Wednesday, 

December 15, 2010 

Part VI 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 82 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Amendments to the Section 608 Leak 

Repair Requirements; Proposed Rule 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
78558 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0167; FRL–9238–4] 

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 airconditioning 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 (such 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. 

DATES: Written comments on this 

proposed rule must be received by the 

EPA Docket on or before February 14, 

2011, 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 December 29, 2010. If a public 

hearing is requested, commenters will 

have until February 28, 2011 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 Web site, http://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: 

• http://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. 

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 http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site 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 http:// 

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 http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.html. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. This 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 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 78559 

1Refrigerant means, for purposes of 40 CFR part 

82, Subpart F, 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. 

2. Records Documenting the Fate of 

Recovered Refrigerant 

3. Extensions to Repair and Retrofit/ 

Retirement Timelines 

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 et. seq. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

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. 

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 

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, grocery, warehouse clubs, supercenters, convenience stores, refrigerated 

warehousing and storage. 

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

531312.

Owners or operators of air-conditioning equipment used in the following: hospitals, 

office buildings, colleges and universities, metropolitan transit authorities, real estate rental & leased properties, lodging & 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. 

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 

http://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 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. 

• 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 

refrigerants,1 such as 

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), 

during the maintenance, service, or 

disposal of appliances including airconditioning 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. 

Section 608 is divided into three 

subsections. Section 608(a) requires 

EPA to promulgate regulations to reduce 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
78560 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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 airconditioning and refrigeration 

equipment. This prohibition applies 

unless EPA determines that such 

venting, releasing, or disposing does not 

pose a threat to the environment. 

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 airconditioning 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 or 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). 

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 

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 is 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 nonODS substitutes. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 78561 

2The ODP is the ration 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. 

3This is an undiscounted avoided emission. 

4 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 2015–2020. 

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 or 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 or 

operators to maintain service records 

that will document the 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 or 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; 

• 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. 

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 ozonedepleting 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 

approximately 316 ozone-depleting 

potential (ODP) weighted tons 

(approximately 2.8 million metric tons 

of carbon equivalent (MMTCE). 

EPA has estimated that the projected 

emissions of the most popular ozonedepleting refrigerant impacted by this 

NPRM, HCFC–22 (or R–22), between 

January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2019 

is approximately 35,000 ODP 2 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 3 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 11.5 percent of the 2,750 

ODP tons that the U.S. has allocated for 

consumption of all HCFCs for 2010, and 

approximately 21 percent of the HCFCs 

allocated for 2015.4

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 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 http:// 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
78562 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 http:// 

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, 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 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 

or 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 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 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. 

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 airconditioning 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 air-conditioning 

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. 

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 mediumsize 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 R–22.’’ EPA seeks comment on the 

applicability of the proposed definition 

of comfort cooling appliance to airconditioning 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 78563 

also includes appliances using ozonedepleting refrigerants that are used to 

store or warehouse 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 include 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 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 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 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
78564 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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. Followup 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 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 

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 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. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 78565 

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 or 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 or operators of commercial 

and industrial process refrigeration 

appliances have expressed concerns that 

the full charge may not be accurately 

determined due to seasonal variances 

that may alter the amount of refrigerant 

in an appliance. 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 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. 

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 cross-reference 

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 

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’’ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
78566 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

contains two methods. Method 1—The Annualizing Method is summarized as 

follows: 

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, 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 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 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 followup verification test. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP15DE10.012</GPH> EP15DE10.013</GPH> EP15DE10.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 78567 

5As 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)). 

6The intended effect of the SNAP program is to 

expedite movement away from ozone depleting 

substances while avoiding a shift into high-risk 

substitutes posing other environmental problems. 

EPA considers energy savings, flammability, and 

toxicity, in addition to ozone depletion potential, in 

its SNAP review. 

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 crossreference 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 

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 found acceptable for use in a 

specified refrigeration or airconditioning end-use, in accordance 

with Section 612 of the Clean Air (i.e., 

the EPA Significant New Alternatives 

Policy (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 ozonedepleting substance in a given 

refrigeration or air-conditioning enduse. 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 found acceptable 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-acceptable substitute 

for R–502 in retail food refrigeration or 

commercial refrigeration). Similarly, 

refrigerants could include SNAPacceptable substitutes if such substitutes 

were/are a blend in which at least one 

of its components is an ODS (e.g., the 

use of R–401A as a SNAP-acceptable 

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. 

completes the phaseout of class II ODS, 

such as HCFC–22,5 EPA believes that it 

is not reasonable to allow an appliance 

retrofit to a substitute with an 

equivalent ODP. EPA also believes that 

a retrofit must include a change in 

refrigerant. 

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. EPA does not feel that such 

action is a retrofit. Nor does EPA believe 

that such action meets 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 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 believes 

that it is unlikely that a SNAPacceptable alternative for a specific 

refrigeration or air-conditioning end-use 

would have an equivalent ODP to the 

refrigerant being replaced.6 EPA seeks 

comment on the proposed definition of 

retrofit as it relates to the conversion of 

leaking appliances, and the likelihood 

that a SNAP-acceptable alternative for a 

specific stationary refrigeration or airconditioning end-use would have an 

equivalent ODP to the (ODS) refrigerant 

being replaced. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
78568 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

7System 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 appliance 

or the affected isolated section of the appliance, at 

least to atmospheric pressure. 

dismantling and proper disposal of the 

compliance components. Hence, 

retirement does not mean that the 

appliance is undergoing ‘‘system 

mothballing,’’ as defined at § 82.152,7

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. 

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 retire, and the distinction 

that it provides with respect to the term 

repair. 

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), retire, or replace 

leaking refrigeration and airconditioning 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 ozonedepleting 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. 

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 

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 understands 

that some level of refrigerant leakage 

from appliance valves, seals, gaskets, 

and other fittings occurs. By requiring 

owners or operators to repair ‘‘all’’ leaks 

once the leak repair trigger rate has been 

breached, it is not EPA’s intent to 

require that owners or operators address 

leaks from such fittings. However, EPA 

strongly encourages appliance owners 

or operators to address leaks from 

fittings as an additional means of 

reducing emissions, especially if 

addressing such leaks will reduce the 

leak rate of the appliance. 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 78569 

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 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 

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 

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 or 

operators must still make repairs to 

leaking appliances, but owners or 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
78570 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

COSTS AND BENEFITS OF REGULATORY OPTIONS—Continued 

Option Costs 

(million dollars) 

Benefits 

(ODP-weighted 

tonnes) 

Monetized Benefits 

at 3% discount rate 

(million dollars) 

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

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

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 or operators to decide 

upon the necessary action needed to 

repair leaking appliances, and also 

provides for additional environmental 

benefit in terms of avoided refrigerant 

emissions. 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. 

EPA requests comment on the estimated 

costs associated with this NPRM. 

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 

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 ozonedepleting 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 airconditioning equipment, leak tightness 

claims of equipment manufacturers, as 

well as testimonies from equipment 

owners or 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 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 airconditioning equipment or systems.’’ 

Under Rule 1415, SCAQMD collects the 

following information every two years 

from owners or operators of stationary 

refrigeration systems holding more than 

50 pounds of an ozone depleting 

refrigerant (http://www.aqmd.gov/ 

prdas/forms/1415form2.doc): Number of 

refrigeration systems in operation; type 

of refrigerant in each refrigeration 

system; amount of refrigerant in each 

refrigeration system; date of the last 

annual audit or maintenance performed 

for each refrigeration system; and the 

amount of additional refrigerant charged 

every year. For the purposes of the rule, 

additional refrigerant charge is defined 

as the quantity of refrigerant (in pounds) 

charged to a refrigeration system in 

order to bring the system to a fullcapacity 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 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 78571 

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 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, 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 enduse 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 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
78572 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 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 

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 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 or 

costs 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/ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 78573 

8EPA provides anecdotes about multiple repairs 

in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0167. 

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. 

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 or 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.8 A benefit of this 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 oneyear 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 sixmonth 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 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 or 

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; 

• 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
78574 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

9 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. 

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. 

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 

non-ODS 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 R–134a, 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-acceptable HFC substitute such 

as R–134a or R–410A (both non-ODS 

substitutes). EPA believes that this 

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) 9 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. 

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 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 

federally-owned 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 

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 sixmonth timeframe, provided that they 

fulfill the recordkeeping requirements 

discussed below. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 78575 

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 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 airconditioning sectors. Therefore, EPA 

proposes to remove the definition of 

industrial process shutdown and all 

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 sixmonth period, that occur as a result of 

a failed initial or follow-up 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 sixmonth 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. 

• The owner or operator repaired all 

leaks within 30 days of the calculated 

leak rate that showed a rate greater than 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
78576 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

10EPA 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)). 

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 sixmonth 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 

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. 

As with all other records associated 

with the leak repair requirement, 

owners or operators would be required 

to maintain these service records onsite, 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. 

EPA believes that such records are being 

kept at the physical locations of the 

appliances, but seeks comment on this 

issue. 

2. Records Documenting the Fate of 

Recovered Refrigerant 

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 reclaimed 10 (68 FR 43793; July 

24, 2003). 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 78577 

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 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 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 

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 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
78578 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 lowpressure chillers (e.g., R–11, R–113, R– 

123) to collect accumulated noncondensable 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 onsite 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 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 datarecording; 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 

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 statutory refrigerant venting 

prohibition (CAA Section 608(c)(1)) 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 

(§ 82.154(a)(1) and (2)). 

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 or operators of airconditioning and refrigeration 

appliances with ozone-depleting 

refrigerant charge sizes greater than 50 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 78579 

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 

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 or 

operators must still make repairs to 

leaking appliances, but owners or 

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. 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 or operators 

to decide upon the necessary action 

needed to repair leaking appliances, and 

also provides for additional 

environmental benefit in terms of 

avoided refrigerant emissions. 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 or 

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 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. EPA 

has requested comment on the 

estimated costs attributable to today’s 

NPRM. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
78580 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

document prepared by EPA has been 

assigned EPA ICR number 1626.10. 

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 or 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 or 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 

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. 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. 

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. 

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. 

EPA–HQ–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 December 15, 2010, a 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by January 14, 2011. 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 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 or 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. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 78581 

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.’’ 

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 ozone-depleting 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 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 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 airconditioning 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 

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 airconditioning and refrigeration 

equipment (i.e., appliances) with ozonedepleting 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
78582 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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 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 low-income 

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 airconditioning 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. 

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. 

Dated: December 7, 2010. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 82, of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be 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: 

§ 82.150 Purpose and scope. 

(a) 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. 

* * * * * 

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,’’ ‘‘Custom-built,’’ ‘‘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 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 

(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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 78583 

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. 

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: 

* * * * * 

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), 

c. By adding and reserving paragraph 

(k), 

d. By adding paragraphs (l) amd (m). 

§ 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 follow-up 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 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). 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP15DE10.015</GPH>
78584 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(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 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 follow-up 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 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 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 sixmonth 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 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 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 78585 

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 sixmonth 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, o-rings, or valves; the 

plan for the disposition of recovered 

refrigerant; the plan for the disposition 

of the appliance, if retired; and a sixmonth 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 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. 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. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31337 Filed 12–14–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3