*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1 of 320

EO12866_CAA Part 82F 2060-AS51 NPRM FRN 20151002

6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0453; FRL-XXXX]

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.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 2 of 320

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [insert date 60 days after publication in the 

Federal Register]. 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 

[insert date 7 days after publication in the Federal Register]. If a public hearing is requested, the 

hearing will be held on or around [insert date 15 days after publication in the Federal Register]. 

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 [insert date 30 days after date of publication in the Federal 

Register].

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 3 of 320

guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luke Hall-Jordan, Stratospheric Protection 

Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 6205T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

N.W., Washington, D.C., 20460; telephone number (202) 343-9591; e-mail address halljordan.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
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 4 of 320

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

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
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 5 of 320

CO2- 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

MMTCO2eq- 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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 6 of 320

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 

AirConditioning 

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 423990, 562212, 562920 Materials recovery facilities, solid waste 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 7 of 320

Recyclers of 

Appliances

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 ozonedepleting 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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 8 of 320

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?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 9 of 320

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 (MMTCO2eq). The reductions in emissions of GHGs and ODS 

 

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.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 10 of 320

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.

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. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 11 of 320

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 ozonedepleting refrigerants recovered during the maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of airconditioning 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 ozonedepleting 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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 12 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 13 of 320

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 7002and 7403, 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.

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 

 

2 The Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute Standard 700, Specification for Fluorocarbons and Other 

Refrigerants, contains standards for the reclamation of used refrigerants. 

3The 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.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 14 of 320

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 reproposes 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 nonmechanical heat transfer;
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 15 of 320

- 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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 16 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 17 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 18 of 320

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 (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), HFCs, PFCs, and sulfur hexafluoride 

(SF6) — 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 

 

4 The President’s Climate Action Plan, 2013, 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 19 of 320

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.

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 MMTCO2eq. Of this amount 3.7 MMTCO2eq

are due to HFCs and 3.8 MMTCO2eq 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, HFC134a, 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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 20 of 320

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 MMTCO2eq in 2050, which is comparable to 

the drop in annual GHG emissions of ODS of 8,000 MMTCO2eq 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 CO2 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 CO2 emissions in 2050 based on the IPCC’s 

highest CO2 emissions scenario and equivalent to 27 to 69 percent of CO2 emissions based on the 

IPCC’s lowest CO2 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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 21 of 320

benefits of the amendment proposal would yield significant reductions of over 90 gigatons of 

carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) 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 nonozone-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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 22 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 23 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 24 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 25 of 320

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 (CO2), 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 MMTCO2eq 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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 26 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 27 of 320

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.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 28 of 320

 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. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 29 of 320

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. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 30 of 320

 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.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 31 of 320

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
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 32 of 320

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 selfeffectuating 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, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 33 of 320

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.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 34 of 320

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.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 35 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 36 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 37 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 38 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 39 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 40 of 320

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

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. 

 

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).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 41 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 42 of 320

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.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 43 of 320

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 nonexempt 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-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 44 of 320

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.6This creates a 

tension or ambiguity because the regulated community is subject to an explicit and selfeffectuating 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 

 

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.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 45 of 320

or to engage in any of the practices or behaviors that EPA has established to minimize the 

emission and release of ODS refrigerants. 

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 airconditioning 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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 46 of 320

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 nonODS 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. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 47 of 320

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.” 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 48 of 320

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). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 49 of 320

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 nonexempted 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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 50 of 320

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 nonexempt 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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 51 of 320

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.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 52 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 53 of 320

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

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. 

 

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 R1234yf 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.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 54 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 55 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 56 of 320

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.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 57 of 320

Class I and Class II

EPA is proposing to create regulatory definitions for the terms class I and class II ozonedepleting 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.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 58 of 320

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.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 59 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 60 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 61 of 320

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, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 62 of 320

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, R407C, 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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 63 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 64 of 320

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. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 65 of 320

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 mediumpressure 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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 66 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 67 of 320

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, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 68 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 69 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 70 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 71 of 320

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 CO2. 

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
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 72 of 320

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 MVAClike 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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 73 of 320

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 highpressure 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-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 74 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 75 of 320

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. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 76 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 77 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 78 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 79 of 320

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 nonODS), 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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 80 of 320

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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 81 of 320

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. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 82 of 320

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 solicits comments on its 

authority for the proposed changes to these regulations.

3. Sales of Small Cans

EPA is generally proposing to extend the sales restriction to substitute refrigerants but is

also proposing a limited exception for small cans of MVAC refrigerant (two pounds or less). 

Historically, individuals have been able to purchase small cans of non-ODS refrigerant to service

their own vehicles. This do-it-yourself (DIY) servicing is unique among the air-conditioning and 

refrigeration sector to the MVAC end-use. If the sales restriction were simply extended to 

substitute refrigerants without change, the sale of both small containers of refrigerant, which are 

used exclusively for DIY servicing of MVAC systems, and large (e.g. 25- or 30-pound) cylinders 

of refrigerant used by technicians to service MVAC and other appliances would be limited to 

certified technicians. As discussed below, this could be unnecessarily burdensome. A less 

burdensome option that EPA is proposing is to exempt small cans of MVAC refrigerant from the 

sales restriction and require that manufacturers install self-sealing valves that minimize the 

release of refrigerant during servicing.

In the United States, HFC-134a has been used in all newly manufactured vehicles with 

air-conditioning systems since 1994 and almost all small cans of refrigerant sold for MVAC DIY 

use contain HFC-134a.8 Recently, the SNAP program listed HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and 

carbon dioxide (CO2 or R-744), three climate-friendly alternatives for MVAC, as acceptable 

 

8 ODS refrigerant for MVAC servicing that is sold in cylinders less than 20 pounds is currently restricted to 

technicians certified under section 609 of the CAA.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 83 of 320

subject to use conditions for use in new light-duty vehicles. Manufacturers are currently 

producing or are actively developing light-duty models using these three refrigerants. The 

proposed exception for small cans would apply to HFC-134a, HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, as well 

as any additional MVAC refrigerants listed as acceptable subject to use conditions under SNAP 

that are not exempt from the venting prohibition. Because CO2 is exempt from the venting 

prohibition, it will not be subject to sales restrictions or, in turn, this exception. Currently, EPA 

has not received a submission of a unique fitting for use on a small can of HFO-1234yf; 

therefore, currently this refrigerant cannot be sold in small cans to individuals at this time.

Most small cans are purchased by individuals servicing their own personal vehicles. 

Based on the NPD Automotive Aftermarket Industry Monitor, 2008, approximately 14 million 

small cans are sold each year. If EPA were to extend the sales restriction to small cans, 

individuals who normally service their own MVAC would be required to either seek certification 

under section 609 or take their car to a technician to be serviced. EPA estimates that the cost 

associated with those two actions could be as much as $1.5 billion per year. For more details, see 

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

and Emission Reduction Program in the docket.

In lieu of a costly sales restriction on small cans used for MVAC servicing, EPA sought 

input on alternate mechanisms for reducing refrigerant releases from those cans. EPA reached 

out to the Auto Care Association and the Automotive Refrigeration Products Institute, two 

associations that represent the vast majority of manufacturers of small cans in the United States. 

The organizations referred EPA to California’s program, and in particular suggested that EPA 

consider CARB’s requirement that manufacturers install self-sealing valves on small cans. The 

organizations indicated that a nationwide requirement for self-sealing valves would be preferred 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 84 of 320

to a sales restriction and would be a less costly way to reduce emissions. EPA then consulted 

with CARB to see if they had suggestions on ways to reduce refrigerant releases from small cans

and to learn more about their experience with self-sealing valves. Based on California’s 

experience, self-sealing valves are an effective way to reduce emissions of HFCs used to service 

MVACs without limiting sales to certified technicians. These valves reduce the release of 

refrigerant during servicing and may also reduce releases from the can after the servicing is 

complete. 

According to industry representatives and CARB, self-sealing valves are estimated to 

cost $0.25 per can. Manufacturers are already producing small cans with self-sealing valves to 

meet California’s requirements. EPA heard from the manufacturers of those cans that they would 

not find it to be unduly burdensome to extend that restriction to all cans produced for sale in the 

United States, especially as compared to an extension of the sales restriction that would prohibit 

the sale of small cans completely. Because they are incorporated into the product, consistent with 

EPA’s Next Generation compliance principles, the individual servicing her or his personal 

MVAC would reduce emissions without any additional effort or training, as compared to using 

small cans of refrigerant on the market today that do not employ the self-sealing valve. Selfsealing valves would thus be an effective mechanism for controlling the release of refrigerant to 

the atmosphere.

EPA is proposing to create in appendix E a standard for self-sealing valves that is based 

largely on CARB’s Test Procedure for Leaks from Small Containers of Automotive Refrigerant, 

TP-503, as amended January 5, 2010. To be consistent with the CARB standard and existing 

small cans that are already on the market, the leakage rate may not exceed 3.00 grams per year 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 85 of 320

when the self-sealing valve is closed. This leakage rate applies to full containers as well as 

containers that have been used and are partially full.

As described in Analysis of the Economic Impact and Benefits of Proposed Revisions to 

the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program, EPA estimates that a nationwide 

requirement to use self-sealing valves on all small cans will reduce emissions by more than 

657,000 MTCO2eq. per year. EPA also anticipates there could be additional emissions reductions 

to the extent the self-sealing valves allow individuals to store and re-use the same can of 

refrigerant, reducing the need to buy additional small cans. Currently, a small can is typically 

used in one vehicle and then discarded with some refrigerant still remaining in the can. EPA 

estimates that the cost for this requirement would be approximately $3 million. EPA anticipates 

that the cost for self-sealing valves will decrease over time as manufacturers increase production 

and achieve greater economies of scale.

EPA’s authority for this requirement is primarily in sections 608(c) and 301(a) of the 

CAA. EPA has the authority to require that anyone purchasing small cans of refrigerant be a 

certified technician, one element of the subpart F provisions needed to ensure that releases 

during the servicing of appliances are considered de minimis and thus exempt from the venting 

prohibition. However, EPA is proposing to require self-sealing valves as a lower cost option for

minimizing the release of refrigerant during the servicing of MVACs. The requirement for selfsealing valves helps implement the venting prohibition under section 608(c) because it helps 

ensure that refrigerant is not released while servicing MVACs. The Agency is proposing to

revise the regulations to clarify that any person servicing their personal MVAC with a small can 

that has a self-sealing valve installed may rely upon the de minimis exemption to the venting 

prohibition. As described previously, section 301(a) of the CAA provides supplemental authority
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 86 of 320

for the Agency to “prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out [its] functions under 

this Act.” In this case, section 301(a) provides additional authority for EPA to require selfsealing valves on all small cans of substitute refrigerant sold after a date in the future to 

implement the 608(c)(2) venting prohibition.

Small cans of refrigerant sold for MVAC servicing are different from containers of 

refrigerant sold for stationary refrigeration and air-conditioning in that the small cans for MVAC 

are required to have unique fittings. The SNAP program requires as a use condition for MVAC 

refrigerants that the container and the MVAC system use unique fittings to prevent crosscontamination. If used properly, the unique fittings will not allow for the introduction of HFC134a refrigerant into a system using HFO-1234yf or another substitute refrigerant. Using an 

adapter or deliberately modifying a fitting to use a different refrigerant is a violation of the 

SNAP use conditions. EPA also believes that the unique fittings could reduce the likelihood that 

a small can will be used to service appliances other than MVACs that use substitute refrigerants, 

in contravention of the proposed sales restriction.

Refrigerant sold for MVAC servicing is also different because of the types of equipment 

that could be serviced with a small can. First, the appliances that typically use HFC-134a (the 

most-common refrigerant that would be sold in small can for MVAC recharging) in a home 

would include appliances, like a refrigerator, that are hermetically sealed. Someone who wanted 

to open that appliance would need greater skill and specialized equipment to service the 

appliance since there wouldn’t be a servicing port to access. This should dissuade homeowners 

from using a small can to service other small appliances. Larger appliances that use HFC-134a, 

like a reach-in cooler, would need more than one small can to fully charge the appliance. 

Because of the cost of and the added effort to use multiple small cans to charge a larger 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 87 of 320

appliance, it’s not practical for someone to use a small can. This would likely lead the person to 

purchase a larger container of refrigerant, which would require that the person be a certified 

technician.

EPA requests comments on its proposal to exempt small cans of refrigerant for MVACs 

with self-sealing valves from the sales restriction, including the following: (1) whether EPA 

should finalize the above-described exception for small cans if a self-sealing valve is affixed; (2) 

whether the agency should finalize a rule that creates an exemption for HFC-134a only or all 

MVAC refrigerants not exempt from the venting prohibition; (3) whether the agency should 

create an alternate self-sealing valve standard or use the CARB standard; (4) whether other 

standards exist or if other organizations are developing their own standards; (5) whether EPA 

should require labeling of small cans stating the refrigerant cannot be intentionally vented9; (6)

whether allowing the sale of small cans would allow individuals to circumvent the proposed 

sales restriction for stationary appliances; and (7) whether EPA should finalize an earlier 

compliance date than one year after publishing a final rule, such as six or nine months after 

publication of a final rule, if it is coupled with a sell-through provision for all small cans 

manufactured or imported prior to that effective date. A fuller discussion of effective and 

compliance dates can be found in section IV.M of this proposal.

D. Proposed changes to the evacuation requirements in section 82.156

1. Background

Under EPA’s existing regulation at §82.156(a), ODS refrigerant must be transferred to a 

system receiver or to a certified recovery and/or recycling machine before appliances are opened 

for maintenance, service, or repair. The same requirement applies to appliances that are to be 

 

9

See the CARB document titled, “Certification Procedures for Small Containers of Automotive Refrigerant” for 

additional information on labeling. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 88 of 320

disposed of, except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances which have 

separate requirements currently under §82.156(g) and (h). To ensure that the maximum amount 

of refrigerant is captured rather than released, EPA requires that air-conditioning and 

refrigeration appliances be evacuated to specified levels of vacuum.

2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants

EPA is proposing to extend the requirements at §82.156 for appliances containing ODS 

refrigerants to appliances containing non-exempt substitute refrigerants. Therefore, before 

appliances containing non-exempt substitute refrigerants are opened for maintenance, service, or 

repair, the refrigerant in either the entire appliance or the part to be serviced (when it can be 

isolated) must be transferred to a system receiver or to a certified recovery and/or recycling

machine. The same requirements would apply to equipment that is to be disposed of, except for 

small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances, which have separate requirements.

i. Evacuation Levels for Appliances other than Small Appliances, MVACs, and MVAClike Appliances

EPA is proposing revisions to §82.156(a) such that appliances other than small 

appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances containing non-exempt substitute refrigerants 

be evacuated to the levels established for CFCs and HCFCs with similar saturation pressures. 

These levels are based on the saturation pressures of the refrigerant, which is a characteristic of 

the refrigerant independent of whether or not it is an ozone-depleting substance. As is the case 

for CFCs and HCFCs, the appropriate evacuation levels for HFCs and other substitutes would

depend upon the size of the appliance and the date of manufacture of the recovery and/or

recycling equipment. Technicians repairing MVACs and MVAC-like appliances containing a 

substitute refrigerant would not be subject to the evacuation requirements below as they are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 89 of 320

currently subject to the requirement to “properly use” (as defined at §82.32(e)) 

recovery/recycling and recovery-only equipment approved pursuant to §82.36(a).

ii. Evacuation Levels for Small Appliances. 

EPA is proposing revisions to §82.156(b) to establish the same evacuation requirements 

for servicing small appliances charged with non-exempt substitute refrigerants as it has for small 

appliances charged with ODS refrigerants. Technicians opening small appliances for service, 

maintenance, or repair would be required to use equipment certified either under appendix B, 

based on AHRI 740, or under appendix C, Method for Testing Recovery Devices for Use with 

Small Appliances, to recover the refrigerant.

Technicians using equipment certified under appendix B would have to pull a four-inch 

vacuum on the small appliance being evacuated. Technicians using equipment certified under 

appendix C would have to capture 90 percent of the refrigerant in the appliance if the compressor 

is operational, and 80 percent of the refrigerant if the compressor is not operational. Because the 

percentage of refrigerant mass recovered is very difficult to measure on any given job, 

technicians would have to adhere to the servicing procedure certified for that recovery system 

under appendix C to ensure that they achieve the required recovery efficiencies.

EPA also is proposing revisions to §82.156(b) to establish the same evacuation 

requirements for disposing of small appliances that are charged with non-exempt substitute 

refrigerants as it has for small appliances charged with ODS refrigerants. Providing a consistent 

standard for ODS and non-exempt substitute refrigerants will facilitate the recovery of both ODS 

and non-ODS refrigerants. MVACs and MVAC-like appliances would have to be evacuated to 

102 mm (approximately equivalent to four inches) of mercury vacuum, and small appliances 

would have to have 80 or 90 percent of the refrigerant in them recovered (depending on whether 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 90 of 320

or not the compressor was operational) or be evacuated to four inches of mercury vacuum. EPA 

notes that the original wording in the regulation was whether or not the compressor was 

“operating” rather than “operational.” This change to “operational” matches the preamble to the 

1993 Rule (58 FR 28668) which initially describes the standard. This change also reflects the 

intent of the standard, which is to allow for a lower recovery rate when the small appliance does 

not work. 

EPA is also proposing to make the evacuation requirements for small appliances the same 

whether it is being opened for servicing or it is being disposed of. This new provision would 

apply to both ODS and substitute refrigerants. Currently, when using recovery equipment 

manufactured before November 15, 1993, a technician servicing a small appliance containing an 

ODS need only recover 80% of the refrigerant. The existing disposal requirements do not 

provide a category for the use of pre-1993 recovery equipment. EPA is proposing to allow that 

80% level of evacuation for disposal to simplify and unify the requirements. This change will 

have minimal effect as few people continue to use recovery equipment manufactured prior to that 

date.

EPA has authority under section 608(c) and 608(a) to require that appliances containing a 

substitute refrigerant be properly evacuated. The Agency has the authority to specify what 

practices constitute a good faith attempt to recapture substitute refrigerants in order to extend the 

de minimis exemption from the venting prohibition to substitute refrigerants. Such practices can 

include a requirement that an appliance be properly evacuated prior to servicing or disposal. 

Additionally, providing a consistent standard for ODS and substitute refrigerants will facilitate 

the recovery of both ODS and non-ODS refrigerants. Increased recovery of ODS refrigerant will 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 91 of 320

reduce the emission of such refrigerants. The full discussion of the authority for this action is 

found in section III of this notice.

3. Records for Disposal of Appliances with a Charge between Five and 50 Pounds

EPA is proposing to add new recordkeeping requirements at §82.156(a)(3) for the 

disposal of appliances normally containing more than five and less than 50 pounds of either ODS 

or substitute refrigerant. Most of these appliances are disassembled in the field before the 

components are recycled or disposed of. Under the proposed revisions, records would document 

the company name, location of the equipment, date of recovery, and the amount and type of 

refrigerant removed from each appliance prior to disposal. In addition, EPA is proposing to 

require that records be kept to document the quantity and type of refrigerant that was shipped or 

sold for reclamation or destruction (e.g., to a certified reclaimer or refrigerant distributor or 

wholesaler). This requirement would apply to all technicians recovering refrigerant from 

appliances, not just those with a full charge between five and 50 pounds. The technician, or the 

company employing the technician, would be required to maintain these records for three years.

Under the current regulations, whenever ODS refrigerant is added or removed from an

appliance with 50 pounds or greater of full charge, the technician must generate a service record 

documenting the addition or recovery. EPA also requires records documenting that ODS

refrigerant was properly recovered from small appliances (hermetically sealed appliances with 5 

pounds or less of full charge), MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances. EPA discusses elsewhere in 

this notice its proposal to extend those requirements to appliances containing non-exempt 

substitute refrigerants. There are currently no recordkeeping requirements for the addition or 

recovery of refrigerant in appliances normally containing more than five and less than 50 pounds 

of refrigerant. Because of this gap in regulatory coverage and for the reasons described below, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 92 of 320

EPA is proposing to require recordkeeping by any person recovering refrigerant from an 

appliance normally containing more than five and less than 50 pounds of ODS or non-exempt

substitute refrigerant.

EPA has heard from stakeholders that venting regularly happens in appliances of this 

size. At a recent meeting EPA attended with air-conditioning and refrigeration contractors, the 

attendees were asked what percentage of technicians recover refrigerant. The estimates were 

generally between 10 to 30 percent, with the caveat that recovery is much more common in the 

refrigeration industry than the air-conditioning industry. EPA also receives numerous tips each 

year of someone cutting refrigerant lines to quickly and illegally dispose of appliances of this 

size. While none of this feedback is conclusive, it is likely that venting occurs in violation of the 

CAA with some frequency. 

The potential emissions from appliances containing more than five and less than 50 

pounds are significant. Using EPA’s Vintaging Model,

10 EPA estimated the number of 

appliances in this size category that are disposed of annually and the full charge of those 

appliances. EPA estimates there are 6.6 million appliances with a full charge of 27,300 MT of 

refrigerant (49.5 MMTCO2eq GWP-weighted MT, 960 ODP-weighted MT) disposed of

annually. This represents 45 percent of the total amount of HCFC and HFC refrigerants charged 

into all appliances being disposed annually. Thus, under the current regulations, there is a 

significant amount of refrigerant, especially from a climate perspective, that could be vented 

without any record being generated to document recovery or facilitate enforcement. EPA’s 

 

10 EPA’s Vintaging Model estimates the annual chemical emissions from industry sectors that have historically used 

ODS, including air-conditioning and refrigeration. The model uses information on the market size and growth for 

each of the end-uses, as well as a history and projections of the market transition from ODS to alternatives. The 

model tracks emissions of annual “vintages” of new equipment that enter into operation by incorporating 

information on estimates of the quantity of equipment or products sold, serviced, and retired or converted each year, 

and the quantity of the compound required to manufacture, charge, and/or maintain the equipment.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 93 of 320

benefits assessment does not calculate any additional emissions reductions from this proposal

because the existing regulations already require recovery when appliances are disposed. 

However, in practical terms, requiring a record from each disposal event should drive more 

technicians to comply with the existing requirement. This change also improves rule 

effectiveness by creating uniform expectations so the technician knows that a record is required 

when disposing of any appliance, not just appliances with 50 or more pounds of refrigerant or 

small appliances, MVAC, and MVAC-like appliances.

EPA has also heard from stakeholders, including in public fora such as the public 

meeting in November 2014, that EPA should increase enforcement of the venting prohibition. 

They indicated that technicians will knowingly and illegally vent refrigerant if they think EPA 

will not bring an enforcement action. While cases have been brought against individuals who

have illegally vented refrigerant, having a recovery record would improve the success of future 

cases. After discussions with stakeholders, establishing a recordkeeping requirement for the 

category of appliances that are most frequently vented by technicians would be the most practical 

and least burdensome way to improve the Agency’s ability to enforce the venting prohibition. 

Technicians who do not recover refrigerant and do not have records to show that they recover 

refrigerant would be open to enforcement action under the proposed changes.

EPA understands that some, but nowhere near all, appliances are disposed of because 

they have broken down and lost their full refrigerant charge. In such cases, to comply with the 

requirement technicians would only need to note that they attempted to recover refrigerant but 

none was present. 

EPA has authority to establish this requirement under sections 608(a), 608(c), 114, and 

301(a) consistent with the description of these authorities offered above. Section 608(a) gives 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 94 of 320

EPA explicit authority to implement requirements that reduce ODS refrigerant emissions to the 

lowest achievable level. This proposed recordkeeping requirement would further the recovery of 

ODS refrigerants and discourage the illegal venting of such refrigerants from appliances 

containing more than five and less than 50 pounds of refrigerant. Because it would minimize the 

emission of ODS refrigerant, EPA has authority for this proposal as it relates to ODS appliances 

under 608(a). 

EPA also has authority under sections 114, 608(c), and 608(a) to require that technicians 

document that appliances containing a substitute refrigerant have been properly evacuated. 

Section 114 of the CAA provides the primary authority to establish these recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. In addition, the Agency has the authority to specify what practices 

constitute a good faith attempt to recapture substitute refrigerants in order to extend the de 

minimis exemption from the venting prohibition to substitute refrigerants. Such practices can 

include documentation and recordkeeping. Additionally, providing a consistent standard for ODS 

and substitute refrigerants will facilitate the recovery of both ODS and non-ODS refrigerants. 

Increased recovery of ODS refrigerant will reduce the emission of such refrigerants. The full 

discussion of the authority for this action is found in section III of this notice.

EPA seeks comments on this proposed recordkeeping requirement. Specifically, EPA 

seeks comments on whether keeping track of refrigerant recovered from appliances and sent offsite for reclamation, refrigerant banking, or destruction is a common practice for these 

appliances. EPA also seeks comments on whether this requirement would close the 

recordkeeping gap or if EPA should remove the lower limit of below 5 pounds. EPA expects that 

some appliances (e.g. some mini split AC and small remote condensing refrigeration systems)

may not be covered by this recordkeeping requirement because they have charges less than 5 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 95 of 320

pounds. Therefore, EPA also specifically invites comments on whether this requirement should 

apply to all appliances that are disassembled in the field, regardless of the charge size. Likewise, 

EPA requests comments on whether the proposed records for five to 50 pound systems should be 

kept for appliances containing more than 50 pounds given the proposed recordkeeping 

requirements for appliances with 50 or more pounds (see discussion in section IV.F).

4. Clarifications and Edits for Readability

EPA is proposing to move the provisions of §82.156 “Required Practices” into three 

separate sections: §82.155 would address the safe disposal of small appliances, MVACs, and 

MVAC-like appliances; §82.157 would address appliance maintenance and leak repair for 

appliances containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant; and §82.156 would address the proper 

evacuation of refrigerant from appliances. These provisions tend to affect different stakeholders 

so dividing them into separate sections will make the required provisions easier to find.

Within §82.156, EPA is proposing to separate the evacuation requirements into the 

following categories: (a) appliances other than small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like 

appliances; (b) small appliances, and (c) MVACs and MVAC-like appliances. With the 

exception of the evacuation of small appliances for disposal using recovery equipment 

manufactured before November 15, 1993, this proposed reorganization would not change the 

current evacuation requirements for the different types of appliances under §82.156.

Within §82.156(a) and (b), EPA is proposing to reorganize the requirements to state the 

general requirement first followed by specific circumstances that allow for different evacuation 

levels. EPA is not proposing to change the required levels of evacuation in table 1. Nor is EPA 

proposing to change the circumstances that would allow for alternate evacuation levels or to 

change those alternate levels. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 96 of 320

E. Proposed changes to the safe disposal provisions in section 82.156(f)

1. Background

In the 1993 Rule, EPA established specific requirements for the safe disposal of small 

appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances containing ODS refrigerant that enter the waste 

stream with the refrigerant charge intact. Under the existing rules at §82.156(f), persons who 

take the final step in the disposal process of such appliances must either recover any remaining 

refrigerant in the appliance or verify that the refrigerant has previously been recovered from the 

appliance or shipment of appliances. If they verify that the refrigerant has been recovered 

previously, they must retain a signed statement attesting to this or a contract from the supplier of 

the appliances for three years. Recovery equipment used to remove the refrigerant must meet 

certain standards but does not need to be certified by a third party. Persons recovering the 

refrigerant need not be certified technicians.

2. Clarifications to the Existing Program

EPA is using this opportunity to clarify certain requirements of the existing safe disposal 

program. The safe disposal regulations require actions of three separate groups of people: the 

final processor, the supplier of appliances for disposal, and the person who recovers the 

refrigerant. The final processor is the person who takes the final step in the disposal process, 

typically a scrap recycler or landfill operator, where the appliance is in such a condition that the 

refrigerant cannot reasonably be expected to be recovered. The supplier is the person dropping 

off the appliance (or shipment of appliances) for disposal. The person who recovers the 

refrigerant may be the final processor, the supplier, or a separate third entity. As discussed 

below, to make the safe disposal requirements easier to find in the regulations, EPA is proposing 

to move these requirements to a new section §82.155.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 97 of 320

EPA is clarifying here that under the existing requirements refrigerant may be recovered 

at any stage in the disposal process, even prior to the supplier taking possession. As EPA stated 

in the 1993 Rule establishing the safe disposal program, “the supplier to the final processor does 

not have to remove the refrigerant but then must assure, through an accompanying certification, 

that refrigerant has been removed earlier in the disposal chain. Any copies of the certificate of 

removal provided to the supplier could be passed on to the final processor.” (58 FR 28704-

28705). EPA’s intent has been to provide the flexibility needed to permit the recovery of 

refrigerant by the entity in the disposal chain that can accomplish that task most efficiently while 

at the same time establishing a mechanism to help ensure that the refrigerant has not simply been 

illegally vented. This signed certification serves both goals.

EPA also wishes to address potential confusion related to whether the rules apply to 

equipment that is crushed or has had components removed. As EPA stated in the 1993 Rule, “the 

Agency understands that crushed automobiles commonly arrive at scrap facilities and that such 

automobiles no longer contain refrigerant. Consequently, it may be safely presumed that 

refrigerant is no longer present in equipment that is received in such condition. This clarification 

does not alter the responsibility to obtain certification when receiving equipment from 

suppliers.” (58 FR 28704). A scrap facility is still the final disposer in this situation. Therefore, a 

scrap facility would have to receive the proper certification from their supplier of the disposed 

appliances in order to accept the appliances.

3. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants

EPA is proposing to extend the safe disposal provisions that currently exist at §82.156(f) 

for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances containing ODS refrigerants to the 

same types of appliances that contain non-exempt substitute refrigerants. Consistent with the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 98 of 320

general discussion in Section III above concerning the authority to extend provisions of subpart F 

to substitute refrigerants, extending these requirements is important to implementing the 

608(c)(2) venting prohibition for substitute refrigerants because it would define practices that 

would qualify as “good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose” of the substitute 

refrigerant when disposing of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances and thus 

qualify for the de minimis exemption to the venting prohibition. 

The rationale for establishing the safe disposal requirements for small appliances, 

MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances that contain ODS also applies to these appliances when 

they contain substitute refrigerants. These requirements are designed to ensure that refrigerant is 

recovered before the appliance is finally disposed of while granting as much flexibility as 

possible to the disposal facility regarding the manner of its recovery (58 FR 28702). Specifying 

how the substitute refrigerant be recovered will reduce the release of that refrigerant to the

environment.

Such flexibility is important for the disposal sector, which is highly diverse and 

decentralized. Because the disposal infrastructure for appliances charged with substitute 

refrigerants is identical to that for appliances charged with an ODS, these considerations apply

equally to appliances containing substitutes. In addition, applying a consistent set of disposal 

requirements to appliances containing ODS or substitute refrigerants will reduce confusion and 

minimize emissions of ODS and non-ODS refrigerant during the disposal process. Service 

technicians will not have to question whether the refrigerant in that appliance must be recovered 

or not. With the exception of specially labelled appliances using hydrocarbon refrigerants, the 

technician must recover refrigerant from all small appliances. Thus, the requirements for the safe 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 99 of 320

disposal of appliances charged with substitute refrigerants should be the same as those for the 

safe disposal of appliances charged with CFCs and HCFCs. 

Safe disposal of refrigerant from small appliances, MVAC, and MVAC-like appliances 

continues to be important for the environment and public health. According to EPA’s Vintaging 

Model, the amount of refrigerant projected to be contained within MVAC and small appliances 

in 2015 will be more than 260 MMTCO2eq and 175 MMTCO2eq, respectively. This constitutes 

12.5 and 8.4 percent, respectively, of the total GWP-weighted amount of refrigerant contained 

within all appliances in the United States. On an ODP basis, EPA anticipates more than 1,400 

ODP-weighted metric tons of refrigerant will be contained within small appliances in 2015, 

representing 5.0 percent of the refrigerant contained within all appliances in the United States. 

While these amounts decrease over time as zero-ODP and low-GWP substitute refrigerants are 

used in these appliances, the need for robust safe disposal requirements remains.

EPA requests comments on these proposed revisions.

4. Restructuring and Edits for Readability

First, EPA is proposing to create a single section, §82.155, for all safe disposal 

provisions, including the recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Second, EPA is proposing to 

clarify what should be in the contract stating that refrigerant will be removed prior to delivery. 

EPA is proposing to replace the word “remove” which appears repeatedly in these provisions. 

What EPA means by “remove” in this context is that the refrigerant is recovered to the required 

evacuation levels using the appropriate equipment. EPA is also stating explicitly that which is 

implied in the current regulations. Specifically, as a result of the contract, the supplier of the 

appliances is responsible for recovering any remaining refrigerant or verifying that the 

refrigerant has already been evacuated. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 100 of 320

EPA is also clarifying the format that the records required under this section may take. In 

general, where the regulations in subpart F require an individual to maintain records, the Agency

intends for them to do so either in an electronic or paper format, preferably in an electronic 

system. Based on pre-proposal input from stakeholders, EPA is clarifying this point explicitly in 

the proposed revisions to the recordkeeping provision at §82.155(c). EPA requests comments on 

these proposed changes and clarifications to the safe disposal requirements.

F. Proposed changes to leak repair requirements in section 82.156(i)

1. Background

An important component of EPA’s program to properly manage ODS refrigerants is the 

requirement to repair leaking appliances within 30 days if a certain leak rate is exceeded. Owners 

and operators of appliances normally containing 50 or more pounds of ODS refrigerant must 

repair their appliances if they leak above a certain rate. The current leak rate is 35 percent for 

commercial refrigeration appliances and IPR and 15 percent for comfort cooling and other 

appliances. If the attempt to repair fails to bring the appliance’s leak rate below the applicable 

leak rate within that time frame, the owner or operator must develop a retrofit or retirement plan 

and implement it within one year of the plan’s date. Owners or operators also have the option of 

developing a retrofit or retirement plan within thirty days of identifying that the leak rate has 

been exceeded. Owners or operators of IPR or Federally-owned appliances may have more than 

30 days to complete repairs and more than one year to retrofit appliances where certain 

conditions apply (e.g., equipment located in areas subject to radiological contamination, 

unavailability of necessary parts, and adherence to local or state laws that may hinder immediate 

repairs). The full suite of the existing requirements are found at §82.156(i).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 101 of 320

While the existing requirements are generally well-known by the industry, the program 

can be improved and EPA is therefore proposing amendments to do so in this notice. First, EPA 

is proposing to strengthen the requirements by lowering applicable leak rates, requiring periodic 

leak inspections, and setting a two-year leak limit, among other changes. Second, EPA is 

proposing to apply the leak repair requirements (as they would be amended) to non-exempt 

substitute refrigerants. Finally, EPA is proposing to modify the language, structure, and location 

of the requirements to make them more effective, easier to understand, and easier to find. This 

entails moving the requirements from §82.156(i) to their own section at §82.157. 

EPA recognizes that refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment do leak. This is 

particularly true for larger appliances. However, these leaks can be reduced significantly. 

Experience with the GreenChill program, an EPA partnership designed to encourage 

supermarkets to reduce emissions of refrigerants and transition to low-GWP and low-charge 

refrigeration appliances, feedback from stakeholders in pre-notice meetings, and reports from 

California facilities regulated under the state’s Refrigerant Management Program, among other 

factors discussed in this notice, support this conclusion. Through this proposal, EPA’s aim is to 

reduce refrigerant releases by breaking the cycle of continuous repair and recharge of appliances 

and by requiring proactive monitoring to identify leaks early so that they can be addressed 

promptly to avoid ongoing releases. 

EPA has previously proposed changes to strengthen the leak repair requirements that 

have never been finalized. In 1998, EPA proposed extending the leak repair requirements to 

substitute refrigerants and lowering the leak rates. Most recently, in the proposed 2010 Leak 

Repair Rule (75 FR 78558, December 15, 2010), EPA proposed changes to the purpose and 

scope, definitions, required practices, and reporting and recordkeeping sections for the leak 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 102 of 320

repair program. EPA’s intent in the 2010 proposal was to create a streamlined set of leak repair 

requirements that would apply to all types of appliances with large ozone-depleting refrigerant 

charges. EPA proposed the following notable amendments in that rule: 

 Clarify that leak rate calculations are required upon addition of refrigerant; 

 Lower applicable leak rates for currently regulated appliances; 

 Require initial and follow-up verification tests for all repair attempts once the applicable 

leak rate is exceeded for comfort cooling and commercial appliances, and not just IPR (as 

is currently required), and written documentation of the results of those tests; 

 Require a 24-hour waiting period after repairs before a follow-up verification can be 

conducted;

 Require the retrofit or retirement of the entire appliance if it experiences three component 

replacements or three failed verification tests during a consecutive six-month period 

(referred to as “the worst leaker provision”);

 Exempt addition of refrigerant due to “seasonal variances” from the existing leak repair 

requirements; 

 Allow all appliance owners/operators additional time to complete repairs due to 

unavailability of components, and not just IPR (as currently required);

 Require service technicians to maintain records on the fate of refrigerant that is recovered 

from but not returned to appliances during service; and

 Decrease the amount of time allowed for the completion of retrofit/retirement plans.

While the Agency never finalized the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule, EPA has factored 

feedback on that proposal, as well as the 1998 Proposed Substitutes Recycling Rule, into today’s 

proposed rule. Based on comments generated by those proposed rules, EPA is not re-proposing 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 103 of 320

the requirements to conduct follow-up verification tests at least 24 hours after a required repair 

or establishing the “worst leaker provision.” However, many of the proposed changes still can 

improve the leak repair program and decrease the release of refrigerants during the maintenance, 

service, repair, or disposal of appliances normally containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant. 

Below EPA discusses the specific changes proposed in this action, some of which are novel to 

this rulemaking and some of which are adapted from the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule.

2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants

EPA is proposing to extend the leak repair provisions currently in §82.156(i) to 

appliances containing non-exempt substitute refrigerants. In addition, EPA is proposing that the 

other provisions related to leak repair and maintenance discussed in this section (e.g. leak 

inspections and leak limits) apply to appliances containing non-exempt substitute refrigerants as 

well. The mechanism by which EPA is extending the leak repair requirements to appliances 

containing substitute refrigerants is through the amended definition of the terms refrigerant and 

appliance, as described above. However, as discussed below in Section IV.M, while EPA is 

proposing that the amended definitions become effective on January 1, 2017, EPA is proposing a 

delayed compliance date (18 months from publication of the final rule) for the revisions to the 

leak repair requirements. Consistent with discussions elsewhere in this preamble, EPA is not 

proposing to extend these requirements to appliances using substances that have been exempted 

from the venting prohibition in specific end-uses, such as ammonia, that are listed in the 

regulations at §82.154(a)(1).

Extending the leak repair requirements to non-exempt substitute refrigerants as proposed 

in this notice would lead to environmental benefits because these substances pose a threat to the 

environment when released and they may not be adequately controlled by other mechanisms. In 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 104 of 320

the 2004 Rule, EPA determined that the release of HFCs and PFCs during the maintenance, 

servicing, repair, or disposal of appliances poses a threat to the environment. In making that 

determination, EPA examined the potential effects of the refrigerant from the moment of release 

to its breakdown in the environment, considering possible impacts on workers, building 

occupants, and the environment. Once released into the atmosphere, HFCs and PFCs have the 

ability to trap heat that would otherwise be radiated from the Earth back to space. This ability

gives both HFCs and PFCs relatively high GWPs. The 100-year GWPs of HFCs under 

consideration as refrigerants range from 124 (for HFC– 152a) to 14,800 (for HFC–23), and the 

GWPs of PFCs under consideration as refrigerants range from 7,390 (for PFC-14) and higher. 

HFC–134a, the most common individual HFC used in air-conditioning and refrigeration 

equipment, has a GWP of 1,430. See section II.C.2 of this preamble for further discussion related 

to the environmental impacts of greenhouse gases. 

In determining whether to exempt HFC and PFC refrigerants from the venting prohibition 

in 2004, EPA concluded that these refrigerants have adverse environmental effects. For that 

reason, and because of a lack of regulation governing the release of such refrigerants, EPA did 

not exempt the release of HFC or PFC refrigerants from the statutory venting prohibition. Thus, 

the knowing venting or otherwise releasing into the environment of HFC and PFC refrigerants 

during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances generally remains illegal.

EPA generally assumes compliance with the regulatory venting prohibition. Nonetheless, 

that prohibition addresses only knowing venting or release and thus does not account for all HFC 

refrigerant emissions. For instance, in previous rules we have not assumed that emissions of 

HFCs that occur due to appliance leaks constitute knowing releases. The requirements for leak 

inspections, leak calculations, and recordkeeping that EPA is proposing in this action would 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 105 of 320

provide more knowledge to appliance owners and operators, as well as technicians, and thereby 

broaden the set of refrigerant releases for which they would be liable for a knowing release. In 

addition, as discussed below, EPA is proposing to revise its interpretation of what constitutes a 

knowing release under section 608(c) for purposes of appliance leaks.

EPA regulations at §82.154(a)(2) currently state that ODS refrigerant releases shall be 

considered de minimis only if they occur when the required practices set forth in specified 

regulatory provisions, such as §82.156 are observed. One of the required practices within that 

section is the requirement for owners or operators to repair leaks pursuant to paragraphs 

§82.156(i)(1), (i)(2) and (i)(5) within 30 days after discovery. EPA has therefore intended that 

proper leak repair be a component of the required practices necessary to meet the de minimis

exemption to the venting prohibition for ODS refrigerants. Consistent with the discussion above 

relating to the implementation of the statutory and regulatory de minimis provisions for substitute 

refrigerants, EPA is proposing to extend the leak repair provisions to non-exempt substitute 

refrigerants to clarify how the de minimis exemption in §82.154(a)(2) applies to such substitute 

refrigerants and to provide regulatory certainty of what practices for leak repair would qualify for 

this exemption.

The Agency has the authority under section 608(c) to define the contours of the de 

minimis exemption by establishing regulations related to the maintenance, service, and repair of 

appliances that are leaking ODS or non-exempt substitute refrigerants. The prohibition in section 

608(c) applies to the knowing venting, release, or disposal of refrigerants during the course of 

maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of an appliance “in a manner which permits such 

substance to enter the environment.” As explained above, this prohibition applies both to ODS 

refrigerants under section 608(c)(1) and to non-exempt substitutes under 608(c)(2). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 106 of 320

EPA stated in 1993 when establishing the original leak repair provisions that: 

[T]he venting prohibition itself, which applies to the maintenance, service, repair, and 

disposal of equipment, does not prohibit ‘topping off’ systems, which leads to emissions 

of refrigerant during the use of equipment. The provision on knowing releases does, 

however, include the situation in which a technician is practically certain that his or her 

conduct will cause a release of refrigerant during the maintenance, service, repair, or 

disposal of equipment. Knowing releases also include situations in which a technician 

closes his or her eyes to obvious facts or fails to investigate them when aware of facts 

that demand investigation. (58 FR 28672)

EPA has subsequently moved toward a broader interpretation of the venting prohibition. 

In the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule, EPA stated that “it is not necessarily a violation [of the 

venting prohibition] for an appliance owner or operator to discover a leak greater than the leak 

repair trigger rate; however it would be a violation of the proposed required practices at §82.152 

to allow that appliance to continue to leak above the trigger rate without making and verifying 

the efficacy of repairs in a timely manner” (75 FR 78570).

EPA now views its statements in the 1993 Rule as presenting an overly narrow 

interpretation of the statutory venting prohibition. Consistent with the direction taken in the 2010 

proposed leak repair rule, EPA is proposing a broader and more pragmatic interpretation of the 

venting prohibition under CAA section 608(c)(1) and (2) in this action. As a practical matter, 

when a technician must add refrigerant to an existing appliance, the technician necessarily knows 

that the system has leaks that will continue to release refrigerant to the environment if not 

properly repaired. That technician also knows that if he or she does not repair the leak, and verify

that the repair has held, some or all of the newly added refrigerant will be released to the 

environment. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to interpret section 608(c) such that when a person adds 

refrigerant to an appliance that he or she knows is leaking, without repairing the leaks consistent 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 107 of 320

with the applicable leak repair requirements, he or she also violates the venting prohibition, both 

because he or she knows that the appliance is releasing refrigerant to the environment as the 

appliance is being serviced and because he or she knows that some or all of the refrigerant newly 

added to the appliance will be released in a manner that will permit the refrigerant to enter the 

environment. With today’s proposed revisions, the person performing this work will also have a 

set of provisions that can be followed to repair the leaks and to avoid violating the venting 

prohibition in this situation. This analysis applies for both ODS refrigerants and substitute 

refrigerants. 

When initially establishing the leak repair provisions in subpart F, EPA relied on the 

authority in section 608(a)(3)(A) which states that “the regulations under this subsection shall 

include requirements that reduce the use and emission of such [class I and class II] substances to 

the lowest achievable level.” EPA used section 608(a) in part because the statute required EPA to 

establish regulations to reduce emissions of ODS refrigerants, whereas section 608(c) is a selfeffectuating prohibition that applied to both ODS refrigerants and substitutes.11 EPA, however, 

has also used rulemakings to clarify the requirements of section 608(c) for ODS. It is appropriate 

to do so now with regard to the knowing release of non-exempt substitute refrigerants from 

leaking appliances containing 50 or more pounds of such refrigerant and the application of the de 

minimis exception when leak repair requirements are followed for such appliances. As discussed 

below, EPA understands that few appliances are leak-free. However, the leak rate can be 

minimized by following the regulatory leak repair requirements. Under the revisions proposed in 

 

11 Section 608(a) of the CAA continues to support the revisions to the leak repair requirements as those revisions 

relate to reducing emissions of ODS refrigerants. As such, and consistent with the description in Section III above, 

section 608(a) is one of the authorities EPA is relying on for proposed revisions in this rule that update requirements 

for ODS refrigerants, including proposed revisions to the leak repair provisions.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 108 of 320

this rule, when those steps are followed, any release would fall within the de minimis exception, 

and the owner, operator and technician will not be violating the venting prohibition.

Consideration of Costs

Based on the evidence discussed below, the reported performance of today’s comfort 

cooling, commercial refrigeration, and IPR appliances with full charges of 50 or more pounds 

argues for lowering the applicable leak rates. The evidence discussed below demonstrates that 

the current applicable leak rate is considerably above the “lowest achievable level of emissions” 

envisioned in CAA section 608(a)(3)(A).

While section 608(a)(3) does not require EPA to perform a cost-benefit analysis to 

determine what leak rate(s) would constitute the “lowest achievable level of emissions,” the 

analyses EPA performed of costs and benefits support establishing lower leak rates. The leak 

rates reported above, which generally fall well below the current regulatory maximum, are 

clearly being achieved in response to private incentives alone. If maintaining these leak rates is 

privately cost-effective, it is reasonable to assume they are also publicly cost-effective, because 

the public cost of emissions, which includes both the private value of the refrigerant and the 

environmental damage it causes, would exceed the private cost of emissions, which includes 

only the private value of the refrigerant. 

In general, EPA balanced the need to reduce emissions of refrigerants with the costs of 

these requirements. EPA has determined that the costs are reasonable given the significant 

benefits that accrue (both private in the form of cost savings and public in the form of reduced 

GHG and ODS emissions). Specifically, EPA reviewed data from the lowest-emitting equipment 

to gauge technological feasibility and then reviewed other data sets, such as CARB data and 

consent decree requirements, to determine a reasonable set of requirements. EPA then assessed 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 109 of 320

the costs and benefits associated with extending the existing requirements to appliances using 

substitute refrigerants and tighter requirements such as lower leak rates, the requirement to repair

all identified leaks once the applicable leak rate is exceeded, the requirement to conduct 

verification tests on all types of appliances, and periodic leak inspections. 

With regard to the quarterly leak inspections, EPA looked at charge size to determine the 

number of affected appliances. Using that estimate and the cost of more frequent leak 

inspections, EPA assessed the economy-wide costs of requiring quarterly leak inspections for 

appliances with a full charge of 200 or more pounds and 500 or more pounds. Based on that 

assessment of the costs and benefits of such a requirement, EPA is proposing a higher charge 

size threshold (500 pounds in commercial refrigerant and IPR appliances) for quarterly versus 

annual inspections. In addition, EPA is proposing to allow owners and operators of appliances to 

install automatic leak detection systems in lieu of conducting quarterly leak inspections as well 

as the opportunity for quarterly inspections to move to an annual schedule if the appliance is not 

leaking.

In addition, as EPA discusses below, EPA is proposing to provide flexibility to help 

minimize compliance costs of the existing regulations. For comfort cooling and commercial 

refrigeration appliances, EPA is proposing to allow an extension to the 30-day repair requirement 

if the arrival of a part is delayed, recognizing that the short additional time needed for delivery of 

a part can result in a nearer-term and less costly emission reduction than a retrofit. This is a 

change from the current requirements for ODS appliances, and would result in a significant 

reduction in compliance costs. EPA is also proposing to allow an extension to implement a 

retrofit or retirement for comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances that transition 

to a non-exempt substitute refrigerant.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 110 of 320

3. Restructuring and Edits for Readability

The current regulatory text has been modified several times since EPA first established 

the program in 1993. Some of those changes were a result of a settlement agreement between 

EPA and the Chemical Manufacturers Association (see 60 FR 40420). The regulation now 

contains numerous cross-references to other provisions in §82.156(i), making the requirements

difficult to follow and in some places potentially leading to differing interpretations. Many 

important provisions are buried, such as the primary requirement that repairs must occur within 

30 days, which appears only at the end of the leak repair requirements at §82.156(i)(9). Due to 

these concerns, EPA is proposing revisions that attempt to restructure the regulation to make it 

easier for stakeholders to understand whether they are subject to the requirements and what those 

are.

EPA is proposing to move the required practices currently in §82.156(i) and the 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements in §82.166(j), (k), (m), (n), (o), (p), and (q) to a newlycreated section at §82.157 titled “Appliance maintenance and leak repair.” EPA is proposing this 

title to more accurately reflect the goal of preventing releases of ODS and non-exempt substitute 

refrigerants during the maintenance of these appliances. Within that new section, EPA is 

proposing to restructure the requirements in a more linear and logical format. 

EPA recognizes that proposing to change the text so significantly may make 

stakeholders who are familiar with the requirements wonder how these revisions might affect 

their current compliance monitoring systems and protocols. EPA does not intend to change the 

substance of the requirements while restructuring except where specified. EPA discusses

proposed changes to the requirements in the following preamble sections that would result from 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 111 of 320

this restructuring. EPA is also developing a series of comprehensive compliance assistance 

documents, in addition to other online support materials.

To avoid both ambiguity and cumbersome language throughout, EPA is proposing to 

establish from the outset in §82.157(a) that the provisions of §82.157 apply to owners and 

operators of all appliances containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant, unless otherwise 

specified. When a provision applies to technicians or people servicing equipment the provision 

so specifies. The changes are not intended to shift responsibilities and EPA believes this change 

is not substantive.

The existing regulation also inconsistently describes the leak repair requirements as 

applying to appliances with “50 or more pounds” or “more than 50 pounds” of refrigerant. For 

example, in the existing recordkeeping requirements at §82.166(j) and (k), persons servicing and 

owners/operators of appliances normally containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant must keep 

records, whereas §82.156(i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(5) refer to appliances normally containing more 

than 50 pounds. EPA is proposing to consistently use “50 or more pounds of refrigerant.” 

Because of this inconsistency, EPA assumes that an owner or operator of an appliance that has a 

full charge of 50 pounds would take a conservative assumption when reading the current 

regulations and consider the appliance covered by the leak repair requirements. For that reason,

EPA does not anticipate this change to have a significant effect.

EPA seeks comment on the proposed edits to restructure and clarify the regulations, 

including whether any other than those specifically discussed in this section of the preamble 

would alter the substance of the requirements and, if so, which edits would do so and how.

4. Lowering Applicable Leak Rates
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 112 of 320

EPA is proposing to lower the applicable leak rates for comfort cooling, commercial 

refrigeration, and IPR appliances containing ODS refrigerants, and to establish those same leak 

rates for such appliances using non-exempt substitute refrigerants. The leak rate is the rate of 

emission from an appliance requiring action from the owner/operator. EPA has proposed 

lowering leak rates twice previously for ODS-containing appliances, both in 1998 and 2010, but 

has not finalized either proposal. In both instances, EPA proposed lowering the leak rates to 20 

percent or lower (from 35 percent) for IPR and commercial refrigeration appliances and to 10 

percent or lower (from 15 percent) for comfort cooling appliances (63 FR 32044, 75 FR 78558). 

EPA is again proposing to lower leak rates to 20 percent and 10 percent, respectively, and has 

considered comments on those past proposals in the development of this notice as well as 

additional available information. This proposal would be for appliances containing both ODS 

and non-exempt substitute refrigerants, and EPA’s rationale for these proposed edits is described 

in more detail below.

i. Commercial Refrigeration and Industrial Process Refrigeration Appliances

In general, leak rates are highest in large commercial refrigeration appliances and IPR. 

This is attributable to a number of factors. First, such appliances are generally custom-built and 

assembled at the site where they are used rather than in a factory (e.g., unlike a household 

refrigerator). Appliances used in IPR are custom-designed for a wide spectrum of processes and 

facilities, including applications such as flash freezers aboard commercial fishing vessels to 

cooling processes used in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals to ice skating rinks. This results in 

the sector having an extraordinarily broad range of equipment configurations and designs.

Custom designed equipment presents more challenges to original equipment manufacturers who 

wish to systematically implement leak reduction technologies. Second, these appliances 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 113 of 320

generally use a long, single refrigerant loop for cooling that is not enclosed within a piece of 

equipment. This tends to raise average leak rates, particularly when the refrigerant loop flows 

through inaccessible spaces, such as underneath floors, or when used in challenging climates and 

operating conditions. Third, these appliances typically operate continuously. For example, 

shutting down a refrigeration appliance can lead to food spoilage in commercial refrigeration. In 

IPR, a full appliance shutdown can stop all production and is typically costly. This need for 

continuous operation can make repairing certain leaks more difficult.

EPA is proposing to lower the leak rate for both commercial refrigeration appliances and 

IPR from 35 percent to 20 percent. EPA has reviewed multiple sources of data to establish that 

20 percent is a reasonable rate. As explained in more detail below, EPA reviewed GreenChill 

partner data, consent decrees of companies found to be in violation of subpart F regulations, and 

reported data from California’s Refrigerant Management Program (RMP)12. Additionally, EPA 

held numerous conversations with potentially affected stakeholders and reviewed comments on 

past proposed rules. EPA also assessed the possible benefits that could result from lower 

proposed applicable leak rates and other changes being proposed in this notice using the 

Vintaging Model and data from California.

First, EPA reviewed data from GreenChill, an EPA partnership with food retailers to

reduce refrigerant emissions and decrease their impact on the ozone layer and climate change. 

Established in 2007, this partnership has over 20 member companies comprising almost 30 

percent of all supermarkets in the United States. GreenChill works to help food retailers 1) 

transition to environmentally friendlier refrigerants; 2) lower refrigerant charge sizes; 3) 

 

12 Among other requirements, the RMP establishes leak repair requirements for appliances with more than 50 

pounds of refrigerant. More detail on the RMP is provided in the technical support document in the docket titled 

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

Reduction Program and online at www.arb.ca.gov/stoprefrigerantleaks.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 114 of 320

eliminate leaks; and 4) adopt green refrigeration technologies and best environmental practices. 

One of the GreenChill partnership’s programs that helps food retailers reduce their refrigerant 

emissions is the Food Retailer Corporate Emissions Reduction Program. Under this program, 

partners report their corporate-wide average leak rate for all refrigerants. A corporate-wide 

average leak rate is the sum of all refrigerant additions in a given time period for all of the 

refrigeration appliances owned by a corporate entity, divided by the full charge for all of the 

refrigeration appliances owned by that same corporate entity during that time period. 

In 2014, the corporate-wide average leak rate for all reporting GreenChill partners was 

under 14 percent. Since the start of the program, the reported corporate-wide average leak rate 

for all partners has been at or below this level, even though the number of partners has grown. 

Several supermarket chains, including some having hundreds of stores, have consistently

reported a corporate-wide leak rate below 10 percent. These confidential data support the 

conclusion that leak rates in commercial refrigeration appliances can be considerably lower than 

35 percent and that a 20 percent leak rate is reasonable.

EPA has also reviewed how companies agreed to manage refrigerants through recent 

consent decrees with the Agency. In consent decrees with Safeway and Costco, the two 

companies agreed to bring their corporate-wide leak rates from about 25 percent to 18 and 19 

percent, respectively. EPA also reviewed consent decrees with commercial fishing vessels. These 

consent decrees do not establish a corporate-wide level but in one specific case a facility was 

able to lower its leak rate considerably below 20 percent. These consent decrees provide 

additional support for the proposition that a 20 percent leak rate for commercial refrigeration and 

IPR appliances is reasonably achievable. These consent decrees are available in the docket.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 115 of 320

EPA has also reviewed data submitted under California’s RMP. California requires that

owners or operators of any appliance with more than 50 pounds of ODS or HFC refrigerant

repair leaks, conduct leak inspections or install automatic leak detection equipment, and report 

their refrigerant usage and repairs. In addition, any facility with a refrigeration appliance 

containing more than 50 pounds of refrigerant must report all service records annually to 

California. 

CARB has categorized facilities based on the facility’s largest appliance. Facilities that 

have at least one appliance with a full charge of 2,000 pounds or more (classified as “large” 

facilities under the RMP) began reporting in 2012 (for 2011 service records). These large 

facilities must submit service records for any appliance that has a full charge greater than 50 

pounds. “Medium” facilities have at least one appliance with a full charge of 200 or more pounds 

but less than 2,000 pounds and they started reporting in 2014. “Small” facilities have at least one 

appliance between 50 and 200 pounds; they must begin reporting in 2016. This data set provides 

insight into the use and emissions of ODS and substitute refrigerants from refrigeration 

appliances in California.

EPA reviewed the 2013 data of large and medium facilities to determine the leak rates of 

those appliances. This was the only dataset currently available. Facilities reported on 10,362 

appliances in this dataset. A series of charts showing the aggregated California data has been 

included in the docket. While the data are self-reported, and they do not include all commercial 

refrigeration and IPR appliances in California, they show that approximately 48 percent of 

reporting appliances did not leak at all in 2013. They also show that approximately 13 percent of 

appliances have an annual leak rate between 20 percent and 35 percent. An additional 22 percent 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 116 of 320

of appliances are above a 35 percent annual leak rate. EPA considered these data to determine 

what an appropriate leak rate would be. 

If EPA uses the California data as a proxy for the rest of the United States, the existing 35 

percent leak rate for commercial refrigeration and IPR appliances (if extended to non-exempt 

substitutes) would only require reductions from 22 percent of refrigeration appliances, 

responsible for approximately 70 percent of emissions. By establishing a leak rate at 20 percent, 

the regulations would affect approximately 35 percent of appliances, responsible for almost 90 

percent of emissions. The increase in the universe of affected entities when moving from a 35 to 

20 percent leak rate is appropriate given the percentage of emissions (20% of total reported 

emissions) coming from those facilities. A 20 percent leak rate is also consistent with two past 

proposals to lower leak rates. 

For the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule, EPA analyzed South Coast Air Quality

Management District (SCAQMD) data on ODS-containing appliances. SCAQMD is responsible 

for controlling emissions primarily from stationary sources of air pollution. California South 

Coast Air Quality Management District is an air pollution control agency that services the areas 

of Orange County and the urban portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino 

counties. At the time of the analysis in 2010, SCAQMD was responsible for 16 million people in

a 10,743 square mile area, which was approximately half of the population of California.

Similar to the EPA’s regulations under section 608 of the CAA, SCAQMD has issued 

Rule 1415 aimed at reducing emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants from stationary

refrigeration and air-conditioning systems. The rule requires any person within SCAQMD’s 

jurisdiction who owns or operates a refrigeration system to minimize refrigerant leakage. A 

refrigeration system is defined for the purposes of that rule as “any non-vehicular equipment 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 117 of 320

used for cooling or freezing, which holds more than 50 pounds of any combination of class I 

and/or class II refrigerant, including, but not limited to, refrigerators, freezers, or air-conditioning 

equipment or systems.”

Under Rule 1415, SCAQMD used to collect the following information every two years 

from owners or operators of stationary refrigeration systems holding more than 50 pounds of an 

ozone-depleting refrigerant (http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/forms/1415form2.doc): Number of 

refrigeration systems in operation; type of refrigerant in each refrigeration system; amount of 

refrigerant in each refrigeration system; date of the last annual audit or maintenance performed 

for each refrigeration system; and the amount of additional refrigerant charged every year. For 

the purposes of the rule, additional refrigerant charge is defined as the quantity of refrigerant 

charged to a refrigeration system in order to bring the system to a full capacity charge and 

replace refrigerant that has leaked. This reporting requirement has now been replaced by the 

statewide RMP required reporting. 

In 2010, EPA reviewed data for over 4,750 pieces of equipment from SCAQMD 

covering 2004 and 2005. The data included refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances that 

meet EPA’s existing and proposed definitions of IPR (e.g., food processing industry, 

pharmaceutical manufacturing), comfort cooling (e.g. office buildings, schools and universities, 

hospitals), and commercial refrigeration (e.g., refrigerated warehouses, supermarkets, retail box 

stores) from businesses of all sizes. The appliances that were evaluated all had ODS refrigerant 

charges greater than 50 pounds. EPA’s review showed that lowering the leak rate to 20 percent 

for ODS-containing IPR would result in slightly less than 5 percent of systems facing mandatory

repair within 30 days. It also showed that tightening of the leak rate for commercial refrigeration 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 118 of 320

appliances to 20 percent would result in 8 percent of the 1,722 systems examined facing 

mandatory repair within 30 days. 

At the time, EPA found that the SCAQMD leak repair data for commercial refrigeration 

appliances was consistent with EPA’s analysis of the commercial refrigeration sector. For 

example, EPA estimated that annual leak rates for distributed (DX) systems range from 3 percent 

to 35 percent for in-use equipment, with higher annual leak rates (25%) in older appliances and 

the lower rates (15%) in newer appliances.

EPA proposed in 2010 to conclude that a 20 percent leak rate “provides for continued 

flexibility in allowing appliance owners or operators to decide upon the necessary action needed 

to repair leaking appliances, and also provides for additional environmental benefit in terms of 

avoided refrigerant emissions” (75 FR 78570). In coming to this assessment, EPA balanced the 

environmental benefits (in terms of ODS emissions reductions) with the costs of lowering the 

applicable leak rate for refrigeration appliances to a level between 10 percent and 30 percent. 

This analysis continues to be informative and is available in the docket for this rulemaking. 

In 1998, EPA proposed to lower leak rates for appliances containing both ODS and 

substitute refrigerants. After reviewing leak rate data collected by the SCAQMD and data 

submitted by a midwestern supermarket chain, EPA proposed that the maximum permissible 

leak rate for new commercial refrigeration equipment (commissioned after 1992) be lowered to 

10 percent per year, and that the maximum rate for old commercial refrigeration equipment 

(commissioned before or during 1992) be lowered to 15 percent per year. 

For IPR, EPA proposed a two-rate system. IPR equipment would be subject to a 20 

percent applicable leak rate unless it met all four of the following criteria in which case it would 

continue to be subject to the 35 percent leak rate: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 119 of 320

(1) The refrigeration system is custom-built; 

(2) The refrigeration system has an open-drive compressor; 

(3) The refrigeration system was built in 1992 or before; and 

(4) The system is direct-expansion (contains a single, primary refrigerant loop). 

For today’s proposal, EPA reviewed comments on these earlier proposals and held 

several recent conversations with industry. While some stakeholders, in particular IPR owners 

and operators, were not in support of leak rates lower than 35 percent, there appears to be more 

agreement among commercial refrigeration appliance owners and operators that 20 percent is 

reasonable. In comments in response to the 1998 Proposed Substitutes Recycling Rule, the Food 

Marketing Institute stated for commercial refrigeration that “the targeted leak rates of 15 percent 

and 10 percent for equipment built before and after 1992, was unattainable...We believe that 

rates of 25 percent for equipment manufactured before 1992 and 20 percent for equipment 

manufactured after 1992 are more realistic.” Similar comments were stated by major 

supermarket chains indicating that leak rates of 25% would be more practical and allow more 

effective refrigerant management. Given the passage of time, equipment manufactured after 

1992 should now be a much larger share of the equipment being used, meaning that the earlier 

concerns regarding lowering the applicable leak rate for commercial refrigeration appliances to 

20 percent may no longer apply. 

EPA received three comments on the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule that were opposed 

to lowering the leak rates for commercial refrigeration appliances and IPR. One commenter 

raised concerns about the effect that lowering the applicable leak rate would have on chillers 

used in the generation of nuclear power. The proposed flexibilities in today’s action, such as 

allowing extensions for all appliance types—not just IPR and Federally-owned appliances –
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 120 of 320

should address that concern; however, EPA again seeks comment on this point. The other 

commenters stated that the costs of lowering the leak rate to 20 percent are too high. In addition 

to providing flexibility in the time needed to conduct repairs and retrofit or replace an appliance, 

EPA has assessed the compliance costs, cost savings, and environmental benefits of this 

proposed rule and has found that the aggregated costs are reasonable, and that lowering leak rates 

will result in fewer emissions of both ODS and substitute refrigerants. See the technical support 

document Analysis of the Economic Impact and Benefits of Proposed Revisions to the National 

Recycling and Emission Reduction Program for a complete discussion.

Based on the data sources discussed above, EPA is proposing to lower the applicable leak 

rate for commercial refrigeration appliances and IPR from 35 percent to 20 percent. EPA seeks 

comments on whether a 20 percent leak rate is appropriate given the evidence presented and in 

the docket, or if a higher (e.g., the current applicable leak rate for ODS appliances) or lower leak 

rate (e.g. as low as 10 or 15 percent) is appropriate, and if so, what information supports such a 

higher or lower leak rate. EPA also seeks comment on whether there are other regulatory

incentives that could provide a basis to go with a leak rate lower than 20 percent. 

EPA has considered the 2010 proposed rule comments as part of the initial framing and 

background research, but we are not responding to those comments because they are not 

comments on what we are proposing in this notice. To the extent commenters have the same 

concerns, they should reiterate those concerns in their comments on this proposal.

ii. Comfort Cooling and All Other Appliances

EPA is proposing to lower the applicable leak rate for comfort cooling appliances and all 

other refrigeration appliances normally containing 50 pounds or more of refrigerant that do not 

fit into the other two categories (commercial refrigeration and IPR). EPA proposes to lower these 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 121 of 320

leak rates from 15 percent to 10 percent. As explained in more detail below, 10 percent is 

reasonable given what we know about comfort cooling appliances.

In 1998, EPA proposed to reduce the leak rate for comfort cooling appliances using ODS 

or substitute refrigerants from 15 percent to 10 percent for comfort cooling appliances (the 

Agency specifically stated chillers in that proposal) built in 1992 or earlier, and from 15 percent 

to 5 percent for comfort cooling appliances built in 1993 or later. At the time, EPA noted that 

rates at which these appliances actually leak had decreased from between 10 and 15 percent per 

year to less than five percent per year in many cases (63 FR 32066). The Agency also noted that 

new comfort cooling appliances typically leak less than five percent per year, with many new 

comfort cooling appliances leaking around two percent per year, and some leaking less than one 

percent. Only one type of new equipment had been reported to have a leak rate above five 

percent: high pressure chillers with open-drive compressors, which have been found to have leak 

rates ranging from four to seven percent. Based on feedback and the assumptions used in EPA’s 

peer-reviewed Vintaging Model used to estimate refrigerant use and emissions, this assessment 

continues to be valid. 

In the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule, EPA proposed to lower the applicable leak rate 

for ODS-containing comfort cooling appliances from 15 percent to 10 percent. EPA made this 

proposal after reviewing data submitted to the SCAQMD. EPA reviewed data from 2,700 

comfort cooling appliances and found that fewer than 1 percent of ODS-containing appliances 

would be required to repair appliances within 30 days if the leak rate was lowered to 10 percent. 

EPA also analyzed the costs and benefits of lowering leak rates to five percent for comfort 

cooling appliances. The analysis used in the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule found reducing the 

leak rate for this category of equipment to 10 percent provided the most benefit for the lowest 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 122 of 320

cost. A full discussion of the analysis and rationale for the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule is 

available in the docket to this rule. EPA has also included a memo in the docket titled Analysis of 

Average Annual Leak Rates in Comfort Cooling Appliances (August 2015) that goes into average 

leak rates of comfort cooling appliances as reported to SCAQMD and CARB, and as estimated 

in the Vintaging Model. These three sources indicate 10 percent is more than reasonable and that 

15 percent may be too high a leak rate.

EPA seeks comments on establishing a 10 percent leak rate for ODS and non-exempt 

substitute refrigerants for comfort cooling and all other appliances that do not fit into the 

commercial refrigeration and IPR categories that contain 50 or more pounds of refrigerant. EPA 

also seeks comment on whether there are any other types of appliances that do not fit into either 

the comfort cooling, IPR, or commercial refrigeration appliance category. EPA seeks comments 

on whether a 10 percent leak rate is appropriate given the evidence presented and in the record, 

or if a higher (e.g., the current applicable leak rate for ODS appliances) or lower leak rate (e.g. as 

low as 5 percent) is appropriate, and if so, what information supports such a higher or lower leak 

rate. EPA also seeks comment on whether there are other regulatory incentives that could 

provide a basis to go with a leak rate lower than 10 percent.

5. Requiring Periodic Leak Inspections

The current regulation at §82.156(i) focuses on actions an appliance owner or operator 

must take after discovering an appliance has a leak, not on proactively finding leaks and reducing

the release of refrigerant from them. To enhance the traditional repair requirement and to reduce 

emissions of refrigerant during the maintenance, service, and repair of appliances, EPA is 

proposing to require annual or quarterly leak inspections as a proactive maintenance practice 

depending on the type and size of the appliance. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 123 of 320

The purpose of the proposed leak inspection requirement is to determine the location of 

refrigerant leaks, not for calculating whether the applicable leak rate has been exceeded. 

However, a leak inspection could identify a leak, resulting in the addition of refrigerant. Under 

today’s proposal, the addition of refrigerant would trigger the requirement to calculate the 

appliance’s leak rate. As explained in the definitions section of this proposal, leak inspections of 

the appliance’s refrigerant circuit include using a calibrated refrigerant leak detection device, a 

bubble test, or visual inspection for oil residue. Again, leak inspections would not need to be 

conducted by certified technicians, but the agency would recommend some training for the 

person to ensure they are knowledgeable of the various leak inspection methods. EPA requests 

comments on whether there are methods of leak detection other than these three that would be 

sufficient for the purposes of this rule, and if these three methods are all appropriate.

Some owners, especially for large, complex appliances, will evacuate the system 

periodically to inspect for leaks and to determine the full charge of an appliance. EPA seeks 

comment on whether this should be added as another viable leak inspection technique. This 

option may be appropriate because of EPA experience administering a consent decree. One 

company was required as part of a consent decree to evacuate an appliance to determine the full 

charge and inspect for leaks. The Agency’s understanding is that the company found the practice 

to be a useful way to also find and fix leaks earlier, and now evacuates the system annually to 

inspect for leaks. As a result, the company has been able to keep the leak rate of the affected 

appliance significantly lower, saving money on refrigerant and keeping equipment operating 

more efficiently. EPA is not proposing to require such evacuation, but is seeking comment on 

whether evacuation of an appliance should be another leak inspection option. EPA also seeks 

comment on the best way to describe this option in the regulation. Generally, EPA intends to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 124 of 320

allow leak inspections to be conducted by people who are not certified technicians. This option, 

however, would require a certified technician to do the work. EPA can see value in providing 

additional flexibility for owners and operators if they already conduct comprehensive leak 

inspections periodically by evacuating the appliance. 

EPA is proposing to require that owners or operators of commercial refrigeration 

appliances or IPR normally containing 500 or more pounds of refrigerant conduct quarterly leak 

inspections of the appliance, including the appliance’s refrigerant circuit. Inspections would be 

annual for commercial refrigeration appliances and IPR containing 50 pounds or more but less 

than 500 pounds of refrigerant, as well as comfort cooling appliances and other appliances 

normally containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant. More frequent monitoring is important for 

larger commercial refrigeration appliances or IPR because those systems tend to have more leaks 

than comfort cooling appliances and because the amount of refrigerant that would be lost in a 

leak is greater.

The proactive quarterly or annual leak inspections, as currently proposed, are distinct 

from the leak inspection that EPA is proposing to require at §82.157(e)(1) that occurs after 

discovering the leak rate had exceeded the applicable leak rate. 

EPA recognizes that some appliances are more leak tight than others. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to allow annual rather than quarterly inspections for commercial refrigeration

appliances or IPR normally containing 500 or more pounds of refrigerant if they satisfy one 

condition: refrigerant has not been added to the appliance for more than 365 days (excluding an 

addition for a seasonal variance as defined in this proposal). Not needing to add refrigerant is an 

indication that the system is not leaking. However, once refrigerant is added to an appliance, the 

appliance owner or operator must resume quarterly leak inspections. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 125 of 320

As part of this proposal, EPA would not require periodic leak inspections if owners or 

operators install and operate an automatic leak detection system that continuously monitors the 

appliance for leaks. The leak detection system must meet the requirements described below, and 

the owner or operator must calibrate the system annually and keep records documenting the 

calibration. A system that meets these requirements and is properly operated will provide 

continuous information about whether a system is leaking, and thus quarterly inspections would 

be unnecessary.

EPA considered CARB’s RMP when developing this proposal. The RMP’s leak 

inspection provisions, which only cover refrigeration appliances with a full charge of more than 

50 pounds, require the following:

 An automatic leak detection system that continuously monitors appliances normally

containing 2,000 pounds or more of refrigerant; 

 Quarterly leak inspections for all appliances with 200 or more pounds of refrigerant 

(unless an automatic leak detection system is installed) and annually for appliances with 

50 to 199 pounds; and 

 Leak inspections before adding refrigerant to an appliance and after a leak is repaired.

EPA’s proposal for automatic leak detection equipment is based on CARB’s 

requirements. EPA is proposing to use the same level of detection (10 parts per million of vapor) 

and notification thresholds (100 parts per million of vapor, a loss of 50 pounds of refrigerant, or 

a loss of 10 percent of the full charge) as in CARB’s requirements. Such equipment is already 

available on the market and capable of meeting those standards.

Leak inspections have been seen within the industry as a best practice to reduce 

emissions of refrigerants and many facilities use this strategy. For example, numerous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 126 of 320

GreenChill partners have used this best practice with success to keep their leak rates down.13 The 

2014 corporate-wide average leak rate among all GreenChill partner stores was under 14 percent. 

While the Agency recommends fixing all leaks once they’ve been found, EPA recognizes that 

even well-maintained appliances subject to these provisions leak. Given that fact, EPA’s lead 

proposal is to only require that all identified leaks from a leak inspection be fixed when the 

applicable leak rate is exceeded. EPA is proposing this option because the costs of repairing all 

leaks when the leak rate is below the applicable leak rate may not justify the benefits, especially 

when the leak is a series of small pinhole leaks and the leak rate is very low, as may often be the 

case. When the applicable leak rate is exceeded, the benefits are significant and do result in 

significant enough savings—both for the environment and for the owner/operator (in decreased 

refrigerant replacement costs), to warrant repair of all identified leaks. This proposal is also 

consistent with the current leak repair requirements: owners and operators of appliances are only 

required to repair leaks once the applicable leak rate has been exceeded. This familiarity will 

reduce confusion and encourage compliance.

This lead proposal was designed with Next Generation Compliance objectives in mind. 

Even if EPA does not require the repair of all leaks that are identified during leak inspections, the 

Agency anticipates that many appliance owners and operators would take action earlier if leak 

leaks are identified because it is in their financial interest to do so and would reduce emissions 

and refrigerant costs. Repairing leaks earlier could also prevent that appliance from being pulled 

into the regulatory requirements at §82.157 for exceeding the applicable leak rate. 

EPA is proposing to require that the following records be maintained as part of the leak 

inspection requirements. First, owners or operators must keep records of leak inspections that 

 

13 See GreenChill’s Best Practices Guidelines: Commercial Refrigeration Leak Prevention & Repairs, May 2011, 

available in the docket for this rulemaking.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 127 of 320

include the date of inspection and any component(s) where the leak(s) are discovered. For 

systems that use an automatic leak detection system, a record must be kept of the annual 

calibration of the leak detection system. EPA seeks comment on whether it should require that 

continuous readings from the automatic leak detection equipment be maintained for some period 

of time (as few as three months or as long as three years) so the Agency can verify the automatic

detection equipment is in fact being used continuously. 

EPA has authority under section 608(a)(3) to establish “requirements that reduce the use 

and emission of [ODS] to the lowest achievable level.” Leaks will be identified sooner when 

appliances containing ODS refrigerant are regularly inspected. Leaks that are determined to be 

above the applicable leak rate must be repaired and it is likely that smaller leaks may also be 

fixed. As a result, leak inspections will reduce the emissions of ODS refrigerant. Additionally, 

providing a consistent standard for ODS and substitute refrigerants will reduce the incidence of 

failures to follow the requirements for ODS appliances and in turn reduce the emissions of ODS. 

For these reasons, EPA is relying in part on section 608(a) for authority to require leak 

inspections for appliances containing non-exempt substitutes. 

Section 608(c) provides an exception from the venting prohibition for de minimis releases 

during maintenance, service, repair, and disposal. EPA has implicit authority to issue regulations 

explaining the contours of this exception. Leak inspections are themselves a form of maintenance 

and actions taken to address a leak are a type of repair or service. By performing periodic leak 

inspections, and repairing leaks as would be required in this proposal, the owners and operators 

both limit the immediate leakage and decrease the likelihood of leaks during future maintenance 

or servicing. Whether owners and operators are taking proactive leak prevention steps by

inspecting for leaks as a regular maintenance practice is relevant to whether any emissions that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 128 of 320

do occur may be considered de minimis under section 608(c). Section 301(a) supplements EPA’s 

authority under 608(a) and 608(c) as described previously.

EPA seeks comments on the proposed requirement for leak inspections. Specifically, 

EPA seeks comment on the frequency of leak inspections: does the quarterly/annual requirement 

make sense, or should EPA require more frequent for some appliances (as frequent as once per 

month), or less frequent (as infrequent as once every six months) inspections? EPA also seeks 

comment on the whether all systems should have to conduct leak inspections using the same 

frequency, or with different requirements based on full charge. EPA also seeks comment on the

500 pounds full charge threshold for requiring quarterly inspections. Specifically, should EPA 

establish a lower full charge threshold (as low as 200 pounds), or a higher full charge threshold 

(as high as 1,000 pounds)? EPA also seeks comment on the proposed criteria for the exemption 

from the quarterly leak inspection requirement. The agency has proposed to base this on 

refrigerant additions in the past 365 days. However, EPA takes comment on whether basing this 

exemption on four consecutive quarters under the applicable leak rate or four consecutive 

quarters without identifying a leak would be more appropriate. EPA also seeks comment on 

whether a periodic (quarterly or annual) leak inspection should satisfy the requirement to 

conduct a leak inspection upon discovering a leak rate in excess of the applicable leak rate if the 

periodic leak inspection alerts the owner to the fact that the applicable leak rate has been 

exceeded and all identified leaks during the inspection are documented. Similarly, EPA seeks 

comment on whether a leak inspection conducted after the applicable leak rate was exceeded 

should replace a typically-scheduled quarterly or annual leak inspection. EPA also seeks 

comment on whether the agency should require the repair of all leaks identified during leak 

inspections regardless of whether the applicable leak rate has been exceeded, or only if the leak 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 129 of 320

rate is above the applicable leak rate. For commenters on all of these alternative proposals, 

please provide as much specificity as possible and the reason why these changes would be more 

appropriate than the lead proposal, with special attention to the environmental outcomes 

resulting from the change.

EPA also seeks comments on alternative proposals for automatic detection equipment 

including: (1) whether automatic detection systems should be inspected and calibrated more 

frequently than annually to ensure it is functioning properly (as frequently as quarterly); (2) 

whether EPA should require the installation of automatic leak detection systems for appliances 

with a full charge of 2,000 pounds or more, similar to California’s requirement, instead of just 

requiring periodic leak inspections; and (3) whether owners and operators using automatic leak 

detection systems should be required to keep records of when a leak is identified and what 

actions were taken to repair that leak.

i. Extensions for Less Frequent Inspections 

Consistent with past regulations implementing CAA section 608, EPA is proposing to 

establish a process that would allow owners or operators to request less frequent leak inspections 

for certain federally-owned appliances that are located in remote locations or are otherwise 

difficult to access for routine maintenance. Specifically, EPA is proposing that owners or 

operators of appliances in these unique situations would be allowed to request a less frequent 

leak inspection schedule (not to be less frequent than once every three years instead of the 

proposed annual or quarterly requirement that would otherwise apply). EPA is also considering 

establishing two years as the maximum amount of time that can pass between inspections, 

instead of three. None of the other appliance maintenance and leak repair requirements would be 

affected by this extension. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 130 of 320

Any owner or operator of an appliance requesting an extension would have to show that 

the appliance has a history of minimal leakage and is remotely located or is otherwise difficult to 

access for routine maintenance. Additionally, the extension request should explain why

installation of automatic leak detection equipment is not practical and what leak inspection 

schedule would be reasonable given the circumstances (not to exceed three years). EPA seeks 

comments on the establishment of this extension request process, if there are other conditions 

that should be established to gain approval from EPA, whether the longest interval between 

inspections should be two years instead of three, and whether this extension should only be 

available for comfort cooling appliances, since they are the most likely to be in locations that are 

remote or difficult to access routinely. 

Given the attempt to harmonize appliance maintenance and leak repair extension requests 

elsewhere, EPA also seeks comments on whether privately-owned appliances face unique 

situations that make routine leak inspections or the installation of automatic leak detection 

equipment difficult, and whether EPA should apply this proposed extension request process to

non-federally owned appliances as well. EPA may decide to finalize the proposed request 

process or a similar process for such unique situations. Commenters supporting such an 

extension should provide as much specificity as possible about these unique situations, the 

appliances at issue, why those appliances might qualify for an extension, and why installation of 

automatic leak detection equipment is not practical in these situations.

6. Two-year Leak Limit

EPA is proposing a new requirement to address appliances that leak in excess of the 

applicable leak rate despite being repaired frequently. Under the existing rules at §82.156(i), an 

appliance can exceed the leak rate as long as leaks are repaired in accordance with the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 131 of 320

regulations. If leaks frequently occur in multiple areas, this can result in appliances that have 

high leak rates on an annual basis yet are still in compliance with regulatory requirements 

through means of continuous repair. EPA is proposing to add a total leak limit to the repair 

requirement to address these chronically leaking systems. 

Under this proposal, an appliance containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant may not 

leak more than 75 percent of its full charge in two consecutive twelve-month periods and remain 

in use. Take, for example, an appliance that loses 95 percent of its full charge between June 1, 

2017, and May 31, 2018 (measured by the cumulative refrigerant additions excluding seasonal 

adjustments). Between June 1, 2018, and May 31, 2019, that appliance would not be permitted to

leak more than 75 percent of its full charge. If the amount lost in June 1, 2018, through May 31, 

2019, exceeded 75 percent of the full charge, the owner or operator would be out of compliance 

starting June 1, 2019, until the appliance was retired or mothballed and later retired.

EPA reviewed data reported to CARB to determine whether a leak limit was necessary

and, if so, what the limit should be. In 2013, approximately 8 percent of reporting appliances had 

leaked more than 75 percent of their full charge over the calendar year and were responsible for 

38 percent of total reported emissions. As discussed, these appliances would not be out of 

compliance unless they were over 75 percent in two consecutive twelve-month periods. EPA 

looked only at a single one-year period because 2012 and 2014 data were not available at the 

time the proposal was developed. The data do support the fact that a small percentage of 

appliances are responsible for a larger proportion of emissions. EPA also looked at the 

percentage of appliances that had leaked more than 35, 55, and 100 percent over the calendar 

year to see how many appliances could be affected and what percentage of leaks they are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 132 of 320

responsible for. EPA seeks comment on whether it should finalize a higher or lower two-year 

leak limit.

Due to the high chronic leaks of such appliances, the environmental benefit of 

establishing a cumulative leak limit could be large. Nonetheless, the number of appliances 

affected by this proposed limit should be low. First, using a two-year limit should exclude 

appliances that suffered from a one-time catastrophic leak, many of which are largely 

unpreventable. A leak limit that is evaluated over two consecutive twelve-month periods allows 

for the possibility of an unpreventable catastrophic leak in one year without violating the 

prohibition, as long as leaks are reduced below the limit in the following year. Second, if the 

appliance maintenance and leak repair requirements proposed in this notice are finalized, they

should prevent the leak limit from being reached. Only when an owner or operator continues to 

add refrigerant to a system without taking steps to repair the leaks would an appliance reach the 

two-year leak limit. Third, due to the proposed calculation and recordkeeping requirements 

discussed below, appliance owners or operators would be on notice that their appliance was 

leaking at an unacceptable level after the first year, and should have ample time to bring leaks 

down below the 75 percent leak limit in the following year. An appliance owner or operator that 

did not take action based on the calculation and recordkeeping requirements in order to meet the 

two-year limit would be participating in the knowing release of refrigerant during maintenance 

and servicing of the appliance.

EPA seeks comments on creating a leak limit and on the leak amount that should be used

for such a leak limit. EPA seeks comments on whether it should finalize a leak limit that is lower 

or higher (as low as 35 percent, or as high as 100 percent). EPA seeks comments on whether it 

should establish a limit based on two consecutive 6-month periods or on just one year, instead of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 133 of 320

two consecutive twelve-month periods. EPA also seeks comments on whether the Agency should

allow owners or operators to stay in compliance after exceeding the leak limit if they develop a 

retrofit or retirement plan and implement it within one year instead of being required to retire the 

appliance or mothball and later retire the appliance. This option would provide owners and

operators with additional flexibility to remain in compliance while decreasing emissions of 

refrigerant. EPA also seeks comment on whether it should allow owners and operators to 

continue operating their appliance beyond the two-year (or shorter) period if they notify EPA 

that the reason they went over the leak limit was only because of one or more catastrophic leaks

that were unavoidable. Under this alternative proposal, EPA would have to review the 

notification and determine whether there is enough documentation to verify that the leak or leaks 

were in fact catastrophic and could not have been prevented. If comments indicate an exception 

for catastrophic leaks should be provided, the agency would likely finalize a lower leak limit and 

would potentially shorten the timeframe over which the requirement would apply (i.e., two 

consecutive six-month periods instead of two consecutive twelve-month periods). Finally, EPA 

seeks comment on whether the period, whether six months or twelve months, should be aligned 

with the calendar year, such that the first twelve month period would always be January 1 

through December 31, or whether EPA should allow owners and operators to determine when 

each period begins. EPA sees advantages to both options (simplicity in the former option, but 

flexibility in the second). 

7. Leak Rate Calculation

The existing regulations at §82.156(i) do not explicitly require technicians or owners and 

operators to calculate the leak rate each time refrigerant is added to an appliance using an ODS 

refrigerant. Such action is implied since owners or operators may not be able to determine 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 134 of 320

compliance without calculating the leak rate each time refrigerant is added to the appliance. For 

example, if a commercial refrigeration appliance owner adds refrigerant to the appliance but does 

not calculate the leak rate, the owner would have no means of determining if the appliance’s leak 

rate was below 35 percent. Hence, the owner would not know if further action was warranted.

To reinforce the required practices, EPA is proposing to explicitly require owners or 

operators of appliances with 50 or more pounds of refrigerant to calculate the leak rate each time 

refrigerant is added to an appliance. EPA is proposing this requirement for appliances that use an 

ODS or non-exempt substitute refrigerant. EPA would provide exceptions for when refrigerant is 

added immediately following a retrofit, the installation of a new appliance, or to counter a 

seasonal variance (where records documenting the seasonal variance are maintained as proposed 

in this rule).

EPA is also proposing to add specific recordkeeping requirements to ensure that the 

owner or operator is aware of the leak rate. The limited records currently required from service 

technicians may not provide information needed by the appliance owner or operator to make 

decisions on the fate of the appliance. In addition, the records that are currently required to be 

provided by the technician do not match the records that are currently required to be maintained 

by the owner or operator. EPA is therefore proposing to require that service technicians provide 

more detailed records to the owner or operator of the appliance. The additional records would 

match the records that owners and operators of appliances must maintain. The service technician 

is generally in the better position to generate those records as they usually are the expert that the 

appliance owner or operator is relying on to make informed decisions about their appliances. 

With the addition of these requirements, an appliance owner or operator that failed to take 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 135 of 320

required leak repair actions would be participating in the knowing release of refrigerant during 

maintenance, service, or repair of the appliance.

Specifically, EPA is proposing that whenever an appliance with 50 or more pounds of 

refrigerant is maintained, serviced, repaired, or disposed of, the technician must provide the 

owner or operator with an invoice or other documentation that indicates 1) the identity and 

location of the appliance; 2) the date and type of maintenance, service, repair, or disposal 

performed, including the location of repairs and the results of any verification tests or leak 

inspections (if applicable); 3) the name and contact information of the person performing the 

maintenance, service, repair, or disposal; 4) the amount and type of refrigerant added to and/or 

removed from the appliance (if applicable); 5) the full charge of the appliance (if refrigerant is 

added); and 6) the leak rate and the method used to determine the leak rate (if refrigerant is 

added). EPA is proposing identical recordkeeping requirements for appliance owners or 

operators who use in-house service personnel. EPA is also proposing to require that the owner or 

operator maintain records of all calculations, measurements, and assumptions used to determine 

the full charge and any revisions made to the full charge over time. 

These proposed records are likely already provided by many service personnel and/or are 

being maintained by owners and operators. The current regulations already require technicians to 

provide an invoice or other documentation that includes the amount of ODS refrigerant added to 

the owner or operator. This would likely already include information on the system serviced, the 

date, and the company/person servicing the appliance. It would likely also include some 

description of the service provided. Owners and operators must already maintain service records 

documenting the date and type of service, as well as the quantity of ODS refrigerant added. 

Therefore, the only new information in most service instances for ODS systems would be the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 136 of 320

appliance’s full charge and the leak rate, which would both be relatively simple since the owners 

and operators are required to have both available on-site. This will require communication 

between the owner/operator and the technician and/or access to past service records to ensure the 

technician can calculate the leak rate. 

EPA seeks comments on this proposed change. In particular, EPA solicits comments on 

whether invoices containing this information are common practice and whether these records 

would be useful for owners and operators in determining what actions they should take to 

properly maintain their appliances or determining whether an appliance should be repaired or 

replaced.

8. Seasonal Variances

In regions of the country that experience large temperature swings during the year, 

refrigerant in some appliances can migrate from the condenser to the receiver. This migration 

results in a need to add refrigerant to an appliance to “flood the condenser” in the season of 

lower temperature ambient conditions (fall or winter). In this case, the added refrigerant would 

have to be removed when the weather returns to design ambient conditions to prevent high head 

pressures. This technique is often referred to as a winter-summer charge procedure or a seasonal 

adjustment. Seasonal adjustments are not necessary for appliances with properly sized system 

receivers because they can hold the appliances’ full charge, including the additional charge 

needed to flood the condenser.

As discussed above, EPA has proposed to define seasonal variance as the addition of 

refrigerant to an appliance due to a change in ambient conditions caused by a change in season, 

followed by the subsequent removal of an equal amount of refrigerant in the corresponding 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 137 of 320

change in season, where both the addition and removal of refrigerant occurs within one 

consecutive 12-month period. 

EPA is proposing only to allow owners or operators to exclude the amount added from 

the leak rate calculation if the amount removed is equal to or greater than the amount added 

during the prior season. In a properly charged, non-leaking system, adding refrigerant during 

months with lower ambient conditions (fall or winter) would require an equivalent amount of

refrigerant to be removed in the months with higher ambient conditions (spring or summer). If 

less is removed in the spring/summer than was added at the start of fall/winter, the difference 

between the two would be considered a leak and not a seasonal addition. Without requiring that 

the amount added be equal to the amount removed to qualify for the exemption, there is no way

to distinguish legitimate seasonal variances from refrigerant leaks. EPA expects only one 

addition and one removal of refrigerant to account for seasonal variance. If the amount added is 

equal to or less than the amount removed in the previous season, but an additional amount is 

added in close proximity (typically within a few days to a few weeks) to the addition being 

counted as a seasonal variance, it would be considered part of the same refrigerant addition 

unless the owner or operator could document a leak.

EPA is proposing at §82.157(c) to recognize that the leak rate does not need to be 

calculated when adding refrigerant to account for a seasonal variance. Both the addition and 

subsequent removal of refrigerant due to seasonal variances must be documented. Such additions 

and removals would already be accounted for in service records provided by the technician to the 

owner/operator. EPA is proposing to state the recordkeeping requirement explicitly in 

§82.157(l)(4).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 138 of 320

EPA proposed to allow for seasonal variance in the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule and 

received two comments on that rule. One commenter indicated support, while the other 

commented that the amount added in one season may not always match the amount removed 

later in the year, but provided no additional support for this assertion. 

EPA seeks comments on the need for a limited exclusion to the requirement to calculate 

the leak rate upon addition of refrigerant for seasonal variance. EPA also seeks comment on 

whether the seasonal variance provision should be a limited exclusion from the requirement to 

calculate leaks as discussed above, or if the provision should establish a two-step test. First, the 

owner or operator would have to determine if the amount added is equal to or less than the 

amount removed from the appliance in the previous season. If the amount was lower, they would 

not have to calculate the leak rate. If it was above, they would have to calculate the leak rate for 

the appliance using the difference between the amount added and the amount removed in the 

previous season. EPA also seeks comments on the need to document the capacity of the receiver, 

as well as a requirement making the exemption contingent upon an equivalent amount of 

refrigerant being removed and added over a consecutive 12-month period.

9. Appliance Repair 

The existing required practices at §82.156(i) generally require owners or operators of IPR 

(§82.156(i)(2)), comfort cooling appliances (§82.156(i)(5)), and commercial refrigeration 

appliances (§82.156(i)(1)) with refrigerant charges of more than 50 pounds to repair leaks within 

30 days, unless owners or operators decide to immediately retrofit or retire the appliance. 

Retrofit or retirement plans must be developed within 30 days of discovering the leak and must 

be fully implemented within one year of the plan’s date. For those appliances not undergoing 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 139 of 320

retrofit or retirement, the repairs must bring the leak rate to below the current applicable leak rate 

of 35 or 15 percent.

This existing requirement has allowed a scenario where owners or operators could decide 

to not repair all known leaks within an appliance, as long as repair efforts brought the leak rate of 

the appliance below the applicable leak rate. The challenge with such a scenario is that owners or 

operators may assume that they have done sufficient repairs to comply with the leak repair 

requirements, or may be in temporary compliance, but may find themselves out of compliance if 

they are mistaken about what the current leak rate was such that the repair was not sufficient, or 

if another leak resulting in a calculated leak rate greater than the applicable leak rate occurs 

shortly after the initial repair effort was completed. 

EPA is proposing to require the repair of all identified leaks once the applicable leak rate 

at §82.157(d)(2) is exceeded, not just repairs sufficient to bring the leak rate below the applicable 

leak rate. Leaving some appliance leaks unaddressed in such situations does not reduce 

emissions of refrigerants to the lowest achievable level and does not prevent knowing releases of 

refrigerant during current or future maintenance, service, or repair. Since selective repairs can 

result in preventable refrigerant emissions, and therefore knowing releases of refrigerant to the 

atmosphere, with associated human health and environmental effects, and may be inconsistent 

with the venting prohibition, EPA is proposing to require that owners or operators of appliances 

normally containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant repair all identified leaks within 30 days of 

exceeding the applicable leak rate. 

If finalized, this revision would mean that appliance owners or operators cannot be 

selective about repairs made to appliances that leak in excess of the applicable leak rate. This 

will remove ambiguity concerning compliance with the leak repair requirements and remove
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 140 of 320

potential questions that could arise as to whether a repair attempt was sufficient to comply with 

the rules. 

Many owners or operators (particularly of commercial refrigeration appliances and IPR) 

have stated that they always repair leaks, and must do so for their businesses to remain viable. 

EPA agrees that many businesses depend on the prompt repair of leaks and that it may not be in 

the financial interest of many appliance owners or operators to allow their appliances to continue 

to leak. However, there are appliance owners and operators that do not take appropriate steps to 

minimize refrigerant leaks. Hence, the Agency views the leak repair requirements as both a 

backstop to current repair practices for appliances that are well maintained, and necessary to 

ensure that refrigerant leaks during maintenance, service, and repair are kept to the lowest 

achievable level for appliances that are not as well maintained.

EPA reviewed comments received on the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule during the 

development of this proposal. The comments tend to fall into three categories: practicality of 

fixing all leaks; time needed to fix all leaks; and clarification on when all leaks must be fixed. 

First, on the practicality of fixing all leaks, several commenters noted that some leaks cannot be 

identified without shutting down and fully evacuating and inspecting an appliance. Others noted 

that some leaks may be trivial and located on seals, gaskets, valves, and fittings where leakage 

occurs regardless of repairs. One commenter stated that all leaks should be fixed regardless of 

the location. Others raised concern about the cost and the diminishing value of fixing ever 

smaller leaks. Several of these commenters recommended the Agency focus on “identified” or 

“known” leaks, or alternatively, on setting the requirement at “making a best effort” to repair all 

leaks. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 141 of 320

In considering these comments, EPA is proposing to require a leak inspection whenever 

the applicable leak rate is exceeded. EPA is not proposing to require evacuating or shutting down 

the appliance to conduct that leak inspection, although that would be an option available to 

owners and operators. The leak inspection would involve identifying and creating a record of 

leaks that must be repaired within 30 days. EPA recognizes that a small amount of refrigerant 

can migrate from an appliance even if the refrigerant circuit is unbroken. EPA is seeking 

comments on whether the agency should create a limited exception, which would provide that if 

upon further inspection (through bubble tests or other means), sound professional judgment 

indicates an individual identified leak is not the result of a faulty component or connection and 

that refrigerant releases would not be reduced from repair or adjustment, the leak would not need 

to be repaired. If this proposal is finalized, EPA would likely require that the justification for the 

determination be noted in the appliance’s service records. EPA notes that there are certain types 

of situations that would never meet these conditions, including but not limited to when a 

component has holes, cracks, or improperly seated seals. All other leaks would still need to be 

repaired if the applicable leak rate is exceeded. 

In addition to reducing emissions of high-GWP and ozone-depleting refrigerants, a 

refrigerant management program saves money in refrigerant and potentially energy expenses. 

EPA discusses the costs and savings later in this preamble, but preventive maintenance can save 

a significant amount of money even when factoring in the added cost of a more vigilant 

refrigerant management program, especially as the cost of some refrigerants such as HCFC-22 

rises. Proposals to require repair of all identified leaks and conduct periodic leak inspections 

should incentivize owners and operators to develop a refrigerant management plan to proactively 

fix leaks before they become big enough to exceed the applicable leak rate. EPA’s experience 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 142 of 320

with several recent consent decrees indicates leak rates, even in complicated IPR applications, 

can be brought below the applicable leak rates proposed in this rule with a refrigerant 

management program that identifies and fixes leaks early.

Finally, it is possible that some leaks may not be fixable in 30 days. Later in this notice, 

EPA discusses the possible extensions to the 30-day leak repair requirement, including allowing 

these extensions for the repair of commercial refrigeration and comfort cooling appliances. 

Regardless, owners and operators should be fixing leaks as a normal course of business, which 

would largely prevent many of these requirements from ever being triggered. As noted above, 

the periodic leak inspections would help identify leaks earlier for repair, before those leaks are 

big enough to exceed the applicable leak rate. 

EPA requests comments on the proposed requirement to repair all identified leaks when 

the appliance leaks above the applicable leak rate.

10. Verification Tests

Verification tests are performed on appliances after they are repaired to ensure that leaks 

have been fixed. The regulation at §82.156(i)(3) currently requires verification tests only for 

repairs to IPR and Federally-owned commercial and comfort cooling appliances containing an 

ODS refrigerant and only when extensions to the 30 day deadline (or 120 day deadline when an 

IPR shutdown is required) are needed. Limiting the verification tests to such a narrow set of 

appliances is problematic, so EPA is proposing that all repairs should be verified. 

First, the lack of verification may leave owners or operators of comfort cooling and 

commercial refrigeration appliances uncertain as to whether their repair efforts have brought 

them into compliance with the leak repair requirements. A lack of verification could allow for 

insufficient or incomplete repairs, which could lead to ongoing or future leaks during 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 143 of 320

maintenance, service, or repair. Ongoing leaks, especially when they are at the same location or 

component in the appliance, could result in noncompliance with the current requirements if 

repairs did not actually bring the leak rate of the entire appliance beneath the applicable leak rate. 

Second, EPA has considered the burden of conducting verification tests on all types of 

equipment and addresses that issue below. EPA cannot identify a reason why the burden could 

more easily be borne in those narrow circumstances in which verification is currently required by 

the regulations, given that some type of verification is generally a standard practice across all 

types of appliances. Third, the environmental benefit of verifying repairs applies to comfort 

cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances as well as IPR.

Therefore, EPA is proposing to require at 82.157(f) that owners or operators of all types 

of appliances that are subject to the leak repair requirements (including those using an ODS or 

non-exempt substitute refrigerant) perform both an initial and follow-up verification of repairs 

every time the applicable leak rate is exceeded (unless a retrofit or retirement plan is being 

developed). 

EPA sought comments on this same proposal in the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule and 

received three comments. All were in support of extending verification tests to all covered 

appliances. EPA again seeks comments on requiring verification tests on all appliances normally 

containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant. EPA sees a potential benefit in requiring both an 

initial and follow-up verification test to ensure a leak is repaired and that the repair will hold. 

EPA seeks comments whether both an initial and follow-up verification test are needed in all 

situations and seeks comments on requiring a minimum time between tests such as one to three 

hours to allow an appliance to return to normal operating characteristics and conditions.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 144 of 320

EPA is also clarifying that owners or operators may conduct as many repair attempts as 

needed within the initial 30 days (or longer if an extension is available) to repair the appliance. 

Consequently, the Agency is proposing to explicitly allow unlimited verification tests within the 

required repair window. This is discussed further in the preamble section on retrofit and 

retirement plans.

The Agency understands that most technicians pressure check appliances immediately

following repairs. EPA is proposing that such pressure checks would satisfy the initial 

verification requirements. EPA’s concern is that follow-up verifications may not be a part of 

normal operating procedures for all repairs. Follow-up verifications require a technician to 

perform a second test after the appliance has returned to normal operating characteristics and 

conditions. A follow-up verification is an indicator of the success of repairs. Thus, EPA intends 

to require such verification for all appliances that have leaked refrigerant above the applicable 

leak rate. 

EPA currently has not set a minimum amount of time that must pass between the initial 

and follow-up verifications. In the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule EPA proposed that the two

tests be separated by at least 24 hours. Based on comments to that rule, the Agency is taking 

comment in this action on whether a shorter time such as one to three hours after the appliance is 

brought back on-line would be more appropriate. Regardless of whether EPA specifies an 

amount of time that must pass, all follow-up verification tests must take place after the appliance 

has returned to normal operating characteristics and conditions—both currently for IPR, and 

under the proposed change to require verification tests for repairs on all types of appliances with 

50 or more pounds of class I, class II, or substitute refrigerant. EPA is also proposing to require 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 145 of 320

follow-up verification tests to occur within 10 days of the successful initial verification test or 10 

days of the appliance reaching normal operating characteristics and conditions.

11. Extensions to the 30-day (or 120-day) Repair Requirement

EPA currently provides extensions to the repair or retrofit/retirement deadlines for IPR

and Federally-owned appliances under certain conditions. EPA has identified four conditions that 

exist in the current regulations:

 The appliance is mothballed (available for all appliances) (§82.156(i)(10));

 The appliance is located in an area subject to radiological contamination or where 

shutting down the appliance will directly lead to radiological contamination (available for 

Federally-owned appliances) (§82.156(i)(1)(ii) and (i)(5)(ii));

 Applicable Federal, state, or local regulations make a repair within 30 or 120 days 

impossible (available for IPR) (§82.156(i)(2)(i)); or

 Parts are unavailable (available for IPR) (§82.156(i)(2)(i)).

While not an extension, IPR facilities are also allowed an initial repair period of 120 days 

rather than 30 days if an industrial process shutdown is required to complete the repair. In 

addition, an exemption to the repair requirement is allowed for all types of appliances if a dated 

retrofit or retirement plan is developed and is implemented within one year of the date 

developed.

EPA is proposing at §82.157(g) to make these extensions to the repair deadlines available 

to all appliance categories. EPA has heard from owners of commercial refrigeration appliances, 

for example, that they occasionally are unable to complete a repair due to the temporary

unavailability of a component. They were therefore required to develop a retrofit and retirement 

plan even though a component could be acquired shortly after 30 days. While IPR may require 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 146 of 320

custom components, the need for components is not unique to IPR. It does not make sense to 

require the retrofit or retirement of an appliance that can be repaired in situations such as when a 

single component is the problem and can be procured shortly after 30 days. 

The extension for the delivery of components is open-ended in the current regulation. 

While the regulation provides only the additional time needed to receive delivery of the 

necessary parts, it does not set an outer limit for delivery nor does it clearly provide time to 

install the components once received. EPA is proposing at §82.157(g)(1)(iii) to modify the 

extension so that the owner or operator must complete the repair within 30 days after receiving 

delivery of the necessary part and the total extension may not exceed 180 days (or 270 days if an 

IPR shutdown is required). As proposed, this extension may be more stringent for IPR because 

IPR owners/operators would be time-limited in conducting those repairs. EPA is not proposing to 

change the open-ended nature of the extensions due to radiological contamination or compliance 

with applicable Federal, state, or local regulations.

To qualify for an extension, owners or operators must perform all repairs that can be 

completed within the initial 30 or 120 day period. All repairs must be verified if possible and the 

owner or operator must document all such repair efforts. The owner or operator must maintain a 

written statement from the appliance or component manufacturer or distributor stating the 

unavailability of parts and the expected delivery date as part of the reason why more than 30 

days are needed. EPA is not proposing to change the elements of the request for an extension that 

is submitted to EPA. Requests must continue to include: Identification and address of the 

facility; the name of the owner or operator of the appliance; the leak rate; the method used to 

determine the leak rate and full charge; the date a leak rate above the applicable leak rate was 

discovered; the location of leak(s) to the extent determined to date; any repair work that has been 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 147 of 320

performed thus far, including the date that work was completed; the reasons why more than 30 

days are needed to complete the repair; and an estimate of when the work will be completed. If 

requesting an extension to the earlier submitted completion date, a new estimated date of 

completion and documentation of the reason for that change must be submitted to EPA within 30 

days. The owner or operator must keep a dated copy of this submission and proof that it was 

submitted.

EPA requests comments on applying the extensions to all appliance types, including 

whether such extensions should not be extended to certain appliances. EPA also seeks comments

on the scope and amount of time allowed for each extension, and whether there are additional 

extension types that the Agency should consider allowing. Commenters supporting the creation 

of a new extension should provide detailed reasoning and cost implications (both for the 

environment and an owner/operator) in their comment.

12. Retrofit or Retirement Plans

EPA’s regulations at §82.156(i)(6) currently require an owner or operator of an appliance 

that exceeds the applicable leak rate to develop and implement a retrofit or retirement plan 

generally within 30 days if they are unable to repair the leak. EPA is proposing at §82.157(h)

three changes to the retrofit/retirement provision. First, EPA is proposing to remove the 

requirement to retrofit an appliance after a failed follow-up verification test. EPA is proposing to 

replace that provision with a requirement to retrofit an appliance if the owner or operator is 

unable to repair all identified leaks within 30 days after discovering the applicable leak rate is 

exceeded (unless additional time is allowed under one of the proposed extensions). Second, EPA 

is proposing to remove the requirement to use a substitute with a lower or equivalent ODP. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 148 of 320

Third, EPA is proposing to establish explicit elements of a retrofit/retirement plan. These three 

proposals are discussed below.

Failed Verification Tests. EPA’s regulations currently require owners or operators of IPR

using an ODS refrigerant that have failed a follow-up verification test to develop a retrofit or 

retirement plan within 30 days of the failed verification test and implement the plan within one 

year. Under these plans, owners or operators must identify how and when they will retire or 

retrofit their appliance. Owners or operators of comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration 

appliances are currently not required to perform verification tests and, in lieu of making repairs 

within 30 days, are given the option to draft and implement a retrofit or retirement plan within 30 

days of discovering a leak rate greater than the applicable leak rate. 

EPA has heard concerns from appliance owners/operators that the requirement to retrofit 

or retire an entire appliance because it has failed a verification test may not always be practical 

or necessary. For example, some owners or operators would prefer to replace a faulty component 

before they are required to retrofit or retire an entire appliance and believe this could in many

instances be an equally effective means to address needed repairs. The Agency wishes to reduce 

the potentially large burden upon owners or operators of requiring a large-scale retrofit or 

retirement when replacing the leaking component might satisfactorily repair the appliance. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to provide an owner or operator additional flexibility if they are 

unable to initially fix all identified leaks after discovering the applicable leak rate is exceeded.

This proposal would allow owners or operators to attempt as many repairs as necessary

within the initial 30 days of discovering that an appliance’s leak rate exceeds the applicable leak 

rate. This could include replacing a component. If that component cannot arrive within the initial 

30 day period, the owner or operator could request additional time under the proposed provisions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 149 of 320

related to extensions discussed previously in this preamble. An owner or operator of an appliance 

would only have to retrofit or retire the appliance if the component replacement was 

unsuccessful and they could not repair all leaks that were identified in the leak inspection 

triggered by discovering that the applicable leak rate was exceeded. 

This approach is based, in part, on feedback received from past proposals. In comments 

on the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule, several commenters supported additional flexibility to 

conduct repairs and/or component replacements before being required to retrofit or retire an 

appliance. Stakeholders have stated that a facility should be allowed an unlimited number of 

repair attempts to equipment within the 30 day time period. These stakeholders supported an 

option in the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule that would have allowed additional flexibility to 

replace components before being required to retrofit or retire a leaking appliance. The approach 

proposed in today’s notice provides similar flexibility.

Because the retrofit/retirement plan requirements allow an appliance to leak without 

repairs for up to a year (in addition to extension opportunities), this change would likely increase 

the speed at which appliance repairs take place, thereby reducing emissions of refrigerants. This 

proposal also would eliminate the possibility of mandatory retrofitting or retirement in cases 

where it might not be warranted because the owner or operator would have the flexibility to 

determine if component replacement would be the best means of addressing a leaking appliance. 

As discussed in the prior section, EPA is proposing to extend the requirement for

verification tests to repairs made by owners or operators of commercial refrigeration and comfort 

cooling appliances using both an ODS and non-exempt substitute refrigerant. EPA is also 

proposing to extend the approach to retrofit and retirement described above to owners or 

operators of commercial refrigeration and comfort cooling appliances. Extending this approach
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 150 of 320

to all appliances will reduce refrigerant emissions while establishing a consistent set of 

regulatory required practices. 

Retrofit/Retirement ODP. EPA’s regulations currently require that appliances containing 

an ODS refrigerant, when being retrofitted or retired/replaced, use a refrigerant with an 

equivalent or lower ODP. EPA created this provision to foster the transition from refrigerants 

with high ODPs to ones with a lower ODP. EPA is proposing to remove this requirement and 

allow for retrofits or retired/replaced appliances to use any refrigerant (other than the one 

currently used in that appliance in the case of retrofits), so long as it is acceptable for use by 

SNAP. This change would not relax the current requirements with respect to HCFCs since the 

regulations implementing sections 605 and 606 of the CAA already prohibit the manufacture 

(and therefore installation) of appliances using virgin HCFCs (as of January 1, 2010, for HCFC142b and HCFC-22; and as of January 1, 2020, for other HCFCs). Requiring the use of a 

refrigerant with a lower or equivalent ODP could be problematic if the requirement were read 

strictly because some HFO refrigerants that are not classified as an ODS have an ODP even 

though the ODP is negligible. For example, HFO-1233zd(E) has an ODP between 0.00024 to 

0.00034 and a GWP between 4.7 to 7 (see 77 FR 47768). Under a strict interpretation, if an 

owner/operator wanted to replace an R-134a chiller with an HFO-1233zd(E) chiller in future, 

he/she would not be able to switch from R-134a, which has an ODP of zero, to the HFO since 

the HFO has an ODP that, though negligible, is higher than zero. This could prevent transition to 

low-GWP alternatives.

EPA also wishes to clarify that the current requirement to retrofit with a refrigerant of the 

same or lower ODP does not mean that the same refrigerant can be used. Such actions do not 

satisfy the regulatory intent or the proposed definition of “retrofit.” The requirement to retrofit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 151 of 320

means the owner or operator must switch refrigerants. While the Agency is proposing to allow 

flexibility in refrigerant choices, the intent is not to allow the continued use of the same 

refrigerant in the retrofitted appliance. In cases where the owner/operator wants to use the same 

refrigerant and that refrigerant can continue to be used consistent with other applicable statutory

and regulatory requirements, the owner/operator would have the option of retiring and replacing 

the appliance.

If an owner/operator chooses to retire and replace a system, EPA is not proposing to 

require under Subpart F that a different refrigerant be used because eventually there may not be a 

refrigerant to switch to that is better for the environment. At this time, EPA intends to rely on 

other 40 CFR part 82 regulatory requirements that do prohibit the use of some refrigerants, (e.g., 

the prohibition on manufacture of systems using HCFC-22 under subpart A).

Elements of a Retrofit or Retirement Plan. Stakeholders have asked EPA what should be 

included in a retrofit or retirement plan. The Agency has not previously provided a specific list 

of elements to be included due to the complex nature of refrigeration appliances. An exhaustive

list may not fit all types of appliances considering the wide array of configurations and 

refrigerant choices. However, EPA finds merit in specifying a minimum set of information that is 

likely to be needed during any type of retrofit or retirement. 

EPA is proposing at §82.157(h)(2) to require that a retrofit or retirement plan include the 

following minimum set of information: 

 Identification and location of the appliance; 

 Type (i.e. ASHRAE number) and full charge of the refrigerant currently used in the 

appliance; 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 152 of 320

 Type (i.e. ASHRAE number) and full charge of the refrigerant to which the appliance 

will be converted, if retrofitted; 

 Itemized procedure for converting the appliance to the new refrigerant, including changes 

required for compatibility (for example, procedure for flushing old refrigerant and 

lubricant; and changes in lubricants, filters, gaskets, o-rings, and valves), if retrofitted; 

 Plan for the disposition of recovered refrigerant; 

 Plan for the disposition of the appliance, if retired; and 

 One-year schedule for completion of the appliance retrofit or retirement. 

Such requirements are a minimum of what should be considered by any owner or 

operator when retrofitting or retiring a leaking appliance. A retrofit or retirement plan may

contain additional elements related to the specific characteristics of that appliance but EPA is not 

proposing requirements for those elements because they would more appropriately be 

determined on a case-by-case basis. 

The Agency’s preference would be to have a complete plan developed within 30 days. 

However, EPA recognizes that some information may not be available in that timeframe. For 

example, owners or operators may not know within the allotted time frame what the itemized 

procedure will be until they finalize plans for the retrofit or retirement. Under the itemized 

procedure heading, EPA is considering whether to allow owners or operators to include a 

placeholder such as “Engineer consulted to evaluate retrofit and replacement options on [X] date. 

Engineers report expected in three months.” Shortly after that report is delivered, the owner or 

operator would need to update the plan accordingly to indicate the procedure for retrofit or 

retirement and replacement.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 153 of 320

EPA seeks comments on these proposed changes to the retrofit and retirement plans

including the following questions: Should EPA allow for multiple repairs within the 30 day

repair window? Should EPA apply the proposed changes to all appliance types? Should EPA

remove the requirement to switch to a refrigerant with a lower or equivalent ODP? Should EPA 

require the use of a refrigerant with a lower or equivalent GWP? 

The Agency also requests comments on the proposed minimum requirements of a retrofit 

or retirement plan. Are there other factors that should be considered when developing a 

retrofit/retirement plan? Is this information available within 30 days of deciding to retrofit or 

retire an appliance? Should EPA allow for the retrofit/retirement plan to have placeholders for 

some elements until the information is available, by noting specific actions that are needed to 

accurately document the plan?

13. Extensions to Retrofit or Retire Appliances

Under the current regulations at §82.156(i)(6), an owner or operator must generally 

complete the retrofit or retirement of a leaking appliance containing an ODS within one year of 

creating a retrofit or retirement plan. There are extensions available in the following 

circumstances: 

 If delays are caused by requirements of other applicable Federal, state, or local laws or 

regulations (available for IPR); 

 If a suitable replacement refrigerant with a lower ODP is unavailable (available for IPR);

 If the supplier of the appliance or a critical component has quoted a delivery time of more 

than 30 weeks from when the order is placed (available for IPR);

 If complications presented by the appropriations and/or procurement process results in a 

delivery time of more than 30 weeks (available for Federally-owned appliances); or
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 154 of 320

 If the appliance is located in an area subject to radiological contamination and creating a 

safe working environment will require more than 30 weeks (available for Federallyowned appliances).

EPA is proposing at §82.157(i) four substantive changes to these extensions. First, as in 

all other leak repair provisions, EPA is proposing to apply these extensions to appliances 

containing non-exempt substitute refrigerants. As discussed in section III of this notice, 

providing a consistent standard for ODS and substitute refrigerants will facilitate the recovery of 

both ODS and non-ODS refrigerants and reduce the environmental harm caused by the emissions 

of these refrigerants. 

Second, EPA is proposing to remove the extension offered when a suitable replacement 

refrigerant with a lower ODP is not available. EPA established this extension because there were 

certain applications using CFCs that did not have a suitable HCFC substitute. Today, there are 

many more substitutes for ODS refrigerants than when EPA established the refrigerant 

management program. In fact, few appliances can be newly-installed or retrofitted with virgin 

ODS because of the HCFC use restrictions implementing sections 605-606 of the CAA. As 

discussed above, EPA is not requiring that a retrofit use a refrigerant with a similar or lower 

ODP. Therefore, the rationale for this extension no longer exists. Because EPA is proposing to 

remove this requirement, EPA is also proposing to remove from the definitions in §82.154 the 

term suitable replacement refrigerant.

Third, EPA is also proposing a new extension at §82.157(i)(1) if the appliance is to be 

retrofitted to or replaced with a refrigerant that is exempt from the venting prohibition as listed in 

§82.154(a). In that situation, EPA is proposing to allow an extension up to 18 months. Whereas 

the existing extensions are only available to IPR and Federally-owned appliances, EPA is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 155 of 320

proposing to make this extension, and all other extensions, available to comfort cooling and 

commercial refrigeration appliances as well. 

Section 608(a)(3) provides authority to EPA to issue regulations that may include 

requirements to use alternative substances to ODS. Given this authority, and the distinction 

between exempt and non-exempt substitutes in section 612(c), the Agency is taking action to 

encourage the use of substances that do not pose a threat to the environment when released. 

Since many refrigerants have an ODP, a high GWP, or both, it is appropriate to allow more time 

to install a refrigerant that is exempt from the venting prohibition as an incentive for that type of 

transition. The refrigerants that are exempt from the venting prohibition, such as carbon dioxide 

(R-744), and the hydrocarbon refrigerants propane (R-290), isobutane (R-600a), and R-441A in 

certain uses, have no ODP and low GWPs ranging from one to eight. While the Agency would 

be allowing for potentially greater emissions in the short term by not requiring all repairs be 

completed for the 18 months allowed for a replacement with an exempt substitute, once the new 

appliance is installed, it will be using a zero ODP and very low-GWP refrigerant that does not 

pose a threat to the environment for a much longer period than the 18 month extension.

Fourth, while not an extension, per se, the current regulations at §82.156(i)(3)(v) relieve 

owners and operators of IPR appliances of the requirement to retrofit or retire their appliances if 

they establish that the appliance’s leak rate is below the applicable rate within 180 days of an 

initial failed follow-up verification test and they notify EPA within 30 days of that 

determination. Affected entities must report to EPA when they use this exemption and EPA has 

not received any reports on the subject in at least the last three to five years. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to remove this exception entirely. The other proposed extensions, in particular the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 156 of 320

extension to receive a replacement component, should provide sufficient flexibility for IPR and 

other appliances.

EPA seeks comments on its proposals to restructure and simplify the extensions to 

retrofit or retire appliances. EPA also seeks comments on its proposal to remove the extension 

for transitioning to a suitable replacement refrigerant and the removal of §82.156(i)(3)(v) as well 

as creating an extension for transitioning to a substitute refrigerant that is exempt from the 

venting prohibition.

14. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

EPA is proposing to create a recordkeeping and reporting paragraph at §82.157(m) to 

make these requirements easier to identify. Many of these requirements are identical to those 

currently included at §82.166 for appliances containing ODS. In summary, EPA is proposing to 

establish the following recordkeeping requirements for owners and operators of appliances 

normally containing 50 or more pounds of class I, class II, or substitute refrigerant:

 Maintain documentation from leak inspections or that an automatic leak detection system 

is installed and inspected annually and recalibrated as needed in accordance with the leak 

inspection requirements;

 Maintain leak inspection extension requests submitted to EPA.

 Maintain records documenting the full charge of appliances;

 Maintain invoices or other documentation when refrigerant is added or removed from an 

appliance, when a leak inspection is performed, and when a verification test is conducted, 

and when service or maintenance is performed;

 Maintain retrofit and/or retirement plans;

 Maintain retrofit and/or extension requests submitted to EPA;
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 157 of 320

 Maintain records documenting when the system was mothballed and when it was brought 

back on-line (i.e. refrigerant was added back into the appliance);

 Maintain records of purged refrigerant if excluding such refrigerant from the leak rate;

and

 Maintain all of the above-listed records for a minimum of three years.

Additionally, the proposed revisions would require persons servicing, maintaining, 

repairing, or disposing of such appliances to provide the owner or operator of such appliances 

with an invoice or other documentation when refrigerant is added or removed from an appliance, 

when a leak inspection is performed, and when a verification test is conducted, and when service 

or maintenance is performed. 

Stakeholders have also told EPA that the Agency should make explicit our view that 

records can be kept electronically. EPA recognizes that many companies employ electronic 

databases to store and track records. An electronic recordkeeping system has advantages to paper 

records, and EPA encourages owners and operators of appliances to use one of these systems to 

track refrigerant additions and other required records. Electronic systems allow for more 

comprehensive refrigerant management and can help identify leaky appliances earlier. Given that 

fact, EPA is proposing to explicitly allow for electronic records. These records must still be 

accessible onsite if an EPA inspector visits a facility, but they can also be downloaded or printed 

from an online system if necessary. Having records accessible onsite is also important to 

facilitate accurate calculation of the leak rate by technicians.

For reporting, EPA is proposing to require that all reports be submitted to EPA via email 

at 608reports@epa.gov. If the submission contains confidential business information, reports can 

be mailed to the address in §82.160. This should reduce costs and streamline the reporting
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 158 of 320

process. It is also consistent with EPA’s Next Generation Compliance initiative. EPA is also 

proposing to require reporting in the following circumstances:

 If the owner or operator is requesting an extension to the 30-day (or 120-day) 

requirement to complete repairs pursuant to the proposed §82.157(g); 

 If the owner or operator is requesting an extension to complete a retrofit or retirement of 

an appliance pursuant to the proposed §82.157(i); or

 If the owner or operator is excluding purged refrigerants that are destroyed from annual 

leak rate calculations pursuant to the proposed §82.157(k).

 If the owner or operator is submitting an extension request to EPA to conduct leak 

inspections less frequently pursuant to the proposed §82.157(b)(5).

These proposed records and reports are essential to ensure compliance with section 608 

of the CAA. EPA seeks comments on the specific recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 

§82.157(l) and (m). EPA also seeks comments on the changes to require electronic reporting and 

to allow and encourage electronic recordkeeping, so long as it is accessible at each facility 

regulated by these requirements during an onsite inspection.

G. Proposed changes to the standards for recovery and/or recycling equipment in section 

82.158

1. Background

Currently, all ODS refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment manufactured or 

imported on or after November 15, 1993, and used during the maintenance, service, repair, or 

disposal of appliances must be certified by an approved equipment testing organization to ensure 

that it meets certain performance standards. These standards may vary for certain equipment 

intended for use with the disposal of small appliances. These performance standards are currently
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 159 of 320

found in tables 2 and 3 of §82.158, as well as appendix B1, B2, and C of subpart F. EPA based 

these standards in large part on ARI (now AHRI) Standard 740-1993 and ARI Standard 740-

1995. Recovery and/or recycling equipment intended for use during the maintenance, service,

repair, or disposal of MVAC and MVAC-like appliances must meet the standards in subpart B. 

The regulations in subpart F simply refer to that subpart and state that the such recovery and/or 

recycling equipment must meet the standards of §82.36(a).

2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants 

EPA is proposing to require that all recovery and/or recycling equipment used during the

maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances, other than MVACs and MVAC-like 

appliances, that contain non-exempt substitute refrigerants also be certified by an approved 

equipment testing organization that it meets certain performance standards. EPA is proposing to 

allow all recovery and/or recycling equipment that met certification requirements for ODS prior 

to this rulemaking to be certified for non-exempt substitute refrigerants. Since most recovery

equipment is already certified for use with non-exempt substitute refrigerants, this proposal 

would merely update the standards to reflect current practices.

EPA is also proposing to add appendices B3 and B4, based on the AHRI Standard 740-

2015, Performance Rating of Refrigerant Recovery Equipment and Recovery/Recycling 

Equipment. All new equipment manufactured or imported on or after the effective date of this 

rule would be required to meet the standards in appendix B and table 2. The evacuation level

would depend upon the saturation pressure of the refrigerant. EPA is also proposing to update 

appendix C “Method for Testing Recovery Devices for Use with Small Appliances” to reference

all refrigerants, instead of the currently referenced CFC-12. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 160 of 320

Certifying refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment for use with non-exempt 

substitutes serves multiple purposes. First, certification would provide reliable information on 

the ability of equipment to minimize emissions of these substitute refrigerants, by measuring 

and/or establishing standards for recovery efficiency (vacuum level) and maximum emissions 

from air purging, oil draining, equipment clearing, and hose permeation. Second, certification 

would provide reliable information on the equipment’s ability to clear itself when switching

between refrigerants. Without sufficient clearing capability, equipment may retain residual 

refrigerant in its condenser, which would then be mixed with the next batch of refrigerant 

recovered by the equipment. Because mixed refrigerant can be difficult if not impossible to 

reclaim (depending on how cross-contaminated the mixed refrigerant is) and expensive to 

destroy, it is much more likely than unmixed refrigerant to be vented to the atmosphere. Third, 

certification would provide reliable information on the equipment’s recovery speed. Without 

such information, technicians may purchase equipment that recovers too slowly, tempting them 

to interrupt recovery before it is complete. As discussed in the 1993 Rule, where EPA 

established the equipment certification requirements, the information on equipment performance 

provided by an independent third-party testing organization is more reliable than that provided 

by other sources, such as equipment manufacturers (58 FR 28686–28687).

Certification of recovery equipment used with non-exempt substitute refrigerants would 

also maximize recycling and minimize emissions of ODS refrigerants. There is no physical 

difference between ozone-depleting refrigerants and their fluorocarbon substitutes that would 

prevent a technician from purchasing and using HFC recovery equipment on CFCs or HCFCs, 

except in the case of flammable refrigerants. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 161 of 320

Because different treatment is warranted for flammable refrigerants, EPA is proposing to 

add standards for the recovery of flammable non-exempt refrigerants. Currently, EPA is only

aware of two flammable non-exempt substitute refrigerants that are approved for use in 

stationary refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment: HFC-32 and HFO-1234ze(E). However, 

EPA expects this number to grow in the future. Additionally, EPA notes that the AHRI Standard 

740-2015 that is being used as the basis for the recycling and/or recovery equipment 

requirements in appendix B3 does not apply to flammable refrigerants. To address this, EPA is 

proposing several options that could be used for flammable non-exempt substitute refrigerants 

like HFC-32. EPA could require that all recycling and/or recovery equipment used with 

flammable non-exempt substitute refrigerants must:

- meet a new standard that requires the recovery/recycling performance of

appendix B3 (based on AHRI Standard 740-2015) and the safety performance 

of Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard 1963, Supplement SB—

Requirements for Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment Intended for Use 

with a Flammable Refrigerant; 

- meet the standards in appendix C (80 percent of the refrigerant must be 

recovered if the compressor is not functioning; 90 percent of refrigerant must be 

recovered if the compressor is functioning);

- meet the requirements in a flammable refrigerant recovery standard from 

another organization like the International Organization for Standardization 

(ISO), AHRI, or ASHRAE, if available;

- use equipment that is certified for another refrigerant within the same pressure 

category; or
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 162 of 320

- recover flammable refrigerants, but without a standard or certification until 

standards are developed. 

Creating an appendix B4 that combines the requirements of appendix B3 with the 

requirements in Supplement SB of UL 1963 could be the most appropriate option. EPA would 

incorporate certain aspects of UL 1963 by reference and potentially modify the testing protocol 

in appendix B3 to account for flammability concerns during testing. 

When refrigerants are removed from the appliances, whether destined for reclamation or 

disposal, they must be managed properly. One of the first steps in proper management is to 

determine whether or not the refrigerants are a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA) and its corresponding regulations. It is the facility’s responsibility to 

make this waste identification. Under the regulations, a facility may either test the waste or use 

knowledge to make this determination. If the material is determined to be a hazardous waste, 

then the facility is a hazardous waste generator and is subject to the generator regulations at 40 

CFR part 261.5 or 40 CFR part 262, depending on the amount of hazardous waste generated in a 

month. For details on the Federal generator regulations, see 

http://www2.epa.gov/hwgenerators. Some spent alternative refrigerants such as HFC-32 most 

likely exhibit the hazardous waste characteristic of ignitability. This would also likely hold true 

for some exempt substitute refrigerants, like propane and isobutane. 

In the case of household appliances, repair and disposal of hydrocarbon refrigerant would 

not be considered hazardous waste management because the appliance is exempt under the 

household hazardous waste exemption at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1) (although States may have more 

stringent regulations). However, a facility must be careful not to mix the household hazardous 

waste with regulated hazardous waste in order for the household appliances to remain exempt.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 163 of 320

Certifying recovery and/or recycling equipment used with substitute refrigerants is 

important to further implementing section 608(c)(2) and 608(a). In particular, the proposed 

revisions would make clear that proper use of certified equipment would be considered a good 

faith effort to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of non-exempt substitute refrigerants when 

maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance, in order to comply with the 

prohibition on venting of substitute refrigerants. Part of making a good faith effort to recover 

such refrigerants involves using equipment that minimizes emissions of substitute refrigerants 

and prevents the mixture of substitute refrigerants and ODS refrigerants during the recovery and 

recycling process. It also involves using equipment that recovers refrigerant quickly enough that 

the recovery process can be completed in a reasonable amount of time from a given appliance. 

Certification of such equipment will help ensure that technicians use equipment that is suited to 

these goals. 

EPA requests comments on whether removing earlier appendices for older equipment and 

using the updated AHRI standards for newly certified recovery and/or recycling equipment is 

appropriate. EPA also requests comments on its proposal to require all recovery and/or recycling 

equipment used on appliances containing substitute refrigerants (with the potential exception of 

flammable refrigerants) to be certified by an independent third party and on the following 

questions: What equipment is currently being used on appliances containing substitutes? Would 

providing a uniform standard for recovery and/or recycling equipment be beneficial to product 

manufacturers or service technicians? Has mixing of ODS refrigerants and/or substitute 

refrigerants been a problem using the currently available equipment? Are there any recovery

devices suitable for use with flammable non-exempt refrigerants? Are there any other standards 

that EPA should considers before finalizing recovery standards (i.e., ISO, AHRI, ASHRAE)? 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 164 of 320

EPA also seeks comment on what standards should be used for the recycling and/or recovery of 

flammable non-exempt refrigerants like HFC-32. Comments should address the safety and 

efficacy of the various standards and whether the standard would facilitate or deter the use of 

flammable refrigerants.

3. Clarifications and Edits for Readability

EPA is proposing to reorganize §82.158 by appliance type. EPA is also proposing to 

combine tables 2 and 3. Table 2 contains the levels of evacuation that must be achieved by

recovery and/or recycling equipment manufactured on or after November 15, 1993, and table 3 

contains levels for equipment manufactured before that date. The combined table removes 

inconsistencies in terminology and formatting. 

EPA is also proposing to re-write §82.158 for clarity the requirements for recovery

equipment used on small appliances. In general, the requirement is that the equipment is capable 

of recovering 90% of the refrigerant in the test stand when the compressor of the test stand is 

operational and 80% of the refrigerant when the compressor of the test stand is not operational. 

In addition, there are secondary considerations that could allow for the certification of recovery

equipment based on when that equipment was manufactured or imported. EPA’s intent was to 

remove redundancy and not to change the standards when modifying this section.

EPA notes that the existing term is “operating” rather than “operational.” EPA discusses 

this proposed change above in section IV.D above where it describes the proposed changes to the 

evacuation requirements for small appliances. 

EPA is also proposing to remove a provision stating that EPA will maintain a list of 

equipment certified under this section by manufacturer and model. EPA is proposing instead to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 165 of 320

require that the certified equipment testing organizations publish online a list of equipment that 

meets EPA requirements. This proposal is discussed in the next section of this notice.

4. Removing the Certification by Owners of Recovery and/or Recycling Equipment

EPA currently requires under §82.162 that anyone who maintains, services, repairs, or 

disposes of appliances containing an ODS submit a signed statement to the appropriate EPA 

Regional office stating that they own recovery and/or recycling equipment and are complying 

with the applicable requirements of subpart F. EPA is proposing to remove this requirement.

EPA created this provision in 1993 when the Agency first required that recovery and/or

recycling equipment be certified and that technicians use certified equipment. At the time, the 

use and availability of recovery and/or recycling equipment was not as commonplace as it is 

today. Equipment certification demonstrated to EPA that equipment was available for use by 

certified technicians. In particular EPA was interested in the capabilities of grandfathered, or pre1993, equipment. Since certified recovery and/or recycling equipment is commonly available,

EPA no longer needs the information contained in the certification statement such as the number 

of service trucks and personally identifiable information of equipment owners. EPA is therefore 

proposing to remove this certification requirement. EPA solicits comments on this proposed 

revision.

H. Proposed changes for equipment testing organizations in section 82.160

EPA relies on independent third party organizations approved by the EPA Administrator 

to certify that refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment meets the standards in subpart F. 

Any equipment testing organization may apply for approval so long as they can verify that they

have the expertise and technical capability to verify the performance of the recovery and/or 

recycling equipment and have no conflict of interest with the equipment manufacturers.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 166 of 320

EPA is proposing to make only a few substantive changes to these regulations. First and 

foremost, a certifying organization must have expertise to certify any new equipment affected by

this proposed rule. Thus, an organization must be capable of certifying equipment that is used to 

recover or recycle HFCs and other substitute refrigerants. EPA is proposing to allow equipment 

certifying organizations that have already been approved by EPA to continue certifying 

equipment without need to re-apply. Organizations that are currently certified have sufficient 

expertise because the same expertise is needed to test equipment used on ODS and substitute 

refrigerants. 

EPA is also proposing changes that would reduce the reporting burden for these entities. 

EPA currently requires a list of all certified equipment to be submitted to EPA within 30 days of 

the organization's approval by EPA and annually at the end of each calendar year thereafter. EPA 

is proposing to remove those requirements. EPA is proposing instead to require that the certified 

equipment testing organizations publish online a list of equipment that meets EPA requirements. 

This list would include the manufacturer and the name and/or serial number of a newly certified 

model line, which is the information that the certifying organizations must currently provide to 

EPA. This list must be updated no less than once per year, but an organization can choose to 

update the list more frequently. Making the information available online will be no more 

burdensome for the testing organization than submitting the list to EPA. Online publication is 

also a better method of communicating these findings to the public than sending the information 

to EPA.

EPA is also encouraging the use of electronic reporting and has established the email 

address 608reports@epa.gov to receive applications from organizations seeking to be approved 

under this section and notifications that a previously certified model fails to meet the standards 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 167 of 320

upon retesting. EPA is also proposing to remove language in the regulation stating that 

applications must include written information.

EPA requests comments on its proposal not to require equipment certification companies 

to reapply for approval so as to be able to certify equipment used with substitute refrigerants. 

EPA also requests comments on the proposal to remove the existing reporting requirements and 

instead require that certifying organizations publish lists of certified equipment online.

I. Proposed changes to the technician certification requirements in section 82.161

1. Background

The regulations at §82.161 currently require the certification of all individuals who 

service air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment containing an ODS, other than MVACs, 

which are addressed separately. This group includes installers, contractor employees, in-house 

service personnel, and anyone else who performs installation, service, maintenance, or repair that 

might reasonably have the opportunity to release ODS refrigerants to the environment. In 

addition, individuals disposing of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment other than small 

appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances must be certified. 

Technicians become certified by passing a test containing questions drawn from a bank 

developed jointly by EPA and industry educational organizations with a certification program 

approved by EPA. The test includes questions on the role of CFCs and HCFCs in ozone 

depletion, the requirements of the refrigerant recycling rule, and proper techniques for recycling 

and conserving refrigerant. EPA makes the question bank available to certifying organizations 

that demonstrate that they can properly generate, track, and grade tests; issue certificates; and 

keep records.

2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 168 of 320

EPA is proposing to extend the certification requirements for technicians who work with 

ODS refrigerants to technicians who work with non-exempt substitute refrigerants. Requiring 

certification of technicians who work with non-exempt substitute refrigerants is important to 

effectively implement and enforce both section 608(c) and section 608(a)(2).

As discussed above, section 608(c) prohibits the knowing release of substitute 

refrigerants during the service, maintenance, repair, or disposal of appliances, except for de 

minimis releases associated with “good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose” 

of the refrigerants. Acts performed by an individual who has become a certified technician that 

comply with the applicable regulatory requirements would be defined as “good faith attempts to 

recapture and recycle or safely dispose” and thus any associated releases would qualify as de 

minimis. This interpretation is consistent with EPA’s interpretation of the same statutory

language as it applies to ozone-depleting refrigerants. 

The technician certification program is one of the key elements in ensuring the proper 

recapture and recycling of refrigerant. As stated in the 1993 Rule establishing the program, a 

technician certification program increases the probability that technicians receive adequate 

training concerning the requirements of subpart F and the proper operation of recycling 

equipment, leading to reduced emissions through increased regulatory compliance. Certification 

does not prevent the violation of the venting prohibition, but it improves the likelihood of 

compliance through greater awareness. Certification also enhances EPA’s ability to enforce 

against intentional noncompliance by allowing the Agency to revoke the technician’s 

certification under the procedure in §82.169. Finally, certification increases fairness by seeking 

to ensure that all technicians are complying with the provisions of subpart F.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 169 of 320

Persons who are not certified technicians are far more likely to intentionally or 

inadvertently release refrigerant. Certified technicians are much more likely to understand how 

and why to recover and recycle refrigerants and to have the proper equipment to do so. 

Technician certification helps ensure that technicians are knowledgeable in refrigerant recovery

requirements and techniques. The existing regulations do not specifically prohibit an untrained 

individual from opening an air conditioner containing a substitute refrigerant to add a substitute 

refrigerant (or potentially even an ODS refrigerant, assuming a certified technician purchased the 

ODS refrigerant) or replace components. While the venting prohibition still applies, the 

individual may not even be aware that there is a prohibition against venting refrigerant. Tips 

reported to the Agency indicate this occurs. Requiring that anyone opening an appliance be a 

certified technician will reduce emissions caused by uninformed service personnel and will 

facilitate enforcement of the venting prohibition, especially when coupled with the proposed 

recordkeeping requirement discussed in section IV.D.3 of this notice.

Based on stakeholder input prior to this proposal, EPA is aware that many companies 

require certification of their technicians regardless of the type of refrigerant being used. The 

principles of proper handling, recovery, and disposal of non-exempt substitute refrigerants are

similar if not identical to those for ODS refrigerants, except that additional safeguards are 

advisable for flammable refrigerants. The fact that some individuals may be working on nonODS appliances without certification and without following safe handling practices places those 

most likely to minimize emissions at a disadvantage. One goal of this rulemaking is to 

incentivize the proper practices or at least remove disincentives to compliance and to 

environmental protection. EPA is therefore proposing to require certification for anyone working 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 170 of 320

on an appliance where there is a reasonable expectation that an ODS or non-exempt substitute 

refrigerant will be released into the environment in the course of that work.

The mechanism by which EPA is extending the technician certification requirement to 

appliances containing non-exempt substitute refrigerants is through the amended definition of the 

terms refrigerant and appliance. As discussed in the definition section, EPA is proposing to 

update the term appliance to include substitutes in addition to class I and class II substances. 

EPA is not proposing any changes to the regulatory text in §82.161 to effectuate this proposal.

EPA notes that this proposal would not extend the technician certification requirement to 

individuals servicing or disposing of appliances containing refrigerants that are exempt from the 

venting prohibition. However, expanding the certification program to cover those working on 

equipment containing non-exempt substitutes could decrease the likelihood of untrained 

technicians working with equipment containing any type of refrigerant, including hydrocarbons. 

Therefore, individuals would not need to be certified under section 608 of the CAA to work on 

hydrocarbons in those specific end-uses and appliances approved under SNAP. EPA discusses 

whether the agency should initiate a rulemaking in future to require certification of technicians 

using exempt substitutes in Section VI of this preamble.

Consistent with the discussion in Section III above, requiring certification for technicians 

who work with substitute refrigerants is also necessary to implement the section 608(a) 

requirements for EPA to promulgate regulations that reduce emissions of class I and II 

refrigerants to the lowest achievable levels and maximize recapture and recycling of such 

substances. Technician certification requirements for handling substitute refrigerants would 

directly reduce some releases of class I and II refrigerants. It would also protect against 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 171 of 320

refrigerant mixture, which otherwise is likely to cause additional releases of class I and II 

refrigerants.

Failure to require technician certification may lead to increased emissions and reduced 

recycling of ozone-depleting substances, especially if the person who is violating the refrigerant 

circuit is not aware of refrigerant recovery requirements and best practices. Uncertified 

technicians working primarily with HFCs or other substitutes may overlook the restrictions on 

their ability to work with ozone-depleting refrigerants. Because of the absence of a certification 

requirement for substitute refrigerants they might be unaware of the existence or scope of the 

restrictions. Thus, they might fail to recover or recycle class I and class II refrigerants properly, 

if at all. 

Uncertified technicians are currently able to purchase HFC and other substitute

refrigerants which they could end up using to retrofit appliances containing ozone-depleting 

substances. Such uncertified technicians may be more likely to vent the ozone-depleting 

substance prior to retrofitting, given their probable lack of knowledge and the fact that return of 

the substance to a reclaimer would reveal that they were handling it illegally. Failure to require 

technician certification to work with substitute refrigerants is also likely to encourage the 

inappropriate mixture of substitute and ozone-depleting refrigerants. In this scenario, refrigerant 

mixture could occur because uncertified technicians might wish to service CFC or HCFC 

equipment, but would have access only to HFCs due to the sales restriction on ODS refrigerants. 

Lacking proper education or knowledge, these technicians would probably have a poor 

understanding of the consequences of mixing refrigerants, and would therefore be more likely 

than certified technicians to add HFCs to CFC or HCFC systems. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 172 of 320

The consequences of such inappropriate mixture include significant losses in 

performance and energy efficiency in equipment serviced with mixed refrigerants, damage to 

equipment, the lost value of the mixed refrigerant (which is at best difficult, and often 

impossible, to separate into the component refrigerants), and costs for destroying mixed 

refrigerants. Refrigerant mixture also leads both directly and indirectly to refrigerant release. 

Mixture leads directly to release because mixtures of certain refrigerants, such as R-22 and R134a, have higher pressures than either component alone. Thus, pressure-sensitive components 

such as air purge devices on recycling machines and relief devices on appliances may be 

activated by these mixtures, venting the refrigerant to the atmosphere. Purge devices in particular 

are often set to open when the pressure of the recovery cylinder’s contents rises more than 5–10 

psi above the expected saturation pressure for the refrigerant; this margin is exceeded by R-22/R134a mixtures containing more than ten percent of the contaminating refrigerant. 

Refrigerant mixture also reduces recycling and leads indirectly to release. First, mixed 

refrigerants not only lose their value but cost money to reclaim or destroy, which could provide a 

financial incentive for illegal venting. Second, the direct releases and equipment breakdowns 

caused by contamination lead to increased equipment servicing, which itself leads to unavoidable 

releases of refrigerant. Thus, failure to impose a certification requirement on persons working 

with substitute refrigerants would increase the probability of both substitute and ozone-depleting 

refrigerants being emitted to the atmosphere.

For these reasons, EPA is proposing a technician certification requirement for persons 

working with non-exempt substitutes in order to further implement sections 608(a) and 608(c), 

using the authority under these sections. EPA requests comments on the likelihood that failure to 

impose a technician certification requirement on persons working with HFCs and other 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 173 of 320

substitutes would lead to release and mixture of both ozone-depleting refrigerants and 

substitutes.

3. Updated Test Bank

EPA is planning to update the technician certification test bank with more questions on 

handling substitutes, including flammable substitute refrigerants, and on the impacts of climate 

change. While this is not a regulatory change—the Agency can update the test bank when 

appropriate without promulgating a new regulation—it aligns with EPA’s proposal to extend the 

refrigerant management regulations to substitute refrigerants. Currently, the questions focus on 

CFCs and HCFCs, even though CFCs have been phased out for nearly twenty years and the 

predominant HCFC, HCFC-22, will be phased out by 2020. 

EPA has begun reviewing the test bank and consulting with certification and training 

organizations to identify questions that should be updated, replaced, or removed, with an eye 

toward questions on the proper handling and recovery of HFCs and other substitute refrigerants. 

The updated test bank will incorporate new and revised elements of the National Recycling and 

Emission Reduction Program that are being proposed in this action, once finalized. For this 

reason, EPA is waiting to update the test bank until after this rule is finalized. 

EPA intends to use a similar process to the one used when initially creating the test bank. 

EPA will work with industry and trade associations to develop and evaluate new questions as 

well as remove or update questions that may be out of date. EPA invites participation from the 

regulated community in this process.

J. Proposed changes to the technician certification program requirements in section 82.161 

1. Background
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 174 of 320

The current regulations at §82.161 require that organizations operating technician 

certification programs must apply to EPA to have their programs approved. The application 

process ensures that technician certification programs meet minimum standards for generating, 

tracking, and grading tests as well as keeping records. Approved technician certification 

programs must keep records of the names of technicians they have certified and the unique 

numbers assigned to each technician certified through their programs. These records allow both 

the Agency and the certification program to verify certification claims and to monitor the 

certification process. Approved technician certification programs also must submit reports to 

EPA every six months containing the pass/fail rate and testing schedules. Such reports allow the 

Agency to evaluate certification programs and modify certification requirements if necessary.

2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants

EPA is proposing to require that technicians who work with non-exempt substitute 

refrigerants be certified. By extension, EPA is proposing to require that technician certification 

programs offer tests for those technicians. This should not require significant changes to current 

practices other than using the updated test bank and the changes discussed below. EPA is not 

proposing as a lead option to require certification programs to recertify based on this or any other 

proposed changes in this rule, but seeks comments on whether such recertification requirements 

would be appropriate.

3. Technician Database

In developing this proposed rule, EPA asked technician certification programs whether 

the Agency should establish a national database of certified technicians. EPA considered creating 

a database to reduce the burden currently facing the Agency and technician certification 

programs in assisting technicians who have lost their certification cards. EPA receives on 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 175 of 320

average five inquiries a day from technicians who are seeking a copy of their card. EPA does not 

maintain records of who has been certified; this is currently the responsibility of the certification 

programs. EPA can only direct technicians to a list of the approved certification programs on the 

Agency’s website, but in some cases the technician does not remember the name of the program 

that issued their card. EPA is aware that many certification programs also get numerous inquiries 

from technicians. 

Establishing a publicly searchable database would help technicians find replacement 

certification cards. Certification programs themselves are generally better suited to maintain such 

information. Currently, certification programs must maintain records of the names and addresses 

of all individuals taking the tests, as well as the scores, dates, and locations of all administered

tests. A publicly-available database that contains components of these records should be 

sufficient for a technician to locate themselves. EPA is proposing that this database, which could 

be as simple as a list, contain the first name, middle initial, and last name of the certified 

technician, the technician’s city of residence when taking the test, the type(s) of certification 

received, and the date each certification test was completed. EPA is proposing to exempt Federal 

government-run programs from this requirement because the public release of government and 

military personnel names linking them to their Federal employment could present significant 

privacy and security concerns, especially for military and other government personnel who may 

be based, deployed, or traveling to hostile regions throughout the world.

Because this database is primarily for the benefit of the technician, EPA is offering the 

option for the technician to opt out. The technician certification program must therefore provide 

notice to technicians that they will be included in that database and give technicians the ability to 

opt out. EPA seeks comment on whether technicians should be allowed to opt out.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 176 of 320

EPA is not proposing to require that certification programs list everyone currently in their 

records. While this may assist current technicians who have lost their cards, listing the hundreds 

of thousands of technicians certified over the last twenty-two years could be overly burdensome. 

This would also not provide technicians with the opportunity to opt out. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing that the certification programs only be required to include technicians certified after

the effective date of a rule finalizing this proposal. EPA would encourage certification programs 

to work with technicians they have previously certified to see if they could be added to an online 

database or list.

EPA is not proposing to require any specific format for providing this database or list. 

EPA is aware that some certifying organizations already provide this information online to their 

technicians and the Agency does not intend to require that they change how they offer the 

information so long as the required data elements are included. 

An online database or list of certified technicians can also assist refrigerant wholesalers 

to enforce the sales restriction. For example, if a vendor has any doubt about a new customer, 

they could confirm that the technician is certified by comparing the customer’s ID with the 

information online. The online information can also be printed and maintained as a record by the 

vendor. 

EPA invites comments on the proposal to require certifying organizations to publish and 

maintain an online searchable database or list of technicians they certify going forward. EPA 

requests comments on whether such databases could be useful to technicians and refrigerant 

wholesalers while allowing for preservation of technicians’ privacy as afforded by the Privacy

Act. EPA also seeks comment on whether it should allow technicians to opt out of being 

included on a public list.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 177 of 320

4. Grandfathering Provisions

EPA is proposing to remove provisions related to voluntary certification programs at 

§82.161(g). This program was created to allow technicians who were trained prior to the 

establishment of approved technician certification programs to be recognized as certified 

technicians. In order to have their voluntary programs considered for approval, applications both 

for approval as a technician certification program and for approval as a voluntary program were 

due in 1994. EPA is proposing to remove this provision because it is expired and no longer 

necessary.

5. Certification Cards

EPA is proposing to change the required text that is printed on certification cards. 

Currently, the card states that “[Name of person] has been certified as a [Type I, Type II, Type 

III, and/or Universal, as appropriate] technician as required by 40 CFR part 82, subpart F.” Some 

organizations believe that the language used on the certification card implies that a technician as 

defined in subpart F may be trained in other aspects of equipment installation.

The primary purpose of the 608 certification card is for a technician to prove to a vendor 

that they understand the environmental impacts of mishandling refrigerants. While this 

certification also grants an individual the right to maintain, service, repair, or dispose of 

appliances, the 608 exam is less focused on the operational and engineering aspects of 

refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment. 

EPA is proposing to amend the language found on the certification card to more 

accurately reflect the knowledge needed to obtain the certification. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

that the card read “[Name of person] has successfully passed a [Type I, Type II, Type III, and/or 

Universal, as appropriate] exam on how to responsibly handle refrigerants as required by EPA’s 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 178 of 320

National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program.” EPA stated in the 1993 Rule establishing 

the Technician Certification requirements that standardized language will decrease 

administrative costs and aid in enforcement. In addition it would ease burden on refrigerant 

wholesalers who must inspect the cards to verify the certification of technicians. Updating the 

information on the certification card should not result in any new administrative costs or generate 

confusion.

The requirements for certification cards appears in both §82.161 and appendix D. EPA is 

proposing to remove the redundant requirement from §82.161 and make the updates proposed in 

this section to appendix D, as descried in more detail below. 

6. Updates to Appendix D

EPA is proposing minor edits to appendix D “Standards for Becoming a Certifying 

Program for Technicians.” EPA is proposing that the description of test contents includes the 

environmental impact of not just ODS but also substitute refrigerants. EPA is also proposing to 

remove outdated, redundant, or self-explanatory provisions. This includes removing paragraphs 

(i) through (k) on approval process, grandfathering, and sample application. EPA is proposing to 

remove the reference that EPA will periodically publish information on the fees charged by the 

programs as the Agency no longer collects this information. To protect the private information of 

technicians and minimize the potential for fraud, EPA is also proposing to remove social security

numbers as an acceptable form of identification for Type I technicians using the mail-in format

and state that social security numbers cannot be used in the unique certification number assigned 

to newly-certified technicians. EPA is also proposing clarifying changes and other small 

changes, including changing the reporting deadline from June 30 of each year to July 30 of each 

year.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 179 of 320

Finally, to help technicians better identify who certified them, EPA is also proposing to 

require that certifying organizations provide a hand-out or electronic communication to 

technicians after they have taken the test explaining who provided the training, who to contact 

with questions, and when they should expect to receive their score, and if they passed, their 

certification cards. EPA requests comments on the proposed revisions to appendix D. 

7. Edits to Improve Readability

EPA is proposing to make minor edits to improve the readability of this section. Notably, 

EPA is proposing to divide the requirements into two sections. The first would be provisions 

related to responsibilities of technicians and the second would be provisions related to technician 

certification programs. It is not EPA’s intent to place new requirements on either party through 

this reorganization of content. 

EPA also considered proposing to incorporate the provisions of appendix D into §82.161 

itself and removing appendix D in its entirety but is not proposing to do so at this time. EPA 

invites comments on the revised language.

K. Proposed changes to the reclamation requirements in section 82.164

1. Background

The regulations at §82.164 currently require that anyone reclaiming used ODS refrigerant 

for sale to a new owner, except for people properly certified under subpart F prior to May 11, 

2004, is required to reprocess refrigerant to standards laid out in appendix A (based on ARI 

Standard 700-1995, Specification for Fluorocarbons and Other Refrigerants), release no more 

than 1.5 percent of the refrigerant during the reclamation process, dispose of wastes from the 

reclamation process in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, and adhere to 

specific recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 180 of 320

2. Extension to Additional Substitute Refrigerants 

EPA is proposing to extend the reclamation standards for refrigerants in appendix A to 

additional non-ozone-depleting substitutes. Most of the refrigerants addressed in appendix A are 

single component ODS refrigerants or a blend containing an ODS component, with a few 

exceptions such as R-407C and R-410A. It is appropriate to update this 1995 standard to ensure 

that refrigerants developed in the last twenty years are reclaimed properly. While standards have 

been developed for these new refrigerants, reclaimers may not have to achieve such standards 

without that standard being incorporated into the subpart F regulations.

In a recent proposed rule to issue allowances for the production and import of HCFCs, 

EPA sought comments on referencing AHRI Standard 700-2012 Specification for Fluorocarbon 

Refrigerants directly, a practice known as incorporation by reference, rather than reproducing the 

standard in appendix A (78 FR 78095; December 24, 2013). EPA noted at the time that 

incorporation by reference, and deletion of the text in appendix A, has several advantages. AHRI 

standards are published, widely known to and used by the persons affected by this regulation, 

and available free of charge online at www.ahrinet.org/standards.aspx. Referencing the AHRI 

standard, in lieu of duplicating it in appendix A, would reduce potential confusion about the 

relationship between the two sets of requirements. On the other hand, EPA recognizes that there 

is an advantage to including the requirements of the standard in an appendix to the regulation, 

avoiding the need to search for the specific version of the AHRI standard referenced, and 

providing certainty that compliance with appendix A (although possibly outdated) constitutes 

compliance with EPA regulations. 

In response to EPA’s proposal, five commenters supported using the updated testing 

procedures and protocols, while six commented that the newer halogenated unsaturated volatile 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 181 of 320

impurities limit of 40 ppm by weight (0.004% by wt), as compared to the previous limit of 0.5% 

by weight, created undue expense and difficulty for reclaimers to achieve. Those commenters 

noted that ASHRAE and AHRI were still conducting further studies on the unsaturates limit. In

the final rule issuing HCFC allowances, EPA did not incorporate AHRI 700-2012 by reference, 

noting concerns about the unsaturates limit and the ongoing unsaturates study (79 FR 64281; 

October 28, 2014).

At this time, recognizing that the unsaturates study has not been finalized, EPA is 

proposing to update appendix A to include HFCs, PFCs, HFOs, and other refrigerants based on 

the standards contained in AHRI Standard 700-2015, Specifications for Refrigerants, while 

keeping the unsaturates limit to be 0.5% by weight. If the unsaturates study is published before 

this final rule is issued, EPA would consider incorporating the full standard by reference. 

EPA seeks comments on whether the updated standard, AHRI Standard 700-2015 

Specifications for Refrigerants, along with Appendix C to AHRI-700 2015, should be directly 

incorporated by reference, or whether appendix A should be updated to include HFCs, PFCs, 

HFOs, and other refrigerants based on the 2015 version of the AHRI 700 standard, including the 

appendix. EPA also seeks comment on whether the agency needs to keep section 5.3.2 titled 

“Alternative Method” in Appendix A to subpart F.

3. Changes to Recordkeeping and Reporting

Under the current regulations at §82.164(b), reclaimers must certify that the refrigerant 

reclaimed meets the specifications in AHRI Standard 700-1995 using the analytical methodology

prescribed in appendix A. In addition to updating the standard to AHRI Standard 700-2015, EPA 

is proposing to clarify that the analysis must be conducted on each batch of refrigerant being 

reclaimed. EPA is also proposing to require that reclaimers maintain records of these analyses. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 182 of 320

Requiring reclaimers to maintain records helps to ensure that refrigerant is being reclaimed to the 

appropriate specifications. Reclaimers currently analyze by batch, and already generate records 

when doing so, so these proposed changes update the regulations to reflect current practices and 

clarify the existing requirements for ODS, and do not add additional burden. 

EPA is also proposing to specify that all recordkeeping and reporting requirements for 

reclaimers be maintained by refrigerant type (i.e. ASHRAE number), as information kept in this 

format will provide more clarity on the types and quantities of refrigerants being reclaimed when 

aggregated information is reported. EPA is also clarifying what aggregate information must be 

reported annually to the Agency, and removing a redundant recordkeeping provision related to 

that report.

EPA requests comments on these proposed changes to the recordkeeping and reporting 

provisions.

4. Clarifications and Edits for Readability

EPA is proposing to consolidate provisions related to refrigerant reclaimers into a single 

section. Specifically, EPA is proposing to move prohibitions found in §82.154(i) and 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements found in §82.166(g) and (h) into §82.164. This 

proposal also clarifies what is required of the reclaimer. The current regulation requires a 

reclaimer to certify that he or she will meet a certain set of standards and engage in certain 

behaviors. The revised regulation requires first that a reclaimer meet those standards and 

behaviors and second that they certify to having done so. EPA is making this change to improve 

the enforceability of these provisions. None of these underlying requirements themselves would 

change, other than the updated AHRI standard and that the clarification that the analysis be 

conducted on each batch of refrigerant, as discussed above.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 183 of 320

L. Proposed changes to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in section 82.166

1. Background

The current regulations include all recordkeeping and reporting provisions in one section 

of subpart F (§82.166). While having all the provisions in one place is useful, the individual 

pieces are separated from the required practices that the records/reports are intended to help 

enforce. This can create confusion for the regulated community when they are trying to 

understand what they must do and what records they must keep to remain in compliance with the 

section 608 requirements. This is especially true when a recordkeeping or reporting provision 

directly references a requirement in another section of subpart F. To improve the readability and 

clarity of the recordkeeping and reporting provisions, EPA is proposing to move the 

requirements that are currently in §82.166 to the relevant section describing the required 

practices. For example, EPA is proposing to move the amended recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for Appliance Maintenance and Leak Repair to the section where those required 

practices are listed, specifically §82.157. This should allow the regulated community to more 

easily align the required practices with their recordkeeping/reporting obligations without having 

to reference requirements in other sections. EPA summarizes the amended recordkeeping and 

reporting provisions below. EPA is also proposing a new recordkeeping and reporting 

requirement for anyone disposing of appliances with between five and 50 pounds of refrigerant. 

2. Summary of Recordkeeping Provisions

EPA has developed numerous recordkeeping requirements to document compliance with 

the section 608 regulations. A summary of the proposed requirements is included below. Please 

refer to other sections of this notice to read about the proposed changes to the existing 

requirements. All of the proposed requirements would apply to all refrigerants unless the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 184 of 320

refrigerant is exempt from the venting prohibition. Unless otherwise noted, all records must be 

maintained for at least three years.

 Disposal of Small Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like Appliances: Persons who take the 

final step in the disposal process of such appliances must keep a copy of all the signed 

statements indicating refrigerant was recovered properly. This statement must include the 

name and address of the person who recovered the refrigerant and the date the refrigerant 

was recovered. Alternatively, the statement may be a signed contract stating that the 

supplier will recover any remaining refrigerant from the appliance prior to delivery.

 Disposal of Appliances Containing Five to 50 Pounds of Refrigerant: Persons evacuating 

refrigerant from appliances normally containing five to 50 pounds of refrigerant for 

purposes of disposal of that appliance must maintain records documenting their company 

name, location of the equipment, date of recovery, amount and type of refrigerant 

recovered for each appliance and the quantity and type of refrigerant transferred for 

reclamation and/or destruction.

 Leak Inspection: Owners or operators of appliances normally containing 50 or more 

pounds of refrigerant must maintain documentation from quarterly or annual leak 

inspections that includes the date of inspection and the component(s) where leaks were 

discovered. Alternatively, owners or operators may install an automatic leak detection 

system and maintain records showing that the system is calibrated annually.

 Extension Requests to the Periodic Leak Inspection Requirement: Owners or operators of 

federally-owned appliances containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant must maintain 

copies of extension requests submitted to EPA to conduct leak inspections less frequently
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 185 of 320

until three years after the less frequent leak inspection schedule is no longer being 

followed.

 Full Charge: Owners or operators of appliances normally containing 50 or more pounds 

of refrigerant must maintain records documenting what the full charge amount is for

appliances with 50 or more pounds of refrigerant. The record for the current full charge 

must be maintained until three years after the appliance is retired. 

 Service Records Provided by Technicians: Persons adding or removing refrigerant from 

an appliance normally containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant must provide the 

owner or operator with documentation containing the identity and location of the 

appliance; the date and type of maintenance, service, repair, or disposal performed; the 

name of the person performing the maintenance, service, repair or disposal; the amount 

and type of refrigerant added to or removed from the appliance; the full charge of the 

appliance; and the leak rate and the method used to determine the leak rate (unless 

disposing of the appliance).

 Service Records Maintained by Owners and Operators: The appliance owner or operator 

must maintain service records provided by technicians and the identification of the owner 

or operator of the appliance; the full charge of the appliance and the method for how full 

charge was determined; the original range for the full charge of the appliance, its 

midpoint, and how the range was determined (if using method 4, as described in §82.152, 

for determining full charge); any revisions of the full charge and how they were 

determined; and the dates such revisions occurred.

 Verification Tests: Owners or operators of appliances normally containing 50 or more 

pounds of refrigerant must maintain records of the dates, types, and results of all initial 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 186 of 320

and follow-up verification tests. Under this proposed rule, this would apply to all types of 

equipment, not just IPR.

 Retrofit/Retirement Plans: Owners or operators of appliances normally containing 50 or 

more pounds of refrigerant that cannot be repaired must maintain retrofit or retirement 

plans. The plan must, at a minimum, contain the following information: identification and 

location of the appliance; type and full charge of the refrigerant used; type and full charge 

of the refrigerant to which the appliance will be converted, if retrofitted; itemized 

procedure for converting the appliance to a different refrigerant, including changes 

required for compatibility with the new substitute, if retrofitted; plan for the disposition 

of recovered refrigerant; plan for the disposition of the appliance, if retired; and one-year 

schedule for completion of the appliance retrofit or retirement.

 Extension Requests to Repair or Retrofit/Retire Appliances: Owners or operators of 

appliances normally containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant must maintain copies of 

extension requests. 

 Mothballing: Owners or operators of appliances normally containing 50 or more pounds 

of refrigerant that mothball an appliance must keep records documenting when the 

system was mothballed and when they add refrigerant back into the appliance.

 Purged Refrigerant: Owners or operators of appliances normally containing 50 or more 

pounds of refrigerant that exclude purged refrigerant that are destroyed from their leak 

rate calculation must maintain records to demonstrate that a 98 percent or greater 

destruction efficiency is met. At a minimum this includes flow rate, quantity or 

concentration of the refrigerant in the vent stream, and periods of purge flow. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 187 of 320

 Lists of Certified Recovery Equipment and Testing Results: Organizations that are

approved to certify refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment must maintain 

records of equipment testing and performance and a list of equipment that meets EPA 

requirements. These records must be maintained for three years after the equipment is no 

longer offered for sale.

 Proof of Certification for Technicians: Technicians who have passed the section 608 

Type I, II, III or Universal test, must keep a copy of their certification at their place of 

business. These records must be maintained for three years after a certified individual no 

longer operates as a technician.

 Sales Restriction: Anyone selling ODS or substitute refrigerant must document the name 

of the purchaser, the date of sale, and the quantity of refrigerant purchased. In instances 

where the buyer employs a certified technician, the seller must keep the information 

provided by the buyer that at least one technician is properly certified. Copies of 

technician certifications must be maintained for at least three years after a technician or 

person employing a technician stops purchasing refrigerant.

 Small Cans of Refrigerant for MVAC Servicing: Anyone manufacturing small cans of 

refrigerant with a self-sealing valve must maintain records verifying that the self-sealing 

valves do not leak more than 3.00 grams per year when the self-sealing valve is closed as 

required in the newly-proposed Appendix E to subpart F. Records must be maintained for 

three years after a certified product is no longer offered for sale.

 Technician Certification Programs: Organizations that certify technicians must maintain 

records of who they certify, the scores of all certification tests administered, and the dates 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 188 of 320

and locations of all tests administered. These records must be maintained as long as they

are in operation, not just for three years. 

 Reclaimers: Reclaimers must maintain records of the analyses conducted to verify that 

reclaimed refrigerant meets the necessary specifications. On a transactional basis, 

reclaimers must maintain records of the names and addresses of persons sending them 

material for reclamation and the quantity of the material (the combined mass of 

refrigerant and contaminants) by refrigerant type sent to them for reclamation. 

EPA requests comments on the clarity and necessity of these recordkeeping provisions to 

ensure compliance with the section 608 regulatory requirements. 

4. Summary of Reporting Provisions

EPA has also proposed several reporting provisions. Reporting is an important 

component of the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program and allows EPA to track 

compliance with the requirements. In this action, EPA has attempted to propose reporting 

requirements only when necessary to avoid significantly increasing burden on the regulated 

community. A summary of the proposed reporting requirements is included below. All of these 

reporting requirements are new for non-exempt substitute equipment. However, all of the 

proposed requirements are similar to those that exist currently for ODS equipment. Additionally, 

EPA has proposed to remove the requirement (1) for technicians to certify to the Administrator 

that they own certified refrigerant recovery equipment and (2) for programs certifying recovery

and/or recycling equipment to report to EPA annually on the equipment they approve. Both of 

these requirements are no longer needed. Unless the information is claimed as confidential 

business information or as otherwise noted, all notifications must be submitted electronically to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 189 of 320

608reports@epa.gov. Electronic submission of reports should decrease burden on both EPA and 

the regulated community.

 Extensions to the 30-day or 120-day Leak Repair Requirement: Owners or operators of 

appliances normally containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant must notify EPA when 

seeking an extension of time to complete repairs. The request must include the following 

information: identification and address of the facility; the name of the owner or operator 

of the appliance; the leak rate; the method used to determine the leak rate and full charge; 

the date a leak rate above the applicable leak rate was discovered; the location of leak(s) 

to the extent determined to date; any repair work that has been performed thus far, 

including the date that work was completed; the reasons why more time is needed to 

complete the repair; and an estimate of when the work will be completed.

 Extensions to Retrofit or Retire Appliances: Owners or operators of appliances normally 

containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant must notify EPA when seeking an extension 

of time to complete a retrofit or retirement. 

 Purged Refrigerant: Owners or operators of appliances normally containing 50 or more 

pounds of refrigerant that exclude purged refrigerant that are destroyed from their leak 

rate calculation must provide a one-time report to EPA that includes the identification of 

the facility and a contact person; a description of the appliance; a description of the 

methods used to determine the quantity of refrigerant sent for destruction and type of 

records that are being kept; the frequency of monitoring and data-recording; and a 

description of the control device, and its destruction efficiency.

 Extensions to the Periodic Leak Inspection Requirement: Owners or operators of 

federally-owned appliances containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant must submit a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 190 of 320

request to EPA if they wish to conduct leak inspections less frequently than quarterly or 

annually (depending on the full charge and type of appliance). The extension request 

must show that the appliance has a minimal history of leakage, and is remotely located or 

is otherwise difficult to access for routine maintenance. Additionally, the extension 

request should explain why automatic leak detection equipment could not be used and 

what leak inspection schedule would be reasonable given the circumstances (not to be 

less frequent than one inspection every three years).

 Requesting Approval to Certify Recovery/Recycling Equipment: Any organization 

wishing to certify refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment must submit an 

application to EPA. Applications must include information on the facilities used, the 

qualifications, experience and procedures used to perform certifications, and that there 

are no conflicts of interest in certifying equipment.

 Previously-certified Recovery/Recycling Equipment: Organizations that are approved to 

certify refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment must inform EPA if subsequent 

tests indicate a previously-certified recovery and/or recycling device does not meet EPA 

requirements.

 Technician Certification Programs: Any organizations wishing to certify technicians 

under section 608 must submit an application to EPA describing how they will meet all 

the required standards in appendix D. Organizations that certify technicians must publish 

online lists/databases of the people that they certify. Organizations must report to EPA 

twice a year the pass/fail rate and testing schedules. If a previously-approved technician 

certifying organization stops certifying technicians for any reason, they must ensure those 

records are transferred to another certifying program or EPA. Organizations that receive 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 191 of 320

records from a program that no longer offers the certification test must inform EPA 

within 30 days of receiving these records. The notification must include the name and 

address of the program to which the records have been transferred.

 Reclaimer Certification: Any organization that wishes to reclaim refrigerants must certify

to EPA that they will reclaim refrigerants to the required purity standards (based on 

AHRI Standard 700-2015), verify each batch of refrigerant they sell meets those 

standards, not release more than 1.5 percent of the refrigerant they receive during the 

reclamation process, dispose of wastes from the reclamation process in accordance with 

all applicable laws and regulations, and maintain records as required. 

 Reclaimer Change of Business Information, Location or Contact Information: If a 

reclaimer changes address or management, they must notify EPA within 30 days. Since 

reclaimer certification is not transferable, if ownership changes, the new owner must 

certify to EPA that they will meet the reclaimer certification requirements.

 Amounts Reclaimed: Reclaimers must report annually the aggregate quantity of material 

sent to them for reclamation (the combined mass of refrigerant and contaminants) by

refrigerant type, the mass of each refrigerant reclaimed, and the mass of waste products.

EPA seeks comments on the clarity and necessity of these reporting requirements to 

ensure compliance with the section 608 regulatory requirements. 

M. Proposed effective and compliance dates

EPA is proposing that the final rule become effective on January 1, 2017. However, EPA 

recognizes that for certain requirements, stakeholders will likely need additional time to comply. 

The below paragraphs describe the requirements for which EPA is proposing a delayed 

compliance date and the specific time periods EPA is considering. In addition to those 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 192 of 320

compliance dates discussed below, EPA seeks comments on whether other portions of the 

revised regulations should have earlier or later compliance dates.

1. Proposed Section 82.154(c) – Sale of Small Cans of Refrigerant for MVAC Servicing

For manufacture and import of small cans of refrigerant for MVAC servicing, EPA is 

proposing a compliance date of one year from publication of the final rule. EPA is also 

proposing to allow small cans manufactured and placed into initial inventory or imported before 

that date to be sold for one additional year. For example, if the rule is published on July 1, 2016, 

small can manufacturers would have until July 1, 2017, to transition their manufacturing lines to 

add self-sealing valves. Manufacturers, distributors, and auto parts stores would be able to sell all 

small cans manufactured and placed into initial inventory or imported prior to July 1, 2017, until 

July 1, 2018. EPA seeks comments on this proposed implementation timeline.

2. Proposed Section 82.155 – Safe Disposal of Small Appliances, MVAC, and MVAC-like 

Appliances

For the revisions to the requirements for the recovery of refrigerant prior to 

disposal/recycling of small appliances, EPA is proposing a compliance date of one year from 

publication of the final rule. This should provide time for final disposers such as scrap recyclers 

to learn about the updated requirement, make any adjustments needed to start maintaining 

records associated with disposal of appliances containing non-exempt substitutes, and to obtain 

certified recovery equipment for use with non-exempt substitutes. 

EPA is not proposing more than one year because 1) EPA is not proposing significant

changes to the requirements for the recovery of refrigerant prior to disposal/recycling of small 

appliances, MVAC, MVAC-like appliances, 2) final disposers/recyclers of these appliances 

already must in effect recover HFCs and other non-exempt substitutes prior to disposing of an 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 193 of 320

appliance, and 3) the existing recordkeeping systems and practices used by final disposers can be 

used to implement the safe disposal requirement to appliances containing non-exempt 

substitutes. EPA seeks comments on this proposed implementation schedule.

3. Proposed Section 82.156 – Proper Evacuation of Refrigerant from Appliances

For proposed provisions related to the evacuation of refrigerant before maintenance, 

servicing, repair, and disposal of appliances, EPA is proposing a compliance date of one year 

from publication of the final rule. This would provide time for affected entities to learn about the 

required practices, set up a recordkeeping program to track the amount of refrigerant recovered 

from appliances that are disposed of in the field, and to obtain certified recovery equipment for 

use with non-exempt substitutes. EPA seeks comments on this proposed implementation 

schedule.

4. Proposed Section 82.157 – Appliance Maintenance and Leak Repair

EPA is proposing significant revisions to the leak repair provisions, including lowering 

the applicable leak rate, requiring leak inspections, and modifying the recordkeeping 

requirements. Because these changes are extensive, EPA is proposing a later compliance date for 

the appliance maintenance and leak repair requirements than for most other proposed provisions. 

EPA is proposing a compliance date 18 months from publication of the final rule. This would 

give owners and operators of appliances with 50 or more pounds of refrigerant time to learn 

about the updated requirements; update systems, standard operating procedures, and training 

materials to best implement the requirements; and fix leakier systems prior to the more stringent 

requirements taking place. EPA could consider a shorter or longer timeframe by approximately

six to twelve months (in other words, the compliance dates could be between six months and two 

and half years after a final rule is published in the Federal Register), but would need commenters 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 194 of 320

to provide details on why the shorter or longer timeframe is warranted (e.g., cost, logistics, 

environmental effects, or other verifiable and compelling rationales). EPA seeks comments on its 

proposed compliance date for the appliance maintenance and leak repair provisions.

5. Proposed Section 82.161 – Technician Certification Requirements

EPA is proposing that the compliance date for the revisions to §82.161 be one year after 

publication of a final rule. Providing more time will allow EPA to update the test bank and 

certifying organizations to update their tests to use the updated questions. EPA does not 

anticipate that more than one year would be necessary because HVACR contractors are generally 

working on both ODS refrigerants and non-exempt substitute refrigerants, and there is not likely

to be a rush of contractors needing to be certified. EPA is also proposing to require that any 

person certified as a technician on January 1, 2017, or later be included in a publicly-accessible 

database of certified technicians. Under the proposed timelines, technician certification programs 

would have to make this database available starting January 1, 2018. EPA seeks comments on 

these proposed compliance dates.

6. Sunset dates for requirements that will be superseded in future

For the majority of the requirements in this rule, the new requirements will apply as of 

the effective date of the rule. For requirements with a delayed compliance date, EPA intends to 

indicate when those requirements will apply. EPA is proposing to sunset the corresponding 

existing requirements as of the dates the new requirements apply. EPA seeks comments on other 

approaches. 

V. Economic Analysis

While selecting regulatory actions that would achieve the goals of this proposed rule, 

EPA considered the costs of different actions to individual entities and the United States
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 195 of 320

economy as a whole. A full description of the cost analyses is included in the technical support 

document Analysis of the Economic Impact and Benefits of Proposed Revisions to the National 

Recycling and Emission Reduction Program, which can be found in the docket. 

To estimate the incremental costs of the proposed regulatory changes, the Agency

developed a set of model entities with a distribution of different model facilities, each of which 

could contain a set of model appliances. This set of model entities was used to represent the 

potentially affected entities in a variety of economic sectors in the United States, and they were 

developed based on EPA’s Vintaging Model and cross-checked with a large dataset of repair 

records developed under California’s RMP. Each model entity reflects information about the 

typical number of facilities in a given sector and size category and the number of pieces of 

equipment in each equipment category that are likely to be owned and/or operated by each 

facility. By combining the model entities with economic data on potentially affected industries 

from the United States Census, EPA obtained a model for the potentially affected population. By 

applying the costs of leak inspections, repairs, recordkeeping and reporting, self-sealing cans for 

MVAC servicing, and other regulatory changes to this population, EPA estimated the costs to 

individual entities and the total cost to the economy. 

Some proposed regulatory changes in this action, e.g. providing extensions to owners or 

operators of comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration before having to replace leaking 

appliances, would reduce the cost of compliance to owners of ODS-containing equipment. These 

reductions were included in the incremental cost of the proposed action. 

Based on this analysis, EPA estimates that the total annual cost to comply with the 

proposed requirements is $63 million (all costs in 2014 dollars); this includes $61 million in cost 

to owners and operators of equipment using HFCs, and $2 million for those using ODS. Total 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 196 of 320

annualized costs includes new compliance costs of approximately $113 million associated with 

the proposed rulemaking, less avoided compliance costs of approximately $50 million associated 

with the proposed removal of some existing regulatory requirements and provision of additional 

flexibility that are expected to reduce regulatory burden. The distribution of aggregate costs 

among different economic sectors and among the regulatory changes is detailed in the technical 

support document.

Some proposed regulatory changes would reduce financial outlays by owners or 

operators of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment, for example, by reducing the amount 

of refrigerant lost to leaks and thus saving equipment owners or operators the cost of purchasing 

more refrigerant to replace it. For the money saved in refrigerant purchases alone, EPA estimates 

that affected entities would avoid spending over $52 million due to the proposed regulatory

changes. Thus, the compliance costs and refrigerant savings combined are estimated to be $11 

million per year. The financial outlay from affected entities would additionally be lower because 

appliances running with the correct amount of refrigerant are generally more energy efficient to 

operate and last longer.

The aggregate costs and savings for the economy as a whole given above would not be 

expected to be distributed evenly across affected entities. For example, owners of equipment 

containing ODS that leak at a rate less than 5% of their full charge per year might only incur 

costs for recordkeeping. However, owners of equipment containing HFCs that leak at a rate of 

30% of their full charge per year might incur costs of repairing leaks, while also realizing 

savings due to reduced refrigerant replacement purchases. 

Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), Federal 

agencies must consider the effects regulations may have on small entities. If a rule may have a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 197 of 320

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE), the Agency 

would be required to take certain steps to ensure that the interests of small entities were 

represented in the rulemaking process. To determine if this was necessary, EPA used the model’s

entity analysis to ascertain the likelihood that the proposed changes would have a SISNOSE. 

EPA estimates that approximately 140 of the approximately 950,000 affected small businesses 

could incur costs in excess of 1% of annual sales and that fewer than 80 small businesses could 

incur costs in excess of 3% of annual sales. These levels are below the thresholds used in other 

Title VI rulemakings under which it can be presumed that an action will have no SISNOSE.

Nevertheless, EPA consulted numerous stakeholders, including small businesses, in the 

development of this proposed rule.

The full description of the cost analyses, including sensitivity analyses of key

assumptions and alternate proposed options, is included in the technical support document 

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

and Emission Reduction Program, which can be found in the docket for this action. EPA 

specifically requests comments on all aspects of that analysis.

VI. Possible Future Changes to Subpart F

In addition to the proposals outlined in this notice, EPA is also seeking input on other 

aspects of the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program. EPA is not proposing these 

changes at this time, but specifically solicits comments on whether the ideas have merit and how 

the potential changes might be implemented in a future rulemaking.

A. Appliance maintenance and leak repair

In meetings with stakeholders prior to the issuance of this proposed rule, EPA discussed 

the possibility of establishing a voluntary program for supermarkets based on their corporate-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 198 of 320

wide average leak rate (CWALR) instead of focusing on the leak rate of each individual 

appliance. The Agency and several stakeholders indicated that there could be value in regulating 

commercial refrigeration appliances at the corporate level instead of the individual appliance 

level. Currently, owners and operators of commercial refrigeration equipment must repair leaks 

on equipment with 50 pounds or more of refrigerant within 30 days if the leak rate is above 35%, 

and EPA is proposing in this notice to lower this leak rate to 20%. Under a program like this, 

EPA could relax the existing leak repair requirements for individual commercial refrigeration 

appliances if a supermarket chain was able to keep their CWALR below a certain level (for 

example, 15%) for a full calendar year. 

Supermarkets would still have to keep records of refrigerant additions and the full charge 

of each appliance, but they would not be required to follow the other requirements for 

commercial refrigeration facilities under the amended §82.157. For example, if an appliance was 

leaking more than 20%, they would not have to repair it within 30 days so long as their CWALR 

was below 15% (or some other level) in the previous calendar year. However, they would have 

to report to EPA annually their total refrigerant additions, their corporate-wide full charge, and 

the facilities that are included in the full charge. EPA would use this information to determine if 

their corporate-wide leak rate was below the required level. If it was not, the supermarket chain 

would have to follow the requirements at §82.157 for the next calendar year. Supermarkets 

would still have to comply with the leak repair requirements for comfort cooling appliances.

A program like this could have advantages for both supermarkets and EPA. Supermarkets 

would have greater flexibility to determine how they would reduce leaks so long as they are 

achieving an established level of environmental performance. EPA would receive additional data 

that it could use to better characterize the industry’s emissions profile. Additionally, EPA could 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 199 of 320

use the information to better target its enforcement action. This type of program also fits in well 

with the Agency’s Next Generation Compliance initiative as it incentivizes better environmental 

performance.

While EPA finds this type of program appealing, there are several reasons this idea is not 

being proposed in this action. First, establishing the universe of stores within the corporate-wide 

boundary could be difficult if there are multiple chains held by one parent company. At what 

level should the boundary be drawn? Second, supermarket chains frequently buy and sell stores 

to other chains, which may be difficult to address when calculating annual leak rates. Would the 

newly-purchased stores automatically be included in the CWALR or would they be subject to the 

requirements for individual appliances? 

Some stakeholders expressed interest in a program like this if the Agency would agree

not to take any enforcement actions against them. However, the Agency would still want to 

ensure it could bring enforcement action if a supermarket chain was misreporting its CWALR. 

Some stakeholders also appreciated that the Agency was considering ways to reduce 

burden but felt the Agency should not relax recordkeeping requirements that may help a 

company reduce leaks. Others were disinterested in the program and did not see an incentive to 

join. EPA considered this feedback, and the possible benefits of the program, and has decided 

not to propose this option at this time. However, the Agency seeks comments on whether such an 

idea could be workable and whether it is worth exploring in a future proposed rule. EPA also 

seeks comments on other ways the Agency could incentivize compliance or performance that 

exceeds the regulatory requirements as well as ways to reduce burden for companies with low 

leak rates, while still ensuring compliance.

B. Refrigerant reclamation
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 200 of 320

EPA has received suggestions for how the reclaimer program could be strengthened. 

Some of these suggestions include more stringent certification requirements for reclaimers and 

third party audits to ensure reclamation facilities are following the required practices. Some of 

these suggestions are in the docket to this rule. These suggestions, combined with the principles 

of Next Generation Compliance, have encouraged EPA to take comment on those two ideas. 

EPA is also considering ways to promote the use of reclaimed refrigerant so as to 

increase the financial incentive to recover and reclaim refrigerant. EPA requests comments on a 

way to distinguish reclaimed refrigerant from virgin refrigerant. This could potentially include 

establishing a labeling program for reclaimed material, much like other recycled products.

1. More stringent certification requirements for reclaimers

EPA has received feedback that the requirements to become a certified reclaimer are not 

stringent enough. Some have suggested that the Agency require that reclaimers provide more 

information in their certification on how they will comply with other potentially applicable 

regulations such as those related to the transport and disposal of hazardous materials. 

Stakeholders have also suggested that EPA cite compliance with Occupational Health and Safety 

Administration (OSHA) requirements. EPA seeks comment on whether it should develop more 

stringent certification requirements in a separate proposed rule, and what those requirements 

should look like. 

Some stakeholders have also suggested that EPA redefine the term reclaim to cover 

entities other than those historically seen as reclaimers, for example separation facilities. EPA 

seeks comment on whether the term reclaim should be amended in future to cover separation 

facilities. EPA also seeks comment on whether the agency should in future require reporting 

from separation facilities as part of the reclamation program or elsewhere in subpart F to better 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 201 of 320

understand where refrigerant goes after it is recovered. EPA also seeks comment on whether 

there are other types of facilities that should be covered under a program like this.

2. Establishing a third party certification or audit program for reclaimers

In developing this proposed rule, EPA considered establishing a third party certification 

program for reclaimers. In addition, one organization has recently urged EPA to require that a 

third party audit all reclaimers. The specific proposal is included in a letter from Intertek 

available in the docket. Under a program like this, EPA would certify independent auditors that 

would review reclaimers’ compliance with the section 608 requirements. To reduce costs, EPA 

could require that in-person site audits occur once every few years. A program like this could 

help ensure compliance with the section 608 reclamation requirements. While EPA is not 

proposing this action in today’s proposed rule, the Agency seeks comment on the establishment 

of a third party audit program for reclaimers in a future action.

3. Labeling of reclaimed refrigerant

Refrigerant reclaimers and environmental organizations have encouraged EPA to further

promote the reclamation of refrigerant. The Agency notes that existing regulations promote 

HCFC reclamation by requiring refrigerant be recovered rather than vented and that used 

refrigerant be reclaimed before being sold. Through today’s proposal, EPA would be extending 

that requirement to HFCs and other substitutes, further increasing the supply and types of 

refrigerants for reclamation. Having said that, the Agency is considering whether labeling could 

allow for broader recognition, use of, and demand for reclaimed refrigerant. 

EPA seeks comments on the value of proposing in a separate rulemaking a voluntary

labeling program for reclaimed refrigerant. Under this program, EPA would certify third parties 

who would then verify that the refrigerant being sold was in fact reclaimed. The reclaimer would 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 202 of 320

have to document receipt of used refrigerant, the amount of that refrigerant that was reclaimed 

(and not a waste product), and that each batch of reclaimed refrigerant was tested and meets 

AHRI-700 standards. Alternatively, a program like this could be developed by industry.

There are several situations where reclaimed refrigerant labeled as such could be

valuable. First, given the existing restrictions at §82.15(g) on the manufacture of new appliances 

using HCFC-22, owners of appliances that expand their system after January 1, 2010, would 

know that the refrigerant was reclaimed and could be used in compliance with HCFC phaseout 

requirements.

14 Second, certified reclaimed refrigerant could be marketed to consumers seeking 

to purchase environmentally preferable products. This type of program could also be useful to 

Federal, state, or local governments that have directives to purchase recycled content materials 

by providing verification that the refrigerant they are purchasing is in fact reclaimed. 

EPA seeks comments on whether reclaimers, refrigerant wholesalers, or owners or 

operators of appliances would be interested in such a program. EPA also seeks comments on 

whether any organization would be interested in becoming a third party verifier for this program. 

The Agency also seeks comment on what criteria it could establish to ensure refrigerant was in 

fact reclaimed, and other potential approaches that the Agency could consider if it develops a 

program like this in future.

C. Safe disposal of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances

After conversations with scrap recyclers, EPA considered ways it could improve the 

requirements for the disposal of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances. While 

EPA is not proposing any of these changes at this time, EPA is seeking comments on ways that it 

could ensure refrigerant is recovered from appliances that enter the waste stream with their 

 

14 For more information on how EPA treats supermarkets that have remodeled and expanded the capacity of their 

system, please see http://epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/Supermarket_Q&A_for_R-22.html. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 203 of 320

refrigerant circuit intact, while reducing burden on the final disposer, who is often relying on 

someone upstream to recover the refrigerant. EPA considered several options to move the 

recordkeeping requirements upstream, but EPA needs additional feedback before proposing

these options. 

1. Move responsibility of ensuring proper recovery to the first collector

One idea EPA considered was moving the requirement to ensure refrigerant is recovered 

from the final disposer to the first collector of the appliance. The first collector could include the 

retailer that delivers a new refrigerator and takes away the old one. The first collector could also 

include municipal waste collection facilities or others that pick up used appliances from homes, 

offices, or curbside. Under such a program, the first collector would have to ensure the 

refrigerant was properly recovered and keep a record documenting that fact. EPA could also 

create a requirement where the first collector and the final disposer would have to keep a record.

EPA seeks comment on whether this would be an appropriate change to make in future 

and whether this would improve compliance with the safe disposal requirements (§§82.155 and 

82.156 as proposed in this notice). EPA also seeks comment on how it could ensure compliance 

with such a program.

2. Require a certified recovery location for all appliances

EPA also considered whether to require the establishment of third-party certified 

appliance recovery centers. These recovery centers would have to be certified by EPA or a third 

party certifier and would have to document every appliance they receive, the amount of 

refrigerant recovered from each appliance or each shipment of appliances, and report to EPA on 

the amount of refrigerant recovered and where that recovered refrigerant was sent for either 

destruction or reclamation. EPA would also have to require that all small appliances, MVACs, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 204 of 320

and MVAC-like appliances bound for disposal or recycling would have to be sent to such a 

certified recovery center. Scrap recyclers, landfills, or other final disposal facilities would only

be allowed to receive appliances from certified appliance recovery centers to work effectively.

One advantage to such a program is that scrap recyclers and other final disposers would 

not have to verify that refrigerant was properly recovered from appliances they receive. EPA 

would also have more information on how much refrigerant is being recovered from these 

appliances when they are disposed of. However, EPA has also considered the ongoing transition 

to lower-GWP alternatives like hydrocarbons, CO2, and HFO-1234yf in small appliances and 

MVACs. The benefit of requiring that appliances go through a certified recovery center may

decline in the future, and could be potentially disruptive to the existing supply chain today. EPA 

weighed these factors and has decided not to propose a program like this in today’s notice, but is 

requesting comment on such a program. EPA is particularly interested in whether this type of 

program would reduce emissions of refrigerants, be easy or difficult to establish and transition to, 

be difficult to set up in rural areas, and if any organizations would be interested in either 

becoming a certified appliance refrigerant recovery center or certifying appliance refrigerant 

recovery centers. 

D. Technician certification 

1. Recertification

EPA considered whether to require currently certified technicians to recertify based on 

the changes proposed in this rule. EPA states at §82.161(c)(2) that the Administrator reserves the 

right to specify the need for technician recertification at some future date, if necessary, by

placing a notice in the Federal Register. At this time, EPA is not proposing that technicians 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 205 of 320

currently certified to work with ODS refrigerants be recertified to work with substitute 

refrigerants.

In pre-proposal discussions with stakeholders, EPA found both support and opposition to 

requiring recertification. One argument expressed in favor of recertification is that many changes 

have occurred in the twenty-two years since the first technicians took the certification exam. For 

example, many new refrigerants have entered the market, including flammable refrigerants, and 

air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment has changed. 

While more substitutes have been introduced, the techniques for properly handling 

fluorocarbon substitute refrigerants is very similar to that for ODS refrigerants. As many

stakeholders noted at the November 12, 2014, stakeholder meeting, technicians currently handle 

all refrigerants in a similar manner, regardless of whether they are an ODS or a substitute. EPA’s 

SNAP program has only recently listed a number of flammable refrigerants as acceptable, 

subject to use conditions, and only in narrow product categories. The benefits of any

recertification requirement would probably be small, and would likely be outweighed by the 

costs of requiring every technician to recertify. EPA requests comments on this approach for 

currently certified technicians. EPA also seeks comments on the possibility of developing a onetime online recertification that could be more limited in scope than the existing certification test 

if the Agency did decide to require recertification in future.

2. Flammable refrigerants

While EPA has not ruled out the possibility of establishing requirements under 40 CFR 

part 82, subpart F for flammable exempt substitute refrigerants, EPA has not proposed in this 

rulemaking to extend any of the requirements under section 608, including the technician 

certification program and the sales restriction, to refrigerants that are exempt from the statutory
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 206 of 320

venting prohibition (CO2, hydrocarbons in certain SNAP-approved applications, ammonia, etc.). 

Some in the industry have told EPA that the Agency should require training and certification of 

HVACR contractors that work with flammable refrigerants. The primary concern is the safety of 

the technicians working on appliances, the owners and operators of those appliances, and anyone 

recovering or reclaiming refrigerant from those appliances that may not be labeled properly or 

mixed with flammable refrigerants.

EPA appreciates the concerns raised by stakeholders about flammable refrigerants and is 

planning to add questions on this topic to the technician certification test bank when the Agency

updates those questions. These questions would cover proper handling practices to prevent 

mixing with ODS and substitute refrigerants, as well as safety. EPA has also proposed to 

broaden the definition of substitute so that it covers all refrigerants used by any person as 

replacements for a class I or II ozone-depleting substance whether or not SNAP-approved. This 

is to ensure that substitutes found to be unacceptable in a given refrigerant end-use under SNAP 

will still be covered by the safe handling requirements of subpart F.

EPA is not proposing, however, to extend the sales restriction in today’s proposal to 

hydrocarbon refrigerants for sale in the approved end-uses under SNAP. EPA is also not 

revisiting in this proposed rule the determination that venting, releasing, or disposing of 

hydrocarbon refrigerants in the limited end-uses for which is it allowed, does not pose a threat to 

the environment. EPA also seeks comments on whether the Agency should establish through a 

future rulemaking a technician certification requirement for flammable refrigerants, or extend the 

sales restriction (as a way to enforce the certification requirement) or other 608 requirements to 

flammable refrigerants that are exempt from the venting prohibition. Commenters should provide 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 207 of 320

as much detail as possible, including the requirements that the Agency should establish, and what 

the environmental benefits might be. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to OMB for review. This 

action was deemed to raise novel legal or policy issues. Any changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been documented in the docket. EPA prepared an economic analysis of 

the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is summarized in

Section V of the preamble and is available in the docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for 

approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that EPA 

prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1626.13. You can find a copy of the ICR in the 

docket for this rule.

All recordkeeping and reporting requirements under this program are specifically

described in Section IV.L. of this preamble. In order to facilitate compliance with and enforce 

the requirements of section 608 of the CAA, EPA requires reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements of technicians, technician certification programs, refrigerant recovery/recycling 

equipment testing organizations, refrigerant wholesalers and purchasers, refrigerant reclaimers, 

refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment owners, and other establishments that perform 

refrigerant removal, service, or disposal. EPA has used and will continue to use these records and 

reports to ensure that refrigerant releases are minimized during the recovery, recycling, and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 208 of 320

reclamation processes. The handling and confidentiality of the reporting requirements follow 

EPA's confidentiality regulations at 40 CFR 2.201 et seq. for assuring computer data security, 

preventing disclosure, proper storage, and proper disposal.

Respondents/affected entities: Entities required to comply with reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements include technicians; technician certification programs; refrigerant 

wholesalers; refrigerant reclaimers; refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment owners and/or 

operators; and other establishments that perform refrigerant removal, service, or disposal. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 82, subpart F).

Estimated number of respondents: The total number of respondents is estimated to be 

approximately 1,050,390. 

Frequency of response: The frequency of responses vary from once a year to daily. 

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to vary from one minute to 

9.5 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions and gathering, maintaining, and 

submitting information.

Total estimated burden: The total estimated burden is 797,314 hours (per year). Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: The total estimated cost is $35,931,685 (per year). There are no 

estimated annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs associated with the reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Most of this burden is already covered by the existing requirements in 40 CFR part 82, 

subpart F, and the existing ICR, which was last approved by OMB in December 2014.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 209 of 320

control numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. The OMB control 

number for this information collection is 2060-0256.

Submit your comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0453. You may also send your ICR-related comments to 

OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to 

oria_submissions@omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Since OMB is required to 

make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive 

comments no later than [insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register]. EPA 

will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the RFA. The small entities subject to the requirements of this 

action are businesses and small governmental jurisdictions that own or service comfort cooling, 

commercial refrigeration, or IPR equipment. EPA estimates that approximately 140 of the 

approximately 950,000 affected small businesses could incur costs in excess of 1% of annual 

sales and that fewer than 80 small businesses could incur costs in excess of 3% of annual sales.

These levels are below the thresholds under which it can be presumed that an action will have no 

SISNOSE, as used in other Title VI rulemakings. Details of this analysis are presented in the 

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

and Emission Reduction Program available in the docket to this rule. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 210 of 320

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described 

in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. 

This rule supplements the statutory self-effectuating prohibition against venting refrigerants by

ensuring that certain service practices are conducted that reduce the emissions of ozone-depleting 

refrigerants and their substitutes. This rule also proposes to strengthen the leak repair 

requirements, establish recordkeeping requirements for the disposal of appliances containing five

to 50 pounds of refrigerant, and modify the technician certification program. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct 

effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on 

the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This 

rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. This 

rule supplements the statutory self-effectuating prohibition against venting refrigerants by

ensuring that certain service practices are conducted that reduce the emissions of ozone-depleting 

refrigerants and their substitutes. This rule also proposes to strengthen the leak repair 

requirements, establish recordkeeping requirements for the disposal of appliances containing five

to 50 pounds of refrigerant, and modify the technician certification program. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this action. 

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

Risks
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 211 of 320

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 F.R. 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. The agency

nonetheless has reason to believe that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this 

action may have a disproportionate effect on children. Depletion of stratospheric ozone results in 

greater transmission of the sun's ultraviolet (UV) radiation to the earth's surface. The following 

studies describe the effects of excessive exposure to UV radiation on children: (1) Westerdahl J, 

Olsson H, Ingvar C. “At what age do sunburn episodes play a crucial role for the development of 

malignant melanoma,” Eur J Cancer 1994: 30A: 1647-54; (2) Elwood JM Japson J. “Melanoma 

and sun exposure: an overview of published studies,” Int J Cancer 1997; 73:198-203; (3) 

Armstrong BK, “Melanoma: childhood or lifelong sun exposure,” In: Grobb JJ, Stern RS Mackie 

RM, Weinstock WA, eds. “Epidemiology, causes and prevention of skin diseases,” 1st ed. 

London, England: Blackwell Science, 1997: 63-6; (4) Whiteman D., Green A. “Melanoma and 

Sunburn,” Cancer Causes Control, 1994: 5:564-72; (5) Heenan, PJ. “Does intermittent sun 

exposure cause basal cell carcinoma? A case control study in Western Australia,” Int J Cancer 

1995; 60: 489-94; (6) Gallagher, RP, Hill, GB, Bajdik, CD, et al. “Sunlight exposure, pigmentary

factors, and risk of nonmelanocytic skin cancer I, Basal cell carcinoma,” Arch Dermatol 1995; 

131: 157-63; (7) Armstrong, DK. “How sun exposure causes skin cancer: an epidemiological 

perspective,” Prevention of Skin Cancer. 2004. 89-116.

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

Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 212 of 320

This action involves technical standards. First, EPA is proposing that all new recovery

and/or recycling equipment used during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of 

appliances manufactured or imported after the effective date of this rule be required to meet the 

standard based on AHRI Standard 740-2015, Performance Rating of Refrigerant Recovery 

Equipment and Recovery/Recycling Equipment. EPA is not proposing to incorporate this 

standard by reference but rather include it with minor modifications in appendix B3. EPA is also 

proposing to establish a modified version of appendix B3 in appendix B4 that could be used to 

certify recovery/recycling equipment used to recover/recycle flammable refrigerants. As 

proposed, this appendix bases the recovery/recycling performance on AHRI 740-2015 and the 

safety performance standards in UL 1963, Supplement SB, Requirements for Refrigerant 

Recovery/Recycling Equipment Intended for Use with a Flammable Refrigerant. EPA seeks 

comments on the use of these standards, especially whether to incorporate the UL standard by

reference into appendix B4 alongside the appendix B3 requirements. 

Second, reclaimers are required to reprocess refrigerant to standards based on ARI

Standard 700-1995, Specification for Fluorocarbons and Other Refrigerants. EPA is proposing 

to update appendix A to include HFCs, PFCs, HFOs, and other refrigerants based on the 

standards contained in AHRI Standard 700-2015, Specifications for Refrigerants, but not 

incorporate by reference to keep the older unsaturates limit. EPA seeks comments on whether to 

incorporate the updated standard reference or whether appendix A should be updated to include 

HFCs, PFCs, HFOs, and other refrigerants.

Third, EPA is proposing to create in appendix E a standard for self-sealing valves that is 

based largely on CARB’s Test Procedure for Leaks from Small Containers of Automotive 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 213 of 320

Refrigerant, TP-503, as amended January 5, 2010. EPA requests comment on the use of this 

CARB standard for self-sealing valves.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations

EPA believes this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health 

or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations, because it affects the level of 

environmental protection equally for all affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 

including any minority or low-income population. This rule would amend the leak repair 

requirements for appliances using ozone-depleting substances, which would protect human 

health and the environment from increased amounts of UV radiation and increased incidence of 

skin cancer. The effects of exposure to UV radiation and the estimated reduction in emissions of 

ozone-depleting substances from this proposed rule is contained in section II.D.1 of this 

preamble. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 214 of 320

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Exports, Imports, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated:

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 215 of 320

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

PART 82- PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

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

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

2. Amend section 82.150 to revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:

§82.150 Purpose and scope.

(a) The purpose of this subpart is to reduce emissions of class I and class II refrigerants and their 

substitutes to the lowest achievable level by maximizing the recapture and recycling of such 

refrigerants during the maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of appliances and restricting the 

sale of refrigerants consisting in whole or in part of a class I or class II ozone-depleting 

substance or their substitutes in accordance with Title VI of the Clean Air Act.

(b) This subpart applies to any person maintaining, servicing, or repairing appliances. This 

subpart also applies to persons disposing of appliances, including small appliances and motor 

vehicle air conditioners. In addition, this subpart applies to refrigerant reclaimers, technician 

certifying programs, appliance owners and operators, manufacturers of appliances, 

manufacturers of recovery and/or recycling equipment, approved recovery and/or recycling 

equipment testing organizations, and persons buying, selling, or offering to sell class I, class II, 

or substitute refrigerants.

3. Amend section 82.152 to read as follows:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 216 of 320

a. by adding definitions for “Class I,” “Class II,” “Comfort cooling,” “Component,” “Leak 

inspection,” “Mothball,” “Normal operating characteristics and conditions,” “Reclaim,” 

“Recover,” “Recycle,” “Retire,” “Retrofit,” “Seasonal variance,” “Self-sealing valve,” and 

“System receiver.”

b. by revising the definitions for “Appliance,” “Apprentice,” “Commercial refrigeration,” 

“Custom-built,” “Disposal,” “Follow-up verification test,” “Full charge,” “High-pressure 

appliance,” “Industrial process refrigeration,” “Industrial process shutdown,” “Initial verification 

test,” “Leak rate,” “Low-loss fitting,” “Low-pressure appliance,” “Medium-pressure appliance,” 

“MVAC-like appliance,” “One-time expansion device,” “Opening an appliance,” “Recovery

efficiency,” “Refrigerant,” “Self-contained recovery equipment,” “Small appliance,” 

“Substitute,” “Technician,” and “Very high-pressure appliance.”

c. by removing the definitions for “Critical Component,” “Normal operating characteristics or 

conditions,” “Normally containing a quantity of refrigerant,” “Reclaim refrigerant,” “Recover 

refrigerant,” “Recycle refrigerant,” “Suitable replacement refrigerant,” “System mothballing,” 

and “Voluntary certification program.”

§82.152 Definitions.

As used in this subpart, the term:

Appliance means any device which contains and uses a class I or class II substance or substitute 

as a refrigerant and which is used for household or commercial purposes, including any air 

conditioner, motor vehicle air conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or freezer.

Apprentice means any person who is currently registered as an apprentice in maintenance, 

service, repair, or disposal of appliances with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of 

Apprenticeship (or a State Apprenticeship Council recognized by the Office of Apprenticeship). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 217 of 320

A person may only be an apprentice for two years from the date of first registering with that 

office. 

* * * * *

Class I refers to an ozone-depleting substance that is listed in 40 CFR part 82 subpart A, 

appendix A.

Class II refers to an ozone-depleting substance that is listed in 40 CFR part 82 subpart A, 

appendix B.

Comfort cooling means 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 

commercial buildings. Comfort cooling appliances include building chillers and roof-top selfcontained units. They may be used for the comfort of occupants or for climate control to protect 

equipment within a facility, including but not limited to computer rooms.

Commercial refrigeration means 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. 

Component means a part of the refrigerant loop within an appliance including, but not limited to, 

compressors, condensers, evaporators, receivers, and all of its connections and subassemblies. 

Custom-built means that the equipment or any of its components cannot be purchased and/or 

installed without being uniquely designed, fabricated and/or assembled to satisfy a specific set of 

industrial process conditions. 

Disposal means the process leading to and including: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 218 of 320

(1) The discharge, deposit, dumping or placing of any discarded appliance into or on any land or 

water; 

(2) The disassembly of any appliance for discharge, deposit, dumping or placing of its discarded 

component parts into or on any land or water; 

(3) The destruction of any appliance such that the refrigerant would be released into the 

environment if it had not been recovered prior to the destructive activity, or

(4) The disassembly of any appliance for reuse or recycling of its component parts. 

Follow-up verification test means 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. 

Full charge means 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
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 219 of 320

(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.

High-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a refrigerant with a liquid phase saturation 

pressure between 170 psia and 355 psia at 104 °F. Examples include but are not limited to 

appliances using R-22, R-407A, R-407C, R-410A, and R-502.

Industrial process refrigeration means 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 means when an industrial process or facility temporarily ceases to 

operate or manufacture whatever is being produced at that facility. 

Initial verification test means 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 means the examination of all visible components of an appliance 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.

Leak rate means the rate at which an appliance is losing refrigerant, measured between 

refrigerant charges. The leak rate is expressed in terms of the percentage of the appliance’s full 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 220 of 320

charge that would be lost over a 12-month period if the current rate of loss were to continue over 

that period. The rate is calculated using only one of the following methods for all appliances 

subject to the leak repair requirements located at an operating facility.

(1) Annualizing Method. Step 1. Take the number of pounds of refrigerant added to the 

appliance to return it to a full charge, whether in one addition or if multiple additions related to 

same leak, and divide it by the number of pounds of refrigerant the appliance normally contains 

at full charge;

Step 2. Take the shorter of the number of days that have passed since the last day refrigerant was 

added or 365 days and divide that number by 365 days;

Step 3. Take the number calculated in Step 1 and divide it by the number calculated in Step 2; 

and

Step 4. Multiply the number calculated in Step 3 by 100 to calculate a percentage. This method is 

summarized in the following formula: 

(2) Rolling Average Method. Step 1. Take the sum of the pounds of refrigerant added to the 

appliance over the previous 365-day period (or over the period that has passed since the last 

successful follow-up verification test showing all leaks in the appliance were repaired, if that 

period is less than one year);

Step 2. Divide the result of Step 1 by the pounds of refrigerant the appliance normally contains at 

full charge; and

Step 3. Multiply the result of Step 2 by 100 to obtain a percentage. This method is summarized in 

the following formula: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 221 of 320

Leak rate

(% per year)

=

pounds of refrigerant added over past 365 days

(or since the last successful follow-up verification test showing all leaks 

in the appliance were repaired, if that period is less than one year)

pounds of refrigerant in full charge

x 100%

Low-loss fitting means any device that is intended to establish a connection between hoses, 

appliances, or recovery and/or recycling machines and that is designed to close automatically or 

to be closed manually when disconnected, minimizing the release of refrigerant from hoses, 

appliances, and recovery and/or recycling machines. 

Low-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a refrigerant with a liquid phase saturation 

pressure below 45 psia at 104 °F. Examples include but are not limited to appliances using R-11, 

R-123, R-113, and R-245fa.

* * * * *

Medium-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a refrigerant with a liquid phase 

saturation pressure between 45 psia and 170 psia at 104 °F. Examples include but are not limited 

to appliances using R-114, R-124, R-12, R-134a, and R-500.

Mothball means 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. 

* * * * *

MVAC-like appliance means a mechanical vapor compression, open-drive compressor appliance 

with a full charge of 20 pounds or less of refrigerant used to cool the driver’s or passenger’s 

compartment of an off-road motor vehicle. This includes, but is not limited to, the airconditioning equipment found on agricultural or construction vehicles. This definition is not 

intended to cover appliances using R-22 refrigerant.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 222 of 320

Normal operating characteristics and conditions means appliance operating temperatures, 

pressures, fluid flows, speeds, and other characteristics, including full charge of the appliance, 

that would be expected for a given process load and ambient condition during normal operation. 

Normal operating characteristics and conditions are marked by the absence of atypical conditions 

affecting the operation of the appliance. 

One-time expansion device means 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 means any maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of an appliance that 

would release any refrigerant in the appliance to the atmosphere. Connecting and disconnecting 

hoses and gauges to measure pressures, add refrigerant, or recover refrigerant from the appliance 

are not considered “opening an appliance.”

* * * * *

Reclaim means to reprocess recovered refrigerant to all of the specifications in appendix A of 

this subpart (based on AHRI Standard 700-2015, Specifications for Refrigerants) that are 

applicable to that refrigerant and to verify that the refrigerant meets these specifications using the 

analytical methodology prescribed in section 5 of appendix A of this subpart.

Recover means to remove refrigerant in any condition from an appliance and to store it in an 

external container without necessarily testing or processing it in any way. 

Recovery efficiency means the percentage of refrigerant in an appliance that is recovered by a 

piece of recovery and/or recycling equipment. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 223 of 320

Recycle, when referring to refrigerant, means to extract refrigerant from an appliance and clean it 

for reuse in equipment of the same owner without meeting all of the requirements for 

reclamation. In general, recycled refrigerant is cleaned using oil separation and single or multiple 

passes through devices, such as replaceable core filter-driers, which reduce moisture, acidity, and 

particulate matter. 

Refrigerant means, for purposes of this subpart, any substance, including blends and mixtures, 

consisting in part or whole of a class I or class II ozone-depleting substance or substitute that is 

used for heat transfer purposes and provides a cooling effect.

Refrigerant circuit means the parts of an appliance that are normally connected to each other (or 

are separated only by internal valves) and are designed to contain refrigerant. 

Retire, when referring to an appliance, means 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.

Retrofit means to convert an appliance from one refrigerant to another refrigerant. Retrofitting 

includes the conversion of the appliance to achieve system compatibility with the new refrigerant

and may include, but is not limited to, changes in lubricants, gaskets, filters, driers, valves, orings or appliance components.

Seasonal variance means the addition of refrigerant to an appliance due to a change in ambient 

conditions caused by a change in season, followed by the subsequent removal of an equal 

amount of refrigerant in the corresponding change in season, where both the addition and 

removal of refrigerant occurs within one consecutive 12-month period.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 224 of 320

Self-contained recovery equipment means refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment that is 

capable of removing the refrigerant from an appliance without the assistance of components 

contained in the appliance. 

Self-sealing valve means a valve affixed to a container of refrigerant that automatically seals 

when not dispensing refrigerant and meets or exceeds established performance criteria as 

identified in §82.154(c)(2).

Small appliance means any appliance that is fully manufactured, charged, and hermetically 

sealed in a factory with five (5) pounds or less of refrigerant, including, but not limited to, 

refrigerators and freezers (designed for home, commercial, or consumer use), medical or 

industrial research refrigeration equipment, room air conditioners (including window air 

conditioners, portable air conditioners, and packaged terminal air heat pumps), dehumidifiers, 

under-the-counter ice makers, vending machines, and drinking water coolers.

Substitute means any chemical or product, whether existing or new, that is used as a refrigerant 

to replace a class I or II ozone-depleting substance. 

System-dependent recovery equipment means refrigerant recovery equipment that requires the 

assistance of components contained in an appliance to remove the refrigerant from the appliance. 

System receiver means 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 means any person who in the course of maintenance, service, or repair of an 

appliance could be reasonably expected to violate the integrity of the refrigerant circuit and 

therefore release refrigerants into the environment. Technician also means any person who 

disposes of an appliance that could be reasonably expected to violate the integrity of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 225 of 320

refrigerant circuit and therefore release refrigerants from the appliance into the environment, 

except for persons who only dispose of appliances that are small appliances, MVACs, and 

MVAC-like appliances. Activities reasonably expected to violate the integrity of the refrigerant 

circuit include but are not limited to: attaching and detaching hoses and gauges to and from the 

appliance; adding or removing refrigerant; adding or removing components; and cutting the 

refrigerant line. Activities such as painting the appliance, rewiring an external electrical circuit, 

replacing insulation on a length of pipe, or tightening nuts and bolts are not reasonably expected 

to violate the integrity of the refrigerant circuit. Activities conducted on appliances that have 

been properly evacuated pursuant to §82.156 are not reasonably expected to release refrigerants 

unless the activity includes adding refrigerant to the appliance. Technicians could include but are 

not limited to installers, contractor employees, in-house service personnel, and in some cases 

owners and/or operators of appliances.

Very high-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a refrigerant with a critical 

temperature below 104 °F or with a liquid phase saturation pressure above 355 psia at 104 °F. 

Examples include but are not limited to appliances using R-13, R-23, R-503, R-508A, and R508B. 

4. Amend section 82.154 to read as follows: 

a. by revising paragraphs (a) through (g),

b. by removing paragraphs (h) through (p).

§82.154 Prohibitions.

(a) Venting Prohibition. (1) No person maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an 

appliance or industrial process refrigeration may knowingly vent or otherwise release into the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 226 of 320

environment any refrigerant from such appliances. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 

subpart, the following substitutes in the following end-uses are exempt from this prohibition and 

from the requirements of this subpart:

(i) Carbon dioxide in any application;

(ii) Nitrogen in any application;

(iii) Water in any application;

(iv) Ammonia in commercial or industrial process refrigeration or in absorption units;

(v) Chlorine in industrial process refrigeration (processing of chlorine and chlorine compounds);

(vi) Hydrocarbons in industrial process refrigeration (processing of hydrocarbons);

(vii) Ethane (R–170) in very low temperature refrigeration equipment and equipment for nonmechanical heat transfer;

(viii) Propane (R–290) in retail food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only); 

household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers; self-contained 

room air conditioners for residential and light commercial air-conditioning; heat pumps; and 

vending machines;

(ix) Isobutane (R–600a) in retail food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only) and 

vending machines;

(x) R–441A in retail food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only); self-contained 

room air conditioners for residential and light commercial air-conditioning; heat pumps; and 

vending machines.

(2) De minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to recycle or recover refrigerants are 

not subject to this prohibition. Refrigerant releases are de minimis only if they occur when:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 227 of 320

(i) The required practices in §82.155, §82.156, and §82.157 are observed, recovery and/or 

recycling machines that meet the requirements in §82.158 are used whenever refrigerant is

removed from an appliance, the technician certification provisions in §82.161 are observed, and 

the reclamation requirements in §82.164 are observed; or

(ii) The requirements in subpart B of this part are observed.

(3) The knowing release of a refrigerant after its recovery from an appliance is a violation of the 

venting prohibition.

(b) No person may maintain, service, repair, or dispose of an appliance without:

(1) Observing the required practices in §82.155, §82.156, and §82.157; and 

(2) Using recovery and/or recycling equipment that is certified for that type of refrigerant and 

appliance under §82.158. 

(c) Sales Restriction. (1) No person may sell or distribute, or offer for sale or distribution, any

substance that consists in whole or in part of a class I or class II substance or substitute for use as 

a refrigerant unless: 

(i) The buyer has been certified as a Type I, Type II, Type III, or Universal technician under 

§82.161; 

(ii) The buyer employs at least one technician who is certified as a Type I, Type II, Type III, or 

Universal technician under §82.161 and provides proof of such to the seller; 

(iii) The buyer has been certified in accordance with 40 CFR part 82, subpart B and the 

refrigerant is acceptable for use in MVACs under 40 CFR part 82, subpart G; 

(iv) The buyer employs at least one technician who is certified under 40 CFR part 82, subpart B, 

and provides proof of such to the seller and the refrigerant is acceptable for use in MVACs under 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 228 of 320

40 CFR part 82, subpart G. Nothing in this provision relieves persons of the requirements of 

§82.34(b) or §82.42(b); 

(v) The refrigerant is sold only for eventual resale to certified technicians or to appliance 

manufacturers (e.g., sold by a manufacturer to a wholesaler, sold by a technician to a reclaimer); 

(vi) The refrigerant is sold to an appliance manufacturer; 

(vii) The refrigerant is contained in an appliance with a fully assembled refrigerant circuit or an 

appliance component; 

(viii) The refrigerant is charged into an appliance by a certified technician or an apprentice 

during maintenance, service, or repair of the appliance;

(ix) The refrigerant is exempted under paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or

(x) The substitute refrigerant is intended for use in an MVAC and is sold in a container designed 

to hold two pounds or less of refrigerant, has a unique fitting, and has a self-sealing valve.

(2) Self-sealing valve specifications. This provision will apply starting [INSERT DATE ONE 

YEAR FROM PUBLICATION OF A FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for all 

containers holding two pounds or less of substitute refrigerant for use in an MVAC that are 

manufactured and placed into initial inventory or imported on or after that date. All containers 

holding two pounds or less of substitute refrigerant for use in an MVAC that are manufactured 

and placed into initial inventory or imported prior to that date must be sold prior to [INSERT 

DATE TWO YEARS FROM PUBLICATION OF A FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. 

(i) Each container holding two pounds or less of substitute refrigerant for use in an MVAC must 

be equipped with a single self-sealing valve that automatically closes and seals when not 

dispensing refrigerant. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 229 of 320

(ii) The leakage rate from each container must not exceed 3.00 grams per year when the selfsealing valve is closed. This leakage rate applies to new, full containers as well as containers that 

may be partially full. 

(iii) The leakage rate must be determined using the standards described in appendix E. 

(iv) All testing to demonstrate compliance with this paragraph must be conducted by an 

independent test laboratory in the United States. For purposes of this requirement, an 

independent test laboratory is one that is not owned, operated, or affiliated with the applicant 

certifying equipment and/or products. 

(3) Recordkeeping. (i) Persons who sell or distribute, or offer to sell or distribute, refrigerant

must keep invoices that indicate the name of the purchaser, the date of sale, and the quantity of 

refrigerant purchased unless they are selling exempt substitutes or small cans of MVAC 

refrigerant in accordance with paragraph (c)(1)(ix) and (x) of this section. In instances where the 

buyer employs a certified technician, the seller must keep the documentation provided by the 

buyer that he or she employs at least one technician that is properly certified. All records must be 

kept for three years.

(ii) Electronic or paper copies of all records described in appendix E must be maintained by

manufacturers of containers holding two pounds or less of substitute refrigerant for use in an 

MVAC to verify self-sealing valves meet the requirements specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section. All records must be kept for three years.

(d) Sale of Used Refrigerant. No person may sell or distribute, or offer for sale or distribution, 

for use as a refrigerant any class I or class II substance or substitute consisting wholly or in part 

of used refrigerant unless the refrigerant: 

(1) has been reclaimed by a person who has been certified as a reclaimer under §82.164; 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 230 of 320

(2) was used only in an MVAC or MVAC-like appliance and is to be used only in an MVAC or 

MVAC-like appliance and recycled in accordance with §82.34(d); 

(3) is contained in an appliance that is sold or offered for sale together with a fully assembled 

refrigerant circuit; 

(4) is being transferred between or among a parent company and one or more of its subsidiaries, 

or between or among subsidiaries having the same parent company;

(5) is being transferred between or among a Federal agency or department and a facility or 

facilities owned by the same Federal agency or department; or 

(6) is exempted under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

(e) Manufacture and Sale of Appliances. (1) No person may sell or distribute, or offer for sale or 

distribution, any appliance (except small appliances) unless it is equipped with a servicing 

aperture to facilitate the removal of refrigerant at servicing and disposal. 

(2) No person may sell or distribute, or offer for sale or distribution, any small appliance unless it 

is equipped with a process stub to facilitate the removal of refrigerant at servicing and disposal. 

(f) One-time expansion devices. No person may manufacture or import a one-time expansion 

device unless the only refrigerants it contains have been exempted under paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section.

(g) Rules stayed for consideration. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this subpart, the 

effectiveness of 40 CFR 82.154(c), only as it applies to refrigerant contained in appliances 

without fully assembled refrigerant circuits, is stayed from April 27, 1995, until EPA takes final 

action on its reconsideration of these provisions. EPA will publish any such final action in 

the FEDERAL REGISTER.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 231 of 320

5. Add section 82.155 to subpart F to read as follows:

§82.155 Safe disposal of appliances.

Until [INSERT DATE ONE YEAR FROM PUBLICATION OF A FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER], this section applies only to disposal of appliances containing class I 

and class II refrigerants. Starting on [INSERT DATE ONE YEAR FROM PUBLICATION OF 

A FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], this section applies to disposal of appliances 

containing any refrigerant as defined in §82.152.

(a) Persons who take the final step in the disposal process (including but not limited to scrap 

recyclers and landfill operators) of a small appliance, MVAC, or MVAC-like appliance (the final 

processor) must either: 

(1) Recover any remaining refrigerant from the appliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of 

this section; or

(2) Verify using a signed statement or a contract that all refrigerant that had not leaked 

previously has been recovered from the appliance or shipment of appliances in accordance with 

paragraph (b) of this section. This statement must include the name and address of the person 

who recovered the refrigerant and the date the refrigerant was recovered. The signed contract 

between the supplier and the final processor must state that the supplier will recover any 

remaining refrigerant from the appliance or shipment of appliances in accordance with this 

paragraph prior to delivery.

(i) It is a violation of this subpart to accept a signed statement or contract if the person receiving 

the statement or contract knew or had reason to know that the signed statement or contract is 

false. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 232 of 320

(ii) Persons complying with this paragraph must notify suppliers of appliances that refrigerant 

must be properly recovered in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section before delivery of 

the items to the facility. The form of this notification may be signs, letters to suppliers, or other 

equivalent means. 

(b) Persons recovering refrigerant from a small appliance, MVAC, or MVAC-like appliance for 

purposes of disposal of these appliances must evacuate refrigerant to the levels in §82.156(b) or 

(c) using recovery equipment that meets the standards in §82.158(e)-(g), as applicable. 

(c) Recordkeeping. Persons who take the final step in the disposal process of a small appliance, 

MVAC, or MVAC-like appliance must keep a copy of all the signed statements or contracts 

obtained under paragraph (a)(2) of this section on site, in paper or electronic format, for at least 

three years.

6. Amend section 82.156 to read as follows: 

§82.156 Proper evacuation of refrigerant from appliances.

Until [INSERT DATE ONE YEAR FROM PUBLICATION OF A FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER], this section applies only to proper evacuation of refrigerant from 

appliances containing class I and class II refrigerants. Starting on [INSERT DATE ONE YEAR 

FROM PUBLICATION OF A FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], this section 

applies to proper evacuation of refrigerant from appliances containing any refrigerant as defined 

in §82.152, except that the leak repair provisions in §82.157 apply in lieu of paragraph (i) of this 

section.

(a) Appliances other than small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances. Before opening 

such appliances, or disposing of such appliances, persons must evacuate the refrigerant, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 233 of 320

including all the liquid refrigerant (except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section), to 

the levels in Table 1 using a recovery and/or recycling machine certified pursuant to §82.158 

unless the situations in subparagraphs (1) or (2) apply. Persons may evacuate either the entire 

appliance or the part to be serviced, if the refrigerant in the part can be isolated to a system 

receiver. A technician must verify that the applicable level of evacuation has been reached in the 

appliance or the part before it is opened.

(1) If evacuation of the appliance to the atmosphere is not to be performed after completion of 

the maintenance, service, or repair, and if the maintenance, service, or repair is not major as 

defined at §82.152, the appliance must:

(i) Be evacuated to a pressure no higher than 0 psig before it is opened if it is a medium-, highor very high-pressure appliance;

(ii) Be pressurized to a pressure no higher than 0 psig before it is opened if it is a low-pressure 

appliance. Persons must cover openings when isolation is not possible. Persons pressurizing lowpressure appliances that use refrigerants with boiling points at or below 85 degrees Fahrenheit at 

29.9 inches of mercury (standard atmospheric pressure), must not use methods such as nitrogen 

that require subsequent purging. Persons pressurizing low-pressure appliances that use 

refrigerants with boiling points above 85 degrees Fahrenheit at 29.9 inches of mercury, must use 

heat to raise the internal pressure of the appliance as much as possible, but may use nitrogen to 

raise the internal pressure of the appliance from the level attainable through use of heat to 

atmospheric pressure; or

(iii) For the purposes of oil changes, be evacuated or pressurized to a pressure no higher than 5 

psig, before it is opened; or drain the oil into a system receiver to be evacuated or pressurized to 

a pressure no higher than 5 psig.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 234 of 320

(2) If leaks in the appliance make evacuation to the levels in Table 1 unattainable or would 

substantially contaminate the refrigerant being recovered, persons opening or disposing of the 

appliance must:

(i) Isolate leaking from non-leaking components wherever possible;

(ii) Evacuate non-leaking components to be opened or disposed of to the levels specified in 

Table 1; and

(iii) Evacuate leaking components to be opened or disposed of to the lowest level that can be 

attained without substantially contaminating the refrigerant. This level may not exceed 0 psig.

(3) Recordkeeping. Persons evacuating refrigerant from appliances with a full charge of more 

than 5 and less than 50 pounds of refrigerant for purposes of disposal of that appliance must keep 

records documenting the following for three years:

(i) The company name, location of the equipment, date of recovery, amount and type of 

refrigerant recovered for each appliance; and 

(ii) The quantity and type of refrigerant transferred for reclamation and/or destruction, to whom 

it was transferred, and the date of transfer. 

TABLE 1—REQUIRED LEVELS OF EVACUATION FOR APPLIANCES

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

Type of appliance

Inches of Hg vacuum

(relative to standard atmospheric pressure of 29.9 

inches Hg)

Using recovery and/or

recycling equipment 

manufactured or

imported before

November 15, 1993

Using recovery and/or

recycling equipment 

manufactured or

imported on or after

November 15, 1993

Very high-pressure appliance 0 0

High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such 

appliance, with a full charge of less than 200 pounds of 

refrigerant

0 0

High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such 

appliance, with a full charge of 200 pounds or more of 

4 10
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 235 of 320

refrigerant

Medium-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such 

appliance, with a full charge of less than 200 pounds of 

refrigerant

4 10

Medium-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such 

appliance, with a full charge of 200 pounds or more of 

refrigerant

4 15

Low-pressure appliance 25 mm Hg absolute 25 mm Hg absolute

(b) Small appliances. Before opening a small appliance or when disposing of a small appliance, 

persons must use a recovery and/or recycling machine certified pursuant to §82.158 that meets 

the following conditions:

(1) When using recovery equipment manufactured before November 15, 1993, recover 80% of 

the refrigerant in the small appliance; or

(2) When using recovery equipment manufactured on or after November 15, 1993, recover 90% 

of the refrigerant in the appliance when the compressor in the appliance is functioning, or 80% of 

the refrigerant in the appliance when the compressor in the appliance is not functioning; or

(3) Evacuate the appliance to four inches of mercury vacuum.

(c) MVACs and MVAC-like appliances. Persons may only open MVAC and MVAC-like 

appliances while properly using, as defined at §82.32(e), recovery and/or recycling equipment 

certified pursuant to §82.158(f) or (g), as applicable. All persons recovering refrigerant from 

MVACs and MVAC-like appliances for purposes of disposal of these appliances must reduce the 

system pressure to or below 102 mm of mercury vacuum.

(d) System-dependent equipment may not be used with appliances with a full charge of more 

than 15 pounds of refrigerant, unless the system-dependent equipment is permanently attached to 

the appliance as a pump-out unit.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 236 of 320

(e) Persons who maintain, service, repair, or dispose of only appliances that they own and that 

contain pump-out units are exempt from the requirement to use certified, self-contained recovery

and/or recycling equipment.

(f) All recovery and/or recycling equipment must be used in accordance with the manufacturer’s 

directions unless such directions conflict with the requirements of this subpart.

(g) Refrigerant may be returned to the appliance from which it is recovered or to another 

appliance owned by the same person without being recycled or reclaimed, unless the appliance is 

an MVAC or MVAC-like appliance.

(h) [Reserved]

(i) The provisions in this paragraph (i) of this section apply to owners and operators of 

appliances containing more than 50 pounds of class I and class II refrigerants only until 

[INSERT DATE 18 MONTHS FROM PUBLICATION OF A FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. The appliance maintenance and leak repair provisions in §82.157 apply

as of [INSERT DATE 18 MONTHS FROM PUBLICATION OF A FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

* * * * *

7. Add section 82.157 to Subpart F to read as follows:

§82.157 Appliance maintenance and leak repair.

(a) Applicability. This section applies as of [INSERT DATE 18 MONTHS FROM 

PUBLICATION OF A FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. This section applies 

only to appliances with a full charge of 50 or more pounds of refrigerant. Unless otherwise 

specified, the requirements of this section apply to the owner or operator of the appliance. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 237 of 320

(b) Leak Inspections. (1) Commercial refrigeration and industrial process refrigeration equipment 

with a full charge of 500 or more pounds of refrigerant must be inspected for leaks once every

three months.

(i) Such equipment may be inspected once per year if no refrigerant has been added in the past 

365 days (excluding refrigerant added for seasonal variances). The equipment may continue to 

be inspected once per year if no refrigerant has been added in the past 365 days (excluding 

refrigerant added for seasonal variances).

(ii) If refrigerant is added to an appliance that is on an annual leak inspection schedule under 

paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, the appliance owner or operator must resume quarterly leak 

inspections.

(2) Commercial refrigeration and industrial process refrigeration equipment with a full charge of

50 or more pounds but less than 500 pounds of refrigerant must be inspected for leaks once per 

year. 

(3) Comfort cooling appliances or other appliances not covered by subparagraphs (1) or (2) with 

a full charge of 50 or more pounds of refrigerant must be inspected for leaks once per year.

(4) Quarterly or annual leak inspections as described in paragraph (b)(1)-(3) of this section are 

not required on appliances continuously monitored by an automatic leak detection system that is 

audited and calibrated annually. An automatic leak detection system may directly detect 

refrigerant in air, monitor its surrounding in a manner other than detecting refrigerant 

concentrations in air, or monitor conditions of the appliance.

(i) For systems that directly detect the presence of a refrigerant in air, the system must: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 238 of 320

(A) Only be used on systems where the entire appliance or the compressor, evaporator, 

condenser, or other component with a high potential to leak is located inside an enclosed 

building or structure;

(B) Have sensors or intakes placed so that they will continuously monitor the refrigerant 

concentrations in air in proximity to the compressor, evaporator, condenser, and other areas with 

a high potential for a refrigerant leak;

(C) Accurately detect a concentration level of 10 parts per million of vapor of the specific 

refrigerant or refrigerants used in the refrigeration appliance(s); and

(D) Alert the owner or operator when a refrigerant concentration of 100 parts per million of 

vapor of the specific refrigerant or refrigerants used in the refrigeration appliance(s) is reached.

(ii) For a system that monitors its surrounding in a manner other than detecting refrigerant 

concentrations in air or monitor conditions of the appliance, the system must automatically alert 

the owner or operator when measurements indicate a loss of 50 pounds of refrigerant or 10 

percent of the full charge, whichever is less.

(5) Owners or operators of federally-owned appliances may submit a request to EPA at the 

address specified in 82.157(m) to conduct leak inspections less frequently than described in 

paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) of this section. The frequency of inspections cannot be less than one 

inspection every three years. The request will be considered approved unless EPA notifies the 

owner or operator of the appliance within 60 days of receipt of the request that it has been 

disapproved. Requests must include an alternate leak inspection schedule and demonstrate that:

(i) The appliance has a history of minimal leakage;

(ii) The appliance is remotely located or is otherwise difficult to access for routine maintenance; 

and
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 239 of 320

(iii) Use of automatic leak detection equipment is not practical.

(c) Leak Rate Calculation. Persons adding or removing refrigerant from an appliance must, upon 

conclusion of that service, provide the owner or operator with documentations that meets the 

requirements of paragraph (l)(4) of this section. The leak rate must be calculated every time 

refrigerant is added to an appliance unless the addition is made immediately following a retrofit, 

installation of a new appliance, or qualifies as a seasonal variance.

(d) Requirement to Address Significant Leaks through Appliance Repair, or Retrofitting or 

Retiring an Appliance. (1) Appliances with a leak rate over the applicable leak rate in paragraph 

(d)(2) of this section must be repaired in accordance with paragraphs (e)-(g) of this section 

unless the owner elects to retrofit or retire the appliance in compliance with paragraphs (h) and 

(i) of this section. If the owner or operator elects to repair leaks, but fails to successfully comply 

with paragraphs (e)-(g) of this section, the owner or operator must create and implement a 

retrofit or retirement plan in accordance with paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section.

(2) Applicable Leak Rates:

(i) 20 percent leak rate for commercial refrigeration equipment;

(ii) 20 percent leak rate for industrial process refrigeration equipment; and

(iii) 10 percent leak rate for comfort cooling appliances or other appliances with a full charge of 

50 or more pounds of refrigerant not covered by (2)(i) or (ii) of this subsection.

(e) Appliance Repair. All leaks must be identified and repaired in accordance with this paragraph 

within 30 days (or 120 days if an industrial process shutdown is required) of an appliance 

exceeding the applicable leak rate in paragraph (d) of this section.

(1) A leak inspection must be conducted to identify the location of leaks.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 240 of 320

(2) All identified leaks must be repaired such that there are no longer any detectable leaks, as 

documented by an initial and follow-up verification test or tests.

(f) Verification tests. Initial and follow-up verification tests are required on each identified leak 

required to be repaired in paragraph (e) of this section.

(1) Initial verification test. Unless granted additional time, an initial verification test must be 

performed within 30 days (or 120 days if an industrial process shutdown is required) of an 

appliance exceeding the applicable leak rate in paragraph (d) of this section. An initial 

verification test must demonstrate that all identified leaks on the appliance are repaired.

(i) For repairs that can be completed without the need to open or evacuate the appliance, the test 

must be performed as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the repair work and before any

additional refrigerant is added to the appliance. 

(ii) For repairs that require the evacuation of the appliance or portion of the appliance, the test 

must be performed before adding any refrigerant to the appliance. 

(iii) If the initial verification test indicates that the repairs have not been successful, the owner or 

operator may conduct as many additional repairs and initial verification tests as needed within 

the applicable time period.

(2) Follow-up verification test. A follow-up verification test must be performed within 10 days 

of the successful initial verification test or 10 days of the appliance reaching normal operating 

characteristics and conditions (if appliance or isolated component was evacuated for the 

repair(s)). 

(i) A follow-up verification test must demonstrate that all identified leaks on the appliance are 

repaired. If the follow-up verification test indicates that the repairs have not been successful, the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 241 of 320

owner or operator may conduct as many additional repairs and follow-up verification tests as 

needed within the applicable time period.

(g) Extensions to the appliance repair deadlines in paragraphs (e)-(g) of this section. The 

timeframes in paragraphs (e)-(g) of this section are temporarily suspended when an appliance is 

mothballed. The time will resume on the day additional refrigerant is added to the appliance (or 

component of an appliance if the leaking component was isolated). Additionally, owners or 

operators may request more than 30 days (or 120 days if an industrial process shutdown is 

required) to comply with paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section if they meet the requirements of 

(1) through (4) of this paragraph. The request will be considered approved unless EPA notifies 

the owners or operators within 30 days of receipt of the request.

(1) One or more of the following conditions applies:

(i) The appliance is located in an area subject to radiological contamination or shutting down the 

appliance will directly lead to radiological contamination. Additional time is permitted to the 

extent needed to conduct and finish repairs in a safe working environment.

(ii) Requirements of other applicable Federal, state, or local regulations make a repair within 30 

days (or 120 days if an industrial process shutdown is required) impossible. Additional time is 

permitted to the extent needed to comply with the pertinent regulations. 

(iii) Necessary parts are unavailable. Additional time is permitted up to 30 days after receiving 

delivery of the necessary parts, not to exceed 180 days (or 270 days if an industrial process 

shutdown is required) from the date the appliance exceeded the applicable leak rate. 

(2) All repairs that do not require additional time must be completed and verified within the 

initial 30 day repair period (or 120 day repair period if an industrial process shutdown is 

required);
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 242 of 320

(3) The owner or operator must document all repair efforts and the reason for the inability

to make the repair within the initial 30 day repair period (or 120 day repair period if an industrial 

process shutdown is required); and

(4) The owner or operator must request an extension from EPA at the address specified in 

§82.157(m) within 30 days (or 120 days if an industrial process shutdown is required) of the 

appliance exceeding the applicable leak rate in paragraph (d) of this section. Requests must 

include: Identification and address of the facility; the name of the owner or operator of the 

appliance; the leak rate; the method used to determine the leak rate and full charge; the date the 

appliance exceeded the applicable leak rate; the location of leak(s) to the extent determined to 

date; any repair work that has been performed thus far, including the date that work was 

completed; the reasons why more than 30 days (or 120 days if an industrial process shutdown is 

required) are needed to complete the repair; and an estimate of when the work will be completed. 

If the estimated completion date is to be extended, a new estimated date of completion and 

documentation of the reason for that change must be submitted to EPA within 30 days. The 

owner or operator must keep a dated copy of this submission.

(h) Retrofit or retirement plans. The retrofit or retirement plan must be signed by an authorized 

company official, dated, accessible at the site of the appliance in paper copy or electronic format, 

and available for EPA inspection upon request. 

(1) A retrofit or retirement plan must be created within 30 days of: 

(i) discovering that an appliance is leaking above the applicable leak rate in paragraph (d) of this 

section if the owner or operator intends to retrofit or retire rather than repair the leak; or

(ii) failing to comply with paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section. 

(2) A retrofit or retirement plan must, at a minimum, contain the following information:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 243 of 320

(i) Identification and location of the appliance; 

(ii) Type and full charge of the refrigerant used in the appliance; 

(iii) Type and full charge of the refrigerant to which the appliance will be converted, if 

retrofitted; 

(iv) Itemized procedure for converting the appliance to a different refrigerant, including changes 

required for compatibility with the new substitute, if retrofitted; 

(v) Plan for the disposition of recovered refrigerant; 

(vi) Plan for the disposition of the appliance, if retired; and

(vii) A schedule, not to exceed one-year, for completion of the appliance retrofit or retirement.

(3) Unless granted additional time, all work performed in accordance with the plan must be 

finished within one year of the plan’s date (not to exceed 13 months from when the plan was 

required in paragraph (h)(1) of this section).

(4) All identified leaks must be repaired as part of any retrofit under such a plan.

(i) Extensions to the one-year retrofit or retirement schedule. The timeframes in paragraphs (h) 

and (i) of this section are temporarily suspended when an appliance is mothballed. The time will 

resume on the day additional refrigerant is added to the appliance (or component of an appliance 

if the leaking component was isolated). Additionally, owners or operators may request more than 

one year to comply with paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section if they meet the requirements of 

this paragraph. The request will be considered approved unless EPA notifies the owners or 

operators within 60 days of receipt of the request. The request must be submitted to EPA at the 

address specified in §82.157(m) within seven months of discovering the appliance exceeded the 

applicable leak rate. The request must include the identification of the appliance; name of the 

owner or operator; the leak rate; the method used to determine the leak rate and full charge; the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 244 of 320

date the appliance exceeded the applicable leak rate; the location of leaks(s) to the extent 

determined to date; any repair work that has been finished thus far, including the date that work 

was finished; a plan to finish the retrofit or retirement of the appliance; the reasons why more 

than one year is necessary to retrofit or retire the appliance; the date of notification to EPA; and 

an estimate of when retrofit or retirement work will be finished. A dated copy of the request must 

be available on-site in either electronic or paper copy. If the estimated completion date is to be 

revised, a new estimated date of completion and documentation of the reason for that change 

must be submitted to EPA at the address specified in §82.157(m) within 30 days. 

(1) Extensions available to any appliance. Owners or operators of commercial refrigeration, 

industrial process refrigeration, comfort-cooling, or other equipment are automatically allowed 

18 months to retire an appliance if the replacement uses a refrigerant exempt from the venting 

prohibition in §82.154(a). 

(2) Extensions available to industrial process refrigeration. Owners or operators of industrial 

process refrigeration equipment may request additional time beyond the one-year period in 

paragraph (h) of this section to finish the retrofit or retirement under the following 

circumstances.

(i) Requirements of other applicable Federal, state, or local regulations make a retrofit or 

retirement within one year impossible. Additional time is permitted to the extent needed to 

comply with the pertinent regulations; or

(ii) The new or the retrofitted equipment is custom-built as defined in this subpart and the 

supplier of the appliance or one of its components has quoted a delivery time of more than 30 

weeks from when the order is placed. The appliance or appliance components must be installed 

within 120 days after receiving delivery of the necessary parts.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 245 of 320

(3) Extensions available to Federally-owned equipment. Owners or operators of Federallyowned commercial or comfort-cooling equipment may request an additional year beyond the 

one-year period in paragraph (h) of this section to finish the retrofit or retirement under the 

following circumstances: 

(i) A delivery time of more than 30 weeks from the beginning of the official procurement process 

is quoted due to complications presented by the Federal agency appropriations and/or 

procurement process;

(ii) The appliance is located in an area subject to radiological contamination and creating a safe 

working environment will require more than 30 weeks; or

(iii) After receiving a one-year extension under subparagraphs (i)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section, 

additional time is necessary to finish the retrofit or retirement of equipment. The request must be 

submitted to EPA before the end of the ninth month of the one-year extension and must include 

the same information submitted for that one-year extension, with any necessary revisions. A 

dated copy of the request must be available on-site in either electronic or paper copy. The request 

will be considered approved unless EPA notifies the owners or operators within 60 days of 

receipt of the request.

(j) Two-year leak limit. Appliances containing 50 pounds or more of refrigerant are prohibited 

from leaking more than 75 percent of the full charge in each of two consecutive twelve-month 

periods. Under paragraph (c) of this section, the leak rate must be calculated every time 

refrigerant is added to an appliance. By the end of the second twelve-month period, appliances 

that exceed this limit must be retired or mothballed until retired.

(k) Purged refrigerant. In calculating annual leak rates, purged refrigerant that is destroyed at a 

verifiable destruction efficiency of 98 percent or greater will not be counted toward the leak rate. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 246 of 320

(l) Recordkeeping. All records identified in this paragraph must be kept for three years in 

electronic or paper format.

(1) Owners or operators must keep records of leak inspections that include the date of inspection, 

the method used to conduct the leak inspection, a list of the location of each leak that was 

identified, and a certification that all visible parts of the appliance were inspected.

(2) If using an automatic leak detection system, the owner or operator must maintain records 

regarding the installation and the annual audit and calibration of the system. They also must keep 

a record of each date the monitoring system identified a leak and the location of the leak. 

(3) Owners or operators must determine the full charge of all appliances with 50 or more pounds 

of refrigerant (as defined in §82.152), and maintain the following information for each appliance: 

(i) the identification of the owner or operator of the appliance; 

(ii) the address where the appliance is located;

(iii) the full charge of the appliance and the method for how the full charge was determined;

(iv) the range for the full charge of the appliance, its midpoint, and how the range was 

determined (if using method 4, as defined in §82.152, for determining full charge); 

(v) any revisions of the full charge and how they were determined; and 

(vi) the dates such revisions occurred.

(4) Owners or operators are required to maintain a record including the following information for 

each time an appliance with a full charge of 50 or more pounds is maintained, serviced, repaired, 

or disposed of, when applicable. If the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal is done by

someone other than the owner, that person must provide a record containing the following 

information to the owner or operator, when applicable:

(i) the identity and location of the appliance; 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 247 of 320

(ii) the date of the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal performed;

(iii) the part(s) of the appliance being serviced and for each part, the type of maintenance, 

service, repair, or disposal performed; 

(iv) the name of the person performing the maintenance, service, repair or disposal; 

(v) the amount and type of refrigerant added to or removed from the appliance;

(vi) the full charge of the appliance; and

(vii) the leak rate and the method used to determine the leak rate (not applicable when disposing 

of the appliance, following a retrofit, installation of a new appliance, or if the refrigerant addition 

qualifies as a seasonal variance).

(5) Owners or operators must maintain records of the dates and results of all initial and follow-up 

verification tests. Records must include at minimum the location of the appliance, the date of the 

verification test or tests, the location of all repaired leaks that were tested, the type of verification 

test used, and the results of those tests.

(6) Owners or operators must maintain retrofit or retirement plans developed in accordance with 

paragraph (h) of this section.

(7) Owners or operators must maintain retrofit and/or extension requests submitted to EPA in 

accordance with paragraph (i) of this section. 

(8) Owners or operators that suspend the deadlines in this section by mothballing an appliance 

must keep records documenting when the appliance was mothballed and when additional 

refrigerant was added to the appliance (or isolated component).

(9) Owners or operators who exclude purged refrigerants that are destroyed from annual leak rate 

calculations must maintain records to support the amount of refrigerant claimed as sent for 

destruction. Records must be based on a monitoring strategy that provides reliable data to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 248 of 320

demonstrate that the amount of refrigerant claimed to have been destroyed is not greater than the 

amount of refrigerant actually purged and destroyed and that the 98 percent or greater destruction 

efficiency is met. Records must include flow rate, quantity or concentration of the refrigerant in 

the vent stream, and periods of purge flow. Records must include:

(i) the identification of the facility and a contact person, including the address and telephone 

number; 

(ii) A description of the appliance, focusing on aspects relevant to the purging of refrigerant and 

subsequent destruction; 

(iii) A description of the methods used to determine the quantity of refrigerant sent for 

destruction and type of records that are being kept by the owners or operators where the 

appliance is located; 

(iv) The frequency of monitoring and data-recording; and 

(v) A description of the control device, and its destruction efficiency.

(10) Owners or operators that exclude additions of refrigerant due to seasonal variance from their 

leak rate calculation must maintain records in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.

(11) Owners or operators that submit reports to EPA in accordance with paragraph (m) of this 

section, must maintain copies of the submitted reports and any responses from EPA.

(12) Owners or operators of federally-owned appliances that request an alternate leak inspection

schedule in accordance with paragraph (b)(5) of this section must maintain copies of the 

submitted requests and all responses from EPA until three years after the less frequent leak 

inspection schedule is no longer being followed.

(m) Reporting. All notifications must be submitted electronically to 608reports@epa.gov unless 

the notification contains confidential business information. If the notification contains 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 249 of 320

confidential business information, the information should be submitted to: Section 608 Program 

Manager; Stratospheric Protection Division; Mail Code: 6205T; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.; Washington, DC 20460.

(1) Owners or operators must notify EPA at this address in accordance with paragraph (b)(5) of 

this section when seeking an alternate leak inspection schedule.

(2) Owners or operators must notify EPA at this address in accordance with paragraph (g) of this 

section when seeking an extension of time to complete repairs.

(3) Owners or operators must notify EPA at this address in accordance with paragraph (i) of this 

section when seeking an extension of time to complete the retrofit or retirement of an appliance.

(4) When excluding purged refrigerants that are destroyed from annual leak rate calculations, 

owners or operators must notify EPA at this address within 60 days after the first time the 

exclusion is used by the facility where the appliance is located. The report must include the 

information included in paragraph (l)(9) of this section.

8. Amend section 82.158 as follows:

a. by revising paragraphs (a) through (k);

b. by removing paragraphs (l) through (n).

§82.158 Standards for recovery and/or recycling equipment.

(a) No person may manufacture or import recovery and/or recycling equipment for use during 

the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances unless the equipment is certified in 

accordance with this section.

(b) No person may alter the design of certified refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment 

in a way that would affect the equipment’s ability to meet the certification standards in this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 250 of 320

section without resubmitting the altered design for certification testing. Until it is tested and 

shown to meet the certification standards in this section, equipment so altered will be considered 

uncertified.

(c) Recovery and/or recycling equipment manufactured or imported before November 15, 1993, 

intended for use during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances (except small 

appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances) will be considered certified if it is capable of 

achieving the level of evacuation specified in Table 2 of this section when tested using a properly 

calibrated pressure gauge.

(d) Manufacturers and importers of recovery and/or recycling equipment must have such 

equipment certified by an approved equipment testing organization as follows: 

(1) Recovery and/or recycling equipment manufactured or imported on or after November 15, 

1993, and before September 22, 2003, intended for use during the maintenance, service, repair, 

or disposal of appliances (except small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances) must 

be certified by an approved equipment testing organization as being capable of achieving the 

level of evacuation specified in Table 2 of this section under the conditions of appendix B1 of 

this subpart (based upon the ARI Standard 740-1993, Performance of Refrigerant Recovery, 

Recycling and/or Reclaim Equipment). 

(2) Recovery and/or recycling equipment manufactured or imported on or after September 22, 

2003, and before January 1, 2017, intended for use during the maintenance, service, repair, or 

disposal of appliances (except small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances) must be 

certified by an approved equipment testing organization as being capable of achieving the level 

of evacuation specified in Table 2 of this section under the conditions of appendix B2 of this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 251 of 320

subpart (based upon the ARI Standard 740-1995, Performance of Refrigerant Recovery, 

Recycling and/or Reclaim Equipment).

(3) Recovery and/or recycling equipment manufactured or imported on or after January 1, 2017, 

intended for use during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances (except small 

appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances) must be certified by an approved equipment 

testing organization as being capable of achieving the level of evacuation specified in Table 2 of 

this section under the conditions of appendix B3 (for non-flammable refrigerants) or appendix 

B4 (for flammable refrigerants) of this subpart.

Table 2—Levels of Evacuation Which Must Be Achieved by Recovery and/or Recycling Equipment

Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances.

Type of appliance with which recovery and/or recycling machine is 

intended to be used 

Inches of Hg vacuum (relative to standard 

atmospheric pressure of 29.9 inches Hg)

Manufactured or 

imported before 

November 15, 1993

Manufactured or 

imported on or after 

November 15, 1993

HCFC-22 appliances, or isolated component of such appliances, 

with a full charge of less than 200 pounds of refrigerant

0 0

HCFC-22 appliances, or isolated component of such appliances, 

with a full charge of 200 pounds or more of refrigerant

4 10

Very high-pressure appliances 0 0

Other high-pressure appliances, or isolated component of such 

appliances, with a full charge of less than 200 pounds of refrigerant

4 10

Other high-pressure appliances, or isolated component of such 

appliances, with a full charge of 200 pounds or more of refrigerant

4 15

Medium-pressure appliances, or isolated component of such 

appliances, with a full charge of less than 200 pounds of refrigerant

4 10

Medium-pressure appliances, or isolated component of such 

appliances, with a full charge of 200 pounds or more of refrigerant

4 15

Low-pressure appliances 25 mm Hg absolute 25 mm Hg absolute

(4) Recovery and/or recycling equipment whose recovery efficiency cannot be tested according 

to the procedures in appendix B1, B2, B3, or B4 of this subpart as applicable may be certified if 

an approved third-party testing organization adopts and performs a test that demonstrates, to the 

satisfaction of the Administrator, that the recovery efficiency of that equipment is equal to or 

better than that of equipment that:

(i) Is intended for use with the same type of appliance; and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 252 of 320

(ii) Achieves the level of evacuation in Table 2. The manufacturer’s instructions must specify

how to achieve the required recovery efficiency, and the equipment must be tested when used 

according to these instructions. 

(5) The equipment must meet the minimum requirements for certification under appendix B1, 

B2, B3, or B4 of this subpart as applicable. 

(6) If the equipment is equipped with a noncondensables purge device, the equipment must not 

release more than 3 percent of the quantity of refrigerant being recycled through 

noncondensables purging under the conditions of appendix B1, B2, B3, or B4 of this subpart as 

applicable. 

(7) The equipment must be equipped with low-loss fittings on all hoses.

(8) The equipment must have its liquid recovery rate and its vapor recovery rate measured under 

the conditions of appendix B1, B2, B3, or B4 as applicable, unless the equipment has no inherent 

liquid or vapor recovery rate. 

(e) Small Appliances. Equipment used during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of 

small appliances must be certified by an approved equipment testing organization to be capable 

of recovering 90% of the refrigerant in the test stand when the compressor of the test stand is 

operational and 80% of the refrigerant when the compressor of the test stand is not operational, 

when used in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions under the conditions of appendix 

C, Method for Testing Recovery Devices for Use with Small Appliances. 

(1) Equipment manufactured or imported before November 15, 1993, will be considered certified 

if it is capable of either recovering 80% of the refrigerant in the system, whether or not the 

compressor of the test stand is operational, or achieving a four-inch vacuum when tested using a 

properly calibrated pressure gauge.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 253 of 320

(2) Equipment manufactured or imported on or after November 15, 1993, may also be certified if 

it is capable of achieving a four-inch vacuum under the conditions of appendix B1 of this 

subpart, based upon ARI Standard 740-1993.

(3) Equipment manufactured or imported on or after September 22, 2003, and before January 1, 

2017, may also be certified if it is capable of achieving a four-inch vacuum under the conditions 

of appendix B2 of this subpart, based upon ARI Standard 740-1995. 

(4) Equipment manufactured or imported on or after January 1, 2017, may also be certified if it is 

capable of achieving a four-inch vacuum under the conditions of appendix B3 (for nonflammable refrigerants) or appendix B4 (for flammable refrigerants) of this subpart.

(5) Equipment used to evacuate refrigerant from small appliances before they are disposed of 

may also be certified if it is capable of achieving a four-inch vacuum when tested using a 

properly calibrated pressure gauge.

(f) MVAC-like appliances. (1) Manufacturers and importers of recovery and/or recycling 

equipment intended for use during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of MVAC-like 

appliances must certify such equipment in accordance with §82.36(a). 

(2) Equipment manufactured or imported before November 15, 1993, intended for use during the 

maintenance, service, or repair of MVAC-like appliances must be capable of reducing the system 

pressure to 102 mm of mercury vacuum under the conditions of the SAE Standard, SAE J1990 

(appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart B).

(g) MVACs. Equipment used to evacuate refrigerant from MVACs before they are disposed of 

must be certified in accordance with §82.36(a).

(h) Labeling. Manufacturers and importers of equipment certified under paragraphs (d) and (e) 

of this section must place a label on each piece of equipment stating the following:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 254 of 320

THIS EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY [APPROVED EQUIPMENT TESTING 

ORGANIZATION] TO MEET EPA's MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR RECYCLING OR 

RECOVERY EQUIPMENT INTENDED FOR USE WITH [APPROPRIATE CATEGORY OF 

APPLIANCE].

The label must also show the date of manufacture and the serial number (if applicable) of the 

equipment. The label must be affixed in a readily visible or accessible location, be made of a 

material expected to last the lifetime of the equipment, present required information in a way that 

it is likely to remain legible for the lifetime of the equipment, and be affixed in such a way that it 

cannot be removed from the equipment without damage to the label.

(i) Retesting. At least once every three years, manufacturers or importers of recovery and/or 

recycling equipment intended for use during the maintenance, service, or repair of appliances 

(except MVACs or MVAC-like appliances) or during the disposal of appliances (except small 

appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances) must have approved equipment testing 

organizations conduct either:

(1) Retests of certified recovery and/or recycling equipment in accordance with paragraphs (d) 

and (e) of this section; or 

(2) Inspections of recovery and/or recycling equipment at manufacturing facilities to ensure that 

each equipment model line that has been certified under this section continues to meet the 

certification criteria. 

(j) Revocation. An equipment model line that has been certified under this section may have its 

certification revoked if it is subsequently determined to fail to meet the certification criteria. In 

such cases, the Administrator must give notice to the manufacturer or importer setting forth the 

basis for the determination.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 255 of 320

(k) Equipment that is advertised or marketed as “recycling equipment” must be capable of 

recycling the standard contaminated refrigerant sample of appendix B2, B3, or B4 of this subpart 

(as applicable) to the levels in the following table when tested under the conditions of appendix 

B2, B3 or B4 of this subpart:

Maximum Levels of Contaminants Permissible in Refrigerant Processed Through Equipment Advertised as 

“Recycling” Equipment

Contaminants Low-pressure (R-11, R-123, R-113) 

systems

R-12 systems All other systems

Acid Content (by wt.) 1.0 PPM 1.0 PPM 1.0 PPM

Moisture (by wt.) 20 PPM 10 PPM 20 PPM

Noncondensable Gas (by vol.) N/A 2.0% 2.0%

High Boiling Residues (by 

vol.)

1.0% 0.02% 0.02%

Chlorides by Silver Nitrate Test No turbidity No turbidity No turbidity

Particulates Visually clean Visually clean Visually clean

9. Amend section 82.160 as follows:

a. by revising paragraphs (a) through (d), 

b. by adding paragraph (e). 

§82.160 Approved equipment testing organizations.

(a) Any equipment testing organization may apply for approval by the Administrator to 

certify equipment under the standards in §82.158 and appendices B2, B3, B4, or C of this 

subpart. Applications must be sent to 608reports@epa.gov, or if containing confidential business 

information, mailed to: Section 608 Program Manager; Stratospheric Protection Division; Mail 

Code: 6205T; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.; 

Washington, DC 20460. 

(b) Applications for approval must include: 

(1) A list of equipment present at the organization that will be used for equipment testing. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 256 of 320

(2) Verification of the organization’s expertise in equipment testing and the technical experience 

of the organization’s personnel. 

(3) Verification of the organization’s knowledge of the standards and recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements of this subpart. 

(4) A description of the organization’s program for verifying the performance of certified 

recovery and/or recycling equipment manufactured over the long term, specifying whether 

retests of equipment or inspections of equipment at manufacturing facilities will be used. 

(5) Verification that the organization has no conflict of interest and receives no direct or indirect 

financial benefit from the outcome of certification testing. 

(6) Agreement to allow the Administrator access to records and personnel to verify the 

information contained in the application. 

(c) Organizations may not certify equipment before receiving approval from EPA. If approval is 

denied under this section, the Administrator must give written notice to the organization setting 

forth the basis for the determination. 

(d) If an approved testing organization conducts certification tests in a way not consistent with 

the representations made in its application or with the provisions of this subpart, the 

Administrator may revoke approval in accordance with §82.169. In such cases, the Administrator 

must give notice to the organization setting forth the basis for the determination.

(e) Recordkeeping and reporting. (1) Approved equipment testing organizations must maintain 

records of equipment testing and performance and a list of equipment that meets EPA 

requirements. This list must include the name of the manufacturer and the name and/or serial 

number of the model line. Approved equipment testing organizations must publish online a list 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 257 of 320

of all certified equipment that includes the information specified above and update the list 

annually.

(2) Approved equipment testing organizations must notify EPA at 608reports@epa.gov if retests 

of equipment or inspections of manufacturing facilities conducted under to §82.158(i) show that 

a previously certified model line fails to meet EPA requirements. Such notification must be 

received within thirty days of the retest or inspection.

10. Amend section 82.161 to read as follows:

a. By revising paragraphs (a) through (c),

b. By removing paragraphs (d) through (g)

§82.161 Technician certification.

Until [INSERT DATE ONE YEAR FROM PUBLICATION OF A FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER], this section applies only to technicians and organizations certifying 

technicians that maintain, service, or repair appliances containing class I and class II refrigerants. 

Starting on [INSERT DATE ONE YEAR FROM PUBLICATION OF A FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER], this section applies to technicians and organizations certifying 

technicians that maintain, service, or repair appliances containing any refrigerant as defined in 

§82.152.

(a) Requirements for Technicians. (1) Technicians must pass a certification exam offered by an 

approved technician certification program to work on different types of appliances, as follows: 

(i) Technicians who maintain, service, or repair small appliances must be certified as Type I 

technicians. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 258 of 320

(ii) Technicians who maintain, service, repair, or dispose of medium-, high-, or very highpressure appliances (except small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances) must be 

certified as Type II technicians.

(iii) Technicians who maintain, service, repair, or dispose of low-pressure appliances must be 

certified as Type III technicians. 

(iv) Excluding persons who exclusively dispose of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like 

appliances, technicians who maintain, service, repair, or dispose of appliances as described in 

paragraph (a)(1)(i)-(iii) of this section must be certified as Universal technicians. 

(v) Technicians who maintain, service, or repair MVAC-like appliances must either be certified 

as Type II technicians or be certified by a training and certification program approved under 

§82.40. 

(vi) Technicians who maintain, service, or repair MVAC appliances must be certified by a 

training and certification program approved under §82.40.

(2) Apprentices are exempt from the requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section provided the 

apprentice is closely and continually supervised by a certified technician while performing any

maintenance, service, repair, or disposal that could reasonably be expected to release refrigerant 

from an appliance into the environment. The supervising certified technician and the apprentice 

have the responsibility to ensure that the apprentice complies with this subpart. 

(3) The Administrator may require technicians to demonstrate at their place of business their 

ability to perform proper procedures for recovering and/or recycling refrigerant. Failure to 

demonstrate or failure to properly use the equipment may result in revocation or suspension of 

the certificate. Failure to abide by any of the provisions of this subpart may also result in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 259 of 320

revocation or suspension of the certificate. If a technician’s certificate is revoked, the technician 

would need to recertify before maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of any appliances. 

(4) Technicians certified under this section must keep a copy of their certificate at their place of 

business. 

(5) Recertification. The Administrator reserves the right to specify a requirement for technician 

recertification at some future date, if necessary, by placing a notice in the Federal Register. 

(b) Requirements for Technician Certification Programs. (1) No technician training or testing 

program may issue certificates under this section unless the program complies with all the 

standards of this section and appendix D, and has been granted approval by the Administrator. 

(2) Program Approval. Persons may seek approval of any technician certification program 

(program), in accordance with this paragraph, by submitting to the Administrator at the address 

in §82.160(a) verification that the program meets all the standards listed in appendix D. The 

Administrator reserves the right to consider other relevant factors to ensure the effectiveness of 

certification programs. If approval is denied under this section, the Administrator must give 

written notice to the program setting forth the basis for the determination.

(3) Alternative Examinations. Programs are encouraged to make provisions for non-English 

speaking technicians by providing tests in other languages or allowing the use of a translator 

when taking the test. A test may be administered orally to any person who makes this request, in 

writing, to the program at least 30 days before the scheduled date for the examination. The 

written request must explain why the request is being made.

(4) Proof of Certification. Programs certifying technicians must provide technicians with 

identification cards in accordance with section (f) of appendix D of this subpart. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 260 of 320

(5) Programs certifying technicians must maintain records in accordance with section (g) of 

appendix D of this subpart. 

(6) Starting January 1, 2018, programs certifying technicians, excluding Federally-run programs, 

must create and maintain a publicly-searchable database of technicians they have certified. 

(i) At a minimum, the database must include all technicians certified after January 1, 2017.

(ii) The database must provide the first name, middle initial, and last name of the certified 

technician, the technician’s city of residence when taking the test, the type(s) of certification 

received, and the date each certification was completed.

(iii) Programs certifying technicians must provide notice to technicians of their inclusion in the 

database in compliance with any other federal, state or local regulations, and give technicians the 

ability to opt out of being included in the database.

(7) If an approved program violates any of the above requirements, the Administrator may

revoke approval in accordance with §82.169. In such cases, the Administrator must give notice 

to the organization setting forth the basis for the determination. 

(c) Test Subject Material. A bank of test questions developed by the Administrator consists of 

groups, including a core group and technical groups. The Administrator will release this bank of 

questions only to approved technician certification programs. Each test for each type of 

certification must include at least 25 questions drawn from the core group and at least 25

questions drawn from each relevant technical group. These questions must address the subject 

areas in appendix D. 

11. Remove and reserve section 82.162 to read as follows:

§82.162 [Reserved] 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 261 of 320

12. Amend section 82.164 to read as follows:

a. By revising paragraphs (a) through (e),

b. By removing paragraphs (f) and (g).

§82.164 Reclaimer certification.

(a) All persons reclaiming used refrigerant for sale to a new owner must meet the following 

requirements:

(1) Reclaim refrigerant to all the specifications in appendix A of this subpart (based on AHRI 

Standard 700-2015, Specifications for Refrigerants) that are applicable to that refrigerant;

(2) Verify that each batch of refrigerant reclaimed meets these specifications using the analytical 

methodology prescribed in appendix A, which includes the primary methodologies included in 

the appendix to the AHRI Standard 700-2015;

(3) Release no more than 1.5 percent of the refrigerant during the reclamation process;

(4) Dispose of wastes from the reclamation process in accordance with all applicable laws and 

regulations; and 

(5) Maintain records and submit reports in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.

(b) The owner or a responsible officer reclaiming used refrigerant for sale to a new owner, 

except for persons who properly certified under this section before May 11, 2004, must certify to 

the Administrator at the address in §82.160(a) that they will meet the requirements in paragraph 

(a) of this section. The certification must include the name and address of the reclaimer and a list 

of equipment used to reclaim the refrigerant to the required standard, and to analyze the 

refrigerant to ensure it meets these specifications.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 262 of 320

(c) Certificates are not transferable. In the event of a change in ownership of an entity which 

reclaims refrigerant, the new owner of the entity must certify with the Administrator within 30 

days of the change of ownership under this section. In the event of a change in business 

management, location, or contact information, the owner of the entity must notify EPA within 30 

days of the change at the address in §82.160(a). 

(d) Recordkeeping and reporting. (1) Reclaimers must maintain records of the analysis 

conducted to verify that reclaimed refrigerant meets the necessary specifications in paragraph 

(a)(1) and (2) of this section.

(2) Reclaimers must maintain records of the names and addresses of persons sending them 

material for reclamation and the quantity of the material (the combined mass of refrigerant and 

contaminants) by refrigerant type sent to them for reclamation. Such records must be maintained 

on a transactional basis for three years.

(3) Reclaimers must report to the Administrator annually within 30 days of the end of the 

calendar year the total annual quantity of material (the combined mass of refrigerant and 

contaminants) by refrigerant type sent to them for reclamation, the total annual mass of each 

refrigerant reclaimed, and the total annual mass of waste products.

(e) Failure to abide by any of the provisions of this subpart may result in revocation or 

suspension of the certification of the reclaimer in accordance with §82.169. In such cases, the 

Administrator must give notice to the organization setting forth the basis for the determination.

13. Amend section 82.166 to read as follows:

a. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a) through (i), and (l),

b. By revising paragraph (m).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 263 of 320

§82.166 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

(a) – (i) [Reserved]

* * * * *

(l) [Reserved]

(m) All records required to be maintained pursuant to this section must be kept for a minimum of 

three years unless otherwise indicated. 

* * * * *
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 264 of 320

14. Amend subpart F by revising appendix A to read as follows:

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART F OF PART 82—SPECIFICATIONS FOR 

REFRIGERANTS 

This appendix is based on the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute Standard 

700-2015, Specifications for Refrigerants.

Section 1. Purpose

1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to evaluate and accept/reject refrigerants regardless 

of source (i.e., new, reclaimed and/or repackaged) for use in new and existing refrigeration and 

air-conditioning products as required under 40 CFR part 82.

1.1.1 Intent. This standard is intended for the guidance of the industry including manufacturers, 

refrigerant reclaimers, repackagers, distributors, installers, servicemen, contractors and for 

consumers.

1.1.2 Review and Amendment. This standard is subject to review and amendment as the 

technology advances.

Section 2. Scope

2.1 Scope. This standard specifies acceptable levels of contaminants (purity requirements) for 

various fluorocarbon and other refrigerants regardless of source and lists acceptable test 

methods. These refrigerants are as referenced in the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34 with Addenda: 

2.1.1 Single-Component Fluorocarbon Refrigerants: R-11, R-12, R-13, R-22, R-23, R-32, R113, R-114, R-115, R-116, R-123, R-124, R-125, R-134a, R-141b, R-142b, R-143a, R-152a, R218, R-227ea, R-236fa, R-245fa, R-1233zd(E), R-1234yf, R-1234ze(E);

2.1.2 Single Component Hydrocarbon Refrigerants: R-50, R-170, R-E170, R-290, R-600, R600a, R-601, R-601a, R-610, R-1150, R-1270;

2.1.3 Carbon Dioxide Refrigerant: R-744;

2.1.4 Zeotropic Blend Refrigerants: R-401A, R-401B, R-402A, R-402B, R-403A, R-403B, R404A, R-405A, R-406A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407D, R-407E, R-407F, R-408A, R409A, R-409B, R-410A, R-410B, R-411A, R-411B, R-412A, R-413A, R-414A, R-414B, R415A, R-415B, R-416A, R-417A, R-417B, R-417C, R-418A, R-419A, R-419B, R-420A, R421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-422E, R-423A, R-424A, R-425A, R426A, R-427A, R-428A, R-429A, R-430A, R-431A, R-434A, R-435A, R-437A, R-438A, R439A, R-440A, R-442A, R-444A, R-444B, R-445A, R-446A, R-447A, R-448A, R-49A, R450A;
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 265 of 320

2.1.5 Zeotropic Hydrocarbon Blend Refrigerants: R-432A, R-433A, R-433B, R-433C, R-436A, 

R-436B, R-441A, R-443A; and

2.1.6 Azeotropic Blend Refrigerants: R-500, R-502, R-503, R-507A, R-508A, R-508B, R-509A, 

R-510A, R-511A, and R-512A.

Section 3. Definitions

3.1 Definitions. All terms in this appendix will follow the definitions in §82.152 unless 

otherwise defined in this appendix.

3.2 Shall, Should, Recommended, or It Is Recommended shall be interpreted as follows:

3.2.1 Shall. Where “shall” or “shall not” is used for a provision specified, that provision is 

mandatory if compliance with this appendix is claimed.

3.2.2 Should, Recommended, or It is Recommended is used to indicate provisions which are not 

mandatory but which are desirable as good practice.

Section 4. Characterization of Refrigerants and Contaminants

4.1 Characterization. Characterization of single component fluorocarbon (Table 1A) and 

zeotropic/azeotropic blend (Table 2A/3) refrigerants and contaminants are listed in the following 

general classifications:

4.1.1 Isomer content (see Table 1A)

4.1.2 Air and other non-condensables (see Tables 1A, 2A, 3)

4.1.3 Water (see Tables 1A, 2A, 3)

4.1.4 All other volatile impurities (see Tables 1A, 2A, 3)

4.1.5 High boiling residue (see Tables 1A, 2A, 3)

4.1.6 Halogenated unsaturated volatile impurities (see Table 1A)

4.1.7 Particulates/solids (see Tables 1A, 2A, 3)

4.1.8 Acidity (see Tables 1A, 2A, 3)

4.1.9 Chloride (see Tables 1A, 2A, 3)

4.2 Hydrocarbon Characterization. Characterization of hydrocarbon refrigerants (Tables 1B and 

2B) and contaminants are listed in the following general classifications:

4.2.1 Nominal composition

4.2.2 Other allowable impurities

4.2.3 Air and other non-condensables

4.2.4 Sulfur odor

4.2.5 High boiling residue

4.2.6 Particulates/solids

4.2.7 Acidity

4.2.8 Water

4.2.9 All other volatile impurities

4.2.10 Total C3, C4, and C5 polyolefins
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 266 of 320

4.3 Carbon Dioxide Characterization. Characterization of carbon dioxide (Table 1C) and its 

contaminants are listed in the following general classifications:

4.3.1 Purity

4.3.2 Air and other non-condensables

4.3.3 Water

4.3.4 High boiling residue

4.3.5 Particulates/solids

Section 5. Sampling and Summary of Test Procedures

5.1 Referee Test. The referee test methods for the various contaminants are summarized in the 

following paragraphs. Detailed test procedures are included in Appendix C to AHRI Standard 

700. If alternative test methods are employed, the user must be able to demonstrate that they

produce results at least equivalent to the specified referee test method.

5.2 Refrigerant Sampling

5.2.1 Sampling Precautions. Special precautions should be taken to ensure that representative 

samples are obtained for analysis. Sampling shall be done by qualified personnel following 

accepted sampling and safety procedures. Refrigerants with critical temperatures near or below 

ambient temperature cannot be reliably sampled for both liquid and vapor phase without special 

handling.

Note: Flammable refrigerants which are ASHRAE 34 class 2L, 2, or 3 present additional safety 

challenges and require additional measures for sampling safety procedures compared to 

nonflammable halocarbons documented in this standard.

5.2.2 Cylinder Preparation. Place a clean, empty sample cylinder with the valve open in an oven 

at 110 °C (230 °F) for one hour. Remove it from the oven while hot, immediately connect it to an 

evacuation system and evacuate to less than 56 kPa. Close the valve and allow it to cool. Weigh 

the empty cylinder.

5.2.3 Vapor Phase Sampling. A vapor phase sample shall be obtained for determining the noncondensables. The source temperature shall be measured and recorded at the time the sample is 

taken. 

5.2.3.1 Special Handling for Low Critical Temperature Refrigerant. A vapor phase sample is 

required to determine non-condensables and volatile impurities, including other refrigerants. The 

vapor phase sample is obtained by regulating the sample container temperature to 5 K or more 

above the refrigerant critical temperature. 

5.2.3.2 Handling for Liquid Refrigerants with Boiling Points Near or Above Room Temperature. 

Since R-11, R-113, R-123, R-141b, R-245fa, and R-1233zd(E) have normal boiling points near 

or above room temperature, non-condensable determination is not required for these refrigerants. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 267 of 320

Note: Non-condensable gases, if present, will concentrate in the vapor phase of the refrigerant; 

care must be exercised to eliminate introduction of either air or liquid phase refrigerant during 

the sample transfer. 

5.2.4 Liquid Phase Sampling. A liquid phase sample is required for all tests listed in this 

standard except the test for non-condensables.

5.2.4.1 Liquid Sampling. Accurate analysis requires that the sample cylinder, at ambient 

temperature, be filled to at least 60% by volume; however, under no circumstances should the 

cylinder be filled to more than 80% by volume. This can be accomplished by weighing the 

empty cylinder and then the cylinder with refrigerant. When the desired amount of refrigerant 

has been collected, close the valve(s) and immediately disconnect the sample cylinder. 

Note: Care should be taken to ensure that all connections and transfer lines are dry and evacuated 

to avoid contaminating the sample. 

Note: Low critical temperature refrigerants can have extremely high pressure and the sampling 

vessel, all connections, and transfer lines must be designed to handle high pressures. 

5.2.4.2 Special Handling for Low Critical Temperature Refrigerant. A liquid phase sample is 

required for all testing except volatile impurities, including other refrigerants. The liquid phase 

sample is obtained by regulating the sample cylinder temperature to 2 oC below the critical 

temperature of the refrigerant. 

Note: If free water is present in the sample, cooling to below 0 oC may result in the formation of 

ice. Clathrates may form at temperatures above 0 oC with some fluorocarbon refrigerants.

5.2.4.3 Record Weight. Check the sample cylinder for leaks and record the gross weight.

5.3 Refrigerant Identification. The required method shall be gas chromatography (GC) as 

described in Appendix C to AHRI Standard 700-2015 with the corresponding gas chromatogram 

figures as illustrated in Informative Appendix D to AHRI Standard 700. The chromatogram of 

the sample shall be compared to known standards.

5.3.2 Alternative Method. Determination of the boiling point and boiling point range is an 

acceptable alternative test method which can be used to characterize refrigerants. The test 

method shall be that described in the Federal Specification for “Fluorocarbon Refrigerants,” BBF-1421 B, dated March 5, 1982, section 4.4.3.

5.3.3 Required Values. The required values for boiling point and boiling point range are given in 

Table 1A, Physical Properties of Single Component Refrigerants; Table 1B, Physical Properties 

of Zeotropic Blends (400 Series Refrigerants); and Table 1C, Physical Properties of Azeotropic 

Blends (500 Series Refrigerants).

5.4 Water Content.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 268 of 320

5.4.1 Method. The Coulometric Karl Fischer Titration shall be the primary test method for 

determining the water content of refrigerants. This method is described in Appendix C to AHRI 

Standard 700-2015. This method can be used for refrigerants that are either a liquid or a gas at 

room temperature. For all refrigerants, the sample for water analysis shall be taken from the 

liquid phase of the container to be tested.

5.4.2 Limits. The value for water content shall be expressed in parts per million (ppm) by weight 

and shall not exceed the maximum specified in Tables 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, and 3.

5.5 Conductivity. (Alternative to chloride and acidity tests).

5.5.1 Method. A refrigerant may be tested for conductivity as an indication of the presence of 

acids, metal chlorides, and any compound that ionizes in water. This alternative procedure is 

intended for use with new or reclaimed refrigerants, however, significant amounts of oil can 

interfere with the test results.

5.5.2 Limits. The value for conductivity shall be converted to and expressed in ppm by weight 

calculated as HCl and shall be compared with the maximum acidity value specified (see in 

Tables 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, and 3). If the conductivity is above this amount, then the chloride 

and acidity tests shall be conducted. If the conductivity is not greater than this amount, then the 

chloride and acidity tests may be omitted.

5.6 Chloride. The refrigerant shall be tested for chloride as an indication of the presence of 

hydrochloric acid and/or metal chlorides. The referee procedure is intended for use with new or 

reclaimed halogenated refrigerants; however, high boiling residue in excess of the amounts in 

Tables 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, and 3 can interfere with the test results.

5.6.1 Method. The test method shall be that described in Appendix C to AHRI Standard 700-

2015. The test will show noticeable turbidity at chloride levels of about 3 ppm or greater by

weight.

5.5.2 Limits. The results of the test shall not exhibit any sign of turbidity. Report the results as 

“pass” or “fail.”

5.7 Acidity.

5.7.1 Method. The acidity test uses the titration principle to detect any compound that is soluble 

in water and ionizes as an acid. The test method shall be that described in Appendix C to AHRI 

Standard 700-2015. This test may not be suitable for determination of high molecular weight 

organic acids; however these acids will be found in the high boiling residue test outlined in 

Section 5.8. The test requires a 50 to 60 gram sample and has a detection limit of 0.1 ppm by

weight calculated as HCl.

5.7.2 Limits. The value for acidity shall be expressed in ppm by weight as HCl and shall not 

exceed the limits in Tables 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, and 3. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 269 of 320

5.8 High Boiling Residue.

5.8.1 Method. High boiling residue shall be determined by either volume or weight. The volume 

method measures the residue from a standard volume of refrigerant after evaporation. The 

gravimetric method is described in Appendix C to AHRI Standard 700-2015. Oils and/or 

organic acids will be captured by these methods.

5.8.2 Limits. The value for high boiling residue shall be expressed as a percentage by volume or 

weight and shall not exceed the maximum percent specified in Tables 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, and 

3.

5.9 Particulates and Solids.

5.9.1 Method. A measured amount of sample shall be placed in a Goetz bulb under controlled 

temperature conditions. The particulates/solids shall be determined by visual examination of the 

Goetz bulb prior to the evaporation of refrigerant. For details of this test method, refer to Part 3 

of Appendix C to AHRI Standard 700-2015.

Note: R-744 will partially sublimate when measuring a known amount of liquid sample into the 

dry Goetz bulb and the solid R-744 will interfere with the visual examination of 

particulates/solids. Determining the particulates/solids shall be completed by visual examination 

of the Goetz bulb after the evaporation of the refrigerant.

5.9.2 Limits. Visual presence of dirt, rust, or other particulate contamination is reported as “fail.”

5.10 Non-Condensables.

5.10.1 Method. A vapor phase sample shall be used for determination of non-condensables. 

Non-condensable gases consist primarily of air accumulated in the vapor phase of refrigerants 

where the solubility of air in the refrigerant liquid phase is extremely low and air is not 

significant as a liquid phase contaminant. The presence of non-condensable gases may reflect 

poor quality control in transferring refrigerants to storage tanks and cylinders.

The test method shall be gas chromatography with a thermal conductivity detector as described 

in Appendix C to AHRI Standard 700-2015.

5.10.2 Limits. The maximum level of non-condensables in the vapor phase of a test sample shall 

not exceed the maximum at 25 °C as shown in Tables 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, and 3.

5.11 All Other Volatile Impurities and/or Other Refrigerants.

5.11.1 Method. The amount of volatile impurities including other refrigerants in the subject 

refrigerant shall be determined by gas chromatography as described in Appendix C to AHRI 

Standard 700-2015.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 270 of 320

5.11.2 Limits. The test sample shall not contain more than 0.5% by weight of volatile impurities 

including other refrigerants as shown in Tables 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B and 3.

5.12 Total C3, C4 and C5 Polyolefins in Hydrocarbon Refrigerants.

5.12.1 Method. The amount of polyolefin impurities in the hydrocarbon shall be determined by

gas chromatography as described in GPA STD 2177 - Natural Gas Liquid Mixtures Containing 

Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide.

5.12.2 Limits. The test sample shall not contain more than 0.05 % by weight in the hydrocarbon 

sample as shown in Tables 1B and 2B. Report the results as “pass” or “fail.”

5.13 Sulfur Odor in Hydrocarbon Refrigerants.

5.13.1 Method. The amount of sulfur containing compounds or other compounds with an odor 

shall be determined by ASTM method D1296, Odor of Volatile Solvents and Diluents.

5.13.2 Limits. The test sample paper shall not emit a residual sulfur odor as shown in Tables 1B 

and 2B.

Section 6. Reporting Procedure

6.1 Reporting Procedure. The source (manufacturer, reclaimer, or repackager) of the packaged 

refrigerant shall be identified. The refrigerant shall be identified by its accepted refrigerant 

number and/or its chemical name. Maximum allowable levels of contaminants are shown in 

Tables 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, and 3. Test results shall be tabulated in a similar manner.
Internal, Deliberative- Do Not Release

271

Table 1A. Single Component Fluorocarbon Refrigerants and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants

Reporting Units Reference

Section R-11 R-12 R-13 R-22 R-23 R-32 R-113 R-114

CHARACTERISTICS:

Boiling Point1 °C @ 101.3 

kPa° N/A 23.7 -29.8 -81.5 -40.8 -82 -51.7 47.6 3.6

Boiling Point Range1 K N/A ± 0.3 ± 0.3 ± 0.5 ± 0.3 ± 0.5 ± 0.3 ± 0.3 ± 0.3

Critical Temperature1°C N/A 198 112 28.9 96.2 26.1 78.1 214.1 145.7

Isomer Content % by weight N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0-1

R-133a

0-30

R-144a

VAPOR PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Air and Other Non-condensables, 

Maximum

% by volume

@ 25.0 °C 5.10 N/A2

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 N/A21.5

LIQUID PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Water, Maximum ppm by weight 5.4 20 10 10 10 10 10 20 10

All Other Volatile Impurities, Maximum % by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

High Boiling Residue, Maximum % by volume or 

% by weight 5.8 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail 5.9 Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Acidity, Maximum ppm by weight 

(as HCl) 5.7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Chloride3Pass or Fail 5.6

No 

visible

turbidity

No 

visible

turbidity

No 

visible

turbidity

No 

visible

turbidity

No 

visible

turbidity

No 

visible

turbidity

No 

visible

turbidity

No 

visible

turbidity
Internal, Deliberative- Do Not Release

272

Table 1A. Single Component Fluorocarbon Refrigerants and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants (continued)

Reporting Units Reference

Section R-115 R-116 R-123 R-124 R-125 R-134a R-141b

CHARACTERISTICS:

Boiling Point1°C @ 101.3 kPa N/A -38.9 -78.2 27.8 -12 -48.1 -26.1 32

Boiling Point Range1 K N/A ± 0.3 ± 0.3 ± 0.3 ± 0.3 ± 0.3 ± 0.3 ± 0.3

Critical Temperature1°C N/A 80 19.9 183.7 122.3 66 101.1 206.8

Isomer Content % by weight N/A N/A N/A

0-8

R-123a+

R-123b

0-5

R-124a N/A 0-0.5R-134

0-0.1ea

R-141, 

R-141a

VAPOR PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Air and Other Non-condensables, 

Max.

% by volume

@ 25.0 °C 5.10 1.5 1.5 N/A2

1.5 1.5 1.5 N/A2

LIQUID PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Water, Max. ppm by weight 5.4 10 10 20 10 10 10 100

All Other Volatile Impurities, Max. % by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9

High Boiling Residue, Max. % by volume or 

% by weight 5.8 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail 5.9 Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Acidity, Max. ppm by weight

(as HCl) 5.7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Chloride3Pass or Fail 5.6 No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity
Internal, Deliberative- Do Not Release

273

Table 1A. Single Component Fluorocarbon Refrigerants and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants (continued)

Reporting

Units

Reference

Section R-142b R-143a R-152a R-218 R-227ea R-236fa R-245fa R1233zd(E) R-1234yf R1234ze(E)

CHARACTERISTICS:

Boiling Point1°C @ 101.3 kPa N/A -9.2 -47.2 -24 -36.8 -16.5 -1.4 14.9 18.3 -29.4 -19

Boiling Point Range1 K N/A -- ± 0.3 ± 0.3 ± 0.3 -- ± 0.3 ± 0.3 -- N/A N/A

Critical Temperature1°C N/A 137.1 72.7 113.3 72 101.7 124.9 154.1 165.6 94.8 109.4

Isomer Content % by weight N/A

0-0.1ea 

R-142, 

R-142a

0-0.01

R-143 N/A -- -- --

0-0.1ea 

R-245ca, 

R-245cb, 

R-245ea,

R-245eb

-- N/A 0.3 R1234ze(Z)

VAPOR PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Air and Other Noncondensables, Max.% by volume

@ 25.0 °C 5.10 2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 N/A2 N/A2

1.5 1.5

LIQUID PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Water, Maximum ppm by weight 5.4 15 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 10 10

All Other Volatile 

Impurities, Max. % by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

High Boiling 

Residue, Max.

% by volume or

% by weight 5.8 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail 5.9 Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Acidity, Max. ppm by weight

(as HCl) 5.7 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Chloride3Pass or Fail 5.6 No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No 

visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

1. Boiling points, boiling point ranges, and critical temperatures, although not required, are provided for informational purposes. Refrigerant data compiled from Refprop 9.1.

2. Since R-11, R-113, R-123, R-141b, R-245fa, and R-1233zd(E) have normal boiling points near or above room temperature, non-condensable determinations are not required for these 

refrigerants.

3. Recognized chloride level for pass/fail is about 3 ppm.

-- Data Not Available
Internal, Deliberative- Do Not Release

274

Table 1B. Single Component Hydrocarbon Refrigerants and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants

Reporting

Units R-50 R-170 R-E170 R-290 R-600 R-600a R-601 R-601a R-610 R-1150 R-1270

CHARACTERISTICS:

Boiling Point1 °C at 101.3 

kPa -161.5 -88.6 -24.8 -42.1 -0.5 -11.8 36.1 27.8 34.6 -103.8 -47.6

Boiling Point Range1 K ± 0.5 ± 0.5 ± 0.5 ± 0.5 ± 0.5 ± 0.5 ± 0.5 ± 0.5 ± 0.5 ± 0.5 ± 0.5

Minimum Nominal 

Composition % weight 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5

Other Allowable 

Impurities % weight N/A N/A N/A 2 (see footnote2)

2 (see 

footnote2)

2 (see 

footnote2)

0-1

R-601a

0-1

R-601 N/A N/A 0-1R-290

VAPOR PHASE CONTAMINANTS3:

Air and Other Noncondensables,

Maximum

% by 

volume 

@ 25.0 °C

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

LIQUID PHASE CONTAMINANTS4:

Sulfur Odor Pass or Fail No sulfur

odor

No sulfur

odor

No sulfur

odor

No sulfur

odor

No sulfur

odor

No sulfur

odor

No sulfur

odor

No sulfur

odor

No sulfur

odor

No sulfur

odor

No sulfur

odor

High Boiling Residue,

Max. % weight 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Acidity, Max.

ppm by 

weight

(as HCl)

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Water, Max. mg kg-110 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

All Other Volatile 

Impurities, Max. % weight 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Total C3, C4 and C5 

Polyolefins, Max. % weight 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

1. Boiling points, boiling point ranges, although not required, are provided for informational purposes.

2. 2% of other C3 and C4 saturated hydrocarbons are allowed

3.Taken from vapor phase

4. Vaporized from liquid phase 
Internal, Deliberative- Do Not Release

275

Table 2A. Zeotropic Blends (400 Series Refrigerants) and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants

Reporting Units Reference

Section R-401A R-401B R-402A R-402B R-403A R-403B R-404A R-405

CHARACTERISTICS:

Refrigerant Components N/A N/A R-22/

152a/124

R-22/

152a/124

R-125/

290/22

R-125/

290/22

R-290/

22/218

R-290/

22/218

R-125/

143a/134a

R-22/152a/

142b/C318

Nominal Composition % by weight N/A 53/13/34 61/11/28 60.0/2.0/

/38.0

38.0/2.0

/60.0 5/75/20 5/56/39 44/52/4 45/7/5.5/42.5

Allowable Composition % by weight N/A 51-55/ 11.5-

13.5/ 33-35

59-63/ 9.5-

11.5/ 27-29

58.0-62.0/ 

1.0-2.1/ 

36.0-40.0

36.0-40.0/ 

1.0-2.1/ 

58.0-62.0

3-5.2/

73-77/

18-22

3-5.2/

54-58/

37-41

42-46/

51-53/

2-6

43-47/

6-8/

4.5-6.5/ 

40.5-44.5

Bubble Point1°C @ 101.3 kPa N/A -33.3 -34.9 -49 -47 -47.8 -49.2 -46.2 -32.9

Dew Point1°C @ 101.3 kPa N/A -26.4 -28.8 -46.9 -44.7 -44.3 -46.8 -45.5 -24.5

Critical Temperature1°C N/A 105.3 103.5 76 83 87 79.7 72.1 106

VAPOR PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Air and Other Noncondensables, Max.% by volume

@ 25.0 °C 5.10 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

LIQUID PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Water, Max. ppm by weight 5.4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

All Other Volatile 

Impurities, Max. % by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

High Boiling Residue, 

Max.

% by volume or

% by weight 5.8 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail 5.9 Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Acidity, Max. ppm by weight

(as HC1) 5.7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Chloride2Pass or Fail 5.6 No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity
Internal, Deliberative- Do Not Release

276

Table 2A. Zeotropic Blends (400 Series Refrigerants) and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants (continued)

Reporting 

Units

Reference

Section R-406A R-407A R-407B R-407C R-407D R-407E R-407F R-408A

CHARACTERISTICS:

Refrigerant Components N/A N/A R-22/600a/

142b

R-32/

125/134a

R-32/

125/134a

R-32/

125/134a

R-32/

125/134a

R-32/

125/134a

R-32/

125/134a

R-125/

143a/22

Nominal Composition % by weight N/A 55/4/41 20/40/40 10/70/20 23/25/52 15/15/70 25/15/60 30.0/30.0/4

0.0 7/46/47

Allowable Composition % by weight N/A

53-57/

3-5/

40-42

18-22/

38-42/

38-42

8-12/

68-72/

18-22

21-25/

23-27/

50-54

13-17/

13-17/

68-72

23-27/

13-17/

58-62

28.0-32.0/

28.0-32.0/

38.0-42.0

5-9/

45-47/

45-49

Bubble Point1 °C @ 101.3 

kPa N/A -32.7 -45.3 -46.8 -43.6 -39.5 -42.9 -46.1 -44.6

Dew Point1 °C @ 101.3 

kPa N/A -23.5 -38.9 -42.5 -36.6 -32.9 -35.8 -39.7 -44.1

Critical Temperature1°C N/A 116.5 82.3 75 86 91.4 88.5 83 83.1

VAPOR PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Air and Other Noncondensables, Max.% by volume 

@ 25.0 °C 5.10 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

LIQUID PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Water, Max. ppm by 

weight 5.4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

All Other Volatile Impurities, 

Max. % by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

High Boiling Residue, Max.

% by volume 

or % by 

weight

5.8 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail 5.9 Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Acidity, Max. ppm by 

weight 5.7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Chloride2Pass or Fail 5.6 No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity
Internal, Deliberative- Do Not Release

277

Table 2A. Zeotropic Blends (400 Series Refrigerants) and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants (continued)

Reporting 

Units

Reference

Section R-409A R-409B R-410A R-410B R-411A R-411B R-412A R-413A

CHARACTERISTICS:

Refrigerant Components N/A N/A R-22/

124/142b

R-22/

124/142b R-32/125 R-32/125 R-1270/22/152a

R-1270/

22/152a

R-22/218/

142b

R-218/

134a/600a

Nominal Composition % by weight N/A 60/25/15 65/25/10 50/50 45/55 1.5/87.5/

11.0 3/94/3 70/5/25 9/88/3

Allowable Composition % by weight N/A

58-62/

23-27/

14-16

63-67/

23-27/

9-11

48.5-50.5/

49.5-51.5

44-46/

54-56

0.5-1.5/

87.5-89.5/

10-11

2-3/94-96/

2-3

68-72/

3-7/

24-26

8-10/

86-90/

2-3

Bubble Point1 °C @ 101.3 

kPa N/A -34.7 -35.6 -51.4 -51.3 -39.5 -41.6 -38 -30.6

Dew Point1 °C @ 101.3 

kPa N/A -26.4 -27.9 -51.4 -51.6 -36.6 -40 -28.7 -27.9

Critical Temperature1°C N/A 106.9 106.9 71.4 70.8 99.1 96 107.2 98.5

VAPOR PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Air and Other Noncondensables, Max.

% by volume

@ 25.0 °C

5.10 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

LIQUID PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Water, Maximum ppm by weight 5.4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

All Other Volatile Impurities, 

Max. % by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

High Boiling Residue, Max. % by volume 

or % by weight 5.8 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail 5.9 Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Acidity, Max. ppm by weight

(as HCl) 5.7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Chloride2Pass or Fail 5.6 No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity
Internal, Deliberative- Do Not Release

278

Table 2A. Zeotropic Blends (400 Series Refrigerants) and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants (continued)

Reporting Units Reference

Section R-414A R-414B R-415A R-415B R-416A R-417A R-417B

CHARACTERISTICS:

Refrigerant Components N/A N/A R-22/124/

600a/142b

R-22/124/

600a/142b R-22/152a R-22/152a R-134a/124/600

R-125/

134a/600

R-125/

134a/600

Nominal Composition % by weight N/A 51.0/28.5/

4.0/16.5

50.0/39.0/

1.5/9.5 82.0/18.0 25.0/75.0 59.0/39.5/1.5

46.6/50.0/

3.4

79.0/18.3/

2.7

Allowable Composition % by weight N/A

49.0-53.0/

26.5-30.5/

3.5-4.5/

15.5-17.0

48.0-52.0/

37.0-41.0/

1.0-2.0/

8.5-10.0

81.0-83.0/

17.0-19.0

24.0-26.0/

74.0-76.0

58.0-59.5/

39.0-40.5/

1.3-1.6

45.5-47.7/

49.0-51.0/

3.0-3.5

78.0-80.0/

17.3-19.3/

2.2-2.8

Bubble Point1°C @ 101.3 kPa N/A -34 -32.9 -37.5 -27.7 -23.4 -38 -44

Dew Point1°C @ 101.3 kPa N/A -25.8 -24.3 -34.7 -26.2 -21.8 -32.9 -41.5

Critical Temperature1°C N/A 110.7 111 100 111.3 108.2 89.9 75.2

VAPOR PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Air and Other Non-condensables,

Max.

% by volume 

@ 25.0 °C 5.10 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

LIQUID PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Water, Max. ppm by weight 5.4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

All Other Volatile Impurities,

Max. % by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

High Boiling Residue, Max. % by volume or

% by weight 5.8 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail 5.9 Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Acidity, Max. ppm by weight

(as HC1) 5.7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Chloride2Pass or Fail 5.6 No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity
Internal, Deliberative- Do Not Release

279

Table 2A. Zeotropic Blends (400 Series Refrigerants) and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants (continued)

Reporting 

Units

Reference

Section R-417C R-418A R-419A R-419B R-420A R-421A R-421B R-422A R-422B

CHARACTERISTICS:

Refrigerant Components N/A N/A R-125/

134a/600

R-290/

22/152a

R-125/

134a/ 

E170

R-125/

134a/E17

0

R-134a/

142b

R-125/

134a

R-125/

134a

R-125/ 

134a/600

a

R-125/

134a/600

a

Nominal Composition % by weight N/A 19.5/78.8/

1.7

1.5/96.0/

2.5

77.0/19.0/

4.0

48.5/48.0/

3.5 88.0/12.0 58.0/42.0 85.0/15.0 85.1/11.5/3.4

55.0/42.0

/3.0

Allowable Composition % by weight N/A

18.5-20.5/

77.8-79.8/

1.2-1.8

1.0-2.0/

95.0-97.0/

2.0-3.0

76.0-78.0/

18.0-20.0/

3.0-5.0

47.5-49.5/

47.0-49.0/

3.0-4.0

88.0-89.0/

11.0-12.0

57.0-59.0/

41.0-43.0

84.0-86.0/

14.0-16.0

84.1-86.1/

10.5-12.5/

3.0-3.5

54.0-56.0/

41.0-43.0/

2.5-3.1

Bubble Point1 °C @ 101.3 

kPa N/A -32.7 -41.2 -42.6 -37.4 -25 -40.8 -45.7 -46.5 -40.5

Dew Point1 °C @ 101.3 

kPa N/A -29.2 -40.1 -36 -31.5 -24.2 -35.5 -42.6 -44.1 -35.6

Critical Temperature1°C N/A 95.4 96.7 79.1 90.4 105.4 78.5 69 71.7 85.7

VAPOR PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Air and Other Non-condensables,

Max.

% by volume

@ 25.0 °C 5.10 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

LIQUID PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Water, Max. ppm by weight 5.4 10 10 10 10 20 10 10 10 10

All Other Volatile Impurities, 

Max. % by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

High Boiling Residue, Max.

% by volume 

or

% by weight

5.8 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail 5.9 Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

Clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

Clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Acidity, Max. ppm by weight

(as HC1) 5.7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Chloride2Pass or Fail 5.6 No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity
Internal, Deliberative- Do Not Release

280

Table 2A. Zeotropic Blends (400 Series Refrigerants) and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants (continued)

Reporting

Units

Reference

Section R-422C R-422D R-422E R-423A R-424A R-425A R-426A R-427A R-428A

CHARACTERISTICS:

Refrigerant 

Components N/A N/A R-125/134a/600a

R-125/

134a/600a

R-125/ 

134a/600a

R-134a 

/227ea

R-125/ 

134a/600a/

600/601a

R-32/134a 

/227ea

R-125/134a

/600/601a

R-32/125/

143a/134a

R-125

/143a

/290/600a

Nominal Composition % by weight N/A 82.0/15.0

/3.0

65.1/30.5

/3.4

58.0/39.3

/2.7 52.5/47.5 50.5/47.0/0.9/1.0/0.6

18.5/69.5

/12.0

5.1/93.0

/1.3/0.6

15.0/25.0

/10.0/50.0

77.5/20.0

/0.6/1.9

Allowable 

Composition % by weight N/A

81.0-83.0/

14.0-16.0/

2.5-3.1

64.0-66.0/

30.5-32.5/

3.0-3.5

57.0-59.0/

38.0-41.0/

2.5-3.0

51.5-53.5/

46.5-48.5

49.5-51.5/

46.0-48.0/

0.7-1.0/

0.8-1.1/

0.4-0.7

18.0-19.0/

69.0-70.0/

11.5-12.5

4.1-6.1/

92.0-94.0/

1.1-1.4/

0.4-0.7

13.0-17.0/ 

23.0-27.0/ 

8.0-12.0/ 

48.0-52.0

76.5-78.5

/19.0-21.0

/0.4-0.7

/1.7-2.0

Bubble Point1°C @ 101.3 kPa N/A -45.3 -43.2 -41.8 -24.2 -39.1 -38.1 -28.5 -43 -48.3

Dew Point1°C @ 101.3 kPa N/A -42.3 -38.4 -36.4 -23.5 -33.3 -31.3 -26.7 -36.3 -47.5

Critical Temperature1°C N/A 76.1 79.6 82.2 99 87.5 93.9 100.2 85.3 69

VAPOR PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Air and Other Noncondensables, Max.% by volume 

@ 25.0 °C 5.10 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

LIQUID PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Water, Max. ppm by

weight 5.4 10 10 20 10 10 10 10 10 10

All Other Volatile 

Impurities, Max. % by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

High Boiling Residue, 

Max.

% by volume or

% by weight 5.8 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Chloride2Pass or Fail 5.6 No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity
Internal, Deliberative- Do Not Release

281

Table 2A. Zeotropic Blends (400 Series Refrigerants) and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants (continued)

Reporting Units Reference

Section R-429A R-430A R-431A R-434A R-435A R-437A R-438A R-439A R-440A

CHARACTERISTICS:

Refrigerant 

Components N/A N/A R-E170/152a/ 600a

R-152a/ 

600a

R290

/152a

R-125/

143a/134a/

600a

R-E170

/152a

R-125/ 

134a/600

/601

R-32/125/ 

134a/600

/601a

R-32/ 125/

600a

R-290/

134a/152a

Nominal 

Composition % by weight N/A 60.0/10.0/30.0 76.0/24.0 71.0/29.0 63.2/18.0/16.0/2.8 80.0/20.0 19.5/78.5/1.4/0.6

8.5/45.0/

44.2/1.7

/0.6

50/47.0

/3.0

0.6/1.6/ 

97.8

Allowable 

Composition % by weight N/A

59.0-61.0

/9.0-11.0

/29.031.0

75.0-77.0

/23.025.0

70.0-72.0

/28.0-30.0

62.2-64.2

/17.0-19.0

/15.0-17.0

/2.6-2.9

79.0-81.0

/19.0-21.0

17.7-20.0

/77.8-80.0

/1.2-1.5

/0.4-0.7

7.0-9.0

/43.5-46.5

/42.7-45.7

/1.5-1.8

/0.4-0.7

49.0-51.0

/46.0-48.0

/2.5-3.5

0.5-0.7

/1.0-2.2

/97.3-98.3

Bubble Point1°C @ 101.3 kPa N/A -25.5 -27.6 -43.2 -45.1 -26 -32.9 -43 -52 -25.5

Dew Point1°C @ 101.3 kPa N/A -24.9 -27.4 -43.2 -42.4 -25.8 -29.2 -36.4 -51.7 -24.3

Critical 

Temperature1 °C N/A 123.5 107 100.3 75.6 125.2 95.3 84.2 72 112.9

VAPOR PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Air and Other 

Non-condensables,

Max.

% by volume 

@ 25.0 °C 5.10 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

LIQUID PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Water, Maximum ppm by weight 5.4 10 10 20 20 10 10 20 10 10

All Other Volatile 

Impurities, Max. % by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

High Boiling 

Residue, Max.

% by volume or

% by weight 5.8 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail 5.9 Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually 

clean

Acidity, Max. ppm by weight

(as HC1) 5.7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Chloride2Pass or Fail 5.6 No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity
Internal, Deliberative- Do Not Release

282

Table 2A. Zeotropic Blends (400 Series Refrigerants) and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants (continued)

Reporting Units Reference

Section R-442A R-444A R-444B R-445A R-446A R-447A R-448A R-449A R-450A

CHARACTERISTICS:

Refrigerant 

Components N/A N/A

R-32/125/

134a/152a/ 

227ea

R-32/152a/ 

1234ze(E)

R-32/152a/ 

1234ze(E)

R744/134a/ 

1234ze(E)

R-32/ 

1234ze(E)/ 

600

R-32/

125/1234ze 

(E)

R-32/125/

1234yf /

134a/

1234ze(E)

R-32/125/

1234yf/

134a

R-134a / 

1234ze(E)

Nominal 

Composition % by weight N/A

31.0/31.0

/30.0/3.0

/5.0

12.0/5.0/

83.0

41.5/10.0

/48.5

6.0/9.0/85.

0

68.0/29.0

/3.0

68.0/3.5

/28.5

26.0/26.0

/20.0/21.0

/ 7.0

24.3/24.7

/25.3/25.7 42.0/58.0

Allowable 

Composition % by weight N/A

30.0-32.0

/30.0-32.0

/29.0-31.0

/2.5-

3.5/4.0- 6.0

11.0-13.0

/4.0-6.0

/81.0-85.0

40.5-42.5/

9.0-11.0/

47.5-49.5

5.0-7.0

/8.0-10.0

/83.0-87.0

67.0-68.5

/28.4-31.0

/2.0-3.1

67.5-69.5

/3.0-5.0

/27.5-29.5

24.0-26.5/

25.5-28.0/

18.0-20.5/

20.0-23.0/

5.0-7.5

23.3-24.5/

24.5-25.7/

24.3-25.5/

25.5-26.7

40.0-44.0/

56.0-60.0

Bubble Point1°C @ 101.3 kPa N/A -46.5 -34.3 -44.6 -50.3 -49.4 -49.3 -45.9 -46 -23.4

Dew Point1°C @ 101.3 kPa N/A -39.9 -24.3 -34.9 -23.5 -42.1 -44.2 -39.8 -39.9 -22.8

Critical 

Temperature1 °C N/A 82.4 103.2 91.5 98 84.2 82.6 81.6 81.5 104.4

VAPOR PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Air and Other 

Non-condensables, 

Max.

% by volume

@ 25.0 °C 5.10 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

LIQUID PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Water, Maximum ppm by weight 5.4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

All Other Volatile 

Impurities, Max. % by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

High Boiling 

Residue, Max.

% by volume or

% by weight 5.8 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail 5.9 Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually 

clean

Visually

clean

Visually 

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually 

clean

Acidity, Max. ppm by weight 

(as HC1) 5.7 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 1 1

Chloride2Pass or Fail 5.6 No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

No visible

turbidity

1. Bubble points, dew points, and critical temperatures, although not required, are provided for informational purposes. Refrigerant data compiled from Refprop 9.1.

2. Recognized chloride level for pass/fail is about 3 ppm.
Internal, Deliberative- Do Not Release

283

Table 2B. Hydrocarbon Blends (400 & 500 Series Refrigerants) and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants

Reporting

Units

Reference

Section R-432A R-433A R-433B R-433C R-436A R-436B R-441A R-443A

CHARACTERISTICS:

Refrigerant 

Components N/A N/A R-1279/ E170 R-1270/ 290 R-1270/ 290 R-1270/ 290 R-290/ 600a

R-290/ 

600a

R-170/ 

290/600a/600 R-1270/ 290/600a

Nominal 

Composition % by weight N/A 80.0/20.0 30.0/70.0 5.0/95.0 25.0/75.0 56.0/44.0 52.0/48.0 3.1/54.8/6.0/36.1 55.0/40.0/5.0

Allowable 

Composition % by weight N/A 79.0-81.0/19.0-21.0

29.0-31.0

/69.0-71.0

4.0-6.0

/94.0- 96.0

24.0-26.0

/74.0-76.0

55.0-57.0

/43.0-45.0

51.0-53.0

/47.0- 49.0

2.8-2.4/52.8-56.8/ 

5.4-6.6/ 34.1-38.1

53.0-57.0/ 38.0-42.0

/3.8-6.2

Bubble Point1°C @ 101.3 kPa N/A -45.2 -44.4 -42.5 -44.1 -34.3 -33.3 -41.5 -45.2

Dew Point1°C @ 101.3 kPa N/A -42.4 -44 -42.4 -43.7 -26.1 -25 -20.3 -42.1

Critical 

Temperature1 °C N/A 97.3 94.4 96.3 94.8 115.9 117.4 117.3 95.1

VAPOR PHASE CONTAMINANTS2:

Air and Other Noncondensables, Max.% by volume

@ 25.0°C 5.10 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

LIQUID PHASE CONTAMINANTS3:

Sulfur Odor4 No odor to pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass

High Boiling 

Residue, Max.

% by volume or

% by weight 5.8 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail 5.9 Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Acidity, Max. ppm by weight 5.7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A

Water, Max. ppm by weight 5.4 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

All Other Volatile 

Impurities, Max. % by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Total C3, C4 and 

C5 Polyolefins, 

Max.

% by weight 5.12 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

Chloride2Pass or Fail 5.6 No visible 

turbidity

No visible 

turbidity

No visible 

turbidity

No visible 

turbidity

No visible 

turbidity

No visible 

turbidity N/A N/A

1. Bubble points, dew points, and critical temperatures, although not required, are provided for informational purposes. Refrigerant data compiled from Refprop 9.1.

2. Taken from vapor phase

3. Vaporized from liquid phase

4. Including hydrogen sulphide and mercaptans
Internal, Deliberative- Do Not Release

284

Table 3. Azeotropic Blends (500 Series Refrigerants) and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants

Reporting

Units

Reference

Section R-500 R-502 R-503 R-507A R-508A R-508B R-509A R-510A R-511A R-512A

CHARACTERISTICS:

Refrigerant Components N/A N/A R-12/152a R-22/115 R-23/13 R-125/

143a R-23/116 R-23/116 R-22/218 R-E170/600a

R-290/

E170

R-134a/

152a

Nominal Composition % by weight N/A 73.8/26.2 48.8/51.2 40.1/59.9 50/50 39/61 46/54 44/56 88.0/12.0 95.0/5.0 5.0/95.0

Allowable Composition % by weight N/A 72.8-74.8

/25.2-27.2

44.8-52.8

/47.2-55.2

39-41

/59-61

49.5-51.5

/48.5-50.5

37-41

/59-63

44-48

/52-56

42-46

/56-60

87.5-88.5

/11.5-

12.5

94.0-96.0

/4.0-6.0

4.0-6.0

/94.0-96.0

Bubble Point1°C @ 101.3 kPa N/A -33.6 -45.2 -87.8 -46.7 -87.4 -87 -49.8 -24.9 -42 -24

Dew Point1°C @ 101.3 kPa N/A -33.6 -45 -87.8 -46.7 -87.4 -87 -48.1 -24.9 -42 -24

Critical Temperature1°C N/A 102.1 80.2 18.4 70.6 10.8 11.8 68.6 125.7 97 112.9

VAPOR PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Air and Other Noncondensables, Max.% by volume

@ 25 °C 5.10 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

LIQUID PHASE CONTAMINANTS:

Water, Maximum ppm by weight 5.4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 10

All Other Volatile 

Impurities, Max. % by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

High Boiling Residue, 

Max.

% by volume or 

% by weight 5.8 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail 5.9 Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Visually

clean

Acidity, Max. ppm by weight 5.7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Chloride2Pass or Fail 5.6 No visible 

turbidity

No visible 

turbidity

No visible 

turbidity

No visible 

turbidity

No visible 

turbidity

No visible 

turbidity

No visible 

turbidity

No visible 

turbidity

No visible 

turbidity

No visible 

turbidity

1. Bubble points, dew points, and critical temperatures, although not required, are provided for informational purposes. Refrigerant data compiled from Refprop 9.1.

2. Recognized chloride level for pass/fail is about 3 ppm. 
Internal, Deliberative- Do Not Release

285

APPENDIX A. REFERENCES—NORMATIVE

Listed here are all standards, handbooks, and other publications essential to the formation and 

implementation of the standard. All references in this appendix are considered as part of this 

standard. 

ASHRAE Terminology, https://www.ashrae.org/resources--publications/free-resources/ashraeterminology, 2014, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers, Inc.

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013, Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants, with 

Addenda, American National Standards Institute/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, 

and Air-Conditioning Engineers. 

Appendix C to AHRI Standard 700-2015: Analytical Procedures for AHRI Standard 700-2015, 

Normative, Specification for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants, 2008. Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute. 

ASTM Standard D1296-01-2012, Standard Test Method for Odor of Volatile Solvents and 

Diluents, 2012, ASTM International.

GPA STD-2177, Analysis of Natural Gas Liquid Mixtures Containing Nitrogen and Carbon 

Dioxide by Gas Chromatography, 2013, Gas Processors Association.

REFPROP Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport Properties NIST Standard Reference 

Database 23 version 9.1, 2013, U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, 

National Institute of Standards and Technology.

APPENDIX A. REFERENCES—INFORMATIVE

Listed here are standards, handbooks, and other publications which may provide useful 

information and background but are not considered essential.

2012 Appendix D Gas Chromatograms for AHRI Standard 700-2015 – Informative, Specification 

for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants, 2012, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute. 
Internal, Deliberative- Do Not Release

286

15. Amend subpart F by adding appendix B3 to read as follows:

APPENDIX B3 TO SUBPART F OF PART 82—PERFORMANCE OF REFRIGERANT 

RECOVERY, RECYCLING, AND/OR RECLAIM EQUIPMENT

This appendix is based on the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute Standard

740-2015, Performance Rating of Refrigerant Recovery Equipment and Recovery/Recycling 

Equipment. 

Section 1. Purpose

1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to establish methods of testing for rating and 

evaluating the performance of refrigerant recovery, and/or recycling equipment and general 

equipment requirements (herein referred to as “equipment”) for contaminant or purity levels, 

capacity, speed and purge loss to minimize emission into the atmosphere of designated 

refrigerants. 

Section 2. Scope

2.1 Scope. This standard applies to equipment for recovering and/or recycling single 

refrigerants, azeotropes, zeotropic blends, and their normal contaminants from refrigerant 

systems. This standard defines the test apparatus, test gas mixtures, sampling procedures and 

analytical techniques that will be used to determine the performance of refrigerant recovery

and/or recycling equipment (hereinafter, “equipment”). Appendix B4 of this subpart establishes 

standards for recovery/recycling equipment used with flammable refrigerants.

Section 3. Definitions

3.1 Definitions. All terms in this appendix will follow the definitions in §82.152 unless 

otherwise defined in this appendix. 

3.2 Clearing Refrigerant. Procedures used to remove trapped refrigerant(s) from equipment 

before switching from one refrigerant to another. 

3.3 High Temperature Vapor Recovery Rate. For equipment having at least one designated 

refrigerant (see Section 11.2) with a boiling point in the range of −50 to +10 °C, the rate will be 

measured for R-22, or the lowest boiling point refrigerant if R-22 is not a designated refrigerant. 

3.4 Published Ratings. A statement of the assigned values of those performance characteristics, 

under stated rating conditions, by which a unit may be chosen to fit its application. These values 

apply to all units of like nominal size and type (identification) produced by the same 

manufacturer. As used herein, the term “published rating” includes the rating of all performance 
Internal, Deliberative- Do Not Release

287

characteristics shown on the unit or published in specifications, advertising, or other literature 

controlled by the manufacturer, at stated rating conditions. 

3.5 Push/Pull Method. The push/pull refrigerant recovery method is defined as the process of 

transferring liquid refrigerant from a refrigeration system to a receiving vessel by lowering the 

pressure in the vessel and raising the pressure in the system, and by connecting a separate line 

between the system liquid port and the receiving vessel. 

3.6 Recycle Flow Rate. The amount of refrigerant processed divided by the time elapsed in the 

recycling mode. For equipment which uses a separate recycling sequence, the recycle rate does 

not include the recovery rate (or elapsed time). For equipment which does not use a separate 

recycling sequence, the recycle rate is a rate based solely on the higher of the liquid or vapor 

recovery rate, by which the contaminant levels were measured.

3.7 Residual Trapped Refrigerant. Refrigerant remaining in equipment after clearing 

refrigerant.

3.8 Shall, Should, Recommended or It Is Recommended shall be interpreted as follows:

3.8.1 Shall. Where “shall” or “shall not” is used for a provision specified, that provision is 

mandatory if compliance with this appendix is claimed.

3.8.2 Should, Recommended or It Is Recommended is used to indicate provisions which are not 

mandatory but which are desirable as good practice.

3.9 Standard Contaminated Refrigerant Sample. A mixture of new or reclaimed refrigerant and 

specified quantities of identified contaminants which constitute the mixture to be processed by 

the equipment under test. These contaminant levels are expected only from severe service 

conditions.

3.10 Trapped Refrigerant. The amount of refrigerant remaining in the equipment after the 

recovery or recovery/recycling operation but before clearing refrigerant.

3.11 Vapor Recovery Rate. The average rate that refrigerant is withdrawn from the mixing 

chamber between two pressures as vapor recovery rate is changing depending on the pressure. 

The initial condition is vapor only at saturation pressure and temperature at either 24 °C or at the 

boiling point at 100 kPa, whichever is higher. The final pressure condition is 10% of the initial 

pressure, but not lower than the equipment final recovery vacuum and not higher than 100 kPa.

Section 4. General Equipment Requirements

4.1 Equipment Information. The equipment manufacturer shall provide operating instructions, 

necessary maintenance procedures, and source information for replacement parts and repair.
Internal, Deliberative- Do Not Release

288

4.2 Filter Replacement. The equipment shall indicate when any filter/drier(s) needs 

replacement. This requirement can be met by use of a moisture transducer and indicator light, by 

use of a sight glass/moisture indicator, or by some measurement of the amount of refrigerant 

processed such as a flow meter or hour meter. The equipment manufacturer must provide 

maximum quantity recycled or filter change interval in its written instructions.

4.3 Purge of Non-Condensable. If non-condensables are purged, the equipment shall either 

automatically purge non-condensables or provide an indicating means to guide the purge 

process. Recycling equipment must provide purge means.

4.4 Purge Loss. The total refrigerant loss due to purging non-condensables, draining oil, and 

clearing refrigerant (see Section 9.5) shall be less than 3% (by weight) of total processed 

refrigerant.

4.5 Permeation Rate. High pressure hose assemblies 5/8 in. (16 mm) nominal and smaller shall 

not exceed a permeation rate of 3.9 g/cm2/yr (internal surface) at a temperature of 48.8 °C. Hose 

assemblies that UL recognized as having passed ANSI/UL 1963 requirements shall be accepted 

without testing. See Section 7.1.4.

4.6 Clearing Trapped Refrigerant. For equipment rated for more than one refrigerant, the 

manufacturer shall provide a method and instructions which will accomplish connections and 

clearing within 15 minutes. Special equipment, other than a vacuum pump or manifold gauge set, 

shall be furnished. The clearing procedure shall not rely upon the storage cylinder below 

saturated pressure conditions at ambient temperature.

4.7 Temperature. The equipment shall be evaluated at 24 °C with additional limited evaluation 

at 40 °C. Normal operating conditions range from 10 °C to 40 °C.

4.8 Exemptions. Equipment intended for recovery only shall be exempt from Sections 4.2 and 

4.3. 

Section 5. Contaminated Refrigerants

5.1 Sample Characteristics. The standard contaminated refrigerant sample shall have the 

characteristics specified in Table 1, except as provided in Section 5.2. Testing shall be conducted 

at an ambient temperature of 24 °C ±1 °C except high temperature vapor recovery shall be 40 °C 

±1 °C.

5.2 Recovery-only Testing. Recovery equipment not rated for removal of contaminants shall be 

tested with new or reclaimed refrigerant. 
Internal, Deliberative- Do Not Release

289

Table 1– Standard Contaminated Refrigerant Samples 

R-11 R-12 R-13 R-22 R-23 R-113 R-114 R-123 R-124 R-134a R-500 R-502 R-503 R-401A R-401B R-402A

Moisture Content: ppm by 

Weight of Pure Refrigerant 100 80 30 200 30 100 85 200 200 200 200 200 30 200 200 200

Particulate Content: ppm by 

Weight of Pure Refrigerant1 80 80 N/A 80 N/A 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 N/A 80 80 80

Acid Content: ppm by 

Weight of Pure Refrigerant2 100 200 N/A 100 N/A 100 100 100 100 100 200 100 N/A 100 100 100

Oil (HBR) Content: % by 

Weight of Pure Refrigerant 20 5 N/A 5 N/A 20 20 20 5 5 5 5 N/A 5 5 5

Viscosity/Type3300/MO 150/MO N/A 300/MO N/A 300/MO 300/MO 300/MO 150/MO 150/MO 150/MO 150/MO N/A 150/AB 150/AB 150/AB

Non-Condensable Gases 

(Air Content): % by Volume N/A 3 3 3 3 N/A 3 N/A 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Table 1 (continued) – Standard Contaminated Refrigerant Samples 

R402BR404AR406AR407AR407BR407CR407DR408AR409AR410AR410BR411AR411BR417CR419BR422ER445AR-507 R508AR508B

Moisture Content: ppm by 

Weight of Pure Refrigerant 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 20 20

Particulate Content: ppm by 

Weight of Pure Refrigerant1 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 NA NA

Acid Content: ppm by 

Weight of Pure Refrigerant 2 100 100 200 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 NA NA

Oil (HBR) Content: % by 

Weight of Pure Refrigerant 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 NA NA

Viscosity/Type3 150/A

B

150/P

OE

150/A

B

150/P

OE

150/P

OE

150/P

OE

150/P

OE

150/M

O

150/M

O

150/P

OE

150/P

OE

150/M

O

150/M

O

150/P

OE

150/P

OE

150/P

OE

150/P

OE

150/P

OE NA NA

Non-Condensable Gases 

(Air Content): % by Volume 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

1 Particulate content shall consist of inert materials and shall comply with particulate requirements in Appendix B. 

2 Acid consists of 60% oleic acid and 40% hydrochloric acid on a total number basis.

3 POE = Polyoester, AB = Alkylbenzene, MO = Mineral Oil.

4 NA = Not Applicable.
Internal, Deliberative- Do Not Release

290

Section 6. Test Apparatus

6.1 General Recommendations. The recommended test apparatus is described in the following 

paragraphs. If alternate test apparatus are employed, the user shall be able to demonstrate that 

they produce results equivalent to the specified reference apparatus. 

6.2 Self-Contained Equipment Test Apparatus. The apparatus, shown in Figure 1, shall consist 

of: 

6.2.1 Mixing Chamber. A mixing chamber consisting of a tank with a conical-shaped bottom, a 

bottom port and piping for delivering refrigerant to the equipment, various ports and valves for 

adding refrigerant to the chamber, and stirring means for mixing. 

6.2.2 Filling Storage Cylinder. The storage cylinder to be filled by the refrigerant transferred 

shall be cleaned and at the pressure of the recovered refrigerant at the beginning of the test. It 

will not be filled over 80%, by volume. 

6.2.3 Vapor Feed. Vapor refrigerant feed consisting of evaporator, control valves and piping to 

create a 3.0 °C superheat condition at an evaporating temperature of 21 °C ±2 °C. 

6.2.4 Alternative Vapor Feed. An alternative method for vapor feed shall be to pass the 

refrigerant through a boiler and then through an automatic pressure regulating valve set at 

different saturation pressures, moving from saturated pressure at 24 °C to final pressure of 

recovery. 

6.2.5 Liquid Feed. Liquid refrigerant feed consisting of control valves, sampling port, and 

piping. 

6.2.6 Instrumentation. Instrumentation capable of measuring weight, temperature, pressure, and 

refrigerant loss, as required. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 291 of 320

6.3 Size. The size of the mixing chamber and filling storage cylinder used during testing shall 

correspond to the size of the equipment being tested per Section 6.3.1 or 6.3.2: 

6.3.1 For equipment utilizing nominal 1/4” or 3/8” flare ports and hoses, the mixing chamber 

shall be 0.09 m3and all ports, valves, mixing valves, and piping shall be 1/2” or larger, reduced 

down to the port size of the equipment by fittings at the connection ports of the mixing chamber. 

The filling storage cylinder used during testing shall be a nominal 50-pound water capacity DOT 

4Bx cylinder with 1/4" flare liquid and vapor ports.

6.3.2 For equipment utilizing 1/2” or larger flare ports and hoses, the mixing chamber shall be 

0.45 m3(or nominal 1000-pound water capacity DOT 4Bx cylinder) and all ports, valves, mixing 

valves, and piping shall be 1-1/2” or larger, reduced down to the port size of the equipment by

fittings at the connection ports of the mixing chamber. The filling storage cylinder used during 

testing shall be a nominal 1000-pound water capacity DOT 4Bx cylinder with liquid and vapor 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 292 of 320

ports, valves and piping sized 3/4” NPT and reduced or increased to the port size of the 

equipment by fittings at the connection ports of the filling storage cylinder.

6.4 System Dependent Equipment Test Apparatus. This test apparatus is to be used for final 

recovery vacuum rating of all system dependent equipment. 

6.4.1 Test Setup. The test apparatus shown in Figure 2 consists of a complete refrigeration 

system. The manufacturer shall identify the refrigerants to be tested. The test apparatus can be 

modified to facilitate operation or testing of the system dependent equipment if the modifications 

to the apparatus are specifically described within the manufacturer's literature. A 6.3 mm balance 

line shall be connected across the test apparatus between the high- and low-pressure sides, with 

an isolation valve located at the connection to the compressor high side. A 6.3 mm access port 

with a valve core shall be located in the balance line for the purpose of measuring final recovery

vacuum at the conclusion of the test. 

Figure 2. System Dependent Equipment Test Apparatus
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 293 of 320

Section 7. Performance Testing Procedures

7.1 General Testing.

7.1.1 Temperatures. Testing shall be conducted at an ambient temperature of 24 °C ± 1°C 

except high temperature vapor recovery shall be at 40 °C ± 1°C. The evaporator conditions of 

Section 6.2.3 shall be maintained as long as liquid refrigerant remains in the mixing chamber. 

7.1.2 Refrigerants. The equipment shall be tested for all designated refrigerants (see Section 

11.2). All tests in Section 7 shall be completed for each refrigerant before starting tests with the 

next refrigerant. 

7.1.3 Selected Tests. Tests shall be as appropriate for the equipment type and ratings parameters 

selected (see Sections 9.9, 11.1 and 11.2). 

7.1.4 Hose Assemblies. For the purpose of limiting refrigerant emissions to the atmosphere, 

hose assemblies shall be tested for permeation according to ANSI/UL Standard 1963. 

7.2 Equipment Preparation and Operation. The equipment shall be prepared and operated per 

the operating instructions. 

7.3 Test Batch. The test batch consisting of refrigerant sample (see Section 5) of the test 

refrigerant shall be prepared and thoroughly mixed. Continued mixing or stirring shall be 

required during the test while liquid refrigerant remains in the mixing chamber. The mixing 

chamber shall be filled to 80% level by volume. 

7.3.1 Control Test Batch. Prior to starting the test for the first batch for each refrigerant, a liquid 

sample will be drawn from the mixing chamber and analyzed per Section 8 to assure that 

contaminant levels match Table 1 within ±10 ppm for moisture, ±20 ppm for oleic acid and 

±0.5% for oil. 

7.4 Recovery Tests (Recovery and Recovery/Recycling Equipment)

7.4.1 Determining Recovery Rates. The liquid and vapor refrigerant recovery rates shall be 

measured during the first test batch for each refrigerant (see Sections 9.1, 9.2 and 9.4). 

Equipment preparation and recovery cylinder changeover shall not be included in elapsed time 

measurements for determining vapor recovery rate and liquid refrigerant recovery rate. 

Operations such as subcooling the recovery cylinder shall be included. The recovery cylinder 

shall be the same size as per Section 6.3 or as furnished by the equipment manufacturer. 

Oversized tanks shall not be permitted. 

7.4.1.1 Liquid Refrigerant Recovery Rate. If elected, the recovery rate using the liquid 

refrigerant feed means (see Section 6.2.5) shall be determined. After the equipment reaches 

stabilized conditions of condensing temperature and/or recovery cylinder pressure, the recovery

process shall be stopped and an initial weight shall be taken of the mixing chamber (see Section 

9.2). The recovery process shall be continued for a period of time sufficient to achieve the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 294 of 320

accuracy in Section 9.4. The recovery process shall be stopped and a final weight of the mixing 

chamber shall be taken. 

7.4.1.2 Vapor Refrigerant Recovery Rate. If elected, the average vapor flow rate shall be 

measured to accuracy requirements in Section 9.4 under conditions with no liquid refrigerant in 

the mixing chamber. The liquid recovery feed means shall be used. At initial conditions of 

saturated vapor at the higher of 24 °C or the boiling temperature (100 kPa), the weight of the 

mixing chamber and the pressure shall be recorded. At final conditions representing pressure in 

the mixing chamber of 10% of the initial condition, but not less than the final recovery vacuum 

(see Section 9.6) nor more than 100 kPa, measure the weight of the mixing chamber and the 

elapsed time. At initial conditions, the recovery cylinder shall be at saturation pressure at 

ambient conditions.

7.4.1.3 High Temperature Vapor Recovery Rate. This is applicable for equipment having at 

least one designated refrigerant (see Section 11.2) with a boiling point between −50 °C and +10 

°C. Measure the rate for R-22, or the refrigerant with the lowest boiling point if R-22 is not a 

designated refrigerant. Repeat the test in Section 7.4.1.2 at saturated conditions at 40 °C and 

continue to operate equipment to assure it will operate at this condition (see Section 7.4.3). At 

initial conditions, the recovery cylinder shall be at saturated pressure at 40 °C.

7.4.1.4 Push/Pull Liquid Refrigerant Recovery Rate. If elected, the average liquid push/pull flow 

rate shall be measured to accuracy requirements in Section 9.4. The mixing chamber and filling 

storage cylinder shall be filled with refrigerant vapor at initial conditions of saturated vapor at 

the higher of 24 °C or the boiling temperature at 100 kPa. An amount of liquid refrigerant shall 

be added to the mixing chamber equivalent to 80% by weight of the capacity of the filling 

storage cylinder. The pressure between the mixing chamber and filling storage cylinder shall be 

equalized and stabilized at initial conditions of saturated vapor at the higher of 24 °C or the 

boiling temperature at 100 kPa. The initial weight of the mixing chamber and the pressure shall 

be recorded. The equipment is then operated in push/pull recovery mode and the weight change 

of the mixing chamber is recorded over time until all of the liquid has been transferred.

7.4.2 Recovery Operation. This test is for determining the final recovery vacuum and the ability

to remove contaminants as appropriate. If equipment is rated for liquid recovery (see Section 

7.4.1.3), liquid recovery feed means described in Section 6.2.5 shall be used. If not, vapor 

recovery means described in Sections 6.2.3 or 6.2.4 shall be used. Continue recovery operation 

until all liquid is removed from the test apparatus and vapor is removed to the point where 

equipment shuts down by automatic means or is manually shut off per operating instructions. 

7.4.2.1 Oil Draining. Capture oil from the equipment at intervals as required in the instructions. 

Record the weight of the container. Completely remove refrigerant from oil by evacuation or 

other appropriate means. The weight difference shall be used in Section 7.5.2. 

7.4.3 Final Recovery Vacuum. At the end of the first test batch for each refrigerant, the liquid 

valve and vapor valve of the apparatus shall be closed. After waiting 1 minute, the mixing 

chamber pressure shall be recorded (see Section 9.6). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 295 of 320

7.4.4 Residual Refrigerant. This test will measure the mass of remaining refrigerant in the 

equipment after clearing and therefore the extent of mixing different refrigerants (see Section 

9.6). 

7.4.4.1 Initial Conditions. At the end of the last test for each batch for each refrigerant, the 

equipment shall be disconnected from the test apparatus (Figure 1). Recycle per Section 7.5, if 

appropriate. Perform refrigerant clearing operations as called for in the instruction manual. 

Capture and record the weight of any refrigerant which would have been emitted to the 

atmosphere during the clearing process for use in Section 9.5. If two loops are used for recycling, 

trapped refrigerant shall be measured for both. 

7.4.4.2 Residual Trapped Refrigerant. Evacuate an empty test cylinder to 1.0 kPa. Record the 

empty weight of the test cylinder. Open all valves to the equipment so as to provide access to all 

trapped refrigerant. Connect the equipment to the test cylinder and operate valves to recover the 

residual refrigerant. Record the weight of the test cylinder using a recovery cylinder pressure no 

less than specified in Section 6.2.2. Place the test cylinder in liquid nitrogen for a period of 30 

minutes or until a vacuum of 1000 microns is reached, whichever occurs first. 

7.5 Recycling Tests (Recovery/Recycling Equipment).

7.5.1 Recycling Operation. As each recovery cylinder is filled in Section 7.4.2, recycle 

according to operating instructions. There will not necessarily be a separate recycling sequence. 

Note non-condensable purge measurement in Section 9.5. 

7.5.1.1 Recycle Flow Rate. While recycling the first recovery cylinder for each refrigerant, 

determine the recycling flow rate by appropriate means (see Section 9.3) to achieve the accuracy

required in Section 9.4. 

7.5.2 Non-Condensable Sample. After completing Section 7.4.3, prepare a second test batch 

(see Section 7.3). Recover per Section 7.4.2 until the current recovery cylinder is filled to 80% 

level by volume. Recycle per Section 7.5.1. Mark this cylinder and set aside for taking the vapor 

sample. For equipment having both an internal tank of at least 3 kg refrigerant capacity and an 

external recovery cylinder, two recovery cylinders shall be marked and set aside. The first is the 

cylinder described above. The second cylinder is the final recovery cylinder after filling it to 

80% level by volume and recycling. 

7.5.2.1 Push/Pull Liquid Refrigerant Recovery Rate. This rate shall be measured by weight 

change of the mixing chamber divided by elapsed time (see Section 7.4.1.4). The units shall be 

kg/min and the accuracy shall be per Section 9.4. 

7.5.3 Liquid Sample for Analysis. Repeat steps in Sections 7.3, 7.4.2 and 7.5.1 with further test 

batches until indication means in Section 4.2 show the filter/drier(s) need replacing. 

7.5.3.1 Multiple Pass. For equipment with a separate recycling circuit (multiple pass), set aside 

the current cylinder and draw the liquid sample (see Section 7.4) from the previous cylinder. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 296 of 320

7.5.3.2 Single Pass. For equipment with the single pass recycling circuit, draw the liquid 

sample (see Section 7.4) from the current cylinder. 

7.6 Measuring Refrigerant Loss. Refrigerant loss due to non-condensables shall be determined 

by appropriate means (see Section 9.5.1). The loss could occur in Sections 7.4.1, 7.4.2 and 7.5.1. 

Section 8. Sampling and Chemical Analysis Methods

8.1 Chemical Analysis. Chemical analysis methods shall be specified in appropriate standards 

such as AHRI Standard 700, Appendix C to AHRI Standard 700, and Addendum 700-1 to 

Appendix C. If alternate test methods are employed, the laboratory must be able to demonstrate 

that they produce results equivalent to the specified referee method.

8.2 Refrigerant Sampling.

8.2.1 Moisture Content. The water content in refrigerant shall be measured by the Karl Fischer 

Coulometric Titration technique. Report the moisture level in parts per million by weight. 

8.2.2 Chloride Ions. Chloride ions shall be measured by turbidity tests. At this time, 

quantitative results have not been defined. Report chloride content as “pass” or “fail.” In the 

future, when quantitative results are possible, report chloride content as parts per million by

weight. 

8.2.3 Acid Content. The acidity test uses the titration principle. Report the acidity in parts per 

million by weight (mg KOH/kg) of sample. 

8.2.4 High Boiling Residue. High boiling residues shall use measurement of the volume of 

residue after evaporating a standard volume of refrigerant. Using weight measurement and 

converting to volumetric units is acceptable. Report high boiling residues as percent by volume. 

8.2.5 Particulates/Solids. The particulates/solids measurement employs visual examination. 

Report results as “pass” or “fail.” 

8.2.6 Non-condensables. The level of contamination by non-condensable gases in the base 

refrigerant being recycled shall be determined by gas chromatography. Report results as percent 

by volume. 

Section 9. Performance Calculations for Ratings

9.1 Vapor Refrigerant Recovery Rate. This rate shall be measured by weight change of the 

mixing chamber divided by elapsed time (see 7.4.1.2). The units shall be kg/min and the 

accuracy shall be per Section 9.4. 

9.1.1 High Temperature Vapor Recovery Rate. This rate shall be measured by measured weight 

change of the mixing chamber divided by elapsed time (see Section 7.4.1.3). The units shall be 

kg/min and the accuracy shall be per Section 9.4.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 297 of 320

9.2 Liquid Refrigerant Recovery Rate. This rate shall be measured by weight change of the 

mixing chamber divided by elapsed time (see 7.4.1.3). The units shall be kg/min and the 

accuracy shall be per Section 9.4. 

9.3 Recycle Flow Rate. The recycle flow rate shall be as defined in Section 3.12, expressed in 

kg/min, and the accuracy shall be per Section 9.4. 

9.3.1 For equipment using multi-pass recycling or a separate sequence, the recycle rate shall be 

determined by dividing the net weight, W, of the refrigerant to be recycled by the actual time T 

required to recycle. Any set-up or operator interruptions shall not be included in the time T. 

9.3.2 If no separate recycling sequence is used, the recycle rate shall be the higher of the vapor 

refrigerant recovery rate or the liquid refrigerant recovery rate. The recycle rate shall match a 

process which leads to contaminant levels in Section 9.9. Specifically, a recovery rate 

determined from bypassing a contaminant removal device cannot be used as a recycle rate when 

the contaminant levels in Section 9.9 are determined by passing the refrigerant through the 

contaminant removal device. 

9.4 Accuracy of Flow Rates. The accuracy of test measurements in Sections 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 

shall be ±008 kg/min for flow rates up to 0.42 kg/min and ±2.0% for flow rates larger than 0.42 

kg/min. Ratings shall be expressed to the nearest 0.02 kg/min. 

9.5 Refrigerant Loss. This calculation will be based upon the net loss of refrigerant which 

would have been eliminated in the non-condensable purge process (see Section 7.5.1), the oil 

draining process (see Section 7.4.2.1) and the refrigerant clearing process (see Section 7.4.4.1), 

all divided by the net refrigerant content of the test batches. The refrigerant loss shall not exceed 

3% by weight. 

9.5.1 Non-Condensable Purge. Evacuate an empty container to 2 kPa. Record the empty weight 

of the container. Place the container in a dry ice bath. Connect the equipment purge connection 

to the container and operate purge according to operating instructions so as to capture the noncondensables and lost refrigerant. Weigh the cylinder after the recycling is complete. Equivalent 

means are permissible. 

For units which either recycle or list non-condensable removal, non-condensable gases are 

purged, operating the recycle device per the manufacturer’s instructions through an evaporator 

pressure regulator (EPR) valve into a liquid nitrogen-chilled cylinder. This combination will 

simulate the atmosphere while allowing the capture of purge gases. The cylinder is weighed 

before and after the purge procedure.

9.5.2 Oil Draining. Refrigerant removed from the oil after draining shall be collected and 

measured in accordance with Section 7.4.2.1. 

9.5.3 Clearing Unit. Refrigerant captured during the clearing process shall be measured in 

accordance with Section 7.4.4.1. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 298 of 320

9.6 Final Recovery Vacuum. The final recovery vacuum shall be the mixing chamber pressure 

in Section 7.4.3 expressed in kPa at 24 °C. The accuracy of the measurement shall be within 0.33 

kPa. 

9.7 Residual Trapped Refrigerant. The amount of residual trapped refrigerant shall be the final 

weight minus the initial weight of the test cylinder in Section 7.4.4.2, expressed in kg. The 

accuracy shall be ±0.02 kg and reported to the nearest 0.05 kg. 

9.8 Refrigerant Processed. The amount of refrigerant processed before changing filters (see

Section 7.5.3) shall be expressed in kg to an accuracy of ±1%.

9.9 Contaminant Levels. The contaminant levels remaining after testing shall be published as 

follows: 

Moisture content, ppm by weight 

Chloride ions, pass/fail 

Acid Content, ppm by weight 

High boiling residue, % (by volume) 

Particulates/solids, pass/fail (visual examination) 

Non-condensables, % (by volume) 

9.10 Minimum Data Requirements for Published Ratings. Published ratings shall include all of 

the parameters as shown in Tables 2 and 3 for each refrigerant designated by the manufacturer. 

Section 10. Tolerances

10.1 Tolerances. Performance related parameters shall be equal to or better than the published 

ratings. 

Section 11. Marking and Nameplate Data

11.1 Marking and Nameplate Data. The nameplate shall display the manufacturer's name, 

model designation, type of equipment (Recovery or Recovery/Recycling and Self-Contained or 

System Dependent), designated refrigerant(s), capacities, and electrical characteristics where 

applicable. The nameplate shall also conform to the labeling requirements established for 

certified recycling and recovery equipment established at 40 CFR 82.158(h). 

Recommended nameplate voltages for 60 Hertz systems shall include one or more of the 

equipment nameplate voltages shown in Table 1 of ANSI/AHRI Standard 110. Recommended 

nameplate voltages for 50 Hertz systems shall include one or more of the utilization voltages 

shown in Table 1 of IEC Standard Publication 60038, IEC Standard Voltages. 

11.2 Data for Designated Refrigerants. For each refrigerant designated, the manufacturer shall 

include all the following that are applicable per Table 2:

a. Liquid Recovery Rate, kg/min 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 299 of 320

b. Vapor Recovery Rate, kg/min 

c. High Temperature Vapor Recovery Rate, kg/min 

d. Push/Pull Liquid Recovery Rate, kg/min

e. Final Recovery Vacuum Level, kPa 

f. Recycle Flow Rate, kg/min 

g. Refrigerant Loss, kg

h. Residual Trapped Refrigerant, kg 

i. Quantity of Refrigerant Processed at Rated Conditions, kg

Table 2—Performance Ratings for Refrigerant Recovery and Recovery/Recycling Equipment4,5

Parameter 

Type of Equipment

Recovery Recovery/ 

Recycling Recycling

System

Dependent

Equipment

Liquid Refrigerant Recovery Rate, kg/min X

1 X1 N/A N/A

Vapor Refrigerant Recovery Rate, kg/min X

1 X1 N/A N/A

High Temperature Vapor Recovery Rate, kg/min X

1 X1 N/A N/A

Push/Pull Liquid Recovery Rate, kg/min X

1 X1 N/A N/A

Final Recovery Vacuum Level, kPa X X N/A X

Recycle Flow Rate, kg/min N/A X X N/A

Refrigerant Loss, kg X

2 X X X3

Residual Trapped Refrigerant, kg X

3 X2 X2 X2

Quantity of Refrigerant Processed at Rated Conditions, 

kg N/A X X N/A

1 For a recovery or recovery/recycle unit, one must rate either liquid refrigerant recovery rate or vapor refrigerant 

recovery rate or one can rate for both. If rating only one, the other shall be indicated by N/A, “not applicable.” 

2 Mandatory rating if multiple refrigerants, oil separation or non-condensable purge are rated.

3 Mandatory rating for equipment tested for multiple refrigerants. 

4 “X” denotes mandatory rating or equipment requirements.

5 “N/A” indicates “Not Applicable” for a parameter that does not have a rating.

Table 3—Contaminant Removal Ratings for Refrigerant Recovery and Recovery/Recycling 

Equipment1,2

Contaminant 

Type of Equipment

Recovery Recovery/ 

Recycling Recycling 

System

Dependent

Equipment 

Moisture Content, ppm by weight N/A X X N/A

Chloride Ions, pass/fail N/A X X N/A

Acid Content, ppm by weight N/A X X N/A
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 300 of 320

High Boiling Residue, % by volume N/A X X N/A

Particulates/solids, pass/fail N/A X X N/A

Non-Condensables, % by volume N/A X X N/A

1

“X” denotes mandatory rating.

2

“N/A” indicates “Not Applicable.” 

ATTACHMENT 1 TO APPENDIX B3 TO SUBPART F OF PART 82—REFERENCES

Listed here are all standards, handbooks, and other publications essential to the formation and 

implementation of the standard. All references in this appendix are considered as part of this 

standard. 

• ANSI/UL Standard 1963, Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment, First Edition, 2011, 

American National Standards Institute/Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. 

• ANSI/AHRI Standard 110-2012, Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigerating Equipment 

Nameplate Voltages, 2012, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute 

• AHRI Standard 700-2015, Specifications for Refrigerants, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute 

• ASHRAE Terminology, https://www.ashrae.org/resources--publications/free-resources/ashraeterminology, 2014, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers, Inc.

• International Standard IEC 60038, IEC Standard Voltages, 2009, International 

Electrotechnical Commission 

ATTACHMENT 2 TO APPENDIX B3 TO SUBPART F OF PART 82-PARTICULATE USED 

IN STANDARD CONTAMINATED REFRIGERANT SAMPLE

1. Particulate Specification

B1.1 The particulate material (pm) will be a blend of 50% coarse air cleaner dust as received, 

and 50% retained on a 200-mesh screen. The coarse air cleaner dust is available from: AC Spark 

Plug Division; General Motors Corporation; Flint, Michigan. 

B1.2 Preparation of Particulate Materials. To prepare the blend of contaminant per ASHRAE 

Standard 63.2, first wet screen a quantity of coarse air cleaner dust on a 200-mesh screen 

(particle retention 74 μm). This is done by placing a portion of the dust on a 200-mesh screen 

and running water through the screen while stirring the dust with the fingers. The fine 

contaminant particles passing through the screen are discarded. The larger than 200-mesh 

particles collected on the screen are removed and dried for one hour at 110 °C. The blend of 

standard contaminant is prepared by mixing 50% by weight of coarse air cleaner dust as received 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 301 of 320

(after drying for one hour at 110 °C) with 50% by weight of the larger than 200-mesh screened 

dust. 

B1.3 Particle Size Analysis. The coarse air cleaner dust as received and the blend used as the 

standard contaminant have the following approximate particle size analysis: 

Table B1 – Weight Percentage in Various μm Size Ranges for Particle Size Analysis

Size Range (μm) As Received (wt %) Blend (wt %)

0-5 12 6

5-10 12 6

10-20 14 7

20-40 23 11

40-80 30 32

80-200 9 38
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 302 of 320

16. Amend subpart F by adding appendix B4 to read as follows:

APPENDIX B4 TO SUBPART F OF PART 82—PERFORMANCE AND SAFETY OF 

FLAMMABLE REFRIGERANT RECOVERY AND/OR RECYCLING EQUIPMENT

This appendix is based on the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute Standard 

740-2015, Performance Rating of Refrigerant Recovery Equipment and Recovery/Recycling 

Equipment, and Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1963 (Fourth Edition), Standard for Safety: 

Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment, including Supplement SB (added October 11, 2013), 

Requirements for Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment Intended for Use with a 

Flammable Refrigerant. 

Section 1. Purpose

1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to establish methods of testing for rating and 

evaluating the performance and safety of refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment and 

general equipment requirements (herein referred to as “equipment”) for contaminant or purity

levels, capacity, speed and purge loss to minimize emission into the atmosphere of designated 

refrigerants, as well as safety for use with flammable refrigerants. 

Section 2. Scope

2.1 Scope. This standard applies to equipment for recovering and/or recycling flammable single 

refrigerants, azeotropes, zeotropic blends, and their normal contaminants from refrigerant 

systems. This standard defines the test apparatus, test gas mixtures, sampling procedures, 

analytical techniques, and equipment construction that will be used to determine the performance 

and safety of refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment (hereinafter, “equipment”). 

Section 3. Definitions

3.1 Definitions. All terms in this appendix will follow the definitions in §82.152 and Appendix 

B3 to Subpart F of Part 82 unless otherwise defined in this appendix. 

3.2 All definitions used in appendix B3 of 40 CFR part 82, subpart F are incorporated by

reference.

3.3 All definitions used in Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1963 (Fourth Edition), Standard 

for Safety: Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment as applicable, are incorporated by

reference.

3.4 All definitions used in Supplement SB (added October 11, 2013), Requirements for

Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment Intended for Use with a Flammable Refrigerant in 

Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1963 (Fourth Edition), Standard for Safety: Refrigerant 

Recovery/Recycling Equipment, are incorporated by reference.

Section 4. Evaluation of Performance 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 303 of 320

4.1 Performance Ratings. All recovery and/or recycling equipment to be tested under this 

appendix must follow the procedures and meet all requirements established in Appendix B3 to 

Subpart F of Part 82 to determine the performance ratings in addition to the safety evaluation 

conducted under the rest of this appendix. 

4.2 Safety. All recovery and/or recycling equipment to be tested under this appendix must 

follow the procedures and meet all requirements in Supplement SB (added October 11, 2013), 

Requirements for Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment Intended for Use with a 

Flammable Refrigerant in Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1963 (Fourth Edition), Standard 

for Safety: Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 304 of 320

17. Amend subpart F by revising appendix D to read as follows:

APPENDIX D TO SUBPART F OF PART 82—STANDARDS FOR BECOMING A 

CERTIFYING PROGRAM FOR TECHNICIANS

a. Test Preparation

Technicians must pass an EPA-approved test, provided by an EPA-approved certifying program 

to be certified as a Type I technician. Organizations providing Type I certification only may 

choose either an on-site format or a mail-in format similar to what is permitted under the 

MVACs program. 

Technicians must pass a closed-book, proctored test, administered in a secure environment, by an 

EPA-approved certifying program to be certified as a Type II or Type III technician. 

Technicians must pass a closed-book, proctored test (or series of tests), administered in a secure 

environment, by an EPA-approved certifying program to be certified as a Universal technician. 

Mail-in format Type I tests cannot be used toward a Universal certification.

Each certifying program must assemble tests by choosing a prescribed subset from the EPA test 

bank. EPA will have a test bank with more questions than are needed for an individual test, 

which will enable the certifying program to generate multiple tests in order to discourage 

cheating. Each test must include 25 questions drawn from Group 1 and 25 questions drawn from 

each relevant technical Group. Tests for Universal technicians will include 100 questions (25 

from Group 1 and 25 from each relevant technical Group). Universal tests may be taken all at 

once, or by combining passing scores on separate Type I, Type II, and Type III tests. Questions 

should be divided in order to sufficiently cover each topic within the Group. 

Certifying programs must provide a paper hand-out or electronic form of communication to 

technicians after they have completed their certification test that contains the following 

information: 

- which certifying program is providing the testing;

- contact information for the certifying program;

- the name and contact information of the proctor; and

- when they should expect to receive their score and, if they passed, their certification card. 

Each certifying program must show a method of randomly choosing which questions will be on 

the tests. Multiple versions of the test must be used during each testing event. Test answer sheets 

must include the name and address of the applicant, the name and address of the certifying 

program, and the date and location at which the test was administered. 

Training material accompanying mail-in Type I tests must not include sample test questions 

mimicking the language of the certification test. All mail-in material will be subject to review by 

EPA. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 305 of 320

Certifying programs may charge individuals reasonable fees for the administration of the tests. 

EPA will publish a list of all approved certifying programs.

b. Proctoring 

A certifying program for Type I (if in-person), Type II, Type III, and Universal technicians must 

designate at least one proctor registered for every 50 people taking tests at the same time at a 

given site. 

The certification test for Type I (if taken as part of a Universal certification), Type II, Type III, 

and Universal technicians is a closed-book exam. The proctors must ensure that the applicants 

for certification do not use any notes or training materials during testing. Desks or work space 

must be placed in a way that discourages cheating. The space and physical facilities are to be 

conducive to continuous surveillance by the proctors and monitors during testing. 

The proctor may not receive any benefit from the outcome of the testing other than a fee for 

proctoring. Proctors cannot know in advance which questions are on the tests they are proctoring. 

Proctors are required to verify the identity of individuals taking the test by examining photo 

identification. Acceptable forms of identification include but are not limited to drivers' licenses, 

government identification cards, passports, and military identification. 

Certifying programs for Type I technicians using the mail-in format, must take sufficient 

measures at the test site to ensure that tests are completed honestly by each technician. Each test 

for Type I certification must provide a means of verifying the identification of the individual 

taking the test. Acceptable forms of identification include but are not limited to drivers' licenses 

and passports. 

c. Test Security 

A certifying program must demonstrate the ability to ensure the confidentiality and security of 

the test questions and answer keys through strict accountability procedures. An organization 

interested in developing a technician certification program will be required to describe these test 

security procedures to EPA. 

After the completion of a test, proctors must collect all test forms, answer sheets, scratch paper 

and notes. These items are to be placed in a sealed envelope. 

d. Test Content 

All Type I, Type II, Type III, and Universal certification tests will include 25 questions from 

Group I. Group I will ask questions in the following areas: 

I. Environmental impact of CFCs, HCFCs, and substitute refrigerants

II. Laws and regulations 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 306 of 320

III. Changing industry outlook 

Type I, Type II and Type III certification tests will also include 25 questions from Group II. 

Group II will ask questions covering sector-specific issues in the following areas: 

IV. Leak detection 

V. Recovery Techniques 

VI. Safety 

VII. Shipping 

VIII. Disposal 

Universal certification tests will include 75 questions from Group II, with 25 from each of the 

three sector-specific areas. This is in addition to the 25 questions from Group I.

e. Grading 

Tests must be graded objectively. Certifying programs must inform the applicant of their test 

results no later than 30 days from the date of the test. Type I certifying programs using the mailin format must notify the applicants of their test results no later than 30 days from the date the 

certifying programs received the completed test and any required documentation. 

The passing score for the closed-book Type I, Type II, Type III and Universal certification test is 

70 percent. The passing score for Type I certification tests using the mail-in format is 84 percent. 

f. Proof of Certification 

Certifying programs must issue a standard wallet-sized identification card no later than 30 days 

from the date of the test. Type I certifying programs using mail-in formats must issue cards to 

certified technicians no later than 30 days from the date the certifying program receives the 

completed test and any required documentation. 

Each wallet-sized identification card must include, at a minimum, the name of the certifying 

program including the date the certifying program received EPA approval, the name of the 

person certified, the type of certification, a unique number for the certified person that does not 

include a technician’s social security number, and the following text: 

[name of person] has successfully passed a [Type I, Type II, Type III and/or Universal—as 

appropriate] exam on how to responsibly handle refrigerants as required by EPA’s National 

Recycling and Emissions Reduction Program. 

g. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 307 of 320

Certifying programs must maintain records of the names and addresses of all individuals taking 

the tests, the scores of all certification tests administered, and the dates and locations of all tests 

administered. These records must be maintained indefinitely, unless transferred to another 

certifying program or EPA.

EPA must receive an activity report from all approved certifying programs by every January 30 

and July 30, which covers the previous six months of certifications. The first report must be 

submitted following the first full six-month period for which the program has been approved by

EPA. This report includes the pass/fail rate and testing schedules. If the certifying program 

believes a test bank question needs to be modified, information about that question should also 

be included. 

Approved certifying programs will receive a letter of approval from EPA. Each testing center 

must display a copy of that letter at their place of business. 

Approved technician certification programs that voluntarily plan to stop providing the 

certification test must forward all records required by this appendix and §82.161 to another 

program currently approved by EPA in accordance with this appendix and with §82.161. 

Approved technician certification programs that receive records of certified technicians from a 

program that no longer offers the certification test, and the program that is voluntarily

withdrawing from being a technician certification program must inform EPA in writing at the 

address listed in §82.160 within 30 days of receiving or transferring these records. The 

notification must include the name and address of the program to which the records have been 

transferred. If another currently approved program willing to accept the records cannot be 

located, these records must be submitted to EPA at the address listed at §82.160. 

Technician certification programs that have had their certification revoked in accordance with 

§82.169 must forward all records required by this appendix and §82.161 to EPA at the address 

listed in §82.160. Failure to do so is a violation of 40 CFR part 82, subpart F.

h. Additional Requirements 

EPA may periodically inspect testing sites to ensure compliance with EPA regulations. If testing 

center discrepancies are found, they must be corrected within a specified time period. If 

discrepancies are not corrected, EPA may suspend or revoke the certifying program's approval. 

The inspections will include but are not limited to a review of the certifying program’s 

provisions for test security, the availability of space and facilities to conduct the administrative 

requirements and ensure the security of the tests, the availability of adequate testing facilities and 

spacing of the applicants during testing, a review of the proper procedures regarding 

accountability, and that there is no evidence of misconduct on the part of the certifying 

programs, their representatives and proctors, or the applicants for certification. 

If the certifying programs offer training or provide review materials to the applicants, these 

endeavors are to be considered completely separate from the administration of the certification 

test. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 308 of 320

18. Amend subpart F by adding appendix E to read as follows:

APPENDIX E TO SUBPART F OF PART 82—TEST PROCEDURE FOR LEAKS FROM 

CONTAINERS HOLDING TWO POUNDS OR LESS OF REFRIGERANT FOR USE IN 

AN MVAC

This appendix is based on the California Air Resources Board (CARB) standard TP-503: Test 

Procedure for Leaks from Small Cans of Automotive Refrigerant, as amended on January 5, 

2010; and CARB standard BP-A1: Balance Protocol for Gravimetric Determination of Sample 

Weights using a Precision Balance, as amended January 5, 2010.

Section 1. Applicability

This test procedure is used by manufacturers of containers holding two pounds or less of 

refrigerant for use in a motor vehicle air conditioner (MVAC) to determine the leakage rate of 

small containers of automotive refrigerant that are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 82, 

subpart F. Specifically, this test procedure will specify the equipment, procedures, and 

calculations to determine if a container holding two pounds or less of refrigerant for use in an 

MVAC complies with the leakage rate specified in §82.154(c)(2)(ii). All terms in this appendix 

will follow the definitions in §82.152 unless otherwise defined in this appendix.

All containers holding two pounds or less of refrigerant for use in an MVAC must comply with 

other applicable codes and regulations such as local, state, or Federal safety codes and 

regulations.

This test procedure involves the use of materials under pressure and operations and should only

be used by or under the supervision of those familiar and experienced in the use of such 

materials and operations. Appropriate safety precautions should be observed at all times while 

performing this test procedure.

Section 2. Principle and Summary of Test Procedure

This procedure is used to determine the leakage rate of containers holding two pounds or less of 

refrigerant for use in an MVAC (small cans). Testing will involve subjecting both full and 

partially empty cans in both upright and inverted positions at two temperatures: 73 °F and 130 

°F.

Thirty small cans are tested under each condition for a total of 240 small cans tested. Small cans 

are brought to temperature stability, weighed, then stored for 30 days under specified conditions 

of temperature, orientation, and state of fill, then re-weighed. Leakage rate (grams/year) is 

estimated by (weight loss in grams) x 365 / (days duration). The leakage rate is then compared to 

a standard of 3.00 grams/year to determine if a given small can complies with the leakage rate 

specified in §82.154(c)(2)(ii). 

Section 3. Biases and Interferences
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 309 of 320

3.1 Contaminants on the operator’s hands can affect the weight of the small can and the ability

of the small can to absorb moisture. To avoid contamination of the small can, the balance 

operator should wear gloves while handling the small cans.

3.2 Weight determinations can be interfered with by moisture condensing on the small can and 

by thermal currents generated by temperature differences between the small can and the room 

temperature. The small cans cool during discharge and could cause condensation. For these 

reasons, small cans must be equilibrated to balance room temperature for at least four hours 

before weighing.

3.3 Variations in the temperature, pressure, and humidity of the ambient air will cause variations 

in the buoyancy of the small can. These variations should typically be less than 25 mg for a small 

can. If the small can is not leaking at all, then the uncorrected weight changes will be within the 

range of 0 ± 25 mg, which is about ten percent of the 247 mg loss expected after thirty days for a 

can leaking at 3 g/yr. In that case buoyancy corrections can be omitted. If the absolute value of 

the uncorrected weight change exceeds 25 mg, then all calculations must be made using weights 

corrected for buoyancy based on the temperature, pressure, and humidity of the weighing room.

3.4 Some electronic balances are sensitive to the effects of small static charges. The small can 

should be placed directly on the balance pan, ensuring metal to metal contact. If the balance pan 

is not grounded, the small can and balance pan should be statically discharged before weighing.

Section 4. Sensitivity and Range

The mass of a full small can could range from roughly 50 g to 1000 g depending on the container 

capacity. A top loading balance, capable of a maximum weight measurement of not less than 

1,000 g and having a minimum readability of 0.001 g, reproducibility and linearity of ± 0.002 g, 

must be used to perform mass measurements.

Section 5. Equipment

5.1 A top loading balance that meets the requirements of Section 4 above.

5.2 A NIST traceable working standard mass for balance calibration. A NIST traceable working 

standard mass for a balance linearity check. A reference mass to serve as a “blank” small can.

5.3 An enclosure capable of controlling the internal air temperature from 73 °F ± 5 °F, and an 

enclosure capable of controlling the internal air temperature to 130 °F ± 5 °F.

5.4 A temperature instrument capable of measuring the internal temperature of the temperature 

conditioning enclosures and the balance room with a sensitivity of ± 2 °F.

5.5 A barometric pressure instrument capable of measuring atmospheric pressure at the location 

of the balance to within ± 0.02 inches of mercury.

5.6 A relative humidity measuring instrument capable of measuring the relative humidity (RH) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 310 of 320

at the location of the balance with a sensitivity of ± 2% RH.

5.7 A hose with appropriate fitting for dispensing refrigerant from the small can to a recovery

machine.

5.8 A refrigerant recovery machine to collect the discharged refrigerant from small cans being 

tested.

Section 6. Calibration Procedures

6.1 Calibrations are applied to the balance and to the support equipment such as temperature, 

humidity, and pressure monitoring equipment. Procedures for calibration are not spelled out 

here. General calibration principals for the support equipment and the balance are described in 

Section 11, Quality Assurance / Quality Control. Detailed calibration procedures for 

measurements made using the balance are contained in Attachment A: “Balance Protocol for 

Gravimetric Determination of Sample Weights using a Precision Balance.”

Section 7. Small Can Preparation

7.1 Receive a batch of 240 small cans of one design to be tested. These may include several 

SKUs from different manufacturers if the container and valve combination are the same.

7.2 Clean small cans with Alkanox solution or equivalent and dry with a lint free towel.

7.3 Confirm that the sample ID sticker on the small can matches the sample ID on the chain of 

custody forms.

7.4 Select a reference mass similar to the weight of a full small can. If multiple sets of similar 

sized small cans are being tested, only one reference mass is needed; it can be used with all sets. 

Store the reference mass in the balance area.

7.5 Evacuate the contents of one half of the small cans (120 cans) into the refrigerant recovery

machine using normal DIY dispensing procedures until each small can is approximately half full.

7.6 Select a reference mass similar to the weight of the half-full small can. If multiple sets of 

similar size small cans are being tested, only one reference mass is needed; it can be used with 

all sets. Store the reference mass in the balance area.

Section 8. Small Can Weighing

Weighing cans on the balance is done in accordance with Attachment A to this appendix. 

Attachment A describes how to conduct weight determinations including appropriate calibration 

and QC data. This section, “Small Can Weighing,” describes the overall process, not the details 

of how to use the balance.

Initial Weights
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 311 of 320

8.1 Put on gloves. Check the small cans for contamination.

8.2 Place the 240 small cans into a location where they can equilibrate to balance room 

temperature. Record the small can test IDs and the equilibration start time on the Small Can Test 

Data Forms (Form XXXX-YY) available on EPA’s website in sets of thirty, one form for each of 

the eight test conditions.

8.3 Let cans equilibrate for at least four hours.

8.4 Weigh the set of 240 small cans and the reference weights using Attachment A and log the 

results to the Balance Weighing Log Form (Form XXXX-YY) available on EPA’s website.

8.5 Transfer data from the Balance Weighing Log Form to the Small Can Test Data Form in sets

of 30, one set for each of the eight conditions to be tested.

Thirty-Day Soak

8.6. Place each set of 30 small cans into the appropriate orientation and temperature for soaking:

30 full small cans – 73 °F, upright

30 full small cans – 73 °F, inverted

30 full small cans – 130 °F, upright

30 full small cans – 130 °F, inverted

30 half-full small cans – 73 °F, upright

30 half-full small cans – 73 °F, inverted

30 half-full small cans – 130 °F, upright

30 half-full small cans – 130 °F, inverted

8.7. Soak the small cans for 30 days undisturbed.

Final Weighing

8.8 Place the 240 small cans into a location where they can equilibrate to balance room 

temperature.

8.9 Let the small cans equilibrate for at least four hours.

8.10 Weigh the set of 240 small cans, the reference weights, and any additional sets of small 

cans using Attachment A.

8.11 Transfer data from the Balance Weighing Log Form to the corresponding Small Can Test 

Data Forms.

Section 9. Calculations

Corrections for Buoyancy

The calculations in this section are described in terms of “weight.” Mass is a property of the 

small can, whereas weight is a force due to the effects of buoyancy and gravity. Procedures for 

correcting the effect of buoyancy are given in Attachment B of this appendix. Ignoring 

buoyancy, i.e. using weight data uncorrected for buoyancy effects, is acceptable for a thirty day 

test if the absolute magnitude of the weight change is less than 25 mg. If the uncorrected weight 

change exceeds 25 mg for any small can, then correct all small can weights for buoyancy using 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 312 of 320

the procedures in Attachment B before performing the calculations described below.

Calculation of Leak Rate

The emission rate in grams/day for each small can is calculated by subtracting the final weight 

from the initial weight and then dividing the weight difference by the time difference measured 

in days to the nearest hour (nearest 1/24 of a day). The emission rate in g/day is multiplied by

365 to determine emission rate in grams/yr. If the annual emission rate for any small can exceeds 

the entire small can contents, then the annual emission rate for that small can is adjusted to equal 

the entire small can contents/year (e.g., about 350 g/yr for a 12 ounce small can). The annual 

emission rate for the purpose of the test is calculated by averaging the 240 individual adjusted 

annual emission rates and rounding to two decimal places. The cans fail the test if the adjusted 

annual emission rate averaged over 240 cans is greater than 3.00 g/yr. The calculations are 

described below.

Loss rate for each small can

Ei

daily = (Wifinal – Wiinitial) / (Difinal – Diinitial) g/day

Eiannual = 365 x Eidaily g/year

Eiadjusted = Minimum of (Eiadjusted, Ci/year) g/yr

Where,

Ei = emission rate

Wi

final = weight of can i after soaking (grams)

Wi

initial = weight of can I before soaking (grams)

Di

final = date/time of final weight measurements (days)

Di

initial = date/time of initial weight measurements (days)

Ci = original factory mass of refrigerant in can i

Note: Date/Times are measured in days. Microsoft Excel stores dates and times in days, and the 

calculations can be made directly in Excel. If calculations are made manually, calculate serial 

days to the nearest hour for each date and time as follows:

D = Julday + Hour/24

Where,

Julday = serial day of the year: Jan 1 = 1, Jan 31 = 31, Feb 1 = 32, etc.

Hour = hour of day using 24-hour clock, 0 to 23

Calculate the average loss rate for the 240 small cans as follows:

Emean = [Sum (Eadjustedi), i=1 to 240] / 240

Section 10. Recordkeeping

During small can weighing, record the small can weights and date/times on the Balance 

Weighing Log Form. After each weighing session, transfer the measured weights and date/times 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 313 of 320

from the Balance Weighing Log Form to the Small Can Test Data Form.

At the end of the test, complete the calculations described in Section 9, Calculations, and record 

the results on the Small Can Test Data Form.

Section 11. Quality Assurance / Quality Control

11.1 All temperature, pressure, and humidity instruments should be calibrated annually against 

NIST traceable laboratory standards. The main purpose of the NIST traceable calibration is to 

establish the absolute accuracy of the device. The instruments should also be checked

periodically such as weekly, monthly, or quarterly against intermediate standards or against 

independent instruments. For example, a thermocouple can be checked weekly against a wall 

thermometer. A barometer or pressure gauge can be checked weekly by adjusting to sea level 

and comparing with local airport data. The main purpose of the frequent checks is to verify that 

the device has not failed in some way. This is especially important for electronic devices such as 

a digital thermometer, but even a liquid filled thermometer can develop a problem such as a 

bubble.

11.2 The balance should be serviced and calibrated annually by an independent balance service 

company or agency using NIST traceable reference masses. Servicing verifies accuracy and 

linearity, and the maintenance performed helps ensure that a malfunction does not develop.

11.3 The balance must also be calibrated and its linearity checked with working standards before 

and after each weighing session, or before and after each group of 24 small cans if more than 24 

small cans are weighed in a session. Procedures for calibrating and using the balance, as well as 

recording balance data, are described in the accompanying balance weighing protocol. These 

procedures include zero checks, calibration checks, and reference mass checks. Procedures for 

calculating quality control data from those checks are described in Attachment A.

11.4 The small cans are cleaned then handled using gloves to prevent contamination. All 

equilibration and soaking must be done in a dust free area.

ATTACHMENT A—BALANCE PROTOCOL FOR GRAVIMETRIC 

DETERMINATION OF SAMPLE WEIGHTS USING A PRECISION BALANCE

1. Scope and application

This Protocol summarizes a set of procedures and tolerances for weighing objects in the range of 

0 to 1,000 g with a resolution of 0.001 g. This protocol only addresses balance operations, it does 

not address project requirements for equilibration, sample hold time limits, sample collection etc.

2. Summary of method

The balance is zeroed and calibrated using procedures defined herein. Object weight

determinations are conducted along with control object weight determinations, zero checks, 

calibration checks, sensitivity checks, and replicate weightings in a defined sequence designed to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 314 of 320

control and quantitatively characterize precision and accuracy.

3. Definitions

N/A.

4. Interferences

Object weights can be affected by temperature and relative humidity of their environment, air 

currents, static electricity, gain and loss of water vapor, gain or loss of and loss of volatile 

compounds directly from the sample or from contaminants such as finger prints, marker ink, and 

adhesive tape.

Contamination, transfer of material to or from the samples, is controlled by conducting

operations inside a clean area dedicated to the purpose and having a filtered laminar air flow 

where possible; by wearing gloves while handling all samples and related balance equipment; by

using forceps to handle small objects, and by keeping the balance and all related equipment 

inside the clean area.

Air currents are controlled by conducting weighing operations inside a closed chamber or glove 

box and by allowing the substrates to reach temperature and relative humidity equilibrium. The 

chamber is maintained at 40% relative humidity and 25 °C by a continuous humidity and 

temperature control system. The temperature and RH conditions are recorded at least once per 

weighing sessions. Equilibration times for samples that are particularly sensitive to humidity or 

to loss of semi-volatiles species are specified by project requirements.

Static electric charges on the walls of the balance and the weighed objects, including samples, 

controls, and calibration weights, can significantly affect balance readings. Static is avoided by

the operator ground himself and test objects as described in the balance manual.

5. Personnel health and safety

N/A

6. Equipment and supplies

 Filtered, temperature and humidity controlled weighing chamber.

 Precision Balance

 Plastic forceps

 Nylon fabric gloves.

 Working calibration weights: ANSI Class 2, 1000g and 500 g

 Working sensitivity weight: 50 mg

 Reference objects: references are one or more objects that are typical of the objects to be 

weighed during a project, but that are stored permanently inside the balance glove box. 

Reference objects are labeled Test1, Test2, Test3, etc.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 315 of 320

7. Reagents and standards

N/A

8. Sample collection, preservation, and storage

N/A. See relevant project requirements and SOPs.

9. Quality control

Data quality is controlled by specifying frequencies and tolerances for Zero, Calibration,

Linearity, and Sensitivity checks. If checks do not meet tolerance criteria, then samples must be 

re-weighed. In addition, the procedures specify frequencies for Control Object Checks.

Data quality is quantitatively characterized using Zero Check, Calibration Check, and Control 

Check data. These data are summarized monthly in statistics and QC charts.

10. Calibration and standardization

The absolute accuracy of the balance is established by calibration against an ANSI Class 2, 

stainless steel working weight: 1000.000 g ± 0.0025 g. Linearity is established checking the 

midpoint against an ANSI Class 2 stainless steel working weight: 500.000 ± 0.0012 g. 

Sensitivity is established using and ANSI Class 2 stainless steel or aluminum working weight: 50 

mg. Precision is checked by periodically checking zero, calibration, and reference object 

weights.

11. Procedure

11.1 Overview of Weighing Sequence

Weighing a series of substrates consists of performing the following procedures in sequence, 

while observing the procedures for handling and the procedures for reading the balance:

1. Initial Adjustment

2. Weigh eight samples

3. Zero Check

4. Weigh eight samples

5. Zero Check

6. Weigh eight samples

7. Calibration Check

8. Return to step 2.

9. If less than 24 cans are weighed, perform a final Calibration Check at the end of weighing.

This sequence is interrupted and samples are reweighed if QC check tolerances are not met. Each 

of these procedures along with procedures for handling and reading the balance are described 

below. The QC tolerances referred to in these procedures are listed in Table 1. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 316 of 320

11.2 Handling

1. Never touch samples, weights, balance pans, etc. with bare hands. Wear powder free gloves to 

handle the weights, controls, and samples.

11.3 Reading the Balance

1. Close the door. Wait for the balance stabilization light to come on, and note the reading.

2. Watch the balance reading for 30 sec (use a clock). If the reading has not changed by more 

than 0.001 g from the reading noted in step 1, then record the reading observed at the end of the 

30 sec period.

3. If the reading has drifted more than 0.001 g note the new balance reading and go to step 2.

4. If the balance reading is flickering back and forth between two consecutive values choose the 

value that is displayed more often than the other.

5. If the balance reading is flickering equally back and forth between two consecutive values 

choose the higher value.

11.4 Initial Adjustment

1. Empty the sample pan Close the door. Select Range 1000 g

2. Wait for a stable reading

3. Record the reading with QC code IZC (initial zero check)

4. Press the Tare button

5. Record the reading in the logbook with QC code IZA (initial zero adjust)

6. Place the 1,000 g working calibration weight on the balance pan

7. Wait for a stable reading.

8. Record the reading with QC code ICC (initial cal check)

9. Press the Calibrate button

10. Record the reading with QC code ICA (initial cal adjust)

11. Remove the calibration weight.

12. Wait for a stable reading.

13. Record the reading with QC code IZC.

14. If the zero reading exceeds ± 0.002 g, go to step 4.

15. Place the 500 g calibration weight on the balance pan

16. After a stable reading, record the reading with QC code C500. Do not adjust the balance.

17. Add the 0.050 g weight to 500 g weight on the balance pan.

18. After a stable reading, record the reading with QC code C0.05. Do not adjust the balance.

19. Weigh reference object TEST1, record reading with QC code T1.

20. Weigh the reference object TEST2, TEST3, etc. that is similar in weight to the samples that 

you will be weighing. Record with QC code T2, T3, etc.

11.5 Zero Check

1. Empty the sample pan. Close the door.

2. Wait for a stable reading

3. Record the reading with QC code ZC

4. If the ZC reading is less than or equal to the zero adjustment tolerance shown in Table 1, 

return to weighing and do not adjust the zero. If the ZC reading exceeded the zero adjustment 

tolerance, proceed with steps 5 through 7.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 317 of 320

5. Press the Tare button

6. Record the reading in the logbook with QC code ZA.

7. If the ZC reading exceeded the zero re-weigh tolerance, change the QC code recorded in step 

3 from ZC to FZC. Then enter a QC code of FZ into the QC code column of all samples weights 

obtained after the last valid zero check. Re- weigh all of those samples, recording new data in 

new rows of the logbook.

11.6 Calibration Check

1. First, follow procedures for Zero Check. If the ZC was within tolerance, tare the balance 

anyway (i.e. follow steps 5 and 6 of the Zero Check method)

2. Place the 1,000 g working calibration weight on the sample pan, wait for a stable reading.

3. Record the reading with QC code C1000

4. If the C1000 reading is less than or equal to the calibration adjustment tolerances, skip steps 5 

through 8 and proceed to step 9. Do not adjust the calibration.

5. If the C100 reading exceeded the calibration adjust tolerance, press the Calibrate button.

6. Record the reading in the logbook with QC code CA

7. Perform a Zero Check (follow the Zero Check method)

8. If the C1000 reading exceeded the calibration re-weigh tolerance, change the code recorded in 

step 3 from C1000 to FC1000. Enter FC into the QC column for all sample weights obtained 

after the last valid calibration check. Re-weigh all of those samples, recording new data in new 

rows of the logbook.

11.7 Replicate Weighing Check

1. This protocol does not include reweigh samples to obtain replicates. The projects for which 

this protocol is intended already include procedures multiple weightings of each sample.

Table 1. QC Tolerances and Frequencies for Balance Protocol 

Reading Tolerance:

0.001 g, stable for 30 sec.

Adjustment Tolerances:

Zero: -0.003 to +0.003 g.

Calibration: 999.997 to 1000.003 g

Controls: none

Replicates: none

Re-weigh Tolerances:

Zero: -0.005 to +0.005 g

Calibration: 999.995 to 1000.005 g

Controls: none

Replicates: none

Reference Objects:

Test 1 – A reference object weighing about 400 g

Test 2 – A reference object weighing about 200 g

Test 3 – A reference object weighing about 700 g

QC Frequencies:

Zero Checks: once per 8 samples
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 318 of 320

Calibration Checks: once per 24 samples

Repeat weighings: none (test method includes replicate determinations)

Control objects: once per weighing session

12. Data analysis and calculations

For Zero Checks, let Z equal the recorded Zero Check value. For control checks let T1, T2, etc. 

equal the recorded value for control object Test 1, Test 2, etc. For Calibration Checks, let C1000 

equal C1000 reading minus 1000, M = C500 – 500, S = .C.050 – C500 - .050. For Replicate 

Checks, let D equal the loss that occurred between the first and second measurements. In 

summary:

T1 = T1

T2 = T2

T3 = T3

Z = ZC - 0

C = C1000 - 1000

M = C500 - 500

G = C050 - C500 - .050

Tabulate the mean and standard deviation for each of the following: Z, C, M, G. T1, T2, T3. 

Depending on the number of operators using the balance and the number of protocols in use, 

analyze the data by subcategories to determine the effects of balance operator and protocol. Each 

of these standard deviations, SZ, SC, etc. is an estimate of the precision of single weight 

measurement.

For Z, C, M, and G, check the mean value for statistical difference from 0. If the means are 

statistically different than zero, troubleshooting to eliminate bias may be called for. For Z, C, M, 

G, T1, T2, T3, check that the standard deviations are all comparable. If there are systematic 

differences, then troubleshooting to eliminate the problem may be called for.

Note that the precision of a weight gain, involves two weight determinations, and therefore is 

larger than S by a factor of sqrt(2). On the other hand replicate weighings improves the precision 

of the determinations by a factor of sqrt(N). If N = 2, i.e. duplicates, then the factors cancel each 

other.

To estimate the overall uncertainty in a weight determination, a conservative estimate might be 

to combine the imprecision contributed by the zero with the imprecision contributed by the 

calibration.

U = Sqrt(SZ

2

+ SC

2

) 

The uncertainty in a weight gain from N replicates is then given by:

Ugain = Sqrt(2) x Sqrt(SZ

2

+ SC

2

) / Sqrt(N)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 319 of 320

But due to the balance adjustment and reweigh tolerances, we expect SZ to approximately equal 

SC, to approximately equal SM, etc. tolerances, so that the equation above becomes:

Ugain = 2 x S / Sqrt(N)

Where S is any individual standard deviation; or better, a pooled standard deviation.

13. Method performance

The data necessary to characterize the accuracy and precision of this method are still being 

collected. The method is used primarily to weigh objects before and after a period of soaking to 

determine weight loss by subtraction. Given the reweigh tolerances, we expect that the precision 

of weight gain determinations will be on the order of 0.006 g at the 1-sigma level. Bias in the 

weight gain determination, due to inaccuracy of the calibration weight and to fixed non-linearity

of the balance response is on the order 0.005% of the gain.

14. Pollution prevention

When discharging half the can contents during can preparation, do not vent the contents of the 

small can to the atmosphere. Use an automotive recovery machine to transfer small can contest 

to a recovery cylinder.

15. Waste management

Dispose of the contents of the recycle cylinder through a service that consolidates waste for 

shipment to EPA certified facilities for reclaiming or destruction.

Attachment 2—Compensation of Weight Data for Buoyancy and Gravity Effects

Gravity

Variations in gravity are important only when weighing objects under different gravitational 

fields, i.e. at different locations or at different heights. Since the balance procedures calibrate the 

balance against a known mass (the calibration “weight”) at the same location where sample 

objects are weighed, there is no need to correct for location. Although both the sample and the 

calibration weight are used at the same location, there will be a difference in the height of the 

center of gravity of the sample object (small can) and the center of gravity of the reference mass 

(calibration weight). However, this difference in height is maintained during both the initial 

weights and final weights, affecting the initial and final weights by the same amount, and 

affecting the scale of the weight difference by only a few ppm. In any event, the magnitude of 

this correction is on the order of 0.3 ug per kg per mm of height difference. A difference on the 

order of 100 mm would thus yield a weight difference of about 0.03 mg, which is insignificant 

compared to our balance resolution which is 0.001 g or 1 mg.

Based on the discussion above, no corrections for gravity are necessary when determining weight 

changes in small cans.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 320 of 320

Buoyancy

Within a weighing session, the difference in density between the sample object and the

calibration weight will cause the sample object weight value to differ from its mass value due to 

buoyancy. For a 1-liter object in air at 20 °C and at 1 atm, the buoyant force is about 1.2 g. The 

volume of a 1 kg object with a density of 8 g/cm3(e.g. a calibration weight), is about 0.125 liters, 

and the buoyancy force is about 0.15 g. Variations in air density will affect both of these values 

in proportion. The net value being affected by variations in air density is thus on the order of 1.2 

- 0.15 = 1.05 g. Air density can vary up or down by 2% or more due to variations in barometric 

pressure, temperature, and humidity. The buoyancy force will then vary up or down by 0.02 g, or

20 mg. This is significant compared to the weight change expected after one week for a can 

leaking at 3 grams per year, which is 57 mg.

Based on the discussion above, buoyancy corrections must be made.

Variables measured or calculated:

Vcan = volume of can (cm3). Estimate to within 10% by measuring the can dimensions or by 

water displacement. Error in the can volume will cause an error in the absolute amount of the 

buoyancy force, but will have only a small effect on the change in buoyancy force from day to 

day.

Wcan = nominal weight of a can (g), used to calculate the nominal density of the can.

ρcan = nominal density of a small can (g/cm3). The nominal values can be applied to corrections 

for all cans. It is not necessary to calculate a more exact density for each can. Calculate once for 

a full can and once for a half full can as follows:

ρcan = Wcan / Vcan

T = Temperature in balance chamber (degrees Celsius).

RH = Relative humidity in balance chamber (expressed a number between 0 and 100).

Pbaro = Barometric pressure in balance chamber (millibar). Use actual pressure, NOT pressure 

adjusted to sea level.

ρair = density of air in the balance chamber (g/cm3). Calculate using the following approximation:

ρair = 0.001*[0.348444*Pbaro – (RH / 100)x(0.252xT – 2.0582)] / (T + 273.15)

ρref = the reference density of the calibration weight (g/cm3). Should be 8.0 g/cm3.

Equation to correct for buoyancy: Wcorrected = Wreading x (1 - ρair / ρref) / (1 - ρair / ρcan)