Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Update to the Refrigerant Management Requirements Under the Clean Air Act

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0453; FRL-9933-48-OAR]

RIN 2060-AS51

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Update to the Refrigerant Management Requirements Under the Clean Air Act

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

The Clean Air Act prohibits the knowing release of ozone-depleting and substitute refrigerants during the course of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances or industrial process refrigeration. The existing regulations require that persons servicing or disposing of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment observe certain service practices that reduce emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerant. This proposed rule would update those existing requirements as well as extend them, as appropriate, to non-ozone-depleting substitute refrigerants, such as hydrofluorocarbons. The proposed updates include strengthening leak repair requirements, establishing recordkeeping requirements for the disposal of appliances containing five to 50 pounds of refrigerant, changes to the technician certification program, and changes for improved readability, compliance, and restructuring of the requirements. As a result, this action would reduce emissions of ozone-depleting substances and gases with high global warming potentials.

DATES:

Comments must be received on or before January 8, 2016. Any party requesting a public hearing must notify the contact listed below under

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on November 16, 2015. If a public hearing is requested, the hearing will be held on or around November 24, 2015. If a hearing is held, it will take place at EPA headquarters in Washington, DC. EPA will post a notice on our Web site,

www.epa.gov/ozone/strathome.html,

announcing further information should a hearing take place.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before December 9, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0453, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (

i.e.

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Luke Hall-Jordan, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 6205T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number (202) 343-9591; email address

hall-jordan.luke@epa.gov.

You may also visit

www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608

for further information about refrigerant management, other Stratospheric Ozone Protection regulations, the science of ozone layer depletion, and related topics.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

B. What action is the Agency taking?

C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

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

II. Background

A. What are ozone-depleting substances?

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

C. What developments have occurred since EPA first established the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program?

D. What are the goals of this proposed rule?

E. Stakeholder Engagement

F. What are the major changes EPA is proposing?

III. The Clean Air Act and EPA's Authority for the Proposed Revisions

IV. The Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Changes to the Definitions in Section 82.152

B. Proposed Changes to the Venting Prohibition in Section 82.154(a)

C. Proposed Changes to the Refrigerant and Appliance Sales Restrictions in Section 82.154

D. Proposed Changes to the Evacuation Requirements in Section 82.156

E. Proposed Changes to the Safe Disposal Provisions in Section 82.156(f)

F. Proposed Changes to Leak Repair Requirements in Section 82.156(i)

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

H. Proposed Changes for Equipment Testing Organizations in Section 82.160

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

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

K. Proposed Changes to the Reclamation Requirements in Section 82.164

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

M. Proposed Effective and Compliance Dates

V. Economic Analysis

VI. Possible Future Changes to Subpart F

A. Appliance Maintenance and Leak Repair

B. Refrigerant Reclamation

C. Safe Disposal of Small Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-Like Appliances

D. Technician Certification

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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 and Safety Risks

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and 1 CFR part 51

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

List of Acronyms

AHEF—Atmospheric and Health Effects Framework model

AHRI—Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute

ARI—Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (now AHRI)

ASHRAE—American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

CAA—Clean Air Act

CARB—California Air Resources Board

CBI—Confidential business information

CFC—Chlorofluorocarbon

CO

2

—Carbon dioxide

GHG—Greenhouse gas

GWP—Global warming potential

HCFC—Hydrochlorofluorocarbon

HFC—Hydrofluorocarbon

HFO—Hydrofluoroolefin

IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IPR—Industrial process refrigeration

MMTCO

2

eq—Million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent

MVAC—Motor vehicle air conditioner

NAICS—North American Industry Classification System

ODP—Ozone depletion potential

ODS—Ozone-depleting substance

PFC—Perfluorocarbon

RMP—Refrigerant Management Program

SCAQMD—South Coast Air Quality Management District

SNAP—Significant New Alternatives Policy

UL—Underwriters Laboratories

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

Category

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code

Examples of regulated entities

Industrial Process Refrigeration (IPR)

111, 11251, 11511, 21111, 2211, 2212, 2213, 311, 3121, 3221, 3222, 32311, 32411, 3251, 32512, 3252, 3253, 32541, 3256, 3259, 3261, 3262, 3324, 3328, 33324, 33341, 33361, 3341, 3344, 3345, 3346, 3364, 33911, 339999

Owners or operators of refrigeration equipment used in agriculture and crop production, oil and gas extraction, ice rinks, and the manufacture of frozen food, dairy products, food and beverages, ice, petrochemicals, chemicals, machinery, medical equipment, plastics, paper, and electronics.

Commercial Refrigeration

42374, 42393, 42399, 4242, 4244, 42459, 42469, 42481, 42493, 4451, 4452, 45291, 48422, 4885, 4931, 49312, 72231

Owners or operators of refrigerated warehousing and storage facilities, supermarkets, grocery stores, warehouse clubs, supercenters, convenience stores, and refrigerated transport.

Comfort Cooling

45211, 45299, 453998, 512, 522, 524, 531, 5417, 551, 561, 6111, 6112, 6113, 61151, 622, 7121, 71394, 721, 722, 813, 92

Owners or operators of air-conditioning equipment used in the following: Hospitals, office buildings, colleges and universities, metropolitan transit authorities, real estate rental & leased properties, lodging and food services, property management, schools, and public administration or other public institutions.

Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning Contractors

238220, 81131, 811412

Plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning contractors, and refrigerant recovery contractors.

Manufacturers and Distributors of Small Cans of Refrigerant

325120, 441310, 447110

Automotive parts and accessories stores and industrial gas manufacturers.

Reclaimers

325120, 423930, 424690, 562920, 562212

Industrial gas manufacturers, recyclable material merchant wholesalers, materials recovery facilities, solid waste landfills, and other chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers.

Disposers and Recyclers of Appliances

423990, 562212, 562920

Materials recovery facilities, solid waste landfills, and other miscellaneous durable goods merchant wholesalers.

Refrigerant Wholesalers

325120, 42, 424690

Industrial gas manufacturers, other chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers, wholesale trade.

Certifying Organizations

541380

Environmental test laboratories and services.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the types of entities that could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether your facility, company, business organization, or other entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria contained in section 608 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) as amended and this proposed rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

The existing regulations require that persons servicing or disposing of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment observe certain service practices that reduce emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerant. Specifically, these provisions include: Requiring that technicians be certified to work on appliances; restricting the sale of refrigerant to certified technicians; specifying the proper evacuation levels before opening up an appliance; requiring the use of certified refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment; requiring the maintenance and repair of appliances that meet certain size and leak rate thresholds; requiring that ozone-depleting refrigerants be removed from appliances prior to disposal; requiring that air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment be provided with a servicing aperture or process stub to facilitate refrigerant recovery; requiring that refrigerant reclaimers be certified in order to reclaim and sell used refrigerant; and establishing standards for technician certification programs, recovery equipment, and quality of reclaimed refrigerant.

This rule proposes to update the existing requirements in 40 CFR part 82, subpart F (subpart F) that currently apply to ozone-depleting refrigerants and then extend those requirements, as

appropriate, to non-ozone-depleting substitute refrigerants, including but not limited to hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). This rule would also streamline the regulations to improve clarity.

C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

EPA is proposing these revisions to the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F under the authority of section 608 of the CAA. More detail on EPA's authority for this action is provided in the following sections. To summarize briefly, section 608(a) requires EPA to promulgate regulations regarding the use and disposal of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) that reduce the use and emissions of such substances to the lowest achievable level, and to maximize the recapturing and recycling of such substances. Section 608(c) prohibits any person from knowingly venting, releasing, or disposing into the environment any ozone-depleting or substitute refrigerant in the course of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of air-conditioning or refrigeration appliances or industrial process refrigeration (IPR). In addition, EPA's authority for this rulemaking is supplemented by section 301(a) which provides authority to “prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out [the EPA Administrator's] functions under this Act” and section 114 which provides authority for the EPA Administrator to require recordkeeping and reporting in carrying out any provision of the CAA (with certain exceptions that do not apply here).

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

The revisions proposed here would require certain businesses to take actions that would have financial costs, such as conducting leak inspections, repairing leaks, and keeping records. The Agency has performed an analysis to estimate the impact on the entire United States economy associated with the proposed regulatory changes. Total incremental compliance costs associated with this proposed rule are estimated to be $63 million per year in 2014 dollars. Total annual operating savings associated with reduced refrigerant use are estimated to be $52 million; thus incremental compliance costs and refrigerant savings combined are estimated to be approximately $11 million. A more detailed description of the results of the analysis and the methods used can be found in the technical support document,

Analysis of the Economic Impact and Benefits of Proposed Revisions to the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program.

The proposed update and revisions to the requirements under section 608 would significantly reduce emissions of refrigerants and thus ameliorate the harm they would cause to the environment. EPA estimates that the proposed revisions will prevent damage to the stratospheric ozone layer by reducing emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants by approximately 116 metric tons per year, weighted by the ozone-depletion potential (ODP) of the gases emitted. Avoided emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants and non-ozone-depleting substitutes will also safeguard Earth's climate because most of these refrigerants are potent greenhouse gases. Weighted by their global warming potentials (GWP),

1

EPA estimates that the proposed revisions will prevent annual emissions of greenhouse gases equivalent to 7.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (MMTCO

2

eq). The reductions in emissions of GHGs and ODS have benefits for human health and the environment, which have been discussed at length in prior EPA rulemakings including the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases (74 FR 66496, 66517, 66539) and in section II.D of this preamble. Details of the benefits and the methods used to estimate them are discussed later in this preamble and in the technical support document referenced above.

1

Unless otherwise stated, GWPs stated in this document are 100-year integrated GWPs, relative to a GWP of 1 for carbon dioxide, as reported in IPCC, 2007.

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This document is accessible at

www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html.

For blends of multiple compounds, we are weighting the GWP of each component by mass percentage in the blend.

EPA anticipates further benefits including emissions reductions associated with enhanced recordkeeping provisions, and emissions reductions following from consistent standards for ODS- and substitute-containing appliances. These additional benefits have not been quantified. There may be additional energy savings due to leak repair, which also have not been quantified.

II. Background

A. What are ozone-depleting substances?

The stratospheric ozone layer protects life on Earth from the sun's harmful radiation. This natural shield has gradually been depleted by man-made chemicals. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were discovered in the 1970s to deplete the stratospheric ozone layer. CFCs and other class I ODS like methyl chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, and halons were used as refrigerants, solvents, foam blowing agents, fire suppression agents and in other smaller applications. Class I ODS have been phased out though they may still be reclaimed from existing appliances and reused. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), class II ODS with lower potential to deplete the ozone layer than class I substances, are currently being phased out. All of these compounds have atmospheric lifetimes long enough to allow them to be transported by winds into the stratosphere. Because they release chlorine or bromine when they break down, they damage the protective ozone layer.

The initial concern about the ozone layer in the 1970s led to a ban on the use of CFCs as aerosol propellants in several countries, including the United States. In 1985, the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer was adopted to formalize international cooperation on this issue. Additional efforts resulted in the adoption of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in 1987. Today, all countries recognized by the United Nations have ratified the Montreal Protocol and have agreed to phase out the production of ODS.

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

Section 608 of the CAA requires EPA to establish a comprehensive refrigerant management program to limit emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. Section 608 also prohibits the knowing release or disposal of ozone-depleting refrigerant and their substitutes during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration appliances or IPR. Section 608 is described in greater detail in Section III of this proposal below.

EPA first issued regulations under section 608 of the CAA on May 14, 1993 (58 FR 28660, “1993 Rule”), to establish the national refrigerant management program for ozone-depleting refrigerants recovered during the maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration appliances. Together with the

prohibition on venting during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of class I and class II ODS (January 22, 1991; 56 FR 2420), these regulations were intended to substantially reduce the use and emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants.

The regulations require that persons servicing air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment containing an ozone-depleting refrigerant observe certain practices that reduce emissions. They also established refrigerant recovery equipment requirements, reclamation certification requirements, technician certification requirements, and restricted the sale of refrigerant to certified technicians. In addition, they required that ODS be removed from appliances prior to disposal, and that all air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment using an ODS be provided with a servicing aperture or process stub to facilitate refrigerant recovery.

The 1993 Rule also established a requirement to repair leaking appliances containing 50 or more pounds of ODS refrigerant. The rule set an annual leak rate of 35 percent for commercial refrigeration appliances and IPR and 15 percent for comfort cooling appliances. If the applicable leak rate is exceeded, the appliance must be repaired within 30 days.

EPA revised these regulations through subsequent rulemakings published on August 19, 1994 (59 FR 42950), November 9, 1994 (59 FR 55912), August 8, 1995 (60 FR 40420), July 24, 2003 (68 FR 43786), March 12, 2004 (69 FR 11946), and January 11, 2005 (70 FR 1972). EPA has also issued proposed rules to revise the regulations in subpart F on June 11, 1998 (63 FR 32044) and December 15, 2010 (75 FR 78558), elements of which were not finalized and which EPA is re-proposing in this rule.

The August 19, 1994, rule amended specific definitions, required practices, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements, as well as adopted industry standards for reclaimed ODS refrigerants.

The November 9, 1994, rule clarified the conditions under which technician certification programs were grandfathered, allowing technicians who had participated in voluntary technician training and certification programs prior to the publication of the 1993 Rule to receive formal certification. The rule also clarified the scope of the technician certification requirement and provided a limited exemption from certification requirements for apprentices.

The August 8, 1995, rule was issued in response to a settlement agreement between EPA and the Chemical Manufacturers Association to give additional flexibility to repair or retrofit IPR appliances containing ODS. In that rule, EPA allowed owners or operators additional time beyond 30 days to complete repairs to address leaks and more than one year to retrofit appliances where certain conditions applied (

i.e.,

equipment located in areas subject to radiological contamination, unavailability of necessary parts, or adherence to local or State laws hinder immediate repairs). EPA also clarified that purged refrigerants that have been captured and destroyed can be excluded from the leak rate calculations.

The July 24, 2003, rule finalized portions of a proposed rulemaking (61 FR 7858; February 29, 1996) that amended the recordkeeping aspects of the section 608 technician certification program, refined aspects of the refrigerant sales restriction, adopted updated versions of ARI Standards 700

2

and 740,

3

amended several definitions, and set forth procedures for the revocation and/or suspension of approval to certify technicians and refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment and revocation and/or suspension procedures for certification as a refrigerant reclaimer.

2

The Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute Standard 700,

Specification for Fluorocarbons and Other Refrigerants,

contains standards for the reclamation of used refrigerants.

3

The Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute Standard 740,

Performance Rating of Refrigerant Recovery Equipment and Recovery/Recycling Equipment,

contains standards for the equipment used to recover refrigerant from air-conditioning and refrigeration appliances.

The March 12, 2004, rule exempted from the venting prohibition of section 608(c)(2) specific non-ozone-depleting substances that the Agency found did not pose a threat to the environment (69 FR 11946). The rule notably did not exempt HFC and PFC refrigerants from the venting prohibition. The rule also clarified that EPA regulations affecting the handling and sales of ozone-depleting refrigerants are applicable to blends that contain an ODS.

The January 11, 2005, rule clarified that the leak repair requirements apply to any refrigerant blend that contains an ODS (70 FR 1927). The rule amended the required practices and associated reporting/recordkeeping requirements. It also clarified certain leak repair requirements.

In December 2010 (75 FR 78558, December 15, 2010, “proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule”), EPA proposed changes to the leak repair requirements. EPA's intent in that proposal was to create a streamlined set of leak repair requirements that are applicable to all types of appliances containing 50 or more pounds of ozone-depleting refrigerant. The rule also proposed to reduce the applicable leak repair rates. EPA did not finalize that rule. Today's rulemaking re-proposes many of the concepts contained in the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule. Through today's action, EPA is withdrawing the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule.

Finally, on May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29682), and April 10, 2015 (80 FR 19453), EPA expanded the list of refrigerants that are exempt from the CAA venting prohibition in specific end uses. The 2014 final rule exempted the following from the venting prohibition:

—Isobutane (R-600a) and R-441A in household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers;

—Propane (R-290) in retail food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only). The 2015 final rule added the following to the list of refrigerants exempt from the venting prohibition:

—Isobutane (R-600a) and R-441A in retail food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only);

—Propane (R-290) in household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers;

—Ethane (R-170) in very low temperature refrigeration equipment and equipment for non-mechanical heat transfer;

—R-441A, propane, and isobutane in vending machines; and

—Propane and R-441A in self-contained room air conditioners for residential and light commercial air-conditioning and heat pumps.

C. What developments have occurred since EPA first established the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program?

1. Phaseout of CFCs and HCFCs

In 1993 when EPA established the refrigerant management requirements of subpart F, CFCs and HCFCs were the most commonly used refrigerants, depending on the specific application. Just six months prior, in November 1992, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol accelerated the phaseout schedule for CFCs through the Copenhagen Amendment so that there would be a complete phaseout by 1996. The Copenhagen Amendment also created for the first time a phaseout schedule for HCFCs. The schedule for HCFCs was later amended and today calls for a 35 percent reduction in production and consumption from each Article 2 Party's (developed country's)

cap by 2004, followed by a 75 percent reduction by 2010, a 90 percent reduction by 2015, a 99.5 percent reduction by 2020, and a total phaseout in 2030. From 2020 to 2030, production and consumption at only 0.5 percent of baseline is allowed solely for servicing existing air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment.

The United States chose to implement the Montreal Protocol phaseout schedule on a chemical-by-chemical basis. In 1993, as authorized by section 606 of the CAA, EPA established a phaseout schedule that eliminated HCFC-141b first and would greatly restrict HCFC-142b and HCFC-22 next, due to their high ozone depletion potentials (ODPs), followed by restrictions on all other HCFCs and ultimately a complete phaseout (58 FR 15014, March 18, 1993, and 58 FR 65018, December 10, 1993). EPA continues to issue allowances for the production and consumption of HCFCs that have not yet been phased out. The allowance levels reflect not only phaseout schedules but also use restrictions under section 605(a) of the CAA. The phaseout schedule and allowance levels can be found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart A.

Much as EPA established the refrigerant management program shortly before the CFC phaseout, today's proposal to update those regulations closely precedes the phaseout of HCFCs. The reasons for encouraging a viable CFC recycling program support the same approach for HCFCs. The 1993 Rule discussed a 1990 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking regarding a national CFC recycling program. As the 1993 Rule discussed, that 1990 notice emphasized that recycling is important because it would allow the continued use of equipment requiring CFCs for service past the year in which CFC production is phased out, thereby eliminating or deferring the cost of early retirement or retrofit of such equipment. Because of the continued use of these substances in existing equipment, recycling can serve as a useful bridge to alternative products while minimizing disruption of the current capital stock of equipment. (92 FR 28661).

More than twenty years later, with the experience gained through the phaseout of CFCs, reducing emissions of HCFCs and maximizing their recovery and reclamation remains just as important for ensuring the continued viability of the current stock of equipment. The transition out of CFC and now HCFC refrigerants is one reason that it is important to update the refrigerant management regulations in subpart F.

2. Use of Non-ODS Alternatives

The universe of available refrigerants has expanded dramatically since EPA first established the refrigerant management regulations in subpart F. Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program (CAA section 612), EPA identifies substitutes that pose lower overall risks to human health and the environment and must prohibit the use of substitutes for which there are other available or potentially available alternatives posing lower overall risk to human health and the environment for the same use. Thus, EPA's SNAP program does not provide a static list of alternatives but instead evolves the list as the EPA makes decisions informed by our overall understanding of the environmental and human health impacts as well as our current knowledge about available substitutes. Under SNAP, EPA has reviewed over 400 substitutes in the refrigeration and air-conditioning; fire suppression; foam blowing; solvent cleaning; aerosols; adhesives, coatings, and inks; sterilants; and tobacco expansion sectors. To date, SNAP has issued 30 notices and 20 rulemakings listing alternatives as acceptable, acceptable subject to use conditions, acceptable subject to narrowed use limits, or unacceptable for those various end-uses.

On April 10, 2015, the SNAP Program listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, three hydrocarbons, one hydrocarbon blend, and HFC-32 as substitute refrigerants in a number of refrigeration and air-conditioning end-uses (80 FR 19454). The SNAP program has also recently listed a number of additional refrigerant options, including blends of hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs) and HFCs that have lower global warming potentials (GWPs) (October 21, 2014, 79 FR 62863; July 20, 2015, 80 FR 42870), and continues to review information and issue rulemakings and notices to provide additional refrigerant options, including hydrocarbons and low-GWP HFOs.

Due to the change in the suite of acceptable refrigerants available for some end-uses, EPA anticipates that the relative amounts of different refrigerants in stocks in the United States will change, and thus that the universe of refrigerants subject to the refrigerant management program will continue to evolve. The diversity of refrigerants and the potential for cross contamination are two reasons why it is important to clarify how all refrigerants should be handled under the refrigerant management regulations in subpart F.

3. Increased Attention to HFCs as Climate Pollutants

By greatly reducing emissions of CFCs and HCFCs, domestic and international efforts to protect the ozone layer have also helped to protect global climate as these ODS are also potent GHGs. However, HFCs, which are the predominant class of compounds being used as replacements for ODS, also can have high GWPs. As their use has increased, concern has grown over the environmental damage caused by heat trapped in the atmosphere by HFCs.

On December 7, 2009, (74 FR 66496) the Administrator issued an Endangerment Finding regarding GHGs under section 202(a) of the CAA. As part of this finding, EPA concluded that the current and projected concentrations of six key well-mixed GHGs in the atmosphere—carbon dioxide (CO

2

), methane (CH

4

), nitrous oxide (N

2

O), HFCs, PFCs, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF

6

)—endanger both the health and welfare of current and future generations. While this finding was made specifically for the purposes of section 202(a) of the CAA, EPA is cognizant of the global climate risks generally discussed in the finding in its work to reduce emissions of HFCs and other GHGs.

i. Climate Action Plan

In June 2013, the President announced the Climate Action Plan.

4

Among the many actions called for, the Climate Action Plan outlined a set of measures to address HFCs. The Climate Action Plan states: “to reduce emissions of HFCs, the United States can and will lead both through international diplomacy as well as domestic actions.” Part of the international diplomacy is the Amendment to the Montreal Protocol discussed below. The Climate Action Plan also directed EPA to use its authority through the SNAP program “to encourage private sector investment in low-emissions technology by identifying and approving climate-friendly chemicals while prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful chemical alternatives.” In July 2015, EPA finalized a rule that changed the listing status for certain substitutes previously listed as acceptable under the SNAP program (80 FR 42870). That rule changed the status for certain HFCs and HCFCs for various end-uses in the aerosols, refrigeration and air-conditioning, and foam blowing sectors. EPA made these changes based on information showing that other

substitutes are available for the same uses that pose lower risk overall to human health and the environment. A copy of the Climate Action Plan is available in the docket to this rule.

4

The President's Climate Action Plan, 2013,

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf.

Minimizing the emissions and maximizing the recovery and reuse of HFC refrigerants is consistent with the Climate Action Plan. EPA estimates that the proposed revisions will prevent annual emissions of refrigerant equivalent to 7.5 MMTCO

2

eq. Of this amount 3.7 MMTCO

2

eq are due to HFCs and 3.8 MMTCO

2

eq are due to ODS. The significant environmental benefit to be gained by more clearly addressing HFC refrigerants is another reason why it is important to update the refrigerant management regulations in subpart F.

ii. Trends in HFC Use and Future Projections

Although HFCs represent a small fraction of current GHG emissions by weight, their warming impact per kilogram is very strong. For example, the most commonly used HFC, HFC-134a, has a GWP of 1,430, which means it traps that many times as much heat per kilogram as carbon dioxide does over 100 years. HFC emissions are projected to increase substantially and at an increasing rate over the next several decades if their production is left uncontrolled. In the United States, emissions of HFCs are increasing more quickly than those of any other GHG, and globally they are increasing 10-15% annually. At that rate, emissions are projected to double by 2020 and triple by 2030.

HFCs are also rapidly accumulating in the atmosphere. The atmospheric concentration of HFC-134a has increased by about 10% per year from 2006 to 2012, and the concentrations of HFC-143a and HFC-125, which are components of commonly-used refrigerant blends, have risen over 13% and 16% per year from 2007-2011, respectively. Annual global emissions of HFCs are projected to rise to about 6,400 to 9,900 MMTCO

2

eq in 2050, which is comparable to the drop in annual GHG emissions of ODS of 8,000 MMTCO

2

eq between 1988 and 2010 (UNEP, 2011). As these emissions accumulate in the atmosphere, the HFCs change the balance between energy entering the Earth's climate from the sun and energy escaping the Earth into space; the change in the net rate at which energy enters the atmosphere is called radiative forcing. By 2050, the buildup of HFCs in the atmosphere is projected to increase radiative forcing by up to 0.4 W m

−2

. This may be as much as one-fifth to one-quarter of the expected increase in radiative forcing due to the buildup of CO

2

since 2000, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. To appreciate the significance of the projected HFC emissions within the context of all GHGs, HFCs would be equivalent to 5 to 12 percent of the CO

2

emissions in 2050 based on the IPCC's highest CO

2

emissions scenario and equivalent to 27 to 69 percent of CO

2

emissions based on the IPCC's lowest CO

2

emissions pathway.

iii. Montreal Protocol Amendments

For the past six years, the United States, Canada, and Mexico have proposed an amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase down the production and consumption of HFCs. The United States seeks adoption of an amendment that is acceptable to all parties. Global benefits of the amendment proposal would yield significant reductions of over 90 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO

2

eq) through 2050. In 2015, a number of Parties to the Montreal Protocol have also proposed amendments to phase down global production and consumption of HFCs. These proposals were introduced by the Federated States of Micronesia on behalf of a group on Island States; the European Union; and India.

4. Petition From the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy

On January 31, 2014, the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy (the Alliance) petitioned the Agency to initiate a rulemaking to extend the section 608 refrigerant management regulations to HFCs and other substitute refrigerants. The petition advocates for consistent refrigerant management regulations that apply the same rules for ozone-depleting and non-ozone-depleting refrigerants. It argues that extending the section 608 requirements to HFCs “would increase the environmental benefits already realized from the section 608 regulations, through reduced HFC emissions, and would complement the United States' goal of a global phase down in HFC production and consumption.” The Alliance cites sections 608(c)(2) and 301(a) of the CAA as authority for these changes. A copy of the petition is included in the docket for this rulemaking.

While EPA is not proposing this action solely as a result of the Alliance petition, the proposed extension of the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program to HFCs and other non-exempt substitutes, if finalized, would constitute the Agency's response to the petition.

D. What are the goals of this proposed rule?

The Agency has three goals for this rulemaking. The first is to protect the stratospheric ozone layer by reducing emissions of ODS. The second is to protect the climate system by reducing emissions of other refrigerant gases with high GWPs. This includes ODS refrigerants and many substitutes, including HFCs, that EPA has not already exempted from the CAA statutory venting prohibition. Since many substitutes have a high GWP, some as high as 10,000, reducing emissions of ODS substitutes will reduce emissions of highly potent GHGs. While the current regulations in subpart F contain some provisions implementing the venting prohibition for substitutes for ODS, such as a general prohibition on the knowing release of such substances, with certain enumerated exceptions, they do not have any other specific use and handling requirements for ODS substitutes. As explained in more detail below, EPA is proposing to revise subpart F to include such provisions to help more fully and effectively implement the venting prohibition in section 608(c) of the CAA. Finally, EPA is proposing changes to the regulations in subpart F to improve their effectiveness, including increasing compliance and enforceability both for ODS and ODS substitutes.

1. Protecting the Stratospheric Ozone Layer

The proposed changes would reduce the use and emission of ODS, maximize the recapture and recycling of such substances, and further implement the prohibition on knowingly venting or releasing ODS refrigerants during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances. EPA estimates that this proposal will result in annual reductions in emissions of approximately 116 ODP-weighted metric tons. A separate support document

Analysis of the Economic Impact and Benefits of Proposed Revisions to the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program

contains a full discussion of the benefits and is available in the docket.

Stratospheric ozone depletion decreases the atmosphere's ability to protect life on the Earth's surface from the sun's UV radiation. The links between stratospheric ozone depletion and public health are well established. The

Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion,

prepared by the Scientific

Assessment Panel to the Montreal Protocol, and

Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion and its Interactions with Climate Change,

prepared by the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel to the Montreal Protocol provide comprehensive information regarding the links between emissions of ODS, ozone layer depletion, UV radiation, and human health effects. Both documents are available in the docket for this rule. Adverse health effects associated with exposure to UV radiation include skin cancer, cataracts, and immune suppression.

The most common forms of skin cancer are strongly associated with UV radiation, and UV exposure is the most preventable cause of skin cancer (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent Skin Cancer. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General; 2014). Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States, with more than 3.5 million new cases diagnosed annually (American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts and Figures, 2015). The number of new cases of melanoma, the most serious form of skin cancer, has been increasing. Rates for new cases of melanoma have been rising on average 1.4% each year over the last 10 years (National Cancer Institute, SEER Stat Fact Sheets: Melanoma of the Skin, available at

http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/melan.html

, accessed May 5, 2015). In 2015, it is estimated that 70,000 Americans will be diagnosed with melanoma and almost 10,000 will die from the disease (American Cancer Society, Cancers Facts and Figures, 2015).

Non-melanoma skin cancers are less deadly than melanomas. Nevertheless, left untreated, they can spread, causing disfigurement and more serious health problems. There are two primary types of non-melanoma skin cancers. Basal cell carcinomas are the most common type of skin cancer tumors. Basal cell carcinoma grows slowly, and rarely spreads to other parts of the body. It can, however, penetrate to the bone and cause considerable damage. Squamous cell carcinomas are tumors that may appear as nodules or as red, scaly patches. This cancer can develop into large masses and can spread to other parts of the body.

Other UV-related skin disorders include actinic keratoses and premature aging of the skin. Actinic keratoses are skin growths that occur on body areas exposed to the sun. The face, hands, forearms, and neck are especially susceptible to this type of lesion. Although premalignant, actinic keratoses are a risk factor for squamous cell carcinoma. Chronic exposure to the sun also causes premature aging, which over time can make the skin become thick, wrinkled, and leathery.

Research has shown that UV radiation increases the likelihood of certain cataracts. (Taylor, H.R., et al., 1988.

Effect of ultraviolet radiation on cataract formation,

New England Journal of Medicine, 319, 1429-33; West, S. et al., 2005.

Model of Risk of Cortical Cataract in the US Population with Exposure to Increased Ultraviolet Radiation due to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion,

American Journal of Epidemiology, 162, 1080-1088.) Cataracts are a form of eye damage in which a loss of transparency in the lens of the eye clouds vision. If left untreated, cataracts can lead to blindness. Although curable with modern eye surgery, cataracts diminish the eyesight of millions of Americans. Other kinds of eye damage caused by UV radiation include pterygium (

i.e.,

tissue growth that can block vision), skin cancer around the eyes, and degeneration of the macula (

i.e.,

the part of the retina where visual perception is most acute).

Policies protecting the stratospheric ozone layer have been effective in preventing these diseases and protecting the health of the American people. EPA uses its Atmospheric and Health Effects Framework (AHEF) model to estimate the benefits of ODS emissions reductions by modeling the number of cases of skin cancer and the number of deaths in Americans born between 1890 and 2100 given different ODS emissions scenarios. By comparing the health effects in a scenario without the Montreal Protocol to one with the treaty's controls, EPA estimates that the Montreal Protocol will prevent over 283 million cases of skin cancer in the United States. Americans will also suffer more than 45 million fewer cataracts and one million fewer deaths from skin cancer due to the treaty's protections, compared with a world with no policy controls. This analysis, found in the EPA document

Updating Ozone Calculations and Emissions Profiles for Use in the Atmospheric and Health Effects Framework Model

is in the docket.

2. Reducing Emissions of Greenhouse Gases

The second goal of this proposed rule is to reduce the emission of GHGs that contribute to climate change. Many refrigerants, including ODS and substitutes for ODS, are potent GHGs, having GWPs thousands of times higher than that of carbon dioxide (CO

2

), which has a GWP of one. For example, R-404A, a commonly used HFC refrigerant blend, has a GWP of 3,922. Other common HFC refrigerants, with their GWPs, include R-134a (1,430), R-410A (2,088), R-407A (2,107), and R-507A (3,985). Explicit and more stringent standards for the use, recovery, and recycling of these substitute refrigerants during maintenance, servicing, repair, or disposal of appliances will lead to fewer emissions of these high-GWP chemicals. EPA estimates that the proposed changes will reduce GWP-weighted emissions by approximately 7.5 MMTCO

2

eq per year

GHGs cause climate change by trapping heat on Earth. The Earth is constantly receiving energy from the sun in the form of radiation, including visible light, infrared, ultraviolet, and other forms of energy. At the same time, energy is radiating away into space, mostly as infrared radiation. Over long periods of time, the amount of energy arriving on Earth and the amount leaving into space have been about the same, and so the environment has generally not gotten much warmer or much colder very quickly. However, the increase of GHGs in the atmosphere has changed this balance, because these gases do not block most of the forms of radiation coming to Earth from the sun, but they do absorb or scatter the radiation trying to leave Earth into space, trapping some of it on Earth. Thus, more energy comes into the Earth's climate system than leaves it, and the atmosphere, oceans, and land become warmer, just like the inside of a greenhouse. While parts of the Earth get warmer and colder from day to day with weather, from month to month with the seasons, from year to year due to large scale phenomena like El Niño, or even decade to decade as sunspots come and go, the trapping of heat by GHGs raises the average temperature over the whole globe over and above these natural fluctuations, over a relatively short timeframe. The increase in the total heat energy in the climate system does not simply make the environment warmer; because water and air with more heat energy in them move more, atmospheric and sea currents change, and winds increase. Because warm water expands and glaciers melt, sea level rises, and because evaporation increases with more energy, rainfall and flooding can increase in some areas even as other areas face increased risk of drought and wildfire due to changes in wind patterns. For more information on GHGs and climate change in the

United States, visit

www.epa.gov/climatechange.

3. Improving Rule Effectiveness

EPA's third goal of this proposed rule is to improve the clarity and effectiveness of the regulations in subpart F. Achieving the health and environmental benefits of these rules depends on widespread compliance.

EPA has begun an initiative to improve the effectiveness of its rules called “Next Generation Compliance.” This is an integrated strategy designed to bring together the best thinking from inside and outside EPA on how to structure regulations and permits, combined with new monitoring and information technology, expanded transparency, and innovative enforcement. The vision for this initiative is to better motivate the regulated community to comply with environmental laws and inform the public about their performance. Most importantly, this initiative will help ensure that all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment and have access to information that allows them to more fully engage in environmental protection efforts.

The Agency has identified several interconnected components in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance's 2014-2017 strategic plan for Next Generation Compliance that can improve the effectiveness of rules:

• Effective Regulations: Design regulations that are clear, as easy to implement as possible, and that contain self-reinforcing drivers. For example, where possible, design regulations such that regulated facilities can take steps to monitor their own performance to prevent violations, or be certified by an independent 3rd party.

• Advanced Monitoring: Use advanced monitoring technology for the government, industry, and the public to more easily find information on pollutant discharges/emissions, environmental conditions, and noncompliance.

• Electronic Reporting: Implement electronic systems to make reporting easier, more efficient, and less costly. For the user, these systems offer speed, convenience, expanded information choices, and filing capabilities. For government, they offer the ability to increase transparency, improve our ability to spot pollution and compliance issues, and respond quickly to emerging problems.

• Transparency: Make the information we have today more accessible, and make new information obtained from advanced monitoring and electronic reporting publicly available.

• Innovative Enforcement: Use Next Generation Compliance principles and tools in enforcement planning and cases.

The National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program under section 608 of the CAA has incorporated compliance principles similar to those under this initiative since its inception. There are numerous self-reinforcing requirements, including the refrigerant sales restriction. By requiring anyone purchasing an ODS refrigerant to be certified, EPA effectively enforces the requirement that anyone maintaining, servicing, repairing, and disposing of an appliance be certified (excluding those disposing of small appliances, MVACs and MVAC-like appliances).

Another Next Generation Compliance principle that has been in the 608 refrigerant management program since the beginning is third party certification. These rules require certification of refrigerant recovery equipment by independent third parties (

i.e.,

UL and AHRI). Third party certifiers verify that recovery equipment meets the required minimum standards. Additionally, this ensures that technicians who use these devices to recover refrigerant are also using equipment that will meet the minimum refrigerant evacuation requirements if used following the manufacturer's instructions.

The Agency and industry have more than 20 years of experience implementing and operating under these regulations. Through that experience, it has become clear that there are sections of the regulations that could be improved or be clarified. This proposal attempts to clarify and simplify where possible.

One way that EPA seeks to provide simplicity and clarity to the regulated community, the public, and state, local, and Tribal governments is to treat ODS and substitute refrigerants similarly where it is appropriate to do so. EPA is therefore proposing to extend the existing requirements, as amended, to HFCs and other substitutes, as appropriate. In addition, EPA is proposing to revise many provisions of the regulations for clarity and to restructure the regulations to make it easier to find requirements for different affected entities. EPA is grouping the recordkeeping and reporting requirements closer to where the requirements are listed and removing outdated or unnecessary requirements. These proposed changes will extend to ODS substitutes those requirements that align with Next Generation Compliance principles and make it easier for the regulated community to understand what refrigerants are covered and what the requirements are, making it easier to comply with the regulation.

For each of the changes proposed in this notice, EPA solicits comments on the following:

• Implementation of the proposal: What challenges are anticipated in implementing or complying with the proposed rule? What steps might we consider to minimize those challenges?

• The clarity of the proposal: Is there anything that is unclear about what the proposed rule is asking the regulated community to do? When responding to this questions, commenters should describe what is confusing about the proposal, not what they do not like.

• The design of the rule: Is the proposed rule designed in a way to maximize the environmental benefits for the implementation effort required? Are there alternate approaches to features of this rule that would achieve the same environmental benefits or maximize the environmental benefits but would be easier to implement? If so, please explain or describe those approaches.

• The clarity of the regulatory text: Are any of the terms, definitions, or specific requirements in the regulatory language unclear or confusing? Which ones and what is confusing about them?

• The need for a comprehensive compliance guide or other compliance tools: What tools (brochures, videos, etc.) could EPA reasonably develop to aid the regulated community in complying with the rule?

• Incentives for going above and beyond compliance: What changes could EPA make to the proposed rule that would encourage environmental performance beyond the minimum requirements of the rule?

• Monitoring, measurement, and reporting: Are the monitoring requirements designed and sufficiently explained to ensure that regulated parties are fully aware of their performance, and to trigger action in the case of actual or potential noncompliance? Can monitoring data or other information about performance be made easily available to regulators and/or to the public in ways that would be useful and meaningful?

E. Stakeholder Engagement

EPA conducted extensive outreach to stakeholders affected by the refrigerant management regulations under section 608 of the CAA. In November 2014, EPA hosted an open meeting in Washington, DC, to discuss the Agency's goals and solicit feedback from stakeholders. More than 50 participants attended the meeting. To facilitate stakeholder

preparation for the meeting, EPA widely distributed a concept note that provided an update on progress to implement the President's Climate Action Plan and laid out questions the Agency was considering as it was developing this proposed rule. The slides from the presentation, the concept note, and a summary of the comments are included in the docket.

After the November stakeholder meeting, EPA held approximately 50 meetings with individual businesses, trade associations, and environmental organizations. The Agency also attended several conferences and association meetings to provide information, solicit input, and answer questions. A full list of meetings and conferences is included in the docket.

Finally, EPA reviewed past feedback on the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule to amend the leak repair regulations. A summary of comments received on the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule is included in the docket. EPA also reviewed comments on the 1998 proposal to extend the full suite of refrigerant management requirements under subpart F to HFCs and PFCs and is including a copy of those comments it reviewed from that proposal in the docket. EPA notes that the Agency is not treating comments on either of these prior proposals as comments on this rule. Therefore, to be formally considered as comments on this proposal, stakeholders must provide comments specifically to today's action even if the concepts proposed are the same or similar to those contained in comments on actions that the Agency has proposed previously.

F. What are the major changes EPA is proposing?

EPA is proposing numerous changes to the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program. Some of these changes are intended to strengthen the existing program, in particular by requiring a number of industry best practices. Others are intended to extend, as appropriate, the regulations to HFCs and other substitutes for ODS. Still other changes are meant to improve the effectiveness of the regulations. This section briefly introduces the reader to the major proposed changes. The reader can find detailed discussions of all of the proposals in Section IV of this notice.

1. Extend the Regulations To Cover Substitute Refrigerants

Section 608(c)(1) of the CAA, effective July 1, 1992, makes it “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.” This provision excludes “de minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of such substances” from the prohibition. Section 608(c)(2) extends the provisions of paragraph (c)(1) to substitutes for ODS refrigerants, effective November 15, 1995. Collectively, this self-effectuating prohibition, commonly referred to as the “venting prohibition,” is a central component of EPA's refrigerant management program.

EPA's current regulations at § 82.154(a) incorporate the venting prohibition, as well as the

de minimis

exemption. Then, the last sentence in § 82.154(a)(2) provides that “refrigerant releases shall be considered de minimis only if they occur when” (1) following the required practices in § 82.156, (2) using certified recovery and/or recycling equipment that meet the requirements of § 82.158, and (3) technicians are certified under the requirements in § 82.161; or when following the requirements of subpart B. In effect, consistent with the second sentence of section 608(c)(1), under these regulations EPA has defined

de minimis

releases of

refrigerants

during maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance as those that occur when the refrigerant management regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F or subpart B are followed. The term

refrigerant

is defined in § 82.152 for purposes of this subpart to mean any substance consisting in part or whole of a class I or class II ODS that is used for heat transfer purposes and provides a cooling effect. The term does not include substitute substances such as HFCs or ammonia, among others. Under these regulations, if someone maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance or IPR releases a class I or class II refrigerant in the course of following these requirements, they would not be in violation of the venting prohibition, but all other releases of ODS refrigerants during such activities would violate the venting prohibition.

While the conditions for the application of the

de minimis

exemption has been clearly elaborated on in the regulations for class I and class II refrigerants, and while the regulations expressly state what practices or measures can be employed to qualify for it, the regulations are less clear for substitute refrigerants like HFCs. Section 82.154(a)(2) states that “[d]e minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to recycle or recover . . . non-exempt substitutes are not subject to this prohibition” but does not provide any guidance about what constitutes such a “good faith attempt.” In contrast to ODS refrigerants, the regulations do not contain provisions for non-exempt substitute refrigerants to establish that releases that occur when following certain regulatory requirements are

de minimis

. Accordingly, regulated entities are left without clear guidance on how to abide by the venting prohibition as it relates to non-exempt substitutes.

Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to extend requirements of the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program to non-exempt substitutes and to clarify that the actions required to qualify for the

de minimis

exemption for non-exempt substitute refrigerants are the same as those for ODS refrigerants. As some release of substitute refrigerants is inevitable during the maintenance, servicing, repair, and disposal of appliances, these changes would give regulatory certainty to the many stakeholders that are already properly recovering substitute refrigerants during these activities, and would likely require only minimal if any change in business practices for them. These changes would also give stakeholders that are not following such practices for substitute refrigerants additional incentive to do so because it would describe how the venting prohibition applies to substitute refrigerants.

2. Strengthen Leak Repair Requirements

This proposal would strengthen the requirement to repair leaking appliances containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant, currently at § 82.156(i), to reduce emissions of ODS. Additionally, EPA is proposing to extend the amended requirements to HFCs and other substitutes to reduce emissions. The Agency also is aiming to make the requirements more proactive at preventing leaks by requiring industry best practices (

i.e.,

leak inspections).

EPA is proposing to lower applicable leak rates from their current levels of 35 percent for commercial refrigeration appliances and IPR and 15 percent for comfort cooling appliances to 20 percent and 10 percent, respectively. Based on stakeholder input and data collected by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and other sources, these levels are reasonable and will result in leaks being repaired

sooner than under the current approach. This is especially true for appliances containing substitute refrigerants, which are not currently covered by the leak repair provisions.

Some systems are leaking considerable amounts of refrigerant despite requirements to repair or retrofit leaking appliances. Based on feedback from CARB and a review of its data, EPA is proposing to create a two-year leak limit. Under this proposal, appliances containing 50 or more pounds of ODS or substitute refrigerant would not be allowed to leak more than 75 percent of the appliance's full charge in each of two consecutive 12-month periods. The CARB data indicate that few appliances leak above this level in any given year, and that these appliances are responsible for a large proportion of emissions. This requirement would likely affect few appliances, but would encourage owners or operators of appliances to more comprehensively repair or retire them when leaking such a substantial amount of refrigerant for two consecutive years.

EPA is also proposing to require periodic leak inspections to help identify leaks earlier. Regular leak inspections are widely recognized as a best practice to minimize refrigerant emissions. Under this proposal, all appliances with a full charge of 50 or more pounds of ODS or substitute refrigerant would have to conduct annual leak inspections to determine if the appliance is leaking. Commercial refrigeration appliances and IPR with a full charge of 500 or more pounds of ODS or substitute refrigerant would be required to conduct a leak inspection every three months. Alternatively, owners or operators can forgo periodic leak inspections by installing automatic leak detection systems and having it inspected and calibrated annually.

3. Extend the Sales Restriction to Substitute Refrigerants, With an Exception for Small Cans of MVAC Refrigerant

The existing regulations restrict the sale of ODS refrigerant to certified technicians. EPA is proposing to extend the sales restriction to substitute refrigerant sold in the United States. Due to the large do-it-yourself (DIY) community that have long serviced their personal MVACs, EPA has considered less costly ways to avoid restricting the sale of MVAC refrigerants to certified technicians while still reducing releases of non-exempt refrigerants. Therefore, EPA is proposing to exempt the sale of small cans (two pounds or less) of substitute refrigerant for the servicing of MVACs if the cans have a self-sealing valve. Self-sealing valves have been successful in reducing emissions during servicing in California where they are currently required.

4. Establish Recordkeeping for Appliances Containing Five to 50 Pounds of ODS and Substitute Refrigerant

The existing regulations have recordkeeping requirements for the disposal of appliances that contain 5 pounds or less of ODS refrigerant and those that contain 50 or more pounds of ODS refrigerant. As discussed above, EPA is proposing to extend those current recordkeeping requirements to appliances containing substitutes. In addition, EPA is proposing to require that technicians, or the company employing technicians, keep records of the amount of ODS and substitute refrigerant recovered when disposing of appliances that fall in the gap between those two size categories. EPA is also proposing to require recordkeeping documenting the quantity of ODS and substitute refrigerant transferred for reclamation or destruction that was recovered from those mid-sized appliances. Based on feedback from stakeholders when developing this rule, these records are often already maintained by contractors that are properly recovering refrigerant. Some stakeholders that adhere to the proper evacuation requirements have encouraged EPA to enforce against HVACR contractors that simply vent the refrigerant. These proposed records would improve compliance with the venting prohibition and facilitate enforcement against technicians who disregard the recovery requirements.

5. Update the Technician Certification Program

Under the existing regulations, technicians must be certified in order to work on appliances in a manner that could release ODS refrigerants to the environment. EPA is proposing to extend those requirements to appliances containing non-exempt substitutes. Because the questions on the certification exam are over twenty years old and because EPA is proposing to revise the existing program though this rule, EPA is planning to update and develop new questions for use to certify technicians.

EPA is also proposing to require that certifying organizations publish lists or create online databases of technicians that they certify. In addition to providing transparency to technicians' customers and refrigerant distributors and wholesalers, this requirement would also make it easier for technicians to replace lost credentials. The amount of time spent by technicians trying to identify the organization that certified them is significant. EPA and certifying programs also spend a significant amount of time helping technicians who have lost their certification card. Published lists or online databases of certified technicians would help make this process more efficient.

6. Improving Readability and Compliance and Restructuring the Requirements

EPA is proposing to make extensive revisions to the regulations in subpart F to more clearly state the requirements of the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program and to remove potentially ambiguous language. These proposed edits will improve compliance among the regulated community and facilitate enforcement by EPA.

First, EPA is proposing edits that would apply the principles of plain writing, based on guidance from the Office of the Federal Register. For example, EPA is proposing to add subheadings and plain English terms where appropriate. EPA's intent with many of these edits is to improve readability, not change the content. For edits that are substantive, EPA discusses these proposed changes in this preamble.

Second, EPA is proposing to divide § 82.156 “Required Practices” into three sections based on the topic. This proposal would create a new § 82.155 for provisions related to the safe disposal of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances. Section 82.156 would be amended to contain provisions related to the proper evacuation of refrigerant from appliances. This proposal would also create a new § 82.157 for provisions related to leak repair. EPA is also proposing to remove most of § 82.166, which currently contains the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for subpart F, and move specific recordkeeping and reporting provisions to the sections relevant to each record.

Third, EPA is proposing to remove unnecessary content such as provisions that have expired, definitions that simply restate the regulatory provisions, and definitions to terms that are no longer used. The rule would also combine and streamline repetitive text. Along those lines, this proposal would merge tables 2 and 3 in § 82.158 into a single table.

EPA is providing a red-line version of the regulatory text in the docket that

shows the edits to the current regulations to allow the reader to identify the specific proposed changes. EPA solicits comments generally on how to simplify and clarify the requirements in subpart F. Aside from the specific substantive changes discussed in this notice, EPA's intent is not to alter or reopen the substantive content of these regulations. Therefore, EPA also requests comments on the specific proposed edits to the regulatory text to make sure that they do not unintentionally change the underlying meanings or requirements of the rule.

III. The Clean Air Act and EPA's Authority for the Proposed Revisions

This section contains a summary of the relevant CAA provisions and a general description of how EPA interprets them to authorize the proposed revisions in this notice. More specific discussions of EPA's authority for certain revisions are included in further detail in the sections describing the corresponding revisions.

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

Section 608(a) requires EPA to promulgate regulations establishing standards and requirements for the use and disposal of class I and class II substances during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration appliances or IPR containing ODS. Such regulations shall include requirements to reduce the use and emission of ODS to the lowest achievable level, and to maximize the recapture and recycling of such substances. Section 608(a) further provides that “such regulations may include requirements to use alternative substances (including substances which are not class I or class II substances) or to minimize use of class I or class II substances, or to promote the use of safe alternatives pursuant to section [612] or any combination of the foregoing.”

Section 608(b) requires that the regulations issued pursuant to subsection (a) contain requirements for the safe disposal of class I and class II substances, including requirements that such substances shall be removed from such appliances, machines, or other goods prior to the disposal of such items or their delivery for recycling.

Section 608(c) establishes a self-effectuating prohibition, commonly called the “venting prohibition,” that generally speaking, makes it unlawful to knowingly release ODS and substitute refrigerants into the environment while servicing or disposing of air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment. More specifically, section 608(c)(1), effective July 1, 1992, makes it unlawful for any person in the course of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance or IPR to knowingly vent, release, or dispose of any ODS used as a refrigerant in such equipment in a manner that permits that substance to enter the environment. The statute exempts from this prohibition “[d]e minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose” of such a substance. Section 608(c)(2) extends the provisions of (c)(1), including the prohibition on venting to substitutes for class I and class II refrigerants, effective November 15, 1995, unless the Administrator determines that such venting, release, or disposal “does not pose a threat to the environment.” EPA has determined through prior rulemakings that specific substances do not pose a threat to the environment when vented, released, or disposed of and has exempted those specific substitutes from the venting prohibition. The full list of substitutes that EPA has exempted from this prohibition is at § 82.154(a).

5

5

EPA is using the term “non-exempt substitute” in this notice to refer to substitute refrigerants that have not been exempted from the venting prohibition under CAA section 608(c)(2) and 40 CFR 82.154(a).

On May 14, 1993, EPA published regulations implementing subsections (a), (b), and (c)(1) for ODS (58 FR 28660). These regulations include evacuation requirements for appliances being serviced or disposed of, standards and testing requirements for recovery and/or recycling equipment, certification requirements for technicians, purity standards and testing requirements for used refrigerant sold to a new owner, certification requirements for refrigerant reclaimers, leak repair requirements, and requirements for the safe disposal of appliances that enter the waste stream with the charge intact. This rule also stated that the Agency interprets “

de minimis

” to mean releases that occur while the recycling and recovery requirements of regulations under sections 608 and 609 are followed.

Section 608 of the CAA provides the primary statutory basis for the standards and requirements proposed in these regulations. The statutory standards under section 608(a) against which the regulations concerning the use and disposal of ozone-depleting substances are to be measured is whether they “reduce the use and emission of such substances to the lowest achievable level” and “maximize the recapture and recycling of such substances.” In the context of recycling, these standards are complementary,

i.e.,

maximizing recycling will also mean reducing the use and emission of these substances to the lowest achievable level. These standards also bear a relationship to the

de minimis

releases permitted in section 608(c). In other words, emissions that occur while complying with EPA's recovery and recycling requirements, which result in the lowest achievable level of emissions, are considered

de minimis.

The phrase “lowest achievable level” as used in section 608(a)(3) is not clear on its face as to whether economic factors should be considered in determining what is the “lowest achievable level.” Title VI does not further explain or define the term nor does it expressly state whether economic factors may or must be considered. Thus, EPA has discretion to adopt a reasonable interpretation. EPA has previously interpreted this phrase to allow the consideration of economic factors.

See

58 FR 28659, 28667 (May 14, 1993). EPA is not proposing to change that interpretation and has considered economic as well as technological factors in the development of this proposed rule. This is consistent with the statement made on the floor of the House of Representatives by Representative Ralph Hall shortly before passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 that “[i]n promulgating regulations [under section 608] the Administrator shall take into account the extent to which emissions reductions can be achieved, the costs and benefits of implementing available controls, and the time before which certain uses may no longer rely on the covered substances” (Cong Rec H 12907 (Oct 26, 1990)).

The phrase “de minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of any such substance” as used in section 608(c)(1) and as applied to substitutes through section 608(c)(2) is similarly not clear on its face as to whether economic factors may be considered in determining what is

de minimis.

Title VI does not further address this issue. Thus, EPA has discretion to adopt a reasonable interpretation. EPA interprets this phrase to allow the consideration of economic factors. The Senate Manager's

Statement for the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 indicates that “the exception is included to account for the fact that in the course of properly using recapture and recycling equipment, it may not be possible to prevent some small amount of leakage” (Cong. Rec. S 16948 (Oct. 27, 1990)). EPA does not read this statement as expressing an intent that the Agency consider only technological factors in setting standards for recapture and recycling equipment and the proper use of such equipment. Rather, EPA understands it as meaning that once those standards are set, only the small amount of emissions that cannot be prevented by following such standards should be exempted.

Because the statutory language does not dictate a particular means of taking economic factors into account, if at all, EPA has discretion to adopt a reasonable means. In developing this proposed rule, EPA has not applied a strict cost-benefit test, but rather has focused primarily on the state of air conditioning and refrigeration best practices and recovery technology, while also giving consideration to costs and benefits. The fact that industry has identified and uses these best practices indicates they are at least reasonable from a cost perspective. As discussed in the appliance maintenance and leak repair section (section VI.F of this preamble), EPA considered what is achievable from a technical perspective, while also considering the costs of the proposed requirements and the benefits from those changes when determining whether to establish new requirements. See the technical support document in the docket for sensitivity analyses conducted on various options.

Generally, the proposed requirements reflect the performance of the lowest-emitting equipment and practices in each sector under commonly encountered conditions in the field, taking into account that the variability of those conditions is significant in each air-conditioning and refrigeration sector. For example, some appliances generally have more leaks than others. An industrial process refrigeration appliance can have thousands of pounds of refrigerant running through miles of piping, resulting in numerous opportunities for leaks to occur, whereas a household refrigerator typically has about one pound of refrigerant in a hermetically sealed refrigerant loop that rarely leaks. EPA has proposed requirements that reflect that difference.

EPA also considered costs in many specific aspects of this proposal. For example, EPA considered the costs of extending the refrigerant sales restriction to small cans of non-exempt substitutes used for MVAC servicing. Based on those considerations, EPA decided to propose requiring manufacturers install self-sealing valves on small cans rather than limiting the sale of small cans to certified technicians only. Finally, EPA relied heavily on the existing program and requirements already in place for ODS refrigerants rather than developing a new and separate set of requirements for non-exempt substitutes. This will allow the regulated community to use existing compliance procedures where applicable to reduce emissions of non-exempt substitutes rather than having to develop wholly new approaches to managing compliance.

Authority for Extending 608 to Substitutes

In this rule, EPA is proposing to extend, as appropriate, provisions of the refrigerant recovery and/or recycling regulations, which currently only apply to ODS refrigerants, to non-exempt substitute refrigerants. EPA's authority for this action rests largely on section 608(c), which EPA interprets, as described below in more detail, to provide authority to promulgate regulations to interpret, implement, and enforce the venting prohibition, as it applies to both ODS refrigerants and non-exempt substitutes. EPA's authority to issue implementing regulations for section 608(c) is supplemented by section 301(a), which provides authority for EPA to “prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out [the EPA Administrator's] functions under this Act.” In addition, EPA's authority to extend the recordkeeping and reporting requirements to substitutes is supplemented by section 114, which provides authority to the EPA Administrator to require recordkeeping and reporting in carrying out provisions of the CAA. Finally, as explained in more detail below, the extension of requirements under 608 to non-exempt substitutes in this proposal is also provided in section 608(a) because it would reduce emissions of ODS refrigerants.

Section 608 of the CAA is ambiguous with regard to EPA's authority to establish refrigerant management regulations for substitute refrigerants. As Congress has not precisely spoken to this issue, EPA has the discretion to adopt a permissible interpretation of the CAA.

Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.

v.

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,

467 U.S. 837, 843-44 (1984). Primarily under the authority of section 608(a), EPA has established standards for the proper handling of ODS refrigerants during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of an appliance to maximize the recovery and/or recycling of such substances and reduce the use and emission of such substances. Section 608(a) expressly requires EPA to promulgate regulations that apply to class I and class II substances, but is silent on whether its requirements apply to substitute substances. On the other hand, section 608(c)(2) contains provisions for substitute refrigerants which parallel those for ODS refrigerants in section 608(c)(1). For instance, as for ODS refrigerants under section 608(c)(1), section 608(c)(2) prohibits knowingly venting, releasing, or disposing of any substitute refrigerant during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of an appliance in a manner which permits the substance to enter the environment.

6

This creates a tension or ambiguity because the regulated community is subject to an explicit and self-effectuating prohibition on venting or releasing non-exempt substitute refrigerants while servicing or disposing of equipment but at the same time is not explicitly required by section 608(a) to recover and recycle substitute refrigerant prior to servicing or disposing of equipment or to engage in any of the practices or behaviors that EPA has established to minimize the emission and release of ODS refrigerants.

6

As noted above, this venting prohibition does not apply to substitutes for which the Administrator has made a determination that such venting, release, or disposal “does not pose a threat to the environment” under CAA 608(c)(2). As indicated elsewhere in this proposal, EPA is not proposing to extend the requirements of the refrigerant management program to substitutes that have been exempted from the venting prohibition in this action.

Moreover, the Agency is aware that some amount of refrigerant, whether ODS or substitute, is inevitably released during the maintenance, servicing, repair, and disposal of air-conditioning or refrigeration appliances or equipment. Without a clear regulatory framework for determining what requirements apply during the maintenance, servicing, repair, and disposal of such equipment containing a non-exempt substitute refrigerant, it could be unclear to the regulated community and the public whether such releases violate the venting prohibition and what steps must be taken to comply with CAA obligations for such substitute refrigerants in undertaking such actions. Accordingly, it is appropriate to issue regulations to clarify how the venting prohibition and the

de minimis

exemption apply to non-

exempt substitute refrigerants, as is proposed in this rulemaking. In doing so, EPA intends to clarify that the regulated community may rely on the

de minimis

exemption to the venting prohibition if they follow the amended requirements in subpart F.

Consistent with the language of sections 608(c)(1) and (2), these revisions aim to avoid knowing releases of non-exempt substitute refrigerants into the environment in the course of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance or IPR, unless those releases meet the criteria for

de minimis

releases. Section 608(c)(1) provides an exemption from the venting prohibition for “[d]e minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of any such [class I or class II] substance.” In this context, EPA interprets this provision to exempt releases that occur while the recycling and recovery requirements of regulations under sections 608 and 609 are followed and has promulgated regulations that implement that interpretation. In particular, as explained above, EPA has incorporated both the venting prohibition and the

de minimis

exemption into the regulations at § 82.154(a). Further, the last sentence in § 82.154(a)(2) provides that “refrigerant releases shall be considered de minimis only if they occur when” enumerated regulatory practices in either § 82.156, § 82.158, and § 82.161, or, alternatively, subpart B are followed. These requirements are the ones established in 1993, as explained above and as periodically amended. The term

refrigerant,

however, is defined in § 82.152 for purposes of this subpart to mean 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. As such, this term does not include substitute substances. In addition, EPA has not yet applied the recycling and recovery requirements to non-ODS substitutes, and therefore these provisions which make clear how to qualify for the

de minimis

exemption for ODS refrigerants do not currently apply for substitute refrigerants.

Section 608(c) can be interpreted such that the statutory

de minimis

exemption contained in section 608(c)(1) also applies to substitute refrigerants. Section 608(c)(2) states that, effective November 15, 1995, “paragraph 1 shall also apply” to the venting, release, or disposal of any substitute substance for class I or class II substances. As section 608(c)(2) incorporates “paragraph 1” it is reasonable to interpret it to also contain this

de minimis

exemption. However, the CAA does not explicitly address what should be considered “good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose” for substitute refrigerants. Moreover, the statutory provisions that require EPA to promulgate regulations addressing recapturing and recycling requirements and safe disposal requirements in section 608(a) and 608(b) expressly mention that they apply to ODS refrigerants but are silent as to application to substitute refrigerants. This silence and the corresponding tension between these provisions creates an ambiguity in section 608 and a gap that EPA may fill with a permissible interpretation.

Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.

v.

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,

467 U.S. 837, 843-44 (1984). While Congress did not expressly mention substitutes in section 608(a), EPA does have authority under the Act to establish regulations creating a program to address management of ODS refrigerants and their substitutes, including authority to implement the venting prohibition under section 608(c) for both substitutes and ODS, and the revisions proposed today are important to implementing those statutory authorities.

Consistent with the interpretation of section 608(c)(2) as incorporating the

de minimis

exemption, EPA's regulations at § 82.154(a)(2) state that “[d]e minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to recycle or recover . . . non-exempt substitutes are not subject to this prohibition,” thus extending the statutory

de minimis

exemption from the venting prohibition to good faith efforts to recycle or recover non-exempt substitute refrigerants. However, in contrast to the regulations for ODS refrigerants, the regulations do not provide any specific provisions to explain how to determine what constitutes such a “good faith attempt” with respect to substitute refrigerants. Thus, the regulations are currently unclear as to what requirements or practices regulated parties must follow to qualify for the

de minimis

exemption, and thereby comply with the venting prohibition, for non-exempt substitute refrigerants.

On June 11, 1998, EPA proposed to extend the

de minimis

exemption in section 608(c)(1) to substitute refrigerants and to issue regulations under section 608(c)(2) that implement and clarify the venting prohibition for substitutes (63 FR 32044). As stated in that proposed rule, “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.”

In the final rule issued March 12, 2004 (69 FR 11946), EPA extended the 608(c)(1)

de minimis

exemption only to blends containing an ODS component. As stated in that rule at 69 FR 11949:

[V]enting 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.

This interpretation that the statutory

de minimis

exemption applies to substitutes is consistent with the interpretation of section 608(c)(1) and (2) that EPA articulates in this section. The March 2004 Rule then goes on to state at 69 FR 11953 that:

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.

Following the March 12, 2004, rulemaking, the Administrator promulgated a direct final rule to amend the regulatory definitions of

refrigerant

and

technician,

as well as the venting prohibition, to correct and clarify the intent of those regulations (70 FR 19273, April 13, 2005). As part of that change, EPA edited the regulatory venting prohibition to reflect the statutory

de

minimis

exception in section 608(c)(2). As explained at 70 FR 19275:

In accordance with section 608(c)(2) of Title VI of the Clean Air Act (as amended in 1990),

de minimis

releases associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of such substitutes shall not be subject to the prohibition. EPA has not promulgated regulations mandating certification of refrigerant recycling/recovery equipment intended for use with substitutes; therefore, EPA is not including a regulatory provision for the mandatory use of certified recovery/recycling equipment as an option for determining

de minimis

releases of substitutes. However, the lack of a regulatory provision should not be interpreted as an exemption to the venting prohibition for non-exempted substitutes. The regulatory prohibition at § 82.154(a) reflects the statutory reference to

de minimis

releases of substitutes as they pertain to good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of such substitutes.

In order to emphasize that the knowing venting of HFC and PFC substitutes remains illegal during the maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of appliances and to make certain that the

de minimis

exemption for refrigerants remains in the regulatory prohibition, § 82.154(a) is amended to reflect the venting prohibition of section 608(c)(2) of the Act.

In that action, EPA added the phrase “De minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to recycle or recover refrigerants

or non-exempt substitutes

are not subject to this prohibition” to § 82.154(a)(2) (emphasis added). However, because EPA has not extended the section 608 recycling and recovery requirements to substitute refrigerants, it is unclear how this exception applies to non-exempt substitute refrigerants that do not contain an ODS. As EPA has stated previously, the Agency is aware that some amount of refrigerant is released during the servicing of appliances even if precautions to avoid such releases are taken. For ODS refrigerants, the regulations on recovery and recyling provide certainty to the regulated community that if specific practices that EPA has identified are followed, regulated entities will not be held liable for releases of small amounts of refrigerant incidental to these actions. These regulations support the recovery or recycling of refrigerants and reduce the emissions of such substances. To provide the same clarity and certainty to the regulated community for substitute refrigerants, it is important to clarify how this exemption applies to non-exempt substitute refrigerants that do not contain an ODS. To do so, EPA is proposing to extend the amended regulations concerning emissions reduction and recapture and recycling of CFC and HCFC refrigerants, found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F, to all substitute refrigerants that have not been exempted from the venting prohibition under § 82.154(a)(1).

Regulations intended to minimize the release and maximize the recapture and recovery of non-exempt substitutes will reduce the release and increase the recovery of ozone-depleting substances. For that reason, this proposal is additionally supported by the authority in section 608(a). Improper handling of substitute refrigerants is likely to contaminate appliances and recovery cylinders with mixtures of ODS and non-ODS substitutes. In particular, technician certification and a sales restriction help to ensure that persons lacking the expertise tested through certification do not release or contaminate ODS refrigerants in the course of using non-exempt substitutes to recharge or perform other work on systems that contain ODS. Contaminated appliances can lead to failures and emissions from those systems. Contaminated cylinders are less valuable to reclaimers and may not even be accepted by reclaimers as the mixed gas may no longer be cost-effectively recycled. Often, contaminated cylinders simply have to be destroyed. The costs of handling or properly disposing of these mixed refrigerants incentivizes intentional releases to the atmosphere. Therefore contamination can lead to the release of class I and class II substances. In addition, applying one consistent set of requirements to all relevant refrigerants will promote compliance with and enforcement of those requirements for both ODS refrigerants and their substitutes by reducing complexity.

EPA further notes that under the current definition of

refrigerant

any substance that consists in whole or in part of a class I or class II ODS and is used for heat transfer and provides a cooling effect, is a refrigerant and is subject to the requirements for ODS. However, when a regulated entity believes it is using a substitute refrigerant, and that substitute becomes contaminated with ODS, the contamination may not be apparent to the user, and thus, the user may not be aware that the requirements for refrigerants apply to that substance.

In sum, the authority to promulgate regulations regarding the use of class I and II substances encompasses the proper handling of alternatives where this is needed to reduce emissions and maximize recovery of class I and II substances. Applying one consistent set of requirements to all non-exempt refrigerants will promote compliance with and enforcement of those requirements for both ozone-depleting refrigerants and their substitutes by reducing complexity and clarifying requirements.

Authority for Amendments to Provisions Related to ODS

In addition to extending the existing regulations in subpart F to substitute refrigerants, EPA is also proposing the following amendments related to ozone-depleting substances: Lowered leak rates, required leak inspections, two-year leak limits, and recordkeeping requirements for the disposal of appliances containing between five and 50 pounds of refrigerant. EPA is also proposing to update and revise many provisions in subpart F to improve clarity and enforceability. EPA's authority for these amendments is based primarily on section 608(a), which requires EPA to promulgate regulations regarding the use and disposal of class I and II substances to “reduce the use and emission of such substances to the lowest achievable level” and “maximize the recapture and recycling of such substances.” In addition, because EPA is further elaborating the requirements and practices that regulated parties must follow to qualify for the

de minimis

exemption from the venting prohibition, EPA is drawing on its authority under section 608(c). EPA's authority for these actions is also supplemented by section 301(a) and 114, as described above.

EPA solicits comments on all aspects of the discussion in this section concerning its authority for the revisions proposed today, including comments on its authority to extend the amended regulations concerning emissions reduction and recapture and recycling of CFC and HCFC refrigerants, found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F, to all non-exempt substitute refrigerants.

How CAA Sections 608 and 609 Work Together

While Section 608 covers all appliances, Section 609 of the CAA directs EPA to establish requirements to prevent the release of refrigerants during the servicing of MVACs specifically. MVACs are defined as mechanical vapor compression refrigeration equipment used to cool the driver's or passenger's compartment of any motor vehicle. EPA also regulates MVAC-like appliances under this section, which are used to cool the driver's or passenger's compartment of off-road vehicles, including agricultural and construction vehicles.

Under section 609, no person repairing or servicing motor vehicles for consideration may perform any service on an MVAC that involves the refrigerant without properly using

approved refrigerant recovery or recovery and recycling equipment and no such person may perform such service unless such person has been properly trained and certified. Refrigerant handling equipment must be certified by EPA or an independent organization approved by EPA. Section 609 also prohibits the sale or distribution of any class I or class II MVAC refrigerant in a container of less than 20 pounds to any person that is not certified under section 609.

Regulations issued under section 609 are in 40 CFR part 82, subpart B. Subpart B includes information on prohibitions and required practices (§ 82.34), approved refrigerant handling equipment (§ 82.36), approved independent standards testing organizations (§ 82.38), and certification, recordkeeping, and public notification requirements (§ 82.42). Appendices A-F of subpart B provide standards for minimum operating requirements for MVAC servicing equipment.

The section 608 regulations found in 40 CFR part 82, subpart F are applicable to MVAC and MVAC-like appliances because MVAC and MVAC-like appliances are included in the statutory definition of appliances in section 601(1). Because servicing and technician training and certification are regulated under section 609, EPA's section 608 regulations defer to those requirements. Procedures involving MVACs that are not regulated under section 609, such as the disposal of MVACs and the purchase of refrigerant for use in MVAC, are covered by section 608. The prohibition against venting ODS and substitute refrigerants in section 608 is also applicable to refrigerants used in MVAC and MVAC-like appliances.

Through this rulemaking EPA is proposing to extend the provisions of section 608 to alternatives to ODS, including those used in MVACs. EPA is not updating the regulations under section 609 as part of this rulemaking because the 609 regulations have been applicable to all substitute substances since 1995.

7

7

The Agency has indicated plans to issue a separate proposed rule to consider adopting standards from the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) for servicing equipment in 40 CFR subpart B. These standards are: SAE J2843 R-1234yf Recovery/Recycling/Recharging Equipment for Flammable Refrigerants for Mobile Air-Conditioning Systems, SAE J2851 Recovery Equipment for Contaminated Refrigerant from Mobile Automotive Air Conditioning Systems, and SAE J3030 Automotive Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment Intended for Use with Multiple Refrigerants. In a separate future proposed rule, EPA intends to propose to incorporate by reference these standards developed by SAE International's Interior Climate Control Committee.

IV. The Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Changes to the Definitions in Section 82.152

EPA is proposing to update and clarify many of the definitions in subpart F. EPA is also proposing to add new definitions and remove definitions that have the sole purpose of restating the required practice. In general, these changes are to improve readability, increase consistency with how the term is used in the regulatory text, and specifically incorporate substitute refrigerants as appropriate.

Proposed changes to each term are discussed individually below, except for the terms

refrigerant

and

appliance

as well as

full charge

and

seasonal variance

which are sufficiently interrelated to require joint discussions.

EPA requests comments on all of the proposed changes to the definitions below. The Agency is particularly interested in comments on newly defined terms and on changes to definitions that affect the scope and requirements of subpart F.

Refrigerant and Appliance

The existing definitions in subpart F are written to separate ozone-depleting substances from non-ozone-depleting substitutes. As relevant here, section 601 of the CAA defines an

appliance

as a “device which contains and uses a class I or class II substance as a refrigerant.” Class I and class II substances are defined as substances listed under sections 602(a) or (b), respectively. Section 601 of the CAA does not define

refrigerant

. EPA's existing regulations at § 82.152 reach that definition through a two-step process. First EPA defined an

appliance

as a device which contains and uses a

refrigerant

. Then EPA defined the term

refrigerant

as solely class I or class II ozone-depleting substances, or mixtures containing a class I or class II ODS.

Defining these terms in this manner was appropriate before section 608(c)(2) took effect on November 15, 1995. Under section 608(c)(2), the venting prohibition applies to substitutes for ODS refrigerants and, accordingly, it states that “[f]or purposes of this paragraph” the term

appliance

includes any “device which contains and uses as a refrigerant a substitute substance.” However, EPA has not updated the definition of appliance in subpart F to reflect section 608(c)(2). Because EPA regulations still define an

appliance

as a device that contains and uses a refrigerant, and

refrigerant

in such a way that does not include substitutes, substitutes are thereby excluded from the regulatory definition of the term

appliance

. This leads to confusing results throughout subpart F. As only one example among many that could be provided, the purpose and scope section in § 82.150(b) states that this subpart applies to any person servicing, maintaining, or repairing appliances. Under the regulatory definition substitutes are not used in appliances, but regulations later in this subpart, at § 82.154(a)(1), state that no person maintaining appliances may knowingly vent any substitute from such appliances unless one of the regulatorily defined exceptions applies. This proposed rule attempts to clear up these inconsistencies by defining and using regulatory terms more consistently.

EPA is proposing to revise the definition of appliance so that it encompasses the usage of the term in sections 601 and 608 of the CAA. This rule proposes to define appliance as any device which contains and uses a class I or class II substance

or substitute

(emphasis added) as a refrigerant and which is used for household or commercial purposes, including any air conditioner, motor vehicle air conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or freezer. This proposed change would make the regulatory definition consistent with sections 601 and 608 of the CAA, improve internal consistency of the regulations, and increase clarity for the regulated community.

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of refrigerant to include any substance, including blends and mixtures, consisting in part or whole of a class I or class II ozone-depleting substance

or substitute

(emphasis added) that is used for heat transfer purposes and provides a cooling effect. This proposed definition would note that the term refrigerant would include blends as well as mixtures of refrigerants.

EPA is proposing this approach so as to define refrigerant according to the way the term is currently understood. From an engineering standpoint, it does not matter whether or not a compound is an ODS to function as a refrigerant. This amended definition is closer to how the term is commonly understood. Broadening the term also brings other terms in subpart F such as

refrigerant circuit

or

reclaimed refrigerant

more in line with common usage.

Apprentice

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term

apprentice

to replace the “Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training” with the “Office of

Apprenticeship” to match the current name of the office. EPA is also proposing minor edits to improve clarity and readability.

Approved Equipment Testing Organization

EPA is proposing to remove the defined term

approved equipment testing organization

. The current definition is merely a reference to the section of the CFR that discusses the characteristics of such an organization. EPA is proposing to remove the definition to increase readability.

Certified Refrigerant Recovery or Recycling Equipment

EPA is proposing to remove the defined term

certified refrigerant recovery or recycling equipment.

The current definition merely refers to the sections of the CFR that discuss the certification program. This term is also used inconsistently throughout subpart F as “recovery and recycling equipment,” “recovery or recycling equipment,” “recycling and recovery equipment,” and “recycling or recovery equipment.” The regulations at § 82.36 make a distinction, in the context of MVAC servicing, between equipment that only recovers refrigerant and equipment that both recovers and recycles refrigerant. The regulations in subpart F generally do not make a distinction. The standards in appendices B1 and B2 refer to recovery and/or recycling equipment while the standard in appendix C for small appliances refers to recovery equipment only. For consistency, this rule proposes to use “recovery and/or recycling equipment” throughout, except for when referring only to small appliances.

Class I and Class II

EPA is proposing to create regulatory definitions for the terms

class I

and

class II

ozone-depleting substances. These terms are currently defined in section 601 of the CAA and in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A. EPA is not proposing a different meaning. Adding definitions to subpart F can assist the reader as these terms are currently not explained in the definitions section and are used frequently in the regulations. EPA's proposed definition of class I is an ozone-depleting substance that is listed in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, appendix A. Similarly, EPA's proposed definition of class II is an ozone-depleting substance that is listed in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, appendix B. EPA notes that the regulatory text uses class I substance, class I ODS, and class I refrigerant interchangeably (and similarly uses class II substance, class II ODS, and class II refrigerant interchangeably) and all are intended to have the same meaning for the purpose of subpart F.

Comfort Cooling

EPA is proposing to create a definition for the term

comfort cooling

. The leak repair provisions divide refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment into three categories: Comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration. EPA has previously defined commercial refrigeration and industrial process refrigeration but not comfort cooling.

For purposes of the leak repair requirements, EPA is proposing to define comfort cooling as the air-conditioning appliances used to provide cooling in order to control heat and/or humidity in facilities including but not limited to office buildings and light commercial buildings. Comfort cooling appliances include building chillers and roof-top self-contained units. They may be used for the comfort of occupants or for climate control to protect equipment within a facility, such as but not limited to computer rooms.

EPA seeks comments on the applicability of the proposed definition of comfort cooling to air-conditioning equipment that is typically used to provide cooling and or humidity control in such environments.

Commercial Refrigeration

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of

commercial refrigeration

for clarity by removing the sentence that this equipment typically contains a charge size over 75 pounds. While accurate, this sentence has caused some confusion as to whether or not the leak repair requirements are applicable to appliances with a full charge between 50 pounds, as stated in the leak repair required practices, and 75 pounds. The Agency feels that the phrase is not required since the threshold for the leak repair requirements is a refrigerant charge of 50 pounds or greater. EPA is proposing to define

commercial refrigeration

as the refrigeration appliances used in the retail food and cold storage warehouse sectors. Retail food includes the refrigeration equipment found in supermarkets, convenience stores, restaurants and other food service establishments. Cold storage includes the refrigeration equipment used to store meat, produce, dairy products, and other perishable goods.

Critical Component

EPA is proposing to remove the defined term

critical component

and add the term

component

. EPA proposed the same change in the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule. As discussed in that rule, EPA considers components as the parts of the appliance that make up the refrigerant circuit such as the compressor, heat exchangers (condenser and evaporator), and valves (

e.g.,

heat recovery, expansion, charging). Other components may include receivers, manifolds, filter driers, and refrigerant piping. The meaning of the definition can be preserved without classifying the component as critical.

Owners or operators of IPR may be granted additional time to make repairs if critical components cannot be delivered within the necessary time. Later in this action, EPA discusses its proposal to create a consistent set of extensions to the leak repair regulations for all types of appliances. The unavailability of a component is not a situation unique to owners or operators of IPR. Owners or operators of comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances should be granted the same flexibility as owners and operators of IPR when requesting additional time to make repairs due to the unavailability of components. Having similar requirements for all affected appliances also provides for a more consistent set of regulations that should reduce the complexity of the current leak repair regulations. Therefore, EPA is proposing to amend the definition so that it is not limited to IPR, but also includes comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances.

EPA also proposes to replace the current defined term

critical component

with the newly defined term

component,

which would mean an appliance part, such as, but not limited to, compressors, condensers, evaporators, receivers and all of its connections and subassemblies. The term

component

is intended to be broader so everything that would have been covered under the term

critical component

would be included.

Custom-Built

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term

custom-built

to remove a citation to a section of the regulation that has moved.

Disposal

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term

disposal

to clarify that the disposal process includes the destruction of an appliance that releases or would release refrigerant to the

environment. This proposed change is intended to cover activities such as vandalism or the cutting of refrigerant lines, both to steal metal and to vent the refrigerant. EPA is also proposing to clarify that the disassembly of an appliance for recycling, as well as reuse, is part of the disposal process. EPA does not believe that these changes alter the current understanding of the term and is proposing them to increase clarity.

Follow-Up Verification Test

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term

follow-up verification test

to remove duplicative text covered in § 82.156 “Required Practices.” The proposed revisions describe what the test is and how it is conducted and not what the regulatory requirements of the test are, which this rule proposes to move to § 82.157(f). EPA is proposing to define

follow-up verification test

as those tests that involve checking the repairs to an appliance after a successful initial verification test and after the appliance has returned to normal operating characteristics and conditions to verify that the repairs were successful. Follow-up verification tests include, but are not limited to, the use of soap bubbles, electronic or ultrasonic leak detectors, pressure or vacuum tests, fluorescent dye and black light, infrared or near infrared tests, and handheld gas detection devices.

EPA is not proposing to specify one test that would satisfy the definition of follow-up verification. In addition, these methods are not meant to be all-inclusive, but are intended to provide examples of known methodologies of performing leak repair verification tests.

Full Charge and Seasonal Variance

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term

full charge

to account for seasonal variances and to make minor edits for readability. EPA noted in the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule that owners or operators of commercial refrigeration appliances and IPR have expressed concerns that the full charge may not be accurately determined due to seasonal variances that may alter the amount of refrigerant in an appliance. Seasonal variances in ambient temperature and pressure have the effect of forcing refrigerant to different appliance components (for example, from an appliance's receiver to the condenser).

EPA proposed in 2010 to allow owners or operators to estimate the effect that seasonal variances have on appliance components by making calculations based on component sizes, density of refrigerant, volume of piping, and other relevant considerations. EPA continues to believe that owners or operators should be able to take seasonal variances into account in determining the full charge. Unlike the 2010 proposal, EPA is proposing that seasonal variances be accounted for using the actual amount of refrigerant added to or evacuated from the appliance, rather than estimates.

EPA is proposing to define

full charge

as the amount of refrigerant required for normal operating characteristics and conditions of the appliance as determined by using one or a combination of the following four methods:

(1) Use of the equipment manufacturer's determination of the full charge;

(2) Use of appropriate calculations based on component sizes, density of refrigerant, volume of piping, and other relevant considerations;

(3) Use of actual measurements of the amount of refrigerant added to or evacuated from the appliance, including for seasonal variances; and/or

(4) Use of an established range based on the best available data regarding the normal operating characteristics and conditions for the appliance, where the midpoint of the range will serve as the full charge.

EPA is proposing to create a defined term

seasonal variance

to mean the addition of refrigerant to an appliance due to a change in ambient conditions caused by a change in season, followed by the subsequent removal of an equal amount of refrigerant due to a later corresponding change in season, where both the addition and removal of refrigerant occurs within one consecutive 12-month period. The proposal to account for seasonal variance when calculating appliance leak rates is discussed further in Section IV.F. of this preamble.

Unlike in the 2010 proposal, EPA is not proposing to require that an owner or operator choose solely one method rather than a combination of methods to determine full charge. There are instances where multiple methods may be necessary to accurately determine the full charge. In addition, EPA is not proposing that owners or operators commit to the same method for the life of the appliance. However, as discussed later in this notice, EPA is proposing to require a written record of the full charge, the method(s) used to determine the full charge, and any changes to that amount.

High-Pressure Appliance

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term

high-pressure appliance

to update the list of example refrigerants. The proposed changes to the terms

appliance

and

refrigerant

carry over into this term as well. Therefore, under the proposed revisions high-pressure appliances would include those that use ODS and non-ODS refrigerants. EPA is proposing to update the list of example refrigerants with the most common types currently used in these systems, including ODS and non-ODS refrigerants. Specifically, these are R-22, R-407A, R-407C, R-410A, and R-502.

Industrial Process Refrigeration

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term

industrial process refrigeration

to make minor clarifications for readability and to remove a citation to a section of the regulation that has moved. EPA is proposing to define

industrial process refrigeration

as complex customized appliances that are directly linked to the processes used in, for example, the chemical, pharmaceutical, petrochemical, and manufacturing industries. This sector also includes industrial ice machines, appliances used directly in the generation of electricity, and ice rinks. Where one appliance is used for both industrial process refrigeration and other applications, it will be considered industrial process refrigeration equipment if 50 percent or more of its operating capacity is used for industrial process refrigeration.

Industrial Process Shutdown

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term

industrial process shutdown

to remove a citation to a section of the regulation that has moved.

Initial Verification Test

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term

initial verification test

to remove duplicative text covered in the required practices section of the regulation. The proposed revisions describe in general terms what the test is, not what the requirements of the test are. The purpose of the test is to verify that an appliance has been repaired prior to adding refrigerant back into the system. The requirements for an initial verification test are described in Section IV.F.10 of this preamble. EPA is proposing to define

initial verification test

as those leak tests that are conducted as soon as practicable after the repair is finished to verify that a leak or leaks have been repaired before refrigerant is added back to the appliance.

Leak Inspection

EPA is proposing to create a new defined term

leak inspection

. EPA is proposing to require that owners or operators conduct annual or quarterly leak inspections for appliances normally containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant. EPA is proposing to define leak inspection as the examination of appliances using a calibrated leak detection device, a bubble test, or visual inspection for oil residue in order to determine the presence and location of refrigerant leaks.

This definition appropriately covers the techniques currently used to detect the location of leaks. This term encompasses activities that can be performed by someone who is not a certified technician, unlike some of the activities listed in the definition of the term follow-up verification test. The proposed term for leak inspection does not include activities that would assist in determining whether a system is leaking generally, such as viewing receiver levels, pressure gauges, or adding refrigerant. However, EPA encourages persons conducting leak inspections to also review receiver levels if applicable.

Leak Rate

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term

leak rate

to change the calculation performed under what is called Method 2 under the existing rules. Currently, the first step of that method is to take the sum of the quantity of refrigerant added to the appliance over the previous 365-day period (or over the period that has passed since leaks in the appliance were last repaired, if that period is less than one year). Instead of the cut-off being since the last repair (if less than 365 days), EPA is proposing to amend Step 1 to cover the period of time since the last successful follow-up verification test (if less than 365 days have passed since the last refrigerant addition). This proposed change would improve the clarity of the requirements, because under the existing definition, it is unclear if the repair has to be successful in order to be considered in the leak rate calculation; these proposed revisions are intended to clarify that it must be. As discussed later in this preamble, EPA is proposing to allow repairs and initial and follow-up verification tests to occur in the same visit by a certified technician. This will likely result in the verification tests occurring on the same day as the repair.

EPA is also proposing to rename the two methods from Method 1 and Method 2 to “Annualizing Method” and “Rolling Average Method” to improve readability. Finally, EPA is proposing to clarify that while the same leak rate calculation must be used for all appliances at the same facility, this only refers to the appliances subject to the leak repair provisions (

i.e.

appliances normally containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant).

Low-Pressure Appliance

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term

low-pressure appliance

to update the list of example refrigerants. The proposed changes to the terms

appliance

and

refrigerant

carry over into this term as well. Therefore, under the proposed revisions low-pressure appliances would include those that use ODS and non-ODS refrigerants. EPA is proposing to update the list of example refrigerants with the most common types currently used in these systems, including ODS and non-ODS refrigerants. Specifically, these are R-11, R-123, R-113, R-245fa, and R-1233zd(E).

Medium-Pressure Appliance

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term

medium-pressure appliance

to update the list of example refrigerants. The proposed changes to the terms

appliance

and

refrigerant

carry over into this term as well. Therefore, under the proposed revisions medium-pressure appliances would include those that use ODS and non-ODS refrigerants. EPA is proposing to update the list of example refrigerants with the most common types currently used in these systems, including ODS and non-ODS refrigerants. Specifically, these are R-114, R-124, R-12, R-134a, and R-500.

Mothball

EPA is proposing to change the defined term

system mothballing

to

mothball

to reflect how it is used in the regulations. Mothballing an appliance suspends the time needed to complete repairs, retrofit or retirement plans, or completion of a retrofit or retirement for IPR that have triggered the leak repair requirements. The current exemption for system mothballing at § 82.154(i)(10) is available only for IPR. EPA is proposing to extend that exemption to all appliances, therefore EPA is proposing to remove the reference to “refrigeration” appliances in the definition. The current definition also requires that the appliance be shut down for “an extended period of time.” EPA does not believe that the length of time that the system is shut down is controlling, but rather that the system has been removed from service temporarily, as opposed to permanently retired, and that the refrigerant has been evacuated. EPA is also proposing to clarify that the suspension of time ends when refrigerant is added back into the appliance. The revised definition also notes that refrigerant can be evacuated from an isolated component of the appliance and makes minor edits to improve clarity and readability. Therefore, EPA is proposing the term

mothball

to mean to evacuate refrigerant from an appliance, or the affected isolated section or component of an appliance, to at least atmospheric pressure, and to temporarily shut down that appliance.

Normal Operating Characteristics and Conditions

EPA is proposing to change the defined term

normal operating characteristics or conditions

by replacing “or” with “and” for consistency through the regulations and to accurately describe the intended state of the appliance to which this term refers. EPA is also proposing to remove a reference to a section of the regulation that has moved. EPA is further proposing to add a reference to the appliance's full charge. Operating at full charge is a necessary element of an appliance's normal characteristics and it should be reflected in the definition. Finally, EPA is clarifying that this term extends to all appliances, not just refrigeration appliances. This term is currently used in the regulatory text in reference to all types of air-conditioning and refrigeration systems.

Normally Containing a Quantity of Refrigerant

EPA is proposing to remove the defined term

Normally containing a quantity of refrigerant

. This term merely indicates the quantity of refrigerant in an appliance at full charge and it may be confusing to have two defined terms to make the same point. EPA is proposing to replace this term wherever it is found with the phrase “with a full charge of.”

One-Time Expansion Device

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term

one-time expansion device

to make clear that this includes devices that can store multiple charges, which are released individually to the environment to provide a cooling effect. EPA is proposing to define

one-time expansion device

as an appliance that relies on the release of its refrigerant charge to the environment in order to provide a cooling effect. These are typically single releases but could also include products that are designed

to release refrigerant to the environment through multiple individual charges.

Opening an Appliance

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term

opening an appliance

to improve readability.

Reclaim

EPA is proposing to change the defined term

reclaim refrigerant

to

reclaim

so as to match usage in the regulatory text. EPA is also proposing to update the Air Conditioning, Refrigeration, and Heating Institute (AHRI) standard referenced in the definition. This updated standard includes non-ODS refrigerants.

Recover

EPA is proposing to change the defined term

recover refrigerant

to

recover

so as to match usage in the regulatory text.

Recycle

In the context of recycling refrigerant, EPA is proposing to change the defined term

recycle refrigerant

to

recycle

so as to match usage in the regulatory text. EPA is also proposing to clarify in the definition that reuse of recycled refrigerant must occur in equipment of the same owner or operator. EPA has previously prohibited in § 82.154(g) the sale of used refrigerant unless it has been reclaimed or is being transferred to an appliance owned by the same parent company or by the same Federal agency or department. EPA is also making minor changes to improve readability.

Retire

EPA is proposing to create a defined term

retire

in reference to appliances to mean the disassembly of the entire appliance including its major components, such that the appliance as a whole cannot be used by any person in the future. Retirement means that any remaining refrigerant would be recovered from the appliance followed by the dismantling and disposal of the appliance components. Retirement differs from mothballing as defined at § 82.152 because a mothballed appliance is simply evacuated and shut down until it is ready to be used once again, whereas retirement involves a permanent shutdown and disassembly of an appliance. Retirement should also not be confused with a repair.

Repair

is not expressly defined in the subpart F regulations. It may include the removal of a faulty component, but such removal does not mean that the appliance as a whole has been removed from service and rendered unfit for use by the current or any future owner or operator. Throughout this rule, “replacement” or “replace” may be used when discussing a situation where an existing appliance is retired, and replaced with another appliance. In some instances, however, the owner or operator may choose to only retire and not replace an appliance so the two terms are not always used together.

Retrofit

EPA is proposing to create a defined term

retrofit.

As discussed in the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule, many appliance owners or operators have incorrectly equated the two terms

retrofit

and

repair

. EPA does not view a retrofit or the need to retrofit as a repair. Although

repair

is not expressly defined in the subpart F regulations, EPA considers a repair to include an action that addresses the leaking appliance or the affected component(s) of the leaking appliance. Repairs may include replacement of components or component subassemblies, whereas EPA uses the term

retrofit

to refer to a change to the appliance in order to convert it to the use of a different refrigerant. EPA does not use the term to apply to upgrades or repairs to existing equipment where the refrigerant is not changed. Retrofits often require changes to the appliance (for example, change in lubricants, filter driers, gaskets, o-rings, and in some cases, components) in order to acquire system compatibility.

Self-Sealing Valve

EPA is proposing to create a defined term

self-sealing valve

. A self-sealing valve means a valve affixed to a container of refrigerant that automatically seals when not actively dispensing refrigerant and that meets or exceeds established performance criteria as identified in § 82.154(f)(2). The purpose of a self-sealing valve is to prevent or minimize inadvertent release of refrigerant to the environment during the use and storage of the container of refrigerant. EPA discusses the requirement for self-sealing valves for small cans of MVAC refrigerant in more detail in Section IV.H.4 of this preamble.

Small Appliance

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term

small appliance

to remove the reference to class I and class II refrigerants. The proposed changes to the terms

appliance

and

refrigerant

carry over into this term as well. Therefore, under this proposal small appliances would include those that use ODS and non-ODS refrigerants. EPA is also proposing to add portable air conditioners to the list of example appliances.

Substitute

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term

substitute

to remove the phrases “EPA-approved” and “in a given refrigeration or air-conditioning end-use.” These phrases are references to the SNAP program, which identifies acceptable alternatives to ODS for specific end-uses. EPA is proposing to remove this reference because the Agency has recently changed the status of certain refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable for new retail food refrigeration equipment, vending machines, and motor vehicle air conditioning (80 FR 42870; July 20, 2015). EPA does not mean to imply that finding a refrigerant to be unacceptable in a given end-use under SNAP means that it is no longer included within the term substitute and thus by extension the term refrigerant. Were that the case, those substitutes could be inadvertently exempted from the safe handling requirements of subpart F. EPA is making this change to prevent that confusion, especially since the Agency is allowing for the servicing of existing appliances designed to use refrigerants that the Agency recently listed as unacceptable in new (and in some cases) retrofitted appliances. In the revised definition, any chemical or product, whether existing or new, that is used by any person as a replacement for a class I or II ozone-depleting substance would be considered a substitute, even if it has been recently listed as unacceptable under SNAP in some end-uses. As discussed above, EPA is also proposing to incorporate the term

substitute

within the term

refrigerant

.

By defining the term

substitute

in this way, and incorporating it into the definition of refrigerant, EPA intends to apply the requirements in subpart F to all substances that are functionally refrigerants, including but not limited to HFCs, PFCs, HFOs, hydrofluoroethers, and hydrocarbons. Multiple stakeholders at the November 2014 meeting encouraged EPA to treat all refrigerants in the same manner. With the exception of those substances specifically exempted from the venting prohibition, requiring all substances used as refrigerants to be handled in the same manner will reduce confusion and ultimately prevent emissions of both ODS refrigerants and non-ODS, high-GWP refrigerants. As discussed later in this notice, EPA will continue to exempt through regulation certain substitutes from the venting prohibition, and the other safe handling provisions in

subpart F, based on a determination that their release does not pose a threat to the environment. This is the case in the current regulations, for instance, with all approved uses of hydrocarbon refrigerants, ammonia, and CO

2

.

Suitable Replacement Refrigerant

EPA is proposing to remove the defined term

suitable replacement refrigerant

. The existing leak repair regulations allow for additional time to retrofit or retire an appliance using an ODS refrigerant if a suitable replacement refrigerant with a lower ozone depletion potential is unavailable. This is the only place this term is used in subpart F. EPA is proposing to remove the extension due to the unavailability of a suitable replacement, as discussed in Section IV.F.13 of this notice. It is therefore appropriate to remove the term from the list of definitions.

System Receiver

EPA is proposing to create a defined term

system receiver

to provide clarity to the reader. This definition is currently found in a parenthetical in the regulatory text at § 82.156(a). This term is used when describing the required practices to properly evacuate refrigerant from an appliance and the definition does not introduce any new concepts to the evacuation requirements currently stated in the parenthetical. EPA is proposing to define system receiver to mean the isolated portion of the appliance, or a specific vessel within the appliance, that is used to hold the refrigerant charge during the servicing or repair of that appliance.

Technician

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term

technician

to improve clarity. The revised definition highlights that the determining factor for being a technician is the performance of actions that could reasonably be expected to violate the integrity of the refrigerant circuit. In general, only technicians should be performing actions that could violate the integrity of the refrigerant circuit and could therefore release refrigerant into the environment. The exception to that general statement, which the revised definition makes clear, is that persons maintaining, servicing, or repairing MVACs and persons disposing of small appliances, MVACs, or MVAC-like appliances do not need to be technicians. This proposed change does not affect the scope of the existing requirements but rather is intended to address feedback from stakeholders that the Agency should clarify which activities must be conducted by technicians and which need not be.

The current definition of technician also includes a non-exclusive list of example activities that are reasonably expected to violate the integrity of the refrigerant circuit as well as examples of activities that do not. EPA considered proposing to create a separate definition for that term but found it unnecessary to do so as it only appears within the definition of technician. EPA is proposing to make changes to these examples for clarity and to add the following two examples of activities reasonably expected to violate the integrity of the refrigerant circuit: Adding or removing components and cutting the refrigerant line. EPA is proposing to add these to the list of examples to improve the enforceability of these regulations.

Very High-Pressure Appliance

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of the term

very high-pressure appliance

to update the list of example refrigerants. The proposed changes to the terms

appliance

and

refrigerant

carry over into this term as well. Therefore, under the proposed revisions very high-pressure appliances would include those that use ODS and non-ODS refrigerants. EPA is proposing to update the list of example refrigerants with the most common types currently used in these systems, including ODS and non-ODS refrigerants. Specifically, these are R-13, R-23, R-503, R-508A, and R-508B.

Voluntary Certification Program

EPA is proposing to remove the defined term

voluntary certification program

. This term references a provision in the regulations that grandfathered in technicians who were certified prior to the establishment of the technician certification program in subpart F. EPA is proposing to remove these grandfathering provisions and therefore is proposing to remove the definition as well. The rationale for proposing to remove this grandfathering provision is discussed with the technician certification proposals below.

B. Proposed Changes to the Venting Prohibition in Section 82.154

1. Background

As explained in section III of this notice, § 82.154(a) currently prohibits the venting of ODS refrigerants and non-ODS substitutes to the environment. This regulatory provision also currently provides an exemption to the venting prohibition for certain substitutes in specific end-uses based on a determination that the listed substitutes in the listed end-uses do not pose a risk to the environment when released. This section also exempts from the venting prohibition

de minimis

releases of ODS refrigerants and non-exempt substitute refrigerants, and defines

de minimis

releases of ODS refrigerants to be those releases that occur when the other provisions of subpart F (or subpart B in the case of MVACs) are followed.

2. Applying the de Minimis Exemption to Substitute Refrigerants

The knowing venting, release, or disposal of substitutes for class I and class II refrigerants during maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of an appliance or IPR is expressly prohibited by section 608(c)(1) and (2) of the CAA, effective November 15, 1995, unless the Administrator determines that such venting, release, or disposal does not pose a threat to the environment. This prohibition is commonly called the venting prohibition. As explained in more detail above, section 608(c)(1) establishes the venting prohibition for class I and class II substances, and also establishes an exemption from the prohibition for

de minimis

releases associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of “any such substance.” The statutory language of section 608(c)(2) extends paragraph 608(c)(1) to substitutes for class I and class II substances used as refrigerants in appliances and IPR. This extension includes the prohibition on venting and the exemption for

de minimis

releases associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of such substances.

For class I and II substances EPA has interpreted those releases that occur despite compliance with EPA's required practices for recycling and recovery under § 82.156, including use of recovery and/or recycling equipment certified under § 82.158, and technician certification programs under § 82.161 as

de minimis

. Thus, compliance with these regulations represents “good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose” of refrigerant. Accordingly, the regulations at § 82.154(a)(2) currently provide that releases of ODS refrigerants are considered

de minimis

only if they occur when the other provisions of subpart F (or subpart B in the case of MVACs) are followed. As noted above, although the regulations at § 82.154(a) exempt

de minimis

releases of non-exempt substitutes from the venting prohibition, the regulations do not provide any express guidance for such substitutes as to what practices are

considered “good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose” of the substitute such that incidental releases would qualify for the

de minimis

exception.

EPA proposes to interpret the phrase “good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose” similarly when it applies to substitute refrigerants under section 608(c)(2) as when it applies to ODS refrigerants under section 608(c)(1). Thus, compliance with the proposed provisions and revisions regarding evacuation of equipment, use of certified equipment, and technician certification in any instance where a person is opening (or otherwise violating the refrigerant circuit) or disposing of an appliance, as defined in § 82.152 would represent “good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose” of substitute refrigerants. EPA considers these provisions to appropriately represent good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of substitute refrigerants for the reasons discussed in EPA's justification of each proposed provision below. Under this approach, emissions that take place during servicing or disposal when these provisions are not followed would not be

de minimis

emissions and would be subject to the venting prohibition. Conversely, this approach together with the proposal to include substitute refrigerants in the definition of the term refrigerant, would mean that substitute refrigerants would be included in the regulatory clarification that releases are only considered

de minimis

if they occur when these procedures or those under subpart B are followed.

It is impossible to open appliances (or otherwise violate the refrigerant circuit) or dispose of appliances without emitting some of the refrigerant in that circuit, even if an effort is made to recapture. Even after the appliance has been evacuated, some refrigerant remains, which is released to the environment when the appliance is opened or disposed of. Other activities that fall short of opening or disposing of the appliance but that involve violation of the refrigerant circuit also release refrigerant, albeit in very small quantities, because connectors (

e.g.,

between hoses or gauges and the appliance) never join together without intervening space. Even in the best case in which a good seal is made between a hose and an appliance before the valve between them is opened, some refrigerant will remain in the space between the valve and the outer seal after the valve is closed. This refrigerant will be released when the outer seal is broken. Thus, whenever a person opens an appliance (or otherwise violates the refrigerant circuit) in the course of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing that appliance, he or she could violate the venting prohibition unless the exception for

de minimis

releases applies. Because EPA is proposing to define the exception for substitute refrigerants such that it only applies when the person complies with the existing refrigerant management provisions, compliance with the proposed provisions will ensure that any releases incidental to these practices will be considered

de minimis

and thus will not violate the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2). EPA invites comments on applying these provisions of subpart F to substitute refrigerants.

3. Exempting Certain Substitutes From the Venting Prohibition

EPA is proposing to explicitly state in the regulatory text that the substitutes exempted from the venting prohibition in § 82.154(a)(1) are also exempt from the other provisions of subpart F. EPA has previously determined that these substances do not pose a threat to the environment when vented or otherwise released. Given that decision, it would generally not make sense to require procedures for recovery or safe disposal, or to apply other provisions of subpart F to those exempt refrigerants. This is consistent with the intent of section 608(c)(2), which states that the Administrator may determine that not just the venting but also the “releasing, or disposing” of such substance does not pose a threat to the environment. EPA does not view this as a substantive change but rather as a clarification of the existing regulations. This proposed revision will also help to ensure that the extension of substantive requirements to substitutes does not inadvertently lead to application of those requirements to exempt substitutes.

EPA is also proposing to reorganize the list of exempt substitutes by refrigerant type for readability. All of the specific end-uses for that substance would appear in one place. EPA is not proposing any changes to those end-uses or adding or removing any substitutes from the list.

4. Releases From Containers

EPA is moving the existing regulatory provision in § 82.154(a)(2) that states that the venting prohibition applies to the release of refrigerant (both ODS and non-exempt substitute refrigerants) after its recovery from an appliance. EPA is moving this provision to a separate subparagraph (§ 82.154(a)(3)) rather than its current location in the description of a

de minimis

release. Standing alone should make the provision clearer that it is a violation of the venting prohibition to vent or otherwise release refrigerant after that refrigerant is recovered from an appliance, whether from cylinders, recovery equipment, or any other storage container or device. EPA wishes to highlight that the venting prohibition cannot be obviated through using a recovery device and subsequently releasing the refrigerant. This is especially important because refrigerant recovered from appliances may be contaminated or be a mixture of multiple refrigerants. Such refrigerant may be difficult to reclaim or may require a fee for proper disposal or destruction. In light of those difficulties, it is important to emphasize that venting this refrigerant, even though it is in a cylinder and not an appliance, is illegal.

5. Removing Effective Dates

EPA is proposing to remove the effective dates in § 82.154(a) and elsewhere in subpart F wherever it makes sense to do so. These other locations are § 82.154(d)-(f) and (i)-(k), § 82.156(f), § 82.158(a) and (n), § 82.161(a), and § 82.164(a). Many of the effective dates are 1993 or 1994 when the program was established and it is now well understood that these provisions currently apply. Others refer to the specific standards for recovery and/or recycling equipment, which EPA addresses below. EPA does not want to remove an effective date where it is important for understanding the timing of the regulations. For example, EPA is proposing to remove the separate effective date references in § 82.154(a) but may decide to leave the June 9, 2015, effective date for the alternatives added under a recent SNAP rule (April 10, 2015; 80 FR 19454) as it is relatively new. EPA specifically encourages comments on whether removing effective dates in most instances is appropriate, both in § 82.154(a) and in other provisions of subpart F.

C. Proposed Changes to the Refrigerant and Appliance Sales Restrictions in Section 82.154

1. Background

Under the current regulations at § 82.154(m), the sale or distribution of a refrigerant containing a class I or class II substance, such as R-12, or refrigerant blends that include HCFCs, is restricted to technicians certified under sections 608 or 609 of the CAA. The sale or distribution of any class I or class II substance suitable for use in an MVAC that is in a container of less than 20 pounds may only be sold to technicians

certified under section 609. For example, any person who sells or distributes R-12 for use in an MVAC and that is in a container of less than 20 pounds must verify that the purchaser has obtained certification by an EPA-approved section 609 technician training and certification program.

The current regulations at § 82.154(g) also restrict the sale of used ODS refrigerant sold for reuse unless certain conditions are met, the most important of which is that the refrigerant has been reclaimed. Sections 82.154(j) and (k) prohibit the sale of appliances containing an ODS refrigerant unless the appliance has a servicing aperture or process stub to facilitate the removal of refrigerant at servicing and disposal. Section 82.154(p) also currently prohibits the manufacture or import of one-time expansion devices that contain any refrigerant (ODS or non-ODS), other than exempted refrigerants.

2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants

EPA is proposing to extend the sales restriction to HFCs and other non-exempt substitute refrigerants. The sales restriction would apply to non-exempt substitute refrigerants sold in all sizes of containers for use in all types of appliances. However, as discussed below, EPA is proposing to create an exception for small cans (two pounds or less) of refrigerant intended to service MVACs, so long as the cans are equipped with a self-sealing valve. EPA is also proposing to extend the restriction on the sale of used refrigerant to include used non-exempt substitute refrigerants and require that appliances containing such substitute refrigerants contain a servicing aperture or process stub to allow for recovery of the refrigerant.

To extend the sales restriction, EPA is proposing to remove references to class I and class II substances where appropriate in these provisions and to replace them with the term

refrigerant,

which EPA is proposing to amend in § 82.152 to include substitutes. To avoid confusion, EPA is proposing to add a provision specifically noting that the sales restriction does not apply to substitutes that are exempt from the venting prohibition. EPA is also proposing to amend the purpose and scope statements at § 82.150, both of which describe the sales restriction as only affecting class I or class II ODS. EPA is proposing to add the term

substitutes

to these purpose and scope statements to clarify that the sales restriction, as well as the other provisions of the rule, would apply to ODS and substitute refrigerants.

EPA restricted the sale of ODS refrigerant to certified technicians as a means of ensuring that only qualified individuals—those who have sufficient knowledge of the safe handling regulations—actually handle refrigerant. EPA considers the restriction on the sale of ODS refrigerant to be important for ensuring compliance with and aiding enforcement of the regulations issued under section 608 and section 609 of the CAA. This requirement also fits in well with EPA's Next Generation Compliance strategy since compliance with this requirement is largely carried out by distributors who sell refrigerant to technicians. Limiting the sale of substitute refrigerants to technicians who have demonstrated knowledge of safe handling practices is important to minimizing the release of refrigerants during the maintenance, servicing and repair of appliances containing substitute refrigerants. A sales restriction for substitute refrigerants is also vital to extending the technician certification requirements to individuals working with substitute refrigerants. EPA more fully discusses later in the preamble how section 608(c) of the CAA provides authority for extending the technician certification program. As an element of that program, the same legal authority applies to the sales restriction.

EPA is not proposing to rely on section 608(b)(2) of the CAA which explicitly requires servicing apertures or other similar design features for appliances containing an ODS refrigerant. Instead, in order to comply with the section 608(c) prohibition against the venting, release, or disposal of substitute refrigerants into the environment, similar design features must also be present on appliances containing such substitutes. These access points allow for the proper evacuation or recovery of substitute refrigerant, preventing releases to the atmosphere. Without these access points, it would be harder for persons servicing or disposing of such appliances to properly evacuate the refrigerant in accordance with § 82.156(b). Additionally, since refrigerant in an appliance will eventually leak out in the disposal process, such as when an appliance is crushed or shredded, failing to remove refrigerant prior to disposal could lead to a knowing release of refrigerant. These equipment requirements would prevent subsequent knowing releases of refrigerant.

One-time expansion devices, by design, release their refrigerant charge to the environment in order to provide a cooling effect. Examples include self-chilled beverage containers that must be disposed of or recycled after each use, as well as reusable containers. The existing regulations limit the manufacture or import of one-time expansion devices to only those that contain exempted refrigerants. However, the definition of one-time expansion device refers to them as

appliances

containing a

refrigerant,

both of which under the existing regulations refer only to ODS refrigerants. This rule would clarify that ambiguity and clearly limit one-time expansion devices to those using exempt refrigerants.

In addition to fully implementing 608(c) by clarifying how regulated entities may avail themselves of the

de minimis

exemption to the venting prohibition, these proposed changes would apply the same requirements for sales of ODS and substitute refrigerants (except those that are exempt from the 608(c) prohibition on venting), as well as for appliances containing ODS and substitute refrigerants. This should reduce potential confusion for the person maintaining, servicing, repairing and disposing of appliances, resulting in fewer releases of ODS and substitute refrigerants. For this reason, identical treatment will help to reduce ODS emissions to the lowest achievable level and lead to more recovery and recycling or reclamation of ODS.

EPA also has authority under section 301(a) of the CAA to “prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out [its] functions under this Act.” As described above, section 301(a) provides additional authority for EPA to establish a sales restriction as a way to further implement the 608(a) and 608(c)(2) statutory requirements. EPA solicit

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