Vol. 80 Monday, 

No. 216 November 9, 2015 

Part III 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 82 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Update to the Refrigerant Management 

Requirements Under the Clean Air Act; Proposed Rule 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69458 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0453; FRL–9933–48– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS51 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Update to the Refrigerant Management 

Requirements Under the Clean Air Act 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act prohibits 

the knowing release of ozone-depleting 

and substitute refrigerants during the 

course of maintaining, servicing, 

repairing, or disposing of appliances or 

industrial process refrigeration. The 

existing regulations require that persons 

servicing or disposing of airconditioning 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-ozonedepleting 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 ozonedepleting substances and gases with 

high global warming potentials. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 8, 2016. Any party 

requesting a public hearing must notify 

the contact listed below under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 5 p.m. 

Eastern Daylight Time on November 16, 

2015. If a public hearing is requested, 

the hearing will be held on or around 

November 24, 2015. If a hearing is held, 

it will take place at EPA headquarters in 

Washington, DC. EPA will post a notice 

on our Web site, www.epa.gov/ozone/

strathome.html, announcing further 

information should a hearing take place. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA), comments on the information 

collection provisions are best assured of 

consideration if the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

receives a copy of your comments on or 

before December 9, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0453, to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or withdrawn. EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, the full EPA public comment 

policy, information about CBI or 

multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit http://

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Luke Hall-Jordan, Stratospheric 

Protection Division, Office of 

Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 

6205T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number (202) 343–9591; email address 

hall-jordan.luke@epa.gov. You may also 

visit www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608 for 

further information about refrigerant 

management, other Stratospheric Ozone 

Protection regulations, the science of 

ozone layer depletion, and related 

topics. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What action is the Agency taking? 

C. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

D. What are the incremental costs and 

benefits of this action? 

II. Background 

A. What are ozone-depleting substances? 

B. What is the National Recycling and 

Emission Reduction Program? 

C. What developments have occurred since 

EPA first established the National 

Recycling and Emission Reduction 

Program? 

D. What are the goals of this proposed rule? 

E. Stakeholder Engagement 

F. What are the major changes EPA is 

proposing? 

III. The Clean Air Act and EPA’s Authority 

for the Proposed Revisions 

IV. The Proposed Rule 

A. Proposed Changes to the Definitions in 

Section 82.152 

B. Proposed Changes to the Venting 

Prohibition in Section 82.154(a) 

C. Proposed Changes to the Refrigerant and 

Appliance Sales Restrictions in Section 

82.154 

D. Proposed Changes to the Evacuation 

Requirements in Section 82.156 

E. Proposed Changes to the Safe Disposal 

Provisions in Section 82.156(f) 

F. Proposed Changes to Leak Repair 

Requirements in Section 82.156(i) 

G. Proposed Changes to the Standards for 

Recovery and/or Recycling Equipment in 

Section 82.158 

H. Proposed Changes for Equipment 

Testing Organizations in Section 82.160 

I. Proposed Changes to the Technician 

Certification Requirements in Section 

82.161 

J. Proposed Changes to the Technician 

Certification Program Requirements in 

Section 82.161 

K. Proposed Changes to the Reclamation 

Requirements in Section 82.164 

L. Proposed Changes to the Recordkeeping 

and Reporting Requirements in Section 

82.166 

M. Proposed Effective and Compliance 

Dates 

V. Economic Analysis 

VI. Possible Future Changes to Subpart F 

A. Appliance Maintenance and Leak 

Repair 

B. Refrigerant Reclamation 

C. Safe Disposal of Small Appliances, 

MVACs, and MVAC-Like Appliances 

D. Technician Certification 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act and 1 CFR part 51 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

List of Acronyms 

AHEF—Atmospheric and Health Effects 

Framework model 

AHRI—Air Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute 

ARI—Air Conditioning and Refrigeration 

Institute (now AHRI) 

ASHRAE—American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers, Inc. 

CAA—Clean Air Act 

CARB—California Air Resources Board 

CBI—Confidential business information 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69459 

CFC—Chlorofluorocarbon 

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 services for the 

refrigeration and air-conditioning 

industry. Regulated entities include, but 

are not limited to, the following: 

Category North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) Code Examples of regulated entities 

Industrial Process 

Refrigeration (IPR).

111, 11251, 11511, 21111, 2211, 2212, 

2213, 311, 3121, 3221, 3222, 32311, 

32411, 3251, 32512, 3252, 3253, 

32541, 3256, 3259, 3261, 3262, 

3324, 3328, 33324, 33341, 33361, 

3341, 3344, 3345, 3346, 3364, 

33911, 339999.

Owners or operators of refrigeration equipment used in agriculture and crop 

production, oil and gas extraction, ice rinks, and the manufacture of frozen 

food, dairy products, food and beverages, ice, petrochemicals, chemicals, 

machinery, medical equipment, plastics, paper, and electronics. 

Commercial Refrigeration.42374, 42393, 42399, 4242, 4244, 

42459, 42469, 42481, 42493, 4451, 

4452, 45291, 48422, 4885, 4931, 

49312, 72231.

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

and refrigerated transport. 

Comfort Cooling ...... 45211, 45299, 453998, 512, 522, 524, 

531, 5417, 551, 561, 6111, 6112, 

6113, 61151, 622, 7121, 71394, 721, 

722, 813, 92.

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

Plumbing, Heating, 

and Air-Conditioning Contractors.

238220, 81131, 811412 ........................ Plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning contractors, and refrigerant recovery 

contractors. 

Manufacturers and 

Distributors of 

Small Cans of Refrigerant.

325120, 441310, 447110 ...................... Automotive parts and accessories stores and industrial gas manufacturers. 

Reclaimers .............. 325120, 423930, 424690, 562920, 

562212.

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

products merchant wholesalers. 

Disposers and Recyclers of Appliances.423990, 562212, 562920 ...................... Materials recovery facilities, solid waste landfills, and other miscellaneous durable goods merchant wholesalers. 

Refrigerant Wholesalers.325120, 42, 424690 .............................. Industrial gas manufacturers, other chemical and allied products merchant 

wholesalers, wholesale trade. 

Certifying Organizations.541380 ................................................... Environmental test laboratories and services. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding the types of 

entities that could potentially be 

regulated by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in the table could also 

be affected. To determine whether your 

facility, company, business 

organization, or other entity is regulated 

by this action, you should carefully 

examine the applicability criteria 

contained in section 608 of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act) as amended 

and this proposed rule. If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. What action is the Agency taking? 

The existing regulations require that 

persons servicing or disposing of airconditioning and refrigeration 

equipment observe certain service 

practices that reduce emissions of 

ozone-depleting refrigerant. 

Specifically, these provisions include: 

Requiring that technicians be certified 

to work on appliances; restricting the 

sale of refrigerant to certified 

technicians; specifying the proper 

evacuation levels before opening up an 

appliance; requiring the use of certified 

refrigerant recovery and/or recycling 

equipment; requiring the maintenance 

and repair of appliances that meet 

certain size and leak rate thresholds; 

requiring that ozone-depleting 

refrigerants be removed from appliances 

prior to disposal; requiring that airconditioning and refrigeration 

equipment be provided with a servicing 

aperture or process stub to facilitate 

refrigerant recovery; requiring that 

refrigerant reclaimers be certified in 

order to reclaim and sell used 

refrigerant; and establishing standards 

for technician certification programs, 

recovery equipment, and quality of 

reclaimed refrigerant. 

This rule proposes to update the 

existing requirements in 40 CFR part 82, 

subpart F (subpart F) that currently 

apply to ozone-depleting refrigerants 

and then extend those requirements, as 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69460 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1Unless 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. 

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 ozonedepleting 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 airconditioning or refrigeration appliances 

or industrial process refrigeration (IPR). 

In addition, EPA’s authority for this 

rulemaking is supplemented by section 

301(a) which provides authority to 

‘‘prescribe such regulations as are 

necessary to carry out [the EPA 

Administrator’s] functions under this 

Act’’ and section 114 which provides 

authority for the EPA Administrator to 

require recordkeeping and reporting in 

carrying out any provision of the CAA 

(with certain exceptions that do not 

apply here). 

D. What are the incremental costs and 

benefits of this action? 

The revisions proposed here would 

require certain businesses to take 

actions that would have financial costs, 

such as conducting leak inspections, 

repairing leaks, and keeping records. 

The Agency has performed an analysis 

to estimate the impact on the entire 

United States economy associated with 

the proposed regulatory changes. Total 

incremental compliance costs associated 

with this proposed rule are estimated to 

be $63 million per year in 2014 dollars. 

Total annual operating savings 

associated with reduced refrigerant use 

are estimated to be $52 million; thus 

incremental compliance costs and 

refrigerant savings combined are 

estimated to be approximately $11 

million. A more detailed description of 

the results of the analysis and the 

methods used can be found in the 

technical support document, Analysis of 

the Economic Impact and Benefits of 

Proposed Revisions to the National 

Recycling and Emission Reduction 

Program. 

The proposed update and revisions to 

the requirements under section 608 

would significantly reduce emissions of 

refrigerants and thus ameliorate the 

harm they would cause to the 

environment. EPA estimates that the 

proposed revisions will prevent damage 

to the stratospheric ozone layer by 

reducing emissions of ozone-depleting 

refrigerants by approximately 116 

metric tons per year, weighted by the 

ozone-depletion potential (ODP) of the 

gases emitted. Avoided emissions of 

ozone-depleting refrigerants and nonozone-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 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. 

The initial concern about the ozone 

layer in the 1970s led to a ban on the 

use of CFCs as aerosol propellants in 

several countries, including the United 

States. In 1985, the Vienna Convention 

on the Protection of the Ozone Layer 

was adopted to formalize international 

cooperation on this issue. Additional 

efforts resulted in the adoption of the 

Montreal Protocol on Substances that 

Deplete the Ozone Layer in 1987. 

Today, all countries recognized by the 

United Nations have ratified the 

Montreal Protocol and have agreed to 

phase out the production of ODS. 

B. What is the National Recycling and 

Emission Reduction Program? 

Section 608 of the CAA requires EPA 

to establish a comprehensive refrigerant 

management program to limit emissions 

of ozone-depleting refrigerants. Section 

608 also prohibits the knowing release 

or disposal of ozone-depleting 

refrigerant and their substitutes during 

the maintenance, service, repair, or 

disposal of air-conditioning and 

refrigeration appliances or IPR. Section 

608 is described in greater detail in 

Section III of this proposal below. 

EPA first issued regulations under 

section 608 of the CAA on May 14, 1993 

(58 FR 28660, ‘‘1993 Rule’’), to establish 

the national refrigerant management 

program for ozone-depleting refrigerants 

recovered during the maintenance, 

service, repair, and disposal of airconditioning and refrigeration 

appliances. Together with the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69461 

2The 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. 

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 refrigerant to 

certified technicians. In addition, they 

required that ODS be removed from 

appliances prior to disposal, and that all 

air-conditioning and refrigeration 

equipment using an ODS be provided 

with a servicing aperture or process stub 

to facilitate refrigerant recovery. 

The 1993 Rule also established a 

requirement to repair leaking appliances 

containing 50 or more pounds of ODS 

refrigerant. The rule set an annual leak 

rate of 35 percent for commercial 

refrigeration appliances and IPR and 15 

percent for comfort cooling appliances. 

If the applicable leak rate is exceeded, 

the appliance must be repaired within 

30 days. 

EPA revised these regulations through 

subsequent rulemakings published on 

August 19, 1994 (59 FR 42950), 

November 9, 1994 (59 FR 55912), 

August 8, 1995 (60 FR 40420), July 24, 

2003 (68 FR 43786), March 12, 2004 (69 

FR 11946), and January 11, 2005 (70 FR 

1972). EPA has also issued proposed 

rules to revise the regulations in subpart 

F on June 11, 1998 (63 FR 32044) and 

December 15, 2010 (75 FR 78558), 

elements of which were not finalized 

and which EPA is re-proposing in this 

rule. 

The August 19, 1994, rule amended 

specific definitions, required practices, 

and reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, as well as adopted 

industry standards for reclaimed ODS 

refrigerants. 

The November 9, 1994, rule clarified 

the conditions under which technician 

certification programs were 

grandfathered, allowing technicians 

who had participated in voluntary 

technician training and certification 

programs prior to the publication of the 

1993 Rule to receive formal 

certification. The rule also clarified the 

scope of the technician certification 

requirement and provided a limited 

exemption from certification 

requirements for apprentices. 

The August 8, 1995, rule was issued 

in response to a settlement agreement 

between EPA and the Chemical 

Manufacturers Association to give 

additional flexibility to repair or retrofit 

IPR appliances containing ODS. In that 

rule, EPA allowed owners or operators 

additional time beyond 30 days to 

complete repairs to address leaks and 

more than one year to retrofit appliances 

where certain conditions applied (i.e., 

equipment located in areas subject to 

radiological contamination, 

unavailability of necessary parts, or 

adherence to local or State laws hinder 

immediate repairs). EPA also clarified 

that purged refrigerants that have been 

captured and destroyed can be excluded 

from the leak rate calculations. 

The July 24, 2003, rule finalized 

portions of a proposed rulemaking (61 

FR 7858; February 29, 1996) that 

amended the recordkeeping aspects of 

the section 608 technician certification 

program, refined aspects of the 

refrigerant sales restriction, adopted 

updated versions of ARI Standards 700 2

and 740,3 amended several definitions, 

and set forth procedures for the 

revocation and/or suspension of 

approval to certify technicians and 

refrigerant recovery and/or recycling 

equipment and revocation and/or 

suspension procedures for certification 

as a refrigerant reclaimer. 

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 ozonedepleting refrigerants are applicable to 

blends that contain an ODS. 

The January 11, 2005, rule clarified 

that the leak repair requirements apply 

to any refrigerant blend that contains an 

ODS (70 FR 1927). The rule amended 

the required practices and associated 

reporting/recordkeeping requirements. 

It also clarified certain leak repair 

requirements. 

In December 2010 (75 FR 78558, 

December 15, 2010, ‘‘proposed 2010 

Leak Repair Rule’’), EPA proposed 

changes to the leak repair requirements. 

EPA’s intent in that proposal was to 

create a streamlined set of leak repair 

requirements that are applicable to all 

types of appliances containing 50 or 

more pounds of ozone-depleting 

refrigerant. The rule also proposed to 

reduce the applicable leak repair rates. 

EPA did not finalize that rule. Today’s 

rulemaking re-proposes many of the 

concepts contained in the proposed 

2010 Leak Repair Rule. Through today’s 

action, EPA is withdrawing the 

proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule. 

Finally, on May 23, 2014 (79 FR 

29682), and April 10, 2015 (80 FR 

19453), EPA expanded the list of 

refrigerants that are exempt from the 

CAA venting prohibition in specific end 

uses. The 2014 final rule exempted the 

following from the venting prohibition: 

—Isobutane (R–600a) and R–441A in 

household refrigerators, freezers, and 

combination refrigerators and 

freezers; 

—Propane (R–290) in retail food 

refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone 

units only). The 2015 final rule added 

the following to the list of refrigerants 

exempt from the venting prohibition: 

—Isobutane (R–600a) and R–441A in 

retail food refrigerators and freezers 

(stand-alone units only); 

—Propane (R–290) in household 

refrigerators, freezers, and 

combination refrigerators and 

freezers; 

—Ethane (R–170) in very low 

temperature refrigeration equipment 

and equipment for non-mechanical 

heat transfer; 

—R–441A, propane, and isobutane in 

vending machines; and 

—Propane and R–441A in selfcontained room air conditioners for 

residential and light commercial airconditioning 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) 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69462 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

4The President’s Climate Action Plan, 2013, 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/

image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf. 

cap by 2004, followed by a 75 percent 

reduction by 2010, a 90 percent 

reduction by 2015, a 99.5 percent 

reduction by 2020, and a total phaseout 

in 2030. From 2020 to 2030, production 

and consumption at only 0.5 percent of 

baseline is allowed solely for servicing 

existing air-conditioning and 

refrigeration equipment. 

The United States chose to implement 

the Montreal Protocol phaseout 

schedule on a chemical-by-chemical 

basis. In 1993, as authorized by section 

606 of the CAA, EPA established a 

phaseout schedule that eliminated 

HCFC–141b first and would greatly 

restrict HCFC–142b and HCFC–22 next, 

due to their high ozone depletion 

potentials (ODPs), followed by 

restrictions on all other HCFCs and 

ultimately a complete phaseout (58 FR 

15014, March 18, 1993, and 58 FR 

65018, December 10, 1993). EPA 

continues to issue allowances for the 

production and consumption of HCFCs 

that have not yet been phased out. The 

allowance levels reflect not only 

phaseout schedules but also use 

restrictions under section 605(a) of the 

CAA. The phaseout schedule and 

allowance levels can be found at 40 CFR 

part 82, subpart A. 

Much as EPA established the 

refrigerant management program shortly 

before the CFC phaseout, today’s 

proposal to update those regulations 

closely precedes the phaseout of HCFCs. 

The reasons for encouraging a viable 

CFC recycling program support the 

same approach for HCFCs. The 1993 

Rule discussed a 1990 advanced notice 

of proposed rulemaking regarding a 

national CFC recycling program. As the 

1993 Rule discussed, that 1990 notice 

emphasized that recycling is important 

because it would allow the continued 

use of equipment requiring CFCs for 

service past the year in which CFC 

production is phased out, thereby 

eliminating or deferring the cost of early 

retirement or retrofit of such equipment. 

Because of the continued use of these 

substances in existing equipment, 

recycling can serve as a useful bridge to 

alternative products while minimizing 

disruption of the current capital stock of 

equipment. (92 FR 28661). 

More than twenty years later, with the 

experience gained through the phaseout 

of CFCs, reducing emissions of HCFCs 

and maximizing their recovery and 

reclamation remains just as important 

for ensuring the continued viability of 

the current stock of equipment. The 

transition out of CFC and now HCFC 

refrigerants is one reason that it is 

important to update the refrigerant 

management regulations in subpart F. 

2. Use of Non-ODS Alternatives 

The universe of available refrigerants 

has expanded dramatically since EPA 

first established the refrigerant 

management regulations in subpart F. 

Under the Significant New Alternatives 

Policy (SNAP) program (CAA section 

612), EPA identifies substitutes that 

pose lower overall risks to human 

health and the environment and must 

prohibit the use of substitutes for which 

there are other available or potentially 

available alternatives posing lower 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment for the same use. Thus, 

EPA’s SNAP program does not provide 

a static list of alternatives but instead 

evolves the list as the EPA makes 

decisions informed by our overall 

understanding of the environmental and 

human health impacts as well as our 

current knowledge about available 

substitutes. Under SNAP, EPA has 

reviewed over 400 substitutes in the 

refrigeration and air-conditioning; fire 

suppression; foam blowing; solvent 

cleaning; aerosols; adhesives, coatings, 

and inks; sterilants; and tobacco 

expansion sectors. To date, SNAP has 

issued 30 notices and 20 rulemakings 

listing alternatives as acceptable, 

acceptable subject to use conditions, 

acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits, or unacceptable for those various 

end-uses. 

On April 10, 2015, the SNAP Program 

listed as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, three hydrocarbons, one 

hydrocarbon blend, and HFC–32 as 

substitute refrigerants in a number of 

refrigeration and air-conditioning enduses (80 FR 19454). The SNAP program 

has also recently listed a number of 

additional refrigerant options, including 

blends of hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs) and 

HFCs that have lower global warming 

potentials (GWPs) (October 21, 2014, 79 

FR 62863; July 20, 2015, 80 FR 42870), 

and continues to review information 

and issue rulemakings and notices to 

provide additional refrigerant options, 

including hydrocarbons and low-GWP 

HFOs. 

Due to the change in the suite of 

acceptable refrigerants available for 

some end-uses, EPA anticipates that the 

relative amounts of different refrigerants 

in stocks in the United States will 

change, and thus that the universe of 

refrigerants subject to the refrigerant 

management program will continue to 

evolve. The diversity of refrigerants and 

the potential for cross contamination are 

two reasons why it is important to 

clarify how all refrigerants should be 

handled under the refrigerant 

management regulations in subpart F. 

3. Increased Attention to HFCs as 

Climate Pollutants 

By greatly reducing emissions of CFCs 

and HCFCs, domestic and international 

efforts to protect the ozone layer have 

also helped to protect global climate as 

these ODS are also potent GHGs. 

However, HFCs, which are the 

predominant class of compounds being 

used as replacements for ODS, also can 

have high GWPs. As their use has 

increased, concern has grown over the 

environmental damage caused by heat 

trapped in the atmosphere by HFCs. 

On December 7, 2009, (74 FR 66496) 

the Administrator issued an 

Endangerment Finding regarding GHGs 

under section 202(a) of the CAA. As part 

of this finding, EPA concluded that the 

current and projected concentrations of 

six key well-mixed GHGs in the 

atmosphere—carbon dioxide (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 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 climatefriendly 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 airconditioning, and foam blowing sectors. 

EPA made these changes based on 

information showing that other 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69463 

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, HFC– 

134a, has a GWP of 1,430, which means 

it traps that many times as much heat 

per kilogram as carbon dioxide does 

over 100 years. HFC emissions are 

projected to increase substantially and 

at an increasing rate over the next 

several decades if their production is 

left uncontrolled. In the United States, 

emissions of HFCs are increasing more 

quickly than those of any other GHG, 

and globally they are increasing 10–15% 

annually. At that rate, emissions are 

projected to double by 2020 and triple 

by 2030. 

HFCs are also rapidly accumulating in 

the atmosphere. The atmospheric 

concentration of HFC–134a has 

increased by about 10% per year from 

2006 to 2012, and the concentrations of 

HFC–143a and HFC–125, which are 

components of commonly-used 

refrigerant blends, have risen over 13% 

and 16% per year from 2007–2011, 

respectively. Annual global emissions of 

HFCs are projected to rise to about 6,400 

to 9,900 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 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 non-ozonedepleting refrigerants. It argues that 

extending the section 608 requirements 

to HFCs ‘‘would increase the 

environmental benefits already realized 

from the section 608 regulations, 

through reduced HFC emissions, and 

would complement the United States’ 

goal of a global phase down in HFC 

production and consumption.’’ The 

Alliance cites sections 608(c)(2) and 

301(a) of the CAA as authority for these 

changes. A copy of the petition is 

included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

While EPA is not proposing this 

action solely as a result of the Alliance 

petition, the proposed extension of the 

National Recycling and Emission 

Reduction Program to HFCs and other 

non-exempt substitutes, if finalized, 

would constitute the Agency’s response 

to the petition. 

D. What are the goals of this proposed 

rule? 

The Agency has three goals for this 

rulemaking. The first is to protect the 

stratospheric ozone layer by reducing 

emissions of ODS. The second is to 

protect the climate system by reducing 

emissions of other refrigerant gases with 

high GWPs. This includes ODS 

refrigerants and many substitutes, 

including HFCs, that EPA has not 

already exempted from the CAA 

statutory venting prohibition. Since 

many substitutes have a high GWP, 

some as high as 10,000, reducing 

emissions of ODS substitutes will 

reduce emissions of highly potent 

GHGs. While the current regulations in 

subpart F contain some provisions 

implementing the venting prohibition 

for substitutes for ODS, such as a 

general prohibition on the knowing 

release of such substances, with certain 

enumerated exceptions, they do not 

have any other specific use and 

handling requirements for ODS 

substitutes. As explained in more detail 

below, EPA is proposing to revise 

subpart F to include such provisions to 

help more fully and effectively 

implement the venting prohibition in 

section 608(c) of the CAA. Finally, EPA 

is proposing changes to the regulations 

in subpart F to improve their 

effectiveness, including increasing 

compliance and enforceability both for 

ODS and ODS substitutes. 

1. Protecting the Stratospheric Ozone 

Layer 

The proposed changes would reduce 

the use and emission of ODS, maximize 

the recapture and recycling of such 

substances, and further implement the 

prohibition on knowingly venting or 

releasing ODS refrigerants during the 

maintenance, service, repair, or disposal 

of appliances. EPA estimates that this 

proposal will result in annual 

reductions in emissions of 

approximately 116 ODP-weighted 

metric tons. A separate support 

document Analysis of the Economic 

Impact and Benefits of Proposed 

Revisions to the National Recycling and 

Emission Reduction Program contains a 

full discussion of the benefits and is 

available in the docket. 

Stratospheric ozone depletion 

decreases the atmosphere’s ability to 

protect life on the Earth’s surface from 

the sun’s UV radiation. The links 

between stratospheric ozone depletion 

and public health are well established. 

The Scientific Assessment of Ozone 

Depletion, prepared by the Scientific 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69464 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Assessment Panel to the Montreal 

Protocol, and Environmental Effects of 

Ozone Depletion and its Interactions 

with Climate Change, prepared by the 

Environmental Effects Assessment Panel 

to the Montreal Protocol provide 

comprehensive information regarding 

the links between emissions of ODS, 

ozone layer depletion, UV radiation, 

and human health effects. Both 

documents are available in the docket 

for this rule. Adverse health effects 

associated with exposure to UV 

radiation include skin cancer, cataracts, 

and immune suppression. 

The most common forms of skin 

cancer are strongly associated with UV 

radiation, and UV exposure is the most 

preventable cause of skin cancer (U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services. The Surgeon General’s Call to 

Action to Prevent Skin Cancer. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Office of 

the Surgeon General; 2014). Skin cancer 

is the most common form of cancer in 

the United States, with more than 3.5 

million new cases diagnosed annually 

(American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts 

and Figures, 2015). The number of new 

cases of melanoma, the most serious 

form of skin cancer, has been increasing. 

Rates for new cases of melanoma have 

been rising on average 1.4% each year 

over the last 10 years (National Cancer 

Institute, SEER Stat Fact Sheets: 

Melanoma of the Skin, available at 

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

melan.html, accessed May 5, 2015). In 

2015, it is estimated that 70,000 

Americans will be diagnosed with 

melanoma and almost 10,000 will die 

from the disease (American Cancer 

Society, Cancers Facts and Figures, 

2015). 

Non-melanoma skin cancers are less 

deadly than melanomas. Nevertheless, 

left untreated, they can spread, causing 

disfigurement and more serious health 

problems. There are two primary types 

of non-melanoma skin cancers. Basal 

cell carcinomas are the most common 

type of skin cancer tumors. Basal cell 

carcinoma grows slowly, and rarely 

spreads to other parts of the body. It 

can, however, penetrate to the bone and 

cause considerable damage. Squamous 

cell carcinomas are tumors that may 

appear as nodules or as red, scaly 

patches. This cancer can develop into 

large masses and can spread to other 

parts of the body. 

Other UV-related skin disorders 

include actinic keratoses and premature 

aging of the skin. Actinic keratoses are 

skin growths that occur on body areas 

exposed to the sun. The face, hands, 

forearms, and neck are especially 

susceptible to this type of lesion. 

Although premalignant, actinic 

keratoses are a risk factor for squamous 

cell carcinoma. Chronic exposure to the 

sun also causes premature aging, which 

over time can make the skin become 

thick, wrinkled, and leathery. 

Research has shown that UV radiation 

increases the likelihood of certain 

cataracts. (Taylor, H.R., et al., 1988. 

Effect of ultraviolet radiation on 

cataract formation, New England 

Journal of Medicine, 319, 1429–33; 

West, S. et al., 2005. Model of Risk of 

Cortical Cataract in the US Population 

with Exposure to Increased Ultraviolet 

Radiation due to Stratospheric Ozone 

Depletion, American Journal of 

Epidemiology, 162, 1080–1088.) 

Cataracts are a form of eye damage in 

which a loss of transparency in the lens 

of the eye clouds vision. If left 

untreated, cataracts can lead to 

blindness. Although curable with 

modern eye surgery, cataracts diminish 

the eyesight of millions of Americans. 

Other kinds of eye damage caused by 

UV radiation include pterygium (i.e., 

tissue growth that can block vision), 

skin cancer around the eyes, and 

degeneration of the macula (i.e., the part 

of the retina where visual perception is 

most acute). 

Policies protecting the stratospheric 

ozone layer have been effective in 

preventing these diseases and protecting 

the health of the American people. EPA 

uses its Atmospheric and Health Effects 

Framework (AHEF) model to estimate 

the benefits of ODS emissions 

reductions by modeling the number of 

cases of skin cancer and the number of 

deaths in Americans born between 1890 

and 2100 given different ODS emissions 

scenarios. By comparing the health 

effects in a scenario without the 

Montreal Protocol to one with the 

treaty’s controls, EPA estimates that the 

Montreal Protocol will prevent over 283 

million cases of skin cancer in the 

United States. Americans will also 

suffer more than 45 million fewer 

cataracts and one million fewer deaths 

from skin cancer due to the treaty’s 

protections, compared with a world 

with no policy controls. This analysis, 

found in the EPA document Updating 

Ozone Calculations and Emissions 

Profiles for Use in the Atmospheric and 

Health Effects Framework Model is in 

the docket. 

2. Reducing Emissions of Greenhouse 

Gases 

The second goal of this proposed rule 

is to reduce the emission of GHGs that 

contribute to climate change. Many 

refrigerants, including ODS and 

substitutes for ODS, are potent GHGs, 

having GWPs thousands of times higher 

than that of carbon dioxide (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 GWPweighted 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 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 Nin ̃ o, 

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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69465 

United States, visit www.epa.gov/

climatechange. 

3. Improving Rule Effectiveness 

EPA’s third goal of this proposed rule 

is to improve the clarity and 

effectiveness of the regulations in 

subpart F. Achieving the health and 

environmental benefits of these rules 

depends on widespread compliance. 

EPA has begun an initiative to 

improve the effectiveness of its rules 

called ‘‘Next Generation Compliance.’’ 

This is an integrated strategy designed 

to bring together the best thinking from 

inside and outside EPA on how to 

structure regulations and permits, 

combined with new monitoring and 

information technology, expanded 

transparency, and innovative 

enforcement. The vision for this 

initiative is to better motivate the 

regulated community to comply with 

environmental laws and inform the 

public about their performance. Most 

importantly, this initiative will help 

ensure that all Americans are protected 

from significant risks to human health 

and the environment and have access to 

information that allows them to more 

fully engage in environmental 

protection efforts. 

The Agency has identified several 

interconnected components in the 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance’s 

2014–2017 strategic plan for Next 

Generation Compliance that can 

improve the effectiveness of rules: 

• Effective Regulations: Design 

regulations that are clear, as easy to 

implement as possible, and that contain 

self-reinforcing drivers. For example, 

where possible, design regulations such 

that regulated facilities can take steps to 

monitor their own performance to 

prevent violations, or be certified by an 

independent 3rd party. 

• Advanced Monitoring: Use 

advanced monitoring technology for the 

government, industry, and the public to 

more easily find information on 

pollutant discharges/emissions, 

environmental conditions, and 

noncompliance. 

• Electronic Reporting: Implement 

electronic systems to make reporting 

easier, more efficient, and less costly. 

For the user, these systems offer speed, 

convenience, expanded information 

choices, and filing capabilities. For 

government, they offer the ability to 

increase transparency, improve our 

ability to spot pollution and compliance 

issues, and respond quickly to emerging 

problems. 

• Transparency: Make the 

information we have today more 

accessible, and make new information 

obtained from advanced monitoring and 

electronic reporting publicly available. 

• Innovative Enforcement: Use Next 

Generation Compliance principles and 

tools in enforcement planning and 

cases. 

The National Recycling and Emission 

Reduction Program under section 608 of 

the CAA has incorporated compliance 

principles similar to those under this 

initiative since its inception. There are 

numerous self-reinforcing requirements, 

including the refrigerant sales 

restriction. By requiring anyone 

purchasing an ODS refrigerant to be 

certified, EPA effectively enforces the 

requirement that anyone maintaining, 

servicing, repairing, and disposing of an 

appliance be certified (excluding those 

disposing of small appliances, MVACs 

and MVAC-like appliances). 

Another Next Generation Compliance 

principle that has been in the 608 

refrigerant management program since 

the beginning is third party certification. 

These rules require certification of 

refrigerant recovery equipment by 

independent third parties (i.e., UL and 

AHRI). Third party certifiers verify that 

recovery equipment meets the required 

minimum standards. Additionally, this 

ensures that technicians who use these 

devices to recover refrigerant are also 

using equipment that will meet the 

minimum refrigerant evacuation 

requirements if used following the 

manufacturer’s instructions. 

The Agency and industry have more 

than 20 years of experience 

implementing and operating under 

these regulations. Through that 

experience, it has become clear that 

there are sections of the regulations that 

could be improved or be clarified. This 

proposal attempts to clarify and 

simplify where possible. 

One way that EPA seeks to provide 

simplicity and clarity to the regulated 

community, the public, and state, local, 

and Tribal governments is to treat ODS 

and substitute refrigerants similarly 

where it is appropriate to do so. EPA is 

therefore proposing to extend the 

existing requirements, as amended, to 

HFCs and other substitutes, as 

appropriate. In addition, EPA is 

proposing to revise many provisions of 

the regulations for clarity and to 

restructure the regulations to make it 

easier to find requirements for different 

affected entities. EPA is grouping the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements closer to where the 

requirements are listed and removing 

outdated or unnecessary requirements. 

These proposed changes will extend to 

ODS substitutes those requirements that 

align with Next Generation Compliance 

principles and make it easier for the 

regulated community to understand 

what refrigerants are covered and what 

the requirements are, making it easier to 

comply with the regulation. 

For each of the changes proposed in 

this notice, EPA solicits comments on 

the following: 

• Implementation of the proposal: 

What challenges are anticipated in 

implementing or complying with the 

proposed rule? What steps might we 

consider to minimize those challenges? 

• The clarity of the proposal: Is there 

anything that is unclear about what the 

proposed rule is asking the regulated 

community to do? When responding to 

this questions, commenters should 

describe what is confusing about the 

proposal, not what they do not like. 

• The design of the rule: Is the 

proposed rule designed in a way to 

maximize the environmental benefits for 

the implementation effort required? Are 

there alternate approaches to features of 

this rule that would achieve the same 

environmental benefits or maximize the 

environmental benefits but would be 

easier to implement? If so, please 

explain or describe those approaches. 

• The clarity of the regulatory text: 

Are any of the terms, definitions, or 

specific requirements in the regulatory 

language unclear or confusing? Which 

ones and what is confusing about them? 

• The need for a comprehensive 

compliance guide or other compliance 

tools: What tools (brochures, videos, 

etc.) could EPA reasonably develop to 

aid the regulated community in 

complying with the rule? 

• Incentives for going above and 

beyond compliance: What changes 

could EPA make to the proposed rule 

that would encourage environmental 

performance beyond the minimum 

requirements of the rule? 

• Monitoring, measurement, and 

reporting: Are the monitoring 

requirements designed and sufficiently 

explained to ensure that regulated 

parties are fully aware of their 

performance, and to trigger action in the 

case of actual or potential 

noncompliance? Can monitoring data or 

other information about performance be 

made easily available to regulators and/ 

or to the public in ways that would be 

useful and meaningful? 

E. Stakeholder Engagement 

EPA conducted extensive outreach to 

stakeholders affected by the refrigerant 

management regulations under section 

608 of the CAA. In November 2014, EPA 

hosted an open meeting in Washington, 

DC, to discuss the Agency’s goals and 

solicit feedback from stakeholders. More 

than 50 participants attended the 

meeting. To facilitate stakeholder 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69466 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

preparation for the meeting, EPA widely 

distributed a concept note that provided 

an update on progress to implement the 

President’s Climate Action Plan and laid 

out questions the Agency was 

considering as it was developing this 

proposed rule. The slides from the 

presentation, the concept note, and a 

summary of the comments are included 

in the docket. 

After the November stakeholder 

meeting, EPA held approximately 50 

meetings with individual businesses, 

trade associations, and environmental 

organizations. The Agency also attended 

several conferences and association 

meetings to provide information, solicit 

input, and answer questions. A full list 

of meetings and conferences is included 

in the docket. 

Finally, EPA reviewed past feedback 

on the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule 

to amend the leak repair regulations. A 

summary of comments received on the 

proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule is 

included in the docket. EPA also 

reviewed comments on the 1998 

proposal to extend the full suite of 

refrigerant management requirements 

under subpart F to HFCs and PFCs and 

is including a copy of those comments 

it reviewed from that proposal in the 

docket. EPA notes that the Agency is not 

treating comments on either of these 

prior proposals as comments on this 

rule. Therefore, to be formally 

considered as comments on this 

proposal, stakeholders must provide 

comments specifically to today’s action 

even if the concepts proposed are the 

same or similar to those contained in 

comments on actions that the Agency 

has proposed previously. 

F. What are the major changes EPA is 

proposing? 

EPA is proposing numerous changes 

to the National Recycling and Emission 

Reduction Program. Some of these 

changes are intended to strengthen the 

existing program, in particular by 

requiring a number of industry best 

practices. Others are intended to extend, 

as appropriate, the regulations to HFCs 

and other substitutes for ODS. Still 

other changes are meant to improve the 

effectiveness of the regulations. This 

section briefly introduces the reader to 

the major proposed changes. The reader 

can find detailed discussions of all of 

the proposals in Section IV of this 

notice. 

1. Extend the Regulations To Cover 

Substitute Refrigerants 

Section 608(c)(1) of the CAA, effective 

July 1, 1992, makes it ‘‘unlawful for any 

person, in the course of maintaining, 

servicing, repairing, or disposing of an 

appliance or industrial process 

refrigeration, to knowingly vent or 

otherwise knowingly release or dispose 

of any class I or class II substance used 

as a refrigerant in such appliance (or 

industrial process refrigeration) in a 

manner which permits such substance 

to enter the environment.’’ This 

provision excludes ‘‘de minimis releases 

associated with good faith attempts to 

recapture and recycle or safely dispose 

of such substances’’ from the 

prohibition. Section 608(c)(2) extends 

the provisions of paragraph (c)(1) to 

substitutes for ODS refrigerants, 

effective November 15, 1995. 

Collectively, this self-effectuating 

prohibition, commonly referred to as the 

‘‘venting prohibition,’’ is a central 

component of EPA’s refrigerant 

management program. 

EPA’s current regulations at 

§ 82.154(a) incorporate the venting 

prohibition, as well as the de minimis 

exemption. Then, the last sentence in 

§ 82.154(a)(2) provides that ‘‘refrigerant 

releases shall be considered de minimis 

only if they occur when’’ (1) following 

the required practices in § 82.156, (2) 

using certified recovery and/or recycling 

equipment that meet the requirements 

of § 82.158, and (3) technicians are 

certified under the requirements in 

§ 82.161; or when following the 

requirements of subpart B. In effect, 

consistent with the second sentence of 

section 608(c)(1), under these 

regulations EPA has defined de minimis 

releases of refrigerants during 

maintaining, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing of an appliance as those that 

occur when the refrigerant management 

regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F 

or subpart B are followed. The term 

refrigerant is defined in § 82.152 for 

purposes of this subpart to mean any 

substance consisting in part or whole of 

a class I or class II ODS that is used for 

heat transfer purposes and provides a 

cooling effect. The term does not 

include substitute substances such as 

HFCs or ammonia, among others. Under 

these regulations, if someone 

maintaining, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing of an appliance or IPR 

releases a class I or class II refrigerant 

in the course of following these 

requirements, they would not be in 

violation of the venting prohibition, but 

all other releases of ODS refrigerants 

during such activities would violate the 

venting prohibition. 

While the conditions for the 

application of the de minimis 

exemption has been clearly elaborated 

on in the regulations for class I and class 

II refrigerants, and while the regulations 

expressly state what practices or 

measures can be employed to qualify for 

it, the regulations are less clear for 

substitute refrigerants like HFCs. 

Section 82.154(a)(2) states that ‘‘[d]e 

minimis releases associated with good 

faith attempts to recycle or recover . . . 

non-exempt substitutes are not subject 

to this prohibition’’ but does not 

provide any guidance about what 

constitutes such a ‘‘good faith attempt.’’ 

In contrast to ODS refrigerants, the 

regulations do not contain provisions 

for non-exempt substitute refrigerants to 

establish that releases that occur when 

following certain regulatory 

requirements are de minimis. 

Accordingly, regulated entities are left 

without clear guidance on how to abide 

by the venting prohibition as it relates 

to non-exempt substitutes. 

Through this rulemaking, EPA is 

proposing to extend requirements of the 

National Recycling and Emission 

Reduction Program to non-exempt 

substitutes and to clarify that the actions 

required to qualify for the de minimis 

exemption for non-exempt substitute 

refrigerants are the same as those for 

ODS refrigerants. As some release of 

substitute refrigerants is inevitable 

during the maintenance, servicing, 

repair, and disposal of appliances, these 

changes would give regulatory certainty 

to the many stakeholders that are 

already properly recovering substitute 

refrigerants during these activities, and 

would likely require only minimal if 

any change in business practices for 

them. These changes would also give 

stakeholders that are not following such 

practices for substitute refrigerants 

additional incentive to do so because it 

would describe how the venting 

prohibition applies to substitute 

refrigerants. 

2. Strengthen Leak Repair Requirements 

This proposal would strengthen the 

requirement to repair leaking appliances 

containing 50 or more pounds of 

refrigerant, currently at § 82.156(i), to 

reduce emissions of ODS. Additionally, 

EPA is proposing to extend the 

amended requirements to HFCs and 

other substitutes to reduce emissions. 

The Agency also is aiming to make the 

requirements more proactive at 

preventing leaks by requiring industry 

best practices (i.e., leak inspections). 

EPA is proposing to lower applicable 

leak rates from their current levels of 35 

percent for commercial refrigeration 

appliances and IPR and 15 percent for 

comfort cooling appliances to 20 

percent and 10 percent, respectively. 

Based on stakeholder input and data 

collected by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) and other 

sources, these levels are reasonable and 

will result in leaks being repaired 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69467 

sooner than under the current approach. 

This is especially true for appliances 

containing substitute refrigerants, which 

are not currently covered by the leak 

repair provisions. 

Some systems are leaking 

considerable amounts of refrigerant 

despite requirements to repair or retrofit 

leaking appliances. Based on feedback 

from CARB and a review of its data, 

EPA is proposing to create a two-year 

leak limit. Under this proposal, 

appliances containing 50 or more 

pounds of ODS or substitute refrigerant 

would not be allowed to leak more than 

75 percent of the appliance’s full charge 

in each of two consecutive 12-month 

periods. The CARB data indicate that 

few appliances leak above this level in 

any given year, and that these 

appliances are responsible for a large 

proportion of emissions. This 

requirement would likely affect few 

appliances, but would encourage 

owners or operators of appliances to 

more comprehensively repair or retire 

them when leaking such a substantial 

amount of refrigerant for two 

consecutive years. 

EPA is also proposing to require 

periodic leak inspections to help 

identify leaks earlier. Regular leak 

inspections are widely recognized as a 

best practice to minimize refrigerant 

emissions. Under this proposal, all 

appliances with a full charge of 50 or 

more pounds of ODS or substitute 

refrigerant would have to conduct 

annual leak inspections to determine if 

the appliance is leaking. Commercial 

refrigeration appliances and IPR with a 

full charge of 500 or more pounds of 

ODS or substitute refrigerant would be 

required to conduct a leak inspection 

every three months. Alternatively, 

owners or operators can forgo periodic 

leak inspections by installing automatic 

leak detection systems and having it 

inspected and calibrated annually. 

3. Extend the Sales Restriction to 

Substitute Refrigerants, With an 

Exception for Small Cans of MVAC 

Refrigerant 

The existing regulations restrict the 

sale of ODS refrigerant to certified 

technicians. EPA is proposing to extend 

the sales restriction to substitute 

refrigerant sold in the United States. 

Due to the large do-it-yourself (DIY) 

community that have long serviced their 

personal MVACs, EPA has considered 

less costly ways to avoid restricting the 

sale of MVAC refrigerants to certified 

technicians while still reducing releases 

of non-exempt refrigerants. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to exempt the sale of 

small cans (two pounds or less) of 

substitute refrigerant for the servicing of 

MVACs if the cans have a self-sealing 

valve. Self-sealing valves have been 

successful in reducing emissions during 

servicing in California where they are 

currently required. 

4. Establish Recordkeeping for 

Appliances Containing Five to 50 

Pounds of ODS and Substitute 

Refrigerant 

The existing regulations have 

recordkeeping requirements for the 

disposal of appliances that contain 5 

pounds or less of ODS refrigerant and 

those that contain 50 or more pounds of 

ODS refrigerant. As discussed above, 

EPA is proposing to extend those 

current recordkeeping requirements to 

appliances containing substitutes. In 

addition, EPA is proposing to require 

that technicians, or the company 

employing technicians, keep records of 

the amount of ODS and substitute 

refrigerant recovered when disposing of 

appliances that fall in the gap between 

those two size categories. EPA is also 

proposing to require recordkeeping 

documenting the quantity of ODS and 

substitute refrigerant transferred for 

reclamation or destruction that was 

recovered from those mid-sized 

appliances. Based on feedback from 

stakeholders when developing this rule, 

these records are often already 

maintained by contractors that are 

properly recovering refrigerant. Some 

stakeholders that adhere to the proper 

evacuation requirements have 

encouraged EPA to enforce against 

HVACR contractors that simply vent the 

refrigerant. These proposed records 

would improve compliance with the 

venting prohibition and facilitate 

enforcement against technicians who 

disregard the recovery requirements. 

5. Update the Technician Certification 

Program 

Under the existing regulations, 

technicians must be certified in order to 

work on appliances in a manner that 

could release ODS refrigerants to the 

environment. EPA is proposing to 

extend those requirements to appliances 

containing non-exempt substitutes. 

Because the questions on the 

certification exam are over twenty years 

old and because EPA is proposing to 

revise the existing program though this 

rule, EPA is planning to update and 

develop new questions for use to certify 

technicians. 

EPA is also proposing to require that 

certifying organizations publish lists or 

create online databases of technicians 

that they certify. In addition to 

providing transparency to technicians’ 

customers and refrigerant distributors 

and wholesalers, this requirement 

would also make it easier for 

technicians to replace lost credentials. 

The amount of time spent by 

technicians trying to identify the 

organization that certified them is 

significant. EPA and certifying programs 

also spend a significant amount of time 

helping technicians who have lost their 

certification card. Published lists or 

online databases of certified technicians 

would help make this process more 

efficient. 

6. Improving Readability and 

Compliance and Restructuring the 

Requirements 

EPA is proposing to make extensive 

revisions to the regulations in subpart F 

to more clearly state the requirements of 

the National Recycling and Emission 

Reduction Program and to remove 

potentially ambiguous language. These 

proposed edits will improve compliance 

among the regulated community and 

facilitate enforcement by EPA. 

First, EPA is proposing edits that 

would apply the principles of plain 

writing, based on guidance from the 

Office of the Federal Register. For 

example, EPA is proposing to add 

subheadings and plain English terms 

where appropriate. EPA’s intent with 

many of these edits is to improve 

readability, not change the content. For 

edits that are substantive, EPA discusses 

these proposed changes in this 

preamble. 

Second, EPA is proposing to divide 

§ 82.156 ‘‘Required Practices’’ into three 

sections based on the topic. This 

proposal would create a new § 82.155 

for provisions related to the safe 

disposal of small appliances, MVACs, 

and MVAC-like appliances. Section 

82.156 would be amended to contain 

provisions related to the proper 

evacuation of refrigerant from 

appliances. This proposal would also 

create a new § 82.157 for provisions 

related to leak repair. EPA is also 

proposing to remove most of § 82.166, 

which currently contains the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for subpart F, and move 

specific recordkeeping and reporting 

provisions to the sections relevant to 

each record. 

Third, EPA is proposing to remove 

unnecessary content such as provisions 

that have expired, definitions that 

simply restate the regulatory provisions, 

and definitions to terms that are no 

longer used. The rule would also 

combine and streamline repetitive text. 

Along those lines, this proposal would 

merge tables 2 and 3 in § 82.158 into a 

single table. 

EPA is providing a red-line version of 

the regulatory text in the docket that 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69468 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

5EPA 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). 

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 airconditioning 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 airconditioning and refrigeration 

appliances or IPR containing ODS. Such 

regulations shall include requirements 

to reduce the use and emission of ODS 

to the lowest achievable level, and to 

maximize the recapture and recycling of 

such substances. Section 608(a) further 

provides that ‘‘such regulations may 

include requirements to use alternative 

substances (including substances which 

are not class I or class II substances) or 

to minimize use of class I or class II 

substances, or to promote the use of safe 

alternatives pursuant to section [612] or 

any combination of the foregoing.’’ 

Section 608(b) requires that the 

regulations issued pursuant to 

subsection (a) contain requirements for 

the safe disposal of class I and class II 

substances, including requirements that 

such substances shall be removed from 

such appliances, machines, or other 

goods prior to the disposal of such items 

or their delivery for recycling. 

Section 608(c) establishes a selfeffectuating 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 airconditioning or refrigeration equipment. 

More specifically, section 608(c)(1), 

effective July 1, 1992, makes it unlawful 

for any person in the course of 

maintaining, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing of an appliance or IPR to 

knowingly vent, release, or dispose of 

any ODS used as a refrigerant in such 

equipment in a manner that permits that 

substance to enter the environment. The 

statute exempts from this prohibition 

‘‘[d]e minimis releases associated with 

good faith attempts to recapture and 

recycle or safely dispose’’ of such a 

substance. Section 608(c)(2) extends the 

provisions of (c)(1), including the 

prohibition on venting to substitutes for 

class I and class II refrigerants, effective 

November 15, 1995, unless the 

Administrator determines that such 

venting, release, or disposal ‘‘does not 

pose a threat to the environment.’’ EPA 

has determined through prior 

rulemakings that specific substances do 

not pose a threat to the environment 

when vented, released, or disposed of 

and has exempted those specific 

substitutes from the venting prohibition. 

The full list of substitutes that EPA has 

exempted from this prohibition is at 

§ 82.154(a).5

On May 14, 1993, EPA published 

regulations implementing subsections 

(a), (b), and (c)(1) for ODS (58 FR 

28660). These regulations include 

evacuation requirements for appliances 

being serviced or disposed of, standards 

and testing requirements for recovery 

and/or recycling equipment, 

certification requirements for 

technicians, purity standards and 

testing requirements for used refrigerant 

sold to a new owner, certification 

requirements for refrigerant reclaimers, 

leak repair requirements, and 

requirements for the safe disposal of 

appliances that enter the waste stream 

with the charge intact. This rule also 

stated that the Agency interprets ‘‘de 

minimis’’ to mean releases that occur 

while the recycling and recovery 

requirements of regulations under 

sections 608 and 609 are followed. 

Section 608 of the CAA provides the 

primary statutory basis for the standards 

and requirements proposed in these 

regulations. The statutory standards 

under section 608(a) against which the 

regulations concerning the use and 

disposal of ozone-depleting substances 

are to be measured is whether they 

‘‘reduce the use and emission of such 

substances to the lowest achievable 

level’’ and ‘‘maximize the recapture and 

recycling of such substances.’’ In the 

context of recycling, these standards are 

complementary, i.e., maximizing 

recycling will also mean reducing the 

use and emission of these substances to 

the lowest achievable level. These 

standards also bear a relationship to the 

de minimis releases permitted in section 

608(c). In other words, emissions that 

occur while complying with EPA’s 

recovery and recycling requirements, 

which result in the lowest achievable 

level of emissions, are considered de 

minimis. 

The phrase ‘‘lowest achievable level’’ 

as used in section 608(a)(3) is not clear 

on its face as to whether economic 

factors should be considered in 

determining what is the ‘‘lowest 

achievable level.’’ Title VI does not 

further explain or define the term nor 

does it expressly state whether 

economic factors may or must be 

considered. Thus, EPA has discretion to 

adopt a reasonable interpretation. EPA 

has previously interpreted this phrase to 

allow the consideration of economic 

factors. See 58 FR 28659, 28667 (May 

14, 1993). EPA is not proposing to 

change that interpretation and has 

considered economic as well as 

technological factors in the 

development of this proposed rule. This 

is consistent with the statement made 

on the floor of the House of 

Representatives by Representative Ralph 

Hall shortly before passage of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990 that ‘‘[i]n 

promulgating regulations [under section 

608] the Administrator shall take into 

account the extent to which emissions 

reductions can be achieved, the costs 

and benefits of implementing available 

controls, and the time before which 

certain uses may no longer rely on the 

covered substances’’ (Cong Rec H 12907 

(Oct 26, 1990)). 

The phrase ‘‘de minimis releases 

associated with good faith attempts to 

recapture and recycle or safely dispose 

of any such substance’’ as used in 

section 608(c)(1) and as applied to 

substitutes through section 608(c)(2) is 

similarly not clear on its face as to 

whether economic factors may be 

considered in determining what is de 

minimis. Title VI does not further 

address this issue. Thus, EPA has 

discretion to adopt a reasonable 

interpretation. EPA interprets this 

phrase to allow the consideration of 

economic factors. The Senate Manager’s 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69469 

6As 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. 

Statement for the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 indicates that ‘‘the 

exception is included to account for the 

fact that in the course of properly using 

recapture and recycling equipment, it 

may not be possible to prevent some 

small amount of leakage’’ (Cong. Rec. S 

16948 (Oct. 27, 1990)). EPA does not 

read this statement as expressing an 

intent that the Agency consider only 

technological factors in setting 

standards for recapture and recycling 

equipment and the proper use of such 

equipment. Rather, EPA understands it 

as meaning that once those standards 

are set, only the small amount of 

emissions that cannot be prevented by 

following such standards should be 

exempted. 

Because the statutory language does 

not dictate a particular means of taking 

economic factors into account, if at all, 

EPA has discretion to adopt a 

reasonable means. In developing this 

proposed rule, EPA has not applied a 

strict cost-benefit test, but rather has 

focused primarily on the state of air 

conditioning and refrigeration best 

practices and recovery technology, 

while also giving consideration to costs 

and benefits. The fact that industry has 

identified and uses these best practices 

indicates they are at least reasonable 

from a cost perspective. As discussed in 

the appliance maintenance and leak 

repair section (section VI.F of this 

preamble), EPA considered what is 

achievable from a technical perspective, 

while also considering the costs of the 

proposed requirements and the benefits 

from those changes when determining 

whether to establish new requirements. 

See the technical support document in 

the docket for sensitivity analyses 

conducted on various options. 

Generally, the proposed requirements 

reflect the performance of the lowestemitting equipment and practices in 

each sector under commonly 

encountered conditions in the field, 

taking into account that the variability 

of those conditions is significant in each 

air-conditioning and refrigeration sector. 

For example, some appliances generally 

have more leaks than others. An 

industrial process refrigeration 

appliance can have thousands of 

pounds of refrigerant running through 

miles of piping, resulting in numerous 

opportunities for leaks to occur, 

whereas a household refrigerator 

typically has about one pound of 

refrigerant in a hermetically sealed 

refrigerant loop that rarely leaks. EPA 

has proposed requirements that reflect 

that difference. 

EPA also considered costs in many 

specific aspects of this proposal. For 

example, EPA considered the costs of 

extending the refrigerant sales 

restriction to small cans of non-exempt 

substitutes used for MVAC servicing. 

Based on those considerations, EPA 

decided to propose requiring 

manufacturers install self-sealing valves 

on small cans rather than limiting the 

sale of small cans to certified 

technicians only. Finally, EPA relied 

heavily on the existing program and 

requirements already in place for ODS 

refrigerants rather than developing a 

new and separate set of requirements for 

non-exempt substitutes. This will allow 

the regulated community to use existing 

compliance procedures where 

applicable to reduce emissions of nonexempt substitutes rather than having to 

develop wholly new approaches to 

managing compliance. 

Authority for Extending 608 to 

Substitutes 

In this rule, EPA is proposing to 

extend, as appropriate, provisions of the 

refrigerant recovery and/or recycling 

regulations, which currently only apply 

to ODS refrigerants, to non-exempt 

substitute refrigerants. EPA’s authority 

for this action rests largely on section 

608(c), which EPA interprets, as 

described below in more detail, to 

provide authority to promulgate 

regulations to interpret, implement, and 

enforce the venting prohibition, as it 

applies to both ODS refrigerants and 

non-exempt substitutes. EPA’s authority 

to issue implementing regulations for 

section 608(c) is supplemented by 

section 301(a), which provides authority 

for EPA to ‘‘prescribe such regulations 

as are necessary to carry out [the EPA 

Administrator’s] functions under this 

Act.’’ In addition, EPA’s authority to 

extend the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements to substitutes is 

supplemented by section 114, which 

provides authority to the EPA 

Administrator to require recordkeeping 

and reporting in carrying out provisions 

of the CAA. Finally, as explained in 

more detail below, the extension of 

requirements under 608 to non-exempt 

substitutes in this proposal is also 

provided in section 608(a) because it 

would reduce emissions of ODS 

refrigerants. 

Section 608 of the CAA is ambiguous 

with regard to EPA’s authority to 

establish refrigerant management 

regulations for substitute refrigerants. 

As Congress has not precisely spoken to 

this issue, EPA has the discretion to 

adopt a permissible interpretation of the 

CAA. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural 

Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 

843–44 (1984). Primarily under the 

authority of section 608(a), EPA has 

established standards for the proper 

handling of ODS refrigerants during the 

maintenance, service, repair, or disposal 

of an appliance to maximize the 

recovery and/or recycling of such 

substances and reduce the use and 

emission of such substances. Section 

608(a) expressly requires EPA to 

promulgate regulations that apply to 

class I and class II substances, but is 

silent on whether its requirements apply 

to substitute substances. On the other 

hand, section 608(c)(2) contains 

provisions for substitute refrigerants 

which parallel those for ODS 

refrigerants in section 608(c)(1). For 

instance, as for ODS refrigerants under 

section 608(c)(1), section 608(c)(2) 

prohibits knowingly venting, releasing, 

or disposing of any substitute refrigerant 

during the maintenance, service, repair, 

or disposal of an appliance in a manner 

which permits the substance to enter the 

environment.6 This creates a tension or 

ambiguity because the regulated 

community is subject to an explicit and 

self-effectuating prohibition on venting 

or releasing non-exempt substitute 

refrigerants while servicing or disposing 

of equipment but at the same time is not 

explicitly required by section 608(a) to 

recover and recycle substitute 

refrigerant prior to servicing or 

disposing of equipment or to engage in 

any of the practices or behaviors that 

EPA has established to minimize the 

emission and release of ODS 

refrigerants. 

Moreover, the Agency is aware that 

some amount of refrigerant, whether 

ODS or substitute, is inevitably released 

during the maintenance, servicing, 

repair, and disposal of air-conditioning 

or refrigeration appliances or 

equipment. Without a clear regulatory 

framework for determining what 

requirements apply during the 

maintenance, servicing, repair, and 

disposal of such equipment containing 

a non-exempt substitute refrigerant, it 

could be unclear to the regulated 

community and the public whether 

such releases violate the venting 

prohibition and what steps must be 

taken to comply with CAA obligations 

for such substitute refrigerants in 

undertaking such actions. Accordingly, 

it is appropriate to issue regulations to 

clarify how the venting prohibition and 

the de minimis exemption apply to nonVerDate Sep<11>2014 05:04 Nov 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP3.SGM 09NOP3

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69470 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

exempt substitute refrigerants, as is 

proposed in this rulemaking. In doing 

so, EPA intends to clarify that the 

regulated community may rely on the de 

minimis exemption to the venting 

prohibition if they follow the amended 

requirements in subpart F. 

Consistent with the language of 

sections 608(c)(1) and (2), these 

revisions aim to avoid knowing releases 

of non-exempt substitute refrigerants 

into the environment in the course of 

maintaining, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing of an appliance or IPR, unless 

those releases meet the criteria for de 

minimis releases. Section 608(c)(1) 

provides an exemption from the venting 

prohibition for ‘‘[d]e minimis releases 

associated with good faith attempts to 

recapture and recycle or safely dispose 

of any such [class I or class II] 

substance.’’ In this context, EPA 

interprets this provision to exempt 

releases that occur while the recycling 

and recovery requirements of 

regulations under sections 608 and 609 

are followed and has promulgated 

regulations that implement that 

interpretation. In particular, as 

explained above, EPA has incorporated 

both the venting prohibition and the de 

minimis exemption into the regulations 

at § 82.154(a). Further, the last sentence 

in § 82.154(a)(2) provides that 

‘‘refrigerant releases shall be considered 

de minimis only if they occur when’’ 

enumerated regulatory practices in 

either § 82.156, § 82.158, and § 82.161, 

or, alternatively, subpart B are followed. 

These requirements are the ones 

established in 1993, as explained above 

and as periodically amended. The term 

refrigerant, however, is defined in 

§ 82.152 for purposes of this subpart to 

mean any substance consisting in part 

or whole of a class I or class II ozonedepleting substance that is used for heat 

transfer purposes and provides a cooling 

effect. As such, this term does not 

include substitute substances. In 

addition, EPA has not yet applied the 

recycling and recovery requirements to 

non-ODS substitutes, and therefore 

these provisions which make clear how 

to qualify for the de minimis exemption 

for ODS refrigerants do not currently 

apply for substitute refrigerants. 

Section 608(c) can be interpreted such 

that the statutory de minimis exemption 

contained in section 608(c)(1) also 

applies to substitute refrigerants. 

Section 608(c)(2) states that, effective 

November 15, 1995, ‘‘paragraph 1 shall 

also apply’’ to the venting, release, or 

disposal of any substitute substance for 

class I or class II substances. As section 

608(c)(2) incorporates ‘‘paragraph 1’’ it 

is reasonable to interpret it to also 

contain this de minimis exemption. 

However, the CAA does not explicitly 

address what should be considered 

‘‘good faith attempts to recapture and 

recycle or safely dispose’’ for substitute 

refrigerants. Moreover, the statutory 

provisions that require EPA to 

promulgate regulations addressing 

recapturing and recycling requirements 

and safe disposal requirements in 

section 608(a) and 608(b) expressly 

mention that they apply to ODS 

refrigerants but are silent as to 

application to substitute refrigerants. 

This silence and the corresponding 

tension between these provisions 

creates an ambiguity in section 608 and 

a gap that EPA may fill with a 

permissible interpretation. Chevron, 

U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 

Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843–44 (1984). While 

Congress did not expressly mention 

substitutes in section 608(a), EPA does 

have authority under the Act to 

establish regulations creating a program 

to address management of ODS 

refrigerants and their substitutes, 

including authority to implement the 

venting prohibition under section 608(c) 

for both substitutes and ODS, and the 

revisions proposed today are important 

to implementing those statutory 

authorities. 

Consistent with the interpretation of 

section 608(c)(2) as incorporating the de 

minimis exemption, EPA’s regulations 

at § 82.154(a)(2) state that ‘‘[d]e minimis 

releases associated with good faith 

attempts to recycle or recover . . . nonexempt substitutes are not subject to 

this prohibition,’’ thus extending the 

statutory de minimis exemption from 

the venting prohibition to good faith 

efforts to recycle or recover non-exempt 

substitute refrigerants. However, in 

contrast to the regulations for ODS 

refrigerants, the regulations do not 

provide any specific provisions to 

explain how to determine what 

constitutes such a ‘‘good faith attempt’’ 

with respect to substitute refrigerants. 

Thus, the regulations are currently 

unclear as to what requirements or 

practices regulated parties must follow 

to qualify for the de minimis exemption, 

and thereby comply with the venting 

prohibition, for non-exempt substitute 

refrigerants. 

On June 11, 1998, EPA proposed to 

extend the de minimis exemption in 

section 608(c)(1) to substitute 

refrigerants and to issue regulations 

under section 608(c)(2) that implement 

and clarify the venting prohibition for 

substitutes (63 FR 32044). As stated in 

that proposed rule, ‘‘while section 

608(c) is self-effectuating, EPA 

regulations are necessary to define ‘(d)e 

minimis releases associated with good 

faith attempts to recapture and recycle 

or safely dispose’ of such substances 

and to effectively implement and 

enforce the venting prohibition.’’ 

In the final rule issued March 12, 

2004 (69 FR 11946), EPA extended the 

608(c)(1) de minimis exemption only to 

blends containing an ODS component. 

As stated in that rule at 69 FR 11949: 

[V]enting of all substitute refrigerants, 

including HFC and PFC refrigerants (and 

blends thereof) is prohibited under section 

608(c), with the exception of de minimis 

releases associated with good faith attempts 

to recapture and recycle. The de minimis 

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

EPA believes that regulatory clarification is 

necessary to define such ‘[d]e minimis 

releases’ and ‘good faith attempts to 

recapture and recycle or safely dispose of any 

such substance’ and safely dispose of 

appliances to effectively implement and 

enforce the venting prohibition. Section 

608(c)(1) in conjunction with 608(c)(2) of the 

Act allow for an exemption for de minimis 

releases associated with good faith attempts 

to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of 

substitutes for class I and class II ODSs used 

as refrigerants. A regulation reflecting the 

statutory requirement for recovery of 

substitute refrigerants is an essential part of 

a regulatory framework within which de 

minimis releases and good faith attempts to 

recapture and recycle or safely dispose of 

substitute refrigerants can be defined. 

This interpretation that the statutory 

de minimis exemption applies to 

substitutes is consistent with the 

interpretation of section 608(c)(1) and 

(2) that EPA articulates in this section. 

The March 2004 Rule then goes on to 

state at 69 FR 11953 that: 

EPA is not, however, finalizing the 

proposal to extend all of the regulations 

concerning emissions reduction of CFC and 

HCFC refrigerants, found at 40 CFR part 82, 

subpart F, to HFC and PFC refrigerants. 

Therefore, today’s rule does not mandate any 

of the following proposed requirements for 

HFC or PFC refrigerants that do not consist 

of a class I or class II ODS (i.e., pure HFC or 

PFC refrigerants): A sales restriction on HFC 

or PFC refrigerants; specific evacuation levels 

for servicing HFC or PFC appliances; 

certification of HFC or PFC recycling and 

recovery equipment; certification of 

technicians who work with HFC or PFC 

appliances; reclamation requirements for 

used HFC and PFC refrigerants; certification 

of refrigerant reclaimers who reclaim only 

HFCs or PFCs; or leak repair requirements for 

HFC and PFC appliances. 

Following the March 12, 2004, 

rulemaking, the Administrator 

promulgated a direct final rule to amend 

the regulatory definitions of refrigerant 

and technician, as well as the venting 

prohibition, to correct and clarify the 

intent of those regulations (70 FR 19273, 

April 13, 2005). As part of that change, 

EPA edited the regulatory venting 

prohibition to reflect the statutory de 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69471 

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 nonexempt substitute refrigerants that do 

not contain an ODS. To do so, EPA is 

proposing to extend the amended 

regulations concerning emissions 

reduction and recapture and recycling 

of CFC and HCFC refrigerants, found at 

40 CFR part 82, subpart F, to all 

substitute refrigerants that have not 

been exempted from the venting 

prohibition under § 82.154(a)(1). 

Regulations intended to minimize the 

release and maximize the recapture and 

recovery of non-exempt substitutes will 

reduce the release and increase the 

recovery of ozone-depleting substances. 

For that reason, this proposal is 

additionally supported by the authority 

in section 608(a). Improper handling of 

substitute refrigerants is likely to 

contaminate appliances and recovery 

cylinders with mixtures of ODS and 

non-ODS substitutes. In particular, 

technician certification and a sales 

restriction help to ensure that persons 

lacking the expertise tested through 

certification do not release or 

contaminate ODS refrigerants in the 

course of using non-exempt substitutes 

to recharge or perform other work on 

systems that contain ODS. 

Contaminated appliances can lead to 

failures and emissions from those 

systems. Contaminated cylinders are 

less valuable to reclaimers and may not 

even be accepted by reclaimers as the 

mixed gas may no longer be costeffectively recycled. Often, 

contaminated cylinders simply have to 

be destroyed. The costs of handling or 

properly disposing of these mixed 

refrigerants incentivizes intentional 

releases to the atmosphere. Therefore 

contamination can lead to the release of 

class I and class II substances. In 

addition, applying one consistent set of 

requirements to all relevant refrigerants 

will promote compliance with and 

enforcement of those requirements for 

both ODS refrigerants and their 

substitutes by reducing complexity. 

EPA further notes that under the 

current definition of refrigerant any 

substance that consists in whole or in 

part of a class I or class II ODS and is 

used for heat transfer and provides a 

cooling effect, is a refrigerant and is 

subject to the requirements for ODS. 

However, when a regulated entity 

believes it is using a substitute 

refrigerant, and that substitute becomes 

contaminated with ODS, the 

contamination may not be apparent to 

the user, and thus, the user may not be 

aware that the requirements for 

refrigerants apply to that substance. 

In sum, the authority to promulgate 

regulations regarding the use of class I 

and II substances encompasses the 

proper handling of alternatives where 

this is needed to reduce emissions and 

maximize recovery of class I and II 

substances. Applying one consistent set 

of requirements to all non-exempt 

refrigerants will promote compliance 

with and enforcement of those 

requirements for both ozone-depleting 

refrigerants and their substitutes by 

reducing complexity and clarifying 

requirements. 

Authority for Amendments to Provisions 

Related to ODS 

In addition to extending the existing 

regulations in subpart F to substitute 

refrigerants, EPA is also proposing the 

following amendments related to ozonedepleting substances: Lowered leak 

rates, required leak inspections, twoyear leak limits, and recordkeeping 

requirements for the disposal of 

appliances containing between five and 

50 pounds of refrigerant. EPA is also 

proposing to update and revise many 

provisions in subpart F to improve 

clarity and enforceability. EPA’s 

authority for these amendments is based 

primarily on section 608(a), which 

requires EPA to promulgate regulations 

regarding the use and disposal of class 

I and II substances to ‘‘reduce the use 

and emission of such substances to the 

lowest achievable level’’ and ‘‘maximize 

the recapture and recycling of such 

substances.’’ In addition, because EPA is 

further elaborating the requirements and 

practices that regulated parties must 

follow to qualify for the de minimis 

exemption from the venting prohibition, 

EPA is drawing on its authority under 

section 608(c). EPA’s authority for these 

actions is also supplemented by section 

301(a) and 114, as described above. 

EPA solicits comments on all aspects 

of the discussion in this section 

concerning its authority for the 

revisions proposed today, including 

comments on its authority to extend the 

amended regulations concerning 

emissions reduction and recapture and 

recycling of CFC and HCFC refrigerants, 

found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F, to 

all non-exempt substitute refrigerants. 

How CAA Sections 608 and 609 Work 

Together 

While Section 608 covers all 

appliances, Section 609 of the CAA 

directs EPA to establish requirements to 

prevent the release of refrigerants during 

the servicing of MVACs specifically. 

MVACs are defined as mechanical vapor 

compression refrigeration equipment 

used to cool the driver’s or passenger’s 

compartment of any motor vehicle. EPA 

also regulates MVAC-like appliances 

under this section, which are used to 

cool the driver’s or passenger’s 

compartment of off-road vehicles, 

including agricultural and construction 

vehicles. 

Under section 609, no person 

repairing or servicing motor vehicles for 

consideration may perform any service 

on an MVAC that involves the 

refrigerant without properly using 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69472 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

7The Agency has indicated plans to issue a 

separate proposed rule to consider adopting 

standards from the Society of Automotive Engineers 

(SAE) for servicing equipment in 40 CFR subpart B. 

These standards are: SAE J2843 R–1234yf Recovery/ 

Recycling/Recharging Equipment for Flammable 

Refrigerants for Mobile Air-Conditioning Systems, 

SAE J2851 Recovery Equipment for Contaminated 

Refrigerant from Mobile Automotive Air 

Conditioning Systems, and SAE J3030 Automotive 

Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment 

Intended for Use with Multiple Refrigerants. In a 

separate future proposed rule, EPA intends to 

propose to incorporate by reference these standards 

developed by SAE International’s Interior Climate 

Control Committee. 

approved refrigerant recovery or 

recovery and recycling equipment and 

no such person may perform such 

service unless such person has been 

properly trained and certified. 

Refrigerant handling equipment must be 

certified by EPA or an independent 

organization approved by EPA. Section 

609 also prohibits the sale or 

distribution of any class I or class II 

MVAC refrigerant in a container of less 

than 20 pounds to any person that is not 

certified under section 609. 

Regulations issued under section 609 

are in 40 CFR part 82, subpart B. 

Subpart B includes information on 

prohibitions and required practices 

(§ 82.34), approved refrigerant handling 

equipment (§ 82.36), approved 

independent standards testing 

organizations (§ 82.38), and 

certification, recordkeeping, and public 

notification requirements (§ 82.42). 

Appendices A–F of subpart B provide 

standards for minimum operating 

requirements for MVAC servicing 

equipment. 

The section 608 regulations found in 

40 CFR part 82, subpart F are applicable 

to MVAC and MVAC-like appliances 

because MVAC and MVAC-like 

appliances are included in the statutory 

definition of appliances in section 

601(1). Because servicing and 

technician training and certification are 

regulated under section 609, EPA’s 

section 608 regulations defer to those 

requirements. Procedures involving 

MVACs that are not regulated under 

section 609, such as the disposal of 

MVACs and the purchase of refrigerant 

for use in MVAC, are covered by section 

608. The prohibition against venting 

ODS and substitute refrigerants in 

section 608 is also applicable to 

refrigerants used in MVAC and MVAClike 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. 

Proposed changes to each term are 

discussed individually below, except for 

the terms refrigerant and appliance as 

well as full charge and seasonal 

variance which are sufficiently 

interrelated to require joint discussions. 

EPA requests comments on all of the 

proposed changes to the definitions 

below. The Agency is particularly 

interested in comments on newly 

defined terms and on changes to 

definitions that affect the scope and 

requirements of subpart F. 

Refrigerant and Appliance 

The existing definitions in subpart F 

are written to separate ozone-depleting 

substances from non-ozone-depleting 

substitutes. As relevant here, section 

601 of the CAA defines an appliance as 

a ‘‘device which contains and uses a 

class I or class II substance as a 

refrigerant.’’ Class I and class II 

substances are defined as substances 

listed under sections 602(a) or (b), 

respectively. Section 601 of the CAA 

does not define refrigerant. EPA’s 

existing regulations at § 82.152 reach 

that definition through a two-step 

process. First EPA defined an appliance 

as a device which contains and uses a 

refrigerant. Then EPA defined the term 

refrigerant as solely class I or class II 

ozone-depleting substances, or mixtures 

containing a class I or class II ODS. 

Defining these terms in this manner 

was appropriate before section 608(c)(2) 

took effect on November 15, 1995. 

Under section 608(c)(2), the venting 

prohibition applies to substitutes for 

ODS refrigerants and, accordingly, it 

states that ‘‘[f]or purposes of this 

paragraph’’ the term appliance includes 

any ‘‘device which contains and uses as 

a refrigerant a substitute substance.’’ 

However, EPA has not updated the 

definition of appliance in subpart F to 

reflect section 608(c)(2). Because EPA 

regulations still define an appliance as 

a device that contains and uses a 

refrigerant, and refrigerant in such a 

way that does not include substitutes, 

substitutes are thereby excluded from 

the regulatory definition of the term 

appliance. This leads to confusing 

results throughout subpart F. As only 

one example among many that could be 

provided, the purpose and scope section 

in § 82.150(b) states that this subpart 

applies to any person servicing, 

maintaining, or repairing appliances. 

Under the regulatory definition 

substitutes are not used in appliances, 

but regulations later in this subpart, at 

§ 82.154(a)(1), state that no person 

maintaining appliances may knowingly 

vent any substitute from such 

appliances unless one of the regulatorily 

defined exceptions applies. This 

proposed rule attempts to clear up these 

inconsistencies by defining and using 

regulatory terms more consistently. 

EPA is proposing to revise the 

definition of appliance so that it 

encompasses the usage of the term in 

sections 601 and 608 of the CAA. This 

rule proposes to define appliance as any 

device which contains and uses a class 

I or class II substance or substitute 

(emphasis added) as a refrigerant and 

which is used for household or 

commercial purposes, including any air 

conditioner, motor vehicle air 

conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or 

freezer. This proposed change would 

make the regulatory definition 

consistent with sections 601 and 608 of 

the CAA, improve internal consistency 

of the regulations, and increase clarity 

for the regulated community. 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

definition of refrigerant to include any 

substance, including blends and 

mixtures, consisting in part or whole of 

a class I or class II ozone-depleting 

substance or substitute (emphasis 

added) that is used for heat transfer 

purposes and provides a cooling effect. 

This proposed definition would note 

that the term refrigerant would include 

blends as well as mixtures of 

refrigerants. 

EPA is proposing this approach so as 

to define refrigerant according to the 

way the term is currently understood. 

From an engineering standpoint, it does 

not matter whether or not a compound 

is an ODS to function as a refrigerant. 

This amended definition is closer to 

how the term is commonly understood. 

Broadening the term also brings other 

terms in subpart F such as refrigerant 

circuit or reclaimed refrigerant more in 

line with common usage. 

Apprentice 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

definition of the term apprentice to 

replace the ‘‘Bureau of Apprenticeship 

and Training’’ with the ‘‘Office of 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69473 

Apprenticeship’’ to match the current 

name of the office. EPA is also 

proposing minor edits to improve clarity 

and readability. 

Approved Equipment Testing 

Organization 

EPA is proposing to remove the 

defined term approved equipment 

testing organization. The current 

definition is merely a reference to the 

section of the CFR that discusses the 

characteristics of such an organization. 

EPA is proposing to remove the 

definition to increase readability. 

Certified Refrigerant Recovery or 

Recycling Equipment 

EPA is proposing to remove the 

defined term certified refrigerant 

recovery or recycling equipment. The 

current definition merely refers to the 

sections of the CFR that discuss the 

certification program. This term is also 

used inconsistently throughout subpart 

F as ‘‘recovery and recycling 

equipment,’’ ‘‘recovery or recycling 

equipment,’’ ‘‘recycling and recovery 

equipment,’’ and ‘‘recycling or recovery 

equipment.’’ The regulations at § 82.36 

make a distinction, in the context of 

MVAC servicing, between equipment 

that only recovers refrigerant and 

equipment that both recovers and 

recycles refrigerant. The regulations in 

subpart F generally do not make a 

distinction. The standards in 

appendices B1 and B2 refer to recovery 

and/or recycling equipment while the 

standard in appendix C for small 

appliances refers to recovery equipment 

only. For consistency, this rule proposes 

to use ‘‘recovery and/or recycling 

equipment’’ throughout, except for 

when referring only to small appliances. 

Class I and Class II 

EPA is proposing to create regulatory 

definitions for the terms class I and 

class II ozone-depleting substances. 

These terms are currently defined in 

section 601 of the CAA and in 40 CFR 

part 82, subpart A. EPA is not proposing 

a different meaning. Adding definitions 

to subpart F can assist the reader as 

these terms are currently not explained 

in the definitions section and are used 

frequently in the regulations. EPA’s 

proposed definition of class I is an 

ozone-depleting substance that is listed 

in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, appendix 

A. Similarly, EPA’s proposed definition 

of class II is an ozone-depleting 

substance that is listed in 40 CFR part 

82, subpart A, appendix B. EPA notes 

that the regulatory text uses class I 

substance, class I ODS, and class I 

refrigerant interchangeably (and 

similarly uses class II substance, class II 

ODS, and class II refrigerant 

interchangeably) and all are intended to 

have the same meaning for the purpose 

of subpart F. 

Comfort Cooling 

EPA is proposing to create a 

definition for the term comfort cooling. 

The leak repair provisions divide 

refrigeration and air-conditioning 

equipment into three categories: 

Comfort cooling, commercial 

refrigeration, and industrial process 

refrigeration. EPA has previously 

defined commercial refrigeration and 

industrial process refrigeration but not 

comfort cooling. 

For purposes of the leak repair 

requirements, EPA is proposing to 

define comfort cooling as the airconditioning appliances used to provide 

cooling in order to control heat and/or 

humidity in facilities including but not 

limited to office buildings and light 

commercial buildings. Comfort cooling 

appliances include building chillers and 

roof-top self-contained units. They may 

be used for the comfort of occupants or 

for climate control to protect equipment 

within a facility, such as but not limited 

to computer rooms. 

EPA seeks comments on the 

applicability of the proposed definition 

of comfort cooling to air-conditioning 

equipment that is typically used to 

provide cooling and or humidity control 

in such environments. 

Commercial Refrigeration 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

definition of commercial refrigeration 

for clarity by removing the sentence that 

this equipment typically contains a 

charge size over 75 pounds. While 

accurate, this sentence has caused some 

confusion as to whether or not the leak 

repair requirements are applicable to 

appliances with a full charge between 

50 pounds, as stated in the leak repair 

required practices, and 75 pounds. The 

Agency feels that the phrase is not 

required since the threshold for the leak 

repair requirements is a refrigerant 

charge of 50 pounds or greater. EPA is 

proposing to define commercial 

refrigeration as the refrigeration 

appliances used in the retail food and 

cold storage warehouse sectors. Retail 

food includes the refrigeration 

equipment found in supermarkets, 

convenience stores, restaurants and 

other food service establishments. Cold 

storage includes the refrigeration 

equipment used to store meat, produce, 

dairy products, and other perishable 

goods. 

Critical Component 

EPA is proposing to remove the 

defined term critical component and 

add the term component. EPA proposed 

the same change in the proposed 2010 

Leak Repair Rule. As discussed in that 

rule, EPA considers components as the 

parts of the appliance that make up the 

refrigerant circuit such as the 

compressor, heat exchangers (condenser 

and evaporator), and valves (e.g., heat 

recovery, expansion, charging). Other 

components may include receivers, 

manifolds, filter driers, and refrigerant 

piping. The meaning of the definition 

can be preserved without classifying the 

component as critical. 

Owners or operators of IPR may be 

granted additional time to make repairs 

if critical components cannot be 

delivered within the necessary time. 

Later in this action, EPA discusses its 

proposal to create a consistent set of 

extensions to the leak repair regulations 

for all types of appliances. The 

unavailability of a component is not a 

situation unique to owners or operators 

of IPR. Owners or operators of comfort 

cooling and commercial refrigeration 

appliances should be granted the same 

flexibility as owners and operators of 

IPR when requesting additional time to 

make repairs due to the unavailability of 

components. Having similar 

requirements for all affected appliances 

also provides for a more consistent set 

of regulations that should reduce the 

complexity of the current leak repair 

regulations. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

to amend the definition so that it is not 

limited to IPR, but also includes comfort 

cooling and commercial refrigeration 

appliances. 

EPA also proposes to replace the 

current defined term critical component 

with the newly defined term 

component, which would mean an 

appliance part, such as, but not limited 

to, compressors, condensers, 

evaporators, receivers and all of its 

connections and subassemblies. The 

term component is intended to be 

broader so everything that would have 

been covered under the term critical 

component would be included. 

Custom-Built 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

definition of the term custom-built to 

remove a citation to a section of the 

regulation that has moved. 

Disposal 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

definition of the term disposal to clarify 

that the disposal process includes the 

destruction of an appliance that releases 

or would release refrigerant to the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69474 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

environment. This proposed change is 

intended to cover activities such as 

vandalism or the cutting of refrigerant 

lines, both to steal metal and to vent the 

refrigerant. EPA is also proposing to 

clarify that the disassembly of an 

appliance for recycling, as well as reuse, 

is part of the disposal process. EPA does 

not believe that these changes alter the 

current understanding of the term and is 

proposing them to increase clarity. 

Follow-Up Verification Test 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

definition of the term follow-up 

verification test to remove duplicative 

text covered in § 82.156 ‘‘Required 

Practices.’’ The proposed revisions 

describe what the test is and how it is 

conducted and not what the regulatory 

requirements of the test are, which this 

rule proposes to move to § 82.157(f). 

EPA is proposing to define follow-up 

verification test as those tests that 

involve checking the repairs to an 

appliance after a successful initial 

verification test and after the appliance 

has returned to normal operating 

characteristics and conditions to verify 

that the repairs were successful. Followup 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 allinclusive, but are intended to provide 

examples of known methodologies of 

performing leak repair verification tests. 

Full Charge and Seasonal Variance 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

definition of the term full charge to 

account for seasonal variances and to 

make minor edits for readability. EPA 

noted in the proposed 2010 Leak Repair 

Rule that owners or operators of 

commercial refrigeration appliances and 

IPR have expressed concerns that the 

full charge may not be accurately 

determined due to seasonal variances 

that may alter the amount of refrigerant 

in an appliance. Seasonal variances in 

ambient temperature and pressure have 

the effect of forcing refrigerant to 

different appliance components (for 

example, from an appliance’s receiver to 

the condenser). 

EPA proposed in 2010 to allow 

owners or operators to estimate the 

effect that seasonal variances have on 

appliance components by making 

calculations based on component sizes, 

density of refrigerant, volume of piping, 

and other relevant considerations. EPA 

continues to believe that owners or 

operators should be able to take 

seasonal variances into account in 

determining the full charge. Unlike the 

2010 proposal, EPA is proposing that 

seasonal variances be accounted for 

using the actual amount of refrigerant 

added to or evacuated from the 

appliance, rather than estimates. 

EPA is proposing to define full charge 

as the amount of refrigerant required for 

normal operating characteristics and 

conditions of the appliance as 

determined by using one or a 

combination of the following four 

methods: 

(1) Use of the equipment 

manufacturer’s determination of the full 

charge; 

(2) Use of appropriate calculations 

based on component sizes, density of 

refrigerant, volume of piping, and other 

relevant considerations; 

(3) Use of actual measurements of the 

amount of refrigerant added to or 

evacuated from the appliance, including 

for seasonal variances; and/or 

(4) Use of an established range based 

on the best available data regarding the 

normal operating characteristics and 

conditions for the appliance, where the 

midpoint of the range will serve as the 

full charge. 

EPA is proposing to create a defined 

term seasonal variance to mean the 

addition of refrigerant to an appliance 

due to a change in ambient conditions 

caused by a change in season, followed 

by the subsequent removal of an equal 

amount of refrigerant due to a later 

corresponding change in season, where 

both the addition and removal of 

refrigerant occurs within one 

consecutive 12-month period. The 

proposal to account for seasonal 

variance when calculating appliance 

leak rates is discussed further in Section 

IV.F. of this preamble. 

Unlike in the 2010 proposal, EPA is 

not proposing to require that an owner 

or operator choose solely one method 

rather than a combination of methods to 

determine full charge. There are 

instances where multiple methods may 

be necessary to accurately determine the 

full charge. In addition, EPA is not 

proposing that owners or operators 

commit to the same method for the life 

of the appliance. However, as discussed 

later in this notice, EPA is proposing to 

require a written record of the full 

charge, the method(s) used to determine 

the full charge, and any changes to that 

amount. 

High-Pressure Appliance 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

definition of the term high-pressure 

appliance to update the list of example 

refrigerants. The proposed changes to 

the terms appliance and refrigerant 

carry over into this term as well. 

Therefore, under the proposed revisions 

high-pressure appliances would include 

those that use ODS and non-ODS 

refrigerants. EPA is proposing to update 

the list of example refrigerants with the 

most common types currently used in 

these systems, including ODS and nonODS refrigerants. Specifically, these are 

R–22, R–407A, R–407C, R–410A, and R– 

502. 

Industrial Process Refrigeration 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

definition of the term industrial process 

refrigeration to make minor 

clarifications for readability and to 

remove a citation to a section of the 

regulation that has moved. EPA is 

proposing to define industrial process 

refrigeration as complex customized 

appliances that are directly linked to the 

processes used in, for example, the 

chemical, pharmaceutical, 

petrochemical, and manufacturing 

industries. This sector also includes 

industrial ice machines, appliances 

used directly in the generation of 

electricity, and ice rinks. Where one 

appliance is used for both industrial 

process refrigeration and other 

applications, it will be considered 

industrial process refrigeration 

equipment if 50 percent or more of its 

operating capacity is used for industrial 

process refrigeration. 

Industrial Process Shutdown 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

definition of the term industrial process 

shutdown to remove a citation to a 

section of the regulation that has moved. 

Initial Verification Test 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

definition of the term initial verification 

test to remove duplicative text covered 

in the required practices section of the 

regulation. The proposed revisions 

describe in general terms what the test 

is, not what the requirements of the test 

are. The purpose of the test is to verify 

that an appliance has been repaired 

prior to adding refrigerant back into the 

system. The requirements for an initial 

verification test are described in Section 

IV.F.10 of this preamble. EPA is 

proposing to define initial verification 

test as those leak tests that are 

conducted as soon as practicable after 

the repair is finished to verify that a leak 

or leaks have been repaired before 

refrigerant is added back to the 

appliance. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69475 

Leak Inspection 

EPA is proposing to create a new 

defined term leak inspection. EPA is 

proposing to require that owners or 

operators conduct annual or quarterly 

leak inspections for appliances normally 

containing 50 or more pounds of 

refrigerant. EPA is proposing to define 

leak inspection as the examination of 

appliances using a calibrated leak 

detection device, a bubble test, or visual 

inspection for oil residue in order to 

determine the presence and location of 

refrigerant leaks. 

This definition appropriately covers 

the techniques currently used to detect 

the location of leaks. This term 

encompasses activities that can be 

performed by someone who is not a 

certified technician, unlike some of the 

activities listed in the definition of the 

term follow-up verification test. The 

proposed term for leak inspection does 

not include activities that would assist 

in determining whether a system is 

leaking generally, such as viewing 

receiver levels, pressure gauges, or 

adding refrigerant. However, EPA 

encourages persons conducting leak 

inspections to also review receiver 

levels if applicable. 

Leak Rate 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

definition of the term leak rate to 

change the calculation performed under 

what is called Method 2 under the 

existing rules. Currently, the first step of 

that method is to take the sum of the 

quantity of refrigerant added to the 

appliance over the previous 365-day 

period (or over the period that has 

passed since leaks in the appliance were 

last repaired, if that period is less than 

one year). Instead of the cut-off being 

since the last repair (if less than 365 

days), EPA is proposing to amend Step 

1 to cover the period of time since the 

last successful follow-up verification 

test (if less than 365 days have passed 

since the last refrigerant addition). This 

proposed change would improve the 

clarity of the requirements, because 

under the existing definition, it is 

unclear if the repair has to be successful 

in order to be considered in the leak rate 

calculation; these proposed revisions 

are intended to clarify that it must be. 

As discussed later in this preamble, EPA 

is proposing to allow repairs and initial 

and follow-up verification tests to occur 

in the same visit by a certified 

technician. This will likely result in the 

verification tests occurring on the same 

day as the repair. 

EPA is also proposing to rename the 

two methods from Method 1 and 

Method 2 to ‘‘Annualizing Method’’ and 

‘‘Rolling Average Method’’ to improve 

readability. Finally, EPA is proposing to 

clarify that while the same leak rate 

calculation must be used for all 

appliances at the same facility, this only 

refers to the appliances subject to the 

leak repair provisions (i.e. appliances 

normally containing 50 or more pounds 

of refrigerant). 

Low-Pressure Appliance 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

definition of the term low-pressure 

appliance to update the list of example 

refrigerants. The proposed changes to 

the terms appliance and refrigerant 

carry over into this term as well. 

Therefore, under the proposed revisions 

low-pressure appliances would include 

those that use ODS and non-ODS 

refrigerants. EPA is proposing to update 

the list of example refrigerants with the 

most common types currently used in 

these systems, including ODS and nonODS refrigerants. Specifically, these are 

R–11, R–123, R–113, R–245fa, and R– 

1233zd(E). 

Medium-Pressure Appliance 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

definition of the term medium-pressure 

appliance to update the list of example 

refrigerants. The proposed changes to 

the terms appliance and refrigerant 

carry over into this term as well. 

Therefore, under the proposed revisions 

medium-pressure appliances would 

include those that use ODS and nonODS refrigerants. EPA is proposing to 

update the list of example refrigerants 

with the most common types currently 

used in these systems, including ODS 

and non-ODS refrigerants. Specifically, 

these are R–114, R–124, R–12, R–134a, 

and R–500. 

Mothball 

EPA is proposing to change the 

defined term system mothballing to 

mothball to reflect how it is used in the 

regulations. Mothballing an appliance 

suspends the time needed to complete 

repairs, retrofit or retirement plans, or 

completion of a retrofit or retirement for 

IPR that have triggered the leak repair 

requirements. The current exemption 

for system mothballing at § 82.154(i)(10) 

is available only for IPR. EPA is 

proposing to extend that exemption to 

all appliances, therefore EPA is 

proposing to remove the reference to 

‘‘refrigeration’’ appliances in the 

definition. The current definition also 

requires that the appliance be shut 

down for ‘‘an extended period of time.’’ 

EPA does not believe that the length of 

time that the system is shut down is 

controlling, but rather that the system 

has been removed from service 

temporarily, as opposed to permanently 

retired, and that the refrigerant has been 

evacuated. EPA is also proposing to 

clarify that the suspension of time ends 

when refrigerant is added back into the 

appliance. The revised definition also 

notes that refrigerant can be evacuated 

from an isolated component of the 

appliance and makes minor edits to 

improve clarity and readability. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing the term 

mothball to mean to evacuate refrigerant 

from an appliance, or the affected 

isolated section or component of an 

appliance, to at least atmospheric 

pressure, and to temporarily shut down 

that appliance. 

Normal Operating Characteristics and 

Conditions 

EPA is proposing to change the 

defined term normal operating 

characteristics or conditions by 

replacing ‘‘or’’ with ‘‘and’’ for 

consistency through the regulations and 

to accurately describe the intended state 

of the appliance to which this term 

refers. EPA is also proposing to remove 

a reference to a section of the regulation 

that has moved. EPA is further 

proposing to add a reference to the 

appliance’s full charge. Operating at full 

charge is a necessary element of an 

appliance’s normal characteristics and it 

should be reflected in the definition. 

Finally, EPA is clarifying that this term 

extends to all appliances, not just 

refrigeration appliances. This term is 

currently used in the regulatory text in 

reference to all types of air-conditioning 

and refrigeration systems. 

Normally Containing a Quantity of 

Refrigerant 

EPA is proposing to remove the 

defined term Normally containing a 

quantity of refrigerant. This term merely 

indicates the quantity of refrigerant in 

an appliance at full charge and it may 

be confusing to have two defined terms 

to make the same point. EPA is 

proposing to replace this term wherever 

it is found with the phrase ‘‘with a full 

charge of.’’ 

One-Time Expansion Device 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

definition of the term one-time 

expansion device to make clear that this 

includes devices that can store multiple 

charges, which are released individually 

to the environment to provide a cooling 

effect. EPA is proposing to define onetime 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69476 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

to release refrigerant to the environment 

through multiple individual charges. 

Opening an Appliance 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

definition of the term opening an 

appliance to improve readability. 

Reclaim 

EPA is proposing to change the 

defined term reclaim refrigerant to 

reclaim so as to match usage in the 

regulatory text. EPA is also proposing to 

update the Air Conditioning, 

Refrigeration, and Heating Institute 

(AHRI) standard referenced in the 

definition. This updated standard 

includes non-ODS refrigerants. 

Recover 

EPA is proposing to change the 

defined term recover refrigerant to 

recover so as to match usage in the 

regulatory text. 

Recycle 

In the context of recycling refrigerant, 

EPA is proposing to change the defined 

term recycle refrigerant to recycle so as 

to match usage in the regulatory text. 

EPA is also proposing to clarify in the 

definition that reuse of recycled 

refrigerant must occur in equipment of 

the same owner or operator. EPA has 

previously prohibited in § 82.154(g) the 

sale of used refrigerant unless it has 

been reclaimed or is being transferred to 

an appliance owned by the same parent 

company or by the same Federal agency 

or department. EPA is also making 

minor changes to improve readability. 

Retire 

EPA is proposing to create a defined 

term retire in reference to appliances to 

mean the disassembly of the entire 

appliance including its major 

components, such that the appliance as 

a whole cannot be used by any person 

in the future. Retirement means that any 

remaining refrigerant would be 

recovered from the appliance followed 

by the dismantling and disposal of the 

appliance components. Retirement 

differs from mothballing as defined at 

§ 82.152 because a mothballed 

appliance is simply evacuated and shut 

down until it is ready to be used once 

again, whereas retirement involves a 

permanent shutdown and disassembly 

of an appliance. Retirement should also 

not be confused with a repair. Repair is 

not expressly defined in the subpart F 

regulations. It may include the removal 

of a faulty component, but such removal 

does not mean that the appliance as a 

whole has been removed from service 

and rendered unfit for use by the 

current or any future owner or operator. 

Throughout this rule, ‘‘replacement’’ or 

‘‘replace’’ may be used when discussing 

a situation where an existing appliance 

is retired, and replaced with another 

appliance. In some instances, however, 

the owner or operator may choose to 

only retire and not replace an appliance 

so the two terms are not always used 

together. 

Retrofit 

EPA is proposing to create a defined 

term retrofit. As discussed in the 

proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule, many 

appliance owners or operators have 

incorrectly equated the two terms 

retrofit and repair. EPA does not view 

a retrofit or the need to retrofit as a 

repair. Although repair is not expressly 

defined in the subpart F regulations, 

EPA considers a repair to include an 

action that addresses the leaking 

appliance or the affected component(s) 

of the leaking appliance. Repairs may 

include replacement of components or 

component subassemblies, whereas EPA 

uses the term retrofit to refer to a change 

to the appliance in order to convert it 

to the use of a different refrigerant. EPA 

does not use the term to apply to 

upgrades or repairs to existing 

equipment where the refrigerant is not 

changed. Retrofits often require changes 

to the appliance (for example, change in 

lubricants, filter driers, gaskets, o-rings, 

and in some cases, components) in 

order to acquire system compatibility. 

Self-Sealing Valve 

EPA is proposing to create a defined 

term self-sealing valve. A self-sealing 

valve means a valve affixed to a 

container of refrigerant that 

automatically seals when not actively 

dispensing refrigerant and that meets or 

exceeds established performance criteria 

as identified in § 82.154(f)(2). The 

purpose of a self-sealing valve is to 

prevent or minimize inadvertent release 

of refrigerant to the environment during 

the use and storage of the container of 

refrigerant. EPA discusses the 

requirement for self-sealing valves for 

small cans of MVAC refrigerant in more 

detail in Section IV.H.4 of this 

preamble. 

Small Appliance 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

definition of the term small appliance to 

remove the reference to class I and class 

II refrigerants. The proposed changes to 

the terms appliance and refrigerant 

carry over into this term as well. 

Therefore, under this proposal small 

appliances would include those that use 

ODS and non-ODS refrigerants. EPA is 

also proposing to add portable air 

conditioners to the list of example 

appliances. 

Substitute 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

definition of the term substitute to 

remove the phrases ‘‘EPA-approved’’ 

and ‘‘in a given refrigeration or airconditioning end-use.’’ These phrases 

are references to the SNAP program, 

which identifies acceptable alternatives 

to ODS for specific end-uses. EPA is 

proposing to remove this reference 

because the Agency has recently 

changed the status of certain refrigerants 

from acceptable to unacceptable for new 

retail food refrigeration equipment, 

vending machines, and motor vehicle 

air conditioning (80 FR 42870; July 20, 

2015). EPA does not mean to imply that 

finding a refrigerant to be unacceptable 

in a given end-use under SNAP means 

that it is no longer included within the 

term substitute and thus by extension 

the term refrigerant. Were that the case, 

those substitutes could be inadvertently 

exempted from the safe handling 

requirements of subpart F. EPA is 

making this change to prevent that 

confusion, especially since the Agency 

is allowing for the servicing of existing 

appliances designed to use refrigerants 

that the Agency recently listed as 

unacceptable in new (and in some 

cases) retrofitted appliances. In the 

revised definition, any chemical or 

product, whether existing or new, that 

is used by any person as a replacement 

for a class I or II ozone-depleting 

substance would be considered a 

substitute, even if it has been recently 

listed as unacceptable under SNAP in 

some end-uses. As discussed above, 

EPA is also proposing to incorporate the 

term substitute within the term 

refrigerant. 

By defining the term substitute in this 

way, and incorporating it into the 

definition of refrigerant, EPA intends to 

apply the requirements in subpart F to 

all substances that are functionally 

refrigerants, including but not limited to 

HFCs, PFCs, HFOs, hydrofluoroethers, 

and hydrocarbons. Multiple 

stakeholders at the November 2014 

meeting encouraged EPA to treat all 

refrigerants in the same manner. With 

the exception of those substances 

specifically exempted from the venting 

prohibition, requiring all substances 

used as refrigerants to be handled in the 

same manner will reduce confusion and 

ultimately prevent emissions of both 

ODS refrigerants and non-ODS, highGWP 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69477 

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 

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 examples of activities 

reasonably expected to violate the 

integrity of the refrigerant circuit: 

Adding or removing components and 

cutting the refrigerant line. EPA is 

proposing to add these to the list of 

examples to improve the enforceability 

of these regulations. 

Very High-Pressure Appliance 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

definition of the term very high-pressure 

appliance to update the list of example 

refrigerants. The proposed changes to 

the terms appliance and refrigerant 

carry over into this term as well. 

Therefore, under the proposed revisions 

very high-pressure appliances would 

include those that use ODS and nonODS 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 nonODS substitutes to the environment. 

This regulatory provision also currently 

provides an exemption to the venting 

prohibition for certain substitutes in 

specific end-uses based on a 

determination that the listed substitutes 

in the listed end-uses do not pose a risk 

to the environment when released. This 

section also exempts from the venting 

prohibition de minimis releases of ODS 

refrigerants and non-exempt substitute 

refrigerants, and defines de minimis 

releases of ODS refrigerants to be those 

releases that occur when the other 

provisions of subpart F (or subpart B in 

the case of MVACs) are followed. 

2. Applying the de Minimis Exemption 

to Substitute Refrigerants 

The knowing venting, release, or 

disposal of substitutes for class I and 

class II refrigerants during maintenance, 

service, repair, or disposal of an 

appliance or IPR is expressly prohibited 

by section 608(c)(1) and (2) of the CAA, 

effective November 15, 1995, unless the 

Administrator determines that such 

venting, release, or disposal does not 

pose a threat to the environment. This 

prohibition is commonly called the 

venting prohibition. As explained in 

more detail above, section 608(c)(1) 

establishes the venting prohibition for 

class I and class II substances, and also 

establishes an exemption from the 

prohibition for de minimis releases 

associated with good faith attempts to 

recapture and recycle or safely dispose 

of ‘‘any such substance.’’ The statutory 

language of section 608(c)(2) extends 

paragraph 608(c)(1) to substitutes for 

class I and class II substances used as 

refrigerants in appliances and IPR. This 

extension includes the prohibition on 

venting and the exemption for de 

minimis releases associated with good 

faith attempts to recapture and recycle 

or safely dispose of such substances. 

For class I and II substances EPA has 

interpreted those releases that occur 

despite compliance with EPA’s required 

practices for recycling and recovery 

under § 82.156, including use of 

recovery and/or recycling equipment 

certified under § 82.158, and technician 

certification programs under § 82.161 as 

de minimis. Thus, compliance with 

these regulations represents ‘‘good faith 

attempts to recapture and recycle or 

safely dispose’’ of refrigerant. 

Accordingly, the regulations at 

§ 82.154(a)(2) currently provide that 

releases of ODS refrigerants are 

considered de minimis only if they 

occur when the other provisions of 

subpart F (or subpart B in the case of 

MVACs) are followed. As noted above, 

although the regulations at § 82.154(a) 

exempt de minimis releases of nonexempt substitutes from the venting 

prohibition, the regulations do not 

provide any express guidance for such 

substitutes as to what practices are 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69478 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

considered ‘‘good faith attempts to 

recapture and recycle or safely dispose’’ 

of the substitute such that incidental 

releases would qualify for the de 

minimis exception. 

EPA proposes to interpret the phrase 

‘‘good faith attempts to recapture and 

recycle or safely dispose’’ similarly 

when it applies to substitute refrigerants 

under section 608(c)(2) as when it 

applies to ODS refrigerants under 

section 608(c)(1). Thus, compliance 

with the proposed provisions and 

revisions regarding evacuation of 

equipment, use of certified equipment, 

and technician certification in any 

instance where a person is opening (or 

otherwise violating the refrigerant 

circuit) or disposing of an appliance, as 

defined in § 82.152 would represent 

‘‘good faith attempts to recapture and 

recycle or safely dispose’’ of substitute 

refrigerants. EPA considers these 

provisions to appropriately represent 

good faith attempts to recapture and 

recycle or safely dispose of substitute 

refrigerants for the reasons discussed in 

EPA’s justification of each proposed 

provision below. Under this approach, 

emissions that take place during 

servicing or disposal when these 

provisions are not followed would not 

be de minimis emissions and would be 

subject to the venting prohibition. 

Conversely, this approach together with 

the proposal to include substitute 

refrigerants in the definition of the term 

refrigerant, would mean that substitute 

refrigerants would be included in the 

regulatory clarification that releases are 

only considered de minimis if they 

occur when these procedures or those 

under subpart B are followed. 

It is impossible to open appliances (or 

otherwise violate the refrigerant circuit) 

or dispose of appliances without 

emitting some of the refrigerant in that 

circuit, even if an effort is made to 

recapture. Even after the appliance has 

been evacuated, some refrigerant 

remains, which is released to the 

environment when the appliance is 

opened or disposed of. Other activities 

that fall short of opening or disposing of 

the appliance but that involve violation 

of the refrigerant circuit also release 

refrigerant, albeit in very small 

quantities, because connectors (e.g., 

between hoses or gauges and the 

appliance) never join together without 

intervening space. Even in the best case 

in which a good seal is made between 

a hose and an appliance before the valve 

between them is opened, some 

refrigerant will remain in the space 

between the valve and the outer seal 

after the valve is closed. This refrigerant 

will be released when the outer seal is 

broken. Thus, whenever a person opens 

an appliance (or otherwise violates the 

refrigerant circuit) in the course of 

maintaining, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing that appliance, he or she 

could violate the venting prohibition 

unless the exception for de minimis 

releases applies. Because EPA is 

proposing to define the exception for 

substitute refrigerants such that it only 

applies when the person complies with 

the existing refrigerant management 

provisions, compliance with the 

proposed provisions will ensure that 

any releases incidental to these 

practices will be considered de minimis 

and thus will not violate the venting 

prohibition under section 608(c)(2). EPA 

invites comments on applying these 

provisions of subpart F to substitute 

refrigerants. 

3. Exempting Certain Substitutes From 

the Venting Prohibition 

EPA is proposing to explicitly state in 

the regulatory text that the substitutes 

exempted from the venting prohibition 

in § 82.154(a)(1) are also exempt from 

the other provisions of subpart F. EPA 

has previously determined that these 

substances do not pose a threat to the 

environment when vented or otherwise 

released. Given that decision, it would 

generally not make sense to require 

procedures for recovery or safe disposal, 

or to apply other provisions of subpart 

F to those exempt refrigerants. This is 

consistent with the intent of section 

608(c)(2), which states that the 

Administrator may determine that not 

just the venting but also the ‘‘releasing, 

or disposing’’ of such substance does 

not pose a threat to the environment. 

EPA does not view this as a substantive 

change but rather as a clarification of 

the existing regulations. This proposed 

revision will also help to ensure that the 

extension of substantive requirements to 

substitutes does not inadvertently lead 

to application of those requirements to 

exempt substitutes. 

EPA is also proposing to reorganize 

the list of exempt substitutes by 

refrigerant type for readability. All of 

the specific end-uses for that substance 

would appear in one place. EPA is not 

proposing any changes to those enduses or adding or removing any 

substitutes from the list. 

4. Releases From Containers 

EPA is moving the existing regulatory 

provision in § 82.154(a)(2) that states 

that the venting prohibition applies to 

the release of refrigerant (both ODS and 

non-exempt substitute refrigerants) after 

its recovery from an appliance. EPA is 

moving this provision to a separate 

subparagraph (§ 82.154(a)(3)) rather than 

its current location in the description of 

a de minimis release. Standing alone 

should make the provision clearer that 

it is a violation of the venting 

prohibition to vent or otherwise release 

refrigerant after that refrigerant is 

recovered from an appliance, whether 

from cylinders, recovery equipment, or 

any other storage container or device. 

EPA wishes to highlight that the venting 

prohibition cannot be obviated through 

using a recovery device and 

subsequently releasing the refrigerant. 

This is especially important because 

refrigerant recovered from appliances 

may be contaminated or be a mixture of 

multiple refrigerants. Such refrigerant 

may be difficult to reclaim or may 

require a fee for proper disposal or 

destruction. In light of those difficulties, 

it is important to emphasize that venting 

this refrigerant, even though it is in a 

cylinder and not an appliance, is illegal. 

5. Removing Effective Dates 

EPA is proposing to remove the 

effective dates in § 82.154(a) and 

elsewhere in subpart F wherever it 

makes sense to do so. These other 

locations are § 82.154(d)–(f) and (i)–(k), 

§ 82.156(f), § 82.158(a) and (n), 

§ 82.161(a), and § 82.164(a). Many of the 

effective dates are 1993 or 1994 when 

the program was established and it is 

now well understood that these 

provisions currently apply. Others refer 

to the specific standards for recovery 

and/or recycling equipment, which EPA 

addresses below. EPA does not want to 

remove an effective date where it is 

important for understanding the timing 

of the regulations. For example, EPA is 

proposing to remove the separate 

effective date references in § 82.154(a) 

but may decide to leave the June 9, 

2015, effective date for the alternatives 

added under a recent SNAP rule (April 

10, 2015; 80 FR 19454) as it is relatively 

new. EPA specifically encourages 

comments on whether removing 

effective dates in most instances is 

appropriate, both in § 82.154(a) and in 

other provisions of subpart F. 

C. Proposed Changes to the Refrigerant 

and Appliance Sales Restrictions in 

Section 82.154 

1. Background 

Under the current regulations at 

§ 82.154(m), the sale or distribution of a 

refrigerant containing a class I or class 

II substance, such as R–12, or refrigerant 

blends that include HCFCs, is restricted 

to technicians certified under sections 

608 or 609 of the CAA. The sale or 

distribution of any class I or class II 

substance suitable for use in an MVAC 

that is in a container of less than 20 

pounds may only be sold to technicians 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69479 

certified under section 609. For 

example, any person who sells or 

distributes R–12 for use in an MVAC 

and that is in a container of less than 20 

pounds must verify that the purchaser 

has obtained certification by an EPAapproved section 609 technician 

training and certification program. 

The current regulations at § 82.154(g) 

also restrict the sale of used ODS 

refrigerant sold for reuse unless certain 

conditions are met, the most important 

of which is that the refrigerant has been 

reclaimed. Sections 82.154(j) and (k) 

prohibit the sale of appliances 

containing an ODS refrigerant unless the 

appliance has a servicing aperture or 

process stub to facilitate the removal of 

refrigerant at servicing and disposal. 

Section 82.154(p) also currently 

prohibits the manufacture or import of 

one-time expansion devices that contain 

any refrigerant (ODS or non-ODS), other 

than exempted refrigerants. 

2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants 

EPA is proposing to extend the sales 

restriction to HFCs and other nonexempt substitute refrigerants. The sales 

restriction would apply to non-exempt 

substitute refrigerants sold in all sizes of 

containers for use in all types of 

appliances. However, as discussed 

below, EPA is proposing to create an 

exception for small cans (two pounds or 

less) of refrigerant intended to service 

MVACs, so long as the cans are 

equipped with a self-sealing valve. EPA 

is also proposing to extend the 

restriction on the sale of used refrigerant 

to include used non-exempt substitute 

refrigerants and require that appliances 

containing such substitute refrigerants 

contain a servicing aperture or process 

stub to allow for recovery of the 

refrigerant. 

To extend the sales restriction, EPA is 

proposing to remove references to class 

I and class II substances where 

appropriate in these provisions and to 

replace them with the term refrigerant, 

which EPA is proposing to amend in 

§ 82.152 to include substitutes. To avoid 

confusion, EPA is proposing to add a 

provision specifically noting that the 

sales restriction does not apply to 

substitutes that are exempt from the 

venting prohibition. EPA is also 

proposing to amend the purpose and 

scope statements at § 82.150, both of 

which describe the sales restriction as 

only affecting class I or class II ODS. 

EPA is proposing to add the term 

substitutes to these purpose and scope 

statements to clarify that the sales 

restriction, as well as the other 

provisions of the rule, would apply to 

ODS and substitute refrigerants. 

EPA restricted the sale of ODS 

refrigerant to certified technicians as a 

means of ensuring that only qualified 

individuals—those who have sufficient 

knowledge of the safe handling 

regulations—actually handle refrigerant. 

EPA considers the restriction on the sale 

of ODS refrigerant to be important for 

ensuring compliance with and aiding 

enforcement of the regulations issued 

under section 608 and section 609 of the 

CAA. This requirement also fits in well 

with EPA’s Next Generation Compliance 

strategy since compliance with this 

requirement is largely carried out by 

distributors who sell refrigerant to 

technicians. Limiting the sale of 

substitute refrigerants to technicians 

who have demonstrated knowledge of 

safe handling practices is important to 

minimizing the release of refrigerants 

during the maintenance, servicing and 

repair of appliances containing 

substitute refrigerants. A sales 

restriction for substitute refrigerants is 

also vital to extending the technician 

certification requirements to individuals 

working with substitute refrigerants. 

EPA more fully discusses later in the 

preamble how section 608(c) of the CAA 

provides authority for extending the 

technician certification program. As an 

element of that program, the same legal 

authority applies to the sales restriction. 

EPA is not proposing to rely on 

section 608(b)(2) of the CAA which 

explicitly requires servicing apertures or 

other similar design features for 

appliances containing an ODS 

refrigerant. Instead, in order to comply 

with the section 608(c) prohibition 

against the venting, release, or disposal 

of substitute refrigerants into the 

environment, similar design features 

must also be present on appliances 

containing such substitutes. These 

access points allow for the proper 

evacuation or recovery of substitute 

refrigerant, preventing releases to the 

atmosphere. Without these access 

points, it would be harder for persons 

servicing or disposing of such 

appliances to properly evacuate the 

refrigerant in accordance with 

§ 82.156(b). Additionally, since 

refrigerant in an appliance will 

eventually leak out in the disposal 

process, such as when an appliance is 

crushed or shredded, failing to remove 

refrigerant prior to disposal could lead 

to a knowing release of refrigerant. 

These equipment requirements would 

prevent subsequent knowing releases of 

refrigerant. 

One-time expansion devices, by 

design, release their refrigerant charge to 

the environment in order to provide a 

cooling effect. Examples include selfchilled beverage containers that must be 

disposed of or recycled after each use, 

as well as reusable containers. The 

existing regulations limit the 

manufacture or import of one-time 

expansion devices to only those that 

contain exempted refrigerants. However, 

the definition of one-time expansion 

device refers to them as appliances 

containing a refrigerant, both of which 

under the existing regulations refer only 

to ODS refrigerants. This rule would 

clarify that ambiguity and clearly limit 

one-time expansion devices to those 

using exempt refrigerants. 

In addition to fully implementing 

608(c) by clarifying how regulated 

entities may avail themselves of the de 

minimis exemption to the venting 

prohibition, these proposed changes 

would apply the same requirements for 

sales of ODS and substitute refrigerants 

(except those that are exempt from the 

608(c) prohibition on venting), as well 

as for appliances containing ODS and 

substitute refrigerants. This should 

reduce potential confusion for the 

person maintaining, servicing, repairing 

and disposing of appliances, resulting in 

fewer releases of ODS and substitute 

refrigerants. For this reason, identical 

treatment will help to reduce ODS 

emissions to the lowest achievable level 

and lead to more recovery and recycling 

or reclamation of ODS. 

EPA also has authority under section 

301(a) of the CAA to ‘‘prescribe such 

regulations as are necessary to carry out 

[its] functions under this Act.’’ As 

described above, section 301(a) provides 

additional authority for EPA to establish 

a sales restriction as a way to further 

implement the 608(a) and 608(c)(2) 

statutory requirements. EPA 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 enduse. 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69480 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

8ODS 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. 

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 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 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 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 selfsealing 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 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 

self-sealing 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 airconditioning 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 HFC–134a refrigerant 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69481 

9See the CARB document titled, ‘‘Certification 

Procedures for Small Containers of Automotive 

Refrigerant'' for additional information on labeling. 

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 mostcommon 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 

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 selfsealing 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 vented 9; (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 disposed of, except for 

small appliances, MVACs, and MVAClike 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 MVAClike appliances, which have separate 

requirements. 

i. Evacuation Levels for Appliances 

Other Than Small Appliances, MVACs, 

and MVAC-Like Appliances 

EPA is proposing revisions to 

§ 82.156(a) such that appliances other 

than small appliances, MVACs, and 

MVAC-like appliances containing nonexempt 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 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 nonexempt 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 nonexempt 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 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69482 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

10EPA’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. 

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 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, 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 airconditioning 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 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69483 

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 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 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. 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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69484 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 nonexempt substitute refrigerants. 

Consistent with the 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 nonODS 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 

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 ODPweighted 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. 

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). 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69485 

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 prenotice 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 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 ozonedepleting 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 reproposing 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 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69486 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

11Section 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. 

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 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 nonexempt 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). 

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 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 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69487 

‘‘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 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. 

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 nonexempt 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 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 

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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69488 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

12Among 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. 

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 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) 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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69489 

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 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 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 airconditioning 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 ozonedepleting 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 airconditioning 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 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: 

(1) The refrigeration system is custombuilt; 

(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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69490 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 Federallyowned appliances—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 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 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 nonexempt 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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69491 

13See GreenChill’s Best Practices Guidelines: 

Commercial Refrigeration Leak Prevention & 

Repairs, May 2011, available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

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 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. 

As part of this proposal, EPA would 

not require periodic leak inspections if 

owners or operators install and operate 

an automatic leak detection system that 

continuously monitors the appliance for 

leaks. The leak detection system must 

meet the requirements described below, 

and the owner or operator must 

calibrate the system annually and keep 

records documenting the calibration. A 

system that meets these requirements 

and is properly operated will provide 

continuous information about whether a 

system is leaking, and thus quarterly 

inspections would be unnecessary. 

EPA considered CARB’s RMP when 

developing this proposal. The RMP’s 

leak inspection provisions, which only 

cover refrigeration appliances with a 

full charge of more than 50 pounds, 

require the following: 

• An automatic leak detection system 

that continuously monitors appliances 

normally containing 2,000 pounds or 

more of refrigerant; 

• Quarterly leak inspections for all 

appliances with 200 or more pounds of 

refrigerant (unless an automatic leak 

detection system is installed) and 

annually for appliances with 50 to 199 

pounds; and 

• Leak inspections before adding 

refrigerant to an appliance and after a 

leak is repaired. 

EPA’s proposal for automatic leak 

detection equipment is based on CARB’s 

requirements. EPA is proposing to use 

the same level of detection (10 parts per 

million of vapor) and notification 

thresholds (100 parts per million of 

vapor, a loss of 50 pounds of refrigerant, 

or a loss of 10 percent of the full charge) 

as in CARB’s requirements. Such 

equipment is already available on the 

market and capable of meeting those 

standards. 

Leak inspections have been seen 

within the industry as a best practice to 

reduce emissions of refrigerants and 

many facilities use this strategy. For 

example, numerous GreenChill partners 

have used this best practice with 

success to keep their leak rates down.13

The 2014 corporate-wide average leak 

rate among all GreenChill partner stores 

was under 14 percent. While the Agency 

recommends fixing all leaks once 

they’ve been found, EPA recognizes that 

even well-maintained appliances 

subject to these provisions leak. Given 

that fact, EPA’s lead proposal is to only 

require that all identified leaks from a 

leak inspection be fixed when the 

applicable leak rate is exceeded. EPA is 

proposing this option because the costs 

of repairing all leaks when the leak rate 

is below the applicable leak rate may 

not justify the benefits, especially when 

the leak is a series of small pinhole 

leaks and the leak rate is very low, as 

may often be the case. When the 

applicable leak rate is exceeded, the 

benefits are significant and do result in 

significant enough savings—both for the 

environment and for the owner/operator 

(in decreased refrigerant replacement 

costs), to warrant repair of all identified 

leaks. This proposal is also consistent 

with the current leak repair 

requirements: Owners and operators of 

appliances are only required to repair 

leaks once the applicable leak rate has 

been exceeded. This familiarity will 

reduce confusion and encourage 

compliance. 

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 include 

the date of inspection and any 

component(s) where the leak(s) are 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69492 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

discovered. For systems that use an 

automatic leak detection system, a 

record must be kept of the annual 

calibration of the leak detection system. 

EPA seeks comment on whether it 

should require that continuous readings 

from the automatic leak detection 

equipment be maintained for some 

period of time (as few as three months 

or as long as three years) so the Agency 

can verify the automatic detection 

equipment is in fact being used 

continuously. 

EPA has authority under section 

608(a)(3) to establish ‘‘requirements that 

reduce the use and emission of [ODS] to 

the lowest achievable level.’’ Leaks will 

be identified sooner when appliances 

containing ODS refrigerant are regularly 

inspected. Leaks that are determined to 

be above the applicable leak rate must 

be repaired and it is likely that smaller 

leaks may also be fixed. As a result, leak 

inspections will reduce the emissions of 

ODS refrigerant. Additionally, providing 

a consistent standard for ODS and 

substitute refrigerants will reduce the 

incidence of failures to follow the 

requirements for ODS appliances and in 

turn reduce the emissions of ODS. For 

these reasons, EPA is relying in part on 

section 608(a) for authority to require 

leak inspections for appliances 

containing non-exempt substitutes. 

Section 608(c) provides an exception 

from the venting prohibition for de 

minimis releases during maintenance, 

service, repair, and disposal. EPA has 

implicit authority to issue regulations 

explaining the contours of this 

exception. Leak inspections are 

themselves a form of maintenance and 

actions taken to address a leak are a type 

of repair or service. By performing 

periodic leak inspections, and repairing 

leaks as would be required in this 

proposal, the owners and operators both 

limit the immediate leakage and 

decrease the likelihood of leaks during 

future maintenance or servicing. 

Whether owners and operators are 

taking proactive leak prevention steps 

by inspecting for leaks as a regular 

maintenance practice is relevant to 

whether any emissions that do occur 

may be considered de minimis under 

section 608(c). Section 301(a) 

supplements EPA’s authority under 

608(a) and 608(c) as described 

previously. 

EPA seeks comments on the proposed 

requirement for leak inspections. 

Specifically, EPA seeks comment on the 

frequency of leak inspections: Does the 

quarterly/annual requirement make 

sense, or should EPA require more 

frequent for some appliances (as 

frequent as once per month), or less 

frequent (as infrequent as once every six 

months) inspections? EPA also seeks 

comment on the whether all systems 

should have to conduct leak inspections 

using the same frequency, or with 

different requirements based on full 

charge. EPA also seeks comment on the 

500 pounds full charge threshold for 

requiring quarterly inspections. 

Specifically, should EPA establish a 

lower full charge threshold (as low as 

200 pounds), or a higher full charge 

threshold (as high as 1,000 pounds)? 

EPA also seeks comment on the 

proposed criteria for the exemption 

from the quarterly leak inspection 

requirement. The agency has proposed 

to base this on refrigerant additions in 

the past 365 days. However, EPA takes 

comment on whether basing this 

exemption on four consecutive quarters 

under the applicable leak rate or four 

consecutive quarters without identifying 

a leak would be more appropriate. EPA 

also seeks comment on whether a 

periodic (quarterly or annual) leak 

inspection should satisfy the 

requirement to conduct a leak 

inspection upon discovering a leak rate 

in excess of the applicable leak rate if 

the periodic leak inspection alerts the 

owner to the fact that the applicable 

leak rate has been exceeded and all 

identified leaks during the inspection 

are documented. Similarly, EPA seeks 

comment on whether a leak inspection 

conducted after the applicable leak rate 

was exceeded should replace a 

typically-scheduled quarterly or annual 

leak inspection. EPA also seeks 

comment on whether the agency should 

require the repair of all leaks identified 

during leak inspections regardless of 

whether the applicable leak rate has 

been exceeded, or only if the leak rate 

is above the applicable leak rate. For 

commenters on all of these alternative 

proposals, please provide as much 

specificity as possible and the reason 

why these changes would be more 

appropriate than the lead proposal, with 

special attention to the environmental 

outcomes resulting from the change. 

EPA also seeks comments on 

alternative proposals for automatic 

detection equipment including: (1) 

Whether automatic detection systems 

should be inspected and calibrated more 

frequently than annually to ensure it is 

functioning properly (as frequently as 

quarterly); (2) whether EPA should 

require the installation of automatic leak 

detection systems for appliances with a 

full charge of 2,000 pounds or more, 

similar to California’s requirement, 

instead of just requiring periodic leak 

inspections; and (3) whether owners 

and operators using automatic leak 

detection systems should be required to 

keep records of when a leak is identified 

and what actions were taken to repair 

that leak. 

i. Extensions for Less Frequent 

Inspections 

Consistent with past regulations 

implementing CAA section 608, EPA is 

proposing to establish a process that 

would allow owners or operators to 

request less frequent leak inspections 

for certain federally-owned appliances 

that are located in remote locations or 

are otherwise difficult to access for 

routine maintenance. Specifically, EPA 

is proposing that owners or operators of 

appliances in these unique situations 

would be allowed to request a less 

frequent leak inspection schedule (not 

to be less frequent than once every three 

years instead of the proposed annual or 

quarterly requirement that would 

otherwise apply). EPA is also 

considering establishing two years as 

the maximum amount of time that can 

pass between inspections, instead of 

three. None of the other appliance 

maintenance and leak repair 

requirements would be affected by this 

extension. 

Any owner or operator of an 

appliance requesting an extension 

would have to show that the appliance 

has a history of minimal leakage and is 

remotely located or is otherwise 

difficult to access for routine 

maintenance. Additionally, the 

extension request should explain why 

installation of automatic leak detection 

equipment is not practical and what 

leak inspection schedule would be 

reasonable given the circumstances (not 

to exceed three years). EPA seeks 

comments on the establishment of this 

extension request process, if there are 

other conditions that should be 

established to gain approval from EPA, 

whether the longest interval between 

inspections should be two years instead 

of three, and whether this extension 

should only be available for comfort 

cooling appliances, since they are the 

most likely to be in locations that are 

remote or difficult to access routinely. 

Given the attempt to harmonize 

appliance maintenance and leak repair 

extension requests elsewhere, EPA also 

seeks comments on whether privatelyowned 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69493 

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 

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 twelvemonth periods. EPA looked only at a 

single one-year period because 2012 and 

2014 data were not available at the time 

the proposal was developed. The data 

do support the fact that a small 

percentage of appliances are responsible 

for a larger proportion of emissions. 

EPA also looked at the percentage of 

appliances that had leaked more than 

35, 55, and 100 percent over the 

calendar year to see how many 

appliances could be affected and what 

percentage of leaks they are responsible 

for. EPA seeks comment on whether it 

should finalize a higher or lower twoyear 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 twoyear limit should exclude appliances 

that suffered from a one-time 

catastrophic leak, many of which are 

largely unpreventable. A leak limit that 

is evaluated over two consecutive 

twelve-month periods allows for the 

possibility of an unpreventable 

catastrophic leak in one year without 

violating the prohibition, as long as 

leaks are reduced below the limit in the 

following year. Second, if the appliance 

maintenance and leak repair 

requirements proposed in this notice are 

finalized, they should prevent the leak 

limit from being reached. Only when an 

owner or operator continues to add 

refrigerant to a system without taking 

steps to repair the leaks would an 

appliance reach the two-year leak limit. 

Third, due to the proposed calculation 

and recordkeeping requirements 

discussed below, appliance owners or 

operators would be on notice that their 

appliance was leaking at an 

unacceptable level after the first year, 

and should have ample time to bring 

leaks down below the 75 percent leak 

limit in the following year. An 

appliance owner or operator that did not 

take action based on the calculation and 

recordkeeping requirements in order to 

meet the two-year limit would be 

participating in the knowing release of 

refrigerant during maintenance and 

servicing of the appliance. 

EPA seeks comments on creating a 

leak limit and on the leak amount that 

should be used for such a leak limit. 

EPA seeks comments on whether it 

should finalize a leak limit that is lower 

or higher (as low as 35 percent, or as 

high as 100 percent). EPA seeks 

comments on whether it should 

establish a limit based on two 

consecutive 6-month periods or on just 

one year, instead of two consecutive 

twelve-month periods. EPA also seeks 

comments on whether the Agency 

should allow owners or operators to stay 

in compliance after exceeding the leak 

limit if they develop a retrofit or 

retirement plan and implement it within 

one year instead of being required to 

retire the appliance or mothball and 

later retire the appliance. This option 

would provide owners and operators 

with additional flexibility to remain in 

compliance while decreasing emissions 

of refrigerant. EPA also seeks comment 

on whether it should allow owners and 

operators to continue operating their 

appliance beyond the two-year (or 

shorter) period if they notify EPA that 

the reason they went over the leak limit 

was only because of one or more 

catastrophic leaks that were 

unavoidable. Under this alternative 

proposal, EPA would have to review the 

notification and determine whether 

there is enough documentation to verify 

that the leak or leaks were in fact 

catastrophic and could not have been 

prevented. If comments indicate an 

exception for catastrophic leaks should 

be provided, the agency would likely 

finalize a lower leak limit and would 

potentially shorten the timeframe over 

which the requirement would apply 

(i.e., two consecutive six-month periods 

instead of two consecutive twelvemonth 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 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 nonexempt 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69494 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the seasonal variance are maintained as 

proposed in this rule). 

EPA is also proposing to add specific 

recordkeeping requirements to ensure 

that the owner or operator is aware of 

the leak rate. The limited records 

currently required from service 

technicians may not provide 

information needed by the appliance 

owner or operator to make decisions on 

the fate of the appliance. In addition, 

the records that are currently required to 

be provided by the technician do not 

match the records that are currently 

required to be maintained by the owner 

or operator. EPA is therefore proposing 

to require that service technicians 

provide more detailed records to the 

owner or operator of the appliance. The 

additional records would match the 

records that owners and operators of 

appliances must maintain. The service 

technician is generally in the better 

position to generate those records as 

they usually are the expert that the 

appliance owner or operator is relying 

on to make informed decisions about 

their appliances. With the addition of 

these requirements, an appliance owner 

or operator that failed to take required 

leak repair actions would be 

participating in the knowing release of 

refrigerant during maintenance, service, 

or repair of the appliance. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing that 

whenever an appliance with 50 or more 

pounds of refrigerant is maintained, 

serviced, repaired, or disposed of, the 

technician must provide the owner or 

operator with an invoice or other 

documentation that indicates (1) the 

identity and location of the appliance; 

(2) the date and type of maintenance, 

service, repair, or disposal performed, 

including the location of repairs and the 

results of any verification tests or leak 

inspections (if applicable); (3) the name 

and contact information of the person 

performing the maintenance, service, 

repair, or disposal; (4) the amount and 

type of refrigerant added to and/or 

removed from the appliance (if 

applicable); (5) the full charge of the 

appliance (if refrigerant is added); and 

(6) the leak rate and the method used to 

determine the leak rate (if refrigerant is 

added). EPA is proposing identical 

recordkeeping requirements for 

appliance owners or operators who use 

in-house service personnel. EPA is also 

proposing to require that the owner or 

operator maintain records of all 

calculations, measurements, and 

assumptions used to determine the full 

charge and any revisions made to the 

full charge over time. 

These proposed records are likely 

already provided by many service 

personnel and/or are being maintained 

by owners and operators. The current 

regulations already require technicians 

to provide an invoice or other 

documentation that includes the 

amount of ODS refrigerant added to the 

owner or operator. This would likely 

already include information on the 

system serviced, the date, and the 

company/person servicing the 

appliance. It would likely also include 

some description of the service 

provided. Owners and operators must 

already maintain service records 

documenting the date and type of 

service, as well as the quantity of ODS 

refrigerant added. Therefore, the only 

new information in most service 

instances for ODS systems would be the 

appliance’s full charge and the leak rate, 

which would both be relatively simple 

since the owners and operators are 

required to have both available on-site. 

This will require communication 

between the owner/operator and the 

technician and/or access to past service 

records to ensure the technician can 

calculate the leak rate. 

EPA seeks comments on this 

proposed change. In particular, EPA 

solicits comments on whether invoices 

containing this information are common 

practice and whether these records 

would be useful for owners and 

operators in determining what actions 

they should take to properly maintain 

their appliances or determining whether 

an appliance should be repaired or 

replaced. 

8. Seasonal Variances 

In regions of the country that 

experience large temperature swings 

during the year, refrigerant in some 

appliances can migrate from the 

condenser to the receiver. This 

migration results in a need to add 

refrigerant to an appliance to ‘‘flood the 

condenser’’ in the season of lower 

temperature ambient conditions (fall or 

winter). In this case, the added 

refrigerant would have to be removed 

when the weather returns to design 

ambient conditions to prevent high head 

pressures. This technique is often 

referred to as a winter-summer charge 

procedure or a seasonal adjustment. 

Seasonal adjustments are not necessary 

for appliances with properly sized 

system receivers because they can hold 

the appliances’ full charge, including 

the additional charge needed to flood 

the condenser. 

As discussed above, EPA has 

proposed to define seasonal variance as 

the addition of refrigerant to an 

appliance due to a change in ambient 

conditions caused by a change in 

season, followed by the subsequent 

removal of an equal amount of 

refrigerant in the corresponding change 

in season, where both the addition and 

removal of refrigerant occurs within one 

consecutive 12-month period. 

EPA is proposing only to allow 

owners or operators to exclude the 

amount added from the leak rate 

calculation if the amount removed is 

equal to or greater than the amount 

added during the prior season. In a 

properly charged, non-leaking system, 

adding refrigerant during months with 

lower ambient conditions (fall or 

winter) would require an equivalent 

amount of refrigerant to be removed in 

the months with higher ambient 

conditions (spring or summer). If less is 

removed in the spring/summer than was 

added at the start of fall/winter, the 

difference between the two would be 

considered a leak and not a seasonal 

addition. Without requiring that the 

amount added be equal to the amount 

removed to qualify for the exemption, 

there is no way to distinguish legitimate 

seasonal variances from refrigerant 

leaks. EPA expects only one addition 

and one removal of refrigerant to 

account for seasonal variance. If the 

amount added is equal to or less than 

the amount removed in the previous 

season, but an additional amount is 

added in close proximity (typically 

within a few days to a few weeks) to the 

addition being counted as a seasonal 

variance, it would be considered part of 

the same refrigerant addition unless the 

owner or operator could document a 

leak. 

EPA is proposing at § 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). 

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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69495 

if the provision should establish a twostep 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 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 

potential questions that could arise as to 

whether a repair attempt was sufficient 

to comply with the rules. 

Many owners or operators 

(particularly of commercial refrigeration 

appliances and IPR) have stated that 

they always repair leaks, and must do so 

for their businesses to remain viable. 

EPA agrees that many businesses 

depend on the prompt repair of leaks 

and that it may not be in the financial 

interest of many appliance owners or 

operators to allow their appliances to 

continue to leak. However, there are 

appliance owners and operators that do 

not take appropriate steps to minimize 

refrigerant leaks. Hence, the Agency 

views the leak repair requirements as 

both a backstop to current repair 

practices for appliances that are well 

maintained, and necessary to ensure 

that refrigerant leaks during 

maintenance, service, and repair are 

kept to the lowest achievable level for 

appliances that are not as well 

maintained. 

EPA reviewed comments received on 

the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule 

during the development of this 

proposal. The comments tend to fall 

into three categories: Practicality of 

fixing all leaks; time needed to fix all 

leaks; and clarification on when all 

leaks must be fixed. First, on the 

practicality of fixing all leaks, several 

commenters noted that some leaks 

cannot be identified without shutting 

down and fully evacuating and 

inspecting an appliance. Others noted 

that some leaks may be trivial and 

located on seals, gaskets, valves, and 

fittings where leakage occurs regardless 

of repairs. One commenter stated that 

all leaks should be fixed regardless of 

the location. Others raised concern 

about the cost and the diminishing 

value of fixing ever smaller leaks. 

Several of these commenters 

recommended the Agency focus on 

‘‘identified’’ or ‘‘known’’ leaks, or 

alternatively, on setting the requirement 

at ‘‘making a best effort’’ to repair all 

leaks. 

In considering these comments, EPA 

is proposing to require a leak inspection 

whenever the applicable leak rate is 

exceeded. EPA is not proposing to 

require evacuating or shutting down the 

appliance to conduct that leak 

inspection, although that would be an 

option available to owners and 

operators. The leak inspection would 

involve identifying and creating a 

record of leaks that must be repaired 

within 30 days. EPA recognizes that a 

small amount of refrigerant can migrate 

from an appliance even if the refrigerant 

circuit is unbroken. EPA is seeking 

comments on whether the agency 

should create a limited exception, 

which would provide that if upon 

further inspection (through bubble tests 

or other means), sound professional 

judgment indicates an individual 

identified leak is not the result of a 

faulty component or connection and 

that refrigerant releases would not be 

reduced from repair or adjustment, the 

leak would not need to be repaired. If 

this proposal is finalized, EPA would 

likely require that the justification for 

the determination be noted in the 

appliance’s service records. EPA notes 

that there are certain types of situations 

that would never meet these conditions, 

including but not limited to when a 

component has holes, cracks, or 

improperly seated seals. All other leaks 

would still need to be repaired if the 

applicable leak rate is exceeded. 

In addition to reducing emissions of 

high-GWP and ozone-depleting 

refrigerants, a refrigerant management 

program saves money in refrigerant and 

potentially energy expenses. EPA 

discusses the costs and savings later in 

this preamble, but preventive 

maintenance can save a significant 

amount of money even when factoring 

in the added cost of a more vigilant 

refrigerant management program, 

especially as the cost of some 

refrigerants such as HCFC–22 rises. 

Proposals to require repair of all 

identified leaks and conduct periodic 

leak inspections should incentivize 

owners and operators to develop a 

refrigerant management plan to 

proactively fix leaks before they become 

big enough to exceed the applicable leak 

rate. EPA’s experience with several 

recent consent decrees indicates leak 

rates, even in complicated IPR 

applications, can be brought below the 

applicable leak rates proposed in this 

rule with a refrigerant management 

program that identifies and fixes leaks 

early. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69496 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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 nonexempt substitute refrigerant) perform 

both an initial and follow-up 

verification of repairs every time the 

applicable leak rate is exceeded (unless 

a retrofit or retirement plan is being 

developed). 

EPA sought comments on this same 

proposal in the proposed 2010 Leak 

Repair Rule and received three 

comments. All were in support of 

extending verification tests to all 

covered appliances. EPA again seeks 

comments on requiring verification tests 

on all appliances normally containing 

50 or more pounds of refrigerant. EPA 

sees a potential benefit in requiring both 

an initial and follow-up verification test 

to ensure a leak is repaired and that the 

repair will hold. EPA seeks comments 

whether both an initial and follow-up 

verification test are needed in all 

situations and seeks comments on 

requiring a minimum time between tests 

such as one to three hours to allow an 

appliance to return to normal operating 

characteristics and conditions. 

EPA is also clarifying that owners or 

operators may conduct as many repair 

attempts as needed within the initial 30 

days (or longer if an extension is 

available) to repair the appliance. 

Consequently, the Agency is proposing 

to explicitly allow unlimited 

verification tests within the required 

repair window. This is discussed further 

in the preamble section on retrofit and 

retirement plans. 

The Agency understands that most 

technicians pressure check appliances 

immediately following repairs. EPA is 

proposing that such pressure checks 

would satisfy the initial verification 

requirements. EPA’s concern is that 

follow-up verifications may not be a 

part of normal operating procedures for 

all repairs. Follow-up verifications 

require a technician to perform a second 

test after the appliance has returned to 

normal operating characteristics and 

conditions. A follow-up verification is 

an indicator of the success of repairs. 

Thus, EPA intends to require such 

verification for all appliances that have 

leaked refrigerant above the applicable 

leak rate. 

EPA currently has not set a minimum 

amount of time that must pass between 

the initial and follow-up verifications. 

In the proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule 

EPA proposed that the two tests be 

separated by at least 24 hours. Based on 

comments to that rule, the Agency is 

taking comment in this action on 

whether a shorter time such as one to 

three hours after the appliance is 

brought back on-line would be more 

appropriate. Regardless of whether EPA 

specifies an amount of time that must 

pass, all follow-up verification tests 

must take place after the appliance has 

returned to normal operating 

characteristics and conditions—both 

currently for IPR, and under the 

proposed change to require verification 

tests for repairs on all types of 

appliances with 50 or more pounds of 

class I, class II, or substitute refrigerant. 

EPA is also proposing to require followup 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 Federallyowned 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69497 

component could be acquired shortly 

after 30 days. While IPR may require 

custom components, the need for 

components is not unique to IPR. It does 

not make sense to require the retrofit or 

retirement of an appliance that can be 

repaired in situations such as when a 

single component is the problem and 

can be procured shortly after 30 days. 

The extension for the delivery of 

components is open-ended in the 

current regulation. While the regulation 

provides only the additional time 

needed to receive delivery of the 

necessary parts, it does not set an outer 

limit for delivery nor does it clearly 

provide time to install the components 

once received. EPA is proposing at 

§ 82.157(g)(1)(iii) to modify the 

extension so that the owner or operator 

must complete the repair within 30 days 

after receiving delivery of the necessary 

part and the total extension may not 

exceed 180 days (or 270 days if an IPR 

shutdown is required). As proposed, 

this extension may be more stringent for 

IPR because IPR owners/operators 

would be time-limited in conducting 

those repairs. EPA is not proposing to 

change the open-ended nature of the 

extensions due to radiological 

contamination or compliance with 

applicable Federal, state, or local 

regulations. 

To qualify for an extension, owners or 

operators must perform all repairs that 

can be completed within the initial 30 

or 120 day period. All repairs must be 

verified if possible and the owner or 

operator must document all such repair 

efforts. The owner or operator must 

maintain a written statement from the 

appliance or component manufacturer 

or distributor stating the unavailability 

of parts and the expected delivery date 

as part of the reason why more than 30 

days are needed. EPA is not proposing 

to change the elements of the request for 

an extension that is submitted to EPA. 

Requests must continue to include: 

Identification and address of the facility; 

the name of the owner or operator of the 

appliance; the leak rate; the method 

used to determine the leak rate and full 

charge; the date a leak rate above the 

applicable leak rate was discovered; the 

location of leak(s) to the extent 

determined to date; any repair work that 

has been performed thus far, including 

the date that work was completed; the 

reasons why more than 30 days are 

needed to complete the repair; and an 

estimate of when the work will be 

completed. If requesting an extension to 

the earlier submitted completion date, a 

new estimated date of completion and 

documentation of the reason for that 

change must be submitted to EPA 

within 30 days. The owner or operator 

must keep a dated copy of this 

submission and proof that it was 

submitted. 

EPA requests comments on applying 

the extensions to all appliance types, 

including whether such extensions 

should not be extended to certain 

appliances. EPA also seeks comments 

on the scope and amount of time 

allowed for each extension, and whether 

there are additional extension types that 

the Agency should consider allowing. 

Commenters supporting the creation of 

a new extension should provide 

detailed reasoning and cost implications 

(both for the environment and an 

owner/operator) in their comment. 

12. Retrofit or Retirement Plans 

EPA’s regulations at § 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. 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 largescale retrofit or retirement when 

replacing the leaking component might 

satisfactorily repair the appliance. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to provide 

an owner or operator additional 

flexibility if they are unable to initially 

fix all identified leaks after discovering 

the applicable leak rate is exceeded. 

This proposal would allow owners or 

operators to attempt as many repairs as 

necessary within the initial 30 days of 

discovering that an appliance’s leak rate 

exceeds the applicable leak rate. This 

could include replacing a component. If 

that component cannot arrive within the 

initial 30 day period, the owner or 

operator could request additional time 

under the proposed provisions related 

to extensions discussed previously in 

this preamble. An owner or operator of 

an appliance would only have to retrofit 

or retire the appliance if the component 

replacement was unsuccessful and they 

could not repair all leaks that were 

identified in the leak inspection 

triggered by discovering that the 

applicable leak rate was exceeded. 

This approach is based, in part, on 

feedback received from past proposals. 

In comments on the proposed 2010 Leak 

Repair Rule, several commenters 

supported additional flexibility to 

conduct repairs and/or component 

replacements before being required to 

retrofit or retire an appliance. 

Stakeholders have stated that a facility 

should be allowed an unlimited number 

of repair attempts to equipment within 

the 30 day time period. These 

stakeholders supported an option in the 

proposed 2010 Leak Repair Rule that 

would have allowed additional 

flexibility to replace components before 

being required to retrofit or retire a 

leaking appliance. The approach 

proposed in today’s notice provides 

similar flexibility. 

Because the retrofit/retirement plan 

requirements allow an appliance to leak 

without repairs for up to a year (in 

addition to extension opportunities), 

this change would likely increase the 

speed at which appliance repairs take 

place, thereby reducing emissions of 

refrigerants. This proposal also would 

eliminate the possibility of mandatory 

retrofitting or retirement in cases where 

it might not be warranted because the 

owner or operator would have the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69498 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 nonexempt substitute refrigerant. EPA is 

also proposing to extend the approach 

to retrofit and retirement described 

above to owners or operators of 

commercial refrigeration and comfort 

cooling appliances. Extending this 

approach to all appliances will reduce 

refrigerant emissions while establishing 

a consistent set of regulatory required 

practices. 

Retrofit/Retirement ODP. EPA’s 

regulations currently require that 

appliances containing an ODS 

refrigerant, when being retrofitted or 

retired/replaced, use a refrigerant with 

an equivalent or lower ODP. EPA 

created this provision to foster the 

transition from refrigerants with high 

ODPs to ones with a lower ODP. EPA is 

proposing to remove this requirement 

and allow for retrofits or retired/

replaced appliances to use any 

refrigerant (other than the one currently 

used in that appliance in the case of 

retrofits), so long as it is acceptable for 

use by SNAP. This change would not 

relax the current requirements with 

respect to HCFCs since the regulations 

implementing sections 605 and 606 of 

the CAA already prohibit the 

manufacture (and therefore installation) 

of appliances using virgin HCFCs (as of 

January 1, 2010, for HCFC–142b and 

HCFC–22; and as of January 1, 2020, for 

other HCFCs). Requiring the use of a 

refrigerant with a lower or equivalent 

ODP could be problematic if the 

requirement were read strictly because 

some HFO refrigerants that are not 

classified as an ODS have an ODP even 

though the ODP is negligible. For 

example, HFO–1233zd(E) has an ODP 

between 0.00024 to 0.00034 and a GWP 

between 4.7 to 7 (see 77 FR 47768). 

Under a strict interpretation, if an 

owner/operator wanted to replace an R– 

134a chiller with an HFO–1233zd(E) 

chiller in future, he/she would not be 

able to switch from R–134a, which has 

an ODP of zero, to the HFO since the 

HFO has an ODP that, though negligible, 

is higher than zero. This could prevent 

transition to low-GWP alternatives. 

EPA also wishes to clarify that the 

current requirement to retrofit with a 

refrigerant of the same or lower ODP 

does not mean that the same refrigerant 

can be used. Such actions do not satisfy 

the regulatory intent or the proposed 

definition of ‘‘retrofit.’’ The requirement 

to retrofit means the owner or operator 

must switch refrigerants. While the 

Agency is proposing to allow flexibility 

in refrigerant choices, the intent is not 

to allow the continued use of the same 

refrigerant in the retrofitted appliance. 

In cases where the owner/operator 

wants to use the same refrigerant and 

that refrigerant can continue to be used 

consistent with other applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements, 

the owner/operator would have the 

option of retiring and replacing the 

appliance. 

If an owner/operator chooses to retire 

and replace a system, EPA is not 

proposing to require under Subpart F 

that a different refrigerant be used 

because eventually there may not be a 

refrigerant to switch to that is better for 

the environment. At this time, EPA 

intends to rely on other 40 CFR part 82 

regulatory requirements that do prohibit 

the use of some refrigerants, (e.g., the 

prohibition on manufacture of systems 

using HCFC–22 under subpart A). 

Elements of a Retrofit or Retirement 

Plan. Stakeholders have asked EPA 

what should be included in a retrofit or 

retirement plan. The Agency has not 

previously provided a specific list of 

elements to be included due to the 

complex nature of refrigeration 

appliances. An exhaustive list may not 

fit all types of appliances considering 

the wide array of configurations and 

refrigerant choices. However, EPA finds 

merit in specifying a minimum set of 

information that is likely to be needed 

during any type of retrofit or retirement. 

EPA is proposing at § 82.157(h)(2) to 

require that a retrofit or retirement plan 

include the following minimum set of 

information: 

• Identification and location of the 

appliance; 

• Type (i.e. ASHRAE number) and 

full charge of the refrigerant currently 

used in the appliance; 

• Type (i.e. ASHRAE number) and 

full charge of the refrigerant to which 

the appliance will be converted, if 

retrofitted; 

• Itemized procedure for converting 

the appliance to the new refrigerant, 

including changes required for 

compatibility (for example, procedure 

for flushing old refrigerant and 

lubricant; and changes in lubricants, 

filters, gaskets, o-rings, and valves), if 

retrofitted; 

• Plan for the disposition of 

recovered refrigerant; 

• Plan for the disposition of the 

appliance, if retired; and 

• One-year schedule for completion 

of the appliance retrofit or retirement. 

Such requirements are a minimum of 

what should be considered by any 

owner or operator when retrofitting or 

retiring a leaking appliance. A retrofit or 

retirement plan may contain additional 

elements related to the specific 

characteristics of that appliance but EPA 

is not proposing requirements for those 

elements because they would more 

appropriately be determined on a caseby-case basis. 

The Agency’s preference would be to 

have a complete plan developed within 

30 days. However, EPA recognizes that 

some information may not be available 

in that timeframe. For example, owners 

or operators may not know within the 

allotted time frame what the itemized 

procedure will be until they finalize 

plans for the retrofit or retirement. 

Under the itemized procedure heading, 

EPA is considering whether to allow 

owners or operators to include a 

placeholder such as ‘‘Engineer 

consulted to evaluate retrofit and 

replacement options on [X] date. 

Engineers report expected in three 

months.’’ Shortly after that report is 

delivered, the owner or operator would 

need to update the plan accordingly to 

indicate the procedure for retrofit or 

retirement and replacement. 

EPA seeks comments on these 

proposed changes to the retrofit and 

retirement plans including the following 

questions: Should EPA allow for 

multiple repairs within the 30 day 

repair window? Should EPA apply the 

proposed changes to all appliance 

types? Should EPA remove the 

requirement to switch to a refrigerant 

with a lower or equivalent ODP? Should 

EPA require the use of a refrigerant with 

a lower or equivalent GWP? 

The Agency also requests comments 

on the proposed minimum requirements 

of a retrofit or retirement plan. Are there 

other factors that should be considered 

when developing a retrofit/retirement 

plan? Is this information available 

within 30 days of deciding to retrofit or 

retire an appliance? Should EPA allow 

for the retrofit/retirement plan to have 

placeholders for some elements until 

the information is available, by noting 

specific actions that are needed to 

accurately document the plan? 

13. Extensions To Retrofit or Retire 

Appliances 

Under the current regulations at 

§ 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69499 

Federal, state, or local laws or 

regulations (available for IPR); 

• If a suitable replacement refrigerant 

with a lower ODP is unavailable 

(available for IPR); 

• If the supplier of the appliance or 

a critical component has quoted a 

delivery time of more than 30 weeks 

from when the order is placed (available 

for IPR); 

• If complications presented by the 

appropriations and/or procurement 

process results in a delivery time of 

more than 30 weeks (available for 

Federally-owned appliances); or 

• If the appliance is located in an area 

subject to radiological contamination 

and creating a safe working 

environment will require more than 30 

weeks (available for Federally-owned 

appliances). 

EPA is proposing at § 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 

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 lowGWP 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 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; 

• 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69500 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 

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 nonexempt substitute refrigerants, this 

proposal would merely update the 

standards to reflect current practices. 

EPA is also proposing to add 

appendices B3 and B4, based on the 

AHRI Standard 740–2015, Performance 

Rating of Refrigerant Recovery 

Equipment and Recovery/Recycling 

Equipment. All new equipment 

manufactured or imported on or after 

the effective date of this rule would be 

required to meet the standards in 

appendix B and table 2. The evacuation 

level would depend upon the saturation 

pressure of the refrigerant. EPA is also 

proposing to update appendix C 

‘‘Method for Testing Recovery Devices 

for Use with Small Appliances’’ to 

reference all refrigerants, instead of the 

currently referenced CFC–12. 

Certifying refrigerant recovery and/or 

recycling equipment for use with nonexempt substitutes serves multiple 

purposes. First, certification would 

provide reliable information on the 

ability of equipment to minimize 

emissions of these substitute 

refrigerants, by measuring and/or 

establishing standards for recovery 

efficiency (vacuum level) and maximum 

emissions from air purging, oil draining, 

equipment clearing, and hose 

permeation. Second, certification would 

provide reliable information on the 

equipment’s ability to clear itself when 

switching between refrigerants. Without 

sufficient clearing capability, equipment 

may retain residual refrigerant in its 

condenser, which would then be mixed 

with the next batch of refrigerant 

recovered by the equipment. Because 

mixed refrigerant can be difficult if not 

impossible to reclaim (depending on 

how cross-contaminated the mixed 

refrigerant is) and expensive to destroy, 

it is much more likely than unmixed 

refrigerant to be vented to the 

atmosphere. Third, certification would 

provide reliable information on the 

equipment’s recovery speed. Without 

such information, technicians may 

purchase equipment that recovers too 

slowly, tempting them to interrupt 

recovery before it is complete. As 

discussed in the 1993 Rule, where EPA 

established the equipment certification 

requirements, the information on 

equipment performance provided by an 

independent third-party testing 

organization is more reliable than that 

provided by other sources, such as 

equipment manufacturers (58 FR 

28686–28687). 

Certification of recovery equipment 

used with non-exempt substitute 

refrigerants would also maximize 

recycling and minimize emissions of 

ODS refrigerants. There is no physical 

difference between ozone-depleting 

refrigerants and their fluorocarbon 

substitutes that would prevent a 

technician from purchasing and using 

HFC recovery equipment on CFCs or 

HCFCs, except in the case of flammable 

refrigerants. 

Because different treatment is 

warranted for flammable refrigerants, 

EPA is proposing to add standards for 

the recovery of flammable non-exempt 

refrigerants. Currently, EPA is only 

aware of two flammable non-exempt 

substitute refrigerants that are approved 

for use in stationary refrigeration and 

air-conditioning equipment: HFC–32 

and HFO–1234ze(E). However, EPA 

expects this number to grow in the 

future. Additionally, EPA notes that the 

AHRI Standard 740–2015 that is being 

used as the basis for the recycling and/ 

or recovery equipment requirements in 

appendix B3 does not apply to 

flammable refrigerants. To address this, 

EPA is proposing several options that 

could be used for flammable nonexempt substitute refrigerants like HFC– 

32. EPA could require that all recycling 

and/or recovery equipment used with 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69501 

flammable non-exempt substitute 

refrigerants must: 

—meet a new standard that requires the 

recovery/recycling performance of 

appendix B3 (based on AHRI 

Standard 740–2015) and the safety 

performance of Underwriters 

Laboratories (UL) Standard 1963, 

Supplement SB—Requirements for 

Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling 

Equipment Intended for Use with a 

Flammable Refrigerant; 

—meet the standards in appendix C (80 

percent of the refrigerant must be 

recovered if the compressor is not 

functioning; 90 percent of refrigerant 

must be recovered if the compressor 

is functioning); 

—meet the requirements in a flammable 

refrigerant recovery standard from 

another organization like the 

International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO), AHRI, or 

ASHRAE, if available; 

—use equipment that is certified for 

another refrigerant within the same 

pressure category; or 

—recover flammable refrigerants, but 

without a standard or certification 

until standards are developed. 

Creating an appendix B4 that 

combines the requirements of appendix 

B3 with the requirements in 

Supplement SB of UL 1963 could be the 

most appropriate option. EPA would 

incorporate certain aspects of UL 1963 

by reference and potentially modify the 

testing protocol in appendix B3 to 

account for flammability concerns 

during testing. 

When refrigerants are removed from 

the appliances, whether destined for 

reclamation or disposal, they must be 

managed properly. One of the first steps 

in proper management is to determine 

whether or not the refrigerants are a 

hazardous waste under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

and its corresponding regulations. It is 

the facility’s responsibility to make this 

waste identification. Under the 

regulations, a facility may either test the 

waste or use knowledge to make this 

determination. If the material is 

determined to be a hazardous waste, 

then the facility is a hazardous waste 

generator and is subject to the generator 

regulations at 40 CFR part 261.5 or 40 

CFR part 262, depending on the amount 

of hazardous waste generated in a 

month. For details on the Federal 

generator regulations, see http://

www2.epa.gov/hwgenerators. Some 

spent alternative refrigerants such as 

HFC–32 most likely exhibit the 

hazardous waste characteristic of 

ignitability. This would also likely hold 

true for some exempt substitute 

refrigerants, like propane and isobutane. 

In the case of household appliances, 

repair and disposal of hydrocarbon 

refrigerant would not be considered 

hazardous waste management because 

the appliance is exempt under the 

household hazardous waste exemption 

at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1) (although States 

may have more stringent regulations). 

However, a facility must be careful not 

to mix the household hazardous waste 

with regulated hazardous waste in order 

for the household appliances to remain 

exempt. 

Certifying recovery and/or recycling 

equipment used with substitute 

refrigerants is important to further 

implementing section 608(c)(2) and 

608(a). In particular, the proposed 

revisions would make clear that proper 

use of certified equipment would be 

considered a good faith effort to 

recapture and recycle or safely dispose 

of non-exempt substitute refrigerants 

when maintaining, servicing, repairing, 

or disposing of an appliance, in order to 

comply with the prohibition on venting 

of substitute refrigerants. Part of making 

a good faith effort to recover such 

refrigerants involves using equipment 

that minimizes emissions of substitute 

refrigerants and prevents the mixture of 

substitute refrigerants and ODS 

refrigerants during the recovery and 

recycling process. It also involves using 

equipment that recovers refrigerant 

quickly enough that the recovery 

process can be completed in a 

reasonable amount of time from a given 

appliance. Certification of such 

equipment will help ensure that 

technicians use equipment that is suited 

to these goals. 

EPA requests comments on whether 

removing earlier appendices for older 

equipment and using the updated AHRI 

standards for newly certified recovery 

and/or recycling equipment is 

appropriate. EPA also requests 

comments on its proposal to require all 

recovery and/or recycling equipment 

used on appliances containing 

substitute refrigerants (with the 

potential exception of flammable 

refrigerants) to be certified by an 

independent third party and on the 

following questions: What equipment is 

currently being used on appliances 

containing substitutes? Would 

providing a uniform standard for 

recovery and/or recycling equipment be 

beneficial to product manufacturers or 

service technicians? Has mixing of ODS 

refrigerants and/or substitute 

refrigerants been a problem using the 

currently available equipment? Are 

there any recovery devices suitable for 

use with flammable non-exempt 

refrigerants? Are there any other 

standards that EPA should considers 

before finalizing recovery standards 

(i.e., ISO, AHRI, ASHRAE)? EPA also 

seeks comment on what standards 

should be used for the recycling and/or 

recovery of flammable non-exempt 

refrigerants like HFC–32. Comments 

should address the safety and efficacy of 

the various standards and whether the 

standard would facilitate or deter the 

use of flammable refrigerants. 

3. Clarifications and Edits for 

Readability 

EPA is proposing to reorganize 

§ 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 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69502 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

recovery and/or recycling equipment 

and are complying with the applicable 

requirements of subpart F. EPA is 

proposing to remove this requirement. 

EPA created this provision in 1993 

when the Agency first required that 

recovery and/or recycling equipment be 

certified and that technicians use 

certified equipment. At the time, the use 

and availability of recovery and/or 

recycling equipment was not as 

commonplace as it is today. Equipment 

certification demonstrated to EPA that 

equipment was available for use by 

certified technicians. In particular EPA 

was interested in the capabilities of 

grandfathered, or pre-1993, equipment. 

Since certified recovery and/or 

recycling equipment is commonly 

available, EPA no longer needs the 

information contained in the 

certification statement such as the 

number of service trucks and personally 

identifiable information of equipment 

owners. EPA is therefore proposing to 

remove this certification requirement. 

EPA solicits comments on this proposed 

revision. 

H. Proposed Changes for Equipment 

Testing Organizations in Section 82.160 

EPA relies on independent third party 

organizations approved by the EPA 

Administrator to certify that refrigerant 

recovery and/or recycling equipment 

meets the standards in subpart F. Any 

equipment testing organization may 

apply for approval so long as they can 

verify that they have the expertise and 

technical capability to verify the 

performance of the recovery and/or 

recycling equipment and have no 

conflict of interest with the equipment 

manufacturers. 

EPA is proposing to make only a few 

substantive changes to these regulations. 

First and foremost, a certifying 

organization must have expertise to 

certify any new equipment affected by 

this proposed rule. Thus, an 

organization must be capable of 

certifying equipment that is used to 

recover or recycle HFCs and other 

substitute refrigerants. EPA is proposing 

to allow equipment certifying 

organizations that have already been 

approved by EPA to continue certifying 

equipment without need to re-apply. 

Organizations that are currently 

certified have sufficient expertise 

because the same expertise is needed to 

test equipment used on ODS and 

substitute refrigerants. 

EPA is also proposing changes that 

would reduce the reporting burden for 

these entities. EPA currently requires a 

list of all certified equipment to be 

submitted to EPA within 30 days of the 

organization’s approval by EPA and 

annually at the end of each calendar 

year thereafter. EPA is proposing to 

remove those requirements. EPA is 

proposing instead to require that the 

certified equipment testing 

organizations publish online a list of 

equipment that meets EPA 

requirements. This list would include 

the manufacturer and the name and/or 

serial number of a newly certified model 

line, which is the information that the 

certifying organizations must currently 

provide to EPA. This list must be 

updated no less than once per year, but 

an organization can choose to update 

the list more frequently. Making the 

information available online will be no 

more burdensome for the testing 

organization than submitting the list to 

EPA. Online publication is also a better 

method of communicating these 

findings to the public than sending the 

information to EPA. 

EPA is also encouraging the use of 

electronic reporting and has established 

the email address 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 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 airconditioning and refrigeration 

equipment containing an ODS, other 

than MVACs, which are addressed 

separately. This group includes 

installers, contractor employees, inhouse service personnel, and anyone 

else who performs installation, service, 

maintenance, or repair that might 

reasonably have the opportunity to 

release ODS refrigerants to the 

environment. In addition, individuals 

disposing of air-conditioning and 

refrigeration equipment other than small 

appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like 

appliances must be certified. 

Technicians become certified by 

passing a test containing questions 

drawn from a bank developed jointly by 

EPA and industry educational 

organizations with a certification 

program approved by EPA. The test 

includes questions on the role of CFCs 

and HCFCs in ozone depletion, the 

requirements of the refrigerant recycling 

rule, and proper techniques for 

recycling and conserving refrigerant. 

EPA makes the question bank available 

to certifying organizations that 

demonstrate that they can properly 

generate, track, and grade tests; issue 

certificates; and keep records. 

2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants 

EPA is proposing to extend the 

certification requirements for 

technicians who work with ODS 

refrigerants to technicians who work 

with non-exempt substitute refrigerants. 

Requiring certification of technicians 

who work with non-exempt substitute 

refrigerants is important to effectively 

implement and enforce both section 

608(c) and section 608(a)(2). 

As discussed above, section 608(c) 

prohibits the knowing release of 

substitute refrigerants during the 

service, maintenance, repair, or disposal 

of appliances, except for de minimis 

releases associated with ‘‘good faith 

attempts to recapture and recycle or 

safely dispose’’ of the refrigerants. Acts 

performed by an individual who has 

become a certified technician that 

comply with the applicable regulatory 

requirements would be defined as ‘‘good 

faith attempts to recapture and recycle 

or safely dispose’’ and thus any 

associated releases would qualify as de 

minimis. This interpretation is 

consistent with EPA’s interpretation of 

the same statutory language as it applies 

to ozone-depleting refrigerants. 

The technician certification program 

is one of the key elements in ensuring 

the proper recapture and recycling of 

refrigerant. As stated in the 1993 Rule 

establishing the program, a technician 

certification program increases the 

probability that technicians receive 

adequate training concerning the 

requirements of subpart F and the 

proper operation of recycling 

equipment, leading to reduced 

emissions through increased regulatory 

compliance. Certification does not 

prevent the violation of the venting 

prohibition, but it improves the 

likelihood of compliance through 

greater awareness. Certification also 

enhances EPA’s ability to enforce 

against intentional noncompliance by 

allowing the Agency to revoke the 

technician’s certification under the 

procedure in § 82.169. Finally, 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69503 

certification increases fairness by 

seeking to ensure that all technicians are 

complying with the provisions of 

subpart F. 

Persons who are not certified 

technicians are far more likely to 

intentionally or inadvertently release 

refrigerant. Certified technicians are 

much more likely to understand how 

and why to recover and recycle 

refrigerants and to have the proper 

equipment to do so. Technician 

certification helps ensure that 

technicians are knowledgeable in 

refrigerant recovery requirements and 

techniques. The existing regulations do 

not specifically prohibit an untrained 

individual from opening an air 

conditioner containing a substitute 

refrigerant to add a substitute refrigerant 

(or potentially even an ODS refrigerant, 

assuming a certified technician 

purchased the ODS refrigerant) or 

replace components. While the venting 

prohibition still applies, the individual 

may not even be aware that there is a 

prohibition against venting refrigerant. 

Tips reported to the Agency indicate 

this occurs. Requiring that anyone 

opening an appliance be a certified 

technician will reduce emissions caused 

by uninformed service personnel and 

will facilitate enforcement of the 

venting prohibition, especially when 

coupled with the proposed 

recordkeeping requirement discussed in 

section IV.D.3 of this notice. 

Based on stakeholder input prior to 

this proposal, EPA is aware that many 

companies require certification of their 

technicians regardless of the type of 

refrigerant being used. The principles of 

proper handling, recovery, and disposal 

of non-exempt substitute refrigerants are 

similar if not identical to those for ODS 

refrigerants, except that additional 

safeguards are advisable for flammable 

refrigerants. The fact that some 

individuals may be working on 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 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 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 ozonedepleting refrigerants. Because of the 

absence of a certification requirement 

for substitute refrigerants they might be 

unaware of the existence or scope of the 

restrictions. Thus, they might fail to 

recover or recycle class I and class II 

refrigerants properly, if at all. 

Uncertified technicians are currently 

able to purchase HFC and other 

substitute refrigerants which they could 

end up using to retrofit appliances 

containing ozone-depleting substances. 

Such uncertified technicians may be 

more likely to vent the ozone-depleting 

substance prior to retrofitting, given 

their probable lack of knowledge and 

the fact that return of the substance to 

a reclaimer would reveal that they were 

handling it illegally. Failure to require 

technician certification to work with 

substitute refrigerants is also likely to 

encourage the inappropriate mixture of 

substitute and ozone-depleting 

refrigerants. In this scenario, refrigerant 

mixture could occur because uncertified 

technicians might wish to service CFC 

or HCFC equipment, but would have 

access only to HFCs due to the sales 

restriction on ODS refrigerants. Lacking 

proper education or knowledge, these 

technicians would probably have a poor 

understanding of the consequences of 

mixing refrigerants, and would therefore 

be more likely than certified technicians 

to add HFCs to CFC or HCFC systems. 

The consequences of such 

inappropriate mixture include 

significant losses in performance and 

energy efficiency in equipment serviced 

with mixed refrigerants, damage to 

equipment, the lost value of the mixed 

refrigerant (which is at best difficult, 

and often impossible, to separate into 

the component refrigerants), and costs 

for destroying mixed refrigerants. 

Refrigerant mixture also leads both 

directly and indirectly to refrigerant 

release. Mixture leads directly to release 

because mixtures of certain refrigerants, 

such as R–22 and R–134a, have higher 

pressures than either component alone. 

Thus, pressure-sensitive components 

such as air purge devices on recycling 

machines and relief devices on 

appliances may be activated by these 

mixtures, venting the refrigerant to the 

atmosphere. Purge devices in particular 

are often set to open when the pressure 

of the recovery cylinder’s contents rises 

more than 5–10 psi above the expected 

saturation pressure for the refrigerant; 

this margin is exceeded by R–22/R–134a 

mixtures containing more than ten 

percent of the contaminating refrigerant. 

Refrigerant mixture also reduces 

recycling and leads indirectly to release. 

First, mixed refrigerants not only lose 

their value but cost money to reclaim or 

destroy, which could provide a financial 

incentive for illegal venting. Second, the 

direct releases and equipment 

breakdowns caused by contamination 

lead to increased equipment servicing, 

which itself leads to unavoidable 

releases of refrigerant. Thus, failure to 

impose a certification requirement on 

persons working with substitute 

refrigerants would increase the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69504 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

probability of both substitute and ozonedepleting refrigerants being emitted to 

the atmosphere. 

For these reasons, EPA is proposing a 

technician certification requirement for 

persons working with non-exempt 

substitutes in order to further 

implement sections 608(a) and 608(c), 

using the authority under these sections. 

EPA requests comments on the 

likelihood that failure to impose a 

technician certification requirement on 

persons working with HFCs and other 

substitutes would lead to release and 

mixture of both ozone-depleting 

refrigerants and substitutes. 

3. Updated Test Bank 

EPA is planning to update the 

technician certification test bank with 

more questions on handling substitutes, 

including flammable substitute 

refrigerants, and on the impacts of 

climate change. While this is not a 

regulatory change—the Agency can 

update the test bank when appropriate 

without promulgating a new 

regulation—it aligns with EPA’s 

proposal to extend the refrigerant 

management regulations to substitute 

refrigerants. Currently, the questions 

focus on CFCs and HCFCs, even though 

CFCs have been phased out for nearly 

twenty years and the predominant 

HCFC, HCFC–22, will be phased out by 

2020. 

EPA has begun reviewing the test 

bank and consulting with certification 

and training organizations to identify 

questions that should be updated, 

replaced, or removed, with an eye 

toward questions on the proper 

handling and recovery of HFCs and 

other substitute refrigerants. The 

updated test bank will incorporate new 

and revised elements of the National 

Recycling and Emission Reduction 

Program that are being proposed in this 

action, once finalized. For this reason, 

EPA is waiting to update the test bank 

until after this rule is finalized. 

EPA intends to use a similar process 

to the one used when initially creating 

the test bank. EPA will work with 

industry and trade associations to 

develop and evaluate new questions as 

well as remove or update questions that 

may be out of date. EPA invites 

participation from the regulated 

community in this process. 

J. Proposed Changes to the Technician 

Certification Program Requirements in 

Section 82.161 

1. Background 

The current regulations at § 82.161 

require that organizations operating 

technician certification programs must 

apply to EPA to have their programs 

approved. The application process 

ensures that technician certification 

programs meet minimum standards for 

generating, tracking, and grading tests as 

well as keeping records. Approved 

technician certification programs must 

keep records of the names of technicians 

they have certified and the unique 

numbers assigned to each technician 

certified through their programs. These 

records allow both the Agency and the 

certification program to verify 

certification claims and to monitor the 

certification process. Approved 

technician certification programs also 

must submit reports to EPA every six 

months containing the pass/fail rate and 

testing schedules. Such reports allow 

the Agency to evaluate certification 

programs and modify certification 

requirements if necessary. 

2. Extension to Substitute Refrigerants 

EPA is proposing to require that 

technicians who work with non-exempt 

substitute refrigerants be certified. By 

extension, EPA is proposing to require 

that technician certification programs 

offer tests for those technicians. This 

should not require significant changes 

to current practices other than using the 

updated test bank and the changes 

discussed below. EPA is not proposing 

as a lead option to require certification 

programs to recertify based on this or 

any other proposed changes in this rule, 

but seeks comments on whether such 

recertification requirements would be 

appropriate. 

3. Technician Database 

In developing this proposed rule, EPA 

asked technician certification programs 

whether the Agency should establish a 

national database of certified 

technicians. EPA considered creating a 

database to reduce the burden currently 

facing the Agency and technician 

certification programs in assisting 

technicians who have lost their 

certification cards. EPA receives on 

average five inquiries a day from 

technicians who are seeking a copy of 

their card. EPA does not maintain 

records of who has been certified; this 

is currently the responsibility of the 

certification programs. EPA can only 

direct technicians to a list of the 

approved certification programs on the 

Agency’s Web site, but in some cases 

the technician does not remember the 

name of the program that issued their 

card. EPA is aware that many 

certification programs also get 

numerous inquiries from technicians. 

Establishing a publicly searchable 

database would help technicians find 

replacement certification cards. 

Certification programs themselves are 

generally better suited to maintain such 

information. Currently, certification 

programs must maintain records of the 

names and addresses of all individuals 

taking the tests, as well as the scores, 

dates, and locations of all administered 

tests. A publicly-available database that 

contains components of these records 

should be sufficient for a technician to 

locate themselves. EPA is proposing that 

this database, which could be as simple 

as a list, contain the first name, middle 

initial, and last name of the certified 

technician, the technician’s city of 

residence when taking the test, the 

type(s) of certification received, and the 

date each certification test was 

completed. EPA is proposing to exempt 

Federal government-run programs from 

this requirement because the public 

release of government and military 

personnel names linking them to their 

Federal employment could present 

significant privacy and security 

concerns, especially for military and 

other government personnel who may 

be based, deployed, or traveling to 

hostile regions throughout the world. 

Because this database is primarily for 

the benefit of the technician, EPA is 

offering the option for the technician to 

opt out. The technician certification 

program must therefore provide notice 

to technicians that they will be included 

in that database and give technicians the 

ability to opt out. EPA seeks comment 

on whether technicians should be 

allowed to opt out. 

EPA is not proposing to require that 

certification programs list everyone 

currently in their records. While this 

may assist current technicians who have 

lost their cards, listing the hundreds of 

thousands of technicians certified over 

the last twenty-two years could be 

overly burdensome. This would also not 

provide technicians with the 

opportunity to opt out. Therefore, EPA 

is proposing that the certification 

programs only be required to include 

technicians certified after the effective 

date of a rule finalizing this proposal. 

EPA would encourage certification 

programs to work with technicians they 

have previously certified to see if they 

could be added to an online database or 

list. 

EPA is not proposing to require any 

specific format for providing this 

database or list. EPA is aware that some 

certifying organizations already provide 

this information online to their 

technicians and the Agency does not 

intend to require that they change how 

they offer the information so long as the 

required data elements are included. 

An online database or list of certified 

technicians can also assist refrigerant 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69505 

wholesalers to enforce the sales 

restriction. For example, if a vendor has 

any doubt about a new customer, they 

could confirm that the technician is 

certified by comparing the customer’s ID 

with the information online. The online 

information can also be printed and 

maintained as a record by the vendor. 

EPA invites comments on the 

proposal to require certifying 

organizations to publish and maintain 

an online searchable database or list of 

technicians they certify going forward. 

EPA requests comments on whether 

such databases could be useful to 

technicians and refrigerant wholesalers 

while allowing for preservation of 

technicians’ privacy as afforded by the 

Privacy Act. EPA also seeks comment 

on whether it should allow technicians 

to opt out of being included on a public 

list. 

4. Grandfathering Provisions 

EPA is proposing to remove 

provisions related to voluntary 

certification programs at § 82.161(g). 

This program was created to allow 

technicians who were trained prior to 

the establishment of approved 

technician certification programs to be 

recognized as certified technicians. In 

order to have their voluntary programs 

considered for approval, applications 

both for approval as a technician 

certification program and for approval 

as a voluntary program were due in 

1994. EPA is proposing to remove this 

provision because it is expired and no 

longer necessary. 

5. Certification Cards 

EPA is proposing to change the 

required text that is printed on 

certification cards. Currently, the card 

states that ‘‘[Name of person] has been 

certified as a [Type I, Type II, Type III, 

and/or Universal, as appropriate] 

technician as required by 40 CFR part 

82, subpart F.’’ Some organizations 

believe that the language used on the 

certification card implies that a 

technician as defined in subpart F may 

be trained in other aspects of equipment 

installation. 

The primary purpose of the 608 

certification card is for a technician to 

prove to a vendor that they understand 

the environmental impacts of 

mishandling refrigerants. While this 

certification also grants an individual 

the right to maintain, service, repair, or 

dispose of appliances, the 608 exam is 

less focused on the operational and 

engineering aspects of refrigeration and 

air-conditioning equipment. 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

language found on the certification card 

to more accurately reflect the knowledge 

needed to obtain the certification. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing that the 

card read ‘‘[Name of person] has 

successfully passed a [Type I, Type II, 

Type III, and/or Universal, as 

appropriate] exam on how to 

responsibly handle refrigerants as 

required by EPA’s National Recycling 

and Emission Reduction Program.’’ EPA 

stated in the 1993 Rule establishing the 

Technician Certification requirements 

that standardized language will decrease 

administrative costs and aid in 

enforcement. In addition it would ease 

burden on refrigerant wholesalers who 

must inspect the cards to verify the 

certification of technicians. Updating 

the information on the certification card 

should not result in any new 

administrative costs or generate 

confusion. 

The requirements for certification 

cards appears in both § 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. 

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. 

2. Extension to Additional Substitute 

Refrigerants 

EPA is proposing to extend the 

reclamation standards for refrigerants in 

appendix A to additional non-ozonedepleting 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69506 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

import of HCFCs, EPA sought comments 

on referencing AHRI Standard 700–2012 

Specification for Fluorocarbon 

Refrigerants directly, a practice known 

as incorporation by reference, rather 

than reproducing the standard in 

appendix A (78 FR 78095; December 24, 

2013). EPA noted at the time that 

incorporation by reference, and deletion 

of the text in appendix A, has several 

advantages. AHRI standards are 

published, widely known to and used 

by the persons affected by this 

regulation, and available free of charge 

online at www.ahrinet.org/

standards.aspx. Referencing the AHRI 

standard, in lieu of duplicating it in 

appendix A, would reduce potential 

confusion about the relationship 

between the two sets of requirements. 

On the other hand, EPA recognizes that 

there is an advantage to including the 

requirements of the standard in an 

appendix to the regulation, avoiding the 

need to search for the specific version 

of the AHRI standard referenced, and 

providing certainty that compliance 

with appendix A (although possibly 

outdated) constitutes compliance with 

EPA regulations. 

In response to EPA’s proposal, five 

commenters supported using the 

updated testing procedures and 

protocols, while six commented that the 

newer halogenated unsaturated volatile 

impurities limit of 40 ppm by weight 

(0.004% by wt), as compared to the 

previous limit of 0.5% by weight, 

created undue expense and difficulty for 

reclaimers to achieve. Those 

commenters noted that ASHRAE and 

AHRI were still conducting further 

studies on the unsaturates limit. In the 

final rule issuing HCFC allowances, 

EPA did not incorporate AHRI 700– 

2012 by reference, noting concerns 

about the unsaturates limit and the 

ongoing unsaturates study (79 FR 64281; 

October 28, 2014). 

At this time, recognizing that the 

unsaturates study has not been 

finalized, EPA is proposing to update 

appendix A to include HFCs, PFCs, 

HFOs, and other refrigerants based on 

the standards contained in AHRI 

Standard 700–2015, Specifications for 

Refrigerants, while keeping the 

unsaturates limit to be 0.5% by weight. 

If the unsaturates study is published 

before this final rule is issued, EPA 

would consider incorporating the full 

standard by reference. 

EPA seeks comments on whether the 

updated standard, AHRI Standard 700– 

2015 Specifications for Refrigerants, 

along with Appendix C to AHRI–700 

2015, should be directly incorporated by 

reference, or whether appendix A 

should be updated to include HFCs, 

PFCs, HFOs, and other refrigerants 

based on the 2015 version of the AHRI 

700 standard, including the appendix. 

EPA also seeks comment on whether the 

agency needs to keep section 5.3.2 titled 

‘‘Alternative Method’’ in Appendix A to 

subpart F. 

3. Changes to Recordkeeping and 

Reporting 

Under the current regulations at 

§ 82.164(b), reclaimers must certify that 

the refrigerant reclaimed meets the 

specifications in AHRI Standard 700– 

1995 using the analytical methodology 

prescribed in appendix A. In addition to 

updating the standard to AHRI Standard 

700–2015, EPA is proposing to clarify 

that the analysis must be conducted on 

each batch of refrigerant being 

reclaimed. EPA is also proposing to 

require that reclaimers maintain records 

of these analyses. Requiring reclaimers 

to maintain records helps to ensure that 

refrigerant is being reclaimed to the 

appropriate specifications. Reclaimers 

currently analyze by batch, and already 

generate records when doing so, so 

these proposed changes update the 

regulations to reflect current practices 

and clarify the existing requirements for 

ODS, and do not add additional burden. 

EPA is also proposing to specify that 

all recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for reclaimers be 

maintained by refrigerant type (i.e. 

ASHRAE number), as information kept 

in this format will provide more clarity 

on the types and quantities of 

refrigerants being reclaimed when 

aggregated information is reported. EPA 

is also clarifying what aggregate 

information must be reported annually 

to the Agency, and removing a 

redundant recordkeeping provision 

related to that report. 

EPA requests comments on these 

proposed changes to the recordkeeping 

and reporting provisions. 

4. Clarifications and Edits for 

Readability 

EPA is proposing to consolidate 

provisions related to refrigerant 

reclaimers into a single section. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to move 

prohibitions found in § 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. 

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 

refrigerant is exempt from the venting 

prohibition. Unless otherwise noted, all 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69507 

records must be maintained for at least 

three years. 

• Disposal of Small Appliances, 

MVACs, and MVAC-like Appliances: 

Persons who take the final step in the 

disposal process of such appliances 

must keep a copy of all the signed 

statements indicating refrigerant was 

recovered properly. This statement must 

include the name and address of the 

person who recovered the refrigerant 

and the date the refrigerant was 

recovered. Alternatively, the statement 

may be a signed contract stating that the 

supplier will recover any remaining 

refrigerant from the appliance prior to 

delivery. 

• Disposal of Appliances Containing 

Five to 50 Pounds of Refrigerant: 

Persons evacuating refrigerant from 

appliances normally containing five to 

50 pounds of refrigerant for purposes of 

disposal of that appliance must 

maintain records documenting their 

company name, location of the 

equipment, date of recovery, amount 

and type of refrigerant recovered for 

each appliance and the quantity and 

type of refrigerant transferred for 

reclamation and/or destruction. 

• Leak Inspection: Owners or 

operators of appliances normally 

containing 50 or more pounds of 

refrigerant must maintain 

documentation from quarterly or annual 

leak inspections that includes the date 

of inspection and the component(s) 

where leaks were discovered. 

Alternatively, owners or operators may 

install an automatic leak detection 

system and maintain records showing 

that the system is calibrated annually. 

• Extension Requests to the Periodic 

Leak Inspection Requirement: Owners 

or operators of federally-owned 

appliances containing 50 or more 

pounds of refrigerant must maintain 

copies of extension requests submitted 

to EPA to conduct leak inspections less 

frequently until three years after the less 

frequent leak inspection schedule is no 

longer being followed. 

• Full Charge: Owners or operators of 

appliances normally containing 50 or 

more pounds of refrigerant must 

maintain records documenting what the 

full charge amount is for appliances 

with 50 or more pounds of refrigerant. 

The record for the current full charge 

must be maintained until three years 

after the appliance is retired. 

• Service Records Provided by 

Technicians: Persons adding or 

removing refrigerant from an appliance 

normally containing 50 or more pounds 

of refrigerant must provide the owner or 

operator with documentation containing 

the identity and location of the 

appliance; the date and type of 

maintenance, service, repair, or disposal 

performed; the name of the person 

performing the maintenance, service, 

repair or disposal; the amount and type 

of refrigerant added to or removed from 

the appliance; the full charge of the 

appliance; and the leak rate and the 

method used to determine the leak rate 

(unless disposing of the appliance). 

• Service Records Maintained by 

Owners and Operators: The appliance 

owner or operator must maintain service 

records provided by technicians and the 

identification of the owner or operator 

of the appliance; the full charge of the 

appliance and the method for how full 

charge was determined; the original 

range for the full charge of the 

appliance, its midpoint, and how the 

range was determined (if using method 

4, as described in § 82.152, for 

determining full charge); any revisions 

of the full charge and how they were 

determined; and the dates such 

revisions occurred. 

• Verification Tests: Owners or 

operators of appliances normally 

containing 50 or more pounds of 

refrigerant must maintain records of the 

dates, types, and results of all initial and 

follow-up verification tests. Under this 

proposed rule, this would apply to all 

types of equipment, not just IPR. 

• Retrofit/Retirement Plans: Owners 

or operators of appliances normally 

containing 50 or more pounds of 

refrigerant that cannot be repaired must 

maintain retrofit or retirement plans. 

The plan must, at a minimum, contain 

the following information: Identification 

and location of the appliance; type and 

full charge of the refrigerant used; type 

and full charge of the refrigerant to 

which the appliance will be converted, 

if retrofitted; itemized procedure for 

converting the appliance to a different 

refrigerant, including changes required 

for compatibility with the new 

substitute, if retrofitted; plan for the 

disposition of recovered refrigerant; 

plan for the disposition of the 

appliance, if retired; and one-year 

schedule for completion of the 

appliance retrofit or retirement. 

• Extension Requests to Repair or 

Retrofit/Retire Appliances: Owners or 

operators of appliances normally 

containing 50 or more pounds of 

refrigerant must maintain copies of 

extension requests. 

• Mothballing: Owners or operators of 

appliances normally containing 50 or 

more pounds of refrigerant that 

mothball an appliance must keep 

records documenting when the system 

was mothballed and when they add 

refrigerant back into the appliance. 

• Purged Refrigerant: Owners or 

operators of appliances normally 

containing 50 or more pounds of 

refrigerant that exclude purged 

refrigerant that are destroyed from their 

leak rate calculation must maintain 

records to demonstrate that a 98 percent 

or greater destruction efficiency is met. 

At a minimum this includes flow rate, 

quantity or concentration of the 

refrigerant in the vent stream, and 

periods of purge flow. 

• Lists of Certified Recovery 

Equipment and Testing Results: 

Organizations that are approved to 

certify refrigerant recovery and/or 

recycling equipment must maintain 

records of equipment testing and 

performance and a list of equipment 

that meets EPA requirements. These 

records must be maintained for three 

years after the equipment is no longer 

offered for sale. 

• Proof of Certification for 

Technicians: Technicians who have 

passed the section 608 Type I, II, III or 

Universal test, must keep a copy of their 

certification at their place of business. 

These records must be maintained for 

three years after a certified individual 

no longer operates as a technician. 

• Sales Restriction: Anyone selling 

ODS or substitute refrigerant must 

document the name of the purchaser, 

the date of sale, and the quantity of 

refrigerant purchased. In instances 

where the buyer employs a certified 

technician, the seller must keep the 

information provided by the buyer that 

at least one technician is properly 

certified. Copies of technician 

certifications must be maintained for at 

least three years after a technician or 

person employing a technician stops 

purchasing refrigerant. 

• Small Cans of Refrigerant for MVAC 

Servicing: Anyone manufacturing small 

cans of refrigerant with a self-sealing 

valve must maintain records verifying 

that the self-sealing valves do not leak 

more than 3.00 grams per year when the 

self-sealing valve is closed as required 

in the newly-proposed Appendix E to 

subpart F. Records must be maintained 

for three years after a certified product 

is no longer offered for sale. 

• Technician Certification Programs: 

Organizations that certify technicians 

must maintain records of who they 

certify, the scores of all certification 

tests administered, and the dates and 

locations of all tests administered. 

These records must be maintained as 

long as they are in operation, not just for 

three years. 

• Reclaimers: Reclaimers must 

maintain records of the analyses 

conducted to verify that reclaimed 

refrigerant meets the necessary 

specifications. On a transactional basis, 

reclaimers must maintain records of the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69508 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 datarecording; and a description of the 

control device, and its destruction 

efficiency. 

• Extensions to the Periodic Leak 

Inspection Requirement: Owners or 

operators of federally-owned appliances 

containing 50 or more pounds of 

refrigerant must submit a request to EPA 

if they wish to conduct leak inspections 

less frequently than quarterly or 

annually (depending on the full charge 

and type of appliance). The extension 

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 previouslyapproved 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 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 

compliance dates discussed below, EPA 

seeks comments on whether other 

portions of the revised regulations 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69509 

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 nonexempt 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 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 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 publiclyaccessible 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 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. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69510 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 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-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 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 newlypurchased stores automatically be 

included in the CWALR or would they 

be subject to the requirements for 

individual appliances? 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69511 

14For 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. 

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 

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 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 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69512 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

recovered from appliances that enter the 

waste stream with their 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, 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 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 twentytwo years since the first technicians 

took the certification exam. For 

example, many new refrigerants have 

entered the market, including 

flammable refrigerants, and airconditioning 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 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 enduse 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69513 

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 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 

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 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 ICRrelated 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 

December 9, 2015. 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) 

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 selfeffectuating 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69514 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 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 and 1 CFR Part 51 

This action involves technical 

standards. In some instances, EPA is 

proposing to adopt a modified version 

of an industry standard for purposes of 

this rule; in others, EPA is proposing to 

incorporate an industry standard by 

reference exactly as written. 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. This standard establishes 

methods of testing for rating and 

evaluating the performance of 

refrigerant recovery equipment and 

recovery/recycling equipment. The 

standard is available at www.ahrinet.org 

or by mail at Air-Conditioning, Heating, 

and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 2111 

Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 

22201. 

EPA’s lead proposal is to include this 

AHRI Standard with minor 

modifications in appendix B3. EPA is 

also proposing to establish in appendix 

B4 a modified version of the appendix 

B3 standard that could be used to certify 

recovery/recycling equipment used to 

recover/recycle flammable refrigerants. 

As proposed, the standard in appendix 

B4 would base 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. UL 1963, 

Supplement SB establishes standards 

for refrigerant recovery and refrigerant 

recovery/recycling equipment to ensure 

the equipment can be used safely with 

flammable refrigerants. The standard is 

available at http://www.comm-2000.com 

or by writing to Comm 2000, 151 

Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106. 

In addition, EPA is proposing to 

incorporate by reference many of the 

standards referenced in appendix B3 

and B4, including: 

—ASHRAE Terminology, American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. This 

Web site provides a glossary of 

technical terms used by ASHRAE and 

is available at https://www.ashrae.org/ 

resourcesÐpublications/freeresources/ashrae-terminology. 

—UL Standard 1963, Refrigerant 

Recovery/Recycling Equipment, First 

Edition, 2011, American National 

Standards Institute/Underwriters 

Laboratories, Inc. This standard 

establishes safety requirements for 

and methods to evaluate refrigerant 

recovery and refrigerant recovery/

recycling equipment. The standard is 

available at http://www.comm2000.com or by writing to Comm 

2000, 151 Eastern Avenue, 

Bensenville, IL 60106. 

—AHRI Standard 110–2012, AirConditioning, Heating and 

Refrigerating Equipment Nameplate 

Voltages, 2012, Air-Conditioning, 

Heating, and Refrigeration Institute. 

This standard establishes voltage 

rating requirements, equipment 

performance requirements, and 

conformance conditions for airconditioning, heating, and 

refrigerating equipment. The standard 

is available at www.ahrinet.org or by 

mail at Air-Conditioning, Heating, 

and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 

2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, 

Arlington, VA 22201. 

—International Standard IEC 60038, IEC 

Standard Voltages, 2009, 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission. 

This standard specifies standard 

voltage values which are intended to 

serve as preferential values for the 

nominal voltage of electrical supply 

systems, and as reference values for 

equipment and system design. The 

standard is available at 

www.techstreet.com or by writing to 

Techstreet, 6300 Interfirst Drive, Ann 

Arbor, MI 48108. 

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 or 

whether to establish a standard in 

appendix B4 that is based on that 

standard. 

Second, reclaimers are required to 

reprocess refrigerant to standards based 

on ARI Standard 700–1995, 

Specification for Fluorocarbons and 

Other Refrigerants. AHRI Standard 700 

establishes purity specifications for 

refrigerants, and to specify the 

associated methods of testing for 

acceptability of 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 the full standard by 

reference because EPA intends to keep 

the older unsaturates limit. The 

standard is available at www.ahrinet.org 

or by mail at Air-Conditioning, Heating, 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69515 

and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 2111 

Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, 

VA 22201. 

EPA is proposing to incorporate by 

reference the additional standards 

referenced in AHRI 700–2015. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

incorporate by reference the following 

standards: 

—Appendix C to AHRI Standard 700– 

2015: Analytical Procedures for AHRI 

Standard 700–2015, Normative, 

Specification for Fluorocarbon 

Refrigerants. This document 

establishes definitive test procedures 

for determining the quality of new, 

reclaimed and/or repackaged 

refrigerants in support of the 

standards established in AHRI–700, 

and is available at www.ahrinet.org or 

by mail at Air-Conditioning, Heating, 

and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 

2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, 

Arlington, VA 22201. 

—Appendix D Gas Chromatograms for 

AHRI Standard 700–2015— 

Informative, Specification for 

Fluorocarbon Refrigerants, 2012, AirConditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute. This appendix 

provides figures for the gas 

chromatograms used with Appendix 

C to AHRI Standard 700–2015: 

Analytical Procedures for AHRI 

Standard 700–2015, Normative, 

Specification for Fluorocarbon 

Refrigerants. The appendix is 

available at www.ahrinet.org or by 

mail at Air-Conditioning, Heating, 

and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 

2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, 

Arlington, VA 22201. 

—Federal Specification for 

‘‘Fluorocarbon Refrigerants,’’ BB–F– 

1421 B, dated March 5, 1982, section 

4.4.3. This section of this standard 

establishes a method to determine the 

boiling point and boiling point range 

of a refrigerant. The standard is 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

—GPA STD–2177, Analysis of Natural 

Gas Liquid Mixtures Containing 

Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide by Gas 

Chromatography, 2013, Gas 

Processors Association. This standard 

establishes methods for analyzing 

demethanized liquid hydrocarbon 

streams containing nitrogen/air and 

carbon dioxide, and purity products 

such as ethane/propane mix that fall 

within compositional ranges 

indicated in the standard. The 

standard is available at 

www.techstreet.com or by writing to 

Techstreet, 6300 Interfirst Drive, Ann 

Arbor, MI 48108. 

—ASTM Standard D1296–01–2012, 

Standard Test Method for Odor of 

Volatile Solvents and Diluents, 2012, 

ASTM International. This test method 

covers a comparative procedure for 

observing the characteristic and 

residual odors of volatile organic 

solvents and diluents to determine 

their odor acceptability in a solvent 

system. The standard is available at 

www.astm.org or by writing to ASTM, 

100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, 

West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959. 

EPA seeks comments on whether to 

incorporate the updated standards by 

reference or whether appendix A should 

be updated based on AHRI 700–2015 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 Refrigerant, 

TP–503, as amended January 5, 2010. 

The standard establishes methods for 

assessing the leak rate from small 

containers of refrigerant. A copy of this 

standard is available in the docket and 

www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/hfc09/

hfc09.htm. EPA requests comment on 

the use of this CARB standard for selfsealing 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 ozonedepleting substances from this proposed 

rule is contained in section II.D.1 of this 

preamble. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: October 15, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

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. Revise § 82.150 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 ozonedepleting 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 § 82.152: 

■ 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,’’ ‘‘Custombuilt,’’ ‘‘Disposal,’’ ‘‘Follow-up 

verification test,’’ ‘‘Full charge,’’ ‘‘Highpressure appliance,’’ ‘‘Industrial process 

refrigeration,’’ ‘‘Industrial process 

shutdown,’’ ‘‘Initial verification test,’’ 

‘‘Leak rate,’’ ‘‘Low-loss fitting,’’ ‘‘Lowpressure appliance,’’ ‘‘Medium-pressure 

appliance,’’ ‘‘MVAC-like appliance,’’ 

‘‘One-time expansion device,’’ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69516 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘Opening an appliance,’’ ‘‘Recovery 

efficiency,’’ ‘‘Refrigerant,’’ ‘‘Selfcontained 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.’’ 

The revisions and additions to read as 

follows: 

§ 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). 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 airconditioning 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 self-contained 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: 

(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 

(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 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: 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69517 

(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: 

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, opendrive 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 air-conditioning 

equipment found on agricultural or 

construction vehicles. This definition is 

not intended to cover appliances using 

R–22 refrigerant. 

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. 

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 ozonedepleting 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, o-rings or 

appliance components. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP09NO15.300</GPH> EP09NO15.301</GPH>
69518 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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 

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 MVAClike 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 R–508B. 

■ 4. Revise § 82.154 to read as follows: 

§ 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 

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 non-mechanical 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 airconditioning; 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: 

(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 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69519 

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 [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 

[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. 

(ii) The leakage rate from each 

container must not exceed 3.00 grams 

per year when the self-sealing 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; 

(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. 

■ 5. Add § 82.155 to subpart F to read 

as follows: 

§ 82.155 Safe disposal of appliances. 

Until [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 [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. 

(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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69520 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(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. Revise § 82.156 to read as follows: 

§ 82.156 Proper evacuation of refrigerant 

from appliances. 

Until [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 [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, 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 paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(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-, high- or very highpressure 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 lowpressure 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. 

(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 refrigerant.

4 ............................... 10 

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, 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69521 

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) Persons who maintain, service, 

repair, or dispose of only appliances 

that they own and that contain pumpout units are exempt from the 

requirement to use certified, selfcontained 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 [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 

[18 MONTHS FROM PUBLICATION OF 

A FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Add § 82.157 to Subpart F to read 

as follows: 

§ 82.157 Appliance maintenance and leak 

repair. 

(a) Applicability. This section applies 

as of [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. 

(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 

paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(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 paragraphs 

(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: 

(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 federallyowned appliances may submit a request 

to EPA at the address specified in 

paragraph (m) of this section 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 

(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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69522 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

(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 followup verification test indicates that the 

repairs have not been successful, the 

owner or operator may conduct as many 

additional repairs and follow-up 

verification tests as needed within the 

applicable time period. 

(ii) [Reserved]. 

(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 (g)(1) through (g)(4) of 

this section. 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); 

(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 paragraph (m) of 

this section 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: 

(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 oneyear, for completion of the appliance 

retrofit or retirement. 

(3) Unless granted additional time, all 

work performed in accordance with the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69523 

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 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. 

(3) Extensions available to Federallyowned equipment. Owners or operators 

of Federally-owned 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 twelvemonth 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. 

(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; 

(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; 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69524 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(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 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 federallyowned 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 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. Revise § 82.158 to read as follows: 

§ 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 

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 MVAClike 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 MVAClike 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 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 MVAClike appliances) must be certified by an 

approved equipment testing 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69525 

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 

(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. 

(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: 

THIS EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN 

CERTIFIED BY [APPROVED 

EQUIPMENT TESTING 

ORGANIZATION] TO MEET EPA’s 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69526 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 MVAClike 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. 

(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. Revise § 82.160 to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

(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 

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. Revise § 82.161 to read as follows: 

§ 82.161 Technician certification. 

Until [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 [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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69527 

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. 

(ii) Technicians who maintain, 

service, repair, or dispose of medium-, 

high-, or very high-pressure 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 lowpressure 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 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. 

(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 § 82.162: 

§ 82.162 [Reserved] 

■ 12. Revise § 82.164 to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

(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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69528 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (a)(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 by: 

■ a. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(a) through (i), and (l); and 

■ b. Revising paragraph (m). 

Revisions to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 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 AirConditioning, 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, R–113, R–114, R–115, R–116, R–123, 

R–124, R–125, R–134a, R–141b, R–142b, R– 

143a, R–152a, R–218, 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, R–600a, 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, R–404A, R–405A, R–406A, R–407A, R– 

407B, R–407C, R–407D, R–407E, R–407F, R– 

408A, R–409A, R–409B, R–410A, R–410B, R– 

411A, R–411B, R–412A, R–413A, R–414A, R– 

414B, R–415A, R–415B, R–416A, R–417A, R– 

417B, R–417C, R–418A, R–419A, R–419B, R– 

420A, R–421A, R–421B, R–422A, R–422B, R– 

422C, R–422D, R–422E, R–423A, R–424A, R– 

425A, R–426A, R–427A, R–428A, R–429A, 

R–430A, R–431A, R–434A, R–435A, R–437A, 

R–438A, R–439A, R–440A, R–442A, R–444A, 

R–444B, R–445A, R–446A, R–447A, R–448A, 

R–49A, R–450A; 

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 

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. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69529 

5.2.3 Vapor Phase Sampling. A vapor 

phase sample shall be obtained for 

determining the non-condensables. 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 noncondensables 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. 

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 noncondensables. 

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 °C below the critical 

temperature of the refrigerant. 

Note: If free water is present in the sample, 

cooling to below 0 °C may result in the 

formation of ice. Clathrates may form at 

temperatures above 0 °C 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,’’ BB–F–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. 

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. 

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 noncondensables. 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 noncondensables 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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69530 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

EP09NO15.304</GPH>srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Table lA. Single Component Fluorocarbon Refrigerants and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants 

Reporting Units Reference R-11 R-12 R-13 R-22 R-23 R

Section 

CHAR.4CT!JRISTIC8: ... ·· ... ' .. ·. 

•••• 

.· 

... 

.. 

: 

Boiling Point1 oc@ 101.3 N/A 23.7 -29.8 -81.5 -40.8 -82 -5

kPa 0 

Boiling Point Range 1 K N/A ± 0.3 ± 0.3 ± 0.5 ± 0.3 ±0.5 ±

Critical Temperature 1 oc N/A 198 112 28.9 96.2 26.1 7

Isomer Content %by weight N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N

TlAFOl?.PR4.SE.COb'tAM11\t4NFS: •• .· .. ·. .. · . ·· .. · .. . • > ... 

Air and Other Non-condensables, %by volume 5.10 N/A2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 

Maximum @25.0 oc 

J.;/QUIJ)PHASE CONTANllNANJ'$: • ·.·· ·.·•·· ; .·. . ·· . · .. : .· <. · ... · · ... ·· ••• .· <> ·.· 

Water, Maximum ppm by weight 5.4 20 10 10 10 10 

All Other Volatile Impurities, Maximum %by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

High Boiling Residue, Maximum %by volume or 5.8 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0

%by weight 

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail 5.9 Visually Visually Visually Visually Visually Vis

clean clean clean clean clean c

Acidity, Maximum ppm by weight 5.7 1 1 1 1 1 

(as HCl) 

No No No No No N

Chloride3 Pass or Fail 5.6 visible visible visible visible visible vi

turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turb

EP09NO15.305</GPH>srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Table 1 A. Single Component Fluorocarbon Refrigerants and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants (continu

Reporting Units Reference R-115 R-116 R-123 R-124 R-125 

Section 

. t;]iARACTE!UST!CS.' . >> .. . . ... · .. ·.··.· .. 

. . 

. 

. .. 

Boiling Point1 oc@ 101.3 kPa N/A -38.9 -78.2 27.8 -12 -48.1 Boiling Point Range 1 K N/A ± 0.3 ± 0.3 ± 0.3 ± 0.3 ± 0.3 

Critical Temperature1 oc N/A 80 19.9 183.7 122.3 66 

0-8 0-5 

Isomer Content %by weight N/A N/A N/A R-123a+ R-124a N/A 

R-123b 

VAPOR PHASe CONTAMINA.N;'$:; .·· •. . >'( .·.· .·· . i. ... ··.· ·• . 

.. · • < .. ·. . .. • •• . · ... · . . 

Air and Other Non-condensables, %by volume 5.10 1.5 1.5 N/A2 1.5 1.5 

Max. @ 25.0 oc 

LIQUIDPHA$E .C0NTAA:.1JN;LWS:. :. . . · . .... 

. .. 

Water, Max. ppm by weight 5.4 10 10 20 10 10 

All Other Volatile Impurities, Max. %by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

High Boiling Residue, Max. %by volume or 5.8 0.01 O.Dl O.Dl 0.01 0.01 

%by weight 

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail 5.9 Visually Visually Visually Visually Visually 

clean clean clean clean clean 

Acidity, Max. ppm by weight 5.7 1 1 1 1 1 

(asHCl) 

Chloride3 Pass or Fail 5.6 No visible No visible No visible No visible No visible 

turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity 

EP09NO15.306</GPH>srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Table lA. Single Component Fluorocarbon Refrigerants and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants (continued) 

Reporting Reference R-142b R-143a R-152a R-218 R-227ea R-236fa R-245fa 

Units Section 123

CI:l4ftACTElflSTICS: ·.. ... .... .. . .... · .. .. · ... • . . ···. .·... '· .. . ; · . . .. ... · 

Boiling Point1 oc@ 1013 kPa N/A -9.2 -47.2 -24 -36.8 -16.5 -1.4 14.9 

Boiling Point Rangc1 K N/A -- ±0.3 ±0.3 ±0.3 -- ±0.3 ±0.3 

Critical Temperature1 oc N/A 137.1 72.7 113.3 72 1017 124.9 154.1 1

0-0.lea 

0-0.lca 0-0 01 R-245ca, 

Isomer Content %by weight N/A R-142, R-143 N/A -- -- -- R-245cb, 

R-142a R-245ea, 

R-245eb 

VAP0RPHAS13 Catv£ £n7•"''vTS: ·.· . ··... .. . ;. ·.·.· ... . ;· ·.· , .. . , . ., ..•.. · ... · ... . :, ?·. 

Air and Other Non- %by volume 5.10 2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 N/A2 N

condensables, Max. @.25.0 oc 

. UQPIDPHASE CONTAMINAN;FS: .. . , . . , ··.· •... · .......... · . .... /. 

····· .. 

..... .. · 

·.· . ·· .. · .. ·· ; 

Water, Maximum ppm by weight 5.4 15 10 10 10 10 10 20 

All Other Volatile %by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Impurities, Max. 

High Boiling %by vohune or 5.8 0.01 0.01 0 Lll 001 (JOl 0.01 0.01 

Residue, Max. %by weight 

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail 5.9 Visually Visually Visually Visually Visually Visually Visually Vi

dean dean clean dean dean clean dean d

Acidity, Max. ppm by weight 5.7 3 1 1 1 l 1 1 

(asHCl) 

No visible No visible No visible No visible No visible No visible No visible No 

Chloride3 Pass or Fail 5.6 

turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity tur

1. Boiling points, boiling point ranges, and critical temperatures, although not required, are provided for infonnational purposes. Refrigerant data compiled 

2. Since R-11, R-113, R-123, R-141 b, R-245ta, and R-1233zd(E) have normal boiling points near or above room temperature, non-condensable determinati

refrigerants. 

3. Recognized chloride level for pass/fail is about 3 ppm 

-- Data Not Available 

EP09NO15.307</GPH>srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Table lB. Single Component Hydrocarbon Refrigerants and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants 

Reporting R-50 R-170 R-E170 R-290 R-600 R-600a R-601 R-601a R

Units 

· CH;4RACTERIS1'!CS:· · ·• 

··.·· 

. .. · . 

. ···• > .•• " . • ··•·····. : . •· 

Boiling Point1 oc at 101.3 -161.5 -88.6 -24.8 -42.1 -0.5 -11.8 36.1 27.8 

kPa 

Boiling Point Range1 K ±0.5 ±0.5 ±0.5 ±0.5 ±0.5 ±0.5 ±0.5 ±0.5 ± Minimum Nominal %weight 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 

Composition Other Allowable %weight NIA NIA NIA 2 (see 2 (see 2 (see 0-1 0-1 

Impurities footnote2) footnote2) footnote2) R-GOla R-601 

VAP.OR.PHflSE :·. · · .. .· . .• ... . ... ·· .. · .. .. • •••• ';< ... • •• • ·.:· ... :·· : .· .. :·' ···: .....•... •... ' .. ·· • .. • 

Air and Other Non- %by 

condensables, volume 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 

Maximum (ciJ, 25.0 oc 

C01V1'A}viJNANtS4:.' .. · • . .·· ·:·.·. · .. ·· .•.. ·. :· 

•••••• 

.····· .. 

: ..... ·.·.·•· .. ·· ... · . ·• .:•·.·· .· ·: ..... : ·.> ··<· . . 

Sulfur Odor Pass or Fail No sulfur No sulfur No sulfur No sulfur No sulfur No sulfur No sulfur No sulfur No 

odor odor odor odor odor odor odor odor 

High Boiling Residue, %weight 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 

Max. Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail Visually Visually Visually Visually Visually Visually Visually Visually Vi

clean clean clean clean clean clean clean clean c

ppm by 

Acidity, Max. weight 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

(as HCl) 

Water, Max. mg kg- 1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 

All Other Volatile %weight 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Impurities, Max. 

Total C3, C4 and CS %weight 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 

Polyolefms, Max. 

1. Boiling points, hoi ling point ranges, although not required, are provided for infonnational purposes. 

2. 2% of other C3 and C4 saturated hydrocarbons are allowed 

3.Taken from vapor phase 

4. Vaporized from liquid phase 

EP09NO15.308</GPH>srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Table 2A. Zeotropic Blends (400 Series Refrigerants) and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants 

Reporting Units Reference R-401A R-401B R-402A R-402B R-403A R-403B 

Section 

·{:JtARA(3'l'J?;Rl'irTCS: .···· :. \ .•..•. >.• . . ·. • i • .. .. •• ••• ••••• .. ·: .. 

•••• i . .... · .. · .• 

Refrigerant Components NIA NIA R-221 R-221 R-125/ R-125/ R-290/ R-290/ 

152a/124 152a/124 290/22 290/22 22/218 22/218 

Nominal Composition %by weight NIA 53113/34 61/11/28 60 0/2.0/ 38.0/2.0 5/75/20 5/56/39 

/380 /60.0 

58.0-62.0/ 36 0-40 0/ 3-5.2/ 3-5.2/ 

51-55/11.5- 59-63/9.5- 

Allowable Composition %by weight NIA 13.5/33-35 11.5/27-29 10-2.1/ 10-2.1/ 73-77/ 54-58/ 

36.0-40.0 58.0-62.0 18-22 37-41 

Bubble Point1 oc@ 101.3 kPa NIA -33.3 -34.9 -49 -47 -47.8 -49.2 

DewPuinl1 oc@ 101.3 kPa NIA -26.4 -28.8 -46.9 -44.7 -44.3 -46.8 

Critical Temperature 1 oc NIA 105.3 103.5 76 83 87 79.7 

fi:4J>()R "'r."'" "'""v"fS: ·.· .. :> . .·.·. ·•··...•.... ·.. .•·• •. · .. ···:· ..••• • ... : 

f 'T' ·.: • . 

.. ·.·.·. ;. 

. ···••· > 

. :• . . . 

Air and Other Non- %by volume 5.10 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 

condensables, Max. ca? 25 0 oc 

I!QTJin PH AST? rn1<l7::4J 11(1[ANT& . ·. . ;, . . · .. •··· ...... .. : .• ·•. :. /. .• .·· ···. . .. •.·.·. . ·.·

Waler,Max. ppm by weighl 5.4 10 10 10 10 10 10 

All Other Volatile %by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Impurities, Max. 

High Boiling Residue, 'Yo by volume or 5.8 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 

Max. %by weighl 

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail 5.9 Visually Visually Visually Visually Visually Visually 

clean clean clean clean clean clean 

Acidity, Max. ppm by weight 5.7 1 1 1 1 1 1 

(as HCl) 

Chluride2 Pass or Fail 5.6 No visible No visible No visible No visible No visible No visible 

turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity 

EP09NO15.309</GPH>srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Table 2A. Zeotropic Blends ( 400 Series Refrigerants) and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants (continued

Reporting Reference R-406A R-407A R-407B R-407C R-407D R-407

Units Section 

CHARACTERiSTICS: ·.··. . ·· 

• ••••• ••••••• 

...... 

.·.··· ···.·· 

. ·. .·· .· .... · ' ·.•. < 

Refrigerant Components N/A N/A R-22/600a/ R-32/ R-32/ R-32/ R-32/ R-32

142b 125/l34a 125/l34a 125/l34a 125/l34a 125/l3

Nominal Composition %by weight N/A 55/4/41 20/40/40 10/70/20 23/25/52 15/l5/70 25/l5/

53-57/ 18-22/ 8-12/ 21-25/ l3-l7/ 23-27

Allowable Composition %by weight N/A 3-5/ 38-42/ 68-72/ 23-27/ l3-l7/ l3-l7

40-42 38-42 18-22 50-54 68-72 58-62 

Bubble Point1 oc@ 101.3 N/A -32.7 -45.3 -46.8 -43.6 -39.5 -42.9 

kPa 

DewPoint1 oc@ 101.3 N/A -23.5 -38.9 -42.5 -36.6 -32.9 -35.8 

kPa 

Critical Temperature1 oc N/A 116.5 82.3 75 86 91.4 88.5 

VAPOR PHASE CONJ'AMINAfVT.S: ··. · .. .. . 

••• •••• • 

· ..•• · .. ·. . \ 

.·. 

. .. 

•. ·.··. .·· .·· 

•• 

Air and Other Non- %by volume 5.10 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 

condensables, Max. @ 25.0 oc 

LIQUID PHASBC@NTAMil'{ANFS: . . . . ... . ... 

. . . 

. ··· 

·· . 

.. 

Water, Max. ppm by 5.4 10 10 10 10 10 10 

weight 

All Other Volatile Impurities, %by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Max. 

%by volume 

High Boiling Residue, Max. or%by 5.8 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 

weight 

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail 5.9 Visually Visually Visually Visually Visually Visual

clean clean clean clean clean clean 

Acidity, Max. ppm by 5.7 l l l l l l 

weight 

Chloride2 Pass or Fail 5.6 No visible No visible No visible No visible No visible No visi

turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidi

EP09NO15.310</GPH>srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Table 2A. Zeotropic Blends (400 Series Refrigerants) and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants (continued) 

Reporting Reference R-409A R-409B R-410A R-410B R-411A R-411

Units Section 

· ........... · ' ' . . ' ·,,\ '•. < . • . ... .. '·.·· .·. ..·. . .. \ 

.. 

;• .· .. . ..... < .... ·'·. '•: 

Refrigerant Components N/A N/A R-22/ R-22/ R-32/125 R-32/125 R-1270/ R-127

1241142b 124/142b 22/152a 22/152

Nominal Composition %by weight N/A 60/25/15 65/25110 50150 45/55 1.5/87.5/ 3/94/

110 

58-62/ 63-67/ 48.5-50.5/ 44-46/ 0.5-1.5/ 2-3/94-

Allowable Composition %by weight N/A 23-27/ 23-27/ 49.5-51.5 54-56 87.5-89.5/ 2-3 

14-16 9-11 10-11 

Bubble Poine 

oc@ 1013 

N/A -34.7 -35.6 -51.4 -51.3 -39.5 -41.6 

kPa 

DewPoint1 oc@ 101.3 N/A -26.4 -27.9 -51.4 -51.6 -36.6 -40 

kPa 

Critical Ternperalure1 oc NIA 106.9 106.9 71.4 70.8 99.1 96 

¥W>QRPI1ASE C(/1v'TAl•vfiN4}:f(S: ••·· . ' . >, < ·•.· . . < •· •.•. .. :: 

.:·. : . ··•· \ > ·.· 

Air and Other Non- %by volume 5.10 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 

com1ensahles, Max. @25.0 'C 

LJQUJD Pll1SE.CONTA.Af}N:41vTS: . · ...•. ••·,··.·. ·. •• . .... ·: .. ·.•· .. . ' ... •···· · ... ····•· . . . .. ..· •· 

· .. 

Water, Maximum ppm by weight 5.4 10 10 10 10 10 10 

All Other Volatile Impurities, %by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Max. 

High Boiling Residue, Max. % hy volume 5.8 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 

or % by weight 

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail 5.9 Visually Visually Visually Visually Visually Visual

clean clean clean clean clean clean 

Acidity, Max. ppm by weight 5.7 1 1 1 1 1 1 

(as HCl) 

Chloride2 Pass or Fail 5.6 No visible No visible No visible No visible No visible No visi

turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidi

EP09NO15.311</GPH>srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Table 2A. Zeotropic Blends (400 Series Refrigerants) and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants (continued) 

Reporting Units Reference R-414A R-414B R-415A R-415B R-416A 

Section 

.···· ••·· <· ....•.• .. . .. ·· . .. .. · .. : .. · ... .... . .• .· .. • · .......... ···. . 

Refrigerant Components NIA NIA R-221124/ R-221124/ R-22/152a R-22/152a R-134a/ 

600a/142b 600a/142b 124/600 

Nominal Composition %by weight NIA 510/28.5/ 50.0/39.0/ 82.0/18.0 25.0175.0 59.0/39.5/ 

4.0116.5 1.5/9.5 15 

49.0-53.0/ 48.0-52.0/ 58.0-59.5/ 

26.5-30.5/ 37.0-410/ 810-830/ 24.0-26.0/ Allowable Composition %by weight NIA 3.5-4.5/ 10-2.0/ 17.0-19.0 74.0-76.0 39.0-40.5/ 

15.5-17.0 8.5-10.0 1.3-1.6 

Bubble Point1 oc@ 101.3 kPa NIA -34 -32.9 -37.5 -27.7 -23.4 

DewPoint1 oc@ 1013 kPa NIA -25.8 -24.3 -34.7 -26.2 -218 

Critical Temperature1 oc NIA 110.7 111 100 111.3 108.2 

'r/AP()RPHASif;CONfAA<!li:ifANTS.•. . . . .·•·.·· . . .. ; . .··. • . .. ·. ••• •••••••••••• 

•. 

Air and Other Non-condensablcs, %by volume 5.10 15 15 1.5 1.5 15 

Max. @25.0 oc 

·• •. ,,• ·. . .. . . . 

. ·.···· . 

. \ .·.······ . 

. 

••• < . ·· ·· .. · 

Walt:r,Max. ppm by weight 5.4 10 10 10 10 10 

All Other Volatile Impurities, %by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Max. 

High Boiling Residue, Max. %by volume or 5.8 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 

%by weight 

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail 5.9 Visually Visually Visually Visually Visually 

dean dean dean dean dean 

Acidity, Max. ppm by weight 5.7 1 1 1 1 1 

(asHCl) 

Chloride2 Pass or Fail 5.6 No visible No visible No visible No visible No visible 

turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity 

EP09NO15.312</GPH>srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Table 2A. Zeotropic (400 Series Refrigerants) and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants (continued) 

Reporting Reference R-417C R-418A R-419A R-419B R-420A R-421A R

Units Section 

: CHAJv4CTEHIST1CS: : : ..... ·• .. . · •·.· ... · .. •; .. 

. .. · ·.··· ·.·.· 

. ·. . .. ·· ... .. ·· ·

. 

R-125/ R-290/ R-125/ R-125/ R-134a/ R-125/ R

Refrigerant Components NIA NIA 134a/600 22/l52a 134a/ 134a/E17 142b 134a 

E170 0 

Nominal Composition %by weight NIA 19.5/78.8/ 1.5/96.0/ 770/19.0/ 48.5/48.0/ 88.0/12.0 58.0/42.0 85

1.7 2.5 4.0 3.5 

18.5-20.5/ 1.0-2.0/ 76.0-78.0/ 47.5-49.5/ 88.0-89.0/ 57.0-59.0/ 84

Allowable Composition %by weight NIA 77.8-79.8/ 95.0-97.0/ 18.0-20.0/ 47.0-49.0/ 11.0-12.0 41.0-43.0 14

1.2-18 2.0-3.0 3.0-5.0 3.0-4.0 

Bubble Point1 oc@ 101.3 NIA -32.7 -41.2 -42.6 -37.4 -25 -40.8 

kPa 

DewPoint1 oc@ 1013 N/A -29.2 -40.1 -36 -31.5 -24.2 -35.5 

kPa 

Critical Temperature1 oc NIA 954 96.7 79.1 904 105.4 78.5 

•··J!APORPHASECONTA,11NANT$: i . . . . .· ......... ·.• ·... . . ·.·. >· • ; .. > ... ·•· .. : .. • > '; 

Air and Other Non-condensables, %by volume 5.10 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 

Max . @25.0 oc 

. LIQUIJ) Pl£.4SE · ..•... ;· . \ . .. •. .. 

••• 

•• > 

... 

.' 

........ ··• ····

Water, Max. ppm by weight 5.4 10 10 10 10 20 10 

All Other Volatile Impurities, %by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Max. 

%by volume 

High Boiling Residue, Max. or 5.8 O.Dl O.Dl O.Dl O.Dl 0.01 0.01 

%by weight 

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail 5.9 Visually Visuallv Visually Visually Visually Visually V

clean clean Clean clean clean Clean 

Acidity, Max. ppm by weight 5.7 1 1 1 1 1 1 

(as HC1) 

Chloride2 Pass or Fail 5.6 No visible No visible No visible No visible No visible No visible No 

turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity tu

EP09NO15.313</GPH>srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Table 2A. Zeotropic Blends (400 Series Refrigerants) and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants (continued) 

Repurling Rderem:e R-422C R-422D R-422E R-423A R-424A R-425A R-42

Units Section 

tHAit4i:TER1STICS: ..... ..... ; . > ........ ...• > . . 

... · . . 

Refrigerant R-125J R-125J R-125J R-134a R-125J R-32J134a R-125J

NIA NIA 134aJ600aJ 

Components 134a/600a 134a/600a 134a/600a J227ea 600J60la J227ea J600J

Nominal Composition %by weight NJA g2 0/15 o 65.1/30.5 5g OJ393 52.5J47.5 50.5J47.0 1g 5/69 5 5.1/lJ

J3.0 J3.4 J2.7 J0.91l.OJ0.6 112.0 11.3J

49.5-51.5J 4.1-6

810-83.0J 64.0-66 OJ 57.0-59.0J 46.0-48.0J 18.0-19.0J Allowable %by weight NJA 14 O-l6.0J 30.5-32.5J 38.0-4l.OJ 515-53.5J 0.7-I.OJ 09 0-70.0/ 92 0-9

Composition 2.5-3.1 3.0-3.5 2.5-3.0 46.5-48.5 0.8-l.lJ 11.5-12.5 l.l-1

04-0 7 04-0

Bubble Poine oc@ 101.3 kPa NJA -45.3 -43.2 -418 -24.2 -39.1 -38.1 -28

DewPoint1 oc@ 1013 kPa NIA -42.3 -384 -364 -23.5 -33.3 -313 -26

Critical Temperature1 oc NIA 76.1 79.6 82.2 99 87.5 93.9 100

.·VAPORi'l1AS1J .. ·· ... · • ,. • < .• . .. , .. •' .· ... '·. ' ·• .• 

•···· 

•••••••••• 

.. ·· .. . .. .•.· . . ···.·· . ... . i : .. 

Air and Other Non- %by volume 5.10 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 

condensables, Max. @25.0 oc 

T.fQ/lflJ >ff:JSR<;()l\"[A?vfiw,4NJ'§.· 

.. 

.. 

> •• 0 • •• .··.. . .....• 

·•···· .. ·.· ... · 

. ··· . ·· .. · 

. . 

. · . ..... 

Water, Max. ppm by 54 lO lO 20 lO lO lO lO 

weight 

All Other Volatile %by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Impurities, Max. 

High Boiling Residue, %by volume or 5.8 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.0

Max. %by weight 

Chloride2 Pass or Fail 5.6 No visible No visible No visible No visible No visible No visible No vi

turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbid

EP09NO15.314</GPH>srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Table 2A. Zeotropic Blends (400 Series Refrigerants) and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants (continued) 

Reporting Units Reference R-429A R-430A R-431A R-434A R-435A R-437A R-438

Section 

CHARACT'RRl.'\rtCS.• • •··· .·· ' . .. . . ·.· •. ·. > ' •• •. .:: .. · ........ •·.·. .. · ... >. . · .. ··•· .. { .. ..· .... 

Refrigerant R-El70 R-152a/ R290 R-125/ R-El70 R-125/ R-3211

NIA NIA 143a/134a/ 134a/600 134a/6

Components 1152a/ 600a 600a 1152a 600a 1152a /601 /601

Nominal 60.0/10.0 63.2/18.0 19.5178.5 8.5/45

Composition %by weight N/A /30.0 76 0/24 0 71.0/29.0 /16.0/2.8 80.0/20.0 /1.4/0.6 44.2/1

/0.6 

62.2-64.2 17.7-20.0 7.0-9

59.0-61.0 /43.5-4

Allowable %by weight N/A /9.0-11.0 75.0-77.0 70.0-72.0 117.0-19.0 79.0-81.0 177.8-80.0 /42.7-4

Composition /29.031.0 /23.025.0 /28.0-30.0 115.0-17.0 /19.0-21.0 /1.2-1.5 11.5-1

/2.6-2.9 /0.4-0.7 /0.4-0

Bubble Point1 oc@ 101.3 kPa N/A -25.5 -27.6 -43.2 -45.1 -26 -32.9 -43 

DcwPoint1 oc@ 101.3 kPa NIA -24.9 -27.4 -43.2 -42.4 -25.8 -29.2 -36.

Critical oc NIA 123.5 107 100.3 75.6 125.2 95.3 84.2 

Temperature1 

· · .. ·· 

. 

.... ·. 

... . ' ..... ) . · . .. · '· .. ... . . .... . .. · .. ··.· . •... 

.. 

Air and Other %by volume Non-condensables, 5.10 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 

Max. @ 25.0 oc 

.. UQl.JlDFHA,SE (ONTA'MfN4111T&• . ·· ·.;. . .. ··.· . . . · .. .. . ..... . .. · ...... •· ..... . ... • .. ·· .. \: .

Water, Maximum ppm by weight 5.4 10 10 20 20 10 10 20 

All Other Volatile %by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Impurities, Max. 

High Boiling % by volume or 5.8 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 

Residue, Max. %by weight 

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail 5.9 Visually Visually Visually Visually Visually Visually Visua

clean clean clean clean clean clean clea

Acidity, Max. ppm by weight 5.7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

(asHC1) 

Chloride2 Pass or Fail 5.6 No visible No visible No visible No visible No visible No visible No vis

turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbid

EP09NO15.315</GPH>srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Table 2A. Zeotropic Blends (400 Series Refrigerants) and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants (continued) 

Reporting Units Reference R-442A R-444A R-4448 R-445A R-446A R-447A R-44S

Section 

CHARA.CTEJUSTJGS: .... . ·· . . i << . ' •.. ·. . . .. ... ··. . . . . ·.·· .. ·.· ... ...... ·. < ·. · .. 

R-321125/ R- R-32/ R-32/ R-3211

Retngerant N/A NIA 134a/152a/ R-321152a/ R-321152a/ 744/134a/ 1234ze(E)/ 125/1234ze 1234

Components 1234ze(E) 1234ze(E) 134a

227ea 1234ze(E) 600 (E) 1234ze

Nominal 31.0/31.0 12.0/5 0/ 41.5/10.0 6. 0/9.0/85. 68.0/29.0 68.0/3.5 26.0/2

Composition %by weight N/A /30.0/3.0 83.0 /48.5 0 /3.0 /28.5 /20.012

/5.0 17.0 

30.0-32.0 24.0-2

Allowable /30.0-32.0 11.0-13.0 40.5-42.5/ 5.0-7.0 67.0-68.5 67.5-69.5 25 5-2

Composition %by weight NIA /29.0-31.0 /4.0-6.0 9.0-11.0/ /8.0-10.0 /28.4-31.0 /3.0-5.0 18.0-2

/2.5- /81.0-85.0 47.5-49.5 /83.0-87.0 /2.0-3.1 /27.5-29.5 20 0-2

3.5/4 0- 6.0 5.0-7

Bubble Point1 oc@ 101.3 kPa N/A -46.5 -34.3 -44.6 -50.3 -49.4 -49.3 -45.

DewPoint1 oc@ 101.3 kPa NIA -39.9 -24.3 -34.9 -23.5 -42.1 -44.2 -39.

Critical oc N/A 82.4 103.2 91.5 98 84.2 82.6 81.6 

Temperature1 

•··· 

> ·,; ... ·• .. . • ; .. 

. ·.···· 

.. . . :· ·. 

.·· 

. 

• ·:·.··.· . 

Air and Other % bvvolume Non-condensables, @ 25.0 oc 5.10 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 

Max. 

LJ.Qi:T1Dfl!A.SE.CONJ:AXd!t>'i!:l'lT$.: · ... • : . . ... \: : i ..... ·'.>·.: •·.· .. ' ::: . . : · .... · :· ..... ·· ... .. 

Water, Maximum ppm by weight 5.4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 

All Other Volatile %by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Impurities, Max. 

High Boiling % by volume or 5.8 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 

Residue, Max. %by weight 

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail 5.9 Visually Visually Visually Visually Visually Visually Visua

clean clean clean clean clean clean clea

Acidity, Max. ppm by weight 5.7 1 1 1 1 NIA 1 1 

(asHCl) 

Chloride2 Pass or Fail 5.6 No visible No visible No visible No visible No visible No visible No vis

turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbid

I. Bubble points, dew points, and critical temperatures, although not required, are provided for infom1ational purposes. Refrigerant data compiled from R

2. Recognized chloride level for pass/fail is about 3 ppm. 

EP09NO15.316</GPH>srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Table 2B. Hydrocarbon Blends (400 & 500 Series Refrigerants) and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants 

Reporting Reference R-432A R-433A R-433B R-433C R-436A R-436B R

Units Section 

I·Clf;4R;4( ';< \ . · .. .. . . .. .. . :• :. . < ·':· <· ... .. .· .. : : .. 

Refrigerant N/A N/A R-1279/ E170 R-1270/ 290 R-1270/290 R-1270/ 290 R-290/ R-290/ 

Components 600a 600a 2 90

Nominal %by weight N/A R0.0/20.0 30.0/70.0 5.0/95.0 25.0/75.0 5o.0/44.o 52.0/4R.O 3.1 /54

Composition 

Allowable %by weight N/A 79.0-81.0 29.0-31.0 4.0-6.0 24.0-26.0 55.0-57.0 51.0-53.0 2.8-2.

Composition /19.0-210 /o9.0-7l.O /94.0- 9o.o 174.0-7o.o /43.0-45.0 /47.0-49.0 5.4-oO

Bubble Point oc@ 101.3 kPa N/A -45.2 -44.4 -42.5 -44.1 -34.3 -33.3 Dew Point1 oc (g]. 101.3 kPa N/A -42.4 -44 -42.4 -43.7 -26.1 -25 

Critical oc N/A 97.3 94.4 96.3 94.8 115.9 117.4 

Temperature1 

V/lP()RPllASE rnN/rt!A '"' . . ·: . ·.· . . .. . . : . •. . . '···· ... :··· ·.. . .. :.• •. > • . ··... · •... ·· • • 

Air and Other Non- %by volwne 5.10 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 

condensables, Max. 

UQ(J]1) .fllASECON,J'A.AyfiN;ANTS3 .: .•. .: .'· • .. : ··. .• .. ••• • .. • . .< ·:' ' \. •• : ... ::

Sulfur Odor4 No odor to pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass 

High Boiling %by volLtme or 5.8 001 0.01 001 0.01 0.01 0.01 

Residue, Max. %by weight 

Particulates/Solids Pass or Fail 5.9 Visually Visually Visually Visually Visually Visually V

clean clean clean clean clean clean 

Acidity, Max. ppm by weight 5.7 I I I I I I 

Water,M1x. ppm by weight 5.4 20 10 10 10 10 10 

All Other Volatile %by weight 5.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Impurities, Max. 

Total C3, C4 and 

C5 Polyolefms, %by weight 5.12 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 

Max. 

Chloride2 Pass or Pail 5.6 No visible No visible No visible No visible No visible No visible 

turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity 

I. Bubble points, dew points, and critical temperatures, although not required, are provided for infonnational purposes. Retngerant data compiled from Retprop 

2. Taken from vapor phase 

3. Vaporized from liquid phase 

4. Including hydrogen sulphide and mercaptans 

EP09NO15.317</GPH>srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Table 3. Azeotropic Blends (500 Retiigerants) and their Allowable Levels of Contaminants 

Reporting Reference R-500 R-502 R-503 R-507A R-508A R-508B R-509A R

Units Section 

CfiARA):'lyRJs'pCS:. · · : .. • .· .. c.: .··• ... . \.. .. ····· .. ····· ... . : . ···. •. :.······ ··<·. ···< . ..·· ........ ·.· ........ ·.· ....... ·.• ...... ......

Retngerant Components NIA N/A R-12/152a R-22/115 R-23113 R-125/ R-23/116 R-23/116 R-22/218 R

143a 

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 8

72.8-74.8 44.8-52.8 39-41 49.5-51.5 37-41 44-48 42-4() 8

Allowable Composition %by weight N/A /25.2-27.2 /47.2-55.2 /59-o1 /48.5-50.5 /59-o3 /52-5o /5o-oo 

Bubble Point1 oc@ lOUkPa N/1\. -33.6 -45.2 -87 8 -46.7 -87.4 -87 -49.8 

DewPoine oc@ IOUkPa N/A -33.6 -45 -87.8 -46.7 -87.4 -87 -48.1 

Critical Temperature1 oc NIA 102.1 80.2 184 70.0 10.8 11.8 o8.o 

f·:.l'Af>QRPli;4SE:CQN; .,,. vfs .. ; ....•... ·. ·••·•·••••··· ... • . .. ,> . : .• · ... :. >' ; ..... . ·• ... ·, .... .· 

·.· 

Air and Other Non- %by volume 5.10 15 15 15 1.5 1.5 15 15 

condensables, Max. (ii'; 25 oc 

tr(triiJ? p'il;t.sr: coP!!'•' 'I''" ... 

••••• 

........ :: : ... ·· .. :.: · .. · ..<> . .. :. ·:· ....... · . ·. > : •·· .

·.•. .; 

Water, Maximum ppm hy weight 5.4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 

All Other Volatile % hy weight 5.11 05 0 5 0 5 05 05 05 05 

Impurities, Max. 

High Boiling Residue, %by volume or 5.8 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 

Max. %by weight 

Particulates/Solids Pass or fail 5.9 Visually Visually Visually Visually Visually Visually Visually V

clean clean clean clean clean clean clear1 

Acidity, Max. ppm by weight 5.7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Chloride2 Pass or Fail 5.6 No visible No visible No visible No visible No visible No visible No visible N

turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity turbidity t

1. Dubble points, dew points, and critical temperatures, although not required, are provided for informational purposes. Refrigerant data compiled from Ret])fop 9

2. Recognized chloride level for pass/fail is about 3 ppm 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69545 

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/freeresources/ashrae-terminology, 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 AirConditioning Engineers. 

Appendix C to AHRI Standard 700±2015: 

Analytical Procedures for AHRI Standard 

700±2015, Normative, Specification for 

Fluorocarbon Refrigerants, 2008. AirConditioning, 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±2015ÐInformative, 

Specification for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants, 

2012, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute. 

■ 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 AirConditioning, 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 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. 

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 noncondensables are purged, the equipment 

shall either automatically purge noncondensables 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. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69546 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

EP09NO15.318</GPH>srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Table 1- Standard Contaminated Refrigerant Samples 

R-11 R-12 R-J:l R-22 R-23 R-1 J:l R-114 R-123 R-124 R-J:l4a R-500 R-502 

Moisture Content: ppm by 100 80 30 200 30 100 85 200 200 200 200 200 !V eight of Pure Refrigerant 

Particulate Content: ppm by 80 80 N/A 80 N/A 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 !V eight of Pure Refrigerane 

Acid Content: ppm by 100 200 N/A 100 N/A 100 100 100 100 100 200 100 !Veight of Pure Refrigerane 

Oil (HBR) Content: % by 20 5 N/A 5 N/A 20 20 20 5 5 5 5 !V eight of Pure Refrigerant 

viscosity !Type3 300/MO 150/MO N/A 300/MO N/A 300/MO 300/MO 300/MO 150/MO 150/MO 150/MO 150/MO 

Non-Condensable Gases N/A 3 3 3 3 N/A 3 N/A 3 3 3 (Air Content): %by Volume 

Table 1 (continued)- Standard Contaminated Refrigerant Samples 

R- R- R- R- R- R- R- R- R- R- R- R- R- R402B 404A 406A 407A 407B 407C 407D 408A 409A 410A 410B 411A 411B 417C 

Moisture Content: ppm by 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 #eight of Pure Refrigerant 

Particulate Content: ppm by 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 !V eight of Pure Refrigerant 1 

Acid Content: ppm by 100 100 200 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N eight of Pure Refrigerant 2 

Oil (HBR) Content: %by 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 N eight of Pure Refrigerant 

viscosity /Type3 150/A 150/P 150/A 150/P 150/P 150/P 150/P 150/M 150/M 150/P 150/P 150/M 150/M 150/P B OE B OE OE OE OE 0 0 OE OE 0 0 OE 

Non-Condensable Gases 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 (Air Content): %by Volume 

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. 

3 

R419B 

200 

80 

100 

5 

150/P 

OE 

3 

R

N

NNN

R

42

20

8

10

5 

150

O

3 
69548 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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 m3 and 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 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP09NO15.302</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69549 

balance line shall be connected across the 

test apparatus between the high- and lowpressure 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. 

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, 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP09NO15.303</GPH>
69550 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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). 

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69551 

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. 

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 noncondensable 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. 

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 SelfContained 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 

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 EQUIPMENT 4,5

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 ......................................................... X1 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 ........................................................................................ X2 X X X3

Residual Trapped Refrigerant, kg ................................................................... X3 X2 X2 X2


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69552 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—PERFORMANCE RATINGS FOR REFRIGERANT RECOVERY AND RECOVERY/RECYCLING EQUIPMENT 4,5— 

Continued 

Parameter 

Type of equipment 

Recovery Recovery/recycling Recycling 

System dependent equipment 

Quantity of Refrigerant Processed at Rated Conditions, kg ........................... N/A X X N/A 

1For 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 EQUIPMENT 1,2

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 

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, AirConditioning, Heating and Refrigerating 

Equipment Nameplate Voltages, 2012, AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute 

• AHRI Standard 700–2015, Specifications 

for Refrigerants, Air-Conditioning, Heating, 

and Refrigeration Institute 

• ASHRAE Terminology, https://

www.ashrae.org/resourcesÐpublications/

free-resources/ashrae-terminology, 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 mm). 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 (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 

■ 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 AirConditioning, 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69553 

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 Underwriters 

Laboratories Standard 1963 (Fourth Edition), 

Standard for Safety: Refrigerant Recovery/

Recycling Equipment as applicable, are 

incorporated by reference. 

3.3 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 

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. 

■ 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 onsite 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. 

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 inperson), 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 

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 mail-in 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69554 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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. 

■ 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) × 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 

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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69555 

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) 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 

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 Web site 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 Web site. 

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 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 

Eidaily = (Wifinal ¥ Wiinitial) / (Difinal ¥ Diinitial) 

g/day 

Eiannual = 365 × Eidaily g/year 

Eiadjusted = Minimum of (Eiadjusted, Ci/year) g/ 

yr 

Where, 

Ei = emission rate 

Wifinal = weight of can i after soaking (grams) 

Wiinitial = weight of can I before soaking 

(grams) 

Difinal = date/time of final weight 

measurements (days) 

Diinitial = 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 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. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69556 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 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. 

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. 

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. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69557 

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. 

5. Press the Tare button 

6. Record the reading in the logbook with QC 

code ZA. 

7. If the ZC reading exceeded the zero reweigh 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. 

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(SZ2 + SC2) 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69558 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

The uncertainty in a weight gain from N 

replicates is then given by: 

Ugain = Sqrt(2) × Sqrt(SZ2 + SC2) /Sqrt(N) 

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 × 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. 

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. 

rcan = 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: 

rcan = 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. 

rair = density of air in the balance chamber 

(g/cm3). Calculate using the following 

approximation: 

rair = 0.001*[0.348444*Pbaro ¥ (RH / 

100)×(0.252xT ¥ 2.0582)] / (T + 273.15) 

rref = the reference density of the calibration 

weight (g/cm3). Should be 8.0 g/cm3. 

Equation to correct for buoyancy: Wcorrected = 

Wreading × (1 ¥ rair / rref) / (1 ¥ rair / rcan) 

[FR Doc. 2015–26946 Filed 11–6–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3