1

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167; FRL ]

RIN 2060-AM09

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Amendments to the Section 608 Leak Repair 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing changes to the leak 

repair regulations promulgated under Section 608 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

(CAA or Act). EPA is proposing to lower the leak repair trigger rates for comfort cooling, 

commercial refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment 

(i.e., appliances) with ozone-depleting refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds. This action 

proposes to streamline existing required practices and associated reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements by establishing similar leak repair requirements for owners or operators of comfort 

cooling, commercial refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration appliances. This action 

also proposes to reduce the use and emissions of class I and class II controlled substances 

(ozone-depleting refrigerantssuch as but not limited, to CFC-11, CFC-12, HCFC-123, HCFC-22)

by requiring the following: verification and documentation of all repairs, retrofit or retirement of 

appliances that cannot be sufficiently repaired, mandatory replacement of appliance components 

that have a history of failures, and mandatory recordkeeping of the determination of the full 

charge and the fate of recovered refrigerant. 
2

DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received by the EPA Docket on or 

before [INSERT DATE 60 days from date of publication in the Federal Register], unless a public 

hearing is requested. Any party requesting a public hearing must notify the contact listed below 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on 

[INSERT DATE 14 DAYS from date of publication in the Federal Register]. If a public hearing 

is requested, commenters will have until [INSERT DATE 75 DAYS from date of publication in 

the Federal Register] to submit comments before the close of the comment period. If a hearing is 

held, it will take place at EPA headquarters in Washington, DC. EPA will post a notice on our 

website, www.epa.gov/ozone/strathome.html, announcing further information should a hearing 

take place.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-

0167, by one of the following methods:

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

• E-mail: A-and-R-docket@epa.gov

• Fax: 202-343-2338, Attn: Julius Banks

• Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to EPA Air Docket, EPA West, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Room B108, Mail Code 6102T, Washington, DC 20460. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
3

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167. EPA's policy 

is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be 

made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information that has disclosure restrictions by statute. Do not submit information that 

you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not

know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If 

you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your 

e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed 

in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, 

EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD-ROM that you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment 

due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public 

docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.html

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 

. 

www.regulations.gov

index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or 

other information that has disclosure restrictions by statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air 

Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. This 
4

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the 

telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. A fee may be charged for the copying 

of documents at the Air Docket facility.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julius Banks; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency; Stratospheric Program Division; Office of Atmospheric Programs; Office of Air and 

Radiation; Mail Code 6205-J; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW; Washington, DC 20460; (202) 

343-9870.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. GENERAL INFORMATION 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

B. What Should I Consider As I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 

1. Confidential Business Information (CBI)

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

II. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act

III. Leak Repair Regulations

IV. Proposed Revisions to the Leak Repair Regulations

A. Purpose and Scope

B. Definitions 

1. Comfort cooling appliance

2. Commercial refrigeration appliance
5

3. Critical (appliance) component

4. Initial and follow-up verification tests

5. Full charge and seasonal variance

6. Industrial process refrigeration

7. Leak rate

8. Normal operating characteristics or conditions 

9. Retrofit, repair, and retire 

C. Required practices

1. Repair of leaks and leak repair trigger rates

2. Addition of refrigerant due to seasonal variances

3. Verification of repairs 

4. Requirement to develop and complete retrofit/retirement plans

5. Extension to repair and retrofit/retirement timelines

6. Worst leaker provision

D. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

1. Service records

2. Records documenting the fate of recovered refrigerant

3. Extensions to repair and retrofit/retirement timelines 
6

4. Documenting the determination of the appliance full charge

5. Documenting seasonal variances

6. Destruction of purged refrigerant

7. Applicability to residential and light commercial appliances

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

et. seq.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

Governments

G. Applicability of Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 

Health & Safety Risks

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

or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations.
7

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, or repair comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration, and industrial 

process refrigeration appliances. Such entities include, but are not limited to, owners and/or 

operators of comfort cooling chillers; refrigerated warehouses; retail food stores, including 

supermarkets, grocery stores, wholesale markets, supercenters, and convenience stores; beverage 

and food manufacturers, distributors, and packagers; ice rinks; and other industrial process 

refrigeration applications. Regulated entities include, but are not limited to, the following: 

Category North American Industry 

Classification (NAIC) Code

Examples of regulated entities

Industrial Process 

Refrigeration (IPR)

311, 325, 3118, 3254, 31212, 

324110, 312111, 312112, 

312113, 713940

Owners or operators of 

refrigeration equipment used in 

the manufacture of 

pharmaceuticals, frozen food , 

dairy products, baked goods, 

food and beverages, 

petrochemicals, chemicals, ice 

rinks, ice manufacturing

Commercial 

Refrigeration

45291, 49312, 49313, 445110, 

445120, 447110

Owners or operators of 

refrigerated warehousing and 

storage facilities, supermarket, 
8

grocery, warehouse clubs, 

supercenters, convenience 

stores, refrigerated warehousing 

and storage

Comfort Cooling 72, 622, 6111, 6112, 6113, 

531312

Owners or operators of airconditioning equipment used in 

the following: hospitals, office 

buildings, colleges and 

universities, metropolitan transit 

authorities, real estate rental & 

leased properties, lodging & 

food services, property 

management, schools, public 

administration or other public 

institutions

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers 

regarding entities likely to be regulated and potentially affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether your company is 

regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria contained in 

section 608 of the CAA Amendments of 1990. If you have questions regarding the applicability 

of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT section.
9

B. What Should I Consider As I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

1. Confidential Business Information (CBI)

Do not submit confidential business information (CBI) to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to 

be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of 

the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 

specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 

that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so 

marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

 When submitting comments, remember to do the following: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject 

heading, Federal Register date and page number).

• Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize 

comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

• Explain why you agree or disagree with the proposal; suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes.

• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you 

used in preparing your comments.

• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in 

sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
10

• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal 

threats.

• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

II. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act

Section 608 of the Clean Air Act as amended (CAA, the Act), the National Recycling and 

Emissions Reduction Program, requires EPA to establish regulations governing the use of ozonedepleting substances (ODS) used as refrigerants1

Section 608 is divided into three subsections. Section 608(a) requires EPA to promulgate 

regulations to reduce the use and emissions of class I substances (i.e., CFCs, halons, carbon 

tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform) and class II substances (i.e., HCFCs) to the lowest 

achievable level, and to maximize the recycling of such substances. Section 608(b) requires that 

the regulations promulgated pursuant to subsection (a) contain requirements for the safe disposal 

of class I and class II substances. Finally, section 608(c) is a self-effectuating provision that 

prohibits any person from knowingly venting, releasing or disposing into the environment of any 

class I or class II substances, and eventually their substitutes, during servicing and disposal of 

air-conditioning or refrigeration appliances. 

, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), during the maintenance, service, or disposal of appliances 

including air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment. Section 608 also prohibits any person 

from knowingly venting, or from otherwise knowingly releasing or disposing of ODS used as 

refrigerants during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of air-conditioning and 

refrigeration equipment. 
11

EPA’s authority to propose the requirements in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) is based on Section 608(a), which requires EPA to promulgate regulations regarding 

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.” 

Section 608(a) further provides that “such regulations may include requirements to use 

alternative substances (including substances which are not class I or class II substances) . . . or to 

promote the use of safe alternatives pursuant to section [612] or any combination of the 

foregoing.”

Section 608(c)(1) provides that, effective July 1, 1992, it is “unlawful for any person, in 

the course of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance or industrial process 

refrigeration, to knowingly vent or otherwise knowingly release or dispose of any class I or class 

II substance used as a refrigerant in such appliance (or industrial process refrigeration) in a 

manner which permits such substance to enter the environment.” The statute exempts from this 

prohibition “[d]e minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or 

safely dispose” of a substance. To implement and enforce the venting prohibitions of this 

section, EPA, through its regulations, interprets releases to meet the criteria for exempted “de 

minimis” releases when they occur while the recycling and recovery requirements of sections 

608 and 609 regulations are followed. Effective November 15, 1995, section 608(c)(2) of the 

Act prohibits the knowingly venting or otherwise knowingly release or disposal of any substitute 

for class I and class II substances by any person maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of 

air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment. This prohibition applies unless EPA determines 

that such venting, releasing, or disposing does not pose a threat to the environment. 

 1 Refrigerant means, for purposes of 40 CFR 82, Subpart F, any substance consisting in part or whole of a class I or 
12

III. Leak Repair Regulations

Final regulations promulgated under section 608 of the Act, published on May 14, 1993 

(58 FR 28660), established a recycling program for ozone-depleting refrigerants recovered 

during the servicing and maintenance of air-conditioning and refrigeration appliances. Together 

with the prohibition on venting during the maintenance, service, repair and disposal of class I 

and class II ODS (January 22, 1991; 56 FR 2420), these regulations were intended to 

substantially reduce the use and emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. 

The May 14, 1993 regulations established leak repair requirements to further minimize 

emissions of class I and class II substances. The rule states that appliances that hold a refrigerant 

charge greater than 50 pounds are subject to the leak repair requirements. An annual leak rate of 

35 percent was established for industrial process refrigeration and commercial refrigeration 

appliances, while an annual leak rate of 15 percent was established for comfort cooling 

appliances. Where the leak rate is exceeded, the appliance must be repaired within 30 days. 

These regulations were amended August 8, 1995, to provide greater flexibility to owners and 

operators of industrial process refrigeration appliances (60 FR 40419). Thus an alternative was 

provided that allows owners or operators to develop a retrofit or replacement plan within 30 days 

that outlines actions to retrofit or replace the leaking appliance within one year. The leak repair 

components of the regulations (i.e., definitions, required practices, and associated reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements) were subsequently revised again in final regulations published on 

January 11, 2005 (70 FR 1972). 

 

class II ozone-depleting substance that is used for heat transfer purposes and provides a cooling effect.
13

On August 8, 1995, EPA promulgated a final rule (60 FR 40420) in response to a 

settlement agreement reached by EPA and the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA). In 

that settlement, EPA permitted owners or operators of appliances with refrigerant charges greater 

than 50 pounds to take additional time, beyond 30 days, to complete repairs and more than one 

year to retrofit appliances where certain conditions applied (e.g., equipment located in areas 

subject to radiological contamination, unavailability of necessary parts, adherence to local or 

State laws that may hinder immediate repairs). EPA also agreed to clarify that purged emissions 

that have been captured and destroyed can be excluded from the leak rate calculations. 

On January 11, 2005, EPA issued a final rule (70 FR 1972) clarifying that the leak repair 

requirements apply to any refrigerant substitute that consists of a class I or class II ODS, and 

amended and added definitions for “full charge” and “leak rate.” The final rule amended the 

required practices and associated reporting/recordkeeping requirements. It also provided 

clarification to current leak repair requirements. These regulations are applicable to all owners 

and/or operators of comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration, and industrial process 

refrigeration (as defined at §82.152) with a refrigerant full charge greater than 50 pounds. 

Refrigerant is defined at §82.152 as any substance consisting in part or whole of a class I or class 

II ODS that used for heat transfer and provides a cooling effect. Such refrigerants include, but 

are not limited to, R-11, R-12, R-123, R-22, R-401A, R-402B, R-414B, R-500, and R-502. 

While the leak repair regulations are limited to appliances containing more than 50 

pounds of refrigerant that leak above the leak repair trigger rate percentage, the leak repair 

requirements do not grant an exemption to the remainder of the refrigerant regulations at 40 CFR 

Part 82, Subpart F. In particular, the leak repair required practices of §82.156 do not grant an 

exemption to the statutory venting prohibition for refrigerants or their non-ODS substitutes. 
14

EPA stated in Section F. - Required Practices of the original refrigerant recycling final 

rule (May 14, 1993; 58 FR 28660) that “knowingly venting is any release that permits a class I or 

class II substance to enter the environment and that takes place during the maintenance, service, 

repair, or disposal of air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment.” In other words, the leak 

repair requirements do not allow owners or operators to ignore leaks from appliances just 

because the leak repair trigger rate has not been breached. The aim of the leak repair 

requirements is to reduce emissions of refrigerants from appliances by mandating repairs that 

adequately address the leaks within the appliance as a whole, within a set period of time (i.e., 30 

days). The leak repair requirements are geared to persuade owners or operators to retrofit or 

replace appliances that either have a history of leaking or cannot be sufficiently repaired over a 

period of time; however, this regulatory framework does not establish an exemption to the 

venting prohibition of the Act.

EPA is proposing changes to the existing leak repair required practices, in part, to provide 

a streamlined set of requirements for all owners and operators of comfort cooling, commercial, 

and IPR appliances with refrigerant (i.e., ODS) charges greater than 50 pounds. EPA believes 

that the current regulatory structure could be simplified by clarifying existing regulatory 

definitions, required practices, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 

In addition to the Agency’s proposal to provide clarity to existing regulations, EPA is 

meeting the CAA Section 608(a) requirement for EPA to promulgate regulations to reduce the 

use and emissions of class I substances (i.e., CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl 

chloroform) and class II substances (i.e., HCFCs) to the lowest achievable level, and to 

maximize the recycling of such substances by proposing to lower leak repair trigger rates and 

require appliance owners and operators to maintain service records that will document the 
15

ultimate fate of refrigerant that is recovered from appliances during their service and 

maintenance. 

IV. Proposed Revisions to the Leak Repair Regulations

This NPRM proposes changes to the leak repair regulations promulgated at 40 CFR Part 

82, Subpart F. This NPRM proposes changes to the Subpart’s purpose and scope, definitions, 

required practices, and reporting and recordkeeping sections, in order to create a streamlined set 

of leak repair requirements that are applicable to all types of appliances with large ozonedepleting refrigerant charges (i.e., greater than 50 pounds). 

Many of the provisions of this NPRM are meant to clarify existing requirements found at 

40 CFR 82.156 and do not impose new requirements. For example, EPA is clarifying the 

following:

• The purpose and scope of the existing 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart F regulations apply to 

owners and operators of air conditioning and refrigeration equipment;

• Editing existing definitions to provide clarity and provide consistency with industry 

nomenclature;

• That leak repair trigger rates are not an exemption to the statutory refrigerant venting 

prohibition;

• State that leak repair calculations are required upon addition of refrigerant;

• Verification of leak repair efforts is a service record, and should be maintained in 

compliance with existing recordkeeping and reporting requirements; and

• Defining terms that are referenced but are not defined in the current regulatory text.
16

In addition to the clarifying aspects of today’s NPRM, EPA is proposing to amend the 

existing required practices and recordkeeping requirements (at §82.156 and §82.166, 

respectively) by proposing the following:

• Lower applicable leak rates for currently regulated appliances; 

• Require written verification of all repair attempts for comfort cooling and commercial 

appliances, and not just industrial process refrigeration equipment (as currently required);

• 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 industrial process refrigeration equipment (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;

• Decrease the amount of time allowed for the completion of currently required 

retrofit/retirement plans.

EPA believes that the proposed changes will meet the Clean Air Act requirement, at 

CAA 608(a)(3), for the Agency to promulgate regulations that reduce use and emissions of 

ozone-depleting to the lowest achievable level, and maximize the recapture and recycling of such 

substances. EPA estimates that the proposed amendments to the current regulatory scheme will 

result in total expected environmental benefits, in terms of avoided ODS refrigerant emissions, is 
17

approximately 316 ozone-depleting potential (ODP)2

EPA has estimated that the projected emissions of the most popular ozone-depleting 

refrigerant impacted by this NPRM, HCFC–22 (or R-22), between January 1, 2010 and 

December 31, 2019 is approximately 35,000 ODP weighted tons. This estimate is based in part 

on refrigeration and air conditioning equipment charge sizes and leak rates. EPA estimates that 

this proposal will account for an annual emissions avoidance of approximately 316 ODP 

weighted tons or roughly 9% of the estimated emissions of HCFC-22 between January 1, 2010 

and December 31, 2019. Additionally, the estimated avoided emissions over a 10-year period of 

3,160 ODP weighted tons is approximately 7 percent of the estimated 44,000 ODP weighted tons

of all allocated HCFC emissions projected for the United States for this same time period. For 

purposes of a relative comparison, an estimated 316 ODP tons per year of avoided ODS 

emissions is approximately 8 11.5 percent of the 3,8102,750 ODP tons that the U.S. has allocated

U.S. compliance cap for consumption of all HCFCs for 2010, and approximately 21 percent of 

the HCFCs allocated for each year during 2010–2014 and 21 percent for the time period 2015-

2019.

weighted tons (approximately 2.8 million 

metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE). 

3

EPA believes that the avoided emissions attributed to this NPRM will result in additional 

health benefits. The links between stratospheric ozone depletion and skin cancer are well 

established. Other public health concerns include cataracts and immune suppression. Since the 

 

 

2 The ODP is the ratio of the impact on the stratospheric ozone layer of a chemical compared to the impact of a similar mass of CFC-11. Thus, 

the ODP of CFC-11 is defined to be 1.0. 
18

appearance of an ozone hole over the Antarctic in the 1980s, Americans have become aware of 

the health threats posed by ozone depletion, which decreases the atmosphere's ability to protect 

the earth’s surface from the sun's UV rays. The 2006 documents Scientific Assessment of Ozone 

Depletion, prepared by the Scientific Assessment Panel to the Montreal Protocol, and 

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

the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (see http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/), 

provide comprehensive information regarding the links between emissions of ODS, ozone layer 

depletion, UV radiation, and human health effects.

Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the U.S., with more than 1,000,000 

new cases diagnosed annually (National Cancer Institute, “Common Cancer Types,” at 

www.cancer/gov/cancertopics/commoncancers). Melanoma, the most serious form of skin 

cancer, is also one of the fastest growing types of cancer in the U.S.; melanoma cases in this 

country have more than doubled in the past two decades, and the rise is expected to continue 

(Ries, L., Eisner, M.P., Kosary, C.L., et al, eds. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973-1999. 

Vol 2003. Bethesda (MD): National Cancer Institute; 2002.) In 2007, invasive melanoma was 

expected to strike more than 59,000 Americans and kill more than 8,000 (National Cancer 

Institute, “Melanomas,” at www.cancer/gov/cancertopics/types/melanoma).

Nonmelanoma 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 nonmelanoma skin cancers. Basal cell carcinomas are the most common type of 

skin cancer tumors. They usually appear as small, fleshy bumps or nodules on the head and neck, 

 3 In accordance with the Montreal Protocol adjustments from 2007, the 2010 consumption cap for the total basket of 

HCFCs in the United States is 3,810 ODP tons annually for the years 2010-2014 and 1,524 ODP tons for the years 
19

but can occur on other skin areas. 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 unlike basal cell carcinoma, it 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 the "V" of the 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.

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. Research has shown that UV 

radiation increases the likelihood of certain cataracts. Although curable with modern eye 

surgery, cataracts diminish the eyesight of millions of Americans. Other kinds of eye damage 

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). 

A. Purpose and Scope

Currently, EPA describes the purpose of Subpart F as an effort 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 service, maintenance, repair, and 

disposal of appliances and restricting the sale of refrigerants consisting in whole or in part of a 

 

2015-2020. 
20

class I or class II ODS in accordance with Title VI of the Clean Air Act. The regulations are 

applicable to any person servicing, maintaining, 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 

recycling and recovery equipment, approved recycling and recovery equipment testing 

organizations, persons selling class I or class II refrigerants or offering class I or class II 

refrigerants for sale, and persons purchasing class I or class II refrigerants (69 FR 11978; March 

12, 2004).

EPA wishes to clarify that the regulations also apply to those persons using refrigerants, 

including persons using refrigerants who are owners or operators of appliances with large 

refrigerant charges. It is not the intent of the Subpart F regulations to exclude such persons; 

therefore, the Agency proposes to add “use” to paragraph (a) of the Purpose and Scope section to 

read as follows:

“the purpose and scope of this subpart is to reduce the use and emissions of 

ozone-depleting refrigerants to the lowest achievable level and encourage the use 

of substitutes, by maximizing the recapture and recycling of such ozone-depleting 

substances during the use, service, maintenance, repair, and disposal of appliances 

and by restricting the sale of refrigerants in accordance with Title VI of the Clean 

Air Act.”
21

EPA requests comment on the inclusion of users to the purpose and scope of Subpart F, 

specifically as it applies to the leak repair provisions for appliances with ozone-depleting 

refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds. 

B. Definitions 

1. Comfort cooling appliance

The leak repair requirements have placed refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment 

(i.e., appliances) into three categories: comfort cooling (air-conditioning), commercial 

refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration appliances. However, EPA has not included a 

definition of comfort cooling appliance in Subpart F at §82.152. EPA has relied on equipment 

that the Agency believes is commonly recognized as “chillers” and light commercial heating, 

ventilation, and air-conditioning systems that provide cooling and/or humidity control. They 

may be used for the comfort of occupants or for climate control to protect equipment within a 

facility, such as in computer rooms. 

For purposes of the leak repair requirements, comfort cooling appliances include airconditioning systems that use refrigerant (with charge sizes greater than 50 pounds) to transfer 

heat in order to control heat and/or humidity in a facility, such as a commercial office building. 

EPA considers the sum of all of the cooling system’s components as an appliance, meaning that 

the major components that make up the refrigerant circuit such as the compressor, heat

exchangers (condenser and evaporator), and expansion valves are all part of the comfort cooling 

appliance. Comfort cooling appliances are also comprised of other components such as 

receivers, filter driers, pumps, manifolds, oil separators, and associated piping.
22

In order to provide greater clarity to the existing leak repair provisions, EPA proposes to 

add a definition for comfort cooling appliance at §82.152 that reads as follows: “Comfort 

cooling appliance means any air-conditioning appliance used to provide cooling in order to 

control heat and/or humidity in facilities, such as office buildings and computer rooms. Comfort 

cooling appliances include building chillers, as well as roof-top self-contained units typically 

used to cool small to medium-size office and light commercial buildings. Chillers that would be 

subject to the leak repair requirements include, but are not limited to, those using R-12, R-11, 

and R-123. Self-contained units that provide comfort cooling that would be captured by the 

proposed definition of comfort cooling appliance include, but are not limited to, those using R22.” EPA seeks comment on the applicability of the proposed definition of comfort cooling 

appliance to air-conditioning equipment that is typically used to provide cooling/humidity 

controlled environments. 

2. Commercial refrigeration appliance

For the purposes of the leak repair requirements, EPA currently defines commercial 

refrigeration appliance as:

“the refrigeration appliances used in the retail food and cold storage warehouse sectors. 

Retail includes the refrigeration equipment found in supermarkets, convenience stores, 

restaurants and other food service establishments. Cold storage includes the equipment 

used to store meat, produce, dairy products, and other perishable goods. All of the 

equipment contains large refrigerant charges, typically over 75 pounds.”

EPA’s definition of commercial refrigeration appliance is not limited to the supermarket 

and grocery store refrigeration systems used to store perishable food items. The definition also 

includes appliances using ozone-depleting refrigerants that are used to store or warehouse 
23

perishable goods or any other product requiring temperature controlled storage. Such appliances 

may be found in industrial settings where a manufactured product requires cold storage, but the 

appliance itself would not be considered as an industrial process refrigeration appliance. 

EPA proposes to amend the definition of commercial refrigeration to remove any 

ambiguity concerning the types of appliances that are subject to the leak repair regulations. The 

last sentence of the current definition at §82.152 states, that all of the equipment contains large 

refrigerant charges, typically 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 of more than 50 pounds as stated in the leak repair required practices or 75 pounds as 

referenced in the definition of commercial refrigeration appliance. EPA proposes to remove the 

75 pound reference from the last sentence of the definition. The Agency feels that it is not 

required since the threshold for the leak repair requirements is a refrigerant charge greater than 

50 pounds. EPA seeks comment on whether the proposed amendment to the definition provides 

greater clarity to the definition of commercial refrigeration appliance and reduces uncertainty 

regarding the applicability of the leak repair provisions.

Over the past several years, EPA has received questions from the grocery and 

supermarket sector concerning what constitutes a commercial refrigeration appliance. EPA 

reminds readers that commercial refrigeration appliances typically found in grocery stores and 

supermarkets are not limited to what is typically referred to as “a rack” or “compressor rack,” but 

includes the “rack system.” This means that all of the major refrigeration components making up 

the refrigerant circuit that are typically found in supermarket refrigeration equipment, including 

the condenser, compressor rack, receiver, evaporator, filter driers, and liquid and suction 

manifolds comprise the commercial refrigeration appliance. The commercial refrigeration 
24

appliance also includes the display cases, walk-in coolers and freezers, field and rack piping, 

valves, and regulators. EPA will clarify later in this action when retrofits or retirements of 

commercial refrigeration appliances are required in the commercial refrigeration sector. 

EPA’s proposed definition of commercial refrigeration appliance means any 

refrigeration appliance used to store perishable goods in retail food, cold storage warehousing, or 

any other sector requiring cold storage. Retail food includes the refrigeration equipment found 

in supermarkets, grocery and convenience stores, restaurants, and other food service 

establishments. Cold storage includes the refrigeration equipment used to house perishable 

goods or any manufactured product requiring refrigerated storage. EPA requests comment on 

the definition of commercial refrigeration appliance. Specifically, EPA seeks comments on the 

inclusion of the compressor rack system in the Agency’s current interpretation of what comprises 

a commercial refrigeration appliance.

3. Critical (appliance) component

EPA currently defines critical component as a component without which industrial 

process refrigeration equipment will not function, will be unsafe in its intended environment, 

and/or will be subject to failures that would cause the industrial process served by the 

refrigeration appliance to be unsafe. EPA is considering changing the definition to delete the 

term “critical” and simply define “component.” EPA is also proposing to delete the safety aspect 

from the definition, because the Agency believes that while safety is vital, it should not be used 

as a means of distinguishing what meets the proposed revised definition of “component.” EPA 

considers components as the major parts of the appliance that typically 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 
25

driers, and refrigerant piping. EPA believes that the meaning of the definition can be presented 

without necessarily classifying the component as critical. 

The current definition of critical component has implications for the leak repair 

requirements, because owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration appliances may be 

granted additional time to make repairs, if they can show that repairs cannot be completed within 

specified timelines due to the amount of time needed to deliver components or their 

subassemblies. Later in this action, EPA proposes changes to the leak repair requirements that 

will allow changes to the individual refrigeration appliance components in lieu of retirement of 

an entire appliance. In addition, EPA is seeking a consistent set of regulations for all types of 

appliances. The unavailability of components is not a situation that is unique to owners or 

operators of industrial process refrigeration appliances. EPA believes that owners or operators of 

comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances should be granted the same flexibility 

as owners of industrial process refrigeration appliances 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 level of 

complexity inherent in the current leak repair regulations. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to change the definition so that it is not limited to industrial 

process refrigeration appliances, but also includes comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration 

appliances. EPA proposes to replace the current definition of “critical component” with 

“component,” which will mean an essential appliance component, without which the appliance 

will not function (e.g., compressor, condenser, evaporator). EPA seeks comment on the 

proposed change to the definition of critical component. 

4. Initial and follow-up verification tests
26

Current leak repair requirements at §82.156 mandate the validation of repairs by both an 

initial verification and a follow-up verification. The purpose of the initial verification test is to 

make certain that appliance owners or operators instruct service contractors and technicians to 

verify repairs as soon as possible, after conclusion of repairs. EPA currently defines the term at 

§82.152 to read in part: “those leak tests that are conducted as soon as practicable after the 

repair is completed. An initial verification test, with regard to the leak repairs that require the 

evacuation of the appliance or portion of the appliance, means a test conducted prior to the 

replacement of the full refrigerant charge and before the appliance or portion of the appliance has 

reached operation at normal operating characteristics and conditions of temperature and pressure. 

An initial verification test with regard to repairs conducted without the evacuation of the 

refrigerant charge means a test conducted as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the repair 

work.” 

The purpose of the follow-up verification is to make certain that service personnel return 

to check the efficacy of repair efforts after the appliance is operating under normal operational 

characteristics and conditions. Follow-up verification tests involve the additional verification of 

repairs by checking the repairs within 30 days of the appliance's returning to normal operating 

characteristics and conditions. EPA currently defines the term at §82.152 to read in part: “those 

tests that involve checking the repairs within 30 days of the appliance's returning to normal 

operating characteristics and conditions. Follow-up verification tests for appliances from which 

the refrigerant charge has been evacuated means a test conducted after the appliance or portion 

of the appliance has resumed operation at normal operating characteristics and conditions of 

temperature and pressure, except in cases where sound professional judgment dictates that these 

tests will be more meaningful if performed prior to the return to normal operating characteristics 
27

and conditions. A follow-up verification test with respect to repairs conducted without 

evacuation of the refrigerant charge means an additional verification test conducted after the 

initial verification test and usually within 30 days of normal operating conditions. Where an 

appliance is not evacuated, it is only necessary to conclude any required changes in pressure, 

temperature or other conditions to return the appliance to normal operating characteristics and 

conditions.”

EPA believes that it is common practice for technicians and contractors to perform 

verification immediately upon completion of repairs; however, it has been reported to EPA that 

many owners or operators have follow-up verifications performed immediately upon completion 

of the initial verification. The intent of the follow-up verification is for appliance owners or 

operators to conduct verification of repairs after the appliance has operated under normal 

conditions over an extended period of time (but no longer than 30 days), in order to ensure that 

the repairs hold under normal operating conditions. 

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of follow-up verification to reduce the 

likelihood of repeat repair attempts and subsequent releases of refrigerant by making the tests 

applicable to comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances as well as industrial 

process refrigeration appliances. EPA proposes to require owners or operators of commercial, 

comfort cooling, and industrial process refrigeration appliances with refrigerant charges greater 

than 50 pounds to perform follow-up verifications after the repaired appliance has operated 

under normal conditions for an extended period of time. EPA proposes that once the appliance 

returns to normal operating characteristics and conditions, that follow-up verification tests occur 
28

no sooner than one full day (i.e., 24 hours) after the repairs to the leaking appliance have been 

completed, but within 30 days of the appliance repair. EPA is proposing a definition that reads:

Follow-up verification test means a test that validates the effectiveness of repairs within 

30 days of the appliance's return to normal operating characteristics and conditions but no 

sooner than 24 hours after completion of repairs. 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. 

While EPA is not specifying one specific test to satisfy the definition of follow-up 

verification, the Agency is including in the proposed definition several means of conducting 

verification tests. These methods are not meant to be all-inclusive, but are intended to provide 

examples of known methodologies of performing leak repair verification tests.

EPA provides additional discussion of both initial and follow-up verification tests and the 

proposal to extend the requirement to perform such tests to comfort cooling and commercial 

refrigeration appliances in Section C.4 of today’s proposed rule. EPA requests comment on the 

proposed amendment to the definition of follow-up verification. In particular, the Agency is 

asking for public comment on the selection of 24 hours as an appropriate amount of time, at a 

minimum, that must transpire before owners or operators have follow-up verification tests 

performed on appliances that are subject to the leak repair requirements. 

5. Full charge and seasonal variance

Compliance with the leak repair requirements requires calculating both the full charge of 

the appliance and the leak rate. By definition of leak rate (at §82.152), appliance owners or 
29

operators cannot make a determination of the leak rate without knowledge of the appliance’s full 

charge. EPA has provided flexibility in the determination of full charge by allowing appliance 

owners or operators to select from an array of options in determining the full charge. EPA has 

never mandated one particular method, and in fact relies on the appliance owner or operator’s 

determination of the appliance’s full charge. 

EPA currently defines full charge at §82.152 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 the equipment manufacturer's determination 

of the correct full charge for the equipment; (2) Determine the full charge by making appropriate 

calculations based on component sizes, density of refrigerant, volume of piping, and other 

relevant considerations; (3) Use actual measurements of the amount of refrigerant added or 

evacuated from the appliance; and/or (4) Use 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, and where records are maintained in 

accordance with §82.166(q).”

EPA believes that the four methods allow owners or operators to either rely on 

manufacturer’s data, actual refrigerant weights, or their own engineering and operating 

experience with their appliances in order to determine the full charge. EPA understands that in 

some instances manufacturer’s data might not be available. The Agency also understands that 

some appliances, such as commercial refrigeration and industrial process refrigeration 

appliances, are unique in nature and erected in the field, and that attempts to shutdown 

operations in order to recover and weigh the refrigerant charge may not always be practical for 

these appliances. 
30

EPA believes that an option allowing a combination of methodologies is not in line with 

one of the goals of this NPRM to create a streamlined set of regulatory requirements. Therefore, 

EPA seeks comment on the proposal to remove the option of allowing a combination of the 

methods, while continuing to allow owners or operators to use any one method of their choosing 

in determining the full charge. 

EPA believes that records documenting the determination of the full charge should be 

maintained. This is especially true in instances where the owner or operator is relying on 

calculations or engineering estimates to determine the full charge. The leak repair requirements 

currently have such a requirement, but only for those owners or operators choosing to determine 

the full charge by using an established range in their estimate. Therefore, EPA is proposing a 

change in the definition of full charge that requires the maintenance of a written record 

documenting the determination of the full charge, regardless of the means used to make such a 

determination. EPA does not believe that this proposed change will result in additional burden 

since owners and operators must determine the full charge of the appliance in order to comply 

with the existing leak repair required practices, at §82.156. By definition (of leak rate at 

§82.152) owners or operators would need to make a determination of the equipment’s full charge 

in order to determine steps required to comply with existing regulations. EPA requests comment 

on its assertion that the proposed definition of leak rate will not pose additional burden, since 

owners or operators would need to make a determination of the equipment’s full charge in order 

to determine steps required to comply with existing regulations. Further discussion on the 

recordkeeping requirement for determination of the full charge is provided in Section D.4. 

Owners and operators of commercial and industrial process refrigeration appliances have 

expressed concerns that the full charge may not be accurately determined due to seasonal 
31

variances that may alter the amount of refrigerant in an appliance. Ambient conditions and other 

factors may affect the amount of refrigerant in certain appliance components, but such variances 

do not mean that the full charge cannot be determined. EPA believes that owners or operators 

can 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. While 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), the Agency does not support the notion that seasonal variances cause 

the refrigerant to be emitted to the atmosphere. 

EPA believes that regulatory flexibility should be considered as a regulatory option by 

allowing owners or operators to take seasonal variances into account in determining the full 

charge, EPA is proposing to amend the second option by including seasonal variances as well as 

other relevant considerations. EPA is also proposing to add a definition for seasonal variance, at 

§82.152, that reads: the need to add refrigerant to an appliance due to a change in ambient 

conditions caused by a change in season, followed by the subsequent removal of refrigerant in 

the corresponding change in season, where both the addition and removal of refrigerant occurs 

within one consecutive 12-month period.

The proposed definition of “full charge” means the amount of refrigerant required for 

normal operating characteristics and conditions of the appliance, as determined by using one of 

the following four methods: (1) Use the equipment manufacturer's determination of the full 

charge; (2) Use appropriate calculations based on component sizes, density of refrigerant, 

volume of piping, seasonal variances, and other relevant considerations; (3) Use actual 

measurements of the amount of refrigerant added or evacuated from the appliance; or (4) Use an 
32

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 intends for owners or operators of affected appliances to commit to one methodology in 

determining the full charge for the life of the appliance. EPA seeks comment on whether the 

proposed changes have any impact or burden on an owner or operator’s ability to determine the 

full charge. 

6. Industrial process refrigeration

Industrial process refrigeration appliances include a vast array of refrigeration equipment 

used in manufacturing or production processes. Such appliances may be used to generate 

electricity, process or create food and beverages, manufacture pharmaceuticals or chemicals, or 

in any other process that is essential to the manufacture of an end product. EPA differentiates 

industrial process refrigeration from comfort cooling or commercial refrigeration appliances in 

that the end product cannot be completely manufactured in the absence of such refrigeration 

appliances. Currently, the definition of industrial process refrigeration reads:

“Industrial process refrigeration means, for the purposes of §82.156(i), complex 

customized appliances used in the chemical, pharmaceutical, petrochemical and 

manufacturing industries. These appliances are directly linked to the industrial process. 

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.”
33

EPA is proposing to clarify that the definition of industrial process refrigeration includes 

the industrial process refrigeration appliances found in an array of manufacturing industries. In 

addition, EPA does not see a need to cross-reference the required practices in the definition and

is also proposing to remove the cross-reference to §82.156(i). The proposed definition of 

“industrial process refrigeration appliance” means refrigeration equipment, that may be complex 

or customized, that is used in a manufacturing process. Industrial process refrigeration 

appliances include refrigeration equipment that is directly linked to a manufacturing process, 

including but not limited to appliances used in the chemical; pharmaceutical; petrochemical; 

food or beverage manufacturing, packaging or processing; power generation; and industrial ice 

manufacturing industries. Where one appliance is used for both industrial process refrigeration 

and another type of refrigeration or air-conditioning application, the appliance will be considered 

an industrial process refrigeration appliance if 50 percent or more of its operating capacity is 

used for industrial process refrigeration. EPA views these amendments as clarifications and not 

as substantive changes from the current definition. However, EPA seeks public comment on the 

proposed clarifications.

EPA is proposing a parallel change to the definition of industrial process shutdown by 

removing the reference to §82.156(i). As noted above, EPA does not see the need to crossreference required practices in the definition. Further discussion of the deletion of the definition 

of industrial process shutdown is provided in section C.5, “Extension to repair and retrofit and 

retirement timelines,” of today’s NPRM.

7. Leak rate
34

EPA published a final rule on leak repair (January 11, 2005; 70 FR 1975) that discussed 

in detail the advantages and disadvantages of using the EPA annualized method or rolling 

average method as described in the definition of “leak rate” at §82.152. EPA believes that there 

are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. The annualizing method may capture some 

leaks more quickly than the rolling average, and in some instances may cause a delay in repairs 

by owners or operators whose appliances leak slowly but show no signs of leakage until a 

relatively large percentage of the refrigerant charge has been lost. Whereas, the rolling average 

method may capture sudden leaks more quickly than the annualizing method and may permit 

owners or operators to delay repair of certain types of leaks longer than the annualizing method. 

The current definition of “leak repair” contains two methods. Method 1 – The Annualizing 

Method is summarized as follows: 
35

This method does not allow for the time period over which leaks are evaluated to extend beyond 

365 days, because it annualizes by multiplying the percentage of refrigerant lost by the shorter of 

the number of days since refrigerant was last added to the appliance or 365 days. Method 2 –

The Rolling Average Method is summarized as follows: 

Similarly, Method 2 does not allow for the time period over which leaks are evaluated to 

Similarly, this method does not allow for the time period over which leaks are evaluated to 

extend beyond 365 days, because it aggregates the amount of refrigerant added to the appliance 

over the past 365 days or since the last time that repairs were made if that period is less than one 

year. 

In an effort to provide greater clarity to the leak repair requirements, EPA is proposing to 

change the definition of leak rate by removing the annualizing method (i.e., Method 1.). EPA 

understands that many appliance owners or operators have chosen to use the Annualizing 

Method; however, EPA believes that the Rolling Average Method is more in line with what most 

in the regulated community would consider as a true rolling average. It takes a true snapshot of 

Leak rate = pounds of refrigerant added 365 days

(% per year) ------------------------------- X --------------------------- X 100%

pounds of refrigerant in full charge shorter of # days since refrigerant

last added or 365 days

Leak rate = pounds of refrigerant added over past 365 days

(% per year) (or since leaks were last repaired, if that period is less than one year)

-------------------------------------------------------------- X 100%

pounds of refrigerant in full charge
36

the amount of refrigerant that is added to an appliance over a consecutive 12-month period by 

simply looking at the ratio of the amount of refrigerant added over the last consecutive 12-month 

period and the full charge. EPA requests comment on the exclusive use of the rolling average 

method in defining the term “leak rate.”

EPA has considered an option to maintain the current definition of leak rate, but believes 

that the current leak repair requirements raise the question of when a leak event ceases. In other 

words, when does the leak repair clock start over? While the definition of leak rate is limited to 

a consecutive 12-month period, there is no linkage to an event that would show due diligence in 

making repairs or verification that the repairs did indeed hold, thus providing a rationale for 

closing the leak event. EPA believes that such rationale is found in the verification of repairs. 

The leak repair clock for a leak event should be stopped after successful initial verification and 

follow-up verification and documentation of repairs for all leaks. EPA is proposing to amend the 

leak rate definition such that it is dependent upon the successful completion of a follow-up 

verification test. EPA is also proposing to delete “measured” from the definition of leak rate. 

This change is warranted because the rate is based upon a calculation that in itself is not a 

physical measurement but a calculation. The proposed definition of leak rate reads:

the rate at which an appliance is losing refrigerant, calculated at the time of refrigerant 

addition. The leak rate is expressed in terms of the percentage of the appliance's full 

charge that has been lost since the last successful repair over a consecutive 12-month 

period, and is calculated by: 

(i) Step 1. Taking the number of pounds of refrigerant added to the appliance since the 

last successful follow-up verification or the number of pounds of refrigerant added during 
37

the previous 365-day period (if the last successful follow-up verification occurred more 

than one year ago); (ii) Step 2. Divide the result of Step 1. by the number of pounds of 

refrigerant the appliance contains at full charge; (iii) Step 3. Multiply the result of Step 2. 

by 100 to obtain a percentage. This method is summarized in the following formula: 

EPA seeks comment on the proposed changes to the definition of leak rate. In particular, EPA 

requests comment on the clarity provided by linking leak rate to the requirement to perform and 

successfully pass an initial and follow-up verification test.

8. Normal operating characteristics or conditions 

The current definition of Normal operating characteristics or conditions, found at 

§82.152, means for the purposes of §82.156(i), temperatures, pressures, fluid flows, speeds and 

other characteristics that would normally be expected for a given process load and ambient 

condition during operation. Normal operating characteristics and conditions are marked by the 

absence of atypical conditions affecting the operation of the refrigeration appliance.

As a part of today’s NPRM, EPA is suggesting several edits to the leak repair required 

practices at §82.156(i). EPA does not see a need to cross-reference the required practices, so the 

Agency is proposing to remove the reference to §82.156(i). Therefore the reference to 

§82.156(i) would also need to change. EPA is also proposing to add a reference to the 

appliance’s “full charge” in defining normal operating characteristics or conditions. EPA 

Leak rate = pounds of refrigerant added since last successful follow-up verification 

(% per year) (or during the past 365 days if that period is greater than one year)

------------------------------------------------------ X 100%

pounds of refrigerant in full charge
38

believes that the appliance’s full charge is a state of its normal characteristics and should be 

reflected as such in the definition. EPA’s proposed definition of Normal operating 

characteristics and conditions means the 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 operation. Normal operating 

characteristics and conditions are marked by the absence of atypical conditions affecting the 

operation of the refrigeration appliance. EPA views these amendments as minor edits that 

provide consistency with similar proposed edits and is not considering or proposing other 

changes to the definition. EPA seeks comment on the effectiveness of the proposed changes to 

delete the reference to §82.156(i) and include a reference to the appliance’s full charge. 

9. Retrofit, repair, and retire 

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. EPA considers a repair as 

an action that addresses the leaking appliance or more specifically the affected component(s) of 

the leaking appliance. Repairs may include replacement of components or component 

subassemblies, whereas a retrofit involves the conversion of an appliance so that it is compatible 

for use with a substitute with a lower ODP. Retrofits often require changes to the appliance (for 

example, change in lubricants, filter driers, gaskets, o-rings, and in some cases, changes in 

components) in order to acquire system compatibility. 

EPA considers substitutes as those alternatives for ODS refrigerants that have been 

approved found acceptable for use in a specified refrigeration or air-conditioning end-use, in 

accordance with Section 612 of the Clean Air (i.e., the EPA Significant New Alternatives Policy 
39

(SNAP) program codified at 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart G). The current definition of substitute at 

§82.152 means any chemical or product, whether existing or new, that is used by any person as 

an EPA approved replacement for a class I or II ozone-depleting substance in a given 

refrigeration or air-conditioning end-use. Whereas, a refrigerant, as defined at §82.152, “means 

any substance consisting in part or whole of a class I or class II ozone-depleting substance that 

is used for heat transfer purposes and provides a cooling effect.” Therefore, for purposes of the 

Section 608 refrigerant regulations (including the leak repair requirements), EPA considers any 

substance used to provide a cooling effect that consists of an ODS as a refrigerant. Therefore, a 

class II substance used as substitute for a class I that has been approved under SNAP for any 

specific refrigeration or air-conditioning end-use may also be considered a refrigerant (e.g., the 

use of R-22 as a SNAP-approved substitute for R-502 in retail food refrigeration or commercial 

refrigeration). Similarly, refrigerants could include SNAP-approved substitutes if such 

substitutes were/are a blend in which at least one of its components is an ODS (e.g., the use of R401A as a SNAP-approved substitute for R-12 in retail food refrigeration or commercial 

refrigeration). 

Current leak repair requirements limit retrofits to conversion of IPR appliances so that 

they are compatible for use with refrigerants with a lower or equivalent ODP or substitutes with 

an equivalent or lower ODP (§82.156(i)(7)). As the U.S. approaches completes the phaseout of 

class II ODS, such as HCFC-224

 4 As of January 1, 2010, EPA has banned the production and importation of HCFC-142b and HCFC-22, except for use in equipment 

manufactured before 1/1/2010 (so no production or importing for NEW equipment that uses these refrigerants). As of January 21, 2003, no 

person may import class II ODS (such as HCFC-22) in excess of their EPA granted consumption allowance (40 CFR 82.15(b)). 

, EPA believes that it is not reasonable to allow an appliance 

retrofit to a substitute with an equivalent ODP. 
40

The concern with the current definition is that by allowing a retrofit to a refrigerant with 

an equivalent ODP, the Agency could unintentionally permit the continued use of the same

refrigerant that leaked from the appliance. Such action does not satisfy the intent of the 

regulations to reduce the use and emissions of ODS by having such systems retrofitted (i.e., 

converted) to a non-ODS; therefore, the Agency feels that clarification is warranted. EPA is also 

concerned that the leak repair requirements could be misinterpreted as requiring the retrofit of 

appliances without first addressing leaks. In order to address these concerns and provide 

regulatory clarity, EPA is proposing a definition for “retrofit” that means the repair and 

conversion of an appliance from a refrigerant to a substitute with a lower ozone-depleting 

potential. Retrofit includes the conversion of the appliance to achieve system compatibility with 

the new substitute and may include, but is not limited to, changes in lubricants, gaskets, filters, 

driers, valves, o-rings or appliance components. EPA seeks comment on the proposed definition 

of retrofit as it relates to the conversion of leaking appliances. 

EPA has not finalized a definition of retire, retirement, or retired even though these terms 

are referenced throughout the leak repair regulations. EPA considers retirement of appliances to 

mean the disassembly and retirement 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 and properly stored for 

reuse by the same owner, unless that recovered refrigerant is reclaimed or destroyed. Recovery 

efforts would be followed by the dismantling and proper disposal of the compliance components. 

Hence, retirement does not mean that the appliance is undergoing “system mothballing,” as 
41

defined at §82.1525

In order to make this distinction between a repair, system mothballing, and retirement, 

EPA is proposing to define “retire” as the permanent removal from service of the entire 

appliance rendering it unfit for use by the current or any future owner or operator. EPA requests 

comment on the proposed definition of retirement and the distinction that it provides with repair. 

, until it is ready to be used once again. Retirement should also not be 

confused with a repair. Repair may include the removal of a faulty component, but such removal 

does not mean that the appliance as a whole has been retired. 

C. Required practices

Final regulations promulgated by EPA under section 608 of the Act (58 FR 28660; May 

14, 1993), established leak repair requirements at §82.156 to further minimize emissions of class 

I and class II ODS used as refrigerants. The rule states that appliances that normally hold a 

refrigerant charge greater than 50 pounds are subject to the leak repair requirements. An annual 

leak rate of 35 percent of the full charge was established for industrial process refrigeration and 

commercial refrigeration appliances, while an annual leak rate of 15 percent was established for 

comfort cooling appliances. 

1. Repair of leaks and leak repair trigger rates

The goal of the required practices, found at §82.156, is to reduce refrigerant emissions by 

encouraging owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration, comfort cooling, and 

commercial refrigeration appliances to successfully repair appliances or retrofit (i.e., convert), 

 5 System mothballing means the intentional shutting down of a refrigeration appliance undertaken for an extended 

period of time by the owners or operators of that facility, where the refrigerant has been evacuated from the 
42

retire, or replace leaking refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment (i.e., appliances) that 

cannot be successfully repaired or maintained. One of the goals of the leak repair regulations is 

to address the repair and maintenance of appliances with large refrigerant charges, particularly as 

they age. Via regulation, EPA has intended to reduce the use and emissions of ozone-depleting 

refrigerants by requiring owners or operators of appliances to effectively address leaks in their 

appliances, and to replace, retrofit, or retire appliances that cannot be effectively repaired, hence

breaking cycles of repeat repair attempts followed by refrigerant recharges. EPA has 

occasionally found that owners or operators of appliances make repair attempts followed by 

refrigerant recharge multiple times, sometimes over the span of just a few months. Such 

repetitive actions unnecessarily increase emissions of refrigerant to the atmosphere. These 

actions are amplified when taking into account the large charge size of some appliances. 

EPA’s aim is to reduce emissions by breaking the cycle of repair and recharge of 

appliances. Often owners or operators state that they always make repairs, and in some 

refrigeration end-uses, repairs must be made in order to remain in business. EPA does not 

dispute this point, but repeated repair attempts, without verifying repairs, followed by additional 

refrigerant recharges have adverse effects on the environment. In many instances, repeated 

repair attempts result in hundreds of pounds of refrigerant released into the atmosphere by one 

appliance. The aim of the leak repair regulations is to reduce emissions of refrigerants to the 

lowest achievable level by addressing leaks, specifically components with common failures. 

Repeat component failures may be an indication of a greater maintenance issue or the end of the 

equipment’s useful lifetime. 

 

appliance or the affected isolated section of the appliance, at least to atmospheric pressure.
43

The required practices at §82.156 currently require owners or operators of industrial 

process refrigeration (§82.156(i)(2)), comfort cooling (§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 completed 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 applicable leak 

rate of 35 or 15 percent. 

This requirement has allowed scenarios 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 to beneath the associated leak rate. The problem with such a scenario is that owners or 

operators may assume that they have complied with the leak repair requirements, but may find 

themselves out of compliance if another leak resulting in a calculated leak rate greater than the 

applicable trigger rate occurs shortly after the initial repair effort was completed. Absent repair 

verification, the owner or operator may not know that the appliance’s leak rate was brought 

beneath the applicable leak repair trigger rate until the next addition of refrigerant. 

EPA is proposing changes that will reduce the opportunity for selective repair of 

appliances. Leaving some appliance leaks unattended does not reduce emissions of refrigerants 

to the lowest achievable level. Since selective repairs can result in excessive refrigerant 

emissions to the atmosphere, with associated human health and environment impacts, and have 

the potential to hinder compliance with the leak repair requirements, EPA is proposing that 

owners or operators of comfort cooling, industrial process refrigeration, or commercial 
44

refrigeration appliances with a full charge greater than 50 pounds of refrigerant repair all leaks 

within the appliance within 30 days, if the leak rate exceeds the applicable leak repair trigger 

rate.

This proposal, if promulgated, means that appliance owners or operators cannot be 

selective about repairs made to appliances that leak in excess of the leak repair trigger rate, since 

the leaks would have to be repaired within 30 days of the date that the appliance’s leak rate 

exceeds the leak repair trigger rate. EPA believes that this proposal will remove ambiguity 

concerning compliance with the leak repair requirements by requiring the repair of all leaks once 

the leak repair trigger rate has been breached; thereby removing any question as to whether a 

repair attempt was sufficient. EPA requests comment on the proposed requirement to repair all 

leaks within 30 days of discovery when the appliance leaks above the respective leak repair 

trigger rate. 

The current and proposed requirement to repair leaks references leak rate. Leak rate, as 

currently defined at §82.152, allows two methods for calculating the leak rate that projects the 

percentage of leakage over a consecutive 12-month period. Current required practices do not 

mandate the calculation of the leak rate each time that refrigerant is added to the appliance. 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 

kept beneath 35 percent. Hence, the owner would not know if further action was warranted. In 

order to reinforce the required practices, EPA is proposing language that would require the 
45

calculation of the leak rate (as defined at §82.152) upon each addition of refrigerant to the 

appliance, unless the addition is made in order to recharge refrigerant immediately following a 

retrofit or the addition is made to counter a seasonal variance (where records documenting the 

seasonal variance are maintained as proposed at §82.166). EPA views these proposed 

requirements as reinforcements of a requirement by reference that will aid in the interpretation of 

the leak repair regulations. EPA seeks comment on the proposed changes to the required 

practices at §82.156.

a. Applicable leak rate for commercial, comfort cooling, and industrial process 

refrigeration appliances.

The intent of proposing lower leak repair trigger rates is to reduce use and emissions of 

ozone-depleting refrigerants from appliances with large refrigerant charges, particularly as they 

age. EPA believes that this is best accomplished by tightening existing regulations and requiring 

repair of appliances, possible retrofit or conversion of ODS appliances, and possible appliance 

replacement of components when they cannot be satisfactorily maintained or repaired within the 

specified timelines. 

Many owners or operators of appliances (particularly commercial refrigeration and 

industrial process refrigeration appliance owners or operators) have stated that they always repair 

leaks, and must do so in order for their businesses to remain viable. Comments provided in 

response to the June 11, 1998 NPRM (63 FR 32044), by The National Grocers Association 

(NGA) echo this point. The NGA commented in response to the 1998 proposed rule that, 

“....Eliminating leaks is a primary concern in designing new refrigeration equipment. Systems 

are being made tighter and new equipment may also reduce the refrigerant charge. For obvious 

reasons, the older the refrigeration system is, the higher the leak rate.” Such statements are 
46

reinforced by EPA evaluation of leak reports submitted to the Agency from owners or operators 

of industrial process refrigeration, commercial supermarket chains, and chillers of various sizes 

and refrigerant types. Review of this data shows that many leaks from comfort cooling, 

commercial refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration appliances with more than 50 

pounds of refrigerant are caused by catastrophic events, and often times repairs can and do occur 

within 30 days. EPA agrees that many businesses are dependent upon repair of appliances and 

that it may not be in the best financial interests of many appliance owners or operators to allow 

their appliances to continue to leak. Hence, the Agency views the leak repair trigger rates and 

the leak repair requirements as a reinforcement of current repair practices, while further reducing 

the use and emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. 

As a means of reducing emissions of ozone-depleting substances to the lowest achievable 

level, EPA is proposing to tighten the 15 and 35 percent leak repair trigger rates for comfort 

cooling, commercial refrigeration, and IPR appliances. EPA has considered multiple leak repair 

trigger rates of : (1) 5% for comfort cooling and 10% for commercial refrigeration and IPR 

appliances; (2) 5% for comfort cooling and 20% for commercial refrigeration and IPR 

appliances; (3) 5% for comfort cooling and 30% for commercial refrigeration and IPR 

appliances; (4) 10% for comfort cooling and 10% for commercial refrigeration and IPR 

appliances; (5) 10% for comfort cooling and 20% for commercial refrigeration and IPR 

appliances; and (6) 10% for comfort cooling and 30% for commercial refrigeration and IPR 

appliances. Within each option, EPA has considered whether additional emissions reduction is 

gained by requiring: (1) the replacement of leaking appliance components after the failure of 

repair verification; or by (2) maintaining the existing regulatory flexibility allowing 
47

owners/operators to make unlimited attempts at repair (followed by subsequent refrigerant 

recharges) without a mandate to actually replace a leaking component. 

Under the first scenario, leaking components that fail verification tests must be replaced 

within 30 days. Under the second scenario, the owners and operators must still make repairs to 

leaking appliances, but owners and operators have the discretion to determine whether or not 

repairs will include the replacement of leaking components. Under both scenarios, repairs must 

be completed within 30 days of leak detection, and verifications (immediate and follow-up 

within 30 days) must be conducted. A summary of the scenarios with estimated costs and 

benefits is summarized as follows: 

Costs and Benefits of Regulatory Options

Option

Costs 

(million 

dollars)

Benefits 

(ODP-weighted 

tonnes)

Monetized Benefits at 

3% discount rate 

(million dollars)

Scenario 1

1 (5% and 10%) $135.6 493 $2.5

2 (5% and 20%) $111.0 394 $2.0

3 (5% and 30%) $92.2 273 $1.4

4 (10% and 10%) $129.9 483 $2.5

5 (10% and 20%) $105.3 384 $2.0

6 (10% and 30%) $86.5 263 $1.3

Scenario 2

1 (5% and 10%) $53.2 423 $2.2

2 (5% and 20%) $40.9 326 $1.7

3 (5% and 30%) $31.1 208 $1.1

4 (10% and 10%) $50.5 413 $2.1

5 (10% and 20%) $38.2 316 $1.6

6 (10% and 30%) $28.5 198 $1.0

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted Table

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt
48

Based in part on EPA analysis (see accompanying Screening Analysis to Examine the 

Economic Impact of Proposed Revisions to the Refrigerant Recycling and Emissions Rule, EPA 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167), the Agency has decided to propose a reduction of 

the leak repair trigger rate for comfort cooling appliances from 15 to 10 percent and for 

commercial refrigeration appliance and industrial process refrigeration appliances from 35 to 20 

percent. 

EPA believes that this combination of leak repair trigger rates provides for continued 

flexibility in allowing appliance owners and 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. EPA estimates that the total expected annual incremental 

cost of the proposed options across all affected sectors is between $86.5 million and $135.6 

million for the six options under the first scenario (requiring component replacement), and 

between $28.5 million and $53.2 million for the six options under the second scenario. EPA also

estimates that a reduction of the leak repair trigger rate for comfort cooling appliances from 15 to 

10 percent and for commercial refrigeration appliance and industrial process refrigeration 

appliances from 35 to 20 percent will result in the lowest costs at $38.2 million, with the largest 

environmental benefit 316 ODP weighted tons, when compared to the other five options that 

were considered. 

The proposed 10 and 20 percent leak rates are not viewed by EPA as the optimal leak rate 

that can be achieved by appliances at the point of original installation or as the appliance ages. 

Nor does the Agency view the leak repair trigger rates as an exemption to the CAA statutory 

venting prohibition. The leak rates are a trigger point that requires that the appliance be repaired, 

retired, or retrofitted by a set date (e.g., 30 days from addition of refrigerant). It is not 
49

necessarily a violation 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 §82.156 

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

the efficacy of repairs in a timely manner. EPA would expect that appliances would undergo 

more repairs as they age. It is also expected that the overwhelming majority of appliances that 

are at least 10 years of age would contain ozone-depleting refrigerants. The result is that it is 

reasonable to expect that the majority of older ODS appliances will leak with more frequency in 

the near future, thus increasing the likelihood that incidences of repair attempts and refrigerant 

recharges would increase over time for these aging appliances. 

Therein lies the benefit of the leak repair regulations. A prohibition against venting in 

itself may not stop the cycle of unsuccessful repair attempts followed by refrigerant recharge, 

and a breach of the leak repair trigger rates does not automatically mean a violation of the leak 

repair required practices. A breach of the leak repair trigger rates sets a chain of events that will 

address the appliance as a whole by requiring a timely repair, verification, and possible 

retirement of the entire appliance if it shows a history of leak events. 

Again, EPA is not making claims as to the optimal leak rate for different types of 

appliances, but on the ability of appliance owners or operators to address those leaks within 30 

days of when the proposed leak repair rates are triggered. However, EPA notes that it has made 

efforts to set leak repair trigger rates that are based on historical service records of actual 

refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment, leak tightness claims of equipment manufacturers, 

as well as testimonies from equipment owners and operators and the groups that represent them. 

EPA has reviewed a number of data sources in proposing to lower the leak repair trigger rates. 

EPA has reviewed leak data submitted to California’s South Coast Air Quality Management 
50

District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from 

stationary sources of air pollution. California South Coast Air Quality Management 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. The agency reaches about 16 million people 

on a 10,743 square mile radius, which is half of the population of the state of California. 

Similar to the EPA’s requirements under Section 608 of the Act, 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 the 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 air-conditioning 

equipment or systems.” Under Rule 1415, SCAQMD collects the following information every 

two years from owners and operators of stationary refrigeration systems holding more than 50 

pounds of an ozone depleting refrigerant (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 (in 

pounds) charged to a refrigeration system in order to bring the system to a full-capacity charge 

and replace refrigerant that has leaked. 

EPA has reviewed data for over 4,750 pieces of equipment from SCAQMD covering the 

time-period 2004 through 2005. The data includes refrigeration and air-conditioning systems 
51

that meet EPA’s existing and proposed definitions of industrial process refrigeration appliances 

(e.g., food processing industry, pharmaceutical manufacturing), comfort cooling refrigeration 

appliances (e.g. office buildings, schools and universities, hospitals), and commercial 

refrigeration appliances (e.g., refrigerated warehouses, supermarkets, retail box stores). The 

appliances that were evaluated all had ODS refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds. EPA’s 

review shows that a tightening of the leak rate for commercial refrigeration appliances to 20 

percent results in 8 percent of the 1,722 systems examined facing mandatory repair within 30 

days. Similarly, EPA evaluated data from 2,700 comfort cooling appliances and 350 industrial 

process refrigeration appliances. The Agency’s review shows that lowering the leak rate to 20 

percent for industrial process refrigeration will result in slightly less than 5 percent of systems 

facing mandatory repair within 30 days, and lowering the leak rate to 10 percent for comfort 

cooling applications will result in slightly less than 1 percent of systems facing mandatory repair 

within 30 days. The data collected includes businesses of all sizes that meet the reporting 

criteria. 

The SCAQMD leak repair data for commercial refrigeration systems is consistent with 

EPA’s independent analysis on the commercial refrigeration sector. EPA’s Draft Analysis of 

U.S. Commercial Supermarket Refrigeration Systems (2005) presents descriptions and a wide 

range of data collected on five types of supermarket refrigeration systems: direct expansion 

(DX), secondary loops, distributed, low-charge multiplex, and advanced self-contained systems. 

The analysis summarized information on commercial refrigeration appliances gathered from 

published literature, proceedings from technical conferences, technical trade journals and 

magazines, and interviews with industry experts. EPA estimates that there are more than 34,000 

supermarkets in the United States, each operating 3-4 commercial refrigeration appliances with 
52

combined charge sizes of several thousand pounds. EPA also estimates that DX systems using 

HCFC-22 refrigerant dominant the commercial refrigeration sector with an estimated 60 to 80 

percent of new market sales in the United States. EPA notes that leak rates can vary widely; the 

reduction in leakage from DX systems can be explained by a number of steps taken by 

equipment manufacturers and users to minimize leakage, including: designing the system for 

tightness, practicing maintenance procedures for early detection and leakage repairs; training 

personnel. EPA estimates that annual leak rates for DX systems range from 3 percent to 35 

percent for in-use equipment, with the higher annual leak rates (25%) being more characteristic 

of older appliances and the lower ones (15%) being more characteristic of newer appliances.

EPA has also considered comments on leak rates that were submitted in response to a 

NPRM issued on June 11, 1998 (63 FR 32044). In that NPRM, EPA proposed to lower the leak 

repair trigger rates and also extend the leak repair required practices and associated 

recordkeeping and reporting to substitute refrigerants. FMI noted in their August 31, 1998 

response to the NPRM 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 noting that ....Leak rates of 

25% would be more practical and allow more effective refrigerant management. 

EPA believes that the equipment designs for which leak data has been reported should 

not differ according to the business size of the reporting entity. For example, both a small 

independent grocery store and a major supermarket chain might report on leak history of a 

typical DX refrigeration system. However, EPA would not expect the operating characteristics 

of the DX system to differ based on the size of the reporting entity. The charge sizes may differ, 
53

but the Agency would expect that the general mechanics of the systems would not vary greatly as 

a function of the size of the owner or operator. EPA expects similar results for owners or 

operators of appliances in other refrigeration and air-conditioning end-use sectors (i.e., comfort 

cooling, commercial refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration). The Agency seeks 

comment on this expectation and also requests substantiating leak data from owners or operators

of comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration appliances. 

Again, it is not EPA’s intention to estimate the lowest achievable leak rate for existing 

equipment. However, review of actual leak data does reinforce the notion that repair of leaks 

beneath 20 and 10 percent within 30 days is achievable, and would reduce emissions of ODS. 

EPA seeks comments on the ability or lack thereof of owners or operators of commercial 

refrigeration and comfort cooling and industrial process refrigeration appliances to repair leaks 

within 30 days when their appliances leak above the proposed leak repair trigger rates of 20 

percent for industrial process refrigeration and commercial refrigeration appliances and 10 

percent for comfort cooling refrigeration appliances. 

2. Addition of refrigerant due to seasonal variances

The proposed leak repair required practices require that the owner or operator determine 

the full charge of the appliance in order to determine the leak rate of the leaking appliance. In 

today’s NPRM, EPA has proposed to amend the definition of “full charge” to mean:

the amount of refrigerant required for normal operating characteristics and conditions of 

the appliance as determined by using one of the following four methods: (1) Use the 

equipment manufacturer's determination of the full charge; (2) Use of calculations based 

on component sizes, density of refrigerant, volume of piping, seasonal variances, and 
54

other relevant considerations; (3) Use actual measurements of the amount of refrigerant 

evacuated from the appliance; or (4) Use 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 also proposing changes to the required practices in order to acknowledge the rare 

occasion or need to add refrigerant to an appliance due to a change in seasons. In parts of the 

country that experience large temperature swings during the year, refrigerant in appliances can 

migrate from one component to another (i.e., from the condenser to the receiver). This migration 

results in a need to add refrigerant to an appliance (or “flood the condenser”) in the season of 

lower ambient (i.e., fall or winter). Refrigerant receivers must be properly sized in order to hold 

the appliances’ full charge (i.e., the normal operating refrigerant charge plus the additional 

charge needed to flood the condenser) during periods with lower ambient conditions. However, 

EPA understands that owners or operators of appliances without properly sized receivers that 

need to add refrigerant to the appliance in the fall or winter would also have to remove 

refrigerant the next spring in order to prevent high head pressures at design ambient conditions. 

This technique, often referred to as a winter-summer charge procedure or a seasonal adjustment, 

may occur without the presence of a leak. EPA would not expect seasonal adjustments to be an 

issue for appliances with properly designed system receivers, because the owner or operator 

would not need to add refrigerant to account for wintertime operation. 

In a properly charged, non-leaking system, EPA would expect that additions of 

refrigerant during months with lower ambient conditions (i.e., fall or winter) would necessitate 

an equivalent amount of refrigerant removal in the higher ambient months (i.e., spring or 

summer). EPA believes that appliances with properly sized receivers provide the flexibility 
55

needed to account for seasonal variances, and the Agency does not expect multiple additions of 

refrigerant in order to account for seasonal variance; however, EPA seeks comment on its 

consideration of seasonal variance and the likelihood of multiple refrigerant additions to account 

for seasonal variance in any one calendar year. 

EPA is not opposed to the concept of exempting addition of refrigerant due to a seasonal 

variance from the requirement to calculate the leak rate upon addition of refrigerant. As 

previously discussed, EPA has proposed to define seasonal variance in such a way as to negate 

the addition and subsequent removal of refrigerant due to change in seasons, by making the 

definition contingent upon the future removal of refrigerant in the next season after the addition 

of refrigerant. However, any exemption to the required practice to calculate the leak rate due to 

seasonal variance should be accounted for in a service record. Therefore, in order to receive an 

exemption to the requirement to calculate the leak rate upon a seasonal variance addition of 

refrigerant, EPA is proposing that both the addition and subsequent removal of refrigerant due to 

seasonal variances are accounted for and documented as a condition for receiving an exemption. 

In order to implement this exemption, EPA is proposing language at §82.156 requiring owners or 

operators to determine the leak rate upon each addition of refrigerant, except in cases where the 

addition of refrigerant is due to a seasonal variance. The proposed exemption is contingent upon 

the owner or operator’s maintenance of records documenting the amount of refrigerant added to 

the appliance in one season and the amount of refrigerant removed from the appliance in the 

subsequent season. Both the addition and removal must take place within a consecutive 12-

month period. Such additions and removal of refrigerant would be documented as proposed at 

§82.166(r). EPA seeks comment on the need and effectiveness of a limited exemption [to the 

requirement to calculate the leak rate upon addition of refrigerant] for seasonal variance in cases 
56

where the appliance owner or operator has documented the date, type and amount of refrigerant 

added and removed from the appliance to account for the seasonal variance. EPA also seeks 

comment 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.

3. Verification of repairs 

The current leak repair verification requirements only apply to owners or operators of 

industrial process refrigeration and federally-owned commercial and comfort cooling appliances 

whose owners are granted additional time to make repairs. EPA has found the lack of a 

verification requirement to be problematic for owners or operators of comfort cooling and 

commercial refrigeration appliances. The lack of a verification requirement may leave owners or 

operators of comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances with an uncertainty as to 

whether their repair efforts have brought them into compliance with the leak repair requirements. 

The current leak repair regulations require repair of the comfort cooling or commercial 

refrigeration appliance within 30 days, without any requirement to verify repairs. A lack of 

verification allows a scenario by which insufficient or incomplete repairs might be attempted 

which will lead to future leaks. Continued leaks, especially when they are at the same location 

or component in the appliance, could be interpreted as an insufficient repair, which did not bring 

the leak rate of the entire appliance beneath the leak repair trigger rate. 

EPA sees no reason why verification should not be mandated for all types of appliances 

with refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds (i.e., comfort cooling and commercial 

refrigeration appliance in addition to industrial process refrigeration appliances). The 
57

environmental benefit of verifying repairs applies to comfort cooling and commercial 

refrigeration appliances as well as industrial process refrigeration appliances; therefore, EPA is 

proposing a requirement that owners or operators of all types of appliances that are subject to the 

leak repair requirements perform both an initial and follow-up verification of repairs. 

EPA is also concerned with the amount of time taken between the initial and follow-up 

verification tests. The Agency understands that most technicians pressure check appliances 

immediately following repairs. The Agency considers such pressure checks as satisfying the 

initial verification requirements, currently required for industrial process refrigeration 

appliances. EPA’s concern is that follow-up verifications do not appear to be a part of normal 

operating procedures for most service calls. Follow-up verifications require a technician to 

perform a second test after the appliance has operated under normal operating conditions for an 

extended period of time. EPA believes that such follow-up verification is an indicator of the 

success of repairs and must be required of all appliances that have leaked refrigerant above the 

leak repair trigger rate. Such a requirement to perform follow-up verifications is in place for 

owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration. However, the current leak repair required 

practices do not set a minimum amount of time that must pass between such verifications. 

EPA has found that in some instances follow-up verifications are performed immediately 

after repairs and the initial verification. In many cases verifications have been performed 

without documentation to support the verification efforts. The Agency is proposing a 

requirement that all owners or operators of commercial, industrial process refrigeration, and 

comfort cooling appliances with refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds that leak above the 

annual leak repair trigger rate repair all leaks within 30 days of discovery (as made evident by 
58

the need to add refrigerant that is not the result of a seasonal variance) and perform both initial 

and follow-up verification, where the follow-up verification occurs no sooner than 24 hours after 

repairs have been made. EPA requests comment on the clarification that follow-up verification 

testing take place at least 24 hours after repairs have been made and the appliance has operated 

under typical conditions. EPA also requests comment on the additional burden that stakeholders 

may incur as a result of the proposed requirement that follow-up verification take place at least

24 hours after repairs have been made. 

4. Requirement to develop and complete retrofit/retirement plans

EPA currently requires owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration appliances 

that have failed an initial or follow-up verification test to develop a dated and written 

retrofit/retirement plan within 30 days of the failed verification and implement the plan within 

one year. 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 retrofit/retirement plans within 30 days of 

discovering a leak greater than the applicable trigger rate.

EPA has heard concerns of appliance owners or operators that a requirement to retrofit or

retire an entire appliance because it has failed a verification test may not always be practical. 

Some owners or operators would prefer to have the ability to replace a faulty component before 

they are required to retrofit or retire an entire appliance. The Agency does not wish to place an 

undue burden of large scale conversions and retirements upon owners or operators when repair 

via complete replacement of the leaking appliance component might satisfactorily repair the 

appliance. 
59

In order to provide a greater level of flexibility, EPA has considered several options that 

would trigger the requirement to retrofit or retire a leaking appliance. The first proposed option 

would require owners and operators of comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration, and industrial 

process refrigeration appliances to replace a leaking component in its entirety upon failure of an 

initial or follow-up verification test. Such a proposal would be a departure from the current 

requirement for owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration appliances to retire or 

retrofit the appliance upon such a failure. Under this scenario EPA could require replacement of 

the leaking component and all of its subassemblies within 30 days of the failed verification. 

EPA believes that such a requirement would reduce emissions by addressing the source of the 

failure and removing the potential for cyclic repair attempts followed by subsequent refrigerant 

recharge. The Agency seeks comment on the effectiveness and feasibility of requiring owners or 

operators of comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration

appliances to replace leaking components in their entirety upon failure of an initial or follow-up 

verification. EPA is interested in comments concerning its belief that refrigerant emissions 

might be reduced by requiring component replacement, in lieu of repeat repair attempts and 

subsequent refrigerant recharges.

EPA is considering a second option that would allow owners or operators to decide on a 

case-by-case basis if a component or its subassembly requires replacement in order to completely 

repair the appliance. EPA recognizes that this option would allow a greater level of flexibility to 

owners or operators of impacted appliances; however, the Agency is concerned that such 

flexibility could allow increased refrigerant emissions by allowing appliance owners or operators

to make multiple repair attempts to an appliance or a specific appliance component in lieu of 

taking action to completely repair the appliance via a component replacement. A benefit of this 
60

proposal is that it eliminates the chance of mandatory component replacement in cases where it 

might not be warranted. The owner or operator would have the flexibility of determining if 

wholesale component replacement would be the best means of addressing a leaking appliance. 

EPA is selecting this option as its lead proposal to amend the required practice, by removing the 

requirement to retrofit or retire an industrial process refrigeration appliance upon failure of an 

initial or follow-up verification test. EPA is also proposing to extend this requirement to owners 

or operators of commercial refrigeration and comfort cooling appliances with refrigerant full 

charges greater than 50 pounds. EPA believes that this proposal will reduce refrigerant 

emissions while establishing a consistent set of regulatory required practices. The Agency seeks 

comment on the effectiveness and feasibility of adhering to the proposed changes to the required 

practices.

EPA also proposes to shorten the one-year timeframe that is currently granted to owners 

or operators to complete appliance retrofit/retirement plans. The Agency does not wish to allow 

refrigerant emissions from faulty equipment by allowing an extensive amount of time to pass 

before appliance owners or operators complete required retrofit/retirement plans. EPA proposes 

a six-month timeframe to complete retrofit/retirement plans for appliances that have encountered 

three failed verification tests (either initial or follow-up) within a consecutive six-month period. 

EPA provides further discussion of this proposed requirement in the “Worst Leaker” section of 

this preamble. 

EPA has often been asked what should be included in a retrofit/retirement plan. The 

Agency has not previously mandated a specified listing of items to be included in 

retrofit/retirement plans due to the complex nature of many appliances. The Agency felt that one 
61

listing of items may not fit all types of appliances considering the wide array of configurations 

and refrigerant choices that may be encountered by appliance owners and operators. However, 

EPA finds merit in providing a minimum set of requirements that are likely to be encountered by 

any type of appliance that is undergoing a conversion from a refrigerant to a substitute with a 

lower ODP. 

EPA is proposing, at §82.166(n), that appliance owners or operators who are subject to 

the requirement to develop a retrofit or retirement plan include a minimum set of requirements 

into such plans. These requirements are universal in that all owners or operators of appliances 

undergoing a conversion from a refrigerant to a substitute with a lower ODP should consider 

such steps. EPA proposes to require that retrofit/retirement plans provide the following 

information for each appliance for which a retrofit/retirement plan is required to be developed:

• Identification and location of the appliance;

• Type and full charge of the refrigerant used by the leaking appliance;

• Type and full charge of the substitute to which the appliance will be converted, if 

retrofitted;

• Itemized procedure for the appliance conversion to a substitute with a lower ODP, 

including changes required for compatibility with the new substitute (for example, 

procedure for flushing old refrigerant and lubricant; and changes in lubricants, filters, 

gaskets, o-rings, or valves);

• Plan for the disposition of recovered refrigerant;
62

• Plan for the disposition of the appliance, if retired; and a 

• Six-month schedule for completion of the appliance retrofit or retirement.

EPA does not intend for this list to be all inclusive. However, EPA believes that, at a minimum, 

such requirements should be considered by any owner or operator that is retrofitting or retiring a 

leaking appliance. EPA seeks public comment on these minimum requirements. Specifically, 

the Agency requests comment on whether there are other minimal factors that should be 

considered when developing a retrofit/retirement plan. 

EPA has heard concerns from appliance owners or operators that the Agency is forcing 

the retrofit of HCFC appliances to substitutes without addressing leaks. EPA promotes a 

systematic approach to addressing repairs, retrofits, or retirements of appliances. The first step 

in any retrofit plan should be to identify and repair all leaks. Retrofitting appliances without first 

repairing the appliance is not consistent with the intent of the leak repair regulations to promote 

actions that will reduce use and emissions of ODS and promote the use of substitutes when 

feasible. EPA-accepted substitutes (under SNAP) for commercial refrigeration, comfort cooling, 

and industrial process refrigeration appliances are available, as are industry retrofit procedures. 

Many chemical and equipment manufacturers provide conversion or retrofit guidelines that 

specify that repair of the appliance must be done prior to initiating retrofit procedures. EPA 

believes that repair of appliances prior to retrofit is a standard industry practice and does not 

need to be specifically called for in the proposed definition of retrofit. However, EPA seeks 

comment on the effectiveness of industry retrofit guidelines in promoting the repair of appliances 

prior to making an attempt to retrofit appliances. 
63

 EPA wishes to clarify that the retrofit (i.e., the conversion) of an appliance to use a 

substitute with a lower ODP is only required for appliances using refrigerants (i.e., substances 

that consist in part or whole of an ODS). However, the installation of new appliances using nonODS substitutes does not provide an exemption to the refrigerant venting prohibitions of Section 

608 of the Clean Air Act or §82.154. It remains a violation of Section 608(c)(2) of the Act as 

well as the regulatory prohibition at §82.154(a)(1) to knowingly release substitutes (such as R134a, R-410A, R-404A, etc.) during the maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of appliances; 

therefore, efforts to isolate leaking components or use recovery/recycling equipment in order to 

recover such substitutes are still required, even though the leak repair regulations do not 

currently apply to appliances using non-ODS substitutes. 

EPA also wishes to clarify that the current requirement to retrofit to a refrigerant or a 

substitute with a lower or equivalent ODP does not mean that the same refrigerant can be 

returned to the leaking appliance. Such actions do not satisfy the regulatory intent or the 

proposed definition of “retrofit.” The requirement to retrofit to a refrigerant or substitute with a 

lower or equivalent ODP than the previous refrigerant means the owner or operator is switching 

refrigerants. So while the Agency allows flexibility in refrigerant and substitute choices, the 

intent is not to allow the continued use of the leaking refrigerant in the retrofit/retirement plan. 

In order to provide consistency with the proposed definition of “retrofit,” EPA proposes 

to change the required practice to make it clear that a retrofit must include a change (i.e., a 

conversion) from a refrigerant to a substitute with a lower ODP. As an example, this proposed 

change would mean that an appliance using a CFC or HCFC refrigerant such as R-12 (with an 

ODP of 1.0) or R-22 (with an ODP of 0.055), could be retrofitted to use a SNAP-approved HFC 

substitute such as R-134a or R-410A (both non-ODS substitutes). EPA believes that this 
64

proposed change will remove any ambiguity as to what the Agency considers a retrofit in regards 

to refrigerant and substitute choices. 

5. Extension to repair and retrofit/retirement timelines

The current leak repair required practices allow extensions to the repair or 

retrofit/retirement deadlines for industrial process refrigeration and federally-owned appliances 

under certain conditions. Extensions are granted to owners or operators of industrial process 

refrigeration appliances if the necessary parts are unavailable or if requirements of other 

applicable Federal, State, or local regulations make a repair within 30 (or 120 days when an 

industrial process shutdown is required)6

Currently, there are three separate regulatory paths that may result in extensions to the 30 

day requirement (or 120 days if an industrial process shutdown is required) to repair leaks or the 

one-year requirement to complete implementation of retrofit/retirement plans for industrial 

process refrigeration and federally-owned comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration 

appliances. Under the first path, an extension of one additional year may be granted if the 

quoted delivery time for any critical component needed to complete retrofit is greater than 30 

weeks (§82.156(i)(7)(ii)(C)). Under the second path, an extension is granted (to the extent 

reasonably necessary) for retrofit delays occasioned by the requirements of other applicable 

Federal, State, or local laws or regulations, or due to the unavailability of a suitable replacement 

impossible (§82.156(i)(2)(i)). This exemption also 

applies to owners or operators of federally-owned comfort cooling and commercial appliances. 

There is no similar exemption granted to owners or operators of comfort cooling and commercial 

refrigeration appliances with refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds. 

 6 Industrial process shutdown means, for the purposes of §82.156(i), that an industrial process or facility temporarily 

ceases to operate or manufacture whatever is being produced at that facility.
65

refrigerant with a lower ozone depletion potential (§82.156(i)(7)(i)). The final regulatory path 

allows an additional extension to the one-year retrofit completion deadline if additional time in 

excess of the one-year under the first path is required. This third extension, which in essence is a 

two-year extension, is contingent upon EPA notification prior to the end of the ninth month of 

the first additional one-year extension (§82.156(i)(7)(iii)). 

These exemptions do not currently apply to owners or operators of comfort cooling and 

commercial refrigeration appliances. However, in accordance with §82.156(i)(1)(i), owners or 

operators of federally-owned commercial refrigerant appliances may receive extensions to the 30 

or 120-day timeframe to complete repairs if they document repair efforts, and notify EPA of their 

inability to comply within 30 days of discovering the leaks (as evidenced by the need to add 

refrigerant). Owners or operators of federally-owned commercial refrigerant appliances may 

also receive extensions, if the commercial refrigeration appliance is located in an area subject to 

radiological contamination, or where the shutting down of the appliance will directly lead to 

radiological contamination. Once extensions are granted to owners or operators of federallyowned commercial refrigerant appliances, their appliances are treated as if they were industrial 

process refrigeration appliances, meaning that all of the applicable industrial process 

refrigeration leak repair requirements and reporting/recordkeeping requirements would apply 

(§82.156(i)(3)). 

EPA believes that the regulatory extension process should be amended due to its 

complexity. In addition, EPA believes that the opportunity to obtain extensions that is available 

to owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration and federally-owned commercial 

refrigeration appliances should be made available to owners or operators of all appliance 

categories. Therefore, the Agency proposes to allow extensions to the requirement to repair 
66

leaks within 30 days, if the leak rate of the appliance is above 20 percent for industrial process 

refrigeration and commercial refrigeration appliances and 10 percent for comfort cooling 

appliances, regardless if they are federally-owned. EPA also proposes to grant similar 

exemptions to all appliance owners or operators who cannot complete required retrofit/retirement 

plans in the proposed six-month timeframe, provided that they fulfill the recordkeeping 

requirements discussed below. 

The extensions would be applicable to all appliances and not limited to industrial process 

refrigeration or federally owned commercial refrigeration appliances, if any one of the following 

conditions applies: (i) The appliance is located in an area subject to radiological contamination 

or where the shutting down of the appliance will directly lead to radiological contamination, and 

where such records are maintained in accordance with §82.166(o); (ii) The necessary parts for an 

appliance component are unavailable and the owner or operator maintains a written statement 

from the appliance or component manufacturer or distributor stating the unavailability of parts, 

and where such records are maintained in accordance with §82.166(o); or (iii) Other applicable 

Federal, State, or local regulations make a repair within 30 days impossible, and where such 

records are maintained in accordance with §82.166(o). 

EPA is limiting extensions based on the current extensions for leak repair, at §82.156, 

with modification. The Agency is not proposing additional reasons, such as budgetary cycles or 

planned maintenance schedules, as a justification for delaying repairs. For instances when the 

extension is due to the need to shutdown the area subject to radiological contamination or adhere 

to any Federal, State, or local regulations that would make repair, retrofit, or retirement within 

the specified timelines for repair or retrofit/retirement (i.e., 30 days or 6 months, respectively) 

infeasible, EPA would automatically grant an extension of 30 days beyond the date that the 
67

appliance subject to radiological contamination is brought back online or the date that of 

adherence to any Federal, State, or local regulations. Such extensions, as proposed at 

§82.156(i)(4)(iii), would be contingent upon written and retained documents noting the reason 

for the extension, in accordance with proposed §82.166(o). 

When the extension is required due to the unavailability of parts within 12 weeks of the 6 

month period to complete retrofit plans, EPA proposes to limit the extension to an additional 12 

weeks beyond the date that the necessary parts or components are delivered. EPA believes that 

this amount of time is equitable in that owners or operators who were able to obtain parts must 

complete retrofits in a total of 6 months; so, for those owners or operators who could obtain the 

necessary parts within 12 weeks would still have a total of 6 months to complete retrofits once 

the parts or components became available. The amount of time allowed for the extensions would 

automatically be granted and would not be contingent upon a written request or an EPA written 

authorization. Such extensions would be contingent upon written and retained documents noting 

the reason for the extension, as proposed at §82.166(o). EPA requests comment on the proposed 

changes to the required practices. 

EPA also proposes to remove the 120-day exemption when owners or operators of 

industrial process refrigeration appliances undergo an industrial process shutdown. EPA 

believes that, under the proposed approach, the120 day delay is no longer justified. All impacted 

appliance owners or operators have the option of system mothballing their appliances, which 

temporarily suspends all leak repair related timeframes. The Agency sees no reason why owners 

or operators of industrial process refrigeration appliances should be singled out for an additional 

exemption that is not also provided in other refrigeration and air-conditioning sectors. 

Therefore, EPA proposes to remove the definition of industrial process shutdown and all 
68

references to the definitions in the required practices of §82.156. EPA requests comment on the 

regulatory simplicity gained by such an approach and the need for such exemptions when all 

appliance owners or operators have the option of mothballing their appliances.

6. Worst leaker provision

Appliance owners or operators have the flexibility to decide what actions to take in order 

to complete repairs. Such actions may or may not include the complete replacement of a leaking 

component or one or more of its subassemblies. As previously discussed, EPA is concerned that 

the leak repair required practices could allow a leaking appliance to undergo multiple repair 

attempts, in some instances to the same component, without the owner or operator’s decision to 

replace the leaking component. Each repair attempt would likely be followed by a release of 

refrigerant due to the component failure and a subsequent recharge of the refrigerant. EPA wants 

to ensure that appliance owners or operators who have multiple leak events in a short period of 

time take action to replace the component in its entirety, or repair and retrofit the appliance, 

instead of continuing the pattern of leak repair followed by refrigerant recharge. EPA does not 

view such cyclical efforts of repair attempts followed by recharge in a relatively short amount of 

time as an effective means of reducing emissions of ODS. EPA believes it is necessary to 

address these situations specifically. Therefore, EPA is proposing two options as possible 

changes to the required practices at §82.156(m). 

The first proposed option would require the retrofit to a refrigerant or substitute with a 

lower ODP or retirement of the entire appliance if it experiences three component replacements 

during a consecutive six-month period, that occur as a result of a failed initial or follow-up 
69

verification. This proposal would be linked to the aforementioned option of requiring a complete 

component change within 30 days of a failed initial or follow-up verification tests. 

The second proposed option would require the retrofit to a refrigerant or substitute with a 

lower ODP, or retirement of the entire appliance, if it fails three initial or follow-up verifications 

during a consecutive six-month period. The second option is linked to the previously discussed 

proposal allowing owners or operators to decide on a case-by-case basis if a component or its 

subassembly requires replacement in order to completely repair the appliance. EPA prefers this 

second option, and believes that this second option provides the greatest level of flexibility to 

appliance owner or operator, while addressing the unwanted environmental consequences of 

cyclic repair attempts that may not adequately address the underlying cause of the appliance 

leak/s. This option allows the owner or operator to determine the best cause of action to address 

the leaking appliance, while reducing the likelihood of entering into a cycle of inept repair 

attempts. EPA requests comments on the proposed options, and the potential that each has to

reduce refrigerant emissions. 

A likely scenario that would trigger the second proposed option would be a comfort 

cooling appliance with an R-22 charge of 800 lbs that encounters three separate repair incidents 

during a consecutive 6-month period, where all of the following apply:

• Each of the three repair incidents during the consecutive 6-month period is undertaken to 

repair leak(s) identified as a result of an addition of refrigerant where the calculated leak 

rate of the appliance (as proposed at §82.152) is greater than 10 percent each time, and a 

record documenting the amount of refrigerant added is maintained in accordance with 

§82.166(k), as proposed. 
70

• The owner or operator repaired all leaks within 30 days of the calculated leak rate that 

showed a rate greater than 10 percent, as required by proposed §82.156(i). 

• Immediately after each repair attempt, an initial verification test was performed and 

documented in accordance with the proposed §82.156(i) and §82.166(k), respectively. 

• Within 30 days, but no sooner than 24 hours, after each repair a follow-up verification 

was performed and documented in accordance with the proposed §82.156(i) and 

§82.166(k). 

In this scenario, any combination of three failed initial or follow-up verifications during a 

consecutive six-month period, regardless if the appliance leaked at the identical component,

would trigger the requirement to develop and implement the six-month retrofit or retirement 

plan. The owner or operator must make plans to either retire or retrofit the appliance, in 

accordance with the proposed §82.156(m). The owner or operator would be required to maintain 

a written and dated retrofit/retirement plan that provides a six-month schedule to complete 

retrofit or retirement of the leaking appliance, in accordance with §82.166(n). Retirement would 

mean the permanent decommissioning of the leaking appliance such that it is deemed unfit for 

use by the current or any future owner or operator, as defined at §82.152. The retrofit, as defined 

at §82.152, would include a conversion of the appliance to use a substitute with a lower ODP. 

This scenario assumes that there is no delay in receipt of parts or components, and that none of 

the other extensions to repair timelines, as stated in proposed §82.156(i)(4), are applicable. EPA 

requests comment on the potential for this proposal to reduce emissions by addressing the source 

of the leak(s) after multiple repair attempts have failed.

D. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
71

1. Service records

EPA is proposing several changes to the current reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements associated with the maintenance, service, and repair of comfort cooling, 

commercial refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration appliances with refrigerant charge 

sizes greater than 50 pounds. Currently, EPA requires that persons servicing appliances (e.g., 

technicians or service contractors) provide their customer with an invoice or other written 

documentation that states the amount of refrigerant added to the appliance. EPA believes that 

this limited amount of information is insufficient and may not provide essential information 

needed by the appliance owner or operator to make decisions on the fate of the repaired 

appliance. 

In order to make certain that appliance owners or operators are provided with sufficient 

information with which to make decisions on the fate of their appliances, EPA is proposing that 

all persons servicing appliances with charge sizes greater than 50 pounds provide the owner or 

operator of such appliances with an invoice or other documentation, that indicates the date and 

type of service, the physical location of all leaks that were repaired, the amount and type of 

refrigerant recovered from the appliance, the type and results of initial and follow-up verification 

tests, as well as the quantity and type of refrigerant added to the appliance. EPA is proposing 

identical recordkeeping requirements for appliance owners or operators who use in-house service 

personnel. EPA is also proposing that appliance owners or operators maintain all calculations, 

measurements, and assumptions used to determine the leak rate of the appliance upon each 

addition of refrigerant.
72

As with all other records associated with the leak repair requirement, owners or operators 

would be required to maintain these service records on-site, at the location of the affected 

appliance, for a minimum of three years. The submission of such records to EPA would not be 

required, but they must be made immediately available upon request. EPA believes that this 

enhanced recordkeeping requirement is consistent with records that are likely provided by 

service personnel. EPA requests comment on the effectiveness of this proposal in establishing a 

consistent regulatory structure that will provide appliance owners or operators with sufficient 

information to make decisions on the fate of their appliance. EPA also seeks comment on 

whether this proposal provides sufficient information for appliance owners or operators to 

maintain compliance with the leak repair requirements, by maintaining a record of the calculated 

leak rate upon each addition of refrigerant. 

EPA is also clarifying the recordkeeping retention requirement of §82.166(m), that

currently states that all records required to be maintained pursuant to this section must be kept 

for a minimum of three years unless otherwise indicated. Entities that dispose of appliances must 

keep these records on-site. EPA believes that all records required under Subpart F (not just 

disposal records) should be maintained on-site, and that records on leak repair should be 

maintained on-site at the physical location of the appliance, and is concerned that the current 

provision may be misinterpreted as being applicable solely to disposal records. Therefore, the 

Agency is proposing a requirement that all service records pertinent to the leak repair required 

practices at §82.156 be maintained on-site, at the physical location, of the appliance undergoing 

service for a minimum of three years.

2. Records documenting the fate of recovered refrigerant
73

EPA requires refrigerant recovery during service, maintenance, and repair of appliances; 

however, EPA is concerned about the ultimate fate of refrigerant that may be recovered during 

service, retrofit, or retirement. EPA has established regulatory prohibitions (at §82.154) that do 

not allow the sale or distribution of used refrigerant to a new owner, until that used refrigerant 

has first been reclaimed by an EPA-certified reclaimer. This prohibition does not affect owners 

or operators of appliances who wish to recover and store used refrigerant for their own future 

use. In fact, EPA has granted flexibility by allowing used refrigerant to be reused by the owner 

in appliances owned by the same parent company without having it reclaimed7

EPA is concerned that refrigerant recovered during service, retrofit, or retirement may not 

be properly reclaimed or destroyed. Based on data provided by EPA-certified refrigerant 

reclaimers, the amount of refrigerant returned for reclamation is lower than anticipated. This is 

certainly the case for popular refrigerants that have not yet been fully phased out of production 

and consumption (for example, R-22). EPA believes that a linkage should be established 

between the amounts of refrigerant recovered from appliances and the ultimate fate of those 

refrigerants. Such a linkage will provide reinforcement to the statutory and regulatory refrigerant 

venting prohibition, by creating a paper trail for refrigerant that is recovered but is not being 

stored for reuse by the appliance owner or operator. Therefore, EPA is proposing new 

recordkeeping requirements for owners or operators of appliances, the service contractors that 

they hire or employ, as well as the third parties involved in the distribution of recovered 

refrigerant. EPA is proposing an addition to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements at 

(68 FR 43793; 

July 24, 2003). 

 7

 EPA does not restrict the sale and distribution of used refrigerant when that refrigerant 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 (40 CFR 82.154(g)(4)).
74

82.166(u), requiring any person who sends used refrigerant off-site to a new owner to maintain 

records of the types and amounts of used refrigerant sent off-site for any reason (such as storage, 

recycling, reclamation, destruction, etc.). The records must include the name and address of the 

facility accepting used refrigerant, the type and amount of refrigerant transferred, and the date 

that the refrigerant was transferred. This proposed recordkeeping requirement is not limited to 

owners or operators of appliances, but any person involved in the transfer of used refrigerant to a 

new owner, such as service contractors and technicians, when such transfer occurs prior to the 

used refrigerant being reclaimed by an EPA-certified refrigerant reclaimer. EPA believes that 

improved tracking of the fate of used refrigerant, in tandem with a proposed requirement to 

document the amount and type of refrigerant recovered from appliances, will lead to decreases in 

the amount of refrigerant vented into the atmosphere by increasing awareness and accountability 

of the fate of used refrigerant. EPA also believes that such accountability will lead to increases 

in the amount of refrigerant that is properly reclaimed by EPA-certified refrigerant reclaimers. 

This proposal would not ban the transfer of used refrigerant to a party independent of the 

appliance owner or operator and the refrigerant reclaimer. Many refrigerant supply facilities will 

collect used refrigerant from their customers, with the intent of forwarding the used refrigerant to 

reclaimers once they have accumulated sufficient quantity to make the transfer economically 

feasible. EPA does not wish to disrupt this practice, since it has environmental benefits, 

particularly in remote areas of the country where refrigerant wholesalers and reclaimers may not 

be readily available. Such transfer is allowed, as long as the transfer is not for purposes of use as 

a refrigerant prior to the reclamation process. EPA requests comment on the impact of tracking 

used refrigerant by appliance owners or operators, service contractors, and other entities involved 

in recycling and reclamation of used refrigerants. EPA also seeks comment on the impact of 
75

increased tracking of used refrigerant and the potential impact that such recordkeeping may have 

on the quantities of used refrigerant reclaimed in the U.S.

3. Extensions to repair and retrofit/retirement timelines 

Section C.5. of this proposed rule discusses the existing and proposed changes to the 

extensions to the 30 day timeframe to complete repairs and the proposed six-month timeframe to 

complete retrofit/retirement plans. EPA has proposed several changes to the requirements to 

develop and implement a retrofit/retirement plan. EPA wishes to retain the opportunity for 

owners or operators to request extensions to the retrofit/retirement timelines, but wishes to make 

the extensions contingent upon the maintenance of records to justify the extensions. 

In support of the existing and proposed required practices, EPA is proposing to add 

recordkeeping requirements that should be required to obtain such extensions. EPA is proposing 

that owners or operators who are granted additional time, beyond 30 days, to make repairs or 

more than 6 months to implement retrofit/retirement plans maintain the following records 

justifying the need for additional time, as applicable: 

 (1) A written statement describing the radiological conditions that prevent immediate 

repair of the appliance;

 (2) A written statement from the appliance or component manufacturer or distributor 

estimating a date of delivery for parts required to complete repairs of the appliance;

(3) A written statement describing the applicable Federal, State, or local regulations that 

prevent the immediate repair of the appliance. 

4. Documenting the determination of the appliance full charge
76

 EPA has granted appliance owners or operators a great deal of flexibility in determining 

the full charge of their appliances. EPA has proposed to allow owners or operators to determine 

the full charge of an appliance by using one of the following four methods: (1) Use the 

equipment manufacturer's determination of the correct full charge for the equipment; (2) 

Determine the full charge by making appropriate calculations based on component sizes, density 

of refrigerant, volume of piping, and other relevant considerations; (3) Use actual measurements 

of the amount of refrigerant added or evacuated from the appliance; and/or (4) Use 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, 

and where records are maintained in accordance with §82.166(q).

EPA has granted this level of flexibility due to the difficulties in determining the full 

charge for unique appliances with large charge sizes. In many applications, nameplate data is 

not available, and recovery and weighing the full charge may not be practical. While EPA 

provides flexibility in determining the full charge, the current leak repair regulations only require 

documentation of the assumptions used to determine the full charge, if the owner or operator 

uses option 4. 

EPA proposes that the owner or operator maintain records documenting the full charge 

determination, regardless of the means used to calculate or determine the full charge. This 

proposal would result in a recordkeeping requirement for determination of the full charge. In 

order to comply with the required practices as currently written, owners or operators would be 

required to determine the appliance full charge in order to calculate the leak rate (as defined at 

§82.152) upon addition of refrigerant. So in order to make such calculations, the owner or 

operator must make efforts to document their assumptions, but may not necessarily maintain 
77

those documents for an extended period of time. EPA believes that compliance will be eased by 

requiring the maintenance of such full charge determinations. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to amend the recordkeeping requirement at §82.166(q) so 

that owners or operators must maintain documents showing all data, including calculations and 

assumptions, used to determine the full charge. EPA is not proposing that these records be 

reported to the Agency, but is proposing that such records be maintained on-site, at the physical 

location of the appliance. EPA seeks comment on the effectiveness of such a recordkeeping 

requirement, and the ability of affected appliance owners or operators to maintain records to 

support their determination of the appliance full charge. 

5. Documenting seasonal variances

As previously discussed, EPA is proposing an exemption to the requirement to calculate 

the leak rate upon each addition of refrigerant, if the addition is due to seasonal variance, as 

proposed for definition at §82.152. While EPA is proposing to allow this exemption, the Agency 

believes that it should be contingent upon the documentation of the amount and type of 

refrigerant added during the periods of low ambient conditions, as well as documentation of the 

removal of refrigerant from the appliance during the warmer months. 

In order to achieve this exemption, EPA proposes a recordkeeping requirement at 

§82.166(r) documenting the seasonal variance. EPA will only exempt appliance owners or 

operators from the proposed requirement to calculate the leak rate upon each addition of 

refrigerant when that addition occurs due to a seasonal variance, if the owner or operator 

maintains records stating the amount and type of refrigerant and the date that the refrigerant was 

added to the appliance. Owners or operators must also maintain a record of the amount and type 

of refrigerant removed from the appliance to counter the seasonal adjustment. Such records 
78

would be required to be maintained, but would not be submitted to EPA. As previously 

proposed the definition of “seasonal variance” would limit the time period covering seasonal 

variance to one consecutive 12-month period. EPA seeks comment on the proposed 

recordkeeping requirement, and its linkage to the exemption to calculate the leak rate upon each 

addition of refrigerant.

6. Destruction of purged refrigerant 

Purge devices are used on low-pressure chillers (e.g., R-11, R-113, R-123) to collect 

accumulated non-condensable gases from the appliance. When leaks occur in such systems they 

act as a vacuum bringing air into the system. The purge devices release the air to the 

atmosphere, but also release a small quantity of refrigerant during the purge events. EPA has 

allowed exemptions to the leak repair requirements in instances where appliance owners or 

operators can show that purged refrigerants are captured and subsequently destroyed. 

The current leak repair reporting and recordkeeping requirements, at §82.166(p)(1), 

provide details used to obtain an exemption; owners or operators who wish to exclude purged 

refrigerants that are recovered and destroyed from annual leak rate calculations must maintain 

records on-site to support and document the amount of refrigerant sent for destruction. Records 

are based on a monitoring strategy that provides reliable data to demonstrate that the recovered 

purged refrigerant has been destroyed to at least 98 percent destruction efficiency. In 

accordance with §82.166(p)(2), owners or operators who wish to exclude purged refrigerants that 

are destroyed from annual leak rate calculations must maintain the following information after 

the first time the exclusion is utilized: the identification of the facility and a contact person, 

including the address and telephone number; a general description of the appliance, focusing on 

aspects of the appliance relevant to the purging of refrigerant and subsequent destruction; a 
79

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; the 

frequency of monitoring and data-recording; and a description of the control device and its 

destruction efficiency. The information must also be included in any applicable reporting 

requirements that are required for compliance with the leak repair and retrofit requirements for 

industrial process refrigeration appliances, as currently set forth in paragraphs §82.166(n) and 

(o). 

During the period 1998-2006, EPA has not received a report from an industrial process 

refrigeration appliance owner or operator justifying the exemption of purged and destroyed 

refrigerant from the calculation of the leak rate. The Agency believes that the lack of use of this 

provision is due to the likely higher costs of recovering and destroying refrigerant when 

compared to recycling and reuse or reclamation, as well as improved chiller technology that 

greatly reduces refrigerant releases during purge events. EPA believes that current chiller 

technologies using vapor recovery systems for older CFC and newer HCFC chillers allow 

refrigerant from purge events to be captured and returned to the appliance. In addition, EPA has 

recognized new chiller technology that is marketed as having the ability to monitor purge events 

in order to minimize or nearly eliminate the amount of refrigerant released into the atmosphere 

during a purge event. Due to the advent of such technology and the lack of use of the exemption 

provision, EPA proposes to remove the recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to 

documenting purged and destroyed refrigerant. The Agency requests comment on the need for 

such an exemption, and the likelihood that a chiller owner or operator would recover purged 

refrigerant for purposes of storage, reclamation, or destruction. 

7. Applicability to residential and light commercial appliances
80

The leak repair regulations are limited to appliances containing more than 50 pounds of 

refrigerant that leak above the leak repair trigger rate percentage. However, the leak repair 

required practices do not grant an exemption to the refrigerant venting prohibition for appliances 

containing less than 50 pounds of refrigerant. For example, residential split systems providing 

comfort cooling to residential homes typically have refrigerant charges less than 10 pounds. 

While the leak repair requirements do not apply to owners or operators of such appliances, 

persons servicing, maintaining, or repairing them are not allowed to intentionally release 

refrigerant into the atmosphere. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

"significant regulatory action.” This proposed rulemaking may raise novel policy issues that are 

unique to the refrigeration and air-conditioning service sectors. Accordingly, EPA submitted this 

action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any 

changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for 

this action.

EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this 

action. This analysis is entitled Screening Analysis to Examine the Economic Impact of 

Proposed Revisions to the Section 608 Leak Repair Regulations. A copy of the analysis is 

available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167). 

EPA evaluated the impact of today’s NPRM on owners and operators of air-conditioning 

and refrigeration appliances with ozone-depleting refrigerant charge sizes greater than 50 
81

pounds, including the following sectors: educational facilities, hospitals, ice rinks, supermarkets 

and grocery stores, convenience stores, warehouse and club supercenters, refrigerated warehouse 

and storage (including farm) facilities, office buildings, lodging, bakeries, breweries; and food, 

ice, soft drink, chemical, pharmaceutical, and petrochemical manufacturing facilities. The 

economic analysis was based on a “model entity” approach for size categories based on the 

number of employees within each affected sector. This model entity analysis was used to 

estimate the impact on the economy as a whole (i.e., aggregate cost of the proposed rule) and on 

small businesses individually [i.e., for a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis]. 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. The characteristics and costs of model pieces of 

equipment were then used to establish costs of compliance for model facilities, and the costs 

associated with model facilities were used to establish costs for the model entities.

As a means of reducing emissions of ozone-depleting substances to the lowest 

achievable level, EPA has considered multiple leak repair trigger rates and estimated their 

potential impact on the regulated community. For purposes of today’s NPRM, EPA has 

considered the following scenarios: (1) 5% for comfort cooling and 10% for commercial 

refrigeration and IPR appliances; (2) 5% for comfort cooling and 20% for commercial 

refrigeration and IPR appliances; (3) 5% for comfort cooling and 30% for commercial 

refrigeration and IPR appliances; (4) 10% for comfort cooling and 10% for commercial 

refrigeration and IPR appliances; (5) 10% for comfort cooling and 20% for commercial 

refrigeration and IPR appliances; and (6) 10% for comfort cooling and 30% for commercial 

refrigeration and IPR appliances. Within each option, EPA has considered whether additional 
82

emissions reduction is gained by requiring: (1) the replacement of leaking appliance components 

after the failure of repair verification; or by (2) maintaining the existing regulatory flexibility 

allowing owners/operators to make unlimited attempts at repair (followed by subsequent 

refrigerant recharges) without a mandate to actually replace a leaking component. EPA has also 

considered the potential emissions avoided and estimated impact on the regulated community, 

and summarizes those findings as follows: . A summary of the scenarios with estimated costs 

and benefits is summarized as follows: 

Costs and Benefits of Regulatory Options

Option

Costs 

(million 

dollars)

Benefits 

(ODP-weighted 

tonnes)

Monetized Benefits at 

3% discount rate 

(million dollars)

Scenario 1

1 (5% and 10%) $135.6 493 $2.5

2 (5% and 20%) $111.0 394 $2.0

3 (5% and 30%) $92.2 273 $1.4

4 (10% and 10%) $129.9 483 $2.5

5 (10% and 20%) $105.3 384 $2.0

6 (10% and 30%) $86.5 263 $1.3

Scenario 2

1 (5% and 10%) $53.2 423 $2.2

2 (5% and 20%) $40.9 326 $1.7

3 (5% and 30%) $31.1 208 $1.1

4 (10% and 10%) $50.5 413 $2.1

5 (10% and 20%) $38.2 316 $1.6

6 (10% and 30%) $28.5 198 $1.0

Under the first scenario, leaking components that fail verification tests must be replaced 

within 30 days. Under the second scenario, the owners and operators must still make repairs to 

leaking appliances, but owners and operators have the discretion to determine whether or not 

repairs will include the replacement of leaking components. Under both scenarios, repairs must 
83

be completed within 30 days of leak detection, and verifications (immediate and follow-up 

within 30 days) must be conductedBased in part on EPA analysis (see accompanying Screening 

Analysis to Examine the Economic Impact of Proposed Revisions to the Refrigerant Recycling 

and Emissions Rule, EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167), the Agency has decided to 

propose a reduction of the leak repair trigger rate for comfort cooling appliances from 15 to 10 

percent and for commercial refrigeration appliance and industrial process refrigeration 

appliances from 35 to 20 percent. EPA believes that this combination of leak repair trigger rates 

provides for continued flexibility in allowing appliance owners and 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. EPA estimates that the total 

expected annual incremental cost of the proposed options across all affected sectors is between 

$86.5 million and $135.6 million for the six options under the first scenario (requiring 

component replacement), and between $28.5 million and $53.2 million for the six options under 

the second scenario. EPA also estimates that a reduction of the leak repair trigger rate for 

comfort cooling appliances from 15 to 10 percent and for commercial refrigeration appliance and 

industrial process refrigeration appliances from 35 to 20 percent will result in the lowest costs at 

$38.2 million, with the largest environmental benefit 316 ODP weighted tons, when compared to 

the other five options that were considered. 

It was assumed that owners and operators would make repairs only as mandated by 

regulation. In all likelihood there would be a number of cases in which normal maintenance 

would involve making the repairs to ensure that the system in question was operating smoothly 

and performing its function regardless of proposed changes to the rule. Based on the analysis, 

the total expected incremental cost of the rule across all sectors is $38.2 million. The small 
84

business analysis used a statistical technique known as Monte Carlo analysis to estimate the 

number of entities in a sector size category that are expected to experience costs exceeding one

percent (and three percent) of the average annual value of shipments. This analysis did not 

account for actions mandated by current regulations. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for 

approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq

Today’s action proposes to strengthen existing reporting and recordkeeping requirements 

at 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart F by providing information describing the service that has been 

performed on refrigeration and air conditioning equipment (i.e., appliances) with refrigerant 

charge sizes greater than 50 pounds. Owners and operators of refrigeration and air-conditioning 

equipment (i.e. appliances) as well as personnel servicing such appliances are currently required 

to maintain service records, and today’s proposal would require additional specificity concerning 

the types and results of repairs performed on such appliances. EPA believes that amending the 

required service records will provide consistency to the existing regulations by placing similar 

requirements on owners and operators of commercial refrigeration, comfort cooling, and IPR 

appliances. EPA also believes that amending the currently required reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements will meet the CAA Section 608(a) requirement for EPA to promulgate regulations 

regarding use and disposal of class I and II substances to “reduce the use and emission of such 

. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA 

has been assigned EPA ICR number 1626.10.
85

substances to the lowest achievable level” and “maximize the recapture and recycling of such 

substances.”

OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the 

existing regulations at Subpart F under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq

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. 

. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0256. EPA has estimated that 

the proposed amendments to the existing reporting and recordkeepking requirements will result 

in an estimated average annual burden of 6,182 hours at an annual cost of $148,365. This 

represents an estimated burden of 5,825 hours at a cost of $139,803, that will affect up to 

133,777 owners or operators of refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances with an ODS 

refrigerant charge greater than 50 pounds. EPA also estimates that technicians servicing the 

affected appliances will incur an estimated annual burden of 357 hours at a cost of $8,562. 

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided 

burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has 

established a public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID No. EPAHQ-OAR-2003-0167. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to EPA. 

Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office 

for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days 

after [Insert date of publication in the Federal Register], a comment to OMB is best assured of 
86

having its full effect if OMB receives it by [Insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal 

Register.] The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 

collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposal on small entities, small entity is 

defined as: (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify 

that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The small entities directly regulated by this proposed rule are owners or operators of 

comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration, or industrial process refrigeration equipment (i.e., 

appliances) with ozone-depleting refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds. We have estimated 

that a total of 353 small businesses will experience compliance costs greater than or equal to one 
87

percent of their average value of shipments. This represents 0.34 percent of the 104,068 total

potentially affected small businesses examined across all sectors. At the one percent level, the 

most heavily impacted sector, the ice rink sector, is predicted to have 36 impacted entities (out of 

443 small businesses in the sector, or 8.1 percent of the sector). The sector with the most 

impacted small entities, bakeries, is predicted to have 114 affected small businesses (of the 9,598 

potentially impacted small businesses in the sector, or 1.2 percent of the sector). There are 74 

small businesses with anticipated compliance costs greater than or equal to three percent of their 

average value of shipments, mainly in the bakery and ice rink sectors. In the bakery sector

(using industrial process refrigeration appliances) 24 companies are expected to have impacts 

between 3 and 4 percent, while 6 are expected to have impacts between 4 and 9.5 percent. In the 

ice rink sector (using industrial process refrigeration appliances) 25 companies are expected to 

experience impacts between 3 and 4 percent, 4 companies will likely experience impacts 

between 4 and 10 percent and there is a small chance that 1 of those 4 companies may 

experience impacts between 10 and 26 percent. 

Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small 

entities. The Agency has reduced the regulatory impact on small businesses by proposing to 

reduce the recordkeeping and reporting burden placed upon owners and operators of regulated 

appliances. The Agency is relying more on the maintenance of typical recordkeeping that would 

be expected to be collected as a part of normal business operations, such as service invoices 

stating the service performed and the amount of refrigerant added to the leaking appliance. We 

continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and 

welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
88

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

 This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. The provisions in this proposed rule fulfill the 

obligations of the United States under the international treaty, The Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, as well as those requirements set forth by Congress in 

the Clean Air Act. Viewed as a whole, all of these proposed amendments do not create a Federal 

mandate resulting in costs of $100 million or more in any one year for State, local and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or for the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires 

EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and

local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” 

“Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.” 
89

This proposed rule 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, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132. Today’s proposal is expected to primarily affect owners or 

operators of comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration 

equipment that hold large ozone-depleting refrigerant charges (i.e., full charges greater than 50 

pounds). While such State-owned equipment falls under the regulations of this proposal, this 

proposal will not impose substantial direct effects on the States or on the relationship between 

the national government and the States. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits 

comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials.

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

Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This NPRM affects owners or operators of comfort cooling, 

commercial refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration equipment that hold large ozonedepleting refrigerant charges (i.e., full charges greater than 50 pounds). While today’s NPRM 

may impact such equipment that is owned or operated by Tribal Governments it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments nor does it impose 

any enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 
90

13175 does not apply to this action. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this 

proposed action from tribal officials. 

G. Applicability of Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 

Health & Safety Risks

This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not 

economically significant as defined in EO 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the 

environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action’s health and risk assessments are contained in the following discussion.

Stratospheric ozone protects the biosphere from potentially damaging doses of ultraviolet 

(UV) radiation. Depletion of stratospheric ozone, caused by the release of man-made ODS could 

lead to significant increases in UV radiation reaching the Earth's surface, which could in turn 

lead to adverse human and animal health effects, as well as ecosystem impacts. This rule will 

reduce emissions of ODS by amending the leak repair requirements and associated 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements for owners or operators of appliances using ozonedepleting refrigerants. Reductions in ODS emissions will protect human health and the 

environment from increased amounts of UV radiation and increased incidence of skin cancer, but 

will not have a disproportionate effect on children. 

EPA notes that for the whole life exposure assumption, the risks of ozone depletion are 

borne primarily by the present population of adults who will experience these health effects as 

they age. 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 on children of 

excessive exposure to UV radiation: (1) Westerdahl J, Olsson H, Ingvar C.” At what age do 
91

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) Whieman 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. 

This NPRM proposes changes to the existing regulatory regime for repair of leaking 

refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances with ODS refrigerant charges greater than 50 

pounds. These changes are not expected to increase the impacts on children's health from 

stratospheric ozone depletion. The public is invited to submit comments or identify peerreviewed studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to UV radiation as a result of 

the release of ODS refrigerants used in refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment addressed in 

this NPRM. 

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

or Use
92

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. This NPRM addresses leak rates of air-conditioning and 

refrigeration equipment (i.e., appliances) with ozone-depleting refrigerant charges greater than 

50 pounds, and proposes to amend the recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with 

the refrigerant leak repair required practices. We have concluded that this rule is not likely to 

have any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 

(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations.

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive

policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 
93

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental protection 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. Today’s NPRM addresses repair and 

maintenance of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment (i.e., appliances) by requiring repair 

and associated recordkeeping of such appliances that leak ozone-depleting refrigerants. An 

overall reduction in the emission rates of such appliances will provide protection to all 

populations and will not have a disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental 

impact on minority or low-income populations. 
94

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 

Chemicals, Chlorofluorocarbons, Exports, Hydrochlorofluorocarbons, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

Date: 

 

Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, Title 40, Chapter I, Part 82, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 82 - [AMENDED]

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

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

2. Section 82.150 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Amendments to the Section 608 Leak Repair 

Requirements (SAN 4856, Tier 3, RIN 2060-AM09) (Page 90 94 of 104108)
95

§ 82.150 Purpose and scope.

 (a) The purpose and scope of this subpart is to reduce the use and emissions of ozonedepleting refrigerants to the lowest achievable level and encourage the use of substitutes, by 

maximizing the recapture and recycling of such ozone-depleting substances during the use, 

service, maintenance, repair, and disposal of appliances and by restricting the sale of refrigerants 

in accordance with Title VI of the Clean Air Act. 

* * * * *

3. Section 82.152 is amended as follows: 

a. By adding definitions for “Comfort cooling appliance,” “Commercial refrigeration 

appliance,” “Component,” “Industrial process refrigeration appliance,” “Retrofit,” Retire,” and 

“Seasonal variance,” 

b. By revising the definitions for “Follow-up verification test,” “Full charge,” “Initial 

verification test,” “Leak rate,” and “Normal operating characteristics,” 

c. By removing the definitions for “Commercial refrigeration,” “Critical component,” “Custombuilt,” “Industrial process refrigeration,” and “Industrial process shutdown.” 

§ 82.152 Definitions.

* * * * *

Comfort cooling appliance means any air-conditioning appliance used to provide cooling in 

order to control heat and/or humidity in facilities such as office buildings and computer rooms. 

Commercial refrigeration appliance means any refrigeration appliance used to store perishable 

goods in retail food, cold storage warehousing, or any other sector requiring cold storage. Retail 
96

food includes the refrigeration equipment found in supermarkets, grocery and convenience 

stores, restaurants, and other food service establishments. Cold storage includes the refrigeration 

equipment used to house perishable goods or any manufactured product requiring refrigerated 

storage. 

Component means an appliance component, such as, but not limited to, compressors, condensers, 

evaporators, receivers and all of its connections and subassemblies without which the appliance 

will not properly function and/or will be subject to failures. 

* * * * *

Follow-up verification test means a test that validates the effectiveness of repairs within 30 days 

of the appliance's return to normal operating characteristics and conditions but no sooner than 24 

hours after completion of repairs. 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 of the following four methods:

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

(2) Use calculations based on component sizes, density of refrigerant, volume of piping, seasonal 

variances, and other relevant considerations; 

(3) Use actual measurements of the amount of refrigerant evacuated from the appliance; or
97

(4) Use 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. 

* * * * *

Industrial process refrigeration appliance means refrigeration equipment, that may be complex 

or customized, that is used in a manufacturing process. Industrial process refrigeration 

appliances include equipment that is directly linked to a manufacturing process, including, but 

not limited to, appliances used in the chemical; pharmaceutical; petrochemical; food or beverage 

manufacturing, packaging or processing; power generation; and industrial ice manufacturing 

industries. Where one appliance is used for both industrial process refrigeration and another type 

of refrigeration or air-conditioning application, the appliance will be considered an industrial 

process refrigeration appliance if 50 percent or more of its operating capacity is used for 

industrial process refrigeration. 

Initial verification test means a leak test that is conducted as soon as practicable after the repair 

is completed. An initial verification test, with regard to the leak repairs that require the 

evacuation of the appliance or portion of the appliance, means a test conducted prior to the 

replacement of the full refrigerant charge and before the appliance or portion of the appliance has 

reached operation at normal operating characteristics and conditions of temperature and pressure. 

An initial verification test with regard to repairs conducted without the evacuation of the 

refrigerant charge means a test conducted as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the repair 

work.
98

Leak rate means the rate at which an appliance is losing refrigerant, calculated at the time of 

refrigerant addition. The leak rate is expressed in terms of the percentage of the appliance's full 

charge that has been lost since the last successful repair over a consecutive 12-month period, and 

is calculated by:

(1) Step 1. Take the number of pounds of refrigerant added to the appliance since the last 

successful follow-up verification or the number of pounds of refrigerant added during the 

previous 365-day period (if the last successful follow-up verification occurred more than one 

year ago); 

(2) Step 2. Divide the result of Step 1. by the number of pounds of refrigerant the appliance 

contains at full charge;

(3) Step 3. Multiply the result of Step 2. by 100 to obtain a percentage. This method is 

summarized in the following formula: 

* * * * *

Leak rate = pounds of refrigerant added since last successful follow-up verification 

(% per year) (or during the past 365 days if that period is greater than one year)

------------------------------------------------------ X 100%

pounds of refrigerant in full charge
99

Normal operating characteristics and conditions mean the 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 operation. Normal 

operating characteristics and conditions are marked by the absence of atypical conditions 

affecting the operation of the refrigeration appliance. 

* * * * *

Retire means the permanent removal from service of the entire appliance, rendering it unfit for 

use by the current or any future owner or operator.

Retrofit means the conversion of an appliance from a refrigerant to a substitute with a lower 

ozone-depleting potential. Retrofit includes a complete conversion of the appliance to achieve 

systems compatibility with the substitute and may include, but is not limited to, changes in 

lubricants, gaskets, filters, driers, valves, o-rings or appliance components.

Seasonal variance means the need to add refrigerant to an appliance due to a change in ambient 

conditions caused by a change in season, followed by the subsequent removal of refrigerant in 

the corresponding change in season, where both the addition and removal of refrigerant occurs 

within one consecutive 12-month period. 

* * * * *

4. Section 82.156 is amended as follows: 

a. By revising paragraph (i), 

b. By adding paragraph (j), 
100

c. By adding and reserving paragraph (k), 

d. By adding paragraphs (l) thru (n).

§ 82.156 Required practices.

* * * * *

(i) Owners or operators of comfort cooling appliances with a full charge greater than 50 

pounds of refrigerant must have all leaks within the appliance repaired within 30 days, if the leak 

rate exceeds 10 percent. The leak rate must be calculated immediately upon each addition of 

refrigerant to the appliance, unless the addition is required to recharge the appliance immediately 

after repair or retrofit or the addition is due to a seasonal variance where records justifying the 

addition due to a seasonal variance are maintained in accordance with §82.166(r). The 

determination of the leak rate must be maintained in accordance with §82.166(k). 

(1) Owners or operators shall conduct an initial verification test immediately upon 

completion of repairs. Methods and results of all initial verification tests must be maintained in 

accordance with §82.166(k).

(2) Owners or operators shall conduct a follow-up verification test within 30 days of 

completing but no sooner than 24 hours after repair and recharge of the appliance. The followup verification test shall be conducted at normal operating characteristics and conditions. 

Methods and results of all follow-up verification tests must be maintained in accordance with 

§82.166(k).

 (3) If the initial or follow-up verification test indicates that the repairs have not been 

successful, meaning that leaks are still occurring within the appliance component(s) requiring 
101

repair, the owner or operator must make an additional repair attempt, within 30 days of the failed 

verification and must conduct an additional initial and a follow-up verification test, as set forth in 

paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section. 

 (4) Owners or operators of commercial refrigeration appliances must retire or retrofit the 

appliance to use a refrigerant or substitute with a lower ozone depleting potential (ODP), in 

accordance with paragraph (l) of this section, if the appliance has experienced three failed 

verification tests within a consecutive six-month period. 

(5) Owners or operators of comfort cooling appliances may have more than 30 days to 

repair the appliance if one or more of the following conditions apply:

 (i) The appliance is located in an area subject to radiological contamination or where 

the shutting down of the appliance will directly lead to radiological contamination, and where 

such records are maintained in accordance with §82.166(o). 

 (ii) The necessary parts for an appliance component(s) are unavailable, and the owner 

or operator maintains a written statement from the appliance or component manufacturer or 

distributor stating the unavailability of parts, and where such records are maintained in 

accordance with §82.166(o). 

 (iii) Other applicable Federal, State, or local regulations make a repair within 30 days 

impossible, and where such records are maintained in accordance with §82.166(o). 

 (iv) Owners or operators are allowed an additional 30 days beyond the date that 

radiological contamination can be minimized; by which repairs can comply with applicable 
102

Federal, State, or local regulations that originally hindered repairs; or the delivery of parts to 

conduct and complete repairs to the affected appliance. 

(j) Owners or operators of commercial refrigeration or industrial process refrigeration 

appliances with a full charge greater than 50 pounds of refrigerant must have all leaks within the 

appliance repaired within 30 days, if the leak rate exceeds 20 percent of the full charge. The leak 

rate must be calculated immediately upon each addition of refrigerant to the appliance, unless the 

addition is required to recharge the appliance immediately after repair or retrofit, or the addition 

is due to a seasonal variance where records justifying the addition due to the seasonal variance 

are maintained in accordance with §82.166(r). The determination of the leak rate must be 

maintained in accordance with §82.166(k). 

(1) Owners or operators shall conduct an initial verification test immediately upon 

completion of repairs. Methods and results of all initial verification tests must be maintained in 

accordance with §82.166(k).

(2) Owners or operators shall conduct a follow-up verification test within 30 days of 

completing, but no sooner than 24 hours after repair and recharge of the appliance. The followup verification test shall be conducted at normal operating characteristics and conditions. 

Methods and results of all follow-up verification tests must be maintained in accordance with 

§82.166(k).

 (3) If the initial or follow-up verification test indicates that the repairs have not been 

successful, meaning that leaks are still occurring within the appliance component(s) requiring 

repair, the owner or operator must make an additional repair attempt, within 30 days of the failed 
103

verification and must conduct an additional initial and a follow-up verification test, as set forth in 

paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section.

(4) Owners or operators of commercial refrigeration or industrial process refrigeration 

appliances must retire or retrofit the appliance to use a refrigerant or substitute with a lower 

ozone depleting potential (ODP), in accordance with paragraph (l) of this section, if the 

appliance has experienced three failed verification tests within a consecutive six-month period. 

 (5) Owners or operators of commercial refrigeration or industrial process refrigeration 

appliances may have more than 30 days to repair the appliance or replace the leaking 

component(s) if one or more of the following conditions apply:

 (i) The appliance is located in an area subject to radiological contamination or where the 

shutting down of the appliance will directly lead to radiological contamination, and where such 

records are maintained in accordance with §82.166(o). 

 (ii) The necessary parts for a component are unavailable and the owner or operator 

maintains a written statement from the appliance or component manufacturer or distributor 

stating the unavailability of parts, and where such records are maintained in accordance with 

§82.166(o). 

 (iii) Other applicable Federal, State, or local regulations make a repair within 30 days 

impossible, and where such records are maintained in accordance with §82.166(o). 

 (iv) Owners or operators are allowed an additional 30 days beyond the date that 

radiological contamination can be minimized; by which repairs can comply with applicable 
104

Federal, State, or local regulations that originally hindered repairs; or the delivery of parts to 

conduct and complete repairs to the affected appliance. 

(k) [reserved.]

(l) Owners or operators are not required to repair the appliance within 30 days as 

specified in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this section, if within 30 days of the date that the appliance 

exceeded the applicable leak rate, they develop a written and dated retrofit or retirement plan. 

(1) The written and dated retrofit or retirement plan must include a six-month schedule to 

either permanently retire the entire appliance from operation or retrofit the appliance for use with 

a substitute with a lower ozone-depleting potential. The retrofit or retirement plan must be 

maintained on-site at the physical location of the affected appliance, in accordance with 

§82.166(n). 

 (2) Retrofit or retirement of the appliance must be completed within six months of the 

date of the retrofit or retirement plan. 

(3) Owners or operators may have more than 6 months to complete the retrofit of the 

appliance, if the supplier of the appliance or one or more of its components has quoted a delivery 

time of more than 12 weeks from the date of the retrofit plan. In such instances, the owner or 

operator will have an additional 12 weeks after the date of delivery of the component(s) in order 

to completely implement the retrofit of the appliance. A written statement from the supplier 

must be maintained in accordance with §82.166(p). 

(m) The amount of time for owners or operators to complete and verify repairs, prepare 

and implement written retrofit or retirement plans, under paragraphs (i) and (j) of this section, is 
105

temporarily suspended during the time that an appliance is undergoing system mothballing, as 

defined in §82.152. The time for owners or operators to complete repairs, replace components, 

or fully implement written retrofit or retirement plans will resume on the day the appliance is 

brought back on-line, indicating that the appliance is no longer undergoing system mothballing.

* * * * * 

5. Section 82.166 is amended as follows: 

a. By revising paragraphs (j) through (q), 

b. By adding paragraphs (r) through (v). 

§ 82.166 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *

(j) Persons servicing appliances with a full charge greater than 50 pounds of refrigerant 

must provide the owner or operator of such appliances with an invoice or other documentation 

which includes: the quantity and type of refrigerant added to the appliance; the identity and 

location of the appliance; the date and type of service performed; the physical location of any 

leaks; the amount and type of refrigerant recovered from the appliance; and the date, method, 

and results of initial verification and follow-up verification tests.

(k) Owners or operators of appliances with a full charge greater than 50 pounds of 

refrigerant must keep records documenting the quantity and type of refrigerant added to the 

appliance; the full charge of the appliance; the calculated leak rate of the appliance; the identity 

and location of the appliance; the date and type of service performed; the physical location of 
106

any leaks; the amount and type of refrigerant recovered from the appliance; and the date, 

method, and results of initial verification and follow-up verification tests. 

(l) Owners or operators of appliances with a full charge greater than 50 pounds of 

refrigerant must keep records of the type and quantity of refrigerant purchased.

(m) Owners or operators of appliances with a full charge greater than 50 pounds of 

refrigerant must keep records of the types and amounts of refrigerant recovered from their 

appliances that are transferred to a different owner. The records must include the name and 

address of the facility accepting used refrigerant, and the date that the refrigerant was transferred. 

(n) Owners or operators of appliances must maintain a dated retrofit or retirement plan 

that establishes a six-month schedule to retrofit or retire the leaking appliance, where required in 

§82.156(l)(1). The dated plan must be maintained at the site of the leaking appliance, and at a 

minimum must include: identification and location of the appliance; type and full charge of the 

refrigerant used by the leaking appliance; location of all leaks and efforts taken to address leaks 

prior to retrofit or retirement; type and full charge of the substitute to which the appliance will be 

converted, if retrofitted; itemized procedure for retrofit including, but not limited to, the

procedure for flushing old refrigerant and lubricant, changes in lubricants, filters, gaskets, orings, or valves; the plan for the disposition of recovered refrigerant; the plan for the disposition 

of the appliance, if retired; and a six-month schedule for the complete retrofit or retirement of the 

appliance. 

(o) Owners or operators of appliances who are unable to complete repairs in 30 days due 

to radiological conditions, unavailability of components, or government regulations must 
107

maintain dated records justifying the need for additional time, by maintaining the following 

records, as applicable: 

 (1) A written statement describing the radiological conditions that prevent immediate 

repair of the appliance;

 (2) A written statement from the appliance or component manufacturer or distributor 

estimating a date of delivery for parts required to complete repairs of the appliance; 

 (3) A written statement describing the applicable Federal, State, or local regulations that 

prevent the immediate repair of the appliance. 

(p) Owners or operators of appliances who are unable to complete retrofit plans within 6 

months, due to the unavailability of one or more of the appliance’s components that has a quoted 

delivery time of more than 12 weeks, as specified in §82.156(l)(3), must maintain a written 

statement from the appliance or component manufacturer or distributor estimating a date of 

delivery for parts required to complete the retrofit plan. Owners or operators must also maintain 

records documenting the actual date of delivery of the appliance component.

(q) Owners or operators of appliances with refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds 

must maintain documents showing all appliance or appliance component data, measurements, 

calculations and assumptions used to determine the full charge, as defined at §82.152.

(r) Owners or operators of appliances with refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds 

who seek an exemption from the requirement to calculate the leak rate upon each addition of 

refrigerant, as specified in §82.152, due to a seasonal variance must maintain records stating the 

amount and type of refrigerant and the date that the refrigerant was added to the appliance. 
108

Owners or operators must also maintain a record of the amount and type of refrigerant and the 

date that refrigerant was removed from the appliance to counter the seasonal adjustment. 

(s) Technicians certified under §82.161 must keep a copy of their certificate on-site, at 

their place of business.

 (t) Technicians servicing, repairing, or maintaining appliances containing more than 50 

pounds of refrigerant must maintain records recording the amount and type of refrigerant 

recovered, but not returned to the appliance. 

 (u) Any person, including, but not limited to, service contractors or technicians and 

refrigerant wholesalers or brokers, who distributes or sells, or offers to distribute or sell, used 

refrigerant, that has not yet been reclaimed, to a new owner must maintain records documenting 

the type and quantity of used refrigerant distributed or sold, the date of such distribution or sale, 

and the name and address of the entity taking possession of the used refrigerant.

(v) All records required under this section must be kept on-site for a minimum of three 

years, unless otherwise stated.