. Furthermore, EPA did not rely on these authorities in
608(a)(3) in extending the refrigerant management requirements to
substitute refrigerants in the 2016 Rule, and is not relying on them
in addressing the underlying questions of statutory interpretation
at issue here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, EPA believes that the extension of the leak repair
requirements to non-exempt substitute refrigerants exceeded its
authority. To justify the extension of the leak repair requirements to
non-exempt substitute refrigerants in the 2016 Rule, EPA reversed its
longstanding position that ``topping off'' leaking appliances was not
venting or a knowing release of refrigerant in the course of
maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance within
the meaning of section 608(c). Prior to the 2016 Rule, EPA's position
had been that refrigerant released during the use of an appliance is
not subject to the venting prohibition. When establishing the original
leak repair provisions, EPA in 1993 stated that:

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

    In the 2016 Rule, EPA changed the Agency's interpretation of the
venting prohibition as part of the rationale that supported applying
the leak repair requirements, originally issued under CAA section
608(a), to non-exempt substitute refrigerants. EPA stated in the 2016
Rule that it:

concludes that its statements in the 1993 Rule presented an overly
narrow interpretation of the statutory venting prohibition.
Consistent with the direction articulated in the proposed 2010 Leak
Repair Rule, EPA is adopting a broader interpretation. When
refrigerant must be added to an existing appliance, other than when
originally charging the system or for a seasonal variance, the owner
or operator necessarily knows that the system has leaks. At that
point the owner or operator is required to calculate the leak rate.
If the leaks exceed the applicable leak rate for that particular
type of appliance, the owner or operator will know that absent
repairs, subsequent additions of refrigerant will be released in a
manner that will permit the refrigerant to enter the environment.
Therefore, EPA interprets section 608(c) such that if a person adds
refrigerant to an appliance that he or she knows is leaking, he or
she also violates the venting prohibition unless he or she has
complied with the applicable practices referenced in Sec.
82.154(a)(2), as revised, including the leak repair requirements, as
applicable. [81 FR 82285.]

    EPA is proposing to conclude that this 2016 interpretation exceeds
the scope of the Agency's authority under section 608(c)(2). The agency
is therefore proposing to return to the interpretation used prior to
the 2016 Rule.\12\ First, the 2016 interpretation is based on a
strained reading of section 608(c)(2) because the refrigerant releases
from such leaks typically occur during the normal operation of the
appliance, rather than ``in the course of maintaining, servicing,
repairing, or disposing of '' an appliance. The operational leaks that
trigger the leak repair provisions may take the form of a slow leak
that results in the need to add refrigerant and that occurs in the
weeks or months prior to the servicing event. Leaks may also result
from an unintended catastrophic failure, which leads to a subsequent
service event to recharge the appliance. While section 608(c)(2)
applies to the release of substitute refrigerants in ``the course of
maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance,''
neither of those types of leaks typically occur in the course of
maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance.
Moreover, EPA has always understood that few appliances are leak-free,
which further supports the notion that leaks frequently occur during
normal operation of an appliance.\13\ Further, EPA has recognized that
refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment often does leak, and that
``[t]his is particularly likely for larger and more complicated
appliances like those subject to the subpart F leak repair
provisions.'' (81 FR 82313). Therefore, the leak repair provisions
apply to activities that are too distinct from the activities
identified in section 608(c) to provide EPA with regulatory authority
to extend the leak repair regulations to non-exempt substitute
refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The 2010 leak repair proposal (75 FR 78558) was not
finalized. As noted in the 2016 Rule (81 FR 82275), EPA withdrew the
2010 proposal in the 2016 rulemaking and re-proposed elements of the
2010 proposal in the notice of proposed rulemaking (80 FR 69461) for
the 2016 Rule.
    \13\ Recognizing that appliances can leak during their normal
operation, 40 CFR 82.157(g) requires periodic leak inspections of
appliances with 50 or more pounds of refrigerant that had been
repaired after leaking above the applicable threshold rate.
Automatic leak detection equipment is also allowed in lieu of
inspections for such appliances, or portions of such appliances.
This proposal, if finalized, would rescind this requirement for
appliances containing only non-exempt substitute refrigerant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that under the proposed revisions to its interpretation
discussed in this document, the venting prohibition under section
608(c) would continue to apply to actions taken in the course of
maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances
containing non-exempt substitute refrigerant, including those
containing 50 or more pounds of such refrigerant. For example, knowing
release from cutting refrigerant lines when disposing of an appliance
is prohibited. Similarly, opening an appliance to repair a component
without first isolating it and recovering the refrigerant would
typically lead to a knowing release of refrigerant to the environment.
It is also possible that some ``topping off'' may occur in an appliance
with a leak that is so visible, audible, or frequent that adding
refrigerant to the appliance creates the practical certainty that the
refrigerant will be released contemporaneously with the servicing event
and therefore may constitute a knowing release. For example, hearing
hissing or noticing a ruptured line while continuing to add refrigerant
to an appliance would constitute a knowing release. However, EPA does
not believe this occurs in a substantial number of situations, and thus
does not believe that the possibility of such an event justifies a
blanket interpretation that ``topping off'' an appliance that has
leaked, absent adherence to the leak repair requirements at Sec.
82.157, is necessarily and per se a violation of 608(c).
    EPA is proposing to remove the extension of the leak repair
requirements to non-exempt substitute refrigerants as exceeding its
authority, but to retain the other provisions of subpart F as
appropriate measures to implement, explain, and enforce the venting
prohibition for non-exempt substitute refrigerants. In contrast to the
leak repair requirements, the other provisions of subpart F that EPA
extended to non-exempt substitute refrigerants in the 2016 Rule relate
directly to emissions that necessarily occur in the course of
maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance.
Accordingly, those provisions directly address the potential for
knowing releases of non-exempt substitute refrigerants that would be
within the scope of section 608(c)(2). Moreover, prior to the 2016
Rule, EPA had long recognized connections between other subpart F
requirements and the potential for releases to occur during appliance
maintenance, service, repair or disposal, and continues to do so. For
example, failure to properly evacuate an appliance (Sec.  82.156 and
Sec.  82.158) before opening it for servicing will create the practical
certainty that the refrigerant in the appliance will be released during
the servicing event. EPA required that recovery and/or recycling
equipment be tested and certified by an EPA-approved laboratory or
organization ``[i]n order to ensure that recycling and recovery
equipment on the market is capable of limiting emissions.'' (58 FR
28682).
    Similarly, disposing of the appliance without removing the
refrigerant (Sec.  82.155) will result in the release of any remaining
refrigerant during disposal of the appliance. EPA acknowledged this
when finalizing the safe disposal requirements in 1993, writing: ``The
Agency wishes to clarify that the prohibition on venting refrigerant
includes individuals who are preparing to dispose of a used
appliance.'' (58 FR 28703). EPA established the reclamation requirement
for used refrigerant to prevent equipment damage from dirty refrigerant
and ensure a market for recovered refrigerants, both of which minimize
knowingly venting or releasing of refrigerant during appliance
maintenance, servicing, repair, and disposal. (58 FR 28678). With
respect to the sales restriction and technician certification
requirements, EPA stated that ``unrestricted sales will enable
untrained or undertrained technicians to obtain access to refrigerants
that are likely to be used improperly in connection with servicing
activities that will result in the venting of refrigerants'' (58 FR
28698) and that ``[e]ducating technicians on how to contain and
conserve refrigerant effectively, curtailing illegal venting into the
atmosphere'' was one of the primary reasons many technicians commented

in support of the certification program. (58 FR 28691). Accordingly, as
part of EPA's proposal, the agency would conclude that the 2016 Rule's
extension of the other, non-leak-repair requirements under subpart F to
non-exempt substitute refrigerants is within the scope of EPA's
authority under CAA section 608(c)(2), because those other requirements
implement that provision's venting prohibition.
    While EPA continues to believe that it has authority to implement,
explain, and enforce the venting prohibition and the exemptions in
608(c) for non-exempt substitute refrigerants, as explained above, it
is proposing to conclude that the extension of the full set of the
subpart F requirements to appliances using only substitute refrigerant
exceeded its legal authority under section 608(c). As explained above,
it is proposing to rescind the extension of subpart F's leak repair
requirements to appliances using only non-exempt substitute
refrigerants. EPA is also seeking comments on whether the agency should
instead withdraw the entire extension of subpart F requirements to non-
exempt substitute refrigerants in the 2016 Rule given its proposed
interpretation. Section 608(c) does not expressly require EPA to issue
regulations, nor does it contain specific deadlines or requirements for
any rules that EPA might promulgate under that authority. Accordingly,
EPA has substantial discretion in issuing regulations under section
608(c) and the timing of any such regulations. Given that discretion,
EPA could conclude that a full withdrawal of the extension of subpart F
requirements to non-exempt substitute refrigerants is appropriate and
warranted at this time. Such an approach could be reasonable in light
of the questions as to EPA's legal authority for that extension. For
example, if EPA were to conclude that interpreting section 608(c) to
authorize the same full set of requirements as 608(a) for refrigerants
renders 608(a) superfluous with respect to refrigerants \14\ and that
this structural issue raises critical uncertainties as to the extent to
which EPA should replicate 608(a) requirements under 608(c), EPA could
decide that a full withdrawal of the extension is an appropriate use of
its discretion under section 608(c). Such action would allow the Agency
to consider and potentially develop options not discussed in this
proposed rule. If EPA were to decide that a full withdrawal of the
extension is prudent, the prohibitions under section 608(c) would
continue to apply directly to any knowing release of non-exempt
substitute refrigerant in the course of maintaining, servicing,
repairing, or disposing of an appliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ While section 608(c) only addresses refrigerants, whether
ODS or substitutes, section 608(a) is not limited to refrigerants.
In fact, EPA has applied its authority under section 608(a) to
establish or consider regulations for ODS in non-refrigerant
applications. For example, in 1998, EPA issued a rule on halon
management under the authority of section 608(a)(2). (63 FR 11084).
Accordingly, when considering potential issues arising from
interpretations of section 608(c) to authorize the same requirements
as 608(a), it is appropriate to focus on refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above in this section, EPA is
specifically requesting comment on whether to retain the non-leak
repair requirements in the final rule or whether to rescind the
entirety of the 2016 Rule's extension of the subpart F requirements to
non-exempt substitutes. Included in the docket for this action is a
version of the regulatory text in subpart F with red-line strikeout
showing the types of revisions to subpart F that the Agency is
considering making, should it decide to finalize a full withdrawal of
the 2016 Rule's extension of the refrigerant management requirements to
non-exempt substitutes. Additional information on the costs and
benefits of rescinding that entire extension is found in Section III of
this document and the technical support document in the docket. If EPA
were to rescind the extension in full through this rulemaking, it would
likely give subsequent consideration to whether some subset of the
subpart F requirements, a different set of requirements, or some
combination of the two, would be an appropriate means of implementing
the venting prohibition for substitutes. Such consideration could
result in a new proposal following final action on this current
proposal.
    EPA requests comment on the proposed changes discussed above,
including the proposed changes in interpretation of section 608(c). EPA
also welcomes comment on whether section 608(c) provides authority to
promulgate a set of leak repair provisions, or refrigerant management
requirements generally, for non-exempt substitutes that may be
different from the ones currently found in subpart F, to meet the
purposes of that section while minimizing overlap with requirements
authorized under section 608(a). Additionally, EPA requests comment on
the practical considerations of implementing the venting prohibition
for substitutes in a manner that is different from ODS. Lastly, EPA
requests comment on whether stakeholders may have a reliance interest
in either the leak repair provisions or the other subpart F provisions
as they relate to substitutes under the 2016 Rule and how that interest
would be affected by the proposed changes discussed above.

E. Authority Under CAA Sec.  608(a) To Extend Refrigerant Management
Provisions to Non-Exempt Substitute Refrigerants

    As noted above, EPA concluded in the 2016 Rule that it had
supplemental authority under section 608(a) to extend the subpart F
requirements to non-exempt substitutes:

    This action extending the regulations under subpart F to non-
exempt substitutes is additionally supported by the authority in
section 608(a) because regulations that minimize the release and
maximize the recapture and recovery of non-exempt substitutes will
also reduce the release and increase the recovery of ozone-depleting
substances. Improper handling of substitute refrigerants is likely
to contaminate appliances and recovery cylinders with mixtures of
ODS and non-ODS substitutes, which can lead to illegal venting
because such mixtures are difficult or expensive to reclaim or
appropriately dispose of . . . . In short, the authority to
promulgate regulations regarding the use of class I and II
substances encompasses the authority to establish regulations
regarding the proper handling of substitutes where this is needed to
reduce emissions and maximize recapture and recycling of class I and
II substances. Applying consistent requirements to all non-exempt
refrigerants will reduce complexity and increase clarity for the
regulated community and promote compliance with those requirements
for ODS refrigerants, as well as their substitutes. [81 FR 82286.]

    In reviewing the legal interpretation of 608(a) that supported the
2016 Rule, EPA has further examined the connection between the purposes
of section 608(a) and the 2016 Rule's extension of subpart F
refrigerant management requirements to non-exempt substitute
refrigerants. After further consideration of this issue, EPA believes
that the statements in the preamble to the 2016 Rule, which were
advanced generally and without distinction to support extending all the
subpart F requirements to non-exempt substitute refrigerants, failed to
recognize that particular requirements may have a greater or lesser
connection to the purposes of section 608(a) when applied to non-exempt
substitute refrigerants. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to conclude that
the connection between applying the leak repair requirements to
appliances with only substitute refrigerants and the reduction in
emissions of ODS is too tenuous to support reliance on CAA section
608(a) as a basis for authority to extend the leak repair requirements
to non-exempt substitutes.

    This may be particularly true when the leak repair provisions are
compared to the other provisions of subpart F. The 2016 Rule also
identified several scenarios where failure to apply consistent
standards to appliances containing non-exempt substitute refrigerants
could arguably lead to emissions of ODS. For example, improper handling
of non-exempt substitute refrigerants by persons lacking the requisite
training may contaminate appliances and recovery cylinders with
mixtures of ODS and non-ODS substitutes. Contaminated appliances may
lead to equipment failures and emissions from those systems, including
emissions of ODS. Because contaminated cylinders may be more costly to
recycle they may simply be destroyed. The costs of handling or properly
disposing of these mixed refrigerants may incentivize intentional
releases to the atmosphere. Therefore, contamination can lead to the
release of class I and class II substances. Maintaining the sales
restriction and technician certification requirement for non-exempt
substitute refrigerants may reduce the possibility that refrigerant in
the appliances will be misidentified by an uncertified person
attempting to service the appliance, which in turn reduces the
possibility that contamination and subsequent refrigerant releases may
occur. Maintaining reclamation standards may ensure that used
refrigerant is not contaminated when it reenters the market for use and
may reduce emissions associated with the mixing of refrigerants and
equipment damage. EPA solicits comment and any data or analysis
commenters may have regarding these scenarios, their frequency, and
their emissions effects.
    In contrast, requiring the repair of appliances using only
substitute refrigerants would reduce emissions from those particular
appliances, but is unlikely to independently reduce cross-
contamination, refrigerant mixing, or releases from an ODS appliance.
The response to comments for the 2016 Rule \15\ did note, in the
context of explaining EPA's authority for the revisions to 40 CFR
82.157, that providing a consistent standard for ODS and non-exempt
substitute refrigerants would reduce emissions of ODS by reducing the
incidence of failure to follow the requirements for ODS appliances.
However, in that discussion, EPA did not address whether, if all other
subpart F requirements were extended to non-exempt substitutes, it
would be necessary to also extend Sec.  82.157 to non-exempt substitute
refrigerants. EPA is proposing to withdraw the extension of the subpart
F provisions related to leak repair for non-exempt substitute
refrigerants. Other elements of the 608 program such as the refrigerant
sales restriction, technician certification, reclamation standards, and
evacuation standards would continue to apply to non-exempt substitute
refrigerants if this proposal is finalized. If these other subpart F
requirements continue to apply, such that, for example, the regulations
only permit certified technicians to service equipment regardless of
whether it contains ODS or non-exempt substitutes, those requirements
could also reduce the incidence of failure to follow the requirements
for ODS appliances. By contrast, it is unclear how application
specifically of the leak repair requirements to non-exempt substitute
refrigerants would lead to additional reductions in ODS emissions if
those other requirements are applied to non-exempt substitutes. Thus,
insofar as the 2016 Rule was grounded in an argument that section
608(a) supports the extension of the leak repair provisions to non-
exempt substitute refrigerants, EPA is proposing to withdraw that
interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Response to Comments for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Update to the Refrigerant
Management Requirements under the Clean Air Act, pages 13-14 (pdf
pages 18-19). Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0453-0226.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is also seeking comment on whether, as a matter of statutory
interpretation, the agency can rely on section 608(a) for the issuance
of any of the subpart F requirements for substitute refrigerants, even
those for which there is demonstrably a connection between the
regulatory requirement and the purposes of section 608(a) to reduce use
and emission of class I and II substances to the lowest achievable
levels and maximize the recapture and recycling of such substances. As
noted above, in section 608(a) Congress specifically required EPA to
issue regulations for class I and class II substances that would meet
certain statutory purposes set forth in that section. But Congress did
not list substitutes for coverage by those requirements. In contrast,
section 608(c) does expressly extend requirements to substitute
refrigerants. This difference between section 608(a) and 608(c) could
be interpreted as a manifestation of Congressional intent to
distinguish between the categories of substances covered in these
respective provisions and to only convey authority to address
substitute refrigerants under 608(c), not 608(a).\16\ This
interpretation, if adopted, would lead to the conclusion that section
608(a) cannot provide a basis for extending any of subpart F's
refrigerant management requirements to substitute refrigerants.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ This interpretation would not affect EPA's discretionary
authority to ``include requirements to use alternative substances
(including substances which are not class I or class II substances)
. . . or to promote the use of safe alternatives pursuant to section
[612]'' in regulations under section 608(a), as these authorities
are expressly mentioned in section 608(a)(3). As discussed at n.11,
supra, EPA did not rely on these authorities in 608(a)(3) in
extending the refrigerant management requirements to substitute
refrigerants in the 2016 Rule, and is not relying on them in this
proposal or in addressing the underlying questions of statutory
interpretation at issue here.
    \17\ Some commenters on the 2016 Rule pointed out that Congress
specifically listed class I and class II substances for coverage
under the regulations required by section 608(a) and contended that
those regulations could not be applied to refrigerants that are
neither class I nor class II substances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA requests comment on the proposed changes discussed in this
section, including the proposed changes in interpretation of section
608(a) so as to remove support for the extension of the leak repair
requirements in Sec.  82.157 to non-exempt substitute refrigerants. EPA
also requests comment on the frequency of appliances being contaminated
by mixtures of ODS and substitute refrigerants, and the resulting
equipment damage. Further, EPA requests comment on whether the agency
should conclude that it could not rely on section 608(a) for any
authority to extend subpart F requirements to substitutes. If EPA were
to reach such a conclusion, EPA would rely solely on section 608(c) for
the extension of the non-leak repair subpart F requirements to non-
exempt substitutes, or alternatively, would withdraw the entire
extension. As noted previously, the docket contains a version of the
regulatory text showing the types of revisions to subpart F that the
Agency is considering making should it decide to finalize a full
withdrawal of the 2016 Rule's extension of the refrigerant management
requirements to non-exempt substitutes. In addition, EPA welcomes
comment on whether section 608(a) provides authority to promulgate a
set of leak repair provisions, or refrigerant management requirements
generally, for non-exempt substitutes that may be different from the
ones currently found in subpart F. If the Agency were to decide to
pursue a different approach than one of the two potential outcomes
discussed in detail in this proposed rule--the proposed action,
rescinding the 2016 Rule's extension of the leak repair requirements to
non-exempt

substitutes, or the potential alternative approach on which it takes
comment, rescinding its extension of the full set of subpart F
requirements to non-exempt substitutes--it would provide the public
with an opportunity to offer comments on that different approach.
Lastly, EPA requests comment on whether stakeholders may have a
reliance interest in either the leak repair provisions or the other
subpart F provisions as they relate to substitutes under the 2016 Rule
and how that interest would be affected by the potential changes
discussed in this section.

F. Extension of the January 1, 2019 Compliance Date for the Appliance
Maintenance and Leak Repair Provisions for Non-Exempt Substitute
Refrigerants

    EPA is evaluating whether the January 1, 2019 compliance date for
the appliance maintenance and leak repair provisions for non-exempt
substitutes remains viable for regulated entities or whether the date
should be extended, depending on the outcome and timing of the final
rule. EPA has been working to develop this proposed rule expeditiously
and intends to develop the final rule as quickly as practicable, in
recognition of the January 1, 2019 compliance date for the extension of
the appliance maintenance and leak repair provisions at Sec.  82.157 to
non-exempt substitutes.\18\ Despite the Agency's best efforts, it is
possible that regulated entities will face a choice about whether to
incur compliance costs prior to issuance of a final rule that could
rescind those requirements for non-exempt substitutes. In that
scenario, certain regulated entities likely would incur costs to comply
with provisions that might ultimately be rescinded, while the foregone
benefits of extending the compliance date likely would be limited as
explained below. Therefore, EPA is proposing to take final action to
extend the compliance date in Sec.  82.157(a) for appliances containing
only non-exempt substitute refrigerants if final action on the
substantive portions of this proposed rule will not occur within a
reasonable time before the existing compliance date. If we take final
action on this proposal, we will revise the first sentence of Sec.
82.157(a) to extend the compliance date for appliances containing only
non-exempt substitute refrigerants. Such an extension would only be for
as long as is needed to provide regulated entities certainty on whether
to incur expenditures necessary to comply with these provisions. EPA
anticipates that the extension would be between six to twelve months
beyond January 1, 2019. If needed, EPA intends to take final action on
the proposed extension of the compliance date separate from, and
before, taking final action on other proposals in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Only the amendments to the appliance maintenance and leak
repair provisions found at Sec.  82.157 have a compliance date of
January 1, 2019. EPA is not proposing an extension of the compliance
dates for the extension of any of the other subpart F requirements,
as those compliance dates have already passed. While the amendments
at Sec.  82.157 include revisions to the appliance maintenance and
leak repair program that affect appliances using ODS refrigerants,
as well those using only non-exempt substitutes, EPA is only
proposing to extend the compliance date for appliances using only
non-exempt substitutes, for the reasons described later in this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing this extension because it anticipates that there
could be undue costs to owners and operators to comply with the
appliance maintenance and leak repair provisions for appliances
containing non-exempt substitutes, such as inventorying equipment,
establishing recordkeeping procedures, and meeting the new leak rate
thresholds if it has not finalized any revisions within a reasonable
time before the existing compliance date and if that compliance date is
not extended. Facilities that have both ODS and non-exempt substitute
appliances may already be using similar refrigerant management programs
for all of their appliances. However, the costs may be greater for
facilities that only have appliances that use non-exempt substitute
refrigerants and that do not have established procedures for ODS-
containing equipment. In the 2016 Rule EPA did consider the ongoing
costs that such facilities would face in complying with the newly
applicable subpart F requirements, but did not consider potential one-
time costs to such facilities associated with establishing a
refrigerant management program or designing a recordkeeping system.
EPA's analysis of appliance data submitted to the California Air
Resources Board under its Refrigerant Management Program show that 46
percent of facilities only have HFC appliances. Within that group of
facilities, EPA estimates that 55 percent have at least one appliance
that exceeds the new threshold rates. As discussed in the economic
analysis section, EPA estimates that extending the compliance date by
up to 12 months would result in foregone annual GHG emissions
reductions benefits of 3 MMTCO2e.
    EPA requests comment on the proposal to extend the date by which
appliances containing non-exempt substitute refrigerants must comply
with Sec.  82.157. EPA is interested in whether facilities, and
particularly those facilities that do not have ODS equipment,
anticipate any practical difficulties in gearing up to meet the January
1, 2019 compliance date, and intends to consider such information in
determining whether a compliance date extension is needed. EPA
additionally requests comments on any costs or hardship that owners and
operators of appliances containing non-exempt substitutes would face if
this compliance date is not extended and if EPA has not finalized any
revisions within a reasonable time before the current compliance date
for Sec.  82.157, and on any foregone benefits from extending this
compliance date.
    EPA further notes that the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit issued a recent decision in Air Alliance
Houston v. EPA, No. 17-1155 (DC Cir. August 17, 2018), which addressed
an EPA rule delaying the effective date of a previously issued EPA
regulation in the context of a reconsideration proceeding under section
307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act. In contrast to the rule at issue in
the Air Alliance Houston case, this notice of proposed rulemaking is
not occurring in the context of a section 307(d)(7)(B) reconsideration.
Nevertheless, EPA requests comments regarding the implications, if any,
of this recent decision for its ability to finalize an extension of the
compliance date as proposed in this section. EPA will consider these
comments in deciding whether to finalize such an extension.

III. Economic Analysis

    Section 608 of the CAA does not explicitly address whether costs or
benefits should be considered in developing regulations under that
section. Because the statutory language does not dictate a particular
means of taking economic factors into account, if at all, EPA has
discretion to adopt a reasonable method for doing so. EPA has focused
primarily on the proper scope of the Agency's authority to regulate,
although it has also presented and considered an analysis of costs and
benefits in making the choices underlying this proposed rulemaking. EPA
interprets section 608 to permit it to consider costs and benefits, but
does not interpret section 608 to require it to propose or select the
option with the best cost-benefit outcome.
    While EPA is proposing to determine that the 2016 Rule's extension
of the full set of subpart F requirements, in its entirety, to non-
exempt substitute refrigerants exceeded EPA's statutory authority, the
agency notes that it has

also considered costs in developing this proposal. EPA's economic
analysis indicates that the expected cost savings for the proposal
would outweigh the monetized foregone benefits. Specifically, the $39
million annual savings of rescinding the 2016 Rule's extension of the
leak repair provisions to non-exempt substitutes would outweigh the
foregone benefits of $15 million in avoided refrigerant purchases. For
the scenario where the agency would rescind the entire extension of the
subpart F requirements to non-exempt substitutes in the 2016 Rule, the
cost savings of $43 million would outweigh the same $15 million in
foregone benefits.\19\ EPA requests comment on whether it should
continue to explicitly take costs into consideration in the final rule,
and if so how.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ This analysis is based on effects that EPA monetized in the
2016 Rule. As discussed later in this section, EPA is requesting
comment on additional factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency attempted to minimize costs in the 2016 Rule, in
particular by allowing more time and options for repair before
requiring retrofit or retirement. As an example, EPA provided an
extension if a component is not available in the first 30 days after
discovering the leak. Prior to 2016, an owner/operator would have had
to retrofit or retire their appliance. Owners and operators of
appliances containing non-exempt substitutes would also benefit from
those flexibilities, but also became subject to a new regulatory
scheme.
    EPA is proposing to remove the requirement to repair leaks in
appliances containing only substitute refrigerants, along with the
associated verification tests, leak inspections, and recordkeeping. In
the 2016 Rule, EPA estimated that extending the leak repair provisions
to appliances containing non-exempt substitutes would have an annual
cost of $39 million in 2014 dollars using a 7 percent discount rate.
This is composed of $10 million in recordkeeping costs and $29 million
in repair and leak inspection costs. Costs were modeled for a single
typical year in which all the requirements were in effect, based on the
appliance distribution modeled for 2015. To allow for ease of
comparison between the two rules, the model and the use of 2014 dollars
are the same in the analysis for this proposal as EPA used in the 2016
Rule.
    In the 2016 Rule, EPA also estimated lower expenditures to purchase
replacement refrigerant and lower emissions of refrigerant expressed in
ozone depletion potential tons and global warming potential. The
current leak repair requirement in the 2016 Rule was expected to result
in appliance owners or operators purchasing less refrigerant because
they would be able to identify and repair leaks earlier, preventing
refrigerant releases. EPA estimated that the total annual reduced
expenditures for purchasing non-exempt substitute refrigerant would be
$15 million. By withdrawing that portion of the 2016 Rule, those
reduced expenditures would not be realized.
    EPA estimates that this proposed rule to rescind the extension of
the leak repair provisions to substitutes would not directly affect the
stratospheric ozone layer. EPA is not proposing to amend any provisions
of 40 CFR part 82, subpart F that relate to ODS refrigerants. EPA
estimates that this proposed action would result in foregone annual GHG
emissions reductions benefits of 2.9 MMTCO2e--approximately
a 40 percent reduction from the level estimated for the 2016
rulemaking. GHG emissions reductions benefits associated with the
reduction in emissions of ODS refrigerants would be retained.
    As discussed previously, EPA is requesting comment on whether to
withdraw the entire extension of subpart F requirements to non-exempt
substitute refrigerants. EPA estimates that rescinding the entire
subpart F requirements for non-exempt substitute refrigerants would
reduce the annual burden associated with the 2016 Rule by at least an
additional $4 million per year (for a total annual burden reduction of
at least $43 million per year). This is composed of $3 million in
compliance costs associated with the requirement to use self-sealing
valves on small cans of refrigerant and $1 million in recordkeeping
costs. The unrealized annual savings associated with reduced use of
non-exempt substitute refrigerant would remain $15 million, as
discussed previously. Thus, EPA estimates that withdrawing the entire
extension of subpart F requirements to non-exempt substitute
refrigerants would reduce total compliance costs by at least $28
million per year. EPA estimates that this would result in additional
foregone annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions benefits of
0.7 MMTCO2e associated with the use of self-sealing valves
(for a total of at least 3.6 MMTCO2e). While the majority of
GHG reductions from HFC appliances that EPA quantified were the result
of extending the leak repair provisions to non-exempt substitutes, in
the 2016 Rule EPA asserted that there would be other, unquantified
benefits resulting from extending the full set of refrigerant
management provisions to substitutes.
    In the 2016 Rule, EPA did not identify any additional costs or
benefits associated with extending certain provisions of subpart F to
non-exempt substitute refrigerants. These provisions include the
evacuation requirements, recovery equipment certification, safe
disposal requirements, reclamation standards, and technician
certification. As noted in the technical support document for the 2016
Rule, EPA assumes full compliance with the venting prohibition and such
actions that were considered necessary to comply with the venting
prohibition were not considered to lead to additional costs or
benefits.
    With regard to the extension of the 608 technician certification
requirement to non-exempt substitute refrigerants in the 2016 Rule, EPA
understood that most technicians serviced both appliances containing
ODS refrigerants, which were previously subject to the 608 technician
certification requirements, and appliances containing non-exempt
substitutes. Most technicians are contractors who work on appliances of
various ages and for multiple clients, including both individuals and
businesses. There was no evidence that facilities using only non-exempt
substitute refrigerants are segregated geographically, such that a
technician in a certain county would only encounter appliances solely
using non-exempt substitutes, or are segregated by business type, such
that a technician who only works in one sector (e.g., supermarkets or
residential air conditioning) would only encounter appliances solely
using non-exempt substitutes. Based on this rationale, EPA concluded in
the 2016 Rule that it was extremely unlikely that a person in the air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment servicing field would never
encounter equipment containing ODS refrigerant during the course of
their career. Accordingly, in the 2016 Rule, EPA assumed persons
entering that field would seek 608 technician certifications in order
to maintain competitiveness and persons currently in that field already
had 608 certification so that they could accept jobs that involved
appliances containing ODS refrigerant.
    While commenters on the 2016 Rule did not provide any information
indicating EPA's analysis was missing a significant group of new
technicians that would be newly required to go through the 608
certification process, during the development of this notice of
proposed rulemaking one Federal Department indicated that they had 608
certified technicians working on

facilities with appliances containing class I or class II refrigerant,
and a separate group of un-certified persons working at facilities that
contained only appliances using non-exempt substitute refrigerant.
    Based on this new information, EPA broadly requests comment on
whether there are costs associated with the technician certification
requirements in the 2016 Rule and on whether removal of that technician
certification requirement for non-exempt substitutes would alleviate
those costs. EPA particularly requests comment on whether this Federal
Department's arrangement is typical, either for larger entities that
have in-house personnel servicing appliances or for contractors that
provide technicians to service refrigeration and cooling equipment. If
so, EPA requests comment on what training was provided prior to the
2016 Rule related to the handling of refrigerants or the venting
prohibition for those technicians, whether there were any costs
associated with tracking which personnel are 608 certified and thus
were eligible to work on appliances containing ODS refrigerant, and
which were not certified and thus were only eligible to work on
appliances containing non-exempt substitutes. Similarly, EPA broadly
requests comments on whether there are costs associated with the other
provisions that were extended to non-exempt substitute refrigerants in
the 2016 Rule for which EPA had previously assumed no incremental
compliance costs. Conversely, because those requirements have now gone
into effect, EPA requests comment on whether there are any costs
associated with rescinding those requirements as they apply to non-
exempt substitute refrigerants.
    Details of the methods used to estimate the benefits of this
proposed rule are discussed in the Analysis of the Economic Impact of
the Proposed 2018 Revisions to the National Recycling and Emission
Reduction Program in the docket. For a complete description of the
methodology used in EPA's analysis, see the technical support document
and Section VI of the 2016 Rule (81 FR 82344).
    To avoid the costs associated with leaking appliances and increased
refrigerant purchases, owners and operators of large appliances that
use non-exempt substitute refrigerants may already be engaged in
effective refrigerant management programs that work for their
facilities and their types of equipment. EPA welcomes input from owners
and operators of such equipment for how to achieve the goals of the
2016 Rule in reducing refrigerant leaks without a comprehensive
regulatory program for leak repair.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket. EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action which is available in Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0629.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can
be found in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 1626.16. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
    EPA is proposing to revise the leak repair provisions so they apply
only to equipment using refrigerant containing a class I or class II
substance. This proposal does not affect the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements finalized in the 2016 Rule that apply to
appliances containing 50 or more pounds of an ODS refrigerant. There
are no new records that would be maintained or reports that would be
submitted under this proposal. Most of this burden is already covered
by the existing requirements in 40 CFR part 82, subpart F, and the
existing ICR.
    Respondents/affected entities: This proposal would remove reporting
and recordkeeping requirements for owners and operators of appliances
containing 50 or more pounds of a non-exempt substitute refrigerant
(e.g., HFCs) and technicians servicing such appliances. Entities
required to comply with reporting and recordkeeping requirements
include technicians; technician certification programs; refrigerant
wholesalers; refrigerant reclaimers; refrigeration and air-conditioning
equipment owners and/or operators; and other establishments that
perform refrigerant removal, service, or disposal.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 82,
subpart F).
    Estimated number of respondents: 573,731.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses vary from once a
year to daily. Public reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to vary from one minute to 9.4 hours per
response, including time for reviewing instructions and gathering,
maintaining, and submitting information.
    Total estimated burden: 434,359 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $24,625,892 (per year). There are no
estimated annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs
associated with the reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
[email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than October 31,
2018. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final
rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This proposed rule would not impose any

new regulatory requirements. It is deregulatory in that it proposes to
remove required leak repair and maintenance practices and associated
recordkeeping for appliances containing non-exempt substitute
refrigerant. This document also seeks comments on withdrawal of
additional refrigerant management requirements for appliances
containing non-exempt substitute refrigerant. We have therefore
concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for directly
regulated small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. EPA
has not conducted a separate analysis of risks to infants and children
associated with this proposed rule.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes that it is not feasible to quantify any
disproportionately high and adverse effects from this action on
minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples,
as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 18, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Acting Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 82 as follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

0
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

0
2. Amend Sec.  82.154 by revising paragraph (a)(2)(i) to read as
follows:

Sec.  82.154  Prohibitions.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The applicable practices in Sec.  82.155 and Sec.  82.156 are
observed, the practices in Sec.  82.157 are observed for appliances
that contain a class I or class II refrigerant, recovery and/or
recycling machines that meet the requirements in Sec.  82.158 are used
whenever refrigerant is removed from an appliance, the technician
certification provisions in Sec.  82.161 are observed, and the
reclamation requirements in Sec.  82.164 are observed; or
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  82.157 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  82.157  Appliance maintenance and leak repair.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies as of January 1, 2019. This
section applies only to appliances with a full charge of 50 or more
pounds of any class I or class II refrigerant or blend containing a
class I or class II refrigerant. Notwithstanding the use of the term
refrigerant in this section, the requirements of this section do not
apply to appliances containing solely substitute refrigerants. Unless
otherwise specified, the requirements of this section apply to the
owner or operator of the appliance.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-21084 Filed 9-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P