82.166(o); or (iii) Other applicable Federal, State, or local
regulations make a repair within 30 days impossible, and where such
records are maintained in accordance with Sec.  82.166(o).
    EPA is limiting extensions based on the current extensions for leak
repair, at Sec.  82.156, with modification. The Agency is not proposing
additional reasons, such as budgetary cycles or planned maintenance
schedules, as a justification for delaying repairs. For instances when
the extension is due to the need to shutdown the area subject to
radiological contamination or adhere to any Federal, State, or local
regulations that would make repair, retrofit, or retirement within the
specified timelines for repair or retrofit/retirement (i.e., 30 days or
6 months, respectively) infeasible, EPA would automatically grant an
extension of 30 days beyond the date that the appliance subject to
radiological contamination is brought back online or the date that of
adherence to any Federal, State, or local regulations. Such extensions,
as proposed at Sec.  82.156(i)(4)(iii), would be contingent upon
written and retained documents noting the reason for the extension, in
accordance with proposed Sec.  82.166(o).
    When the extension is required due to the unavailability of parts
within 12 weeks of the 6 month period to complete retrofit plans, EPA
proposes to limit the extension to an additional 12 weeks beyond the
date that the necessary parts or components are delivered. EPA believes
that this amount of time is equitable in that owners or operators who
were able to obtain parts must complete retrofits in a total of 6
months; so, for those owners or operators who could obtain the
necessary parts within 12 weeks would still have a total of 6 months to
complete retrofits once the parts or components became available. The
amount of time allowed for the extensions would automatically be
granted and would not be contingent upon a written request or an EPA
written authorization. Such extensions would be contingent upon written
and retained documents noting the reason for the extension, as proposed
at Sec.  82.166(o). EPA requests comment on the proposed changes to the
required practices.
    EPA also proposes to remove the 120-day exemption when owners or
operators of industrial process refrigeration appliances undergo an
industrial process shutdown. EPA believes that, under the proposed
approach, the120 day delay is no longer justified. All impacted
appliance owners or operators have the option of system mothballing
their appliances, which temporarily suspends all leak repair related
timeframes. The Agency sees no reason why owners or operators of
industrial process refrigeration appliances should be singled out for
an additional exemption that is not also provided in other
refrigeration and air-conditioning sectors. Therefore, EPA proposes to
remove the definition of industrial process shutdown and all references
to the definitions in the required practices of Sec.  82.156. EPA
requests comment on the regulatory simplicity gained by such an
approach and the need for such exemptions when all appliance owners or
operators have the option of mothballing their appliances.
6. Worst Leaker Provision
    Appliance owners or operators have the flexibility to decide what
actions to take in order to complete repairs. Such actions may or may
not include the complete replacement of a leaking component or one or
more of its subassemblies. As previously discussed, EPA is concerned
that the leak repair required practices could allow a leaking appliance
to undergo multiple repair attempts, in some instances to the same
component, without the owner or operator's decision to replace the
leaking component. Each repair attempt would likely be followed by a
release of refrigerant due to the component failure and a subsequent
recharge of the refrigerant. EPA wants to ensure that appliance owners
or operators who have multiple leak events in a short period of time
take action to replace the component in its entirety, or repair and
retrofit the appliance, instead of continuing the pattern of leak
repair followed by refrigerant recharge. EPA does not view such
cyclical efforts of repair attempts followed by recharge in a
relatively short amount of time as an effective means of reducing
emissions of ODS. EPA believes it is necessary to address these
situations specifically. Therefore, EPA is proposing two options as
possible changes to the required practices at Sec.  82.156(m).
    The first proposed option would require the retrofit to a
refrigerant or substitute with a lower ODP or retirement of the entire
appliance if it experiences three component replacements during a
consecutive six-month period, that occur as a result of a failed
initial or follow-up verification. This proposal would be linked to the
aforementioned option of requiring a complete component change within
30 days of a failed initial or follow-up verification tests.
    The second proposed option would require the retrofit to a
refrigerant or substitute with a lower ODP, or retirement of the entire
appliance, if it fails three initial or follow-up verifications during
a consecutive six-month period. The second option is linked to the
previously discussed proposal allowing owners or operators to decide on
a case-by-case basis if a component or its subassembly requires
replacement in order to completely repair the appliance. EPA prefers
this second option, and believes that this second option provides the
greatest level of flexibility to appliance owner or operator, while
addressing the unwanted environmental consequences of cyclic repair
attempts that may not adequately address the underlying cause of the
appliance leak/s. This option allows the owner or operator to determine
the best cause of action to address the leaking appliance, while
reducing the likelihood of entering into a cycle of inept repair
attempts. EPA requests comments on the proposed options, and the
potential that each has to reduce refrigerant emissions.
    A likely scenario that would trigger the second proposed option
would be a comfort cooling appliance with an R-22 charge of 800 lbs
that encounters three separate repair incidents during a consecutive 6-
month period, where all of the following apply:
     Each of the three repair incidents during the consecutive
6-month period is undertaken to repair leak(s) identified as a result
of an addition of refrigerant where the calculated leak rate of the
appliance (as proposed at Sec.  82.152) is greater than 10 percent each
time, and a record documenting the amount of refrigerant added is
maintained in accordance with Sec.  82.166(k), as proposed.
     The owner or operator repaired all leaks within 30 days of
the calculated leak rate that showed a rate greater than

10 percent, as required by proposed Sec.  82.156(i).
     Immediately after each repair attempt, an initial
verification test was performed and documented in accordance with the
proposed Sec.  82.156(i) and Sec.  82.166(k), respectively.
     Within 30 days, but no sooner than 24 hours, after each
repair a follow-up verification was performed and documented in
accordance with the proposed Sec.  82.156(i) and Sec.  82.166(k).
    In this scenario, any combination of three failed initial or
follow-up verifications during a consecutive six-month period,
regardless if the appliance leaked at the identical component, would
trigger the requirement to develop and implement the six-month retrofit
or retirement plan. The owner or operator must make plans to either
retire or retrofit the appliance, in accordance with the proposed Sec.
82.156(m). The owner or operator would be required to maintain a
written and dated retrofit/retirement plan that provides a six-month
schedule to complete retrofit or retirement of the leaking appliance,
in accordance with Sec.  82.166(n). Retirement would mean the permanent
decommissioning of the leaking appliance such that it is deemed unfit
for use by the current or any future owner or operator, as defined at
Sec.  82.152. The retrofit, as defined at Sec.  82.152, would include a
conversion of the appliance to use a substitute with a lower ODP. This
scenario assumes that there is no delay in receipt of parts or
components, and that none of the other extensions to repair timelines,
as stated in proposed Sec.  82.156(i)(4), are applicable. EPA requests
comment on the potential for this proposal to reduce emissions by
addressing the source of the leak(s) after multiple repair attempts
have failed.

D. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

1. Service Records
    EPA is proposing several changes to the current reporting and
recordkeeping requirements associated with the maintenance, service,
and repair of comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration, and industrial
process refrigeration appliances with refrigerant charge sizes greater
than 50 pounds. Currently, EPA requires that persons servicing
appliances (e.g., technicians or service contractors) provide their
customer with an invoice or other written documentation that states the
amount of refrigerant added to the appliance. EPA believes that this
limited amount of information is insufficient and may not provide
essential information needed by the appliance owner or operator to make
decisions on the fate of the repaired appliance.
    In order to make certain that appliance owners or operators are
provided with sufficient information with which to make decisions on
the fate of their appliances, EPA is proposing that all persons
servicing appliances with charge sizes greater than 50 pounds provide
the owner or operator of such appliances with an invoice or other
documentation, that indicates the date and type of service, the
physical location of all leaks that were repaired, the amount and type
of refrigerant recovered from the appliance, the type and results of
initial and follow-up verification tests, as well as the quantity and
type of refrigerant added to the appliance. EPA is proposing identical
recordkeeping requirements for appliance owners or operators who use
in-house service personnel. EPA is also proposing that appliance owners
or operators maintain all calculations, measurements, and assumptions
used to determine the leak rate of the appliance upon each addition of
refrigerant.
    As with all other records associated with the leak repair
requirement, owners or operators would be required to maintain these
service records on-site, at the location of the affected appliance, for
a minimum of three years. The submission of such records to EPA would
not be required, but they must be made immediately available upon
request. EPA believes that this enhanced recordkeeping requirement is
consistent with records that are likely provided by service personnel.
EPA requests comment on the effectiveness of this proposal in
establishing a consistent regulatory structure that will provide
appliance owners or operators with sufficient information to make
decisions on the fate of their appliance. EPA also seeks comment on
whether this proposal provides sufficient information for appliance
owners or operators to maintain compliance with the leak repair
requirements, by maintaining a record of the calculated leak rate upon
each addition of refrigerant.
    EPA is also clarifying the recordkeeping retention requirement of
Sec.  82.166(m), that currently states that all records required to be
maintained pursuant to this section must be kept for a minimum of three
years unless otherwise indicated. Entities that dispose of appliances
must keep these records on-site. EPA believes that all records required
under Subpart F (not just disposal records) should be maintained on-
site, and that records on leak repair should be maintained on-site at
the physical location of the appliance, and is concerned that the
current provision may be misinterpreted as being applicable solely to
disposal records. Therefore, the Agency is proposing a requirement that
all service records pertinent to the leak repair required practices at
Sec.  82.156 be maintained on-site, at the physical location, of the
appliance undergoing service for a minimum of three years. EPA believes
that such records are being kept at the physical locations of the
appliances, but seeks comment on this issue.
2. Records Documenting the Fate of Recovered Refrigerant
    EPA requires refrigerant recovery during service, maintenance, and
repair of appliances; however, EPA is concerned about the ultimate fate
of refrigerant that may be recovered during service, retrofit, or
retirement. EPA has established regulatory prohibitions (at Sec.
82.154) that do not allow the sale or distribution of used refrigerant
to a new owner, until that used refrigerant has first been reclaimed by
an EPA-certified reclaimer. This prohibition does not affect owners or
operators of appliances who wish to recover and store used refrigerant
for their own future use. In fact, EPA has granted flexibility by
allowing used refrigerant to be reused by the owner in appliances owned
by the same parent company without having it reclaimed \10\ (68 FR
43793; July 24, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    EPA is concerned that refrigerant recovered during service,
retrofit, or retirement may not be properly reclaimed or destroyed.
Based on data provided by EPA-certified refrigerant reclaimers, the
amount of refrigerant returned for reclamation is lower than
anticipated. This is certainly the case for popular refrigerants that
have not yet been fully phased out of production and consumption (for
example, R-22). EPA believes that a linkage should be established
between the amounts of refrigerant recovered from appliances and the
ultimate fate of those refrigerants. Such a linkage will provide
reinforcement to the statutory and regulatory refrigerant venting
prohibition, by creating a paper trail for refrigerant that is
recovered but is not being stored for reuse by the appliance owner or
operator. Therefore, EPA is proposing new recordkeeping

requirements for owners or operators of appliances, the service
contractors that they hire or employ, as well as the third parties
involved in the distribution of recovered refrigerant. EPA is proposing
an addition to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements at
82.166(u), requiring any person who sends used refrigerant off-site to
a new owner to maintain records of the types and amounts of used
refrigerant sent off-site for any reason (such as storage, recycling,
reclamation, destruction, etc.). The records must include the name and
address of the facility accepting used refrigerant, the type and amount
of refrigerant transferred, and the date that the refrigerant was
transferred. This proposed recordkeeping requirement is not limited to
owners or operators of appliances, but any person involved in the
transfer of used refrigerant to a new owner, such as service
contractors and technicians, when such transfer occurs prior to the
used refrigerant being reclaimed by an EPA-certified refrigerant
reclaimer. EPA believes that improved tracking of the fate of used
refrigerant, in tandem with a proposed requirement to document the
amount and type of refrigerant recovered from appliances, will lead to
decreases in the amount of refrigerant vented into the atmosphere by
increasing awareness and accountability of the fate of used
refrigerant. EPA also believes that such accountability will lead to
increases in the amount of refrigerant that is properly reclaimed by
EPA-certified refrigerant reclaimers.
    This proposal would not ban the transfer of used refrigerant to a
party independent of the appliance owner or operator and the
refrigerant reclaimer. Many refrigerant supply facilities will collect
used refrigerant from their customers, with the intent of forwarding
the used refrigerant to reclaimers once they have accumulated
sufficient quantity to make the transfer economically feasible. EPA
does not wish to disrupt this practice, since it has environmental
benefits, particularly in remote areas of the country where refrigerant
wholesalers and reclaimers may not be readily available. Such transfer
is allowed, as long as the transfer is not for purposes of use as a
refrigerant prior to the reclamation process. EPA requests comment on
the impact of tracking used refrigerant by appliance owners or
operators, service contractors, and other entities involved in
recycling and reclamation of used refrigerants. EPA also seeks comment
on the impact of increased tracking of used refrigerant and the
potential impact that such recordkeeping may have on the quantities of
used refrigerant reclaimed in the U.S.
3. Extensions To Repair and Retrofit/Retirement Timelines
    Section C.5. of this proposed rule discusses the existing and
proposed changes to the extensions to the 30-day timeframe to complete
repairs and the proposed six-month timeframe to complete retrofit/
retirement plans. EPA has proposed several changes to the requirements
to develop and implement a retrofit/retirement plan. EPA wishes to
retain the opportunity for owners or operators to request extensions to
the retrofit/retirement timelines, but wishes to make the extensions
contingent upon the maintenance of records to justify the extensions.
    In support of the existing and proposed required practices, EPA is
proposing to add recordkeeping requirements that should be required to
obtain such extensions. EPA is proposing that owners or operators who
are granted additional time, beyond 30 days, to make repairs or more
than 6 months to implement retrofit/retirement plans maintain the
following records justifying the need for additional time, as
applicable:
    (1) A written statement describing the radiological conditions that
prevent immediate repair of the appliance;
    (2) A written statement from the appliance or component
manufacturer or distributor estimating a date of delivery for parts
required to complete repairs of the appliance;
    (3) A written statement describing the applicable Federal, State,
or local regulations that prevent the immediate repair of the
appliance.
4. Documenting the Determination of the Appliance Full Charge
    EPA has granted appliance owners or operators a great deal of
flexibility in determining the full charge of their appliances. EPA has
proposed to allow owners or operators to determine the full charge of
an appliance by using one of the following four methods: (1) Use the
equipment manufacturer's determination of the correct full charge for
the equipment; (2) Determine the full charge by making appropriate
calculations based on component sizes, density of refrigerant, volume
of piping, and other relevant considerations; (3) Use actual
measurements of the amount of refrigerant added or evacuated from the
appliance; and/or (4) Use an established range based on the best
available data regarding the normal operating characteristics and
conditions for the appliance, where the midpoint of the range will
serve as the full charge, and where records are maintained in
accordance with Sec.  82.166(q).
    EPA has granted this level of flexibility due to the difficulties
in determining the full charge for unique appliances with large charge
sizes. In many applications, nameplate data is not available, and
recovery and weighing the full charge may not be practical. While EPA
provides flexibility in determining the full charge, the current leak
repair regulations only require documentation of the assumptions used
to determine the full charge, if the owner or operator uses option 4.
    EPA proposes that the owner or operator maintain records
documenting the full charge determination, regardless of the means used
to calculate or determine the full charge. This proposal would result
in a recordkeeping requirement for determination of the full charge. In
order to comply with the required practices as currently written,
owners or operators would be required to determine the appliance full
charge in order to calculate the leak rate (as defined at Sec.  82.152)
upon addition of refrigerant. So in order to make such calculations,
the owner or operator must make efforts to document their assumptions,
but may not necessarily maintain those documents for an extended period
of time. EPA believes that compliance will be eased by requiring the
maintenance of such full charge determinations.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing to amend the recordkeeping requirement
at Sec.  82.166(q) so that owners or operators must maintain documents
showing all data, including calculations and assumptions, used to
determine the full charge. EPA is not proposing that these records be
reported to the Agency, but is proposing that such records be
maintained on-site, at the physical location of the appliance. EPA
seeks comment on the effectiveness of such a recordkeeping requirement,
and the ability of affected appliance owners or operators to maintain
records to support their determination of the appliance full charge.
5. Documenting Seasonal Variances
    As previously discussed, EPA is proposing an exemption to the
requirement to calculate the leak rate upon each addition of
refrigerant, if the addition is due to seasonal variance, as proposed
for definition at Sec.  82.152. While EPA is proposing to allow this
exemption, the Agency believes that it should be contingent upon the
documentation of the amount and type of refrigerant added during the
periods

of low ambient conditions, as well as documentation of the removal of
refrigerant from the appliance during the warmer months.
    In order to achieve this exemption, EPA proposes a recordkeeping
requirement at Sec.  82.166(r) documenting the seasonal variance. EPA
will only exempt appliance owners or operators from the proposed
requirement to calculate the leak rate upon each addition of
refrigerant when that addition occurs due to a seasonal variance, if
the owner or operator maintains records stating the amount and type of
refrigerant and the date that the refrigerant was added to the
appliance. Owners or operators must also maintain a record of the
amount and type of refrigerant removed from the appliance to counter
the seasonal adjustment. Such records would be required to be
maintained, but would not be submitted to EPA. As previously proposed
the definition of ``seasonal variance'' would limit the time period
covering seasonal variance to one consecutive 12-month period. EPA
seeks comment on the proposed recordkeeping requirement, and its
linkage to the exemption to calculate the leak rate upon each addition
of refrigerant.
6. Destruction of Purged Refrigerant
    Purge devices are used on low-pressure chillers (e.g., R-11, R-113,
R-123) to collect accumulated non-condensable gases from the appliance.
When leaks occur in such systems they act as a vacuum bringing air into
the system. The purge devices release the air to the atmosphere, but
also release a small quantity of refrigerant during the purge events.
EPA has allowed exemptions to the leak repair requirements in instances
where appliance owners or operators can show that purged refrigerants
are captured and subsequently destroyed.
    The current leak repair reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
at Sec.  82.166(p)(1), provide details used to obtain an exemption;
owners or operators who wish to exclude purged refrigerants that are
recovered and destroyed from annual leak rate calculations must
maintain records on-site to support and document the amount of
refrigerant sent for destruction. Records are based on a monitoring
strategy that provides reliable data to demonstrate that the recovered
purged refrigerant has been destroyed to at least 98 percent
destruction efficiency. In accordance with Sec.  82.166(p)(2), owners
or operators who wish to exclude purged refrigerants that are destroyed
from annual leak rate calculations must maintain the following
information after the first time the exclusion is utilized: The
identification of the facility and a contact person, including the
address and telephone number; a general description of the appliance,
focusing on aspects of the appliance relevant to the purging of
refrigerant and subsequent destruction; a description of the methods
used to determine the quantity of refrigerant sent for destruction and
type of records that are being kept by the owners or operators where
the appliance is located; the frequency of monitoring and data-
recording; and a description of the control device and its destruction
efficiency. The information must also be included in any applicable
reporting requirements that are required for compliance with the leak
repair and retrofit requirements for industrial process refrigeration
appliances, as currently set forth in paragraphs Sec.  82.166(n) and
(o).
    During the period 1998-2006, EPA has not received a report from an
industrial process refrigeration appliance owner or operator justifying
the exemption of purged and destroyed refrigerant from the calculation
of the leak rate. The Agency believes that the lack of use of this
provision is due to the likely higher costs of recovering and
destroying refrigerant when compared to recycling and reuse or
reclamation, as well as improved chiller technology that greatly
reduces refrigerant releases during purge events. EPA believes that
current chiller technologies using vapor recovery systems for older CFC
and newer HCFC chillers allow refrigerant from purge events to be
captured and returned to the appliance. In addition, EPA has recognized
new chiller technology that is marketed as having the ability to
monitor purge events in order to minimize or nearly eliminate the
amount of refrigerant released into the atmosphere during a purge
event. Due to the advent of such technology and the lack of use of the
exemption provision, EPA proposes to remove the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements related to documenting purged and destroyed
refrigerant. The Agency requests comment on the need for such an
exemption, and the likelihood that a chiller owner or operator would
recover purged refrigerant for purposes of storage, reclamation, or
destruction.
7. Applicability to Residential and Light Commercial Appliances
    The leak repair regulations are limited to appliances containing
more than 50 pounds of refrigerant that leak above the leak repair
trigger rate percentage. However, the leak repair required practices do
not grant an exemption to the statutory refrigerant venting prohibition
(CAA Section 608(c)(1)) for appliances containing less than 50 pounds
of refrigerant. For example, residential split systems providing
comfort cooling to residential homes typically have refrigerant charges
less than 10 pounds. While the leak repair requirements do not apply to
owners or operators of such appliances, persons servicing, maintaining,
or repairing them are not allowed to intentionally release refrigerant
into the atmosphere (Sec.  82.154(a)(1) and (2)).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' This proposed
rulemaking may raise novel policy issues that are unique to the
refrigeration and air-conditioning service sectors. Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
    EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action. This analysis is entitled Screening
Analysis to Examine the Economic Impact of Proposed Revisions to the
Section 608 Leak Repair Regulations. A copy of the analysis is
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-
0167).
    EPA evaluated the impact of today's NPRM on owners or operators of
air-conditioning and refrigeration appliances with ozone-depleting
refrigerant charge sizes greater than 50 pounds, including the
following sectors: Educational facilities, hospitals, ice rinks,
supermarkets and grocery stores, convenience stores, warehouse and club
supercenters, refrigerated warehouse and storage (including farm)
facilities, office buildings, lodging, bakeries, breweries; and food,
ice, soft drink, chemical, pharmaceutical, and petrochemical
manufacturing facilities. The economic analysis was based on a ``model
entity'' approach for size categories based on the number of employees
within each affected sector. This model entity analysis was used to
estimate the impact on the economy as a whole (i.e., aggregate cost of
the

proposed rule) and on small businesses individually [i.e., for a
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis]. Each model entity reflects
information about the typical number of facilities in a given sector
and size category and the number of pieces of equipment in each
equipment category that are likely to be owned and/or operated by each
facility. The characteristics and costs of model pieces of equipment
were then used to establish costs of compliance for model facilities,
and the costs associated with model facilities were used to establish
costs for the model entities.
    As a means of reducing emissions of ozone-depleting substances to
the lowest achievable level, EPA has considered multiple leak repair
trigger rates and estimated their potential impact on the regulated
community. For purposes of today's NPRM, EPA has considered the
following scenarios: (1) 5% for comfort cooling and 10% for commercial
refrigeration and IPR appliances; (2) 5% for comfort cooling and 20%
for commercial refrigeration and IPR appliances; (3) 5% for comfort
cooling and 30% for commercial refrigeration and IPR appliances; (4)
10% for comfort cooling and 10% for commercial refrigeration and IPR
appliances; (5) 10% for comfort cooling and 20% for commercial
refrigeration and IPR appliances; and (6) 10% for comfort cooling and
30% for commercial refrigeration and IPR appliances. Within each
option, EPA has considered whether additional emissions reduction is
gained by requiring: (1) The replacement of leaking appliance
components after the failure of repair verification; or by (2)
maintaining the existing regulatory flexibility allowing owners/
operators to make unlimited attempts at repair (followed by subsequent
refrigerant recharges) without a mandate to actually replace a leaking
component. EPA has also considered the potential emissions avoided and
estimated impact on the regulated community, and summarizes those
findings as follows: A summary of the scenarios with estimated costs
and benefits is summarized as follows:

                                    Costs and Benefits of Regulatory Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Monetized benefits
                      Option                         Costs  (million      Benefits  (ODP-    at 3% discount rate
                                                         dollars)         weighted tonnes)     (million dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario 1:
    1 (5% and 10%)...............................               $135.6                  493                 $2.5
    2 (5% and 20%)...............................                111.0                  394                  2.0
    3 (5% and 30%)...............................                 92.2                  273                  1.4
    4 (10% and 10%)..............................                129.9                  483                  2.5
    5 (10% and 20%)..............................                105.3                  384                  2.0
    6 (10% and 30%)..............................                 86.5                  263                  1.3
Scenario 2:
    1 (5% and 10%)...............................                 53.2                  423                  2.2
    2 (5% and 20%)...............................                 40.9                  326                  1.7
    3 (5% and 30%)...............................                 31.1                  208                  1.1
    4 (10% and 10%)..............................                 50.5                  413                  2.1
    5 (10% and 20%)..............................                 38.2                  316                  1.6
    6 (10% and 30%)..............................                 28.5                  198                  1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the first scenario, leaking components that fail verification
tests must be replaced within 30 days. Under the second scenario, the
owners or operators must still make repairs to leaking appliances, but
owners or operators have the discretion to determine whether or not
repairs will include the replacement of leaking components. Under both
scenarios, repairs must be completed within 30 days of leak detection,
and verifications (immediate and follow-up within 30 days) must be
conducted. Based in part on EPA analysis (see accompanying Screening
Analysis to Examine the Economic Impact of Proposed Revisions to the
Refrigerant Recycling and Emissions Rule, EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0167), the Agency has decided to propose a reduction of the leak
repair trigger rate for comfort cooling appliances from 15 to 10
percent and for commercial refrigeration appliance and industrial
process refrigeration appliances from 35 to 20 percent. EPA believes
that this combination of leak repair trigger rates provides for
continued flexibility in allowing appliance owners or operators to
decide upon the necessary action needed to repair leaking appliances,
and also provides for additional environmental benefit in terms of
avoided refrigerant emissions. EPA estimates that the total expected
annual incremental cost of the proposed options across all affected
sectors is between $86.5 million and $135.6 million for the six options
under the first scenario (requiring component replacement), and between
$28.5 million and $53.2 million for the six options under the second
scenario. EPA also estimates that a reduction of the leak repair
trigger rate for comfort cooling appliances from 15 to 10 percent and
for commercial refrigeration appliance and industrial process
refrigeration appliances from 35 to 20 percent will result in the
lowest costs at $38.2 million, with the largest environmental benefit
316 ODP weighted tons, when compared to the other five options that
were considered.
    It was assumed that owners or operators would make repairs only as
mandated by regulation. In all likelihood there would be a number of
cases in which normal maintenance would involve making the repairs to
ensure that the system in question was operating smoothly and
performing its function regardless of proposed changes to the rule.
Based on the analysis, the total expected incremental cost of the rule
across all sectors is $38.2 million. The small business analysis used a
statistical technique known as Monte Carlo analysis to estimate the
number of entities in a sector size category that are expected to
experience costs exceeding one percent (and three percent) of the
average annual value of shipments. This analysis did not account for
actions mandated by current regulations. EPA has requested comment on
the estimated costs attributable to today's NPRM.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 1626.10.
    Today's action proposes to strengthen existing reporting and
recordkeeping requirements at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F by providing
information describing the service that has been performed on
refrigeration and air conditioning equipment (i.e., appliances) with
refrigerant charge sizes greater than 50 pounds. Owners or operators of
refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment (i.e., appliances) as well
as personnel servicing such appliances are currently required to
maintain service records, and today's proposal would require additional
specificity concerning the types and results of repairs performed on
such appliances. EPA believes that amending the required service
records will provide consistency to the existing regulations by placing
similar requirements on owners or operators of commercial
refrigeration, comfort cooling, and IPR appliances. EPA also believes
that amending the currently required reporting and recordkeeping
requirements will meet the CAA Section 608(a) requirement for EPA to
promulgate regulations regarding use and disposal of class I and II
substances to ``reduce the use and emission of such substances to the
lowest achievable level'' and ``maximize the recapture and recycling of
such substances.''
    OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements
contained in the existing regulations at Subpart F under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned
OMB control number 2060-0256. EPA has estimated that the proposed
amendments to the existing reporting and recordkeepking requirements
will result in an estimated average annual burden of 6,182 hours at an
annual cost of $148,365. This represents an estimated burden of 5,825
hours at a cost of $139,803, that will affect up to 133,777 owners or
operators of refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances with an ODS
refrigerant charge greater than 50 pounds. EPA also estimates that
technicians servicing the affected appliances will incur an estimated
annual burden of 357 hours at a cost of $8,562.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0167. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days
after December 15, 2010, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its
full effect if OMB receives it by January 14, 2011. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposal on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small
entities directly regulated by this proposed rule are owners or
operators of comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration, or industrial
process refrigeration equipment (i.e., appliances) with ozone-depleting
refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds. We have estimated that a
total of 353 small businesses will experience compliance costs greater
than or equal to one percent of their average value of shipments. This
represents 0.34 percent of the 104,068 total potentially affected small
businesses examined across all sectors. At the one percent level, the
most heavily impacted sector, the ice rink sector, is predicted to have
36 impacted entities (out of 443 small businesses in the sector, or 8.1
percent of the sector). The sector with the most impacted small
entities, bakeries, is predicted to have 114 affected small businesses
(of the 9,598 potentially impacted small businesses in the sector, or
1.2 percent of the sector). There are 74 small businesses with
anticipated compliance costs greater than or equal to three percent of
their average value of shipments, mainly in the bakery and ice rink
sectors. In the bakery sector (using industrial process refrigeration
appliances) 24 companies are expected to have impacts between 3 and 4
percent, while 6 are expected to have impacts between 4 and 9.5
percent. In the ice rink sector (using industrial process refrigeration
appliances) 25 companies are expected to experience impacts between 3
and 4 percent, 4 companies will likely experience impacts between 4 and
10 percent and there is a small chance that 1 of those 4 companies may
experience impacts between 10 and 26 percent.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. The Agency
has reduced the regulatory impact on small businesses by proposing to
reduce the recordkeeping and reporting burden placed upon owners or
operators of regulated appliances. The Agency is relying more on the
maintenance of typical recordkeeping that would be expected to be
collected as a part of normal business operations, such as service
invoices stating the service performed and the amount of refrigerant
added to the leaking appliance. We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or

the private sector. The provisions in this proposed rule fulfill the
obligations of the United States under the international treaty, The
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, as well
as those requirements set forth by Congress in the Clean Air Act.
Viewed as a whole, all of these proposed amendments do not create a
Federal mandate resulting in costs of $100 million or more in any one
year for State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or for
the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This action is also
not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Today's proposal is expected to
primarily affect owners or operators of comfort cooling, commercial
refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration equipment that hold
large ozone-depleting refrigerant charges (i.e., full charges greater
than 50 pounds). While such State-owned equipment falls under the
regulations of this proposal, this proposal will not impose substantial
direct effects on the States or on the relationship between the
national government and the States. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This NPRM
affects owners or operators of comfort cooling, commercial
refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration equipment that hold
large ozone-depleting refrigerant charges (i.e., full charges greater
than 50 pounds). While today's NPRM may impact such equipment that is
owned or operated by Tribal Governments it will not significantly or
uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments nor does
it impose any enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action
from tribal officials.

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

    This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO
12866, and because the Agency does not believe the environmental health
or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate
risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are
contained in the following discussion.
    Stratospheric ozone protects the biosphere from potentially
damaging doses of ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Depletion of
stratospheric ozone, caused by the release of man-made ODS could lead
to significant increases in UV radiation reaching the Earth's surface,
which could in turn lead to adverse human and animal health effects, as
well as ecosystem impacts. This rule will reduce emissions of ODS by
amending the leak repair requirements and associated recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for owners or operators of appliances using
ozone-depleting refrigerants. Reductions in ODS emissions will protect
human health and the environment from increased amounts of UV radiation
and increased incidence of skin cancer, but will not have a
disproportionate effect on children.
    EPA notes that for the whole life exposure assumption, the risks of
ozone depletion are borne primarily by the present population of adults
who will experience these health effects as they age. Depletion of
stratospheric ozone results in greater transmission of the sun's
ultraviolet (UV) radiation to the Earth's surface. The following
studies describe the effects on children of excessive exposure to UV
radiation: (1) Westerdahl J, Olsson H, Ingvar C. ``At what age do
sunburn episodes play a crucial role for the development of malignant
melanoma,'' Eur J Cancer 1994: 30A: 1647-54; (2) Elwood JM, Japson J.
``Melanoma and sun exposure: an overview of published studies,'' Int J
Cancer 1997; 73:198-203; (3) Armstrong BK, ``Melanoma: childhood or
lifelong sun exposure,'' In: Grobb JJ, Stern RS, Mackie RM, Weinstock
WA, eds. ``Epidemiology, causes and prevention of skin diseases,'' 1st
ed. London, England: Blackwell Science, 1997: 63-6; (4) Whieman D,
Green A. ``Melanoma and Sunburn,'' Cancer Causes Control, 1994: 5:564-
72; (5) Heenan, PJ. ``Does intermittent sun exposure cause basal cell
carcinoma? A case control study in Western Australia,'' Int J Cancer
1995; 60: 489-94; (6) Gallagher RP Hill GB, Bajdik CD, et al.
``Sunlight exposure, pigmentary factors, and risk of nonmelanocytic
skin cancer I, Basal cell carcinoma.'' Arch Dermatol 1995; 131: 157-63;
(7) Armstrong, DK. ``How sun exposure causes skin cancer: an
epidemiological perspective,'' Prevention of Skin Cancer. 2004. 89-116.
    This NPRM proposes changes to the existing regulatory regime for
repair of leaking refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances with
ODS refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds. These changes are not
expected to increase the impacts on children's health from
stratospheric ozone depletion. The public is invited to submit comments
or identify peer-reviewed studies and data that assess effects of early
life exposure to UV radiation as a result of the release of ODS
refrigerants used in refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment
addressed in this NPRM.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This NPRM addresses leak rates of air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment (i.e., appliances) with ozone-
depleting refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds, and proposes to
amend the recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the
refrigerant leak repair required practices. We have concluded that this

rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed
rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not
considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. Today's NPRM addresses repair and maintenance of
refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment (i.e., appliances) by
requiring repair and associated recordkeeping of such appliances that
leak ozone-depleting refrigerants. An overall reduction in the emission
rates of such appliances will provide protection to all populations and
will not have a disproportionately high adverse human health or
environmental impact on minority or low-income populations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Chlorofluorocarbons, Exports,
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: December 7, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

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

PART 82--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Section 82.150 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  82.150  Purpose and scope.

    (a) The purpose and scope of this subpart is to reduce the use and
emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants to the lowest achievable
level and encourage the use of substitutes, by maximizing the recapture
and recycling of such ozone-depleting substances during the use,
service, maintenance, repair, and disposal of appliances and by
restricting the sale of refrigerants in accordance with Title VI of the
Clean Air Act.
* * * * *
    3. Section 82.152 is amended as follows:
    a. By adding definitions for ``Comfort cooling appliance,''
``Commercial refrigeration appliance,'' ``Component,'' ``Industrial
process refrigeration appliance,'' ``Retrofit,'' Retire,'' and
``Seasonal variance,''
    b. By revising the definitions for ``Follow-up verification test,''
``Full charge,'' ``Initial verification test,'' ``Leak rate,'' and
``Normal operating characteristics,''
    c. By removing the definitions for ``Commercial refrigeration,''
``Critical component,'' ``Custom-built,'' ``Industrial process
refrigeration,'' and ``Industrial process shutdown.''

Sec.  82.152  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Comfort cooling appliance means any air-conditioning appliance used
to provide cooling in order to control heat and/or humidity in
facilities such as office buildings and computer rooms.
    Commercial refrigeration appliance means any refrigeration
appliance used to store perishable goods in retail food, cold storage
warehousing, or any other sector requiring cold storage. Retail food
includes the refrigeration equipment found in supermarkets, grocery and
convenience stores, restaurants, and other food service establishments.
Cold storage includes the refrigeration equipment used to house
perishable goods or any manufactured product requiring refrigerated
storage.
    Component means an appliance component, such as, but not limited
to, compressors, condensers, evaporators, receivers and all of its
connections and subassemblies without which the appliance will not
properly function and/or will be subject to failures.
* * * * *
    Follow-up verification test means a test that validates the
effectiveness of repairs within 30 days of the appliance's return to
normal operating characteristics and conditions but no sooner than 24
hours after completion of repairs. Follow-up verification tests
include, but are not limited to, the use of soap bubbles, electronic or
ultrasonic leak detectors, pressure or vacuum tests, fluorescent dye
and black light, infrared or near infrared tests, and handheld gas
detection devices.
    Full charge means the amount of refrigerant required for normal
operating characteristics and conditions of the appliance, as
determined by using one of the following four methods:
    (1) Use the equipment manufacturer's determination of the full
charge;
    (2) Use calculations based on component sizes, density of
refrigerant, volume of piping, seasonal variances, and other relevant
considerations;
    (3) Use actual measurements of the amount of refrigerant evacuated
from the appliance; or
    (4) Use an established range based on the best available data
regarding the normal operating characteristics and conditions for the
appliance, where the midpoint of the range will serve as the full
charge.
* * * * *
    Industrial process refrigeration appliance means refrigeration
equipment, that may be complex or customized, that is used in a
manufacturing process. Industrial process refrigeration appliances
include equipment that is directly linked to a manufacturing process,
including, but not limited to, appliances used in the chemical;
pharmaceutical; petrochemical; food or beverage manufacturing,
packaging or processing; power generation; and industrial ice

manufacturing industries. Where one appliance is used for both
industrial process refrigeration and another type of refrigeration or
air-conditioning application, the appliance will be considered an
industrial process refrigeration appliance if 50 percent or more of its
operating capacity is used for industrial process refrigeration.
    Initial verification test means a leak test that is conducted as
soon as practicable after the repair is completed. An initial
verification test, with regard to the leak repairs that require the
evacuation of the appliance or portion of the appliance, means a test
conducted prior to the replacement of the full refrigerant charge and
before the appliance or portion of the appliance has reached operation
at normal operating characteristics and conditions of temperature and
pressure. An initial verification test with regard to repairs conducted
without the evacuation of the refrigerant charge means a test conducted
as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the repair work.
    Leak rate means the rate at which an appliance is losing
refrigerant, calculated at the time of refrigerant addition. The leak
rate is expressed in terms of the percentage of the appliance's full
charge that has been lost since the last successful repair over a
consecutive 12-month period, and is calculated by:
    (1) Step 1. Take the number of pounds of refrigerant added to the
appliance since the last successful follow-up verification or the
number of pounds of refrigerant added during the previous 365-day
period (if the last successful follow-up verification occurred more
than one year ago);
    (2) Step 2. Divide the result of Step 1. by the number of pounds of
refrigerant the appliance contains at full charge;
    (3) Step 3. Multiply the result of Step 2. by 100 to obtain a
percentage. This method is summarized in the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE10.015

* * * * *
    Normal operating characteristics and conditions mean the appliance
operating temperatures, pressures, fluid flows, speeds and other
characteristics, including full charge of the appliance, that would be
expected for a given process load and ambient condition during
operation. Normal operating characteristics and conditions are marked
by the absence of atypical conditions affecting the operation of the
refrigeration appliance.
* * * * *
    Retire means the permanent removal from service of the entire
appliance, rendering it unfit for use by the current or any future
owner or operator.
    Retrofit means the conversion of an appliance from a refrigerant to
a substitute with a lower ozone-depleting potential. Retrofit includes
a complete conversion of the appliance to achieve systems compatibility
with the substitute and may include, but is not limited to, changes in
lubricants, gaskets, filters, driers, valves, o-rings or appliance
components.
    Seasonal variance means the need to add refrigerant to an appliance
due to a change in ambient conditions caused by a change in season,
followed by the subsequent removal of refrigerant in the corresponding
change in season, where both the addition and removal of refrigerant
occurs within one consecutive 12-month period.
* * * * *
    4. Section 82.156 is amended as follows:
    a. By revising paragraph (i),
    b. By adding paragraph (j),
    c. By adding and reserving paragraph (k),
    d. By adding paragraphs (l) amd (m).

Sec.  82.156  Required practices.

* * * * *
    (i) Owners or operators of comfort cooling appliances with a full
charge greater than 50 pounds of refrigerant must have all leaks within
the appliance repaired within 30 days, if the leak rate exceeds 10
percent. The leak rate must be calculated immediately upon each
addition of refrigerant to the appliance, unless the addition is
required to recharge the appliance immediately after repair or retrofit
or the addition is due to a seasonal variance where records justifying
the addition due to a seasonal variance are maintained in accordance
with Sec.  82.166(r). The determination of the leak rate must be
maintained in accordance with Sec.  82.166(k).
    (1) Owners or operators shall conduct an initial verification test
immediately upon completion of repairs. Methods and results of all
initial verification tests must be maintained in accordance with Sec.
82.166(k).
    (2) Owners or operators shall conduct a follow-up verification test
within 30 days of completing but no sooner than 24 hours after repair
and recharge of the appliance. The follow-up verification test shall be
conducted at normal operating characteristics and conditions. Methods
and results of all follow-up verification tests must be maintained in
accordance with Sec.  82.166(k).
    (3) If the initial or follow-up verification test indicates that
the repairs have not been successful, meaning that leaks are still
occurring within the appliance component(s) requiring repair, the owner
or operator must make an additional repair attempt, within 30 days of
the failed verification and must conduct an additional initial and a
follow-up verification test, as set forth in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2)
of this section.
    (4) Owners or operators of commercial refrigeration appliances must
retire or retrofit the appliance to use a refrigerant or substitute
with a lower ozone depleting potential (ODP), in accordance with
paragraph (l) of this section, if the appliance has experienced three
failed verification tests within a consecutive six-month period.
    (5) Owners or operators of comfort cooling appliances may have more
than 30 days to repair the appliance if one or more of the following
conditions apply:
    (i) The appliance is located in an area subject to radiological
contamination or where the shutting down of the appliance will directly
lead to radiological contamination, and where such records are
maintained in accordance with Sec.  82.166(o).
    (ii) The necessary parts for an appliance component(s) are
unavailable, and the owner or operator maintains a written statement
from the appliance or component manufacturer or distributor stating the
unavailability of parts, and where such records are maintained in
accordance with Sec.  82.166(o).

    (iii) Other applicable Federal, State, or local regulations make a
repair within 30 days impossible, and where such records are maintained
in accordance with Sec.  82.166(o).
    (iv) Owners or operators are allowed an additional 30 days beyond
the date that radiological contamination can be minimized; by which
repairs can comply with applicable Federal, State, or local regulations
that originally hindered repairs; or the delivery of parts to conduct
and complete repairs to the affected appliance.
    (j) Owners or operators of commercial refrigeration or industrial
process refrigeration appliances with a full charge greater than 50
pounds of refrigerant must have all leaks within the appliance repaired
within 30 days, if the leak rate exceeds 20 percent of the full charge.
The leak rate must be calculated immediately upon each addition of
refrigerant to the appliance, unless the addition is required to
recharge the appliance immediately after repair or retrofit, or the
addition is due to a seasonal variance where records justifying the
addition due to the seasonal variance are maintained in accordance with
Sec.  82.166(r). The determination of the leak rate must be maintained
in accordance with Sec.  82.166(k).
    (1) Owners or operators shall conduct an initial verification test
immediately upon completion of repairs. Methods and results of all
initial verification tests must be maintained in accordance with Sec.
82.166(k).
    (2) Owners or operators shall conduct a follow-up verification test
within 30 days of completing, but no sooner than 24 hours after repair
and recharge of the appliance. The follow-up verification test shall be
conducted at normal operating characteristics and conditions. Methods
and results of all follow-up verification tests must be maintained in
accordance with Sec.  82.166(k).
    (3) If the initial or follow-up verification test indicates that
the repairs have not been successful, meaning that leaks are still
occurring within the appliance component(s) requiring repair, the owner
or operator must make an additional repair attempt, within 30 days of
the failed verification and must conduct an additional initial and a
follow-up verification test, as set forth in paragraphs (j)(1) and (2)
of this section.
    (4) Owners or operators of commercial refrigeration or industrial
process refrigeration appliances must retire or retrofit the appliance
to use a refrigerant or substitute with a lower ozone depleting
potential (ODP), in accordance with paragraph (l) of this section, if
the appliance has experienced three failed verification tests within a
consecutive six-month period.
    (5) Owners or operators of commercial refrigeration or industrial
process refrigeration appliances may have more than 30 days to repair
the appliance or replace the leaking component(s) if one or more of the
following conditions apply:
    (i) The appliance is located in an area subject to radiological
contamination or where the shutting down of the appliance will directly
lead to radiological contamination, and where such records are
maintained in accordance with Sec.  82.166(o).
    (ii) The necessary parts for a component are unavailable and the
owner or operator maintains a written statement from the appliance or
component manufacturer or distributor stating the unavailability of
parts, and where such records are maintained in accordance with Sec.
82.166(o).
    (iii) Other applicable Federal, State, or local regulations make a
repair within 30 days impossible, and where such records are maintained
in accordance with Sec.  82.166(o).
    (iv) Owners or operators are allowed an additional 30 days beyond
the date that radiological contamination can be minimized; by which
repairs can comply with applicable Federal, State, or local regulations
that originally hindered repairs; or the delivery of parts to conduct
and complete repairs to the affected appliance.
    (k) [Reserved]
    (l) Owners or operators are not required to repair the appliance
within 30 days as specified in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this section,
if within 30 days of the date that the appliance exceeded the
applicable leak rate, they develop a written and dated retrofit or
retirement plan.
    (1) The written and dated retrofit or retirement plan must include
a six-month schedule to either permanently retire the entire appliance
from operation or retrofit the appliance for use with a substitute with
a lower ozone-depleting potential. The retrofit or retirement plan must
be maintained on-site at the physical location of the affected
appliance, in accordance with Sec.  82.166(n).
    (2) Retrofit or retirement of the appliance must be completed
within six months of the date of the retrofit or retirement plan.
    (3) Owners or operators may have more than 6 months to complete the
retrofit of the appliance, if the supplier of the appliance or one or
more of its components has quoted a delivery time of more than 12 weeks
from the date of the retrofit plan. In such instances, the owner or
operator will have an additional 12 weeks after the date of delivery of
the component(s) in order to completely implement the retrofit of the
appliance. A written statement from the supplier must be maintained in
accordance with Sec.  82.166(p).
    (m) The amount of time for owners or operators to complete and
verify repairs, prepare and implement written retrofit or retirement
plans, under paragraphs (i) and (j) of this section, is temporarily
suspended during the time that an appliance is undergoing system
mothballing, as defined in Sec.  82.152. The time for owners or
operators to complete repairs, replace components, or fully implement
written retrofit or retirement plans will resume on the day the
appliance is brought back on-line, indicating that the appliance is no
longer undergoing system mothballing.
* * * * *
    5. Section 82.166 is amended as follows:
    a. By revising paragraphs (j) through (q),
    b. By adding paragraphs (r) through (v).

Sec.  82.166  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (j) Persons servicing appliances with a full charge greater than 50
pounds of refrigerant must provide the owner or operator of such
appliances with an invoice or other documentation which includes: the
quantity and type of refrigerant added to the appliance; the identity
and location of the appliance; the date and type of service performed;
the physical location of any leaks; the amount and type of refrigerant
recovered from the appliance; and the date, method, and results of
initial verification and follow-up verification tests.
    (k) Owners or operators of appliances with a full charge greater
than 50 pounds of refrigerant must keep records documenting the
quantity and type of refrigerant added to the appliance; the full
charge of the appliance; the calculated leak rate of the appliance; the
identity and location of the appliance; the date and type of service
performed; the physical location of any leaks; the amount and type of
refrigerant recovered from the appliance; and the date, method, and
results of initial verification and follow-up verification tests.
    (l) Owners or operators of appliances with a full charge greater
than 50 pounds of refrigerant must keep records

of the type and quantity of refrigerant purchased.
    (m) Owners or operators of appliances with a full charge greater
than 50 pounds of refrigerant must keep records of the types and
amounts of refrigerant recovered from their appliances that are
transferred to a different owner. The records must include the name and
address of the facility accepting used refrigerant, and the date that
the refrigerant was transferred.
    (n) Owners or operators of appliances must maintain a dated
retrofit or retirement plan that establishes a six-month schedule to
retrofit or retire the leaking appliance, where required in Sec.
82.156(l)(1). The dated plan must be maintained at the site of the
leaking appliance, and at a minimum must include: identification and
location of the appliance; type and full charge of the refrigerant used
by the leaking appliance; location of all leaks and efforts taken to
address leaks prior to retrofit or retirement; type and full charge of
the substitute to which the appliance will be converted, if
retrofitted; itemized procedure for retrofit including, but not limited
to, the procedure for flushing old refrigerant and lubricant, changes
in lubricants, filters, gaskets, o-rings, or valves; the plan for the
disposition of recovered refrigerant; the plan for the disposition of
the appliance, if retired; and a six-month schedule for the complete
retrofit or retirement of the appliance.
    (o) Owners or operators of appliances who are unable to complete
repairs in 30 days due to radiological conditions, unavailability of
components, or government regulations must maintain dated records
justifying the need for additional time, by maintaining the following
records, as applicable:
    (1) A written statement describing the radiological conditions that
prevent immediate repair of the appliance;
    (2) A written statement from the appliance or component
manufacturer or distributor estimating a date of delivery for parts
required to complete repairs of the appliance;
    (3) A written statement describing the applicable Federal, State,
or local regulations that prevent the immediate repair of the
appliance.
    (p) Owners or operators of appliances who are unable to complete
retrofit plans within 6 months, due to the unavailability of one or
more of the appliance's components that has a quoted delivery time of
more than 12 weeks, as specified in Sec.  82.156(l)(3), must maintain a
written statement from the appliance or component manufacturer or
distributor estimating a date of delivery for parts required to
complete the retrofit plan. Owners or operators must also maintain
records documenting the actual date of delivery of the appliance
component.
    (q) Owners or operators of appliances with refrigerant charges
greater than 50 pounds must maintain documents showing all appliance or
appliance component data, measurements, calculations and assumptions
used to determine the full charge, as defined at Sec.  82.152.
    (r) Owners or operators of appliances with refrigerant charges
greater than 50 pounds who seek an exemption from the requirement to
calculate the leak rate upon each addition of refrigerant, as specified
in Sec.  82.152, due to a seasonal variance must maintain records
stating the amount and type of refrigerant and the date that the
refrigerant was added to the appliance. Owners or operators must also
maintain a record of the amount and type of refrigerant and the date
that refrigerant was removed from the appliance to counter the seasonal
adjustment.
    (s) Technicians certified under Sec.  82.161 must keep a copy of
their certificate on-site, at their place of business.
    (t) Technicians servicing, repairing, or maintaining appliances
containing more than 50 pounds of refrigerant must maintain records
recording the amount and type of refrigerant recovered, but not
returned to the appliance.
    (u) Any person, including, but not limited to, service contractors
or technicians and refrigerant wholesalers or brokers, who distributes
or sells, or offers to distribute or sell, used refrigerant, that has
not yet been reclaimed, to a new owner must maintain records
documenting the type and quantity of used refrigerant distributed or
sold, the date of such distribution or sale, and the name and address
of the entity taking possession of the used refrigerant.
    (v) All records required under this section must be kept on-site
for a minimum of three years, unless otherwise stated.

[FR Doc. 2010-31337 Filed 12-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 107 (Monday, June 7, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30218-30221]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11804]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0450; Project Identifier 2017-SW-100-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH
(AHD) Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD) Model MBB-BK 117 D-2
helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by the discovery that
certain parts that are approved for installation on multiple helicopter
models are life limited parts when installed on Model MBB-BK 117 D-2
helicopters and some helicopter delivery documents excluded the life
limit information. This proposed AD would require determining the total
hours time-in-service (TIS) of a certain part-numbered rotor mast nut
and re-identifying a certain part-numbered rotor mast nut. This
proposed AD would also require establishing a life limit for a certain
part-numbered rotor mast nut and helical gear support, and removing
each part from service before reaching its life limit. Additionally,
this proposed AD would require replacing a certain part-numbered main
gearbox (MGB) with a not affected MGB as specified in a European
Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency)
(EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference (IBR). The
FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 22,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For material that is proposed for IBR in this AD, contact EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999
000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may
find this material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD docket on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2021-0450.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0450; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other

information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rao Edupuganti, Aerospace Engineer,
Dynamic Systems Section, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy &
Innovation Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0450; Project Identifier
2017-SW-100-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposal.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Rao
Edupuganti, Aerospace Engineer, Dynamic Systems Section, Technical
Innovation Policy Branch, Policy & Innovation Division, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives that is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0037, dated February 22, 2017
(EASA AD 2017-0037), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus
Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (formerly Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH),
Airbus Helicopters Inc. (formerly American Eurocopter LLC) Model MBB-BK
117 D-2 and MBB-BK117 D-2m helicopters.
    This proposed AD was prompted by the discovery that certain parts
that are approved for installation on multiple helicopter models are
life limited parts when installed on Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters
and some helicopter delivery documents excluded the life limit
information. The FAA is proposing this AD to address an unsafe
condition on these products. See EASA AD 2017-0037 for additional
background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2017-0037 requires establishing a life limit for rotor mast
nut part number (P/N) D632K1133-201 and helical gear support P/N
D632K1113-201, and replacing these parts before exceeding their life
limit. EASA AD 2017-0037 also requires replacing each rotor mast nut P/
N D632K1133-201 for which the hours time-in-service (TIS) are unknown
and replacing certain part-numbered rotor mast nuts before accumulating
3,708 hours TIS since first installation on a helicopter. EASA AD 2017-
0037 requires re-identifying each rotor mast nut P/N 117-12133-01 to P/
N D632K1133-201 by following the specified service information. EASA AD
2017-0037 requires replacing any MGB P/N D632K1001-051 with serial
number (S/N) D2-0001 up to D2-0108 inclusive, D2-0123, D2-0126, D2-
0127, or D2-0130 up to D2-0136 inclusive with a not affected MGB before
the affected MGB accumulates 3,708 hours TIS. EASA AD 2017-0037 also
prohibits installing an affected rotor mast nut or an affected MGB that
has accumulated more than 3,708 hours TIS since first installation on a
helicopter. Additionally, EASA AD 2017-0037 requires revising the
Aircraft Maintenance Program (AMP).
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin MBB-
BK117 D-2-63A-001, Revision 0, dated December 1, 2016 (ASB 63A-001),
which is not incorporated by reference, which specifies procedures for
re-identifying the rotor mast nut by using a vibrograph, crossing out
the old P/N and marking the new P/N on the outer surface, engraving the
letter ``A'' behind the S/N of each part, and updating the historical
record and log card to confirm compliance with ASB 63A-001. ASB 63A-001
also specifies during the next MGB overhaul, making an entry in the log
card to confirm re-identification of the helical gear support, and
annotating the S/N of the helical gear support.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country, and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in EASA AD
2017-0037. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all the
relevant information and determining the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same
type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2017-0037, described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this proposed AD and except as discussed under
``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the EASA AD.''

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2017-0037
will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed
AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2017-0037

in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular
section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only
with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to
``all required actions and compliance times,'' compliance with this AD
requirement is not limited to the section titled ``Required Action(s)
and Compliance Time(s)'' in the EASA AD. Service information specified
in EASA AD 2017-0037 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2017-
0037 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0450 after the FAA
final rule is published.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    EASA AD 2017-0037 applies to Model MBB-BK117 D-2 and D2m
helicopters, whereas this proposed AD would only apply to Model MBB-
BK117 D-2 helicopters because Model D-2m is not FAA type-certificated.
If the total hours TIS for an affected rotor mast nut cannot be
determined, this proposed AD would require removing the rotor mast nut
from service before further flight, whereas EASA AD 2017-0037 does not
contain this requirement. EASA AD 2017-0037 requires using a vibrograph
to re-identify certain rotor mast nuts, whereas this proposed AD would
require using a vibro etch instead. EASA AD 2017-0037 requires
replacing certain parts, whereas this proposed AD would require
removing certain parts from service instead. EASA AD 2017-0037 requires
revising the AMP, whereas this proposed AD would not.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 30 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at
$85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the
following costs to comply with this proposed AD.
    Determining the total hours TIS on an affected rotor mast nut would
take about 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and
$2,550 for the U.S. fleet.
    Re-identifying a rotor mast nut would take about 1.5 work-hours for
an estimated cost of $128 per rotor mast nut.
    Replacing a rotor mast nut would take about 6 work-hours and parts
would cost about $5,351 for an estimated cost of $5,861 per rotor mast
nut.
    Replacing a main gearbox, which includes replacing the helical gear
support, would take about 42 work-hours and parts would cost about
$295,000 (overhauled) for an estimated cost of $298,570.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD): Docket No. FAA-2021-0450;
Project Identifier 2017-SW-100-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by July 22, 2021.

(b) Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD)
Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters, certificated in any category, with
an affected main gearbox or affected rotor mast nut as identified in
Note 1 of European Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union
Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD 2017-0037, dated February 22, 2017
(EASA AD 2017-0037) installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code: 6200, Main gearbox.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This proposed AD was prompted by the discovery that certain
parts that are approved for installation on multiple helicopter
models are life limited parts when installed on Model MBB-BK 117 D-2
helicopters and some helicopter delivery documents excluded the life
limit information. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent certain
parts from remaining in service beyond their fatigue life. The
unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the
part and loss of control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2017-0037.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2017-0037

    (1) Where EASA AD 2017-0037 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2017-0037 refers to flight hours (FH), this AD
requires using hours time-in-service (TIS).
    (3) Where paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2017-0037 requires
determining the FH (total hours TIS) accumulated by the affected
rotor mast nut since first installation on a helicopter, this AD
requires removing the rotor mast nut from service before further

flight if the total hours TIS cannot be determined.
    (4) Where the service information referenced in Note 3 of EASA
AD 2017-0037 specifies to use a vibrograph to mark the new part
number, this AD requires using a vibro etch.
    (5) Where paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2017-0037 requires replacing
each affected rotor mast nut with a not affected rotor mast nut
before exceeding 3,708 FH (total hours TIS) since first installation
on a helicopter, this AD requires removing each affected rotor mast
nut from service before accumulating 3,708 total hours TIS.
    (6) Where paragraph (6) of EASA AD 2017-0037 requires replacing
each part as identified in Table 2 of EASA AD 2017-0037 before
exceeding the FH (total hours TIS) limit, this AD requires removing
each part from service before exceeding the total hours TIS limit.
    (7) Paragraph (7) of EASA AD 2017-0037 does not apply to this
AD.
    (8) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2017-0037 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For EASA AD 2017-0037, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may
view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0450.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Rao Edupuganti,
Aerospace Engineer, Dynamic Systems Section, Technical Innovation
Policy Branch, Policy & Innovation Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood
Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on May 27, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-11804 Filed 6-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P