Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0032
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Amendments to the Section 608 Leak Repair Requirements
Posted Date: 2010-12-15T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78558-78585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31337]

[[Page 78557]]

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

Part VI

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 82

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Amendments to the Section 608 Leak 
Repair Requirements; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 78558]]

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

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 air-
conditioning equipment (i.e., appliances) with ozone-depleting 
refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds. This action proposes to 
streamline existing required practices and associated reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements by establishing similar leak repair 
requirements for owners or operators of comfort cooling, commercial 
refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration appliances. This 
action also proposes to reduce the use and emissions of class I and 
class II controlled substances (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

[[Page 78559]]

    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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            North American Industry
                Category                   Classification (NAIC) Code        Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial Process Refrigeration (IPR)..  311, 325, 3118, 3254,        Owners or operators of refrigeration
                                           31212, 324110, 312111,       equipment used in the manufacture of
                                           312112, 312113, 713940.      pharmaceuticals, frozen food, dairy
                                                                        products, baked goods, food and
                                                                        beverages, petrochemicals, chemicals,
                                                                        ice rinks, ice manufacturing.
Commercial Refrigeration................  45291, 49312, 49313,         Owners or operators of refrigerated
                                           445110, 445120, 447110.      warehousing and storage facilities,
                                                                        supermarket, grocery, warehouse clubs,
                                                                        supercenters, convenience stores,
                                                                        refrigerated warehousing and storage.
Comfort Cooling.........................  72, 622, 6111, 6112, 6113,   Owners or operators of air-conditioning
                                           531312.                      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 ozone-depleting substances 
(ODS) used as refrigerants,\1\ such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and 
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), during the maintenance, service, or 
disposal of appliances including air-conditioning and refrigeration 
equipment. Section 608 also prohibits any person from knowingly 
venting, or from otherwise knowingly releasing or disposing of ODS used 
as refrigerants during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of 
air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Refrigerant 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 78560]]

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 air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment. This prohibition applies 
unless EPA determines that such venting, releasing, or disposing does 
not pose a threat to the environment.

III. Leak Repair Regulations

    Final regulations promulgated under section 608 of the Act, 
published on May 14, 1993 (58 FR 28660), established a recycling 
program for ozone-depleting refrigerants recovered during the servicing 
and maintenance of air-conditioning and refrigeration appliances. 
Together with the prohibition on venting during the maintenance, 
service, repair and disposal of class I and class II ODS (January 22, 
1991; 56 FR 2420), these regulations were intended to substantially 
reduce the use and emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants.
    The May 14, 1993 regulations established leak repair requirements 
to further minimize emissions of class I and class II substances. The 
rule states that appliances that hold a refrigerant charge greater than 
50 pounds are subject to the leak repair requirements. An annual leak 
rate of 35 percent was established for industrial process refrigeration 
and commercial refrigeration appliances, while an annual leak rate of 
15 percent was established for comfort cooling appliances. Where the 
leak rate is exceeded, the appliance must be repaired within 30 days. 
These regulations were amended August 8, 1995, to provide greater 
flexibility to owners 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 Sec.  82.152) with a refrigerant 
full charge greater than 50 pounds. Refrigerant is defined at Sec.  
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 Sec.  82.156 do not grant an exemption to the statutory 
venting prohibition for refrigerants or their non-ODS 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

[[Page 78561]]

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 ozone-depleting 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 Sec.  82.156 and Sec.  82.166, respectively) by 
proposing the following:
     Lower applicable leak rates for currently regulated 
appliances;
     Require written verification of all repair attempts for 
comfort cooling and commercial appliances, and not just industrial 
process refrigeration equipment (as currently required);
     Exempt addition of refrigerant due to ``seasonal 
variances'' from the existing leak repair requirements;
     Allow all appliance owners/operators additional time to 
complete repairs due to unavailability of components, and not just 
industrial process refrigeration equipment (as currently required);
     Require service technicians to maintain records on the 
fate of refrigerant that is recovered from but not returned to 
appliances during service;
     Decrease the amount of time allowed for the completion of 
currently required retrofit/retirement plans.
    EPA believes that the proposed changes will meet the Clean Air Act 
requirement, at CAA 608(a)(3), for the Agency to promulgate regulations 
that reduce use and emissions of ozone-depleting to the lowest 
achievable level, and maximize the recapture and recycling of such 
substances. EPA estimates that the proposed amendments to the current 
regulatory scheme will result in total expected environmental benefits, 
in terms of avoided ODS refrigerant emissions, is 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 
ozone-depleting refrigerant impacted by this NPRM, HCFC-22 (or R-22), 
between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2019 is approximately 35,000 
ODP \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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The 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.
    \3\ This 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 78562]]

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 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.

    EPA requests comment on the inclusion of users to the purpose and 
scope of Subpart F, specifically as it applies to the leak repair 
provisions for appliances with ozone-depleting refrigerant charges 
greater than 50 pounds.

B. Definitions

1. Comfort Cooling Appliance
    The leak repair requirements have placed refrigeration and air-
conditioning equipment (i.e., appliances) into three categories: 
comfort cooling (air-conditioning), commercial refrigeration, and 
industrial process refrigeration appliances. However, EPA has not 
included a definition of comfort cooling appliance in Subpart F at 
Sec.  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 Sec.  82.152 that reads as follows: ``Comfort cooling 
appliance means any air-conditioning appliance used to provide cooling 
in order to control heat and/or humidity in facilities, such as office 
buildings and computer rooms. Comfort cooling appliances include 
building chillers, as well as roof-top self-contained units typically 
used to cool small to medium-size office and light commercial 
buildings. Chillers that would be subject to the leak repair 
requirements include, but are not limited to, those using R-12, R-11, 
and R-123. Self-contained units that provide comfort cooling that would 
be captured by the proposed definition of comfort cooling appliance 
include, but are not limited to, those using R-22.'' EPA seeks comment 
on the applicability of the proposed definition of comfort cooling 
appliance to air-conditioning equipment that is typically used to 
provide cooling/humidity controlled environments.
2. Commercial Refrigeration Appliance
    For the purposes of the leak repair requirements, EPA currently 
defines commercial refrigeration appliance as:

    The refrigeration appliances used in the retail food and cold 
storage warehouse sectors. Retail includes the refrigeration 
equipment found in supermarkets, convenience stores, restaurants and 
other food service establishments. Cold storage includes the 
equipment used to store meat, produce, dairy products, and other 
perishable goods. All of the equipment contains large refrigerant 
charges, typically over 75 pounds.

    EPA's definition of commercial refrigeration appliance is not 
limited to the supermarket and grocery store refrigeration systems used 
to store perishable food items. The definition

[[Page 78563]]

also includes appliances using ozone-depleting 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 78564]]

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 Sec.  82.152 to read in 
part: ``those tests that involve checking the repairs within 30 days of 
the appliance's returning to normal operating characteristics and 
conditions. Follow-up verification tests for appliances from which the 
refrigerant charge has been evacuated means a test conducted after the 
appliance or portion of the appliance has resumed operation at normal 
operating characteristics and conditions of temperature and pressure, 
except in cases where sound professional judgment dictates that these 
tests will be more meaningful if performed prior to the return to 
normal operating characteristics 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  82.156. By definition (of leak rate 
at Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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''

[[Page 78566]]

contains two methods. Method 1--The Annualizing Method is summarized as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE10.012

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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE10.013

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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE10.014

EPA seeks comment on the proposed changes to the definition of leak 
rate. In particular, EPA requests comment on the clarity provided by 
linking leak rate to the requirement to perform and successfully pass 
an initial and follow-up verification test.

[[Page 78567]]

8. Normal Operating Characteristics or Conditions
    The current definition of Normal operating characteristics or 
conditions, found at Sec.  82.152, means for the purposes of Sec.  
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 Sec.  82.156(i). EPA does not see a 
need to cross-reference the required practices, so the Agency is 
proposing to remove the reference to Sec.  82.156(i). Therefore the 
reference to Sec.  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 Sec.  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 air-conditioning 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 Sec.  82.152 means any chemical or product, 
whether existing or new, that is used by any person as an EPA approved 
replacement for a class I or II ozone-depleting substance in a given 
refrigeration or air-conditioning end-use. Whereas, a refrigerant, as 
defined at Sec.  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 SNAP-acceptable 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 (Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As of January 1, 2010, EPA has banned the production and 
importation of HCFC-142b and HCFC-22, except for use in equipment 
manufactured before 1/1/2010 (so no production or importing for NEW 
equipment that uses these refrigerants). As of January 21, 2003, no 
person may import class II ODS (such as HCFC-22) in excess of their 
EPA granted consumption allowance (40 CFR 82.15(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 SNAP-acceptable 
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 air-
conditioning end-use would have an equivalent ODP to the (ODS) 
refrigerant being replaced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 78568]]

dismantling and proper disposal of the compliance components. Hence, 
retirement does not mean that the appliance is undergoing ``system 
mothballing,'' as defined at Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ System mothballing means the intentional shutting down of a 
refrigeration appliance undertaken for an extended period of time by 
the owners or operators of that facility, where the refrigerant has 
been evacuated from the appliance or the affected isolated section 
of the appliance, at least to atmospheric pressure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 air-
conditioning equipment (i.e., appliances) that cannot be successfully 
repaired or maintained. One of the goals of the leak repair regulations 
is to address the repair and maintenance of appliances with large 
refrigerant charges, particularly as they age. Via regulation, EPA has 
intended to reduce the use and emissions of ozone-depleting 
refrigerants by requiring owners or operators of appliances to 
effectively address leaks in their appliances, and to replace, 
retrofit, or retire appliances that cannot be effectively repaired, 
hence breaking cycles of repeat repair attempts followed by refrigerant 
recharges. EPA has occasionally found that owners or operators of 
appliances make repair attempts followed by refrigerant recharge 
multiple times, sometimes over the span of just a few months. Such 
repetitive actions unnecessarily increase emissions of refrigerant to 
the atmosphere. These actions are amplified when taking into account 
the large charge size of some appliances.
    EPA's aim is to reduce emissions by breaking the cycle of repair 
and recharge of appliances. Often owners or operators state that they 
always make repairs, and in some refrigeration end-uses, repairs must 
be made in order to remain in business. EPA does not dispute this 
point, but repeated repair attempts, without verifying repairs, 
followed by additional refrigerant recharges have adverse effects on 
the environment. In many instances, repeated repair attempts result in 
hundreds of pounds of refrigerant released into the atmosphere by one 
appliance. The aim of the leak repair regulations is to reduce 
emissions of refrigerants to the lowest achievable level by addressing 
leaks, specifically components with common failures. Repeat component 
failures may be an indication of a greater maintenance issue or the end 
of the equipment's useful lifetime.
    The required practices at Sec.  82.156 currently require owners or 
operators of industrial process refrigeration (Sec.  82.156(i)(2)), 
comfort cooling (Sec.  82.156(i)(5)), and commercial refrigeration 
appliances (Sec.  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

[[Page 78569]]

leak rate. Leak rate, as currently defined at Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Monetized Benefits
                      Option                         Costs  (million      Benefits  (ODP-    at 3% discount rate
                                                         dollars)         weighted tonnes)     (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

[[Page 78570]]

 
    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 Sec.  82.156 to allow that appliance 
to continue to leak above the trigger rate without making and verifying 
the efficacy of repairs in a timely manner. EPA would expect that 
appliances would undergo more repairs as they age. It is also expected 
that the overwhelming majority of appliances that are at least 10 years 
of age would contain ozone-depleting refrigerants. The result is that 
it is reasonable to expect that the majority of older ODS appliances 
will leak with more frequency in the near future, thus increasing the 
likelihood that incidences of repair attempts and refrigerant recharges 
would increase over time for these aging appliances.
    Therein lies the benefit of the leak repair regulations. A 
prohibition against venting in itself may not stop the cycle of 
unsuccessful repair attempts followed by refrigerant recharge, and a 
breach of the leak repair trigger rates does not automatically mean a 
violation of the leak repair required practices. A breach of the leak 
repair trigger rates sets a chain of events that will address the 
appliance as a whole by requiring a timely repair, verification, and 
possible retirement of the entire appliance if it shows a history of 
leak events.
    Again, EPA is not making claims as to the optimal leak rate for 
different types of appliances, but on the ability of appliance owners 
or operators to address those leaks within 30 days of when the proposed 
leak repair rates are triggered. However, EPA notes that it has made 
efforts to set leak repair trigger rates that are based on historical 
service records of actual refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment, 
leak tightness claims of equipment manufacturers, as well as 
testimonies from equipment owners 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 air-conditioning 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 full-capacity charge and replace 
refrigerant that has leaked.
    EPA has reviewed data for over 4,750 pieces of equipment from 
SCAQMD covering the time-period 2004 through 2005. The data includes 
refrigeration and air-conditioning systems 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

[[Page 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 end-use sectors (i.e., comfort cooling, commercial 
refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration). The Agency seeks 
comment on this expectation and also requests substantiating leak data 
from owners or operators of comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration, 
and industrial process refrigeration appliances.
    Again, it is not EPA's intention to estimate the lowest achievable 
leak rate for existing equipment. However, review of actual leak data 
does reinforce the notion that repair of leaks beneath 20 and 10 
percent within 30 days is achievable, and would reduce emissions of 
ODS. EPA seeks comments on the ability or lack thereof of owners or 
operators of commercial refrigeration and comfort cooling and 
industrial process refrigeration appliances to repair leaks within 30 
days when their appliances leak above the proposed leak repair trigger 
rates of 20 percent for industrial process refrigeration and commercial 
refrigeration appliances and 10 percent for comfort cooling 
refrigeration appliances.
2. Addition of Refrigerant Due to Seasonal Variances
    The proposed leak repair required practices require that the owner 
or operator determine the full charge of the appliance in order to 
determine the leak rate of the leaking appliance. In today's NPRM, EPA 
has proposed to amend the definition of ``full charge'' to mean:

the amount of refrigerant required for normal operating characteristics 
and conditions of the appliance as determined by using one of the 
following four methods: (1) Use the equipment manufacturer's 
determination of the full charge; (2) Use of calculations based on 
component sizes, density of refrigerant, volume of piping, seasonal 
variances, and 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

[[Page 78572]]

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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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/

[[Page 78573]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA provides anecdotes about multiple repairs in Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also proposes to shorten the one-year timeframe that is 
currently granted to owners or operators to complete appliance 
retrofit/retirement plans. The Agency does not wish to allow 
refrigerant emissions from faulty equipment by allowing an extensive 
amount of time to pass before appliance owners or operators complete 
required retrofit/retirement plans. EPA proposes a six-month timeframe 
to complete retrofit/retirement plans for appliances that have 
encountered three failed verification tests (either initial or follow-
up) within a consecutive six-month period. EPA provides further 
discussion of this proposed requirement in the ``Worst Leaker'' section 
of this preamble.
    EPA has often been asked what should be included in a retrofit/
retirement plan. The Agency has not previously mandated a specified 
listing of items to be included in retrofit/retirement plans due to the 
complex nature of many appliances. The Agency felt that one 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 78574]]

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 Sec.  
82.154. It remains a violation of Section 608(c)(2) of the Act as well 
as the regulatory prohibition at Sec.  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 (Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\  Industrial process shutdown means, for the purposes of 
Sec.  82.156(i), that an industrial process or facility temporarily 
ceases to operate or manufacture whatever is being produced at that 
facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 (Sec.  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 (Sec.  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 (Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 (Sec.  
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 six-month timeframe, provided 
that they fulfill the recordkeeping requirements discussed below.

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  82.166(o).
    EPA is limiting extensions based on the current extensions for leak 
repair, at Sec.  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 Sec.  82.156(i)(4)(iii), would be contingent upon 
written and retained documents noting the reason for the extension, in 
accordance with proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  82.166(o). EPA requests comment on the proposed changes to the 
required practices.
    EPA also proposes to remove the 120-day exemption when owners or 
operators of industrial process refrigeration appliances undergo an 
industrial process shutdown. EPA believes that, under the proposed 
approach, the120 day delay is no longer justified. All impacted 
appliance owners or operators have the option of system mothballing 
their appliances, which temporarily suspends all leak repair related 
timeframes. The Agency sees no reason why owners or operators of 
industrial process refrigeration appliances should be singled out for 
an additional exemption that is not also provided in other 
refrigeration and air-conditioning sectors. Therefore, EPA proposes to 
remove the definition of industrial process shutdown and all references 
to the definitions in the required practices of Sec.  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 Sec.  82.156(m).
    The first proposed option would require the retrofit to a 
refrigerant or substitute with a lower ODP or retirement of the entire 
appliance if it experiences three component replacements during a 
consecutive six-month period, that occur as a result of a failed 
initial or follow-up verification. This proposal would be linked to the 
aforementioned option of requiring a complete component change within 
30 days of a failed initial or follow-up verification tests.
    The second proposed option would require the retrofit to a 
refrigerant or substitute with a lower ODP, or retirement of the entire 
appliance, if it fails three initial or follow-up verifications during 
a consecutive six-month period. The second option is linked to the 
previously discussed proposal allowing owners or operators to decide on 
a case-by-case basis if a component or its subassembly requires 
replacement in order to completely repair the appliance. EPA prefers 
this second option, and believes that this second option provides the 
greatest level of flexibility to appliance owner or operator, while 
addressing the unwanted environmental consequences of cyclic repair 
attempts that may not adequately address the underlying cause of the 
appliance leak/s. This option allows the owner or operator to determine 
the best cause of action to address the leaking appliance, while 
reducing the likelihood of entering into a cycle of inept repair 
attempts. EPA requests comments on the proposed options, and the 
potential that each has to reduce refrigerant emissions.
    A likely scenario that would trigger the second proposed option 
would be a comfort cooling appliance with an R-22 charge of 800 lbs 
that encounters three separate repair incidents during a consecutive 6-
month period, where all of the following apply:
     Each of the three repair incidents during the consecutive 
6-month period is undertaken to repair leak(s) identified as a result 
of an addition of refrigerant where the calculated leak rate of the 
appliance (as proposed at Sec.  82.152) is greater than 10 percent each 
time, and a record documenting the amount of refrigerant added is 
maintained in accordance with Sec.  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

[[Page 78576]]

10 percent, as required by proposed Sec.  82.156(i).
     Immediately after each repair attempt, an initial 
verification test was performed and documented in accordance with the 
proposed Sec.  82.156(i) and Sec.  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 Sec.  82.156(i) and Sec.  82.166(k).
    In this scenario, any combination of three failed initial or 
follow-up verifications during a consecutive six-month period, 
regardless if the appliance leaked at the identical component, would 
trigger the requirement to develop and implement the six-month retrofit 
or retirement plan. The owner or operator must make plans to either 
retire or retrofit the appliance, in accordance with the proposed Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  82.152. The retrofit, as defined at Sec.  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 Sec.  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 on-site, at the location of the affected appliance, for 
a minimum of three years. The submission of such records to EPA would 
not be required, but they must be made immediately available upon 
request. EPA believes that this enhanced recordkeeping requirement is 
consistent with records that are likely provided by service personnel. 
EPA requests comment on the effectiveness of this proposal in 
establishing a consistent regulatory structure that will provide 
appliance owners or operators with sufficient information to make 
decisions on the fate of their appliance. EPA also seeks comment on 
whether this proposal provides sufficient information for appliance 
owners or operators to maintain compliance with the leak repair 
requirements, by maintaining a record of the calculated leak rate upon 
each addition of refrigerant.
    EPA is also clarifying the recordkeeping retention requirement of 
Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA does not restrict the sale and distribution of used 
refrigerant when that refrigerant is being transferred between or 
among a parent company and one or more of its subsidiaries, or 
between or among subsidiaries having the same parent company (40 CFR 
82.154(g)(4)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 78578]]

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 Sec.  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 low-pressure chillers (e.g., R-11, R-113, 
R-123) to collect accumulated non-condensable gases from the appliance. 
When leaks occur in such systems they act as a vacuum bringing air into 
the system. The purge devices release the air to the atmosphere, but 
also release a small quantity of refrigerant during the purge events. 
EPA has allowed exemptions to the leak repair requirements in instances 
where appliance owners or operators can show that purged refrigerants 
are captured and subsequently destroyed.
    The current leak repair reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
at Sec.  82.166(p)(1), provide details used to obtain an exemption; 
owners or operators who wish to exclude purged refrigerants that are 
recovered and destroyed from annual leak rate calculations must 
maintain records on-site to support and document the amount of 
refrigerant sent for destruction. Records are based on a monitoring 
strategy that provides reliable data to demonstrate that the recovered 
purged refrigerant has been destroyed to at least 98 percent 
destruction efficiency. In accordance with Sec.  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 data-
recording; and a description of the control device and its destruction 
efficiency. The information must also be included in any applicable 
reporting requirements that are required for compliance with the leak 
repair and retrofit requirements for industrial process refrigeration 
appliances, as currently set forth in paragraphs Sec.  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 (Sec.  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 
air-conditioning 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

[[Page 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Monetized benefits
                      Option                         Costs  (million      Benefits  (ODP-    at 3% discount rate
                                                         dollars)         weighted tonnes)     (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

[[Page 78580]]

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

[[Page 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 
ozone-depleting 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 air-conditioning appliances with 
ODS refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds. These changes are not 
expected to increase the impacts on children's health from 
stratospheric ozone depletion. The public is invited to submit comments 
or identify peer-reviewed 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 air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment (i.e., appliances) with ozone-
depleting refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds, and proposes to 
amend the recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the 
refrigerant leak repair required practices. We have concluded that this

[[Page 78582]]

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 air-conditioning equipment (i.e., appliances) by 
requiring repair and associated recordkeeping of such appliances that 
leak ozone-depleting refrigerants. An overall reduction in the emission 
rates of such appliances will provide protection to all populations and 
will not have a disproportionately high adverse human health or 
environmental impact on minority or low-income populations.

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:

Sec.  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.''

Sec.  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

[[Page 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE10.015

* * * * *
    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).

Sec.  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 Sec.  82.166(r). The determination of the leak rate must be 
maintained in accordance with Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  82.166(o).

[[Page 78584]]

    (iii) Other applicable Federal, State, or local regulations make a 
repair within 30 days impossible, and where such records are maintained 
in accordance with Sec.  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 
Sec.  82.166(r). The determination of the leak rate must be maintained 
in accordance with Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 six-month schedule to either permanently retire the entire appliance 
from operation or retrofit the appliance for use with a substitute with 
a lower ozone-depleting potential. The retrofit or retirement plan must 
be maintained on-site at the physical location of the affected 
appliance, in accordance with Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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).

Sec.  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

[[Page 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 six-month schedule to 
retrofit or retire the leaking appliance, where required in Sec.  
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 six-month schedule for the complete 
retrofit or retirement of the appliance.
    (o) Owners or operators of appliances who are unable to complete 
repairs in 30 days due to radiological conditions, unavailability of 
components, or government regulations must 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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