Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Refrigerant Recycling; Substitute Refrigerants

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-7625-6]

RIN 2060-AF37

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Refrigerant Recycling; Substitute Refrigerants

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the rule on refrigerant recycling, promulgated under section 608 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), to clarify how the requirements of section 608 apply to refrigerants that are used as substitutes for chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) refrigerants.

This rule explicates the self-effectuating statutory prohibition on venting substitute refrigerants to the atmosphere that became effective on November 15, 1995. The rule also exempts certain substitute refrigerants from the venting prohibition on the basis of current evidence that their release does not pose a threat to the environment.

In addition, EPA is amending the current refrigerant recovery and recycling requirements for chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) refrigerants to accommodate the proliferation of new refrigerants on the market, and to clarify that the venting prohibition applies to all refrigerants for which EPA has not made a determination that their release “does not pose a threat to the environment,” namely hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) and perfluorocarbon (PFC) refrigerants. With the exception of the venting prohibition, this rule will not further regulate the use or sale of substitute refrigerants that do not contribute to the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, such as HFC and perfluorocarbon PFC refrigerants. In addition, today's action will not address leak repair requirements for appliances containing substitutes for ozone-depleting substance (ODS) refrigerants nor will it address certification requirements for refrigerant recovery or recycling equipment intended for use with substitute refrigerants.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

May 11, 2004.

ADDRESSES:

Materials relevant to the rulemaking are contained in Air Docket No. A-92-01 located at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The Docket may be inspected from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Information concerning this rulemaking should be forwarded to Julius Banks; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Global Programs Division-Stratospheric Program Implementation Branch, Mail Code 6205-J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The Stratospheric Ozone Information Hotline (800-296-1996) and the Ozone Web page

www.epa.gov/ozone

can also be contacted for further information.

I. Regulated Entities

II. Overview

A. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act

B. Factors Considered in the Development of This Rule

C. Public Participation

D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Regarding Recycling of Substitute Refrigerants

III. Scope of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

A. EPA's Statutory Authority

B. Determination of Whether Release Poses a Threat to the Environment

1. HFC and PFC Refrigerants

2. Chemically Active Common Gases

3. Hydrocarbons

4. Inert Atmospheric Constituents

IV. The Final Rule

A. Overview

B. Application of the Venting Prohibition and Required Practices to Substitute Refrigerants

1. HFC and PFC Refrigerants

2. Chemically Active Common Gases

3. Hydrocarbons

C. Definitions

1. Appliance

a. One-Time Expansion Devices, Including Self-Chilling Cans

b. Secondary Loops

2. Full Charge

3. High-Pressure Appliance (proposed as higher-pressure appliance)

4. Leak Rate

5. Low-Pressure Appliance

6. Opening

7. Reclaim

8. Refrigerant

9. Substitute

10. Technician

11. Very High-Pressure Appliance

D. Required Practices

1. Evacuation of Appliances

a. Evacuation Requirements for Appliances Other than Small Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like Appliances

i. Low-Pressure Appliance Category

ii. Medium-Pressure and High-Pressure (proposed as high- and higher-pressure) Appliance Categories

iii. Very High-Pressure Appliance Category

b. Evacuation Levels for Small Appliances

c. Evacuation Levels for Disposal of MVACs, MVAC-like Appliances, and Small Appliances

d. Request for Comment on Establishing Special Evacuation Requirements for Heat Transfer Appliances

e. Clarifications of Evacuation Requirements

2. Extension of the Refrigerant Standard to Substitute Refrigerants

a. Updates to the Refrigerant Standard

b. Generic Specification Standards for Refrigerants

c. Application of the Refrigerant Standard to Virgin and Used Refrigerants

d. Possession and Transfer of Used Refrigerant

3. Leak Repair

4. Servicing MVAC and MVAC-like Appliances Containing Substitute Refrigerants

a. Background

b. Amendments to Subpart B

c. Amendments Concerning MVAC and MVAC-like Appliances Containing Substitute Refrigerants

d. Clarification of Applicability-Servicing of Buses Using HCFC-22

E. Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment Certification

F. Technician Certification

G. Refrigerant Sales Restriction

1. Background

2. Extension of the Refrigerant Sales Restriction to Substitute Refrigerants

3. Consideration of Alternative Methods of Emissions Reduction

a. Unique Fittings

b. Limited Sales Restriction

c. MVAC Retrofit Kits

H. Safe Disposal of Small Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like Appliances

1. Coverage of HFCs and PFCs

2. Transfer of Substitute Refrigerants During the Safe Disposal of MVAC and MVAC-like Appliances

3. Clarification of Requirements for Persons Disposing of Appliances

4. Stickers as a Form of Verification

I. Certification by Owners of Recycling or Recovery Equipment

J. Servicing Apertures and Process Stubs

K. Prohibition on the Manufacture or Import of One-Time Expansion Devices that Contain Other than Exempted Refrigerants

L. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

1. Persons Who Sell or Distribute Refrigerant

2. Technicians

3. Appliance Owners and Operators

4. Refrigerant Reclaimers

5. Recovery and Recycling Equipment Testing Organizations

6. Disposers

7. Programs Certifying Technicians

M. Economic Analysis

1. Baseline

2. Costs

3. Benefits

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health & Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

J. The Congressional Review Act

I. Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this action include those that manufacture, own, maintain, service, repair, or dispose of all types of air-conditioning and refrigeration appliances, including motor vehicle air-conditioners; those that sell or reclaim refrigerants; those that certify technicians; and manufacturers and certifiers of refrigerant recycling and recovery equipment. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your company is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria contained in section 608 of the CAA Amendments of 1990. The applicability criteria are discussed below and in regulations published on December 30, 1993 (58 FR 69638). If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section.

II. Overview

Effective November 15, 1995, section 608(c)(2) of the Act prohibits the knowing venting, release, or disposal of any substitute for CFC and HCFC refrigerants by any person maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment. This prohibition applies unless EPA determines that such venting, releasing, or disposing does not pose a threat to the environment.

Today's final rule clarifies how the venting prohibition of section 608(c)(2) applies to substitute refrigerants for which EPA is not determining that their release does not pose a threat to the environment, namely, HFC and PFC refrigerants. In addition to establishing that the venting prohibition will remain in effect for HFC and PFC substitute refrigerants, this rule will clarify that EPA regulations affecting the handling and sales of ozone-depleting refrigerants are applicable to substitute refrigerants, primarily HFC refrigerant blends, that contain an ozone-depleting substance (ODS). Today's rule does not extend the refrigerant sales restriction to pure HFC and PFC refrigerants. This rule does exempt from the venting prohibition certain refrigerant substitutes for which EPA has determined that their release does not pose a threat to the environment.

A. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act

Section 608 of the CAA requires EPA to establish a comprehensive program to limit emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. Section 608 also prohibits the release or disposal of ozone-depleting refrigerants and their substitutes during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration appliances.

Section 608 is divided into three subsections. In brief, section 608(a) requires EPA to develop regulations and standards to reduce the use and emission of class I substances (

e.g.

, CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform) and class II substances (

e.g.

, HCFCs) to the lowest achievable level, and to maximize the recapture and recycling of such substances. Section 608(b) requires that the regulations promulgated pursuant to subsection (a) contain standards and requirements concerning the safe disposal of class I and class II substances. Finally, section 608(c) establishes a self-effectuating prohibition on the venting into the environment of class I or class II substances and their substitutes during servicing and disposal of air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment.

Section 608(a) provides EPA authority to promulgate many of the requirements in today's rule. Section 608(a) requires EPA to promulgate regulations regarding use and disposal of class I and II substances that “reduce the use and emission of such substances to the lowest achievable level” and “maximize the recapture and recycling of such substances.” Section 608(a) further provides that “such regulations may include requirements to use alternative substances (including substances which are not class I or class II substances) * * * or to promote the use of safe alternatives pursuant to section 612 or any combination of the foregoing.” EPA's authority to promulgate regulations regarding use of class I and II substances (including requirements to use alternatives) is sufficiently broad to include requirements on how to use alternatives, where regulations are required to reduce emissions and maximize recycling of class I and II ODSs.

Section 608(c) provides EPA authority to promulgate regulations to interpret, implement and enforce the venting prohibition. Subsection 608(c) provides in paragraph (1) that, effective July 1, 1992, it is unlawful for any person, in the course of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance or industrial process refrigeration, to knowingly vent or otherwise knowingly release or dispose of any class I or class II substance used as a refrigerant in such appliance (or industrial process refrigeration) in a manner which permits such substance to enter the environment.

The statute exempts from this self-effectuating prohibition “

[d]e minimis

releases associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose” of a substance. EPA considers releases to meet the criteria for exempted

de minimis

releases when they occur while the recycling and recovery requirements of the section 608 and 609 regulations are followed (§ 82.154(a)).

Section 608(c)(2) extends the prohibition on venting to substances that are substitutes for class I and class II refrigerants, effective November 15, 1995, unless the Administrator determines that such venting or release “does not pose a threat to the environment.” While section 608(c) is self-effectuating, EPA regulations are necessary to define “

[d]e minimis

releases associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose” of such substances, and to effectively implement and enforce the venting prohibition.

EPA is today promulgating regulations to implement and clarify the requirements of section 608(c)(2), which extends the prohibition on venting to substitutes for CFC and HCFC refrigerants. These regulations are also vital to the Agency's efforts to continue to carry out its mandate under section 608(a) to minimize emissions of ozone-depleting substances.

B. Factors Considered in the Development of this Rule

In developing this rulemaking, EPA has considered a number of factors in determining whether the release of a substitute refrigerant poses a threat to the environment. First, EPA has considered which refrigerants should be classified as “substitute” refrigerants. EPA is adopting a definition of substitute that is similar to that adopted by EPA in its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program, except the definition omits the proviso of the SNAP definition that a substitute be “

intended

for use as a replacement for a class I or class II ozone-depleting substance.”

As the second factor in this remaking, EPA has made a determination regarding whether or not the release of a substitute refrigerant during the maintenance, service, repair or disposal of an appliance poses a threat to the environment. This determination consists of two findings. First, EPA determined whether the release of a substitute refrigerant could pose a threat to the environment due to the toxicity or other inherent characteristic of the refrigerant. Second, EPA determined whether and to what extent such releases or disposal actually takes place during the servicing and disposal of appliances, and to what extent these releases are controlled by other authorities or regulations. The release of many substitute refrigerants is limited and/or controlled by other entities, such as Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations or EPA regulations under other authorities. To the extent that releases during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances are adequately controlled by other authorities, EPA defers to these authorities rather than set up a second duplicative regulatory regime.

As the third factor in this rulemaking, EPA has considered the availability of technology to control releases, the environmental benefits of controlling releases, and the costs of controlling releases for each class of substitutes.

EPA has identified five classes of substitute refrigerants in the sectors covered under SNAP: HFCs, PFCs, hydrocarbons, chemically active common gases (including ammonia and chlorine), and inert atmospheric constituents (including carbon dioxide (CO

2

) and water). EPA has divided substitutes into these classes on the basis of the varying environmental impacts of each class and the varying regulatory structures already in place for each class.

C. Public Participation

In developing this rule, EPA has considered comments received in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) as well as those comments stated during meetings with industry, government, and environmental representatives. During meetings with industry and government representatives, EPA has gained a better understanding of current industry practices and how existing regulatory authorities serve to control emissions of substitute refrigerants. All data and information received from industry and government representatives that EPA has relied on in developing this final rule was placed in the docket and made available to the public. EPA refers readers to Docket No. A-92-01, Categories VI-B8, VIII-H, VIII-H1, and VIII-H6 for all factual materials. In addition, EPA has consulted the air-conditioning and refrigeration industry's primary standards-setting organizations, the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) and the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE), in developing this rule. As required by statute, EPA has, where appropriate, incorporated in this rule voluntary consensus standards and guidelines developed by these organizations.

D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Regarding Recycling of Substitute Refrigerants

On June 11, 1998, EPA published an NPRM (63 FR 32044) outlining requirements for substitute refrigerants. In that notice, EPA proposed regulations under section 608 of the Act to amend 40 CFR part 82 by proposing regulations nearly identical to those dealing with the use and handling of class I and class II ODS refrigerants. In the NPRM, EPA proposed to extend the regulatory framework for CFC and HCFC refrigerants to HFC and PFC refrigerants, making appropriate adjustments for the varying physical properties and environmental impacts of these refrigerants. The following requirements were included in the NPRM:

• Appliances containing HFC or PFC refrigerants would have to be evacuated to established levels;

• Refrigerant recycling and recovery equipment used with HFCs or PFCs would have to be certified;

• Technicians servicing, maintaining, or repairing appliances containing HFC or PFC refrigerants would have to be certified;

• Sales of HFC and PFC refrigerants would be restricted to certified technicians;

• Used HFC and PFC refrigerants sold to a new owner would have to be reclaimed by an EPA-certified refrigerant reclaimer and tested to verify that they meet industry refrigerant standards, including purity standards;

• Refrigerant reclaimers who reclaim HFC or PFC refrigerants would have to be certified;

• Owners of HFC and PFC appliances with refrigerant charges greater than 50 lbs. would have to repair leaks when the applicable leak repair trigger rate was exceeded over a 12-month period;

• Final disposers of small appliances and motor vehicle air conditioners (MVACs) containing HFCs or PFCs would have to ensure that refrigerant was recovered from this equipment before it was disposed of; and

• Manufacturers of HFC and PFC appliances would have to provide a servicing aperture or a “process stub” on their equipment in order to facilitate recovery of the refrigerant.

The NPRM also proposed clarifications to the requirements of section 608 as they would apply to substitutes for CFC and HCFC refrigerants, and proposed to exempt certain substitute refrigerants from the statutory venting prohibition on the basis of evidence that their releases do not pose a threat to the environment. In addition, EPA proposed to amend the requirements for CFC and HCFC refrigerants to accommodate the proliferation of new refrigerants on the market and to strengthen and clarify the leak repair requirements.

The NPRM asked for public comment on the Agency's proposed findings and on the rationale behind them. The Agency received 167 public comment letters (comments/commenters) in response to the NPRM. In general, most commenters recognized the need for mandatory refrigerant recovery in order to help protect the ozone layer and to provide a source of refrigerant to service existing capital equipment after the phaseout of CFC and HCFC refrigerant production is complete. The majority of commenters believed that the proposed amendments were necessary to clarify and improve regulations, but many expressed concerns over the regulation of refrigerants that do not deplete the ozone layer. EPA received mixed comments concerning the proposed HFC refrigerant sales restriction. Representatives of the MVAC service sector were in favor of the restriction, while representatives of the after market automotive parts sector opposed any refrigerant sales restriction.

Today's action addresses the public comments received in response to the proposed rule as they relate to the components of the NPRM that EPA is finalizing in today's action. Comments concerning leak repair requirements and certification of refrigerant recovery/recycling equipment will be addressed in separate rulemakings. Relevant comments that are not directly addressed in today's action are addressed in the accompanying “Response to Comments” document, which is available in Air Docket No. A-92-01.

III. Scope of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

A. EPA's Statutory Authority

Pursuant to section 608(a) of the Clean Air Act, EPA is broadly authorized to promulgate regulations establishing standards and requirements regarding the use and disposal of class I and class II substances during service, repair, or disposal of appliances and industrial process refrigeration (42 U.S.C. 7671g(a)). Section 608(b) authorizes EPA to promulgate regulations establishing standards and requirements assuring the safe disposal of class I and class II substances (42 U.S.C. 7671g(b)). Section 608(c)(1) provides that it is unlawful for any person, while in the course of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance or of industrial process refrigeration, to knowingly vent, release, or dispose of any class I or class II substance used as a refrigerant in a manner that permits such substance to enter the environment (42 U.S.C. 7671g(c)(1)). Section 608(c)(2) provides that the section 608(c)(1) knowing venting, release, or disposal prohibition also applies 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 any appliance or industrial process refrigeration that contains and uses such substitute substance as a refrigerant—unless EPA determines that venting, releasing, or disposing of such substitute substance does not pose a threat to the environment (42 U.S.C. 7671g(c)(2)).

With today's action, EPA is amending the current refrigerant recovery and recycling requirements for chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) refrigerants to accommodate the proliferation of new refrigerants on the market, and to clarify that the Section 608(c) venting prohibition applies to all refrigerants consisting in whole or in part of a class I or class II ozone-depleting substance (ODS). This rule also explicates the self-effectuating statutory prohibition on venting substitute refrigerants to the atmosphere that became effective on November 15, 1995. In addition, the rule exempts certain substitute refrigerants from the venting prohibition on the basis of current evidence that their release does not pose a threat to the environment.

Public comments questioned the need for regulations for a self-effectuating venting prohibition. Section 608(c)(2) establishes a self-effectuating prohibition on venting of any refrigerants that are substitutes for CFCs and HCFCs. Thus, venting of all substitute refrigerants, including HFC and PFC refrigerants (and blends thereof) is prohibited under section 608(c), with the exception of

de minimis

releases associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle. The

de minimis

releases exception, however, is not self-effectuating, nor is it self-explanatory.

EPA believes that regulatory clarification is necessary to define such “[

d]e minimis

releases” and “good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of any such substance” and safely dispose of appliances to effectively implement and enforce the venting prohibition. Section 608(c)(1) in conjunction with 608(c)(2) of the Act allow for an exemption for

de minimis

releases associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of substitutes for class I and class II ODSs used as refrigerants. A regulation reflecting the statutory requirement for recovery of substitute refrigerants is an essential part of a regulatory framework within which

de minimis

releases and good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of substitute refrigerants can be defined.

B. Determination of Whether Release Poses a Threat to the Environment

Section 608(c)(2) extends the prohibition on venting to substances that are substitutes for class I and class II refrigerants, effective November 15, 1995, unless the Administrator determines that such venting or release does not pose a threat to the environment. In determining whether the release of a substitute refrigerant during the maintenance, servicing, repair, or disposal of appliances poses a threat to the environment, EPA has examined the potential effects of the refrigerant from the moment of release to its breakdown in the environment, considering possible impacts on workers, building occupants, and the environment. These effects vary among the different classes of refrigerants.

EPA has also examined the extent to which the release of a substitute refrigerant is already controlled by other authorities (such as state and local regulations, building codes, and other Federal regulations). In some cases, such authorities tightly limit the quantity of the substitute emitted or disposed; in others, they ensure that the substitute is disposed of in a way that will limit its impact on human health and the environment. In other cases, existing authorities address some threats (

e.g.

, occupational exposures), but not others (

e.g.

, long-term environmental impacts).

The discussion that follows details the potential environmental impacts of and existing controls on each class of refrigerant addressed in today's action.

1. HFC and PFC Refrigerants

In the NPRM, EPA proposed not to find that the release of HFC and PFC refrigerants does not pose a threat to the environment. HFC and PFC refrigerants have been classified as A1 refrigerants under American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 34,

1

indicating that they have low toxicity and no ability to propagate flame under the test conditions of the Standard. The exception is HFC-152a, which has been classified as an A2 refrigerant. This indicates that HFC 152a may propagate flame under the test conditions, but only at relatively high concentrations and with relatively low heat of combustion. However, like CFC and HCFC refrigerants, HFCs can have central nervous system depressant and cardio-toxic effects at high concentrations (several thousand parts-per-million (ppm)), and can displace oxygen at very high concentrations.

1

ASHRAE 34, “Number Designatiojn and Safety Classification of Refrigerants,” establishes a uniform system of assigning the proper reference number classification to refrigerants, and includes safety classifications based on toxicity and flammability data.

Moreover, once released into the atmosphere, HFCs and PFCs have the ability to trap heat that would otherwise be radiated from the Earth back to space. This ability, along with the relatively long atmospheric lifetime of these gases (particularly the PFCs), gives both HFCs and PFCs relatively high global warming potentials (GWPs). The 100-year GWPs of HFCs under consideration for use as refrigerants range from 140 (for HFC-152a) to 11,700 (for HFC-23), and the GWPs of PFCs under consideration for use as refrigerants range from 8,700 (for perfluorocyclobutane) to 9,200 (for perfluoroethane). HFC-134a, the most common individual HFC used in air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment, has a GWP of 1,300. Thus, the global warming impact of releasing a kilogram of an HFC or PFC ranges from 140 to 11,700 times the impact of releasing a kilogram of CO

2

2

(factoring in the 35% uncertainty associated with individual GWPs, this range becomes 90 to 15,800.) Therefore, EPA is not

determining that HFC and PFC substitute refrigerants do not pose a threat to the environment.

2

The CFCs and HCFCs being replaced by the HFCs are also greenhouse gases, though their direct warming effect is counteracted somewhat by the indirect cooling effect caused by their destruction of stratospheric ozone, which is itself a greenhouse gas.

Under SNAP, HFC refrigerants (either pure or in blends) have been approved for use in almost every major air-conditioning and refrigeration end-use, including household refrigerators, motor vehicle air conditioners, retail food refrigeration, comfort cooling chillers, industrial process refrigeration, and refrigerated transport. HFC-134a in particular has claimed a large share of the market for non-ozone-depleting substitutes in these applications. Given this range of applications, HFCs have the potential to come into contact with consumers, workers, the general population, and the environment.

Under SNAP, EPA has approved PFCs for use in relatively few end-uses because of their large GWPs and long atmospheric lifetimes. These end-uses include uranium isotope separation, for which no other substitute refrigerant has been found, and some heat-transfer applications. In these applications, PFCs may come into contact with workers, the general population, and the environment.

Analyses performed for both this rule and the SNAP rule (59 FR 13049) indicate that existing regulatory requirements and industry practices are likely to keep the exposure of consumers, workers, and the general population to HFCs and PFCs below levels of concern (although recycling requirements would reduce still further the probability of significant exposure).

3

However, these requirements and practices do not address releases of HFCs or PFCs to the wider environment. For example, ASHRAE Standard 15

4

requirements, for equipment with large charge sizes, are likely to limit the exposure of building occupants and workers to HFC and PFC refrigerants, but will not necessarily reduce releases to the atmosphere. In accordance with ASHRAE 15, equipment containing large charges of HFCs or PFCs (or HCFCs or CFCs) must be located in a machinery room that meets certain requirements for tight fitting or outward-opening doors, refrigerant detectors that activate alarms when refrigerant levels rise above recommended long-term exposure levels, and mechanical ventilation that discharges released refrigerant to the outdoors. However, ASHRAE 15 does not include requirements for refrigerant recovery or recycling.

5

In general, ASHRAE 15 addresses design specifications rather than service and disposal practices, and ASHRAE 15 requirements are codified and enforced by state or local building codes rather than by contractor licensing boards or Federal agencies.

3

U.S. EPA. 1994.

Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning.

Office of Air and Radiation, March 15, 1994.

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Substitutes Recycling Rule,

Office of Air and Radiation, 1998).

4

ASHRAE 15,

Safety Code for Mechanical Refrigeration,

is an industry standard developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). ASHRAE 15 forms the basis for state and local building codes throughout the U.S.

5

ASHRAE Guideline 3 recommends recycling of all fluorocarbon refrigerants, but is not codified or enforced by any Federal agency.

Similarly, the American Industrial Hygiene Association has developed exposure limits for HFCs. These may be referenced by OSHA under its general duty clause to compel employers to protect employees from identified health hazards. However, local exhaust ventilation rather than recycling may be used to minimize exposures during service and disposal operations that involve significant releases of refrigerant. This will reduce worker exposure to the refrigerant, but will not reduce the exposure of the general environment.

Finally, many of the statutory and regulatory mechanisms that limit release of other substitutes do not apply to HFCs or PFCs. HFCs and PFCs are not listed chemicals for the purposes of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) reporting requirements; nor are they listed as EPA section 112(r) hazardous air pollutants.

Several commenters advised EPA to take a balanced view of HFC refrigerants' threat to the environment by including discussions on the associated benefits of their use. Commenters stated that HFCs contribute considerably less to greenhouse gas emissions than their precursors in many applications, promote energy efficiency, and in many instances are cost-effective alternatives to ozone-depleting refrigerants.

The Act prohibits the release of a substitute for a class I or class II ODS refrigerant unless EPA determines that such a release “does not pose a threat to the environment.” The commenters make valid points that in some circumstances HFC refrigerants may contribute less to greenhouse gas emissions than their precursors in some applications; promote energy efficiency; and in many instances are cost-effective alternatives to ozone-depleting refrigerants. Nonetheless, for the reasons discussed above, EPA concludes that HFC and PFC refrigerants have adverse environmental effects. For this reason, and because of a lack of regulation governing the release of such substitute refrigerants, EPA is not making a determination that the release of HFC or PFC refrigerants “do not pose a threat to the environment.” Hence, the statutory venting prohibition remains in effect for these refrigerants, and the knowing venting of HFC and PFC refrigerants during the maintenance, service, repair and disposal of appliances remains illegal.

2. Chemically Active Common Gases

In the NPRM, EPA proposed to find that the release of either of the two SNAP-approved chemically active common gases used as refrigerants (

i.e.

, ammonia and chlorine) during the service, maintenance, repair, and disposal of appliances does not pose a threat to the environment under section 608.

EPA received comments supporting the exemptions for ammonia and chlorine, as long as the exemptions are restricted to their use in industrial process applications, because it accurately asserts that the release of ammonia and chlorine refrigerants is properly safeguarded and controlled by other authorities. Commenters supported EPA's proposed determination that the release of ammonia and chlorine refrigerants used during the servicing, maintenance, repair, and disposal of appliances does not pose a threat to the environment under section 608(c)(2).

Occupational exposure to ammonia is primarily controlled by OSHA requirements and national and local building and fire codes. OSHA sets permissible exposure limits (PELs) to protect workers against the health effects of exposure to hazardous substances. PELs are regulatory limits on the amount or concentration of a substance in the air, based on an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) exposure. PELs are enforceable by OSHA. OSHA has established a PEL for ammonia of 50 ppm. This is an enforceable standard that can be met through containment, safe disposal, ventilation, and/or use of personal protective equipment. OSHA also has requirements in place to prevent catastrophic releases, including the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard (HAZWOPER), the Hazard Communication Standard, and Process Safety Management (PSM) regulations that cover systems containing more than 10,000 pounds of ammonia. These standards require employee training,

emergency response plans, and written standard operating procedures.

State and local codes, based upon ASHRAE 15, impose strict quantity limits for direct-type ammonia refrigeration systems (which possess no secondary heat transfer fluid), and generally prohibit the use of ammonia in direct-type comfort cooling systems. In accordance with the standard, indirect type ammonia refrigeration and air-conditioning systems (which possess a secondary heat transfer fluid) must be housed in a separate mechanical equipment room. This equipment room must meet the requirements listed above for HFC equipment rooms and must also meet several fireproofing requirements.

Releases of ammonia to the wider environment are addressed by several authorities. CERCLA and SARA require reporting of accidental and intentional releases of ammonia to the atmosphere. Under CERCLA section 103 and SARA Title III section 304, releases of more than 100 pounds of ammonia must be reported immediately, unless they are “federally permitted” such as through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), State Implementation Plans (SIPs), etc. In such cases, releases are controlled under the permitting authority.

The more common release of ammonia is due to disposal. Disposal is generally performed by mixing the ammonia with water, which lowers or neutralizes the pH of the ammonia, and then disposing of the water/ammonia solution. Releases of ammonia to surface waters are governed by permits issued by states (or, in some cases, by EPA Regional Offices) to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) under NPDES. NPDES permits must include conditions necessary to meet applicable technology-based standards and water quality standards. Water quality standards established by states consist of a designated use for the waters in question, water quality criteria specifying the amount of various pollutants that may be present in those waters and still allow the waters to meet the designated use, and anti-degradation policies.

Entities that discharge to a POTW (usually through a municipally-owned sewer system) must themselves comply with Clean Water Act pretreatment requirements, which may include categorical pretreatment standards on an industry-by-industry basis as well as local limits designed to prevent interference with the biological processes of the treatment plant (or pass through of pollutants). Notification and approval requirements enable POTWs to manage the treatment process, avoid ammonia overloading, and protect the treatment processes, collection systems, and facility workers. The POTW typically considers a number of factors before granting discharge approval for ammonia, including the POTW plant's treatment capacity, existing industry discharge patterns, the impact on the POTW's biological treatment processes, the effect on the sewage collection systems (

i.e.

, sewer lines), and the possible hazards to workers at the plant or in the field. The POTW also considers the possibility that ammonia disposed from refrigeration systems may largely be converted to other forms of nitrogen (

e.g.

, nitrates) before arriving at the POTW facility.

Ammonia is also listed as a regulated substance for accidental release prevention in the List of Substances and Thresholds rule (59 FR 4478; January 31, 1994) promulgated under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act. This rule states that if a stationary source handles more than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia (or 20,000 pounds of 20% or greater aqueous ammonia) in a process, it is subject to chemical accident prevention regulations promulgated under section 112(r). These regulations, which were published on June 20, 1996 (61 FR 31668), require stationary sources to develop and implement a risk management program that includes a hazard assessment, an accident prevention program (including training and the development of standard operating procedures), and an emergency response program. In addition, section 112(r)(1) states that companies have a general duty to prevent accidental releases of extremely hazardous substances, including ammonia and chlorine.

Chlorine has not been submitted or approved under SNAP, for use as a class I or class II ODS refrigerant substitute, except in industrial process refrigeration. In this application, chlorine could come into contact with workers, the general population, and the environment. Regulatory impact and risk screen analyses performed for both this rule and the SNAP rule indicate that regulatory requirements and industry practices are likely to keep the exposure of workers, the general population, and the environment to ammonia and chlorine below levels of concern. Exposures to chlorine are controlled through many of the same regulatory mechanisms that control exposures to ammonia, except enforceable concentration and release limits are lower for chlorine than for ammonia. For instance, the OSHA PEL for chlorine is one ppm compared to 50 ppm for ammonia. Similarly, the reporting threshold under CERCLA section 103 and SARA Title III for chlorine releases is 10 pounds compared to 100 pounds for ammonia, and the quantity of chlorine that triggers requirements under section 112(r) is 2,500 pounds per process. In addition to these requirements, chlorine is subject to restrictions under sections 112(b) and 113 of the Act. Chlorine is listed as a Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) under section 112(b) of the Act, and under section 113 of the Act criminal penalties can be assessed for negligently releasing HAPs into the atmosphere.

In the proposal, EPA requested comment on whether there are chlorine sources that are “major sources” under CAA section 112(a). Section 112 defines “major source” as any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAPs. Such sources could be restricted, controlled, and/or phased-out of production. The Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards under Section 112 of the Act, classify chlorine as a controllable HAP.

EPA received comment stating that chlorine manufacturing plants could be considered as “major sources” under section 112 of the Act, because the Act defines a major source to include all actual and potential emissions of all hazardous air pollutants from all facilities and processes at one site. The potential emissions due to chlorine's use as a refrigerant may be small, but the potential emissions are large enough to make the site “major.”

Current industry practices and engineering controls in chlorine manufacture are applied to the use of chlorine as a refrigerant, minimizing potential releases and exposures. These practices and controls include use of system alarms that activate at chlorine concentrations of one ppm, use of self-contained breathing apparatus during servicing, isolation of liquid chlorine in receivers during servicing, and use of caustic scrubbers to neutralize gaseous chlorine during servicing. Such monitoring efforts are included in ASHRAE 15 and ASHRAE Guideline 3—“Reducing Emission of Halogenated Refrigerants in Refrigeration in Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Equipment and Systems,” these standards are typically adopted into service standard operating procedures and local building codes. The charge sizes in the refrigeration system are

several times smaller than the quantity of chlorine in the process stream and bulk storage, and chlorine emissions from the refrigeration system are likely to be significantly smaller than those emanating from the process and storage systems, which are already well controlled for safety and health reasons.

Because releases of ammonia and chlorine from their currently approved air-conditioning and refrigeration applications are adequately addressed by other authorities, EPA is making the determination that the release of ammonia and chlorine refrigerants during the service, maintenance, repair, and disposal of appliances does not pose a threat to the environment under section 608(c)(2). This determination does not endorse the venting of ammonia and chlorine refrigerants. The Agency supports responsible handling of these refrigerants during the service, maintenance, repair, and disposal of appliances. However, EPA believes that regulating these substances under section 608, and in particular requiring that the practices currently in place for class I and class II refrigerants be applied to these substances, would not provide additional substantial public health or environmental protection, since the use and release of these compounds are adequately addressed by other authorities.

3. Hydrocarbons

In the NPRM, EPA proposed to find that the release of hydrocarbon (HC) refrigerants during the servicing and disposal of such systems does not pose a threat to the environment under section 608, because the use of HC refrigerants as substitutes for class I or class II ODS refrigerants is limited and the releases are adequately controlled by other authorities. EPA requested comment on this proposed finding and on the rationale behind it.

Commenters expressed concern that the NPRM was deficient, in that it did not include a mechanism to address alternative or future applications for hydrocarbons (

e.g.

, hydrocarbon technology in household refrigeration).

Under SNAP, EPA has approved hydrocarbon refrigerants as substitutes for class I or class II ODS refrigerants only for use in industrial process refrigeration systems.

6

Therefore, it is illegal to use a hydrocarbon refrigerant as a substitute for a class I or class II ODS refrigerant for any end use other than industrial process refrigeration systems.

6

Under SNAP, EPA restricts the use of hydrocarbon refrigerants as substitutes for ozone-depleting refrigerants to industrial process refrigeration systems and recommends (but does not require) that hydrocarbon refrigerants only be used at industrial facilities which manufacture or use hydrocarbons in the process stream (March 18, 1994, 59 FR 13076).

Commenters generally supported EPA's determination that the release of hydrocarbon refrigerants during the servicing, maintenance, repair, and disposal of appliances does not pose a threat to the environment under section 608(c)(2). Commenters noted that hydrocarbon refrigerants are regulated appropriately as criteria pollutants and/or hazardous air pollutants.

Hydrocarbons are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that degrade in the lower atmosphere, contributing to ground-level (or tropospheric) ozone, also referred to as smog. Unlike stratospheric ozone, which forms naturally in the upper atmosphere and protects us from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays, ground-level ozone is created through the interactions of man-made (and natural) emissions of VOCs and nitrogen oxides in the presence of heat and sunlight. Ground-level ozone does not deplete the stratospheric ozone layer; but when inhaled (even at very low levels), ozone can cause acute respiratory problems; aggravate asthma; cause significant temporary decreases in lung capacity in some healthy adults; cause inflammation of lung tissue; and impair the body's immune system defenses, making people more susceptible to respiratory illnesses, including bronchitis and pneumonia; and reduce agricultural yields for many economically important crops (

e.g.

, soybeans, kidney beans, wheat, cotton). The scientific support papers referenced in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone (62 FR 38856) describe numerous documents that identify and discuss the adverse environmental and health effects of ground-level ozone.

Propane, ethane, propylene, and to some extent butane are used as refrigerants in specialized industrial applications, primarily in oil refineries and chemical plants. In these applications they are frequently available as part of the process stream, and their use contributes only a slight additional increment to the overall risk of fire or explosion. Such systems are generally designed to comply with the safety standards required for managing flammable chemicals. In this application, hydrocarbons have the potential to come into contact with workers, the general population, and the environment.

Occupational exposures to hydrocarbons are primarily controlled by OSHA requirements and national and local building and fire codes. As noted above, OSHA has established a PEL for propane of 1,000 ppm, and NIOSH has established an Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) limit of 20,000 ppm and 50,000 ppm for propane and butane respectively. The PEL is an enforceable standard, and the IDLHs trigger OSHA personal protective equipment requirements. OSHA's Process Safety Management, confined space entry, and HAZWOPER requirements apply to all hydrocarbon refrigerants. These requirements include employee training, emergency response plans, air monitoring, and written standard operating procedures.

Certain hydrocarbons (including butane, cyclopropane, ethane, isobutane, methane, and propane) are listed as regulated substances for accidental release prevention under regulations promulgated under section 112(r) of the Act. In addition, hydrocarbons are considered VOCs, and are therefore subject to State VOC regulations implemented in accordance with the Act.

ASHRAE 15 prohibits the use of hydrocarbon refrigerants except in laboratory and industrial process refrigeration applications. Refrigeration machinery must be contained in a separate mechanical equipment room that complies with the requirements for HFC equipment rooms and also complies with several fireproofing requirements.

According to industry and OSHA representatives, current industry service practices for hydrocarbon refrigeration equipment include monitoring efforts, engineering controls, and operating procedures. System alarms, flame detectors, and fire sprinklers are used to protect process and storage areas. Fugitive emissions monitoring is routinely conducted, and leak repairs are attempted within five days. If initial repair attempts are unsuccessful, the system is shut down, unless releases from a shutdown are predicted to be greater than allowing a continued leak. During servicing, OSHA confined space requirements are followed, including continuous monitoring of explosive gas concentrations and oxygen levels.

Hydrocarbon refrigerants may be returned to the product stream or can be released through a flare during servicing. Due to fire and explosion risks and the economic value of the hydrocarbon, direct venting is not a widely used procedure. In general, hydrocarbon emissions from refrigeration systems are likely to be significantly smaller than those emanating from the process and storage systems, which are already well-controlled for safety reasons.

Because the release of hydrocarbons from industrial process refrigeration systems is adequately addressed by other authorities, EPA determines that the release of hydrocarbon refrigerants during the servicing and disposal of such systems does not pose a threat to the environment under section 608(c)(2) of the Act. Today's determination does not endorse the venting of hydrocarbon refrigerants. The Agency supports responsible handling of these refrigerants during the service, maintenance, repair, and disposal of appliances. However, EPA believes that regulating these substances under section 608, and in particular requiring that the practices currently in place for class I and class II refrigerants be applied to these substances, would not provide additional substantial public health or environmental protection, since the use and release of these compounds are adequately addressed by other authorities.

The determination that the release of hydrocarbon refrigerants does not pose a threat to the environment only applies to the end-use sector for which hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes are approved, namely industrial process refrigeration. Therefore the venting prohibition does not apply for hydrocarbon substitutes in non-approved applications (

e.g.

, comfort cooling or motor vehicle air-conditioning), since their use as a substitute in other end-use sectors is illegal.

4. Inert Atmospheric Constituents

In the NPRM, EPA proposed to find that the release or disposal of CO

2

refrigerant during the servicing and disposal of appliances does not pose a threat to the environment under section 608. EPA also requested comment on the factual basis for this proposal.

Under SNAP, EPA has approved CO

2

as a replacement for CFC-13, R-13b1 and R-503 in very low temperature and industrial process refrigeration applications. EPA has also approved CO

2

as a substitute for R-113, R-114, and R-115 in non-mechanical heat transfer applications. Carbon dioxide is a well-known, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. Its GWP is defined as one, and all other GWPs are indexed to it. EPA's understanding is that CO

2

is readily available as a waste gas, and therefore no additional quantity of CO

2

needs to be produced for refrigeration applications. Thus, the use and release of such commercially available CO

2

as a refrigerant would have no net contribution to global warming.

EPA has approved direct nitrogen expansion as an alternative technology for many CFC and HCFC refrigerants used in vapor compression systems. Nitrogen is a well-known, nontoxic, nonflammable gas that makes up 78 percent of the Earth's atmosphere. Nitrogen contributes neither to global warming nor to ozone-depletion.

EPA has approved evaporative cooling as an alternative technology for MVACs using CFC-12 as a refrigerant. Evaporative cooling operates simply through the evaporation of water to the atmosphere. Water released from evaporative cooling is nontoxic and contributes neither to ozone-depletion nor to global warming. Furthermore, EPA has determined that the use of water or air as a coolant is not included under the definition of “refrigerant.”

EPA received no comments in opposition to the proposal to exempt inert atmospheric constituents from the venting prohibition. Therefore, EPA determines that the release of CO

2

refrigerant, elemental nitrogen, or water during the maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of appliances does not pose a threat to the environment under section 608, and therefore their uses as substitute refrigerants are exempt from the venting prohibition. The finding for the use of CO

2

only applies to the SNAP-approved end-uses for CO

2

, namely very low temperature and industrial process refrigeration applications.

IV. The Final Rule

A. Overview

EPA is promulgating regulations that identify substitute refrigerants that are exempt from the section 608 venting prohibition, because the Agency finds that their release does not pose a threat to the environment. For all substitute refrigerants other than those specifically identified as not posing a threat to the environment, it remains unlawful pursuant to section 608(c)(2) to knowingly vent, release, or dispose of such substance in a manner that permits it to enter the environment.

In the NPRM, EPA proposed, and in today's action has made changes to a number of the regulations covering CFC and HCFC refrigerants. Several of these changes are intended to accommodate the growing number of refrigerants, including newer blended HFC/HCFC substitutes, that are subject to the regulations because they consist of a class II ODS. For refrigerant substitutes consisting of a class I or class II ODS, EPA is mandating identical required practices and clarifying the prohibitions promulgated at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F. Such changes include the adoption of evacuation requirements based solely on the saturation pressures of refrigerants, the requirement for service apertures on appliances, mandatory certification of service technicians, and the restriction on the sales of such blended refrigerants.

EPA is not, however, finalizing the proposal to extend all of the regulations concerning emissions reduction of CFC and HCFC refrigerants, found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F, to HFC and PFC refrigerants. Therefore, today's rule does not mandate any of the following proposed requirements for HFC or PFC refrigerants that do not consist of a class I or class II ODS (

i.e.

, pure HFC or PFC refrigerants): A sales restriction on HFC or PFC refrigerants; specific evacuation levels for servicing HFC or PFC appliances; certification of HFC or PFC recycling and recovery equipment; certification of technicians who work with HFC or PFC appliances; reclamation requirements for used HFC and PFC refrigerants; certification of refrigerant reclaimers who reclaim only HFCs or PFCs; or leak repair requirements for HFC and PFC appliances.

EPA intends to address in future rulemakings other components of the NPRM, such as the use of representative refrigerants from saturation pressure categories for certifying recycling and recovery equipment and adoption (with modification) of the ARI 740 industry recovery/recycling equipment standard, which includes a number of refrigerants that were omitted from its predecessors.

EPA also proposed to reduce the maximum allowable leak rates for appliances containing more than 50 pounds of an ODS refrigerant; changes to the leak repair requirements promulgated at § 82.156(i), the associated recordkeeping provisions at § 82.166(n) and (o), and the definition of “full charge” at § 82.152; and a proposed definition for “leak rate” under § 82.152 for the purposes of § 82.156(i). The leak repair provisions will also be finalized in a separate rulemaking. EPA believes that addressing these components in separate rulemakings will simplify today's action, by focusing on the determination of which refrigerant substitutes pose a threat to the environment.

B. Application of the Venting Prohibition and Required Practices to Substitute Refrigerants

1. HFC and PFC Refrigerants

While EPA is not finalizing the proposal to extend the full regulatory framework for CFC and HCFC refrigerants to HFC and PFC refrigerants,

the Agency emphasizes that since no determination has been made that their release does not pose a threat to the environment, the statutory venting prohibition applies to these refrigerants.

2. Chemically Active Common Gases

EPA determines that for the purposes of section 608, the release of chlorine and ammonia refrigerants does not pose a threat to the environment, because the release of these refrigerants during the maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of appliances is adequately controlled by other authorities in the air-conditioning and refrigeration applications where they are currently used. Therefore, the venting prohibition does not apply to these substances in those applications, and the Agency is not adopting recycling requirements for these refrigerants at this time. EPA's findings apply to current SNAP-identified end uses only (

www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/index.html

). If ammonia and chlorine refrigerants are granted approval under SNAP for use in other applications, EPA will evaluate whether regulations governing their use under section 608 should apply in those applications.

3. Hydrocarbons

EPA determines that for the purposes of section 608, the release of hydrocarbons during the maintenance, repair, service and disposal of appliances does not pose a threat to the environment, because such releases are adequately controlled by other authorities. Therefore, the venting prohibition does not apply to these substances and the Agency is not adopting recycling requirements for these refrigerants at this time. EPA's findings apply to current SNAP-identified end uses only (

www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/index.html

). If hydrocarbon refrigerants are granted approval under SNAP for applications other than industrial process refrigeration, EPA will evaluate whether regulations governing their use under section 608 should apply in those applications.

C. Definitions

1. Appliance

In the NPRM, EPA proposed to amend the definition of “appliance” to include air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment that contain class I and class II ODSs and their substitutes. The proposed amendment to the definition of appliance did not have an effect on its applicability to all air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment except for those designed and used exclusively for military applications; hence, the definition includes: household refrigerators and freezers, commercial refrigeration appliances, other refrigeration appliances (such as refrigerated cargo compartments of trucks), residential and light commercial air-conditioning, motor vehicle air conditioners, comfort cooling in vehicles not covered under section 609, and industrial process refrigeration.

EPA received comment stating that the Act defines the term “appliance,” and for the purposes of the 608 refrigerant recycling rule. The commenter requested that the Agency either eliminate or revise its proposed definition of “appliance” to match the statute. The commenter feared that the Agency might include as an appliance equipment that doesn't use a refrigerant, as specified in section 608 of the Act, and noted that this is an important clarification because some substances have many different refrigerant and non-refrigerant uses.

EPA also received comments opposed to the inclusion of motor vehicle air conditioners (MVACs) in the definition of appliance. The commenters stated that there is no evidence that Congress intended to include MVACs as “appliances” to be regulated under sections 601(1) or 608(c)(2). A commenter argued that only section 609, which specifically authorizes regulation of MVACs, authorizes regulation of MVACs. The commenter emphasizes that neither section 601(1) or 608(c)(2) includes motor vehicle air-conditioners as an example of an “appliance.” Therefore, the commenter argued that EPA does not have authority to regulate MVACs as an appliance under section 608.

In the 1993 final rulemaking (58 FR 28660), “appliance” was defined at § 82.152, as “any device which contains and uses a class I or class II substance as a refrigerant and which is used for household or commercial purposes, including any air conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or freezer.” The preamble discussion in section III.E. concerning the definition of “appliance” (May 14, 1993, 58 FR 28660) discussed in detail the Agency's rationale for inclusion of MVAC in the definition of “appliance.” While the preamble language discussed the inclusion of MVAC, the final definition did not explicitly include MVAC. Since 1993, EPA has consistently interpreted MVAC to be included under the definition of appliance.

The preamble to the proposed rule states: “EPA is proposing to amend the current definition of ‘appliance’ to include air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment that contains

substitutes

for class I and class II substances, as well as equipment that contains class I and class II substances.” (emphasis added) (63 FR 32053). EPA proposed to continue to interpret “appliance” to include all air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment except that is designed and used exclusively for military applications. Thus, the term “appliance” includes household refrigerators and freezers (which may be used outside the home), other refrigeration appliances, residential and light commercial air-conditioning, motor vehicle air-conditioners, comfort cooling in vehicles not covered under section 609, and industrial process refrigeration (63 FR 32053).

EPA proposed to delete the phrase “a class I or class II substance as” leaving simply the reference to “refrigerant,” which would have encompassed both class I and class II substances and substitutes for such substances. EPA proposed no other amendments to the definition of “appliance.” EPA refers readers to the May 14, 1993, rulemaking 1993 (58 FR 28660) for detailed discussion of the inclusion of MVAC in the Agency's interpretation of the definition of appliance.

EPA is amending the definition of “appliance” to include air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment that contain substitute refrigerants consisting of a class I or class II substance. The amended definition now reads, “

Appliance

means any device which contains and uses a refrigerant and which is used for household or commercial purposes, including any air conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or freezer.” EPA will continue to interpret “appliance” to include all air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment, except that designed and used exclusively for military applications. Thus, the term “appliance” includes household refrigerators and freezers (which may be used outside the home), other refrigeration appliances, residential and light commercial air-conditioning, motor vehicle air conditioners (MVACs), comfort cooling in vehicles not covered under section 609 (such as buses using R-22), electrical transformers, secondary refrigeration loops, and industrial process refrigeration equipment.

a. One-Time Expansion Devices, Including Self-Chilling Cans

While EPA proposed to exempt some substitute refrigerants in one-time expansion applications from the section 608 requirements, because their release does not pose a threat to the

environment (

see

the discussion of CO

2

above), EPA did not propose and cannot make this finding for the HFC refrigerants that have been suggested for use in one-time expansion devices.

One-time expansion devices are appliances, and the release of substitute refrigerants from such appliances is prohibited by section 608(c)(2), unless EPA finds that the release of these refrigerants does not pose a threat to the environment. One-time expansion devices, which include “self-chilling cans,” rely on the release and associated expansion of a compressed refrigerant to cool the contents (

e.g.,

a beverage) of a container. EPA considers refrigerant releases from such devices to be prohibited by section 608(c). First, the refrigerant in these devices acts as a not-in-kind substitute for CFCs and HCFCs in household and commercial refrigerators. Although the refrigerant in a one-time expansion device is not being used in the same system as CFC-12 in a household or commercial refrigerator, it is providing the same effect of cooling the container. EPA has previously considered not-in-kind technologies, such as evaporative cooling, to be substitutes under SNAP. The SNAP regulation defines “substitute or alternative” as “any chemical, product substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or new, intended for use as a replacement for a class I or II compound.”

This approach is consistent with the language of section 612 of the Act, in which Congress repeatedly identified “product substitutes” as substitutes for class I and class II substances. Section 612(a) states the policy of the section: “To the maximum extent practicable, class I and class II substances shall be replaced by chemicals, product substitutes, or alternative manufacturing processes that reduce overall risks to human health and the environment.”

7

As stated in the SNAP regulation, EPA has interpreted the phrase “substitute substances” in 612(c) to incorporate the general definition of substitute in 612(a) and 612(b)(3) and (4) (59 FR 13050). As noted above, the definition of “substitute” in today's action is very similar to that in the SNAP regulations, except the definition omits the proviso that the substitute be

intended

for use as a replacement for a class I or class II substance. Thus, under the definition in today's action and consistent with the definition in the SNAP regulations and section 612 of the Act, EPA considers the refrigerant in a one-time expansion device to be a “substitute substance” under section 608(c)(2).

7

Section 612(b)(3) directs EPA to “specify initiatives * * * to promote the development and use of safe substitutes for class I and class II substances, including alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes” (emphasis added). Similarly, § 612(b)(4) requires EPA to “maintain a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes.”

Secondly, one-time expansion devices, which rely on the release of compressed gases to cool the contents of containers, are encompassed by the term “appliance.” A one-time expansion device is a device that holds and uses a substitute substance to make the contents of the container cool for individual consumption. Thus, it is a “device which contains or uses” a “refrigerant” “for household or commercial purposes.” The operating principle of a one-time expansion device is the same as that of a traditional refrigerator, that is vapor compression and expansion. The difference between a one-time expansion device and a traditional refrigerator is that, with a one-time expansion device, the compression part of the vapor-compression/expansion cycle takes place at the factory, and the refrigerant escapes during expansion instead of being cycled back to a compressor to be recompressed.

Thirdly, EPA believes that the act of opening a one-time expansion device constitutes disposal of the device. This interpretation is consistent with the definition of “disposal” included in the recycling and emissions reduction regulations at § 82.152. “Disposal” is “the process leading to and including:

• The discharge, deposit, dumping or placing of any discarded appliance into or on any land or water;

• The disassembly of any appliance for discharge, deposit, dumping or placing of its discarded component parts into or on any land or water; or

• The disassembly of any appliance for reuse of its component parts.”

Opening the device irreversibly discharges the refrigerant and thereby ends the useful life of the cooling device. Cooling the container is a one-time action that occurs immediately prior to consuming or using its contents, after which the remaining component parts of the appliance will be discarded. In addition, with the irreversible discharge of the critical portion of the cooling device, the appliance has been partially disassembled and one of its component parts has been discharged. Thus, the act of opening the device and cooling the container is a process that leads quickly and inevitably to the final disposal of the appliance, and the act itself includes the permanent disassembly of the appliance and discharge of one of the component parts. Finally, the act of opening the device is a “knowing” release of refrigerant, as a person opening the device could not fail to be aware that his or her action is causing release of a gas to the atmosphere. Thus, the release occurs in the course of “maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance” and is subject to the venting prohibition.

One commenter believed that the Agency's interpretation of one-time expansion device is flawed, because it is so broad that it would include equipment that the Agency would not want to regulate, such as fire extinguishers. The commenter requested EPA to state specifically that EPA intends to ban self-chilling beverage cans.

For purposes of clarity, the Agency has determined that one-time expansion devices, which include “self-chilling cans,” that rely on the release and associated expansion of a compressed refrigerant to cool the contents (

e.g.,

a beverage) of a container, are considered appliances. Any one-time expansion device that does not rely on the release and expansion of a refrigerant for cooling purposes would not fall under the definition of appliance. In addition, EPA reminds readers that the final rule published on March 5, 1998 (63 FR 11084), prohibits the intentional release of any class I ODS (

i.e.,

Halon 1211, Halon 1301, and Halon 2402) during the testing, repairing, maintenance, servicing, or disposal of halon-containing equipment. The rule became effective April 6, 1998.

b. Secondary Loops

Rather than cooling things or people directly, many refrigeration and air-conditioning systems operate by cooling an intermediate fluid, which is then circulated to the things or people to be cooled. This intermediate fluid (and the structure for transporting it) is referred to as a secondary loop. Secondary loops are commonly used in comfort cooling chillers, industrial process refrigeration equipment, and some specialty and commercial refrigeration systems.

The definition of “appliance” with respect to secondary loops is somewhat ambiguous under the Act. Given this ambiguity, EPA proposed to interpret as part of an “appliance,” refrigerant loops that (1) are primary or (2) move heat from cooler to warmer areas or (3) involve a change of state of the fluid. In the proposal, EPA requested comment on its interpretation of “appliance” as it applies to secondary loops. Specifically, EPA requested comment on whether there are human health or environmental risks that could be

significantly reduced by subjecting to the venting prohibition secondary loops that transport heat from warmer to cooler areas without a change of state. EPA also requested comment on the extent to which ozone depleting substances, such as HCFC-123, are used in secondary loops that transport heat from warmer to cooler areas.

The majority of comments received in response to EPA's requests, recommended that secondary loops containing a regulated refrigerant be covered under the provisions of the section 608 recycling regulations. The majority of commenters agreed with the Agency's decision to include, under the definition of appliance, refrigerant loops that are primary to the system or secondary involving a change of state of refrigerant, while excluding secondary loops that do not involve a change of state.

EPA received no comments in response to the proposal's request for information concerning the extent to which ozone depleting substances, such as HCFC-123, are used in secondary loops that transport heat from warmer to cooler areas or the need to require recovery of such substances used in secondary loops. The Agency believes that it is not necessary to specify secondary loops using regulated refrigerants as part of an appliance, since they are already subject to the section 608(c) venting prohibition. Therefore, EPA is interpreting “appliance” consistent with the language and purpose of section 608, and that it is reasonable to interpret as part of an “appliance” refrigerant loops that (1) are primary or (2) involve heat transfer with a change of state. Such systems may include cascade systems, electric transformers, or any secondary loop containing a regulated refrigerant. Under this interpretation, secondary loops that use substances not covered under the definition of refrigerant (as defined at § 82.152) such as water, brine, and glycol solutions thereof

will not

be considered to be part of an “appliance.”

EPA believes that this interpretation covers those secondary loops, using a class I or class II ODS as a refrigerant, that have traditionally been considered to be part of the air conditioner or refrigerator, while excluding those that are not. Furthermore, this interpretation excludes for the definition of appliance air-conditioning and refrigerating components that do not use an ODS. Thus, EPA believes that this interpretation is consistent with Congress' intent regarding the scope of EPA's regulatory authority over “appliances.”

This interpretation is also consistent with EPA's decision not to list secondary fluids under SNAP. In that decision, published in SNAP Notice 6 (62 FR 10700, March 10, 1997), EPA expressed concern that due to the large number of secondary fluids, any listing of secondary fluids could discourage their use and could be very burdensome to the Agency and the regulated community. In addition, the Agency noted that there was little information or data suggesting that the use of these fluids in secondary loops posed an environmental or safety risk.

2. Full Charge

While EPA had proposed changes to the definition of full charge as it relates to the leak repair required practices found at § 82.156, the Agency has decided to address this definition, including public comments concerning the definition in a separate rulemaking dedicated to finalizing the leak repair components of the NPRM. Based on the comments received, EPA believes that this issue will be more appropriately addressed separately.

3. High-Pressure Appliance (Proposed as Higher-Pressure Appliance)

In the NPRM, EPA proposed to create a new category of “higher-pressure appliance” whose refrigerants have saturation pressures between 220 psia and 305 psia at 104 °F. Appliances in this category would be subject to the original evacuation requirements for HCFC-22 appliances.

While EPA received supporting comments concerning the proposed definition of the higher-pressure appliance category, the Agency received a request to change the category name to “high-pressure appliance.” The commenter stated that this change reflects common field nomenclature and would avoid confusion.

EPA agrees with the commenter and today is finalizing a new category of “high-pressure appliance.” These appliances contain refrigerants with saturation pressures between 170 psia and 355 psia at 104 °F. This category was proposed as the “higher-pressure appliance” category, but the category name was changed to reflect common field nomenclature and to remain as close as possible to the ARI groupings for the ARI Standard 740 for refrigerant recovery and recycling equipment. The Agency has changed the dividing lines to 170 psia and 355 psia in an effort to retain consistency between the previous evacuation requirements and the procedures used for certification of recovery equipment used to obtain the evacuation levels. As discussed in greater detail below, EPA has altered the classification scheme by eliminating the special evacuation category for R-22 and replacing it with a new saturation pressure category that includes the “high-pressure” refrigerants with saturation pressures between 170 psia and 355 psia at 104 °F. This change enables EPA to tailor requirements to refrigerants with relatively high saturation pressures, while retaining the long standing evacuation requirements for appliances using R-22 refrigerant.

Appliances in this category are subject to the same requirements previously reserved for HCFC-22 appliances. This action's definition of “refrigerant” limits the applicability of the high-pressure appliance definition to appliances that use a CFC or HCFC refrigerant, or a blend containing a CFC or HCFC refrigerant, with a liquid phase saturation pressure between 170 psia and 355 psia at 104 °F. The definition of “high-pressure appliances” reads as follows: High-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a refrigerant with a liquid phase saturation pressure between 170 psia and 355 psia at 104 °F. This definition includes but is not limited to appliances using R-401A, R-409A, R-401B, R-411A, R-22, R-411B, R-502, R-402B, R-408A, and R-402A.

4. Leak Rate

While EPA had proposed to officially define “leak rate” in the NPRM for purposes of clarity when applying the leak repair requirements contained in § 82.156(i), the Agency has decided to address this definition, including public comments concerning the definition in a separate rulemaking dedicated to finalizing the leak repair components of the NPRM. Based on the comments received, EPA believes that this issue will be more appropriately addressed separately.

5. Low-Pressure Appliance

In the NPRM, EPA proposed to revise the definition of “low-pressure appliance” to refer to saturation pressures at 104 °F rather than boiling points. This proposal to define low-pressure appliances according to saturation pressure was intended in part to make it easier for technicians to remember and implement when compared to standards that varied both by saturation pressure and type of refrigerant. Without such a change, the number of new evacuation categories could conceivably have been doubled by the influx of new substitute refrigerants.

The Agency received no comments concerning the proposed revision. Therefore, EPA has revised the

definition of “low-pressure appliance” to refer to saturation pressures at 104 °F rather than boiling points. The revised definition reads: Low-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a refrigerant with a liquid phase saturation pressure below 45 psia at 104 °F. This definition includes but is not limited to appliances using R-11, R-123, and R-113.

6. Opening

In the NPRM, EPA proposed to amend the definition of “opening” to include service, maintenance, or repair of an appliance that would release class I, class II, or substitute refrigerants unless the refrigerant were recovered previously from the appliance. EPA also requested comment on adding disposal to the definition of “opening.”

EPA received one comment representing the scrap and recycling industry in opposition to adding the term “or disposal” to the definition of “opening.” The commenter was opposed on the grounds that the NPRM did not distinguish between recycling and disposal.

Sections 608 (b)(1) and 608(c)(2) of the Act require that class I, class II, and their substitute refrigerants contained in bulk in appliances be removed from the appliance prior to disposal or their delivery for recycling. The Agency does not interpret this statutory language to mean that scrap recyclers who choose to dispose of appliances or choose to accept appliances (or their parts) with refrigerant charges intact are exempt from the Required Practices codified at § 82.156 (including the acquisition of recovery equipment that meets the standards set forth in § 82.158). EPA refers readers to the May 14, 1993, rulemaking 1993 (58 FR 28660) for detailed discussion of the Agency's long standing interpretation of scrap metal recycling's inclusion in the term “final disposal.”

Therefore, EPA has amended the definition of “opening” to include any service, maintenance, repair, or disposal of an appliance that would release refrigerant from the appliance to the atmosphere unless the refrigerant was recovered previously from the appliance. Connecting and disconnecting hoses and gauges to and from the appliance to measure pressures within the appliance and to add refrigerant to or recover refrigerant from the appliance shall not be considered “opening.”

7. Reclaim

In the NPRM, EPA proposed to amend the definition of “reclaim” to reflect the update of the refrigerant standards at Appendix A from standards based on ARI Standard 700-1993 to standards based on ARI Standard 700-1995. In addition, EPA proposed to amend the definition of “reclaim” to remove the reference to a “purity” standard and thereby make the definition more consistent with the full range of requirements provided in Appendix A. EPA amended the definition of “reclaim” in the related Industrial Recycling Guide (IRG)-2 final rule (68 FR 43786), by adopting the 1995 version of the ARI Standard 700. Today's action makes no further amendment to the definition of “reclaim.”

8. Refrigerant

In the NPRM, EPA proposed to add a definition of “refrigerant” that would include any class I or class II substance used for heat transfer purposes or any substance used as a substitute for such a class I or class II substance by any user in a given end-use, except: Ammonia in commercial or industrial process refrigeration or in absorption units; hydrocarbons in industrial process refrigeration (processing of hydrocarbons); chlorine in industrial process refrigeration (processing of chlorine and chlorine compounds); carbon dioxide in any application; nitrogen in any application; or water in any application. As discussed above, EPA proposed to interpret “appliance” to exclude secondary loops that move heat from warmer to cooler areas using a fluid that does not change state. EPA also requested comment on the Agency's proposal to add a restriction to the definition of “refrigerant” to the same effect, ensuring consistency between the interpretation of “appliance” and the definition of “refrigerant.”

Several commenters stated that the proposed definition of refrigerant was too broad. Commenters stated that the definition should not encompass substances that are not actually used as refrigerants, such as air, water or brine used in secondary loops. One commenter suggested that the Agency revise the definition of refrigerant to clarify that the recycling rule does not apply to systems that provide heat. The commenter expressed concern that the definition of refrigerant contained the phrase “for heat transfer purposes,” and stated that although heat transfer can cool a system, it can also warm a system and provide heating, and in these cases the substance is not being used as a refrigerant. The commenter noted that in the CAA, Congress always used words related to cooling when referring to refrigeration and never intended to regulate heating. Similarly, a number of commenters supported defining refrigerant in terms of phase change and to exclude secondary loops that do not involve change of state in order to ensure that substances that are not actually used as refrigerants are not encompassed in the definition.

With today's rule EPA is defining “refrigerant” as follows: “

Refrigerant

means, for purposes of this Subpart, any substance consisting in part or whole of a class I or class II ozone-depleting substance that is used for heat transfer purposes and provides a cooling effect, or any substance used as a substitute for such a class I or class II substance by any user in a given end-use, except for the following substitutes in the following end-uses: (1) Ammonia in commercial or industrial process refrigeration or in absorption units; (2) Hydrocarbons in industrial process refrigeration (processing of hydrocarbons); (3) Chlorine in industrial process refrigeration (processing of chlorine and chlorine compounds); (4) Carbon dioxide in any application; (5) Nitrogen in any application; or (6) Water in any application.” This definition also excludes air from the definition of refrigerant.

EPA has defined “refrigerant” to simplify the text of the regulations. The definition permits EPA to refer to covered class I, class II, and substitute refrigerants without having to reiterate a list of either included or excepted refrigerants each time. EPA believes that this definition appropriately defines “refrigerant” for purposes of section 608, and has revised the proposed definition of “refrigerant” by adding the phrase “that provide a cooling effect” to make certain that the definition does not capture substances that provide for heat transfer but do not provide a cooling effect. This definition removes any ambiguity for substances that may provide a cooling effect but are not considered refrigerants under section 608. The Agency does not intend the definition to either expand or diminish the scope of the section 608 requirements, and believes that the definition is consistent with EPA's past interpretations of the term “refrigerant.”

In the past, EPA has interpreted “refrigerants” to include the class I and class II fluids in traditional vapor-compression systems, such as refrigerators, air-conditioners, and heat pumps, as well as the class I and class II fluids in heat transfer systems that lack compressors, such as electrical transformers. At the same time, the Agency has not considered substances whose use as refrigerants have been denied under SNAP (such as hydrocarbons outside of industrial

process refrigeration), to fall under the definition of “refrigerant.” EPA has adopted this interpretation based on both technical and common definitions of “refrigerant.” The Agency believes that the definition addresses the ODSs and substitutes covered by the technical and common definitions of refrigerant. Therefore, the Agency has not added the phrase “including a change of state” to the definition of refrigerant.

9. Substitute

In the NPRM, EPA proposed to define “substitute” as any chemical or product substitute, whether existing or new, that is used by any person as a replacement for a class I or II ODS in a given end-use. Several commenters objected to classifying a substance as a substitute refrigerant, when in a specific refrigeration system the substance has not replaced any class I or class II ODS refrigerant as a second generation substitute.

8

8

By second generation substitute the Agency means a substance being used as a replacement refrigerant for a substitute refrigerant, where the substitute refrigerant was an original SNAP-approved replacement for a class I or II refrigerant (

i.e.

, a first generation substitute).

If the Agency were to take this approach, a substitute would be regulated only if the equipment owner/operator previously used the substance as a direct replacement for a class I or class II substance (for example, during the retrofit of an appliance from HCFC to an HFC blend), and an identical substitute refrigerant used by a different entity would not be regulated if it were a replacement for a non-ODS refrigerant (regardless of the generation of the substitute). EPA believes that a lack of regulatory conformity among substitute refrigerants, regardless of generation class, would not reduce emissions of substitute refrigerants, would lead to confusion within the regulated community, and would make enforcement difficult. For the purposes of section 608, EPA considers a refrigerant a substitute in a certain end-use, if the substance has SNAP approval as a substitute for CFC or HCFC refrigerants in that end-use by any user. This holds even if the SNAP-approved substitute is being used in a new appliance, and previously has never been used by the owner/operator of the appliance. Under section 608, EPA considers a SNAP-approved refrigerant a “substitute” for CFC or HCFC refrigerants under section 608 if any of the following is the case: (1) The substitute refrigerant immediately replaced a CFC or HCFC in a specific instance, (2) the substitute refrigerant replaced another substitute that replaced a CFC or HCFC in a specific instance (

i.e.

, it was a second-or later-generation substitute), or (3) the substitute refrigerant has always been used in a particular instance, but other users in that end-use have used it to replace a CFC or HCFC.

EPA does not believe that it is appropriate under section 608 to consider the intent or history of an individual user in determining whether a refrigerant is a “substitute” for CFC or HCFC refrigerants in a given instance. First, it is reasonable to interpret “substitute” to include first, second-or later generation substitutes for CFCs and HCFCs. One of the goals of this rulemaking is to minimize any environmental harm that might be associated with the transition away from CFC and HCFC refrigerants. In many cases, the transition away from CFCs and HCFCs is a multi-step process, with substitutes supplanting each other as they are tested and developed. Thus, even if a substance is not being used as a direct or first generation substitute for CFC or HCFC refrigerants in a particular instance, its use is the result of the transition away from CFCs and HCFCs and the substance serves as a substitute for these substances.

Second, it is also reasonable to interpret “substitute” to mean a refrigerant that is occasionally used as a substitute for CFC or HCFC refrigerants in a given end-use, even if the refrigerant has a history of use by a particular user or in a particular end-use. EPA's authority to promulgate enforceable regulations would be impeded if the Agency had to attempt to trace the individual histories of specific appliances in implementing and enforcing the section 608 regulations.

Several commenters expressed concern that a refrigerant could become a substitute without notice or rulemaking. One scenario was described as a first-generation refrigerant used in an industrial process by one user becoming a regulated substitute by its use as a replacement for a class I or class II refrigerant by another unrelated user.

This scenario is covered by the third leak repair scenario discussed in the NPRM (63 FR 32070) by which EPA would consider a refrigerant a “substitute” for CFCs or HCFCs under section 608. A legally used first-generation refrigerant used as a substitute by any end-user is already authorized under section 612 of the Act. Appropriate notice via rulemaking under SNAP would have taken place prior to the substitute's use in the specific end-use sector. On March 18, 1994, EPA published a final rule (59 FR 13044), that described the process for administering SNAP and issued EPA's first acceptability lists for substitutes in the major industrial use sectors, including refrigeration and air-conditioning. Anyone who produces a substitute must notify the Agency at least 90 days before introducing it into interstate commerce for use as an alternative. This requirement applies to chemical manufacturers, but may include importers, formulators or end-users when they are responsible for introducing a substitute into commerce. Therefore, in the commenter's scenario proper notice would have been granted for any approved substitute. Formulators or end-users concerned about the status of their refrigerant need to verify the refrigerant's acceptability under SNAP. Such verification can be made by checking the EPA Web page

(www.epa.gov/ozone)

or contacting the Ozone Hotline (800-296-1996) for a complete listing of SNAP determinations.

One commenter believed that the proposed rule contradicts the Agency's final rule addressing the reporting requirements for substitutes under the SNAP (March 18, 1994, 59 FR 13044). In that rule, the Agency determined that second-generation replacements, if they are non-ozone depleting and are replacing non-ozone-depleting first-generation alternatives, are exempt from reporting requirements under section 612 of the Act.

The SNAP final rule does not grant an exemption from the venting prohibition established under 608(c) of the Act, and section 612 does not impose any reporting or recordkeeping requirements associated with the venting prohibition. Section 612 of the Act authorizes EPA to develop a program (

i.e.

, SNAP) for evaluating alternatives to ODSs, whereas section 608 of the Act authorizes EPA to write regulations reducing emissions of class I and class II refrigerants and their substitutes to the lowest achievable level during the service, maintenance, repair, and disposal of appliances.

EPA is defining “substitute” as any chemical or product, whether existing or new, that is used by any person as an EPA-approved replacement for a class I or II ozone-depleting substance in a given refrigeration or air-conditioning end-use. As discussed above, this definition is similar to the definition of “substitute” used in the SNAP rule, but it omits the proviso that a substitute be “

intended

for use as a replacement for a class I or class II substance.” Thus, it includes substances that may not have been used to replace class I or class II substances in a given instance, but are

used to replace class I or class II substances in other instances of that end-use. This definition of substitute differs from the proposed definition (63 FR 32059) in that the word “compound” has been replaced with “substance” in order to bring the definition of substitute into conformity with the original intent of the proposed rule.

10. Technician

In the NPRM, EPA proposed to amend the definition of “technician” to include persons who perform maintenance, service, repair, or disposal that could be reasonably expected to release class I, class II, or substitute refrigerants from appliances into the atmosphere. One commenter opposed expanding the definition of technician to include those disposing of appliances, unless the Agency properly distinguishes between recycling and disposal.

EPA did not intend for the proposed definition of technician to alter the exclusion of those disposing of MVACs or small appliances from the definition of technician. However, EPA believes that persons disposing of appliances that have not been evacuated, in accordance with § 82.156, pose a reasonable risk of releasing refrigerant. The Agency has determined (May 14, 1993, 58 FR 28660) that for purposes of subpart F, disposal means the process leading to and including: (1) The discharge, deposit, dumping or placing of any discarded appliance into or on any land or water; (2) the disassembly of any appliance for discharge, deposit, dumping or placing of its discarded component parts into or on any land or water; or (3) the disassembly of any appliance for reuse of its component parts. Therefore, any person who performs any of these activities (whether they consider themselves a recycler, scrap dealer, or disposer, etc.) is not exempt from the required practices codified at § 82.156.

Two commenters asked that the Agency clarify its definition of technician with respect to “do-it-yourselfers” (DIYers), and clarify that process operators in industrial settings are not considered technicians.

EPA's amended definition of “technician” includes any person (including DIYers or process operators) who performs maintenance, service, or repair, that could be reasonably expected to release refrigerants from appliances into the atmosphere. Technician also means any person who performs disposal of appliances—except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances—that could be reasonably expected to release refrigerants from the appliances into the atmosphere. Performing maintenance, service, repair, or disposal could be reasonably expected to release refrigerants only if the activity is reasonably expected to violate the integrity of the refrigerant circuit. Activities reasonably expected to violate the integrity of the refrigerant circuit include, but are not limited to, activities such as: Pressure checks by attaching and detaching gauges to and from the appliance, attaching or detaching hoses, or adding refrigerant to and removing refrigerant from the appliance. Activities such as painting the appliance, rewiring an external electrical circuit, replacing insulation on a length of pipe, or tightening nuts and bolts on the appliance are not reasonably expected to violate the integrity of the refrigerant circuit. Performing maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances that have been evacuated in accordance with § 82.156 could not be reasonably expected to release refrigerants from the appliance unless the maintenance, service, or repair consists of adding refrigerant to the appliance. Technician includes but is not limited to installers, contractor employees, in-house service personnel, and in some cases owners and/or operators.

11. Very High-Pressure Appliance

EPA did not receive any negative comments concerning the proposed definition of “very high-pressure appliance” to refer to saturation pressures at 104 °F rather than boiling points.

Since 104 °F is above the critical temperatures

9

of many very high-pressure refrigerants (meaning that there is no “saturation pressure” in the usual sense for those refrigerants at that temperature), EPA is also adding the phrase “or with a critical temperature below 104 degrees Fahrenheit” to the definition. The final definition reads as follows: “Very high-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a refrigerant with a critical temperature below 104 °F or with a liquid phase saturation pressure above 355 psia at 104 °F. This definition includes but is not limited to appliances using R-13 and R-503.”

9

Critical temperature is the temperature above which a gas cannot be liquefied by an increase of pressure.

D. Required Practices

In the NPRM, EPA proposed to require persons servicing or disposing of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment that contain HFC or PFC refrigerants to observe certain service practices that minimize emissions of these refrigerants that are very similar to those required for the servicing or disposal of CFC and HCFC equipment. The most fundamental of these practices is the requirement to recover HFC and PFC refrigerants rather than vent them to the atmosphere. As noted above, the knowing venting of substitutes for class I and class II refrigerants (except those exempted by the Administrator) during maintenance, service, repair or disposal is expressly prohibited by section 608(c)(1) and (2) of the Act, as of November 15, 1995. In order to implement section 608(c)(2) more effectively, EPA proposed not only to define “good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose,” but also more directly to require compliance with the proposed provisions for substitute refrigerants regarding evacuation of equipment, use of certified equipment, and technician certification in any instance where a person is opening or disposing of an appliance, as defined in § 82.152.

EPA is not finalizing the proposed required practices for the handling and use of pure HFC and PFC refrigerant substitutes. However, since EPA is not determining that the release of HFC or PFC refrigerants does not pose a threat to the environment, it remains illegal to knowingly vent these substitutes during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances. This finding means that efforts to prevent venting such as the proper use of refrigerant recovery equipment are necessary when maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances.

1. Evacuation of Appliances

EPA is not finalizing the proposed evacuation requirements for HFC and PFC appliances that are opened for maintenance, service, repair, or disposal to established levels that are the same as those for CFCs and HCFCs with similar saturation pressures. This action is consistent with EPA's decision to not regulate, under section 608, refrigerants that do not contain a class I or class II ODS. Similarly, EPA is not finalizing the option that would have permitted technicians to recover HFC or PFC refrigerants using equipment certified for use with multiple CFC or HCFC refrigerants of similar saturation pressures. EPA defers discussion of the certification of refrigerant recovery equipment to a future rulemaking.

In today's action, EPA is clarifying that evacuation requirements are applicable to substitute refrigerants that consist, in whole or in part, of a class I or class II ODS. Additionally, evacuation requirements are not

applicable to substitutes that have been exempted by today's action namely, ammonia in commercial or industrial process refrigeration or in absorption units; hydrocarbons in industrial process refrigeration; chlorine in industrial process refrigeration; carbon dioxide in any application; nitrogen in any application; water in any application; or air in any application.

EPA is classifying refrigerants according to their saturation pressures at 104 °F, because many of the refrigerants that have entered the market over the past few years pose two difficulties for the existing system based on boiling points. First, many of the new HFC/HCFC blends do not have precise boiling points. Instead, these refrigerants exhibit “glide,” (

i.e.

, boiling and condensing over a range of temperatures at a given pressure). Second, refrigerants' boiling points have served as a surrogate for their saturation pressures at higher temperatures, but the relationship between boiling point and saturation pressure is not as consistent for the new refrigerants as it is for traditional CFCs and HCFCs. For instance, a lower boiling point has generally indicated a higher saturation pressure at a given temperature, but that is not consistently the case with many substitute refrigerants. The new approach avoids these difficulties, because it links evacuation requirements directly to the refrigerant saturation pressure at a temperature similar to that at which recovery typically takes place.

a. Evacuation Requirements for Appliances Other Than Small Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like Appliances

EPA is not finalizing the proposed extension of the evacuation requirements for appliances (other than small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances) containing HFC or PFC refrigerants. However, EPA is amending the system for classifying appliances and clarifying how the evacuation requirements apply to appliances containing substitute refrigerants that consist, in whole or in part, of a class I or class II ODS.

Table I lists the required levels of evacuation for air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment, other than small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances. EPA is clarifying that the required evacuation levels apply to refrigerant substitutes that have a class I or class II ODS component (for example, HFC refrigerant blends that contain an HCFC). EPA has amended the table to reflect definition changes for medium-pressure and high-pressure appliances, formerly referred to as high-pressure and higher-pressure appliances respectively. The proposed changes concerning evacuation requirements for appliances containing substitutes with ODS components are captured and finalized by inclusion of the new definitions for medium-, high-, and very high-pressure appliances in Table 1, which were previously classified according to their boiling points at atmospheric pressure.

Table 1.—Required Levels of Evacuation for Appliances

[Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances]

Type of appliance

Inches of Hg vacuum

(relative to standard atmospheric pressure of 29.9 inches Hg)

Using recovery or

recycling equipment manufactured or

imported before

November 15, 1993

Using recovery or

recycling equipment manufactured or

imported on or after

November 15, 1993

Very high-pressure appliance

0

0

High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant

0

0

High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant

4

10

Medium-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant

4

10

Medium-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant

4

15

Low-pressure appliance

25

25 mm Hg absolute

The evacuation requirements in Table 1 are very similar to those that have been in place for appliances containing single component CFC and HCFC refrigerants. The evacuation requirements for CFC and HCFC appliances were based largely, but not entirely, on their saturation pressures. Appliances were classified according to their refrigerant's boiling point at atmospheric pressure, which is generally inversely related to its saturation pressures at higher temperatures. Successively deeper vacuums have been required for lower pressure appliances.

EPA has adopted this approach because the saturation pressure of a refrigerant is directly related both to the percentage of refrigerant that is recovered at a given vacuum level and to the compression ratio that is necessary to achieve that vacuum.

10

A comparison between R-502, which has a saturation pressure of 245 psia at 104 °F, and R-11, which has a saturation pressure of 25.3 psia at 104 °F, makes this clear. At an evacuation level of 10 inches of mercury vacuum and an ambient temperature of 104°F, 96 percent of R-502 refrigerant vapor has been recovered, but only 61 percent of R-11 refrigerant vapor has been recovered. For R-502, the compression ratio necessary to achieve this vacuum is about 25 to 1, but for R-11 the compression ratio necessary is only about one tenth of that, 2.6 to 1. Most recovery compressors have a compression ratio limit of between 20 and 30 to 1, meaning that it is difficult to achieve an evacuation level much lower than 10 inches of vacuum for R-502, but that it is easy to achieve a lower evacuation level for R-11. Thus, a refrigerant's saturation pressure directly

affects both the technical feasibility and the environmental impact of a given evacuation level.

10

The saturation pressure of a refrigerant is the same as its vapor pressure, that is, the characteristic pressure of the vapor in a vapor/liquid mixture of that refrigerant at equilibrium at a given temperature. A compression ratio is the ratio of the pressures of a gas on the discharge and suction sides of the compressor.

i. Low-Pressure Appliance Category

EPA is finalizing the proposal to define low-pressure appliances as those using refrigerants with a liquid phase saturation pressure below 45 psia at 104 °F. Evacuation requirements for the low-pressure category apply to these appliances. This category includes but is not limited to appliances using R-113, R-123, and R-11.

ii. Medium-Pressure and High-Pressure (Proposed as High- and Higher-Pressure) Appliance Categories

In the NPRM, EPA sought comment on the proposal to use a saturation pressure of 45 psia as the lower-bound saturation pressure for high-pressure appliances. EPA also sought comment on the proposal to eliminate the special category for R-22 and to replace it with a new saturation pressure category that includes the “high-pressure” refrigerants with the highest saturation pressures (those with boiling points approximately between −40 and −50 °C and saturation pressures between 220 psia and 305 psia at 104 °F). EPA proposed to designate this as the “higher-pressure appliances.” EPA also sought comment on the establishment of the “higher-pressure appliance” saturation pressure category. EPA specifically sought comment on the proposed use of 305 psia as the upper bound saturation pressure for this new category, and whether R-502 was appropriate for this category.

EPA received supportive comments on the establishment of the upper bound saturation pressure for the “high-pressure” saturation pressure category. The pressures to which R-22 appliances must be evacuated (and therefore to which “high-pressure” appliances would have to be evacuated) are 0 inches of vacuum (atmospheric pressure) for appliances containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant, and 10 inches of vacuum (9.8 psia) for appliances containing more than 200 pounds of refrigerant.

EPA received one comment supporting the inclusion of R-502 (which has a relatively low discharge temperature) in the higher pressure category. The commenter stated that the real-world compression ratio would be lower than the theoretical 30:1 ratio, because the actual condensing conditions during recovery should typically be lower than 104 °F.

EPA has attempted to select bracketing saturation pressures for appliance categories so as to maintain as much consistency as possible with the previous categories based on boiling points. For instance, since the current definition of “medium-pressure appliances” (previously referred to as high-pressure appliances) includes R-114 appliances at the low-pressure end, and the saturation pressure of R-114 at 104 °F is slightly above 45 psia, EPA is implementing a saturation pressure of 45 psia as the lower-bound saturation pressure for medium-pressure appliances.

EPA has altered the classification scheme by eliminating the special category for R-22 and replacing it with a new saturation pressure category that includes the “high-pressure” refrigerants with saturation pressures between 170 psia and 355 psia at 104 °F). EPA designates this as the “high-pressure” refrigerants category. This change enables EPA to tailor requirements to refrigerants with relatively high saturation pressures, while retaining the previous evacuation requirements for appliances using R-22 refrigerant, as stated in Table 1. The new category includes but is not limited to appliances using R-401A, R-409A, R-401B, R-411A, R-22, R-411B, R-502, R-402B, R-408A, R-402A. For several of these refrigerants, the combination of a relatively high saturation pressure and high discharge temperature makes recovery into a deep vacuum difficult. On the other hand, these refrigerants have significantly lower saturation pressures than still higher pressure refrigerants, such as R-13 and R-503 (whose critical temperatures fall below 104 °F).

iii. Very High-Pressure Appliance Category

In the NPRM, EPA proposed to modify the definition of very high-pressure appliances to add the phrase “or whose critical temperatures fall below 104 °F. EPA also sought comment on the proposal to classify refrigerants based upon saturation pressures at 104 °F rather than boiling points

As proposed, EPA has modified the definition of very high-pressure appliances to add the phrase “or whose critical temperatures fall below 104 °F.” This modification has been made to address the classification of appliances using very high-pressure refrigerants such as R-13, R-23, and R-503. These refrigerants do not have a saturation pressure in the traditional sense at 104 °F because this temperature is above their critical temperatures. As noted above, the saturation pressure of a refrigerant is the pressure of the vapor in a vapor/liquid mixture, but refrigerants above their critical temperatures cannot exist in a liquid state regardless of the pressure.

b. Evacuation Levels for Small Appliances

EPA is not finalizing the proposal to establish the same evacuation requirements for servicing small appliances charged with HFC and PFC refrigerants as it has for small appliances charged with CFC and HCFC refrigerants. However, EPA is finalizing these evacuation requirements for SNAP-approved substitute refrigerants that contain a class I or class II ODS.

Technicians opening small appliances for service, maintenance, or repair are required to use equipment certified either under Appendices B or B1, or under Appendix C, Method for Testing Recovery Devices for Use with Small Appliances, to recover the refrigerant, and must pull a four-inch vacuum on the small appliance being evacuated.

Equipment certified under Appendix C must capture 90 percent of the refrigerant in the appliance if the compressor is operating, and 80 percent of the refrigerant if the compressor is not operating. Because the percentage of refrigerant mass recovered is very difficult to measure on any given job, technicians must adhere to the servicing procedure certified for that recovery system, under Appendix C, to ensure that they achieve the required recovery efficiencies.

c. Evacuation Levels for Disposal of MVACs, MVAC-like Appliances, and Small Appliances

EPA had proposed to establish the same evacuation requirements for disposal of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances that are charged with HFC refrigerants as it has for these types of appliances charged with CFC and HCFC refrigerants.

EPA received comments generally supporting the evacuation requirements for disposal of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances, but one commenter argued that the responsibility for removing remaining refrigerants from appliances destined for disposal or for recycling should be placed on the person disposing of the appliance or delivering the appliance for recycling as opposed to the person recycling the obsolete appliance.

Sections 608(b)(1) and 608(c)(2) require that class I and class II refrigerants or their substitute refrigerants, that are contained in bulk in appliances be removed from the appliance prior to its disposal or delivery for recycling. The Agency does not interpret this statutory language to mean that scrap metal recyclers who

choose to dispose of appliances or choose to accept appliances (or their parts) with refrigerant charges intact are exempt from the Required Practices codified at § 82.156 (including the acquisition of recovery equipment that meets the standards set forth in § 82.158). Therefore, persons who take the final step in the disposal process of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances must either recover any remaining refrigerant in the appliance or verify that the refrigerant has previously been recovered from the appliance or shipment of appliances.

EPA is not establishing the same evacuation requirements for disposal of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances that are charged with HFC refrigerants as it has for these types of appliances charged with CFC or HCFC refrigerants. However, EPA is finalizing these evacuation requirements for such appliances that use a substitute refrigerant consisting, in part, of a class I or class II substance (for example, an HFC refrigerant blend that contains an HCFC). Such MVACs and MVAC-like appliances must be evacuated to 102 mm (approximately four inches) of mercury vacuum, and 80 or 90 percent of the refrigerant in small appliances must be recovered (depending on whether or not the compressor is operating) or the small appliance must be evacuated to four inches of mercury vacuum. Although EPA is not finalizing the proposed evacuation requirements, it remains illegal to knowingly vent HFC refrigerants during the service, maintenance, repair, or disposal of small, MVAC, and MVAC-like appliances.

d. Request for Comment on Establishing Special Evacuation Requirements for Heat Transfer Appliances

As noted in the NPRM, EPA received comments from a manufacturer of PFCs stating that special evacuation requirements may be appropriate for certain types of heat transfer appliances containing PFCs, such as some types of electrical transformers. The commenter specifically noted that evacuating some types of heat transfer systems may result in damage to those systems, that in many cases, parts to be repaired may be isolated from the refrigerant charge, and that many repairs may be performed quickly, releasing little refrigerant even if the system is not evacuated.

EPA received no comments in response to its request for comment on the need for special evacuation requirements for heat transfer appliances, and EPA is not establishing evacuation requirements for any appliance using pure PFCs.

e. Clarifications of Evacuation Requirements

In the NPRM, EPA proposed two clarifications to the evacuation requirements based on a previous request to the Agency. Specifically, the first request for clarification concerned whether a part of the appliance that is not a separate tank may be considered a “system receiver,” in which the system charge may be isolated while another isolated part of the appliance is opened for repairs. The second request for clarification concerned whether an isolated portion of an appliance that already meets the required level of evacuation due to normal operating characteristics may be opened for repairs without further evacuation. In addition to minor changes to the regulatory language to respond to the first and second requests, EPA proposed to add language to paragraph § 82.156(a) to clarify that, except in the case of non-major repairs to low-pressure appliances, liquid refrigerant must be removed from appliances (or from the isolated parts to be serviced) before they are opened to the atmosphere.

EPA received one comment suggesting the use of the term “storage vessel” in situations where the system receiver is used as a storage vessel and can be isolated from the rest of the system.

The required practices at § 82.156 require that all persons opening appliances except for MVACs and MVAC-like appliances for maintenance, service, or repair evacuate the refrigerant, including all the liquid refrigerant in either the entire unit or the part to be serviced (if the latter can be isolated) to a system receiver (

e.g.,

the remaining portions of the appliance, or a specific vessel within the appliance) or a recovery or recycling machine certified pursuant to § 82.158. If the system receiver also serves as a storage vessel, then the required practice is satisfied.

As proposed, EPA is today clarifying that for purposes of complying with § 82.156(a), EPA interprets the term “system receiver” to include a part of the appliance that is not a separate tank, if that portion of the appliance can be isolated from the portion of the appliance that is opened for repairs. From an environmental perspective, EPA believes that the critical consideration is whether the part of the appliance to be opened to the atmosphere for repair has had the refrigerant removed and isolated from it, not the configuration of the remaining appliance parts within which the refrigerant is isolated. To clarify this point, EPA is amending paragraph § 82.156(a) by adding the following examples after the term “system receiver”: “(

e.g.,

the remaining portions of the appliance, or a specific vessel within the appliance).”

In addition to clarifying its interpretation of “system receiver,” as proposed, EPA is adding language to § 82.156(a) to ensure that the regulations clearly preclude a possible misinterpretation of these requirements. EPA has always interpreted § 82.156(a) to require that, except in the case of non-major repairs to low-pressure appliances, liquid refrigerant must be removed from appliances (or from the isolated parts to be serviced) before they are opened to the atmosphere. Currently, § 82.156(a) reads (in part) “all persons disposing of appliances * * * must evacuate the refrigerant in the entire unit to a recovery/recycling machine certified pursuant to § 82.158. All persons opening appliances * * * must evacuate the refrigerant in either the entire unit or the part to be serviced (if the latter can be isolated) to a system receiver or a recovery or recycling equipment certified pursuant to § 82.158.” Paragraphs 82.156(a)(1) through (5) specify pressures to which the appliances must be evacuated.

It has come to EPA's attention that it may be possible in some cases to briefly attain the required evacuation levels specified in paragraphs 82.156(a)(1) through (5) while there is still liquid refrigerant in the appliance or in the isolated part to be serviced. In general, if vapor is removed from a mixture of liquid and vapor refrigerant at equilibrium, thus reducing the vapor pressure, the liquid will boil until the equilibrium between the vapor and liquid states is restored, returning the vapor pressure to the saturation pressure of the refrigerant. However, heat must flow into the system from the environment for this to occur, and such heat flow takes time. Thus, if an individual quickly recovers vapor from an appliance, permitting no time for the liquid to boil to return the vapor pressure to the equilibrium value, the pressure specified in § 82.156(a) may be attained, albeit only temporarily. If the individual opens the appliance at this point, a great deal of refrigerant will be released to the environment. This is because the density of liquid refrigerant is typically one to two orders of magnitude greater than that of vapor refrigerant, meaning that a large mass of refrigerant may be concentrated in a relatively small volume of liquid, and the liquid will continue to boil off into the atmosphere as long as the appliance is opened.

EPA believes that the use of the phrase “evacuate the refrigerant” in § 82.156(a), as well as the language in § 82.154(a)(the prohibition on venting), already clearly indicates that liquid refrigerant must be removed from the appliance or isolated part before it is opened for servicing. Otherwise, a significant portion of the refrigerant will not be evacuated to a recovery device, a good faith effort to recover and recycle refrigerant will not be made, and releases to the environment would not be considered a

de minimis

release.

One commenter stated that it may not be possible to remove all liquid refrigerant as a part of the required evacuation prior to opening a refrigeration system. The commenter asserted that due to the complexity and uniqueness of some large refrigeration systems, it may be impossible to determine if all liquid refrigerant has been removed from the entire system prior to opening. The commenter added that determination may become even more difficult for substitute refrigerants that remain in the liquid phase at or near ambient temperature and pressure.

The Agency continues to believe that these clarifications in § 82.156(a) are appropriate as proposed. The intent of the wording change to the required practices is to make certain that refrigerant will be evacuated to a recovery device prior to opening an appliance. In order to eliminate any possible ambiguity on this point, the Agency is adding the phrase, “including all the liquid refrigerant,” after the phrase, “the refrigerant,” in both places where it occurs in § 82.156(a). To ensure that the modified language does not implicitly override § 82.156(a)(2)(i)(B), which provides that recovery of liquid is not required in cases of non-major repairs to low-pressure appliances, EPA is also adding the parenthetical phrase “(except as provided at § 82.156(a)(2)(i)(B))” to the second occurrence of “including all liquid refrigerant.”

In response to the second request for clarification, EPA believes that if a part of an appliance already meets the required level of evacuation due to normal operating characteristics, it may be isolated and opened for service, maintenance, or repair without further evacuation, so long as liquid refrigerant is not present in the isolated part. Again, the purpose of the requirement to evacuate under § 82.156(a) is to minimize refrigerant emissions from the part. If the required level of evacuation has been met, and no liquid is present in the isolated part, only

de minimis

quantities of refrigerant will be released when the part is opened to the atmosphere. Therefore, this situation meets the requirements to evacuate under § 82.156(a).

The third point of clarification concerns verification of evacuation by certified technicians. EPA received a comment requesting clarification concerning verification of evacuation requirements by certified technicians. A commenter stated that the reference to “technicians” should be singular not plural. EPA certainly believes that verification by a single technician is sufficient. Accordingly, section 82.156(a) is modified to state that a certified technician must verify that the applicable level of evacuation has been reached in the appliance or the part before it is opened.

2. Extension of the Refrigerant Standard to Substitute Refrigerants

In the NPRM, EPA proposed to establish refrigerant standards for new and used HFC and PFC refrigerants that were very similar to those for CFCs and HCFCs. In addition, the Agency proposed to update its requirements for all refrigerants to reflect the ARI Standard 700-1995, Specifications for Fluorocarbon and Other Refrigerants, which includes standards for a number of refrigerants that were not addressed by the previously codified standard, ARI Standard 700-1993. EPA also requested comment on adoption of a generic standard for those refrigerants that are not covered by ARI Standard 700-1995.

In a previous rulemaking (July 24, 2003, 68 FR 43786), commonly referred to as the IRG-2, EPA adopted, with modification, the ARI Standard 700-1995 along with the standard's analytical protocol (

i.e.,

Appendix C to ARI Standard 700-1995) into Appendix A of § 82, subpart F. While the IRG-2 rulemaking adopted the ARI Standard 700-1995, it included a modification in that the rule did not adopt standards for refrigerants that were not included in the originally adopted ARI Standard 700-1993, namely HFC refrigerants and blends thereof.

a. Updates to the Refrigerant Standard

In the NPRM, EPA proposed to adopt ARI 700-1995, that includes standards for a number of refrigerants that were not addressed by the previously codified standard, ARI 700-1993. These refrigerants include R-404A, R-405A, R-406A, R-407A, B, and C, R-408A, R-409A, R-410A and B, R-411A and B, R-412A, R-507, R-508 and R-509. The proposed changes to the standard included: (1) The adoption of a single analysis (for each blend) for determining both the composition of each refrigerant blend and its level of contamination by organic impurities, and (2) the standardization of the wide range of equipment, techniques, and calculations used in the methods for determining the composition of refrigerant blends.

The NPRM also proposed changes to the referenced protocol in Section 5.1 Referee Test (63 FR 32095), which specifically references Appendix C to ARI Standard 700-95-Analytical Procedures for ARI Standard 700-95. In addition, the ARI Standard 700's analytical protocol was originally included into regulation by reference into Appendix A of § 82, subpart F (based on ARI Standard 700-1993), as

Section 5. Sampling, Summary of Test Methods and Maximum Permissible Contaminant Levels

(May 14, 1993; 58 FR 28660). The protocol established definitive test procedures for determining the quality of new, reclaimed and/or repackaged refrigerants for use in new and existing refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment. Proposed changes to Appendix C to ARI Standard 700-95 included:

• The addition of test methods for determining the composition of the zeotropic refrigerant blend families R-404, R-407, R-408, R-409, and R-410, and of the azeotropic refrigerant blends R-507 and R-508—These additions enable laboratories to verify that the blends contain the appropriate percentages of their component materials.

• The addition of a gravimetric test as an alternate method for determining high-boiling residues. This method is considered to be more accurate than the previously adopted volumetric method. This addition permits laboratories with the appropriate facilities and expertise to perform more precise measurements of high-boiling residues than are permitted by the volumetric method. The volumetric method is retained as an alternate in ARI 700-95, because it is adequately precise for most applications, and is less expensive to perform than the gravimetric method.

• Finally, several typographic and wording changes were made to improve the clarity of the standard.

EPA believes that these changes will make the reclamation requirements more enforceable while decreasing the burden of industry to prove conformance.

EPA received several comments concerning the requirements for substitute HFC and PFC refrigerants. However, EPA is not finalizing refrigerant standards for HFC or PFC refrigerants that do not contain an ODS. Refrigerants that were previously adopted into Appendix A, based on ARI

Standard 700-1993 that do not consist in part or whole of a listed class I or class II ozone-depleting chemicals will not be included in the new appendix, namely R-23; R-32; R-125; R-134a; and R-143a.

Today's action includes substitute refrigerants consisting of a class I or class II ODS into Appendix A (based on the ARI Standard 700-1995), that were omitted from the IRG-2 rulemaking (July 24, 2003, 68 FR 43786) because they were either pure HFC refrigerants or blends of HFC refrigerants. While ARI Standard 700-1995 includes standards for a number of refrigerants that were not addressed by the previously codified standard, ARI Standard 700-1993, EPA is only adopting refrigerant standards for those substitute refrigerants listed in ARI Standard 700-1995 that consist in part or whole of an ODS, namely R-11; R-12; R-13; R-22; R-113; R-114; R-123; R-124; R-401A and B; R-402A and B; R-405A; R-406A; R-408A; R-409A; R-411A and B; R-412A; R-500; R-502; R-503; and R-509.

b. Generic Specification Standards for Refrigerants

Despite EPA's recent adoption of the ARI Standard 700-1995, the Agency's refrigerant standards are likely to be rendered incomplete by the rapid development and introduction of new refrigerants into the market. Although EPA will consider specification requirements along with recycling requirements for each new refrigerant as it undergoes SNAP review, there is likely to be a delay between the introduction of new refrigerants and SNAP approval of new refrigerants. EPA feels that it is premature to adopt specific specification standards for refrigerants prior to their acceptance for specific end-uses under SNAP. To address this issue, EPA proposed to establish a generic refrigerant standard for refrigerant substitutes for which standards have not yet been codified into Appendix A of 40 CFR 82, subpart F.

EPA received comment that the proposed generic specifications failed to include a specification for either organic impurities or for blend balance. EPA notes that specifications for organic impurities are included in the “Other Impurities Including Refrigerant” column and are limited to 0.50% by weight. EPA is establishing that the allowable blend composition of reclaimed refrigerant must be maintained to ±2.0% for blend components greater than or equal to 25%; ±1.0% for blend components less than 25% but greater than or equal to 10%; ±0.50% for blend components less than 10%. This means that for refrigerant blends that must meet the generic specifications, each blend component must be maintained at the aforementioned levels in order to be considered reclaimed. For example, assume that the hypothetical azeotropic blend R-500x has a nominal composition of a, b, and c at 8%, 13%, and 79% respectively, where any component consists of an ODS. The reclaimed blend R-500x must have a composition that falls within the following ranges: component a: 7.5% to 8.5%; component b: 12% to 14%; and component c: 77% to 81%.

EPA received favorable comments and requests to include the generic maximum contaminant level (based on ARI Standard 700-1995) for refrigerants that have SNAP approval but have not been included into ARI Standard 700. One commenter expressed concern that the ARI Standard 700 would act as regulation (instead of EPA adopting the standard as Appendix A), and possibly allow the use of refrigerants that have not been approved for specific end-uses under SNAP.

EPA is aware that instances may occur where refrigerants have been listed as approved for specific end-uses under SNAP, but have not been noted in the ARI Standard 700. Conversely, refrigerants may not have SNAP approval for a particular refrigeration end-use, but may be included in the ARI Standard 700. EPA has made efforts throughout this action to clarify that Appendix A to 40 CFR 82 subpart F is the Federal regulation that governs specifications for refrigerants. While this appendix is based on ARI Standard 700, the ARI standard is not in itself a regulation. This point is essential as EPA determines specifications for SNAP-approved refrigerants, so that mandatory specifications are not created for substitute refrigerants that have either been found unacceptable for specific end-uses or have not been addressed under SNAP.

Reclamation requires not only that refrigerant be processed to the refrigerant specifications in Appendix A, but also that it be analyzed to verify that it meets the specifications. Therefore, a “generic refrigerant specification” should be matched by a generic analytical protocol. General analytical procedures exist to determine the levels of acidity, water, high-boiling residue, chloride, and noncondensable gases in refrigerants; these procedures are detailed in parts 1 through 5 of Appendix C to ARI Standard 700-1995. However, individual gas chromatography procedures are required for each refrigerant in order to determine the overall purity of that refrigerant. This is because each refrigerant has its own gas chromatogram (profile) and characteristic impurities (other than acid, water, high-boiling residue, chloride, and noncondensable gases). EPA understands that the need to develop gas chromatography procedures is what frequently slows the adoption of reclamation procedures for new refrigerants. Thus, EPA believes that it is useful to have generic specifications for new refrigerants and analytical protocols for acid, water, high-boiling residues, chloride, and noncondensable gases for these refrigerants in the absence of specific gas chromatography procedures.

Thus, the proposed generic specifications are applicable for all SNAP-approved refrigerants, consisting in whole or in part of an ODS, for which specification standards have not yet been included in Appendix A. EPA is establishing and including as Appendix A1 the following generic maximum contaminant levels for refrigerants and specific composition standards for SNAP-approved refrigerant blends awaiting inclusion into Appendix A:

Generic Maximum Contaminant Levels

Contaminant

Reporting units

Air and Other Non-condensables

1.5% by volume @ 25°C (N/A for refrigerants used in low-pressure appliances*).

Water

10 ppm by weight; 20 ppm by weight (for refrigerants used in low-pressure appliances*).

Other Impurities Including Refrigerant

0.50% by weight.

High boiling residue

0.01% by volume.

Particulates/solids

visually clean to pass.

Acidity

1.0 ppm by weight.

Chlorides (chloride level for pass/fail is 3 ppm)

No visible turbidity.

* Low-pressure appliances means an appliance that uses a refrigerant with a liquid phase saturation pressure below 45 psia at 104 °F.

Blend Compositions

[Where applicable]

Nominal composition

(by weight%)

Allowable composition (by weight%)

Component constitutes 25% or more

± 2.0

Component constitutes less than 25% but greater than 10%

± 1.0

Component constitutes less than or equal to 10%

± 0.5

EPA also received comment that the process for reclaiming blended refrigerant back to original specifications at a reclamation facility is a technically simple operation, which is hampered by the refrigerant manufacturers' refusal to sell any amount of the individual blend components to a reclaimer not affiliated with the manufacturer. The manufacturers, however, argued that reclaimers who return fractionated refrigerants to specification would be guilty of patent infringement. The commenter believed that the patent in this case has already been served on the fractionated refrigerant and returning this refrigerant to specification constitutes repair of broken material. The commenter requested that part of the final rule include a requirement for refrigerant manufacturers to make components of refrigerant blends available to reclamation facilities at a fair market price.

EPA declines to address these issues in this final rule. EPA did not propose to require refrigerant manufacturers to make components of refrigerant blends available to reclamation facilities. Therefore, EPA will not now impose such a requirement in this final rule. Moreover, EPA views this as, essentially, a commercial dispute that is not appropriately addressed in the context of EPA's regulations.

c. Application of the Refrigerant Standard to Virgin and Used Refrigerants

EPA believes that the vast majority of new refrigerant sold meets the ARI Standard 700-1995, and that chemical manufacturers have led the way in assuring that new refrigerants meet the specifications of the Standard. However, the Agency understands that used or contaminated refrigerant has been marketed and/or sold as “new,” which could result in equipment failure and subsequent venting of ozone-depleting refrigerants. In order to ensure that the Agency can prevent the sale of contaminated refrigerant that is labeled as “new,” EPA is clarifying that all refrigerants must meet the specifications of Appendix A, based on the ARI Standard 700-1995, regardless of how they are marketed. EPA received favorable comments on this requirement, which cited the need to have all refrigerants meet the refrigerant specifications regardless of origin.

Commenters stated that manufacturers of virgin refrigerants have previously established operating procedures to meet the refrigerant standard, and have consistently verified the results using the protocol established under ARI Standard 700. Therefore, EPA believes that this requirement will not place additional burden on the refrigerant manufacturing industry, since the industry would have continued to follow ARI Standard 700 in the absence of this regulatory clarification.

d. Possession and Transfer of Used Refrigerant

The Agency received a comment from an EPA-certified refrigerant reclaimer requesting clarification as to what entities, other than reclaimers, can take possession of used product and what reporting is required of them once they take possession.

EPA regulations prohibit the sale of any used refrigerant, with the exceptions of refrigerant used and intended for use in MVAC or MVAC-like appliances, unless it has been reclaimed by an EPA-certified reclaimer (§ 82.154(g)). Therefore, it would be a violation of this prohibition for any person (including wholesalers, service companies, and brokers) to sell the material (

i.e.

, used refrigerant) for use as a refrigerant to a new owner.

Since used refrigerant that is sold to an EPA-certified reclaimer does not equate to sale of used refrigerant to a new owner, such sale is legal. Therefore, EPA finds that persons such as wholesalers, service companies, and brokers are allowed to collect used refrigerant for the purpose of selling bulk quantities to certified reclaimers. This interpretation reduces emissions by granting flexibility to appliance owners who cannot afford the burden of storing small quantities of used refrigerant, while allowing other entities to transfer ownership of the used refrigerant to certified reclaimers. Without this flexibility, some appliance owners might have an incentive to vent refrigerant instead of bearing the costs of storing used refrigerant or shipping small quantities of refrigerant to reclaimers. This transfer of ownership is not deemed a violation of § 82.154(g) since the material is not intended for use as a refrigerant, but as used material for purposes of reclamation. Conversely, it would be a violation of this section for any person to sell the material as a refrigerant, unless it has first been reclaimed by an EPA-certified reclaimer.

3. Leak Repair

In the NPRM, EPA proposed to lower the permissible leak rates for some air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment containing more than 50 pounds of CFC or HCFC refrigerant, and to extend the leak repair requirements (as they would be amended) to air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment containing more than 50 pounds of HFC or PFC refrigerant. Specifically, EPA proposed to lower the permissible annual leak rate for new commercial refrigeration equipment from 35 to 10 percent of the charge per year, the permissible annual leak rate for older commercial refrigeration equipment from 35 to 15 percent per year; the permissible annual leak rate for some industrial process refrigeration equipment from 35 to 20 percent of the charge per year; the permissible annual leak rate for other new appliances (

e.g.

, comfort cooling chillers) from 15 to 5 percent of the charge per year; and the permissible annual leak rate for other existing appliances (

e.g.

, comfort cooling chillers) from 15 to 10 percent of the charge per year.

EPA has decided to defer action on the leak repair components of the NPRM to a future rulemaking dedicated to finalizing the proposed leak repair requirements.

4. Servicing MVAC and MVAC-like Appliances Containing Substitute Refrigerants

a. Background

MVAC-like appliances are open-drive compressor appliances used to cool the driver's or passenger's compartment of non-road motor vehicles, such as agricultural or construction vehicles. MVAC-like appliances are essentially identical to motor vehicle air conditioners, which are subject to regulations promulgated under section 609 of the Act, but because MVAC-like appliances are contained in non-road vehicles, they are subject to regulations promulgated under section 608 of the Act.

Due to the similarities between MVACs and MVAC-like appliances in design and servicing patterns, EPA has established requirements regarding the servicing of MVAC-like appliances that are very similar to those for MVACs (58 FR 28686). In fact, many of the section 608 requirements for MVAC-like appliances that are published at subpart F simply refer to the section 609 requirements for MVACs that are

published at subpart B. For instance, § 82.156(a)(5) states that persons who open MVAC-like appliances for maintenance, service, or repair may do so only while “properly using,” as defined at § 82.32(e), recycling or recovery equipment certified pursuant to § 82.158(f) or (g) as applicable. The definition of “properly using” appears in the regulations published at subpart B, and the reference therefore subjects MVAC-like appliances to the evacuation and refrigerant standard requirements of subpart B. Similarly, the equipment and technician certification provisions applicable to MVAC-like appliances in subpart F (§ 82.158(f) and § 82.161(a)(5)) refer to the equipment and technician certification provisions applicable to MVACs in subpart B (§ 82.36(a) and § 82.40).

The section 609 and 608 regulations treat MVACs and MVAC-like appliances (and persons servicing them) slightly differently in four areas. First, persons who service MVACs are subject to the section 609 equipment and technician certification requirements only if they perform “service for consideration,” meaning that they are financially or otherwise compensated for their services. Persons who service MVAC-like appliances are subject to the section 608 equipment and technician certification requirements regardless of whether they are compensated for their work.

11

Second, persons who service MVACs must have recovery and recycling equipment available at their place of business, even if they never open the refrigeration circuit of the MVACs. In contrast, persons who service MVAC-like appliances are required to have recovery and recycling equipment available at their place of business only if they open the appliances (

i.e.,

perform work that would release refrigerant to the environment unless the refrigerant were recovered previously). Third, recycling and recovery equipment that is intended for use with MVACs and that was manufactured before the effective date of the section 609 equipment certification provisions must be demonstrated to be “substantially identical” to certified recycling equipment. While refrigerant recycling and recovery equipment manufactured before the effective date of the section 608 equipment and intended for use with MVAC-like appliances must be able to pull a 4-inch vacuum. Finally, persons servicing MVAC-like appliances have the option of becoming certified as Type II technicians under subpart F (

i.e.,

section 608) instead of becoming certified as MVAC technicians under subpart B (

i.e.,

section 609). The first three differences arise from differences between the statutory requirements of sections 608 and 609; the last is intended to give persons who service MVAC-like appliances flexibility in choosing the type of training and testing most appropriate for their work.

11

Note that persons servicing MVACs are subject to the section 608 venting prohibition regardless of whether they are compensated for their work.

b. Amendments to Subpart B

In a final rule published on December 30, 1997 (62 FR 68025), EPA made several changes to the provisions governing servicing of MVACs and MVAC-like appliances (as they are currently defined) at subpart B. First, EPA extended the regulations to MVACs containing substitutes for CFC and HCFC refrigerants. Second, EPA explicitly allowed mobile servicing of MVACs and MVAC-like appliances. That is, technicians are permitted to transport their recovery/recycling equipment from their place of business in order to recover refrigerant from an MVAC or MVAC-like appliance before servicing it. Third, EPA permitted refrigerant recovered from disposed MVACs or MVAC-like appliances to be reused in MVACs or MVAC-like appliances without reclamation, as long as the refrigerant was processed through approved refrigerant recycling equipment before being charged into the MVAC to be serviced. Fourth, EPA adopted new standards for recycling and recovery equipment intended for use with MVACs. These new standards address HFC-134a recovery/recycling equipment, HFC-134a recover-only equipment, service procedures for HFC-134a containment, standards for recycled HFC-134a, recovery/recycling equipment intended for use with both CFC-12 and HFC-134a, and recover-only equipment designed to be used with any motor vehicle refrigerants other than CFC-12 and HFC-134a. Please refer to the December 30, 1997, final rule for a detailed explanation and justification of these changes for MVACs.

These regulations apply both to MVACs containing all SNAP-approved substitutes and to MVAC-like appliances containing class I and class II substances. As discussed at length in the final amendment to subpart B, EPA believes that it is appropriate to cover both MVACs and MVAC-like appliances under the subpart B regulations, although EPA is relying on section 608 authority to address refrigerant venting during the maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of MVAC-like appliances. In brief, the rationale for this approach is that (1) MVACs and MVAC-like appliance are very similar, and the requirements for MVAC-like appliances under the subpart F regulations have historically referred back to the requirements for MVACs under subpart B, and (2) MVACs and MVAC-like appliances are often serviced by the same group of people, and therefore publishing the requirements for both MVACs and MVAC-like appliances in the same place will minimize confusion within this group. Under this approach, most of the provisions governing MVAC-like appliances have been reproduced in the regulations at subpart B and will be removed from the regulations at subpart F; an important exception is the definition of MVAC-like appliance, which will remain in the regulations at subpart F. Thus, the final subpart B rule covers MVAC-like appliances as defined in the subpart F regulations, which at the time of the final subpart B rule was promulgated, meant MVAC-like appliances containing CFCs or HCFCs. However, the subpart B amendment did not affect the four differences between the treatment of MVACs and MVAC-like appliances identified above.

c. Amendments Concerning MVAC and MVAC-like Appliances Containing Substitute Refrigerants

As proposed and discussed previously, EPA has changed the definitions of “appliance” and “opening” in subpart F to include substitute refrigerants. EPA is also establishing required practices for “MVAC-like appliance” (which is based on the definition of “appliance”). This effectively applies the major requirements of the amended subpart B regulations to MVAC-like appliances containing substitutes for CFCs and HCFCs that consist of a class I or class II ODS. However today's final rule does not affect the section 609 service requirements for MVACs using HFC-134a (R-134a). Today's final rule does establish that the regulatory structure in place for class I and class II ODSs used as refrigerants in MVACs will only apply to substitutes consisting of a class I or class II ODS. EPA has also made editorial changes to eliminate redundancy between the subpart B and subpart F rules in their treatment of MVAC-like appliances.

EPA believes that in order to implement the venting prohibition, it is necessary to apply the major subpart B requirements (including the requirements to properly use recycling and recovery equipment and to certify recycling and recovery equipment and technicians) to MVAC-like appliances

containing substitute refrigerants. In the case of MVAC-like appliances, the similarities in design and servicing patterns between MVACs and MVAC-like appliances make it appropriate to subject MVAC-like appliances to the required practices and certification programs established for MVACs in subpart B rather than to the required practices and certification programs established for stationary appliances in subpart F. As noted above, the argument for parallel coverage of MVACs and MVAC-like appliances was discussed at length in the May 14, 1993, rule (58 FR 28686).

d. Clarification of Applicability-Servicing of Buses Using HCFC-22

EPA has become aware of a growing misinterpretation of how the Agency classifies buses using HCFC-22 refrigerant (R-22), and how technicians servicing buses using R-22 should be certified. The definition of MVAC-like appliance at § 82.152 specifically states that appliances using R-22 are not covered under the definition of MVAC-like. Similarly, the definition of MVAC at § 82.32 specifically states that it does not cover air-conditioning systems found on passenger buses using HCFC-22 refrigerant.

Section 82.152 defines high-pressure appliance as an appliance that uses a refrigerant with a liquid phase saturation pressure between 170 psia and 355 psia at 104 °F, including R-22. EPA has established under § 82.161(a)(2) that technicians who maintain, service, or repair high-pressure appliances must be certified as a section 608 type II technician. Hence taking the definition of high-pressure appliance into consideration, EPA finds that technicians servicing buses using R-22 must be certified according to section 608 not 609. EPA inspections at transit facilities typically have found that technicians have credentials that allow the servicing of buses using R-12, as well as buses using R-22 (

i.e.,

that are certified under section 609 and section 608 type II, respectively). But, EPA has received an increasing number of inquiries concerning this issue. Therefore, EPA is providing clarification in this final rule to assist the regulated community.

E. Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment Certification

In the NPRM, EPA proposed to require that equipment used to service appliances containing HFCs and PFCs be tested by an EPA-approved laboratory to the same standards as apply to equipment used to service appliances containing class I and class II refrigerants. This proposal was based on the more recent ARI Standard 740-1998, which adopts more substitute refrigerants into the standard than the 1995 version.

EPA has decided to address the proposed certification of refrigerant recovery/recycling equipment intended for use with substitute refrigerants in a future action.

F. Technician Certification

In the NPRM, EPA proposed to extend the certification requirements for technicians who work with CFC and HCFC refrigerants to technicians who work with HFCs and PFCs. EPA also proposed to “grandfather” technicians who have been certified to work with CFCs and HCFCs by not requiring them to be retested in order to work with HFC or PFC appliances.

Commenters generally supported EPA's decision to not require additional training and testing in order to work with and purchase HFC and PFC refrigerants, as opposed to any requirement to once again certify credentialed technicians. EPA received numerous comments from members of the MVAC service sector expressing the need for fairness and consistency in applying rule provisions to all potentially environmentally damaging refrigerants. Comments from air-conditioning and refrigeration contractors voiced the opinion that the imposition of less stringent recovery or certification requirements for HFC refrigerants could undermine compliance with recycling requirements for both HFC and ozone-depleting refrigerants by confusing technicians and encouraging a “cavalier” attitude toward refrigerant recovery. The majority of commenters believed that failure to impose a technician certification requirement on persons working with HFCs and PFCs would lead to release and mixture of both ozone-depleting refrigerants and their substitutes.

Commenters contesting the certification requirement stated several reasons to justify their opposition. They believe that economics and the value of refrigerants promote recovery and recycling, not an EPA mandate to certify technicians. They also contested the Agency's belief that certification will reduce venting or cross-contamination by providing technicians with information about effective and efficient recycling. These commenters stated that the technician certification requirement does not address the intent of persons, certified or not, who are predetermined to knowingly vent refrigerant, because technicians have routinely vented R-12 despite being certified, and preferred the option of educating technicians at the point of purchase via instructions and warnings instead of mandating further certification requirements.

With today's action, EPA is not requiring certification of technicians who work exclusively with HFC and PFC refrigerants that do not consist of a class I or class II ODS. However the Agency is clarifying that certification is required in order to maintain, service, or repair appliances, as well as to dispose appliances (other than small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances) containing a substitute consisting of a class I or class II ODS. As discussed below, technician certification will also be required in order to purchase substitute refrigerants that contain a class I or class II ODS.

EPA believes that this action is necessary to effectively implement and enforce both section 608(c) and section 608(a)(2) of the Act. As discussed above, section 608(c) prohibits the knowing release of substitute refrigerants during the service, maintenance, repair or disposal of appliances, except for

de minimis

releases associated with “good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose” of these refrigerants. It is reasonable to interpret “good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose” as requiring that only certified technicians perform service, maintenance, repair, or disposal that could release ozone-depleting refrigerants and/or ozone-depleting substitute refrigerants. This interpretation is also consistent with EPA's interpretation of the same statutory language as it applies to ozone-depleting refrigerants.

It is the Agency's belief that persons who are not certified technicians are far more likely to intentionally or inadvertently release refrigerant contrary to the venting prohibition, and that consistent application of technician certification requirements is necessary to implement the section 608(a) directive to reduce releases and maximize recapture and recycling of class I and II refrigerants. Requiring certification of technicians who work with substitute refrigerants that consist of a class I or class II ODS is also necessary to comply with the section 608(a) requirements for EPA to promulgate regulations that reduce emissions of class I and II refrigerants to the lowest achievable levels and maximize recapture and recycling of such substances. In fa

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.