[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 11, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1972-1993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-429]



[[Page 1971]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 82



Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Leak Repair Requirements for 
Appliances Using Substitute Refrigerants; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2005 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 1972]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-7858-7]
RIN 2060-AM05


Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Leak Repair Requirements for 
Appliances Using Substitute Refrigerants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the rule 
on mandatory leak repair of appliances, promulgated under section 608 
of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), to clarify how the requirements of 
section 608 extend to appliances using substitutes for 
chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) 
refrigerants. This final rule affects the owners and operators of 
comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration, and industrial process 
refrigeration (IPR) appliances with regard to leak repair provisions 
promulgated under section 608 of the Act. Certain aspects of this 
action will also affect Federal owners and operators of commercial and 
comfort-cooling appliances normally containing more than 50 pounds of 
refrigerant. This rule supplements a statutory and self-effectuating 
prohibition on venting substitutes to the atmosphere that became 
effective on November 15, 1995 (i.e., section 608(c)(2) of the Act). 
EPA is amending the current leak repair requirements for refrigeration 
and air-conditioning equipment (i.e., appliances) containing CFC and 
HCFC refrigerants to accommodate the proliferation of new refrigerants 
on the market. In addition to amending the leak repair requirements, 
this final rule extends the leak repair provisions of section 608 to 
appliances using substitutes consisting in whole or in part of a class 
I or class II ozone-depleting substance (ODS).

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 14, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Materials related to this rulemaking are contained in EPA 
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Docket OAR-2003-0167. Docket OAR-
2003-0167 is the electronic version of the legacy OAR Docket No. A-92-
01. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index. 
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 
available, i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Publicly 
available docket materials are available in hard copy at the OAR Docket 
at Room B108, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.; Washington, DC, 20460. This 
Docket Facility is open from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (202) 
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information concerning this rulemaking 
should be forwarded to Julius Banks; U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency; Global Programs Division-Stratospheric Program Implementation 
Branch; Mail Code 6205-J; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.; Washington, DC 
20460. The Stratospheric Ozone Information Hotline (800-296-1996) and 
the Ozone Web page, http://www.epa.gov/ozone, can also be reached for 
further information.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The contents of this action's preamble are 
listed in the following outline:
I. General Information
    A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
    B. How Can I Get Copies of Related Information?
    1. Docket
    2. Electronic Access
II. Overview
    A. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act
    B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Regarding Recycling of 
Substitutes for CFC and HCFC Refrigerants
III. Final Rule
    A. Overview
    B. Definitions
    1. Full Charge
    2. Leak Rate
    a. Comments on Option 1--Use of Annualizing Method
    b. Comments on Option 2--Use of EPA's Rolling Average Method
    c. Comments on Option 3--Use of the Method Yielding the Highest 
Leak Rate
    d. Comments on Option 4--Owners or Operators Leak Rate Method of 
Choice
    C. Required Practices for Leak Repair
    1. Comfort Cooling Appliances
    2. Commercial Refrigeration
    3. Industrial Process Refrigeration (IPR)
    4. Cross-sector Issues
    5. Extension of Leak Repair Requirements to HFC and PFC 
Appliances
    6. Clarification of Leak Repair Requirements
    a. Scenario 1
    b. Scenario 2
    c. Scenario 3
    d. Scenario 4
    e. Scenario 5
    D. Recordkeeping for Leak Repair
    1. Applicability to Substitutes
    a. General Service and Repair Recordkeeping and Reporting
    b. Extension of 30-day Repair Requirement
    c. Notification Due to Failed Verification Test
    d. Relief From the Obligation To Retrofit or Replace an 
Appliance
    e. Relief From 30-day Repair Requirement Due to Adoption of 
Retrofit/Retirement Plan
    f. Additional Time for Retirement or Retrofit
    g. Omission of Purged Refrigerant From Leak Rate Calculations
    2. Retrofit/Retire Using Lower Ozone-Depleting Potential (ODP) 
Refrigerants
    3. Minor Clarifications
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. The Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    Entities potentially regulated by this action include those who 
own, operate, maintain, service, or repair comfort cooling, commercial 
refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration appliances. 
Regulated entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                  Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..........................  Technicians who service, maintain,
                                     repair, air-conditioning and
                                     refrigeration equipment.
                                    Owners and operators of comfort
                                     cooling, commercial refrigeration,
                                     and industrial process
                                     refrigeration equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 1973]]

criteria contained in section 608 of the CAA Amendments of 1990. The 
applicability criteria are discussed below and in regulations published 
on December 30, 1993 (58 FR 69638). 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. How Can I Get Copies of Related Information?

1. Docket
    EPA has established an official public docket for this action at 
OAR Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0167. The official public docket consists of 
the documents specifically referenced in this action and other 
information related to this action. Hard copies of documents related to 
previous refrigerant recycling and emissions reduction rulemakings and 
other actions may be found in legacy EPA Air Docket ID No. A-92-01. The 
public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The 
public docket is available for viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket 
in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public 
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Air and 
Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742. EPA may charge a reasonable fee for 
copying docket materials.
2. Electronic Access
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, ``EPA Dockets.'' You 
may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket to view public 
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official 
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that 
are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,'' 
then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

II. Overview

    Effective November 15, 1995, section 608(c)(2) of the Act prohibits 
the knowing venting, release, or disposal of any substitute for CFC and 
HCFC refrigerants 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.
    On June 11, 1998, EPA proposed (63 FR 32044) to strengthen the 
existing leak repair requirements for commercial, comfort cooling, and 
industrial process refrigeration (IPR) appliances containing CFCs and 
HCFCs. Tightening of the leak rates was proposed because EPA believed 
that manufacturer design changes have lowered achievable leak rates. 
EPA also proposed to extend the leak repair requirements to appliances 
using substitutes that the Agency did not propose to exempt from the 
statutory venting prohibition (i.e., hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) and 
perfluorocarbon (PFC) substitutes).
    Today's final rule clarifies how the leak repair requirements apply 
to substitutes for class I and class II ODSs. Today's final rule also 
extends the leak repair requirements to appliances containing HFC 
blends that contain an ODS. However, today's rule does not finalize the 
proposals to tighten the existing leak repair trigger rates or extend 
the leak repair requirements to substitutes that do not contain an ODS.

A. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act

    Section 608 of the CAA requires EPA to establish a comprehensive 
program to limit emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. Section 608 
also prohibits the knowingly venting or otherwise knowingly release or 
disposal of ozone-depleting refrigerants and their substitutes during 
the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of air-conditioning and 
refrigeration appliances.
    Section 608 is divided into three subsections. In brief, the first, 
section 608(a), requires EPA to promulgate regulations to reduce the 
use and emission of class I substances (i.e., CFCs, halons, carbon 
tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform) and class II substances (HCFCs) 
to the lowest achievable level, and to maximize the recycling of such 
substances. Second, 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) establishes self-effectuating prohibitions on the knowingly 
venting, release or disposal 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.
    Section 608(a) provides EPA authority to promulgate the 
requirements in today's rule. Section 608(a) 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'' EPA's authority to promulgate 
regulations regarding use of class I and II substances (including 
requirements to use alternatives) is sufficiently broad to include 
requirements on how to use alternatives.
    Section 608(c) provides in paragraph (1) 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 (Sec.  82.154(a)).
    EPA is promulgating leak repair regulations to implement and 
clarify the requirements of section 608(c)(2), which extends the 
prohibition on venting to substitutes for CFC and HCFC refrigerants. 
These regulations also carry out its mandate under section 608(a) to 
minimize emissions of ozone-depleting substances to the lowest 
achievable level.

B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Regarding Recycling of 
Substitutes for CFC and HCFC Refrigerants

    On June 11, 1998, EPA published an NPRM (63 FR 32044) outlining 
requirements for substitutes for CFC and HCFC refrigerants. In that 
notice, EPA proposed regulations under section 608 of the Act to amend 
the leak repair requirements and reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements of 40 CFR part 82, subpart F (promulgated under section 
608 of the Act).

[[Page 1974]]

    In the NPRM, EPA proposed to extend the leak repair requirements 
for ozone-depleting CFC and HCFC refrigerants to substitutes including 
pure and blended HFC and PFC substitutes. The proposal would have 
required owners or operators of appliances with substitute refrigerant 
charges greater than 50 pounds to repair leaks, and in some cases 
retrofit or replace appliances, when the applicable annual leak repair 
rate was exceeded. Based on improvements in equipment design and 
maintenance that have reduced leak rates, EPA also proposed to reduce 
the maximum allowable leak rates for appliances containing more than 50 
pounds of refrigerant. The proposal would have also extended the 
proposed lower leak rate to appliances using substitutes.
    The NPRM asked for public comment on the Agency's proposals and on 
the rationale behind them. The Agency received 167 public comment 
letters (comments) in response to all aspects of the NPRM. In general, 
most commenters recognized the need for mandatory recovery of 
substitutes in order to help protect the ozone layer and to provide a 
source of refrigerant to service existing capital equipment after the 
phaseout of CFC and HCFC refrigerant production is complete. The 
majority of commenters believed that the proposed amendments would 
clarify the refrigerant regulations, but many expressed concerns over 
the regulation of refrigerants that do not deplete the ozone layer.
    Today's final rule addresses the public comments received in 
response to the proposed rule as they relate to the leak repair 
requirements. Other aspects of the final rule, specifically, the 
applicability of the venting prohibition and the refrigerant sales 
restriction were addressed in a separate final rulemaking (69 FR 11946; 
March 12, 2004). The proposed requirements for the certification of 
refrigerant recovery/recycling equipment will be addressed in a 
separate rulemaking.

III. Final Rule

A. Overview

    On March 12, 2004 (69 FR 11946), EPA published a final rule 
extending a number of the required practices at Sec.  82.156 to 
substitutes consisting of an ODS. These changes were intended to 
accommodate the growing number of refrigerants, including newer blended 
HFC/HCFC substitutes that are subject to the regulations because they 
consist of a class II ODS. Such changes included the adoption of 
evacuation requirements based solely on the saturation pressures of 
refrigerants, the requirement for service apertures on appliances, and 
mandatory certification of service technicians.
    In this rule, EPA did not finalize the proposal to extend all of 
the regulations concerning emissions reduction of CFC and HCFC 
refrigerants, at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F, to pure HFC and PFC 
substitutes. The rule did not mandate any of the following proposed 
requirements from the NPRM: a sales restriction on HFC or PFC 
substitutes that do not consist of an ODS; specific evacuation levels 
for servicing appliances containing HFC or PFC substitutes that do not 
consist of an ODS; certification of recycling and recovery equipment 
intended for use with appliances containing HFC or PFC substitutes that 
do not consist of an ODS; certification of technicians who maintain, 
service, or repair appliances containing HFC or PFC substitutes that do 
not consist of an ODS; reclamation requirements for used HFC or PFC 
substitutes that do not consist of an ODS; certification of refrigerant 
reclaimers who reclaim only HFC or PFC substitutes that do not consist 
of an ODS; or leak repair requirements for appliances containing more 
than 50 pounds of HFC or PFC substitutes that do not consist of an ODS.
    Today's final rule amends the leak repair regulations at subpart F 
covering CFC and HCFC refrigerants, and extends these requirements to 
owners or operators of appliances containing substitutes that consist 
of a class I or class II ODS. EPA is finalizing the proposed amendments 
to the leak repair requirements at Sec.  82.156(i), the associated 
recordkeeping provisions at Sec.  82.166(n) and (o), the definition of 
``full charge'' at Sec.  82.152; and adding a definition for ``leak 
rate'' at Sec.  82.152. EPA also describes compliance scenarios to 
address inquiries concerning whether or not leaks that occur after 
repairs have been completed and all applicable verification tests have 
been successfully performed are considered a new leak occurrence for 
the appliance.
    EPA is not finalizing the proposal to extend the leak repair 
requirements to owners or operators of appliances using HFC or PFC 
substitutes that do not contain a class I or class II ODS. The Agency 
is not finalizing the proposal (63 FR 32066; June 11, 1998) to lower 
the permissible leak rates for air-conditioning and refrigeration 
appliances containing more than 50 pounds of an ODS refrigerant or to 
extend these requirements to appliances using HFC and PFC substitutes.

B. Definitions

1. Full Charge
    Compliance with the leak repair requirements requires calculating 
both the full charge of the appliance and the leak rate. EPA has 
previously defined 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 four methods specified at Sec.  82.152. In the NPRM, EPA 
proposed to eliminate the phrase ``for the purposes of Sec.  
82.156(i)'' and the word ``all'' from paragraph (2) in the definition 
of full charge at Sec.  82.152.
    EPA did not receive any comments concerning the removal of the 
phrase ``for the purposes of Sec.  82.156(i)'' and the word ``all'' 
from paragraph (2) in the definition of full charge at Sec.  82.152. 
EPA did receive comments on the definition of ``full charge'' that were 
outside of the scope of the proposed changes.
    EPA received no adverse comments to the proposed editorial change; 
therefore, EPA is finalizing the proposal to eliminate the phrase ``for 
the purposes of Sec.  82.156(i)'' and the word ``all'' from paragraph 
(2) in the definition of full charge at Sec.  82.152, because the term 
and the phrase are implicit in that language. EPA believes that these 
changes will improve the readability of the provision by eliminating 
redundancy.
    The NPRM did not propose to alter the means by which the owner or 
operator could determine the full charge of the appliance. The edits 
were proposed to add clarity to the definition without changing the 
means by which ``full charge'' can be determined. Owners or operators 
of appliances are still required to use one or a combination of the 
four methods to determine the full charge of appliances. 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 or a combination of one of the 
following four methods:
    (1) The equipment manufacturers' determination of the correct full 
charge for the equipment;
    (2) Determining the full charge by appropriate calculations based 
on component sizes, density of refrigerant, volume of piping, and all 
other relevant considerations;
    (3) The use of actual measurements of the amount of refrigerant 
added or evacuated from the appliance; and/or
    (4) The use of an established range based on the best available 
data, regarding the normal operating characteristics and conditions for 
the

[[Page 1975]]

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).
    Hence EPA has provided flexibility in determining the full charge 
for appliances under ``normal operating characteristics.'' The onus is 
on the owner or operator of the appliance to determine the full charge 
by using one or a combination of the four methods listed in the 
definition of full charge at Sec.  82.152. The leak rate then 
determines what actions are required by the appliance owner or operator 
in order to remain in compliance with the leak repair requirements of 
Sec.  82.156.
2. Leak Rate
    EPA has not previously promulgated a formal definition for leak 
rate. In the NPRM, EPA proposed to define leak rate for the purposes of 
applying leak repair requirements in Sec.  82.156(i) for industrial 
process refrigeration, comfort cooling and commercial appliances. EPA 
proposed to add a definition in the regulations for clarity, and to 
address some of the issues raised by the regulated community concerning 
calculating leak rates in order to comply with the leak repair 
requirements contained in Sec.  82.156(i).
    EPA and the Chemical Manufacturers' Association (CMA) jointly 
issued a compliance guide for leak repair in October 1995. That guide, 
known as the Compliance Guidance for Industrial Process Refrigeration 
Leak Repair Regulations Under Section 608 of the Clean Air Act 
(Compliance Guidance), includes a section on calculating leak rates. 
The Compliance Guidance states that each time the owner or operator 
adds refrigerant to an appliance normally containing 50 pounds or more 
of refrigerant, the owner or operator should promptly calculate the 
leak rate to ensure that the appliance is not leaking at a rate that 
exceeds the applicable allowable leak rate. If the amount of 
refrigerant added indicates that the leak rate for the appliance is 
above the applicable allowable leak rate, the owner or operator must 
perform corrective action by repairing leaks, such that appliances do 
not continue to leak above the applicable leak rate, retrofitting the 
appliance, or retiring \1\ the appliance in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec.  82.156(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA considers retirement of an appliance as an action to 
permanently remove the appliance from operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Compliance Guidance specifically mentions two methods for 
calculating leak rates. The first method is referred to as the 
``annualizing method,'' because it takes the quantity of refrigerant 
(percentage of charge) lost between charges and scales it up or down to 
calculate the quantity that would be lost over a year-long period. This 
method is described in the Compliance Guidance as follows:
    (1) Take the number of pounds of refrigerant added to the appliance 
to return it to a full charge and divide it by the number of pounds of 
refrigerant that the appliance normally contains at full charge;
    (2) take the number of days that have passed since the last day 
refrigerant was added and divide by 365 days;
    (3) take the number calculated in step (1) and divide it by the 
number calculated in step (2); and
    (4) multiply the number calculated in step (3) by 100 to calculate 
a percentage.
    EPA's section 608 annualizing method is summarized in the following 
formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11JA05.008

    The second method for calculating leak rates discussed in the 
Compliance Guidance is the ``rolling average'' method. The term 
``rolling average'' is not defined in the Compliance Guidance, but EPA 
proposed (63 FR 32057) to calculate it by:
    (1) Taking the sum of the quantity of refrigerant added to the 
appliance over the previous 365-day period (or over the period that has 
passed since leaks in the appliance were last repaired, if that period 
is less than one year);
    (2) dividing the result of step one by the quantity (e.g., pounds) 
of refrigerant the appliance normally contains at full charge; and
    (3) multiplying the result of step two by 100 to obtain a 
percentage.
    EPA's section 608 rolling average method is summarized in the 
following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11JA05.009

    In the NPRM, EPA considered four options for the formal definition 
of ``leak rate.'' The first option was to require appliance owners or 
operators to calculate leak rates using only the ``annualizing'' 
method. The second proposed method was to exclusively use EPA's Rolling 
Average Method. The third proposed method was to use whichever method 
yielding the highest leak rate. The forth proposed method was to allow 
appliance owners or operators to use either method of their choosing 
provided the same method is used consistently for all appliances 
located at the facility. Discussion of the comments and EPA's decision 
on these options are detailed below.
a. Comments on Option 1--Use of Annualizing Method
    The first proposed option requiring owners or operators to 
exclusively use the annualizing method received support from 
commenters, but with some concern. Commenters generally expressed a 
comfort level with the annualizing method, and consistently noted its 
acceptance by CMA and EPA. However, several commenters expressed

[[Page 1976]]

concern over the projection of the leak rate over a 12-month period. A 
trade group representing the commercial food sector expressed concern 
that the proposed leak rate definition generates a total representing 
an amount that would have been lost per 12-month period had the leak(s) 
not been repaired rather than the amount of refrigerant actually 
released in each instance prior to repair.
    The proposed annualizing method does include the actual amount of 
refrigerant added to the appliance in its calculation of the leak rate, 
but projects or ``annualizes'' the leak rate by considering the amount 
of time that has passed between refrigerant charges. EPA understands 
commenters' concerns. For instances where owners or operators have 
leaking appliances that continue to require addition of refrigerant, 
the annualizing method may result in a higher leak rate than other 
possible calculations that fail to annualize over a 12-month period, by 
looking at the leak as a one time event and a simple ratio of 
refrigerant added versus the full charge. Taking such an approach would 
allow for continued patterns of repair attempts followed by refrigerant 
recharge and subsequent release. Such a pattern is not viewed by EPA as 
advantageous to the environment since the total amount of refrigerant 
release is compounded over time. The leak repair amendments are aimed 
at preventing such patterns and requiring owners or operators to 
sufficiently repair or replace/retrofit appliances that cannot be 
sufficiently repaired.
    EPA believes that the first method (i.e., exclusive use of the 
annualizing method) has the advantage of being relatively simple and 
familiar. As a result of the compliance guidance, EPA believes that 
many owners or operators are familiar with the method and have 
incorporated the methodology into their manual and computerized 
refrigerant tracking systems and standard operating procedures dealing 
with repair of refrigerant leaks. However, EPA believes that the 
preferred approach is to provide appliance owners or operators with 
greater flexibility in calculating the ``leak rate.'' Hence EPA is not 
mandating exclusive use of the annualizing method in defining the leak 
rate.
b. Comments on Option 2--Use of EPA's Rolling Average Method
    Commenters were generally opposed to the second proposed option 
that requires owners or operators to calculate leak rates using only 
the ``rolling average'' method, because they believed it resulted in 
elevated leak rates when compared to calculating the leak rate with the 
annualizing method. Commenters stated that under this method owners of 
such appliances may be required to repair an appliance that has actual 
leak rates below accepted limits. As examples, commenters cautioned: 
(1) That the proposed formula would artificially elevate the leak rates 
on appliances with large reserve capacity; and (2) that if the number 
of days since refrigerant was last added to the system is more than 365 
days, the percent leak rate is artificially elevated, and may require a 
system to be repaired when there may be no substantial leak. An 
additional commenter noted that while the compliance guidance mentions 
the ``rolling average'' method, it was not defined until the NPRM 
proposed a definition which may have caused some inconsistency between 
industry practice and the proposed definition.
    Several commenters expressed concern over the Agency's use of 365 
days in the proposed option to include the rolling average method in 
the definition of leak rate. Commenters stated their interpretation 
that in order for the rolling average method to work, the last time 
refrigerant was added to a system has to be less than 365 days. They 
also stated that in order to calculate a true leak rate the operator 
must know both how much refrigerant was lost and over what period of 
time that loss occurred. One commenter stated that the time period must 
always equal the interval between the realization of a leak and the 
last time refrigerant was added in order to restore the system to its 
normal operating charge, thus making the number 365 useless. Several 
commenters objected to the rolling average method based on their 
understanding that the calculation assumes that all leaks have occurred 
within the past 365 days. The commenters stated that leak repairs occur 
whenever operators find them, not on a set schedule (e.g., every 365 
days). Commenters also stated that appliances with large reserve 
capacities could be negatively impacted since the full charge may not 
coincide with the operating charge.
    EPA believes that the second method (i.e., exclusive use of the 
rolling average method) is relatively simple and catches certain leaks 
(such as the sudden fast leak described in the previous paragraph) more 
quickly than the annualizing method. The disadvantage of the rolling 
average method is that it permits owners or operators to delay repair 
of certain types of leaks longer than the annualizing method and may 
not show that appliances are leaking until they have lost a relatively 
large percentage of charge; however, EPA does not find that this method 
artificially inflates leak rates for appliances with large reserve 
capacities. Appliance owners or operators have four options to 
determine the full charge and have opportunity to take reserve amounts 
under consideration when determining the full charge.
    EPA is not requiring owners or operators to determine the amount of 
refrigerant that has leaked from the appliance since the last repair, 
but the owner or operator must determine how much refrigerant has been 
added to the system within the past 12-month period or the number of 
days since refrigerant was last added in order to calculate the leak 
rate using the rolling average method. The time period of 365 days is 
meant to cover all additions of refrigerant to the appliance over a 
consecutive 12-month period, and does not imply that leaks only occur 
once per year or on any particular schedule. EPA is aware that many 
owners or operators repair appliances as soon as they realize that the 
appliance is not functioning properly; however, the goal of the leak 
repair requirements is to require owners or operators to take action on 
chronic leakers that require repair on a frequent basis. The 365-day 
time frame has significance, because it ``annualizes'' the leak rate of 
the appliance over a consecutive 12-month period, and requires 
operators and owners or operators to take action to repair, retrofit, 
or replace leaking appliances.
    In the NPRM, EPA noted that the second option was not preferable 
but wished to provide notice and comment on the proposed options for 
the definition of ``leak rate.'' Based in part upon comments received, 
and the Agency's desire to provide more flexibility to owners or 
operators in determining leak rates, EPA has decided to not finalize 
the second option requiring exclusive use of the ``rolling average'' in 
calculating the leak rate.
c. Comments on Option 3--Use of the Method Yielding the Highest Leak 
Rate
    EPA noted in the NPRM (63 FR 32058) that the third option, 
requiring use of whichever method yields the higher calculated leak 
rate, was its preferred option. This option is a more complicated 
approach (both for compliance and enforcement) than requiring the use 
of either method alone, but ensures that leaks are caught and addressed 
as quickly as possible.
    Commenters were generally opposed to the proposed third option of 
calculating leak rates by whichever method yielded a higher leak rate,

[[Page 1977]]

because it would be more burdensome on equipment owners or operators 
and EPA enforcement personnel because it requires facilities to 
calculate leak rates using both methods and maintain supporting 
documentation for both. Several commenters felt that if EPA were to 
finalize this option, that the Agency should provide multiple formula 
choices, thereby making the regulation more workable for business while 
allowing the Agency to meet its objective of reducing leaks.
    EPA is not finalizing the third proposed method for calculating the 
annual leak rate. EPA believes that the third proposed method does not 
provide a level of flexibility that is warranted for diverse appliances 
used in the commercial and IPR sectors. EPA has reconsidered the 
possible burden placed upon owners or operators who would be required 
to calculate leak rates using both methods and maintain records on both 
of the methods used to calculate leak rates. The enforcement of such a 
requirement would also be more difficult as EPA enforcement personnel 
would have to review multiple leak repair methods for different 
appliances located at the same facility. Therefore, EPA is not 
finalizing the third proposed method for calculating the annual leak 
rate. However, EPA is not opposed to considering additional 
methodologies for calculating or defining the leak rate, and may 
propose alternative methodologies in future rulemakings.
d. Comments on Option 4--Owners or Operators Leak Rate Method of Choice
    The fourth option proposed to permit owners or operators to 
calculate leak rates using either method, so long as the same method is 
always used for the same appliance, facility, or firm. While the 
majority of commenters preferred the fourth option over the other three 
options, a few commenters objected to the specification of a method for 
calculating annual leak rates and argued that the Agency's method for 
calculating leak rates should be revised to allow owners and operators 
of the equipment to use any method that is technically sound and 
consistently used for determining annual leak rates. The commenter 
noted that this would address situations where the EPA/CMA methods do 
not permit the accurate determination of leak rates. One commenter 
believed that the Agency should provide two or three formula choices, 
which would make the regulation more workable for business and allow 
the Agency to meet its objective of reducing leaks. The commenter 
stated that appliance owners and operators have economic and quality 
control incentives to monitor and control leaks and should be afforded 
maximum flexibility in calculating leak rates to ease and facilitate 
compliance. Another commenter noted that if employed, this method 
should not require use of the same method beyond the site or facility, 
since such a requirement could lead to the disruption of established 
programs.
    EPA did not propose additional methods of calculating the leak rate 
for incorporation into the proposed definition at Sec.  82.152. EPA 
emphasizes that the onus is on the owner or operator of the appliance 
to determine the leak rate (as defined at Sec.  82.152) upon addition 
of refrigerant. If they fail to do so, owners or operators would have 
no way of knowing what actions are required to remain in compliance 
with the leak repair requirements.
    EPA finds that while permitting appliance owners or operators to 
select either of the two methods of their choice to calculate the leak 
rate is somewhat more complicated, but could be easier for owners or 
operators to comply with if they have more experience with one method 
than the other. Both the annualizing and rolling average methods 
eventually catch all leaks above the maximum allowable rate. Because 
appliance owners or operators using the rolling average method would be 
doing so at their discretion, this approach neutralizes any equity 
concerns associated with that method. EPA believes that this option 
provides flexibility to owners or operators of appliances and permits 
them to choose whichever method they prefer. Furthermore, this option 
addresses any concerns about ambiguity or inconsistencies concerning 
the inclusion of the term ``rolling average'' in the definition of leak 
repair and owners or operators are likely to have more experience with 
one method than the other. Both the annualizing and the EPA's rolling 
average methods catch all leaks above the maximum allowable rates. 
While EPA prefers the use of the annualizing method, this fourth option 
allows owners and operators to use the method of their choice and 
neutralizes any equity concerns associated with either method.
    Therefore, with this action, EPA is defining leak rate using the 
fourth option which allows appliance owners or operators to use either 
of the two methods of their choice, provided the option chosen is used 
consistently for calculating leak rates for the lifetime of all 
appliances located at an operating facility that are subject to the 
leak repair requirements. EPA is also requiring the owner or operator 
to promptly calculate the leak rate each time an owner or operator adds 
refrigerant to a system normally containing more than 50 pounds of 
refrigerant.

C. Required Practices for Leak Repair

    In the NPRM, EPA proposed to lower the permissible leak rates for 
some air-conditioning and refrigeration appliances containing more than 
50 pounds of CFC and HCFC refrigerant. EPA also proposed to extend the 
leak repair requirements (as they would be amended) to air-conditioning 
and refrigeration appliances containing more than 50 pounds of HFC and 
PFC substitutes.
    EPA proposed to lower the permissible annual leak rate for new 
commercial refrigeration appliances to 10 percent of the charge per 
year, the permissible annual leak rate for older commercial 
refrigeration appliances to 15 percent per year, the permissible annual 
leak rate for some IPR appliances to 20 percent of the charge per year, 
the permissible annual leak rate for other new appliances (e.g., 
comfort cooling chillers) to 5 percent of the charge per year, and the 
permissible annual leak rate for other existing comfort cooling 
appliances to 10 percent of the charge per year.
1. Comfort Cooling Appliances
    EPA proposed to lower the leak rates based on indications from 
appliance manufacturers that reductions in leak rates have been most 
dramatic in comfort cooling chillers, where leak rates have been 
lowered from between 10 and 15 percent per year to less than 5 percent 
per year in many cases. In the NPRM, EPA noted that based on 
information provided by equipment manufacturers that design changes and 
leak detection technologies warranted the proposal to lower leak rates. 
EPA referenced several design changes, such as installation of high-
efficiency purge devices on low-pressure chillers, the installation of 
microprocessor-based monitoring systems that can alert system operators 
to warning signs of leakage (such as excessive purge run time), the use 
of leak-tight brazed rather than leak-prone flared connections, and the 
use of isolation valves, which permit technicians to make repairs 
without evacuating and opening the entire refrigerant circuit. In 
addition, EPA noted that the reported leak rates for new chillers all 
fall below 5 percent with the exception of the open-drive type of high 
pressure chiller which has reported leak rates between 4 and 7 percent. 
EPA requested comment on whether EPA should set a larger leak rate for 
this type of chiller.

[[Page 1978]]

    The majority of commenters were opposed to any effort to tighten 
the existing leak rates for comfort cooling appliances. Several 
commenters supported lower permissible leak rates for comfort cooling 
appliances containing more than 50 pounds of refrigerant, but only to a 
20-25%. Several commenters opposed applying more stringent leak repair 
rates to older appliances, noting that the proposed leak rates (63 FR 
32066) would be feasible only for some primary systems associated with 
secondary fluid systems and would not be feasible for most comfort 
cooling appliances. Another commenter claimed that the Agency failed to 
provide any facts to support a finding that the regulated community 
could locate and detect the small leaks. The commenter felt that at a 
permissible leak rate of 5 percent, small and perhaps undetectable 
leaks would become significant since they may result in an appliance 
leaking above the proposed 5 percent leak rate.
    Some commenters requested that the Agency consult with appliance 
owners or operators to determine if their experiences confirm original 
equipment manufacturers' claims on the leak tightness of newer 
refrigeration and air-conditioning systems before finalizing tighter 
leak rates that may not be practical. The commenter suggested that 
separate leak rate criteria be created for new site-assembled 
refrigeration units and chillers versus such equipment assembled in 
factories.
    Several commenters stated that more stringent rates for older 
appliances would cause financial and operational burdens on owners or 
operators, partially because many older systems were not designed to 
accommodate devices that reduce emission losses to the proposed level. 
Specifically, medium and high-pressure appliances for which retrofit 
high-efficiency purge systems are not available were of particular 
concern. One commenter suggested that lowering the permissible leak 
rate for newer comfort cooling units to 5 percent goes beyond the 
``lowest achievable level'' of emissions reductions required by Sec.  
608(a)(3)(A). The commenter pointed out that as these new units age, 
their leak rates will inherently increase.
    In response to comments EPA notes that the intent of the leak 
repair regulations is to require owners or operators to maintain 
appliances over their life-span. EPA recognizes that these appliances 
may leak with greater frequency as they age. By promulgating these 
regulations, EPA intends to minimize refrigerant releases by requiring 
owners or operators to take actions to maintain appliances as they age 
or retire or replace inherently leaking appliances. Replacement of 
leaking appliances has the benefit of use of newer appliances that in 
general tend to have lower refrigerant charges and fewer leak 
occurrences. These efforts insure that refrigerant emissions are 
minimized to the lowest achievable level, in accordance with section 
608 of the Clean Air Act.
    EPA believes that additional data on historical repair trends and 
leak tightness of comfort cooling appliances are warranted prior to 
lowering the leak rates. EPA intends to initiate efforts to gather data 
on the availability and effectiveness of current leak detection methods 
and equipment prior to amending the leak repair trigger rates. 
Therefore, as a part of today's action, EPA is not finalizing the 
proposal to lower the permissible leak rates for comfort cooling 
appliances containing more than 50 pounds of refrigerant to 5 and 10 
percent of the charge per year for new and existing appliances, 
respectively.
2. Commercial Refrigeration
    In the NPRM, EPA proposed that the maximum permissible leak rate 
for new commercial refrigeration equipment (commissioned after 1992) be 
lowered to 10 percent per year, and that the maximum rate for old 
commercial refrigeration equipment (commissioned in or before 1992) be 
lowered to 15 percent per year.
    EPA based the proposal to lower the leak rate in part on a study 
sponsored by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). The ORD 
study analyzed two detailed bodies of data on leakage from commercial 
refrigeration equipment, one collected by a Midwestern chain of 110 
stores and the other gathered by the South Coast Air Quality Management 
District (SCAQMD), which requires monitoring and reporting of leak 
rates from large refrigeration systems. The Midwestern chain achieved 
an average leak rate of 15 percent by establishing written procedures 
for equipment installation (including a requirement for brazed or 
``sweated'' expansion valves), a refrigerant monitoring system, and an 
equipment inspection protocol. This rate was achieved in 1992, before 
EPA's leak repair requirements were even in effect. The data collected 
by SCAQMD was based upon 440 recharging and leak testing events from 56 
different stores representing 20 different businesses. The average leak 
rate achieved by the stores was eight (8) percent of the total charge.
    The ORD report also investigated the cost-effectiveness of 
different strategies and technologies for reducing leak rates, finding 
that many of these approaches could lower leak rates significantly and 
thereby pay for themselves. The report indicated that by using a 
combination of these approaches, a number of chains had significantly 
reduced both overall refrigerant consumption and leakage from equipment 
over the previous two to eight years. Some of the most effective 
approaches included vibration elimination devices, use of high-quality 
brazed rather than mechanical connections, low emission condensers, 
stationary leakage monitors, refrigerant tracking and improved 
preventive maintenance. A few of the approaches, such as installation 
of low-emission condensers, were more applicable to new than to 
existing appliances; however, many of the approaches, such as 
refrigerant monitors, refrigerant tracking systems, and improved 
preventive maintenance, were applicable to both existing and new 
appliances. According to the report, these approaches were individually 
expected to reduce leak rates from appliances by between 5 and 40 
percent of the charge per year.
    EPA requested comment on the proposed rates, and whether the 
relatively low leak rates observed in new equipment are likely to 
persist throughout its lifetime, or whether those rates are likely to 
rise over its lifetime to approach the current leak rates of older 
equipment. EPA also requested comment on whether higher or lower rates 
might be appropriate for different types of commercial refrigeration 
equipment, given that compressor rack systems, single compressor 
systems, and self-contained units may have significantly different 
average leak rates. Finally, EPA requested comment on whether 
significant percentages (e.g., 10 percent or more) of the various types 
of commercial refrigeration equipment may be able to comply with leak 
rates of 10 or 15 percent without being totally replaced, and, if this 
is the case, whether permissible leak rates of 15 and 20 percent might 
be more achievable.
    In general, commenters were opposed to the proposed reduction in 
the maximum permissible leak rate for commercial refrigeration 
appliances. Commenters were concerned that the two studies used to set 
the new leak rates for commercial refrigeration units with charges 
greater than 50 pounds excluded small businesses and ignored the 
differences between new and old equipment. One commenter stated that 
the two studies cited by the Agency do not show that all refrigeration 
systems

[[Page 1979]]

can achieve the proposed leak rates, nor do they show that any 
regulatory requirements are needed. The commenter noted that the study 
did not comprise a statistically significant sample, and the 
information from these studies would apply to only a limited subset of 
existing and future refrigeration systems. Another commenter stated 
that the case studies referenced in the study summarize anecdotal and 
limited data by concentrating on best management practices to reduce 
maintenance costs instead of the ability for grocers to adhere to the 
proposed lower leak rates. The commenter stated that the NPRM would 
also have negative financial implications upon small independent 
grocers.
    Commenters stated that, leaks occur at seals and O-rings and are 
the result of normal wear, tear, stress, and vibration. The commenter 
noted that due to the nature of the commercial sector that grocers 
become aware of such leaks almost immediately because the equipment 
owner faces the cost of replacing lost refrigerant and the loss of 
perishable goods. Commenters also stated that depending on store 
design, leak detection can be costly, difficult, and sometimes labor 
intensive. Commenters stated that EPA should not attempt to dictate the 
type of commercial appliance used (e.g., open-drive compressors or 
direct expansion systems rather than hermetic compressors and secondary 
loop systems) in order to justify lowering the leak rates.
    EPA received comment that tightening of leak rates for the 
commercial sector would negatively impact small independent grocers. 
Commenters noted that the life expectancy of a refrigerant case is 
typically 20-25 years and argued that the rule will require many 
independent grocers to purchase new commercial refrigeration equipment 
to lower their annual leak rates to comply with the new requirements. A 
commenter explained that for those grocers still legally using older 
CFC-based equipment, that it may be impossible to attain a 10 or 15 
percent leak rate. The only viable options would be for the grocers to 
either close or purchase new equipment.
    EPA acknowledges that neither of the studies differentiated between 
new and old appliances. The cited studies include in their analyses 
commercial refrigeration appliances that are commonly available in the 
commercial sector. EPA does not believe that the type of appliance 
available and covered under the leak repair regulations differs 
depending on the classification of the business owner as an independent 
grocer. According to commenters, smaller independent grocers may rely 
on older appliances, but EPA does not find a persuasive rationale to 
allow older appliances to continue to leak at high rates because they 
are aging. EPA agrees that owners or operators of commercial 
refrigeration appliances have an economic incentive to repair leaks as 
soon as they are discovered. However, EPA finds that continued patterns 
of repair attempts followed by refrigerant recharges are not optimal 
for environmental protection. This is especially true for appliances 
that may be described as ``chronic leakers.'' The intent of the leak 
repair regulations is to require owners or operators to sufficiently 
repair appliances (especially as appliances age) so that they will not 
develop a history of leak events, or retrofit or replace appliances 
that cannot be sufficiently repaired. EPA is not mandating the use of 
any specific leak detection equipment, but believes that the use of 
detection equipment is one means of preventing loses resulting in 
extensive repair and use of ozone-depleting refrigerants, in both older 
and newer appliances.
    EPA believes that additional data on historical repair trends and 
leak tightness of commercial refrigeration appliances is warranted 
prior to lowering the leak rates. EPA intends to initiate efforts and 
seek cooperation from organizations representing the commercial 
refrigeration sector to gather data on the availability and 
effectiveness of current leak detection methods and equipment prior to 
amending the leak repair trigger rates. Therefore, as a part of today's 
action, EPA is not finalizing the proposal to lower the permissible 
leak rates for commercial appliances containing more than 50 pounds of 
refrigerant.
    Since EPA is not finalizing a lowering of the leak rate, there is 
no need to finalize the proposal of a two-tier leak rate based upon the 
date of manufacture, compressor configuration, and possession (or lack) 
of a secondary loop in determining maximum allowable leak rates. The 
Agency may address the proposal to lower the applicable leak repair 
trigger rates by reproposing, in a future NPRM, a lower leak rate for 
commercial refrigeration appliances.
3. Industrial Process Refrigeration (IPR)
    The conditions that contribute to a wide range of leak rates in the 
commercial refrigeration sector apply even more to the industrial 
process refrigeration sector. Appliances in the industrial process 
refrigeration sector are not only assembled on-site, but are often 
custom-designed for a wide spectrum of processes and plants, giving the 
sector an extraordinarily broad range of appliance configurations and 
designs. Appliances may be high-or low-pressure; may possess hermetic, 
semi-hermetic, or open-drive compressors; may use one (primary) or two 
(primary and secondary) refrigerant loops; maybe brand new or decades 
old; and may range in charge size from a few hundred to more than 
100,000 pounds of refrigerant. All of these factors are important in 
determining leak rates, leading to a wide range of attainable leak 
rates.
    In the NPRM, EPA stated that industrial process refrigeration 
equipment built more recently has generally been designed to leak less 
than equipment built earlier. Thus, EPA proposed to consider the date 
of manufacture, compressor configuration, and possession (or lack) of a 
secondary loop in determining maximum allowable leak rates for 
industrial process refrigeration appliances. The proposal did not 
include provisions for higher leak rates for appliances with very large 
charge sizes, because a given leak rate in large appliances causes more 
environmental harm than the same leak rate in small appliances. For 
example, a 20 percent annual leak rate in an appliance with a 10,000 
pound charge would result in the release of 2,000 pounds of refrigerant 
per year, while a 20 percent annual leak rate in an appliance with a 
1,000 pound charge would result in the release of 200 pounds of 
refrigerant per year. Although it may be more difficult or expensive to 
achieve a given leak rate in large appliances than in small appliances, 
EPA believed that these additional efforts were warranted by the larger 
environmental impact of leaks from large appliances. In view of these 
considerations, EPA proposed different maximum permissible leak rates 
based on the appliance's date of manufacture, compressor configuration, 
and number of refrigerant loops (primary only vs. primary and 
secondary).
    Under the proposed approach, industrial process refrigeration 
appliances would have been subject to a 20 percent per year maximum 
permissible leak rate unless it met all four of the following criteria:
    (1) The refrigeration system is custom-built;
    (2) The refrigeration system has an open-drive compressor;
    (3) The refrigeration system was built in 1992 or before; and

[[Page 1980]]

    (4) The system is direct-expansion (contains a single, primary 
refrigerant loop).
    Systems that met conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4 would continue to be 
subject to the 35-percent-per-year maximum permissible leak rate.
    The Agency requested comment on the approach, both on the criteria 
used to sort appliances between the 20 percent and 35 percent per year 
rates, and on the rates themselves. EPA specifically requested comment 
on whether it might be appropriate to permit a higher leak rate for 
appliances with a charge size above 10,000 pounds that were built 
before 1992. EPA also sought comment on whether it would be appropriate 
to use a measure other than charge size (such as pipe length) to 
characterize sprawling, inherently leaky appliances.
    In general commenters were opposed to any effort by EPA to lower 
leak rates for IPR appliances. Commenters noted that refrigeration 
operators have already lowered leak rates as much as possible due to 
the high cost of refrigerant, potential cost of lost productivity, 
maintenance costs, and efficiency. Most commenters based their 
objections on a lack of sufficient valid and representative data 
demonstrating that the lower rates can be achieved. The commenters 
expressed their belief that the Agency used references to new equipment 
as opposed to data from actual users to arrive at the proposed 
permissible leak rates.
    In addition, EPA requested comment on the interchangeability of 
equipment designs that may be more leak-tight than others. That is, the 
Agency wanted to know if there are compelling reasons why users of 
industrial process refrigeration must use open-drive compressors or 
direct expansion systems rather than hermetic compressors and secondary 
loops.
    EPA received comments stating that the Agency should not require 
retrofitting or rebuilding of older appliances that use open-drive 
compressors and/or have long primary refrigerant loops, because the 
cost associated with rebuilding a refrigeration system to use hermetic 
compressors or secondary refrigerants is large. Additional comments 
noted several problems with requiring hermetic compressors for 
industrial applications. Commenters noted that maintenance takes longer 
and emissions are more likely, because the whole refrigerant charge has 
to be cleaned or replaced if the hermetic compressor motor fails. A 
commenter suggested that if the Agency is considering requiring 
hermetic (or semi-hermetic) compressors and/or secondary refrigerants, 
it should do so in a different rulemaking with its own proposal and 
comment period due to concerns over technical infeasibility (especially 
for lower temperature and larger manufacturing processes) and 
associated costs. Commenters stated that hermetic (or semi-hermetic) 
compressors would not necessarily always provide a large degree of 
emissions reductions, hence there is less certainty as to the 
environmental benefit of this proposed requirement.
    A commenter stated that a universal requirement to use secondary 
refrigerants would be inappropriate. The commenter stated that suitable 
or compatible secondary refrigerants might not be available for a 
particular process. The commenter believed that switching to secondary 
refrigerants would be burdensome because most refrigeration systems are 
designed for specific primary refrigerants. According to the commenter, 
large portions of the system would have to be replaced at great expense 
to successfully switch to a secondary refrigerant.
    EPA also sought comment on other possible approaches to leak repair 
in industrial process refrigeration equipment that could be more or 
less complex than the one proposed. A simple approach would lower the 
current permissible leak rate for all industrial process appliances to 
a single new rate, perhaps to 25 percent per year. A more complex 
approach would establish three or more permissible rates for different 
classes of appliances.
    One commenter suggested a two-tier approach to lowering the 
permissible leak rate that would allow industry to select the tier 
which best accommodates their needs. The first tier would be a simple 
approach that reduces the permissible leak rate to a new lower rate 
(say 25-30%) that would apply to all industrial process refrigeration 
appliances. The second tier would be a more complex approach, namely, 
to distinguish between appliance types in establishing permissible leak 
rates.
    Another commenter was concerned that the proposed permissible leak 
rates may be difficult to achieve without replacing the entire 
appliance or wholesale replacement of joints and seals. Although 
technically feasible, the commenter thought this would be an 
unreasonable requirement due to the costs associated with such 
replacements. The commenter suggested a more lenient acceptable leak 
rate to account for normal variations in leak rates between various 
pieces of the appliance. The commenter noted that revised regulations 
should take into account increasing leak rates in older appliances, 
higher leak rates in portable and mobile appliances, and refrigerant 
charging errors that may significantly distort the leak rate 
calculation. The commenter suggested permissible leak rates of 25 
percent for commercial refrigeration, regardless of the age of the 
appliance, and 10-15 percent for all other appliances.
    EPA also sought comment on the proposal to make the new leak rates 
effective for industrial process refrigeration equipment three years 
after promulgation for the following reasons:
    1. Owners, operators, and servicers of industrial process 
refrigeration appliances have had less time than owners, operators, and 
servicers of other types of appliances to learn and implement the 
existing maximum permissible rates;
    2. Custom-built industrial process refrigeration appliances and 
replacement parts take longer than other types of appliances to order, 
build, and repair, thus providing a rationale for a time delay between 
promulgation and effective date;
    3. Industrial process refrigeration appliances must be shut down, 
at considerable expense before large repairs can be made to their 
refrigeration systems or before such systems can be replaced, thus 
providing a rationale for permitting significant lead time between the 
promulgation and effective date of the new leak rate.
    EPA received comment supporting the effective date. Commenters 
stated that the use of 30 days after the publication date of the final 
rule would be impractical as it does not take into consideration the 
work load and scheduling of refrigeration contractors nor the cost and 
impact on the budgetary process of the appliance owner. Other 
commenters noted that the three-year delay would allow time for 
technicians to be retrained, and to help mitigate the burden and 
disruption associated with the change in leak rates.
    EPA believes, based on the comments it received, that additional 
data on historical repair trends and leak tightness of industrial 
process refrigeration appliances are warranted prior to lowering the 
leak rates. EPA intends to initiate efforts to gather data on the 
availability and effectiveness of current leak reduction methods prior 
to amending the leak repair trigger rates. Therefore, as a part of 
today's action, EPA is not finalizing the proposal to lower the 
permissible leak rates for industrial process refrigeration appliances 
containing more than 50 pounds of CFC or HCFC refrigerant. Since EPA is 
not finalizing the proposal

[[Page 1981]]

to lower leak rates for industrial process refrigeration appliances, 
there will not be a corresponding three-year implementation date for 
the effective date of the regulations. Due to the apparent difficulties 
and incompatibility of hermetic compressors in the industrial process 
refrigeration sector, further evaluation is required prior to any 
Agency action considering how to incorporate the use of hermetic 
compressors or secondary loop systems into the leak repair regulations. 
The Agency may address, in a future NPRM, alternative approaches to 
determining the leak rate in industrial process refrigeration.
4. Cross-Sector Issues
    EPA requested comment on several issues affecting all three sectors 
covered by the leak repair requirements. EPA requested comment on its 
proposal to establish a two-tier leak rate which would distinguish 
between old and new appliances in establishing maximum allowable leak 
rates based upon the date of manufacture of the appliances. EPA 
proposed and sought comment on the use of the year 1992 as the baseline 
to regulate appliances more or less stringently. EPA also requested 
comment on whether the environmental and economic benefits of having 
two leak rates would justify the increase in administrative complexity 
that would result from such an approach.
    In proposing to establish a two-tier leak repair requirement based 
upon the age of appliances, EPA requested comment on whether the date 
of ``manufacture'' should be defined as the date that appliance leaves 
the factory or the date that it is installed. EPA noted that it may be 
appropriate to define ``manufacture'' differently for different types 
of appliances, because some appliances (e.g., comfort cooling chillers) 
could be considered ``manufactured'' when they leave the factory, while 
appliances that are assembled in the field from numerous components 
(e.g., commercial and industrial process refrigeration) could be 
considered ``manufactured'' when their installation is complete.
    EPA received comments stating that the Agency should not require 
refrigeration equipment to continue to meet the same very low leak 
rates throughout the life of the equipment, because leak rates are 
likely to increase as the refrigeration equipment ages. One commenter 
noted that experience indicates that older refrigeration systems 
generally have higher leak rates than new ones; hence, systems do not 
maintain the same leak rates throughout their life span. Many common 
types of machinery exhibit a decline in performance as they age. The 
commenter cautioned that if the Agency obtains historic information on 
leak-tightness of refrigeration systems, it should not compare pre-rule 
(63 FR 32044; June 11, 1998) to post-rule data, because improvements in 
the leak rates of older equipment would result from the regulation 
going into effect, not from any improvement in that actual equipment. 
The commenter stated that because it is unlikely that the Agency will 
have historical leak-tightness data on the equipment, and because post-
rule equipment has not yet completed a full life span, the Agency 
should not impose leak rates that the equipment may not be able to meet 
as it ages. The commenter stated that the Agency should provide a 
mechanism that permits equipment to continue to comply as it ages.
    EPA concurs with the commenters in that leak rates are likely to 
increase as the appliances age, and believes that this is in fact the 
rationale for establishing the leak repair requirements. While EPA 
proposed a two-tier rate, the NPRM did not propose or imply that the 
leak rate for older appliances would not be tightened. To the contrary, 
the NPRM discussed the Agency's intent to lower leak rates for older 
appliances while establishing a two-tier system. Older appliances 
should be maintained to be as tight as possible. By mandating leak 
repair trigger rates, EPA ensures that older appliances will be 
maintained and emissions of refrigerants will be minimized to the 
lowest achievable level as appliances age.
    EPA received mixed comments regarding the Agency's proposal to 
differentiate leak rates for appliances based upon date of manufacture. 
Some commenters expressed concern that this approach complicates the 
regulation because owners and operators would need to rely on a 
nameplate on the appliance for the date of manufacture or other data 
that might not be readily available. Other commenters requested that 
the date of manufacture for custom-built appliances be identified 
according to the date that the appliance leaves the factory, because 
the date of shipment and the date that the appliance was actually 
placed into service may be years apart. While others suggested that the 
date of manufacture be defined as the date of mechanical completion or 
start-up date of the system.
    EPA also requested comment on whether it is possible to distinguish 
between slow leakage, servicing emissions, and catastrophic emissions 
in establishing and complying with leak rate limits. This question 
becomes important with a lower permissible leak rate because the 
percentage of charge lost through servicing and catastrophic emissions 
may be a significant fraction of the lower rate.
    EPA received comment that amendments to the leak rate required 
practices may not be necessary because in many sectors, such as the 
commercial sector, leaks tend to be catastrophic in nature. One 
commenter stated that it would not be helpful to exclude catastrophic 
losses from leak rate calculations, since the immediate repair of such 
appliances is necessary in order to get the refrigeration system back 
on-line. The commenter suggested that such an exclusion may actually be 
detrimental if the Agency then requires some sort of recordkeeping 
requirement to keep track of which emissions were from ordinary leaks 
and which were from catastrophic events. In such instances repairs are 
not only required but a necessity in order to remain operable; thus, it 
is in the best interest of the owner to control and reduce leaks. 
Commenters stated that owners or operators should not be faulted for 
catastrophic leakage of refrigeration equipment; thus, it is 
appropriate to establish leak rates based on slow leaks alone.
    The primary goal of the leak repair provisions has been to reduce 
emissions from leaking appliances. EPA recognizes that catastrophic 
emissions are often beyond the control of appliance owners or 
operators. EPA believes that catastrophic losses will come to the 
attention of appliance owners or operators very quickly after they 
occur and will be large compared to losses from slow emissions. In 
sectors such as the commercial refrigeration sector, immediate repair 
of catastrophic leaks is required in order to sustain business 
operations. EPA believes that a requirement to repair the appliance so 
that it does not continue to leak above the applicable annual leak rate 
would not be expected to compromise the need of the owner or operator 
to repair the catastrophic leak. Since the commercial sector would need 
to respond to catastrophic releases immediately, EPA believes that 
adherence to the leak repair requirements simply reinforces the need to 
repair leaks in a timely manner. The environmental benefit of the 
requirements is that they persuade owners or operators to take action 
to address the operation of appliances that have a history of 
catastrophic failures. Under the proposed and final leak repair 
regulations such appliances would eventually require retirement, 
replacement, or retrofit to substitutes that are less damaging to the 
ozone

[[Page 1982]]

layer. The intent of the requirements is not to mandate continuous 
repair attempts on leaking appliances, but to take efforts to maintain 
appliances such that they will not undergo repeated patterns of repair 
attempts followed by refrigerant recharge. EPA emphasizes that the aim 
of the leak repair regulations is to minimize emissions of ozone-
depleting refrigerants to the lowest achievable level by requiring the 
repair, replacement, or retrofit of leaking appliances. Therefore, 
while catastrophic loses are not the intended focus of the leak repair 
requirements, such loses are not exempt from the leak repair 
requirements.
5. Extension of Leak Repair Requirements to HFC and PFC Appliances
    In the NPRM, EPA explained that establishing consistent leak repair 
requirements for CFC, HCFC, HFC, and PFC appliances would minimize 
emissions of all four types of refrigerants and substitutes. EPA 
further explained that exempting HFC and PFC substitutes from 
conservation requirements could lead to confusion and skepticism 
regarding similar requirements for CFCs and HCFCs, which would 
undermine implementation of the statutory directives to reduce 
emissions of these substances to the lowest achievable level and to 
maximize their recapture and recycling. Hence in the NPRM, EPA 
requested comment on its proposal to extend the leak repair 
requirements to owners or operators of appliances using HFC and PFC 
substitutes.
    EPA received comments opposing the extension of the leak rate 
regulations to HFC and PFC refrigerant substitutes. Commenters cited 
the price of HFCs and the need for efficient operation of refrigeration 
equipment as incentives for owners or operators to repair leaks as soon 
as possible, regardless of a maximum permissible leak rate. Comments 
also questioned the statutory authority of EPA to regulate substances 
that do not contribute to depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer 
(i.e., class I and class II ODS). One commenter stated that the 
proposal was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with 
law; therefore, it would be illegal for the Agency to impose leak 
repair requirements on those systems and refrigerants for which it 
lacks sufficient data. The commenter also stated that the requirements 
cannot apply to leaks that occur during normal use, since these leaks 
do not occur during the servicing, maintenance, or disposal of 
appliances.
    In the NPRM (63 FR 32045; June 11, 1998) EPA explained that section 
608(a) provides EPA with authority to promulgate the proposed 
requirements. Section 608(a) requires EPA to promulgate regulations 
regarding use and disposal of class I and II substances that ``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 ``(s)uch 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.'' In addition, section 608(a)(2) requires 
EPA to promulgate regulations establishing standards and requirements 
regarding use and disposal of class I and class II substances during 
service, repair, or disposal of appliances.
    While market price may be an incentive against venting, it has not 
been found to be a sufficient deterrent against the continuous practice 
of repair attempts followed by refrigerant recharges. EPA inspections 
continue to find excessive leak rates from IPR appliances. EPA believes 
that the statutory authority to promulgate regulations regarding use of 
class I and II substances, including requirements to use alternatives, 
is sufficiently broad to include requirements on how to use 
alternatives, where regulation is needed to reduce emissions and 
maximize recycling of class I and II substances.
    Therefore, in accordance with the requirements of section 608(c) of 
the Act, EPA is extending the leak repair required practices and the 
associated reporting and recordkeeping requirements to owners or 
operators of appliances using HFC blends that consist in part of an 
ODS. Therefore owners or operators of appliances using HFC refrigerant 
blends including but not limited to R-401A and B, R-402A and B, R-403B, 
R-406A, R-408A, R-409A, R-411A, and B, R-414A and B, R-416A, R-500, R-
502, R-503, NARM-502, RB-276 (FreeZone), GHG-HP, GHG-X5, Freeze 12, 
ICOR, THR-04, and R-509 are covered under the leak repair required 
practices because the refrigerants consist in part of a class II ODS. 
This extension has been accomplished by amending the definition of 
refrigerant at Sec.  82.152 in a previous rulemaking (March 12, 2004; 
69 FR 11946). The change in the definition means that substitutes 
consisting in whole or in part of an ODS are covered under the required 
practices of 40 CFR part 82, subpart F (i.e., section 608).
    EPA has decided not to extend the leak repair requirements or the 
associated reporting and recordkeeping requirements to owners or 
operators of appliances using pure HFC or PFC substitutes. However, EPA 
emphasizes that HFC and PFC substitutes are not exempt from the 
statutory venting prohibition of section 608(c)(2) of the Act (69 FR 
11946; March 12, 2004). Therefore, in the absence of any required leak 
repair requirements, it statutorily remains illegal to knowingly vent 
HFC and PFC substitutes during the maintenance, service, repair, and 
disposal of comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration, and industrial 
process refrigeration appliances.
6. Clarification of Leak Repair Requirements
    In the May 14, 1993 final rule (58 FR 28660), EPA published final 
regulations requiring owners and operators to ``have all leaks 
repaired'' where an appliance subject to the leak repair requirements 
was leaking above the applicable allowable annual leak rate (58 FR 
28716). In a subsequent rulemaking regarding leak repair requirements 
published on August 8, 1995 (60 FR 40420), EPA amended that language to 
state that ``repairs must bring the annual leak rate to below 35 
percent of the total charge during a 12-month period'' (60 FR 40440), 
or where appropriate, to below 15 percent. This change in the rule 
recognized that appliances without hermetically sealed refrigerant 
circuits should not be expected to have a ``zero percent'' leak rate.
    EPA believes that it is practical to require the owners or 
operators to maintain a leak rate that is at or below the applicable 
allowable annual rate, and where the leak rate has been exceeded to 
make the necessary repairs to return the appliance's leak rate to or 
below the applicable allowable leak rate or to retrofit/retire the 
appliance. EPA emphasizes that compliance with the required practices 
for leak repair is dependent upon the leak rate of the appliance not 
the repair of a specific leak or leaks.
    In response to commenters' concerns regarding verification testing, 
EPA is clarifying that at this time verification testing is only 
required for: owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration 
appliances, in accordance with Sec.  82.156(i)(3); owners or operators 
of federally-owned comfort cooling appliances who are granted 
additional time for repairs under Sec.  82.156(i)(5)(iii); and owners 
or operators of federally-owned commercial refrigeration

[[Page 1983]]

appliances who are granted additional time for repairs under Sec.  
82.156(i)(1)(iii). While verification tests are not required for all 
sectors, such testing performed as a part of leak repair efforts has 
advantages for owners and operators. EPA believes that attempts to 
verify repairs at the point of repair and again after the appliance is 
operational will aid the owner or operator in demonstrating compliance 
with the leak repair regulations. In contrast, multiple repair attempts 
of the same leaks followed by refrigerant recharge demonstrate that the 
repair of the appliance did not bring the annual leak rate to below the 
applicable leak rate as required by Sec.  82.156(i).
    EPA requires owners and operators of industrial process 
refrigeration appliances and in some instances for federally-owned 
commercial refrigeration appliances and federally-owned comfort cooling 
appliances that are granted additional time to make repairs, to perform 
initial and followup verification tests to establish that repairs were 
successful. EPA recognizes that verification tests indicate the success 
or failure of the repair effort for a given leak or set of leaks, not 
the leak rate of an appliance. In the August 8, 1995 rulemaking, EPA 
stated that it was not the Agency's ``intention to imply that the 
verification tests show what the leak rate is. However, EPA believes 
that where the verification tests show that the repairs have been 
successful, in most cases this will mean that there has been a 
reduction in the leak rate'' (60 FR 40430).
    Section 82.156(i) requires owners or operators to conduct repairs 
to lower an appliance's leak rate below the applicable allowable annual 
leak rate. EPA emphasizes that knowing a leak has been repaired does 
not necessarily mean that the owner or operator is aware of the current 
leak rate of the appliance or whether the owner or operator is in 
compliance with the required practices of Sec.  82.156. Such is the 
case in instances where owners or operators make repair attempts but do 
not calculate the leak rate. Without calculating the leak rate the 
owner or operator would have no means of determining compliance with 
the leak repair required practices.
    In the NPRM, EPA described four compliance scenarios to assist the 
owners or operators in determining what actions are appropriate when an 
appliance is leaking above the applicable allowable annual leak rate. 
Due to the volume of questions that those scenarios generated, EPA 
feels that further discussion of the leak repair compliance scenarios 
is warranted. The compliance scenarios described in the NPRM are 
consistent with the regulatory requirements, and the Agency did not 
propose any regulatory changes associated with these scenarios. EPA 
discussed the scenarios in the NPRM to provide compliance assistance. 
EPA solicited feedback on these scenarios and the outcomes described in 
each scenario in order to evaluate the need for further clarification 
and possible regulatory amendments. The following discussion of five 
scenarios (the previous four scenarios from the NPRM (63 FR 32070; June 
11, 1998) and one more scenario added for further clarity) aims to 
provide further clarification to the regulated community on how the 
leak rate and verification tests relate to the repair and/or retrofit/
retire provisions promulgated at Sec.  82.156(i). EPA has edited the 
scenarios to remove any ambiguity as to their applicability to 
industrial process refrigeration, comfort cooling, or commercial 
refrigeration appliances.
a. Scenario 1
    In Scenario 1, the owner or operator of industrial process 
refrigeration appliances or federally-owned comfort-cooling or 
commercial appliances discovers that the appliance is leaking above the 
applicable allowable annual leak rate. The owner or operator fixes all 
leaks, and verifies that the leaks have been repaired consistent with 
the verification testing requirements of Sec.  82.156(i), meaning an 
initial verification test was conducted at the conclusion of the repair 
efforts and a follow-up verification test was conducted within 30 days 
after the initial verification test. If a leak rate above the 
applicable allowable annual leak rate for the appliance is suspected 
after the repairs are completed and leaks are discovered at new 
locations, these leaks will be considered as a new leak occurrence for 
the appliance.
    Leaks in the appliance that occur after repair attempts (whether or 
not they occur at the same location), but in the absence of mandatory 
initial and follow-up verification tests are considered violations for 
several reasons. First, the verification tests were not conducted in 
accordance with Sec.  82.156. It is more likely that failure to verify 
that repairs were successful will lead to future leaks within the 
appliance. EPA considers refrigeration additions that occur after 
repair attempts, but in the absence of successful mandatory 
verification tests, to be continuing violations. This is because 
without verification, there is no evidence that the owner or operator 
brought the leak rate of the appliance beneath the applicable leak 
rate, even though repair attempts might have been made.
    However, if mandatory verification tests show that repairs were 
successful and the appliance is once again suspected of having a leak 
at a new location that results in the appliance leaking above the 
applicable allowable leak rate (even if the leak occurs a short time 
after the repairs were completed), EPA considers these leaks as a new 
leak occurrence for the appliance. The next leak occurrence requiring 
addition of refrigerant would constitute a new leak occurrence for the 
appliance, and the owner or operator would be required to comply with 
all applicable requirements promulgated at Sec.  82.156(i).
    Scenario 1 as described in the NPRM was not applicable to owners or 
operators of comfort cooling or commercial refrigeration appliances 
that are not federally-owned or operated. These appliance owners or 
operators are encouraged but not currently mandated to perform initial 
and follow-up verification tests in order to ensure that the leak rate 
has been brought below the applicable leak rate. Owners or operators of 
comfort cooling or commercial refrigeration appliances that are not 
federally-owned or operated are required to repair leaks such that the 
leak rate of the appliance will not exceed the applicable leak rate 
within 30 days of discovery. Owners or operators are relieved of this 
obligation if they choose to develop, within 30 days of discovery of a 
leak, a one-year retrofit or retirement plan in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  82.156(i)(1) and (i)(5), for commercial and comfort cooling 
appliances, respectively.
b. Scenario 2
    Scenario 2 as described in the NPRM was not applicable to owners or 
operators of comfort cooling or commercial refrigeration appliances 
that are not federally-owned or operated, because such owners or 
operators are not required to perform initial and follow-up 
verification tests. In response to public comments requesting clarity 
on the scenario, EPA has clarified Scenario 2 such that it is specific 
to repeated leaks at the same location (same location meaning an 
identical point within the same appliance).
    Under Scenario 2, the owner or operator of the industrial process 
refrigeration or under certain circumstances the owner or operator of 
federally owned comfort cooling or commercial appliance with a 
refrigerant charge greater than 50 pounds discovers that the appliance 
is leaking above the applicable allowable annual leak rate. The owner 
or operator fixes the leaks

[[Page 1984]]

and verifies that they have been repaired consistent with Sec.  
82.156(i). The next time leaks are suspected within a consecutive 12-
month period, the owner or operator finds leaks have occurred at the 
same location (meaning the identical point within the same appliance). 
This ongoing problem is an indication that appropriate repairs have not 
been conducted. Where leaks at the same location continue to occur, the 
owner or operator has not performed repair efforts necessary to reduce 
the leak rate below the applicable allowable annual leak rate. Thus, 
the owner or operator has violated the required practices established 
in Sec.  82.156(i).
c. Scenario 3
    In the third scenario, the owner or operator discovers that the 
appliance is leaking above the applicable allowable annual rate and 
identifies ten different leak sources that are contributing to the high 
leak rate. The owner or operator determines that repairing six leaks 
will bring the appliance into compliance by lowering the leak rate to 
below the applicable allowable annual rate. The owner or operator 
believes that leaving four leaks unrepaired still will result in a leak 
rate below the applicable allowable annual rate. The owner or operator 
fixes and as required for industrial process refrigeration and 
federally-owned comfort cooling and commercial appliances verifies that 
these six leaks have been repaired consistent with the requirements 
promulgated at Sec.  82.156(i). The appliance continues to leak, but 
below the applicable allowable annual rate.
    In the NPRM, EPA stated that in this scenario the owner or operator 
of the appliance complied with the requirements by actually reducing 
and maintaining a leak rate that is below the applicable allowable 
annual rate. Such is the case for instances where owners or operators 
are mandated to perform initial and follow-up verification tests, in 
accordance with Sec.  82.156(i). EPA is concerned that this scenario as 
proposed may not provide compliance for owners or operators who are not 
currently mandated to perform initial and followup verification tests, 
namely owners or operators of commercial and comfort cooling 
appliances.
    In order to remain consistent with the regulatory language 
requiring owners or operators to make repairs that bring the annual 
leak rate to below the applicable leak rate, EPA is clarifying that it 
cannot condone actions by owners or operators to knowingly allow 
appliances to leak. EPA believes that failure to repair all known 
leaks, and successfully verify repairs when required, leaves the owner 
or operator with a great deal of uncertainty concerning their 
compliance with the leak repair required practices. In the absence of 
verification, the owner or operator of comfort cooling and commercial 
appliances would have no way of knowing if their appliance is not in 
compliance until a future need to add refrigerant. If the owner or 
operator decided to leave known leaks unchecked, a future addition of 
refrigerant could lead to a continuing violation for failure to 
sufficiently repair the appliance such that it does not leak above the 
applicable leak rate within 30 days of discovery.
d. Scenario 4
    In the fourth scenario, the owner or operator discovers that the 
appliance is leaking above the applicable allowable annual rate. The 
owner or operator identifies ten different leak sources that are 
contributing to the leak rate. The owner or operator decides that 
repairing six leaks will bring the appliance into compliance by 
lowering the leak rate to below the applicable allowable annual rate. 
The owner or operator fixes and verifies that these leaks have been 
repaired consistent with the requirements promulgated at Sec.  
82.156(i).
    Upon later inspection, or by the future need to add refrigerant, it 
is discovered that the appliance continued leaking above the applicable 
allowable annual rate and there are no newly identified leak sources. 
In this scenario, the owner or operator of comfort cooling or 
commercial refrigeration appliances did not lower the leak rate in 
accordance with Sec.  82.156(i).
    As previously stated in the discussion of Scenario 3, EPA cannot 
condone actions by owners or operators to knowingly allow appliances to 
leak, and believes that such actions result in uncertainty concerning 
compliance with the leak repair required practices. EPA considers this 
failed repair attempt a violation of the leak repair required practices 
because the owner or operator did not sufficiently repair the 
appliance. Meaning that even after repair attempts, the appliance 
continued to leak above the applicable annual leak rate. In the absence 
of verification and the subsequent addition of refrigerant without the 
identification of new leaks, the owner or operator of the comfort 
cooling or commercial appliance is not considered to have used ``sound 
professional judgement'' in determining which leaks to repair. Owners 
or operators of appliances that pass mandatory initial and followup 
verification tests under Sec.  82.156(i) (i.e., industrial process 
refrigeration and federally-owned comfort and commercial refrigeration 
appliances) are not considered to be in violation of the leak repair 
required practices, as they have successfully passed initial and 
followup verification tests.
e. Scenario 5
    EPA received comments questioning the applicability of the 
compliance scenarios to comfort cooling and commercial refrigerant 
appliances. Several commenters expressed concern that current EPA 
interpretation of the leak repair requirements could result in 
enforcement actions when the owner has made good faith attempts to 
repair all known leaks.
    The commenters described a scenario in which repairs were made on 
all known leaks in a commercial or comfort cooling appliance. After 
this initial repair, the owner or operator discovers a new leak(s), in 
a different location(s) that bring the leak rate of the appliance above 
the applicable leak rate, as shown by the addition of refrigerant and 
calculation of the leak rate. This second round of leaks is once again 
repaired and the appliance is once again recharged with refrigerant. 
The commenters questioned why the second repair and second addition of 
refrigerant were viewed by EPA as continuing violations of the leak 
repair provisions. Or more simply stated, commenters questioned why the 
second addition of refrigerant that results in an annual leak rate 
above the applicable leak rate is viewed by EPA as a continuing 
violation from the first addition of refrigerant and subsequent repair. 
The commenters also noted that using this interpretation of the 
regulations would make it impossible for the owner or operator to know 
that their appliances were in compliance until the next leak occurrence 
or need for additional refrigerant. This assumes that the appliance 
would have a new leak or require the addition of refrigerant. If it did 
not after the initial repair, it may not be possible to know if the 
appliance was brought beneath the applicable trigger rate at all.
    In response to public comments, EPA is emphasizing that the 
appliance owner or operator must demonstrate that the repair(s) brought 
the leak rate of the appliance below the applicable annual leak rate, 
in accordance with Sec.  82.156. Consecutive or continued cycles of 
repair and subsequent refrigerant charges are not viewed by EPA as 
compliance with the required practices. However, in the absence of 
mandatory initial and followup verification, the owner or operator of 
comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances

[[Page 1985]]

may not realize that a repaired appliance has remained out of 
compliance until the future need to add refrigerant. Therefore, until 
verification tests are mandated, EPA considers leak occurrences in 
commercial and comfort cooling appliances that have occurred after the 
appliance was repaired in compliance with Sec.  82.156(i)(1) and (i)(5) 
as ``new'' if they involve different leak(s) than the previously 
repaired leak event.
    Conversely, in instances where leaks continue to occur at the same 
location in a commercial refrigeration or comfort cooling appliance 
(meaning that the owner or operator continues to recharge after 
continued repair attempts on the same leak(s)), are viewed as 
violations of the leak repair provisions. EPA views patterns of futile 
repair attempts to repair leaks that continue to occur at the sale 
location followed by refrigerant recharge as violations of the leak 
repair requirement to bring the leak rate of the appliance beneath the 
applicable leak rate within 30 days of discovery. Such actions are not 
viewed as attempts to comply with the leak repair requirements since 
they result in an increase in refrigerant release to the atmosphere.

D. Recordkeeping for Leak Repair

    Prior to the NPRM (June 11, 1998; 63 FR 32043), EPA received 
comments indicating that the recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
promulgated at Sec.  82.166(n) may be confusing for those subject to 
the requirements. The structure of these provisions changed between the 
proposed and final rules (60 FR 3992; January 19, 1995 and 60 FR 40420; 
August 8, 1995). The August 8, 1995 final rule required the same 
reporting and recordkeeping requirement that EPA proposed in the 
January 19, 1995 NPRM, except for the changes discussed in the preamble 
to the August 8, 1995 final rule.
    In the 1998 NPRM, EPA proposed to modify the structure and 
presentation of the requirements to provide clarity by indicating which 
records must be maintained and reported. EPA also proposed to extend 
the leak repair reporting and recordkeeping provisions to HFC and PFC 
appliances by incorporating them into the definition of ``refrigerant'' 
(63 FR 32058).
1. Applicability to Substitutes
    In the NPRM, EPA proposed to extend the leak repair recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements for CFC and HCFC appliance owners or 
operators to owners or operators of HFC and PFC appliances. The NPRM 
proposed to extend these requirements by amending the definition of 
``refrigerant'' to include HFC and PFC substitutes. The NPRM proposed 
that owners or operators of appliances that contain 50 or more pounds 
of refrigerant and leak above the applicable leak rate must adhere to 
the reporting and recordkeeping records in accordance with Sec.  
82.166(k), (n), (o), (p) and (q).
    At this time, EPA is not finalizing the proposal to subject owners 
or operators of all HFC and PFC appliances to the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements of Sec.  82.166. However, today's action extends 
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements to owners or operators of 
appliances that use substitutes consisting of an ODS. EPA has not 
otherwise amended the recordkeeping and reporting requirements. These 
requirements are summarized below:
a. General Service and Repair Recordkeeping and Reporting
    In accordance with Sec.  82.166(k), owners or operators of 
appliances normally containing 50 or more pounds of a refrigerant 
containing a class I or class II ODS and leak above the applicable leak 
rate are subject to the following recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements.
    (1) Keep service records documenting the date and type of service, 
as well as the quantity of refrigerant added.
    (2) Keep records of refrigerant purchased and dates of refrigerant 
addition in instances where owners or operators service or repair their 
own appliances added to such appliances in cases where owners or 
operators add their own refrigerant.
b. Extension of 30-day Repair Requirement
    In accordance with Sec.  82.156(i)(1)(i), if owners or operators of 
the federally-owned commercial refrigeration appliances determine that 
leaks cannot be repaired within 30 days and therefore seek an 
extension, they must document all repair efforts and notify EPA of 
their inability to comply within the 30-day repair requirement. The 
notification must state the reason for the inability to comply within 
the 30-day repair requirement. If EPA determines that the extension is 
not justified, EPA will notify the owner or operator within 30 days of 
receipt of the notification.
    In accordance with Sec.  82.156(i)(2) and Sec.  82.156(i)(5)(i), 
owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration appliances and 
federally-owned comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances 
who determine that the leak rate of the appliance cannot be brought to 
below 35 percent during a 12-month period within 30 days (or 120 days, 
where an industrial process shutdown is required) of discovering the 
leak and are granted an extension, must document all repair efforts. 
They must also notify EPA of the reason for the inability to repair 
within 30 days of making such a determination.
c. Notification Due to Failed Verification Test
    In accordance with Sec.  82.156(i)(3)(iii), the owner or operator 
of an industrial process refrigeration appliance that fails a follow-up 
verification test must notify EPA within 30 days of the failed follow-
up verification test. The notification must include the dates and types 
of all initial and follow-up verification tests performed and the test 
results for all initial and follow-up verification tests within 30 days 
after conducting each test.
d. Relief From the Obligation To Retrofit or Replace an Appliance
    In accordance with Sec.  82.156(i)(3)(iv), the owner or operator of 
industrial process refrigeration appliances and federally owned comfort 
cooling and commercial appliances who are granted additional time to 
repair are relieved of the obligation to retrofit or replace the 
industrial process refrigeration appliance if second repair efforts to 
fix the same leaks that were the subject of the first repair efforts 
are successfully completed within 30 days (or 120 days where an 
industrial process shutdown is required) after the initial failed 
follow-up verification test. The owner or operator is required to 
notify EPA within 30 days of the successful follow-up verification test 
and is no longer subject to the obligation to retrofit or replace the 
appliance.
    In accordance with Sec.  82.156(i)(3)(v), the owner or operator of 
industrial process refrigeration appliances must notify EPA within 30 
days if the owner or operator determines that they are relieved of the 
obligation to retrofit or replace appliances because within 180 days of 
the initial failed follow-up verification test they established that 
the appliance's annual leak rate did not exceed the applicable leak 
rate (in accordance with Sec.  82.156(i)(4)). The notification must 
include a plan to fix other outstanding leaks for which repairs are 
planned but not yet completed to achieve a rate below the applicable 
allowable leak rate. The notification must also include the 
identification of the facility and date the original information 
regarding additional time beyond the initial 30 days was filed. The 
owner or operator would no longer be subject to the

[[Page 1986]]

obligation to retrofit or replace the appliances that arose as a 
consequence of the initial failure to verify that the leak repair 
efforts were successful.
    The notification must be relevant to the affected appliance and 
must include: Identification of the facility; the leak rate; the method 
used to determine the leak rate and full charge; the date a leak rate 
of greater than the allowable annual leak rate was discovered; the 
location of leaks(s) to the extent determined to date; and any repair 
work that has been completed thus far including the date that work was 
completed. The information must also include written reasons why more 
than 30 days are needed to complete the work and an estimate of when 
repair work will be completed. If changes from the original estimate of 
when work will be completed result in moving the completion date 
forward from the date submitted to EPA, the reasons for these changes 
must be documented and submitted to EPA within 30 days of discovering 
the need for such a change.
e. Relief From 30-Day Repair Requirement Due to Adoption of Retrofit/
Retirement Plan
    In accordance with Sec.  82.156(i)(6), owners or operators of 
industrial process refrigeration and federally owned comfort cooling 
and commercial appliances are not required to repair, if within 30 days 
of discovering the exceedance of the applicable leak rate or within 30 
days of a failed follow-up verification test in accordance with Sec.  
82.156(i)(3)(ii), they develop a one-year retrofit or retirement plan 
for the leaking appliance. The retirement or retrofit plan must be kept 
at the site of the appliance and made available for EPA inspection upon 
request. The plan must be dated and all work under the plan must be 
completed within one year of the plan's date.
    Similarly, in accordance with Sec.  82.156(i)(6)(i), if the owner 
or operator of industrial process refrigeration and federally owned 
comfort cooling and commercial appliances has attempted repair but 
later decides to proceed with a plan to retrofit or retire the 
appliance, they must develop a retrofit or retirement plan within 30 
days of the determination to retrofit or retire the appliance and 
complete the plan within one year from discovery that the leak rate 
exceeded the applicable allowable leak rate.
    In all cases, the written plan shall be prepared no later than 30 
days after the owner or operator has determined to proceed with 
retrofitting or retiring the appliance. In addition, the following 
information must be maintained and is due to EPA Headquarters at the 
time specified in the paragraph imposing the specific reporting 
requirement, or no later than 30 days after the decision to retrofit or 
retire the appliance, whichever is later:
    (1) The identification of the industrial process facility;
    (2) The leak rate;
    (3) The method used to determine the leak rate and full charge;
    (4) The date a leak rate of 35 percent or greater was discovered;
    (5) The location of leaks(s) to the extent determined to date;
    (6) Any repair work that has been completed thus far and the date 
that the work was completed;
    (7) A plan to complete the retrofit or replacement of the 
appliance;
    (8) The reasons why more than one year is necessary to retrofit to 
replace the appliance;
    (9) The date of notification to EPA; and
    (10) An estimate of when retrofit or replacement work will be 
completed.
    If the estimated date of completion changes from the original 
estimate and results in moving the date of completion forward, 
documentation of the reason for these changes must be submitted within 
30 days of making the determination that an extension is required along 
with the date of notification to EPA regarding this change and the 
estimate of when the work will be completed.
f. Additional Time for Retirement or Retrofit
    In accordance with Sec.  82.156(i)(7), the owners or operators of 
industrial process refrigeration appliances will be allowed additional 
time to complete the retrofit or retirement of industrial process 
refrigeration appliances if due to 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. Under these 
circumstances, the owner or operator of the appliance must notify EPA 
within six months after the 30-day period following the discovery of an 
exceedance of the 35 percent leak rate. Records necessary to allow EPA 
to determine that these provisions apply and the length of time 
necessary to complete the work must be submitted to EPA in accordance 
with Sec.  82.166(o), as well as maintained on-site. EPA will notify 
the owner or operator of its determination within 60 days of receipt 
the submittal.
    An additional one-year period beyond the initial one-year retrofit 
period is allowed for industrial process refrigeration appliances where 
the following criteria are met:
    (A) The new or the retrofitted industrial process refrigerant 
appliance is custom-built;
    (B) The supplier of the appliance or one or more of its critical 
components has quoted a delivery time of more than 30 weeks from when 
the order is placed;
    (C) The owner or operator notifies EPA within six months of the 
expiration of the 30-day period following the discovery of an 
exceedance of the 35 percent leak rate to identify the owner or 
operator, describe the appliance involved, explain why more than one 
year is needed, and demonstrate that the first two criteria are met in 
accordance with Sec.  82.166(o); and
    (D) The owner or operator maintains records that are adequate to 
allow a determination that the criteria are met.
    The owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration 
appliances may request additional time to complete retrofitting or 
retiring the appliance beyond the additional one-year period if needed 
and where the initial additional one year was granted. The request 
shall be submitted to EPA before the end of the ninth month of the 
first additional year and shall include revisions of information 
required under Sec.  82.166(o). Unless EPA objects to this request 
submitted in accordance with Sec.  82.166(o) within 30 days of receipt, 
it shall be deemed approved.
    In accordance with Sec.  82.156(i)(8), owners or operators of 
federally-owned commercial or comfort-cooling appliances will be 
allowed an additional year to complete the retrofit or retirement of 
the appliances if the conditions described in paragraph Sec.  
82.156(i)(8)(i) of this section are met, and will be allowed one year 
beyond the additional year if the conditions in paragraph Sec.  
82.156(i)(8)(ii) are met.
    In accordance with Sec.  82.156(i)(8)(i), up to one additional one-
year period beyond the initial one-year retrofit period is allowed for 
such appliances where the following criteria are met:
    (A) Due to complications presented by the Federal agency 
appropriations and/or procurement process, a delivery time of more than 
30 weeks from the beginning of the official procurement process is 
quoted, or where the appliance is located in an area subject to 
radiological contamination and creating a safe working environment will 
require more than 30 weeks;
    (B) The operator notifies EPA within six months of the expiration 
of the 30-day period following the discovery of an exceedance of the 
applicable allowable annual leak rate to identify the operator,

[[Page 1987]]

describe the appliance involved, explain why more than one year is 
needed, and demonstrate that the first criterion is met in accordance 
with Sec.  82.166(o); and
    (C) The operator maintains records adequate to allow a 
determination that the criteria are met.
    In accordance with Sec.  82.156(i)(8)(ii), the owners or operators 
of federally-owned commercial or comfort-cooling appliances may request 
additional time to complete retrofitting, replacement or retiring such 
appliances beyond the additional one-year period if needed and where 
the initial additional one year was granted in accordance with 
paragraph Sec.  82.156(i)(8)(i). The request shall be submitted to EPA 
before the end of the ninth month of the first additional year and 
shall include revisions of information earlier submitted as required 
under Sec.  82.166(o). Unless EPA objects to this request submitted in 
accordance with Sec.  82.166(o) within 30 days of receipt, it shall be 
deemed approved.
g. Omission of Purged Refrigerant From Leak Rate Calculations
    In calculating annual leak rates, purged refrigerant that is 
destroyed at a verifiable destruction efficiency of 98 percent or 
greater will not be counted toward the leak rate. Owners or operators 
who wish to exclude purged refrigerants that are destroyed from annual 
leak rate calculations must maintain records on-site to support the 
amount of refrigerant claimed as sent for destruction. Records shall be 
based on a monitoring strategy that provides reliable data to 
demonstrate that the amount of refrigerant claimed to have been 
destroyed is not greater than the amount of refrigerant actually purged 
and destroyed and that the 98 percent or greater destruction efficiency 
is met. Records shall include flow rate, quantity or concentration of 
the refrigerant in the vent stream, and periods of purge flow.
    In addition, the owners or operators who wish to exclude purged 
refrigerants that are destroyed from annual leak rate calculations must 
maintain on-site and submit to EPA, within 60 days after the first time 
such exclusion is used by that facility, the following information:
    (i) The identification of the facility and a contact person, 
including the address and telephone number;
    (ii) A general description of the refrigerant appliance, focusing 
on aspects of the appliance relevant to the purging of refrigerant and 
its subsequent destruction;
    (iii) A description of the methods used to determine the quantity 
of refrigerant sent for destruction and type of records that are being 
kept by the owners or operators where the appliance is located;
    (iv) The frequency of monitoring and data-recording; and
    (v) A description of the control device, and its destruction 
efficiency.
h. Determination of Full Charge
    EPA has previously defined full charge as the amount of refrigerant 
required for normal operating characteristics and conditions of the 
appliance as determined by using one of the following four methods or a 
combination of one of the following four methods: (1) The appliance 
manufacturers' determination of the correct full charge for the 
appliance; (2) Determining the full charge by appropriate calculations 
based on component sizes, density of refrigerant, volume of piping, and 
other relevant considerations; (3) The use of actual measurements of 
the amount of refrigerant added or evacuated from the appliance; and/or 
(4) The use of an established range based on the best available data, 
regarding the normal operating characteristics and conditions for the 
appliance, where the midpoint of the range will serve as the full 
charge, and where records are maintained in accordance with Sec.  
82.166(q).
    Owners or operators choosing to determine the full charge as 
defined in Sec.  82.152 of an affected appliance by using an 
established range or using that methodology in combination with other 
methods for determining the full charge defined in the following 
information: (1) The identification of the owner or operator of the 
appliance; (2) The location of the appliance; (3) The original range 
for the full charge of the appliance, its midpoint, and how the range 
was determined; (4) Any and all revisions of the full charge range and 
how they were determined; and (5) The dates such revisions occurred. 
These records are required to be maintained on-site at the facility in 
which the appliance is located for a minimum of three years.
2. Retrofit/Retire Using Lower Ozone-Depleting Potential (ODP) 
Refrigerants
    In the NPRM, EPA proposed to amend Sec.  82.156(i)(6) to 
incorporate a requirement that was discussed in the preamble to the May 
14, 1993 final rule but that was inadvertently excluded from the 
regulatory text. In the preamble to the final rule, EPA indicated that 
if the owners or operators elect to retrofit or retire an appliance 
rather than repair leaks that are above the applicable allowable leak 
rate, the owners or operators must use a substitute with a lower ODP 
than the original refrigerant (58 FR 28680; May 14, 1993).
    EPA received comments stating that the replacement of leaking 
appliances with more efficient appliances should yield significant 
environmental benefits, and the Agency should not require further 
environmental benefits by limiting the types of refrigerant that may be 
used (i.e., requiring retrofit or replacement with a lower ODP 
refrigerant). Commenters also requested that the Agency address what 
the owner or operator should do when the only available substitute does 
not have a lower ODP and consider exempting systems using refrigerants 
with an ODP of zero.
    EPA supports the use of higher efficiency appliances whenever 
possible. The Agency also believes that a requirement for owners or 
operators to retrofit or replace leaking appliances with a refrigerant 
with a lower ODP is important to minimize the use of refrigerants that 
are potentially more harmful to the stratospheric ozone layer. It would 
be environmentally unsound to exempt owners or operators from repairing 
leaks on the grounds that they will retrofit or replace the leaky 
appliance if the replacement refrigerant would pose an equivalent or 
even a greater threat to the stratospheric ozone layer. EPA also 
believes that in many instances older appliances that were designed to 
use ozone-depleting refrigerants (especially CFCs) are less efficient 
than newer HCFC and HFC appliances that are currently available. 
Therefore, EPA has modified the regulatory text to ensure that only a 
substitute with a lower or equivalent ODP is used.
    EPA has amended Sec.  82.156(i)(6) to incorporate the requirement 
to retrofit with a lower ODP refrigerant, as originally discussed in 
the preamble to the May 14, 1993 final rule (58 FR 28680). In 
accordance with the amended Sec.  82.156(i)(6), owners or operators who 
elect to retire or retrofit an appliance rather than repair leaks that 
are above the applicable allowable leak rate, must use a refrigerant or 
substitute with a lower ODP than the original refrigerant. Owners and 
operators still retain the option to either retrofit/retire the 
appliance or repair the existing leaks in accordance with the existing 
requirements at Sec.  82.156(i)(6) for industrial process refrigeration 
and Sec. Sec.  82.156(i)(1)(i), (i)(5)(i), (i)(6), and (i)(9) for 
commercial refrigeration and comfort cooling appliances.
3. Minor Clarifications
    EPA proposed to modify the text throughout Sec.  82.156(i) and 
Sec.  82.166(n)

[[Page 1988]]

and (o) to substitute the word ``retire'' for the word ``replace'' and 
to add ``operators'' where the regulation inadvertently refers solely 
to owners in order to better describe the activities that are discussed 
and to clarify that the requirements are applicable to both owners and 
operators (63 FR 32071; June 11, 1998). EPA also proposed to modify 
Sec.  82.156(i)(3) which requires owners and operators to exercise 
sound professional judgement and to perform verification tests, to 
clarify that it applies to all owners and operators of industrial 
process refrigeration appliances and not just to those who are granted 
additional time to complete repairs. At the same time, EPA proposed to 
clarify that the paragraph applies to owners and operators of 
federally-owned commercial refrigeration appliances and of federally-
owned comfort cooling appliances who are granted additional time to 
repair under paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(5). EPA requested comment on 
these proposed changes regarding whether the changes would improve the 
clarity and readability of the regulatory text. EPA received general 
comments stating uncertainly with interpretation of the leak repair 
required practices at Sec.  82.156 for leak repair; however, the Agency 
did not receive any negative or controversial comments specific to the 
request for comments concerning the proposed minor clarifications.
    As proposed, EPA has modified the text throughout Sec.  82.156(i) 
and Sec.  82.166(n) and (o)(4) to substitute the word ``retire'' for 
the word ``replace'' and to add ``operators'' where the regulation 
inadvertently refers solely to owners. EPA deems these changes as 
necessary, because as explained in the NPRM the term ``retire'' better 
describes the activities that are discussed and the requirements are 
applicable to both appliance owners and operators.
    As proposed, EPA has modified paragraph Sec.  82.156(i)(3) which 
requires owners and operators to exercise sound professional judgement, 
to clarify that ``sound professional judgment'' applies to all owners 
and operators of industrial process refrigeration appliances, 
federally-owned commercial refrigeration appliances, and federally-
owned comfort cooling appliances and not just to those who are granted 
additional time under paragraphs (i)(1)(i), (i)(2)(i), and (i)(5).
    EPA has made minor clarifying changes to the regulatory text at 
Sec.  82.156(i)(3)(i) and (ii) by specifically stating that the 
requirements apply to owners and or operators of federally-owned 
comfort cooling and commercial appliances. EPA has also specifically 
stated, in Sec.  82.156(i)(3)(i), that the exemption from the 
verification requirement is applicable in instances when the owners or 
operators will retrofit or retire the industrial process refrigeration 
equipment, federally-owned commercial refrigeration appliance, or 
federally-owned comfort cooling appliance (formerly included only by 
reference to paragraph (i)(6)).
    In addition, EPA has amended Sec.  82.156(i)(3)(ii) and (i)(6)(i) 
to provide owners and operators of industrial process refrigeration 
appliances, federally-owned commercial refrigeration appliances, or 
federally-owned comfort cooling appliances who have been unsuccessful 
in their repair attempts, and therefore are switching to a retrofit/
retirement mode, 30 days from leak discovery to prepare and one year to 
execute a retrofit/retirement plan. EPA recognizes the need to provide 
the owners or operators with sufficient time to develop and implement 
retrofit or retirement plans; therefore, the reference to the date of 
the failure to verify that repairs have been successfully completed has 
been eliminated. By deleting this reference, owners or operators have 
30 days from the verification test failure to develop a retrofit/
retirement plan, and one year from the plan's date to complete the 
retrofit or retirement (or such longer time periods as may apply under 
Sec.  82.156(i)(7) and (i)(8)). In addition, EPA has added the term 
``comfort cooling'' to Sec.  82.156(i)(5) to remove any ambiguity as to 
the type of appliance that is applicable to this subparagraph.
    EPA has also made minor changes to the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements throughout Sec.  82.166(n) and (q). EPA has clarified that 
the reporting requirements of paragraphs (n), (n)(1), (n)(2), and 
(n)(3) are only required when specified under Sec.  82.156. EPA has 
restated the required contents of retrofit or retirement plans 
throughout Sec.  82.166(n). EPA has also clarified Sec.  82.166(q) by 
stating that owners or operators who choose to determine the ``full 
charge,'' as defined at Sec.  82.152, of an appliance by using an 
established range or using that methodology in combination with other 
methods for determining the full charge must maintain the specified 
information identifying the appliance and the methodology used to 
determine the ``full charge.''

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved 
the information collection requirements contained in the existing 
regulations at 40 CFR part 82, 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 ICR number 1626.07. A copy of the OMB 
approved Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from 
Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 
20460 or by calling (202) 566-1672. This action does not impose any new 
information collection burden beyond the already-approved ICR. This 
final rule amends the leak repair reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements of Sec.  82.166, without imposing additional requirements.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop,

[[Page 1989]]

acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes 
of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and 
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; 
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable 
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to 
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review 
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the 
information.
    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.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. For purposes 
of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small 
entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small 
Business Administration's 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.
    EPA is finalizing this rule to clarify how the leak repair 
requirements that implement the venting prohibition of Clean Air Act, 
section 608(c)(2) apply to substitutes for class I and class II ODS 
used in the refrigerant and air-conditioning appliances. The need for 
and the goal of this action is to reduce emissions of class I and class 
II ODS and their substitutes to the lowest achievable level consistent 
with section 608 of the Clean Air Act. Public comments submitted in 
response to the June 11, 1998 NPRM (63 FR 32043) raised concerns over 
the regulation of substitutes that do not contribute to the depletion 
of stratospheric ozone, and the extension of the leak repair 
requirements to appliances using such substitutes. Commenters also 
requested clarification of compliance scenarios that were presented in 
the NPRM.
    As discussed in detail above, EPA is not finalizing the proposed 
changes to lower the leak rate and extend the requirements to 
appliances using substitutes that do not contain an ODS. EPA has also 
made editorial changes to clarify the compliance scenarios without 
changing their applicability, in order to remain consistent with the 
leak repair required practices. Therefore, the remainder of this rule 
results in a clarification of the existing leak repair requirements as 
they apply to substitutes that consist of an ODS.
    EPA performed a detailed screening analysis in 1992 of the impact 
of the recycling regulation for ozone-depleting refrigerants on small 
entities that may be impacted by this rulemaking such as owners or 
operators of commercial refrigeration appliances (such as, small 
independent grocers and warehouses), comfort cooling appliances (such 
as small residential and office buildings), and industrial process 
refrigeration appliances. The methodology of this analysis is discussed 
at length in the May 14, 1993 regulation (58 FR 28710). That analysis 
showed that recovery of refrigerants during repair is cost-effective 
due in part to the increased cost of ozone-depleting refrigerants.
    EPA has updated that analysis to examine the impact of the 
recycling regulation for substitutes for all aspects of the June 11, 
1998 NPRM (63 FR 32044). EPA is finalizing the NPRM in three separate 
actions (i.e., venting prohibition and substitutes sales restriction 
(69 FR 11946; March 12, 2004), certification of refrigerant recovery 
and recycling equipment, and leak repair requirements). The methodology 
for the updated analysis is the same as for the initial 1992 analysis, 
except EPA has also considered the changing market share of HFC 
equipment and compliance with the venting prohibition that would occur 
in the absence of the rule. This approach makes the screening analysis 
more consistent with the cost-benefit analysis discussed above. In the 
updated screening analysis, EPA estimates that 118 small businesses may 
incur compliance costs in excess of 1% of their sales, while 39 small 
businesses may incur compliance costs in excess of 3% of their sales 
for all aspects of the refrigerant recovery and recycling rule when 
taking all aspects of the rule under consideration (i.e., venting 
prohibition and sales restriction, refrigerant recycling and recovery 
equipment, and leak repair requirements). These numbers respectively 
represent 0.1% and 0.03% of the 122,416 small businesses that EPA 
estimates are affected by finalization of all three components of the 
NPRM.
    EPA has concluded that when isolating portions of the analysis 
dealing with the clarification of the leak repair requirements for 
appliances using substitutes consisting of an ODS, that today's 
rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Since this rule does not finalize the 
proposal to extend the leak repair reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, as summarized above in Section D. ``Recordkeeping for 
Leak Repair,'' to appliances containing 50 pounds or more of a non-ODS 
substitutes, the remainder of this rule is viewed as a clarification of 
how the leak repair requirements for ODS refrigerants apply to 
appliances using ODS substitutes. With this rulemaking EPA is stating 
that regulations affecting appliances using ODSs apply to refrigerants 
and substitutes alike, if they consist whole or in part of an ODS. In 
addition, it is assumed that ODS substitutes are replacing refrigerants 
whose manufacture and import is banned, restricted, or currently 
undergoing phaseout under the EPA phaseout regulations (40 CFR 82, part 
82 subpart A). Therefore EPA assumes an impact of less than 1% upon 
owners or operators of appliances with refrigerant charges of 50 pounds 
or more, including the 0.1% and 0.03% of the 122,416 small businesses 
that EPA estimates would have been affected by finalizing all three 
components of the NPRM.
    Although this final 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. EPA has made 
numerous efforts to involve small entities in the rulemaking process 
and to incorporate flexibility into the proposed rule for small 
entities, where appropriate. Efforts to involve small entities include 
formal and informal stakeholder meetings, which included several trade 
groups representing small businesses, and a number of individual 
meetings with both small businesses and associations representing small 
businesses. EPA has also met with industry groups representing the 
commercial grocery and supermarket sectors. EPA has accepted and 
considered all comments and suggestions from trade organizations in 
finalizing this rule, regardless if the comments were received outside 
of the comment period. EPA has also developed outreach materials, 
including fact sheets which are available online and via the Ozone 
Hotline, to help small businesses to comply with the existing 
refrigerant recycling regulations and the prohibition on venting of 
both ozone-depleting refrigerants and their substitutes. Moreover, the 
proposed rule grants to small businesses working with

[[Page 1990]]

substitutes the same flexibility that was granted to small businesses 
working with CFC and HCFC refrigerants (58 FR 28667-28669, 28712).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government Agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. This rule is not expected to have a high cost 
because it supplements the statutory self-effectuating prohibition 
against venting refrigerants by ensuring that certain service practices 
are conducted that reduce emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants and 
their substitutes. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has also 
determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Thus, today's 
rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

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 final 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. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 
not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Today's 
rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of 
Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply 
to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health & Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental 
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children. This rule amends the leak repair 
requires for appliances using substitutes consisting of an ozone-
depleting substance, which in turn protects human health and the 
environment from increased amounts of UV radiation and increased 
incidence of skin cancer.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 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 
rulemaking does not involve technical standards; therefore, EPA did not 
consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards in this 
rulemaking.

J. The Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the

[[Page 1991]]

Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will 
submit a report containing this rule and other required information to 
the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller 
General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the 
Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after 
it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). It will become effective March 
14, 2005.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 29, 2004.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 82, 
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 82--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.


0
2. Section 82.152 is amended by revising the definition of ``Full 
charge'' and by adding a definition for ``Leak rate'' in alphabetical 
order to read as follows:


Sec.  82.152  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Full charge means the amount of refrigerant required for normal 
operating characteristics and conditions of the appliance as determined 
by using one or a combination of the following four methods:
    (1) Use 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).
* * * * *
    Leak rate means the rate at which an appliance is losing 
refrigerant, measured between refrigerant charges. The leak rate is 
expressed in terms of the percentage of the appliance's full charge 
that would be lost over a 12-month period if the current rate of loss 
were to continue over that period. The rate is calculated using only 
one of the following methods for all appliances located at an operating 
facility.
    (1) Method 1. (i) Step 1. Take the number of pounds of refrigerant 
added to the appliance to return it to a full charge and divide it by 
the number of pounds of refrigerant the appliance normally contains at 
full charge;
    (ii) Step 2. Take the shorter of the number of days that have 
passed since the last day refrigerant was added or 365 days and divide 
that number by 365 days;
    (iii) Step 3. Take the number calculated in Step 1. and divide it 
by the number calculated in Step 2.; and
    (iv) Step 4. Multiply the number calculated in Step 3. by 100 to 
calculate a percentage. This method is summarized in the following 
formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11JA05.010

    (2) Method 2. (i) Step 1. Take the sum of the quantity of 
refrigerant added to the appliance over the previous 365-day period (or 
over the period that has passed since leaks in the appliance were last 
repaired, if that period is less than one year),
    (ii) Step 2. Divide the result of Step 1. by the quantity (e.g., 
pounds) of refrigerant the appliance normally contains at full charge, 
and
    (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] TR11JA05.011

* * * * *

0
3. Section 82.156 is amended by revising paragraphs (i)(3) introductory 
text, (i)(3)(i), (i)(3)(ii), (i)(5) introductory text, (i)(6) 
introductory text, and (i)(6)(i), to read as follows:


Sec.  82.156  Required practices.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (3) Owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration 
equipment and owners or operators of federally-owned commercial 
refrigeration equipment or of federally-owned comfort cooling 
appliances who are granted additional time under paragraphs (i)(1) or 
(i)(5) of this section, must have repairs performed in a manner that 
sound professional judgment indicates will bring the leak rate below 
the applicable allowable leak rate. When an industrial process shutdown 
has occurred or when repairs have been made while an appliance is 
mothballed, the owners or operators shall conduct an initial 
verification test at the conclusion of the repairs and a follow-up 
verification test. The follow-up verification test shall be conducted 
within 30 days of completing the repairs or within 30 days of bringing 
the appliance back on-line, if taken off-line, but no sooner than when 
the appliance has achieved normal operating characteristics and 
conditions. When repairs have been conducted without an industrial 
process shutdown or system mothballing, an initial verification test 
shall be conducted at the conclusion of the repairs, and a follow-up 
verification test shall be conducted within 30 days of the initial

[[Page 1992]]

verification test. In all cases, the follow-up verification test shall 
be conducted at normal operating characteristics and conditions, unless 
sound professional judgment indicates that tests performed at normal 
operating characteristics and conditions will produce less reliable 
results, in which case the follow-up verification test shall be 
conducted at or near the normal operating pressure where practicable, 
and at or near the normal operating temperature where practicable.
    (i) If the owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration 
equipment takes the appliance off-line, or if the owners or operators 
of federally-owned commercial refrigeration or of federally-owned 
comfort cooling appliances who are granted additional time under 
paragraphs (i)(1) or (i)(5) of this section take the appliance off-
line, they cannot bring the appliance back on-line until an initial 
verification test indicates that the repairs undertaken in accordance 
with paragraphs (i)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), or (i)(2)(i) and (ii), or 
(5)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this section have been successfully 
completed, demonstrating the leak or leaks are repaired. The owners or 
operators of the industrial process refrigeration equipment, federally-
owned commercial refrigeration appliances, or federally-owned comfort 
cooling appliances are exempted from this requirement only where the 
owners or operators will retrofit or retire the industrial process 
refrigeration equipment, federally-owned commercial refrigeration 
appliance, or federally-owned comfort cooling appliance in accordance 
with paragraph (i)(6) of this section. Under this exemption, the owner 
or operators may bring the industrial process refrigeration equipment, 
federally-owned commercial refrigeration appliance, or federally-owned 
comfort cooling appliance back on-line without successful completion of 
an initial verification test.
    (ii) If the follow-up verification test indicates that the repairs 
to industrial process refrigeration equipment, federally-owned 
commercial refrigeration equipment, or federally-owned comfort cooling 
appliances have not been successful, the owner or operator must 
retrofit or retire the equipment in accordance with paragraph (i)(6) 
and any such longer time period as may apply under paragraphs 
(i)(7)(i), (ii) and (iii) or (i)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section. The 
owners and operators of the industrial process refrigeration equipment, 
federally-owned commercial refrigeration equipment, or federally-owned 
comfort cooling appliances are relieved of this requirement if the 
conditions of paragraphs (i)(3)(iv) and/or (i)(3)(v) of this section 
are met.
* * * * *
    (5) Owners or operators of comfort cooling appliances normally 
containing more than 50 pounds of refrigerant and not covered by 
paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this section must have leaks repaired in 
accordance with paragraph (i)(9) of this section if the appliance is 
leaking at a rate such that the loss of refrigerant will exceed 15 
percent of the total charge during a 12-month period, except as 
described in paragraphs (i)(6), (i)(8) and (i)(10) of this section and 
paragraphs (i)(5)(i), (i)(5)(ii) and (i)(5)(iii) of this section. 
Repairs must bring the annual leak rate to below 15 percent.
* * * * *
    (6) Owners or operators are not required to repair leaks as 
provided in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(5) of this section if, 
within 30 days of discovering a leak greater than the applicable 
allowable leak rate, or within 30 days of a failed follow-up 
verification test, or after making good faith efforts to repair the 
leaks as described in paragraph (i)(6)(i) of this section, they develop 
a one-year retrofit or retirement plan for the leaking appliance. 
Owners or operators who decide to retrofit the appliance must use a 
refrigerant or substitute with a lower or equivalent ozone-depleting 
potential than the previous refrigerant and must include such a change 
in the retrofit plan. Owners or operators who retire and replace the 
appliance must replace the appliance with an appliance that uses a 
refrigerant or substitute with a lower or equivalent ozone-depleting 
potential and must include such a change in the retirement plan. The 
retrofit or retirement plan (or a legible copy) must be kept at the 
site of the appliance. The original plan must be made available for EPA 
inspection upon request. The plan must be dated, and all work performed 
in accordance with the plan must be completed within one year of the 
plan's date, except as described in paragraphs (i)(6)(i), (i)(7), and 
(i)(8) of this section. Owners or operators are temporarily relieved of 
this obligation if the appliance has undergone system mothballing as 
defined in Sec.  82.152.
    (i) If the owner or operator has made good faith efforts to repair 
leaks from the appliance in accordance with paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), 
or (i)(5) of this section and has decided prior to completing a follow-
up verification test, to retrofit or retire the appliance in accordance 
with paragraph (i)(6) of this section, the owner or operator must 
develop a retrofit or retirement plan within 30 days of the decision to 
retrofit or retire the appliance. The owner or operator must complete 
the retrofit or retirement of the appliance within one year and 30 days 
of when the owner or operator discovered that the leak rate exceeded 
the applicable allowable leak rate, except as provided in paragraphs 
(i)(7) and (i)(8) of this section.
* * * * *

0
10. Section 82.166 is amended by revising paragraphs (n), (o)(4), 
(o)(7), (o)(8), (o)(10), and paragraph (q) introductory text to read as 
follows:


Sec.  82.166  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (n) The owners or operators of appliances must maintain on-site and 
report to EPA Headquarters at the address listed in Sec.  82.160 the 
information specified in paragraphs (n)(1), (n)(2), and (n)(3) of this 
section, within the timelines specified under Sec.  82.156 (i)(1), 
(i)(2), (i)(3) and (i)(5) where such reporting or recordkeeping is 
required. This information must be relevant to the affected appliance.
    (1) An initial report to EPA under Sec.  82.156(i)(1)(i), (i)(2), 
or (i)(5)(i) regarding why more than 30 days are needed to complete 
repairs must include: Identification of the facility; the leak rate; 
the method used to determine the leak rate and full charge; the date a 
leak rate above the applicable leak rate was discovered; the location 
of leak(s) to the extent determined to date; any repair work that has 
been completed thus far and the date that work was completed; the 
reasons why more than 30 days are needed to complete the work and an 
estimate of when the work will be completed. If changes from the 
original estimate of when work will be completed result in extending 
the completion date from the date submitted to EPA, the reasons for 
these changes must be documented and submitted to EPA within 30 days of 
discovering the need for such a change.
    (2) If the owners or operators intend to establish that the 
appliance's leak rate does not exceed the applicable allowable leak 
rate in accordance with Sec.  82.156(i)(3)(v), the owner or operator 
must submit a plan to fix other outstanding leaks for which repairs are 
planned but not yet completed to achieve a rate below the applicable 
allowable leak rate. A plan to fix other outstanding leaks in 
accordance with Sec.  82.156(i)(3)(v) must include the following 
information: The identification of the facility; the leak rate; the 
method used to determine the leak rate and full charge; the date a leak

[[Page 1993]]

rate above the applicable allowable leak rate was discovered; the 
location of leak(s) to the extent determined to date; and any repair 
work that has been completed thus far, including the date that work was 
completed. Upon completion of the repair efforts described in the plan, 
a second report must be submitted that includes the date the owner or 
operator submitted the initial report concerning the need for 
additional time beyond the 30 days and notification of the owner or 
operator's determination that the leak rate no longer exceeds the 
applicable allowable leak rate. This second report must be submitted 
within 30 days of determining that the leak rate no longer exceeds the 
applicable allowable leak rate.
    (3) Owners or operators must maintain records of the dates, types, 
and results of all initial and follow-up verification tests performed 
under Sec.  82.156(i)(3). Owners or operators must submit this 
information to EPA within 30 days after conducting each test only where 
required under Sec.  82.156 (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3) and (i)(5). These 
reports must also include: Identification and physical address of the 
facility; the leak rate; the method used to determine the leak rate and 
full charge; the date a leak rate above the applicable allowable leak 
rate was discovered; the location of leak(s) to the extent determined 
to date; and any repair work that has been completed thus far and the 
date that work was completed. Submitted reports must be dated and 
include the name of the owner or operator of the appliance, and must be 
signed by an authorized company official.
* * * * *
    (o) * * *
    (4) The date a leak rate above the applicable allowable rate was 
discovered.
* * * * *
    (7) A plan to complete the retrofit or retirement of the system;
    (8) The reasons why more than one year is necessary to retrofit or 
retire the system;
* * * * *
    (10) An estimate of when retrofit or retirement work will be 
completed. If the estimated date of completion changes from the 
original estimate and results in extending the date of completion, the 
owner or operator must submit to EPA the new estimated date of 
completion and documentation of the reason for the change within 30 
days of discovering the need for the change, and must retain a dated 
copy of this submission.
* * * * *
    (q) Owners or operators choosing to determine the full charge as 
defined in Sec.  82.152 of an affected appliance by using an 
established range or using that methodology in combination with other 
methods for determining the full charge as defined in Sec.  82.152 must 
maintain the following information:
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-429 Filed 1-10-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P