[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78558-78585]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31337]

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

Part VI

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 82

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167; FRL-9238-4]
RIN 2060-AM09

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing changes
to the leak repair regulations promulgated under Section 608 of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA or Act). EPA is proposing to
lower the leak repair trigger rates for comfort cooling, commercial
refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration and air-
conditioning equipment (i.e., appliances) with ozone-depleting
refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds. This action proposes to
streamline existing required practices and associated reporting and
recordkeeping requirements by establishing similar leak repair
requirements for owners or operators of comfort cooling, commercial
refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration appliances. This
action also proposes to reduce the use and emissions of class I and
class II controlled substances (such as but not limited, to CFC-11,
CFC-12, HCFC-123, HCFC-22) by requiring the following: Verification and
documentation of all repairs, retrofit or retirement of appliances that
cannot be sufficiently repaired, mandatory replacement of appliance
components that have a history of failures, and mandatory recordkeeping
of the determination of the full charge and the fate of recovered
refrigerant.

DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received by the
EPA Docket on or before February 14, 2011, unless a public hearing is
requested. Any party requesting a public hearing must notify the
contact listed below under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 5 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time on December 29, 2010. If a public hearing is
requested, commenters will have until February 28, 2011 to submit
comments before the close of the comment period. If a hearing is held,
it will take place at EPA headquarters in Washington, DC. EPA will post
a notice on our Web site, http://www.epa.gov/ozone/strathome.html,
announcing further information should a hearing take place.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0167, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attn: Julius Banks.
     Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to EPA Air
Docket, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108, Mail Code
6102T, Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0167. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information that has
disclosure restrictions by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM that you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.html.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
that has disclosure restrictions by statute. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. A fee may be charged for
the copying of documents at the Air Docket facility.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julius Banks; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; Stratospheric Program Division; Office of
Atmospheric Programs; Office of Air and Radiation; Mail Code 6205-J;
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.; Washington, DC 20460;<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
    1. Confidential Business Information (CBI)
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
II. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act
III. Leak Repair Regulations
IV. Proposed Revisions to the Leak Repair Regulations
    A. Purpose and Scope
    B. Definitions
    1. Comfort Cooling Appliance
    2. Commercial Refrigeration Appliance
    3. Critical (Appliance) Component
    4. Initial and Follow-Up Verification Tests
    5. Full Charge and Seasonal Variance
    6. Industrial Process Refrigeration
    7. Leak Rate
    8. Normal Operating Characteristics or Conditions
    9. Retrofit, Repair, and Retire
    C. Required Practices
    1. Repair of Leaks and Leak Repair Trigger Rates
    2. Addition of Refrigerant Due to Seasonal Variances
    3. Verification of Repairs
    4. Requirement to Develop and Complete Retrofit/Retirement Plans
    5. Extension to Repair and Retrofit/Retirement Timelines
    6. Worst Leaker Provision
    D. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
    1. Service Records

    2. Records Documenting the Fate of Recovered Refrigerant
    3. Extensions to Repair and Retrofit/Retirement Timelines
    4. Documenting the Determination of the Appliance Full Charge
    5. Documenting Seasonal Variances
    6. Destruction of Purged Refrigerant
    7. Applicability to Residential and Light Commercial Appliances
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et. seq.
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Applicability of Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health & Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations.

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action
include those who own, operate, maintain, service, or repair comfort
cooling, commercial refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration
appliances. Such entities include, but are not limited to, owners or
operators of comfort cooling chillers; refrigerated warehouses; retail
food stores, including supermarkets, grocery stores, wholesale markets,
supercenters, and convenience stores; beverage and food manufacturers,
distributors, and packagers; ice rinks; and other industrial process
refrigeration applications. Regulated entities include, but are not
limited to, the following:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            North American Industry
                Category                   Classification (NAIC) Code        Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial Process Refrigeration (IPR)..  311, 325, 3118, 3254,        Owners or operators of refrigeration
                                           31212, 324110, 312111,       equipment used in the manufacture of
                                           312112, 312113, 713940.      pharmaceuticals, frozen food, dairy
                                                                        products, baked goods, food and
                                                                        beverages, petrochemicals, chemicals,
                                                                        ice rinks, ice manufacturing.
Commercial Refrigeration................  45291, 49312, 49313,         Owners or operators of refrigerated
                                           445110, 445120, 447110.      warehousing and storage facilities,
                                                                        supermarket, grocery, warehouse clubs,
                                                                        supercenters, convenience stores,
                                                                        refrigerated warehousing and storage.
Comfort Cooling.........................  72, 622, 6111, 6112, 6113,   Owners or operators of air-conditioning
                                           531312.                      equipment used in the following:
                                                                        hospitals, office buildings, colleges
                                                                        and universities, metropolitan transit
                                                                        authorities, real estate rental & leased
                                                                        properties, lodging & food services,
                                                                        property management, schools, public
                                                                        administration or other public
                                                                        institutions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated and
potentially affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed
in the table could also be affected. To determine whether your company
is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria contained in section 608 of the CAA Amendments
of 1990. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

1. Confidential Business Information (CBI)
    Do not submit confidential business information (CBI) to EPA
through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in
a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or
CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-
ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR 2.2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    When submitting comments, remember to do the following:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree with the proposal;
suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested
changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used in preparing your comments.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act

    Section 608 of the Clean Air Act as amended (CAA, the Act), the
National Recycling and Emissions Reduction Program, requires EPA to
establish regulations governing the use of ozone-depleting substances
(ODS) used as refrigerants,\1\ such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), during the maintenance, service, or
disposal of appliances including air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment. Section 608 also prohibits any person from knowingly
venting, or from otherwise knowingly releasing or disposing of ODS used
as refrigerants during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of
air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Refrigerant means, for purposes of 40 CFR part 82, Subpart
F, any substance consisting in part or whole of a class I or class
II ozone-depleting substance that is used for heat transfer purposes
and provides a cooling effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

the use and emissions of class I substances (i.e., CFCs, halons, carbon
tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform) and class II substances (i.e.,
HCFCs) to the lowest achievable level, and to maximize the recycling of
such substances. Section 608(b) requires that the regulations
promulgated pursuant to subsection (a) contain requirements for the
safe disposal of class I and class II substances. Finally, section
608(c) is a self-effectuating provision that prohibits any person from
knowingly venting, releasing or disposing into the environment of any
class I or class II substances, and eventually their substitutes,
during servicing and disposal of air-conditioning or refrigeration
appliances.
    EPA's authority to propose the requirements in this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is based on Section 608(a), which requires
EPA to promulgate regulations regarding use and disposal of class I and
II substances to ``reduce the use and emission of such substances to
the lowest achievable level'' and ``maximize the recapture and
recycling of such substances.'' Section 608(a) further provides that
``such regulations may include requirements to use alternative
substances (including substances which are not class I or class II
substances) . . . or to promote the use of safe alternatives pursuant
to section [612] or any combination of the foregoing.''
    Section 608(c)(1) provides that, effective July 1, 1992, it is
``unlawful for any person, in the course of maintaining, servicing,
repairing, or disposing of an appliance or industrial process
refrigeration, to knowingly vent or otherwise knowingly release or
dispose of any class I or class II substance used as a refrigerant in
such appliance (or industrial process refrigeration) in a manner which
permits such substance to enter the environment.'' The statute exempts
from this prohibition ``[d]e minimis releases associated with good
faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose'' of a
substance. To implement and enforce the venting prohibitions of this
section, EPA, through its regulations, interprets releases to meet the
criteria for exempted ``de minimis'' releases when they occur while the
recycling and recovery requirements of sections 608 and 609 regulations
are followed. Effective November 15, 1995, section 608(c)(2) of the Act
prohibits the knowingly venting or otherwise knowingly release or
disposal of any substitute for class I and class II substances by any
person maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment. This prohibition applies
unless EPA determines that such venting, releasing, or disposing does
not pose a threat to the environment.

III. Leak Repair Regulations

    Final regulations promulgated under section 608 of the Act,
published on May 14, 1993 (58 FR 28660), established a recycling
program for ozone-depleting refrigerants recovered during the servicing
and maintenance of air-conditioning and refrigeration appliances.
Together with the prohibition on venting during the maintenance,
service, repair and disposal of class I and class II ODS (January 22,
1991; 56 FR 2420), these regulations were intended to substantially
reduce the use and emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants.
    The May 14, 1993 regulations established leak repair requirements
to further minimize emissions of class I and class II substances. The
rule states that appliances that hold a refrigerant charge greater than
50 pounds are subject to the leak repair requirements. An annual leak
rate of 35 percent was established for industrial process refrigeration
and commercial refrigeration appliances, while an annual leak rate of
15 percent was established for comfort cooling appliances. Where the
leak rate is exceeded, the appliance must be repaired within 30 days.
These regulations were amended August 8, 1995, to provide greater
flexibility to owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration
appliances (60 FR 40419). Thus an alternative was provided that allows
owners or operators to develop a retrofit or replacement plan within 30
days that outlines actions to retrofit or replace the leaking appliance
within one year. The leak repair components of the regulations (i.e.,
definitions, required practices, and associated reporting and
recordkeeping requirements) were subsequently revised again in final
regulations published on January 11, 2005 (70 FR 1972).
    On August 8, 1995, EPA promulgated a final rule (60 FR 40420) in
response to a settlement agreement reached by EPA and the Chemical
Manufacturers Association (CMA). In that settlement, EPA permitted
owners or operators of appliances with refrigerant charges greater than
50 pounds to take additional time, beyond 30 days, to complete repairs
and more than one year to retrofit appliances where certain conditions
applied (e.g., equipment located in areas subject to radiological
contamination, unavailability of necessary parts, adherence to local or
State laws that may hinder immediate repairs). EPA also agreed to
clarify that purged emissions that have been captured and destroyed can
be excluded from the leak rate calculations.
    On January 11, 2005, EPA issued a final rule (70 FR 1972)
clarifying that the leak repair requirements apply to any refrigerant
substitute that consists of a class I or class II ODS, and amended and
added definitions for ``full charge'' and ``leak rate.'' The final rule
amended the required practices and associated reporting/recordkeeping
requirements. It also provided clarification to current leak repair
requirements. These regulations are applicable to all owners or
operators of comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration, and industrial
process refrigeration (as defined at Sec.  82.152) with a refrigerant
full charge greater than 50 pounds. Refrigerant is defined at Sec.
82.152 as any substance consisting in part or whole of a class I or
class II ODS that is used for heat transfer and provides a cooling
effect. Such refrigerants include, but are not limited to, R-11, R-12,
R-123, R-22, R-401A, R-402B, R-414B, R-500, and R-502.
    While the leak repair regulations are limited to appliances
containing more than 50 pounds of refrigerant that leak above the leak
repair trigger rate percentage, the leak repair requirements do not
grant an exemption to the remainder of the refrigerant regulations at
40 CFR part 82, subpart F. In particular, the leak repair required
practices of Sec.  82.156 do not grant an exemption to the statutory
venting prohibition for refrigerants or their non-ODS substitutes.
    EPA stated in Section F.--Required Practices of the original
refrigerant recycling final rule (May 14, 1993; 58 FR 28660) that
``knowingly venting is any release that permits a class I or class II
substance to enter the environment and that takes place during the
maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of air-conditioning or
refrigeration equipment.'' In other words, the leak repair requirements
do not allow owners or operators to ignore leaks from appliances just
because the leak repair trigger rate has not been breached. The aim of
the leak repair requirements is to reduce emissions of refrigerants
from appliances by mandating repairs that adequately address the leaks
within the appliance as a whole, within a set period of time (i.e., 30
days). The leak repair requirements are geared to persuade owners or
operators to retrofit or replace appliances that either have a history
of leaking or cannot be sufficiently repaired over a period of

time; however, this regulatory framework does not establish an
exemption to the venting prohibition of the Act.
    EPA is proposing changes to the existing leak repair required
practices, in part, to provide a streamlined set of requirements for
all owners or operators of comfort cooling, commercial, and IPR
appliances with refrigerant (i.e., ODS) charges greater than 50 pounds.
EPA believes that the current regulatory structure could be simplified
by clarifying existing regulatory definitions, required practices, and
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
    In addition to the Agency's proposal to provide clarity to existing
regulations, EPA is meeting the CAA Section 608(a) requirement for EPA
to promulgate regulations to reduce the use and emissions of class I
substances (i.e., CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl
chloroform) and class II substances (i.e., HCFCs) to the lowest
achievable level, and to maximize the recycling of such substances by
proposing to lower leak repair trigger rates and require appliance
owners or operators to maintain service records that will document the
ultimate fate of refrigerant that is recovered from appliances during
their service and maintenance.

IV. Proposed Revisions to the Leak Repair Regulations

    This NPRM proposes changes to the leak repair regulations
promulgated at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F. This NPRM proposes changes to
the Subpart's purpose and scope, definitions, required practices, and
reporting and recordkeeping sections, in order to create a streamlined
set of leak repair requirements that are applicable to all types of
appliances with large ozone-depleting refrigerant charges (i.e.,
greater than 50 pounds).
    Many of the provisions of this NPRM are meant to clarify existing
requirements found at 40 CFR 82.156 and do not impose new requirements.
For example, EPA is clarifying the following:
     The purpose and scope of the existing 40 CFR part 82,
subpart F regulations apply to owners or operators of air conditioning
and refrigeration equipment;
     Editing existing definitions to provide clarity and
provide consistency with industry nomenclature;
     That leak repair trigger rates are not an exemption to the
statutory refrigerant venting prohibition;
     That leak repair calculations are required upon addition
of refrigerant;
     Verification of leak repair efforts is a service record,
and should be maintained in compliance with existing recordkeeping and
reporting requirements; and
     Defining terms that are referenced but are not defined in
the current regulatory text.
    In addition to the clarifying aspects of today's NPRM, EPA is
proposing to amend the existing required practices and recordkeeping
requirements (at Sec.  82.156 and Sec.  82.166, respectively) by
proposing the following:
     Lower applicable leak rates for currently regulated
appliances;
     Require written verification of all repair attempts for
comfort cooling and commercial appliances, and not just industrial
process refrigeration equipment (as currently required);
     Exempt addition of refrigerant due to ``seasonal
variances'' from the existing leak repair requirements;
     Allow all appliance owners/operators additional time to
complete repairs due to unavailability of components, and not just
industrial process refrigeration equipment (as currently required);
     Require service technicians to maintain records on the
fate of refrigerant that is recovered from but not returned to
appliances during service;
     Decrease the amount of time allowed for the completion of
currently required retrofit/retirement plans.
    EPA believes that the proposed changes will meet the Clean Air Act
requirement, at CAA 608(a)(3), for the Agency to promulgate regulations
that reduce use and emissions of ozone-depleting to the lowest
achievable level, and maximize the recapture and recycling of such
substances. EPA estimates that the proposed amendments to the current
regulatory scheme will result in total expected environmental benefits,
in terms of avoided ODS refrigerant emissions, is approximately 316
ozone-depleting potential (ODP) weighted tons (approximately 2.8
million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE).
    EPA has estimated that the projected emissions of the most popular
ozone-depleting refrigerant impacted by this NPRM, HCFC-22 (or R-22),
between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2019 is approximately 35,000
ODP \2\ weighted tons. This estimate is based in part on refrigeration
and air conditioning equipment charge sizes and leak rates. EPA
estimates that this proposal will account for an annual emissions
avoidance of approximately 316 ODP weighted tons or roughly 9% of the
estimated emissions of HCFC-22 between January 1, 2010 and December 31,
2019. Additionally, the estimated avoided emissions over a 10-year
period of 3,160 ODP weighted tons \3\ is approximately 7 percent of the
estimated 44,000 ODP weighted tons of all allocated HCFC emissions
projected for the United States for this same time period. For purposes
of a relative comparison, an estimated 316 ODP tons per year of avoided
ODS emissions is approximately 11.5 percent of the 2,750 ODP tons that
the U.S. has allocated for consumption of all HCFCs for 2010, and
approximately 21 percent of the HCFCs allocated for 2015.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The ODP is the ration of the impact on the stratospheric
ozone layer of a chemical compared to the impact of a similar mass
of CFC-11. Thus, the ODP of CFC-11 is defined to be 1.0.
    \3\ This is an undiscounted avoided emission.
    \4\ In accordance with the Montreal Protocol adjustments from
2007, the 2010 consumption cap for the total basket of HCFCs in the
United States is 3,810 ODP tons annually for the years 2010-2014 and
1,524 ODP tons for the years 2015-2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that the avoided emissions attributed to this NPRM
will result in additional health benefits. The links between
stratospheric ozone depletion and skin cancer are well established.
Other public health concerns include cataracts and immune suppression.
Since the appearance of an ozone hole over the Antarctic in the 1980s,
Americans have become aware of the health threats posed by ozone
depletion, which decreases the atmosphere's ability to protect the
earth's surface from the sun's UV rays. The 2006 documents Scientific
Assessment of Ozone Depletion, prepared by the Scientific Assessment
Panel to the Montreal Protocol, and Environmental Effects of Ozone
Depletion and its Interactions with Climate Change, prepared by the
Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (see http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/), provide comprehensive information regarding the
links between emissions of ODS, ozone layer depletion, UV radiation,
and human health effects.
    Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the U.S., with
more than 1,000,000 new cases diagnosed annually (National Cancer
Institute, ``Common Cancer Types,'' at http://www.cancer.gov.cancertopics/commoncancers). Melanoma, the most serious
form of skin cancer, is also one of the fastest growing types of cancer
in the U.S.; melanoma cases in this country have more than doubled in
the past two decades, and the rise is expected to continue (Ries, L.,
Eisner, M.P., Kosary, C.L., et al., eds. SEER Cancer Statistics Review,
1973-1999.

Vol 2003. Bethesda (MD): National Cancer Institute; 2002). In 2007,
invasive melanoma was expected to strike more than 59,000 Americans and
kill more than 8,000 (National Cancer Institute, ``Melanomas,'' at
http://www.cancer.gov.cancertopics/types/melanoma).
    Nonmelanoma skin cancers are less deadly than melanomas.
Nevertheless, left untreated, they can spread, causing disfigurement
and more serious health problems. There are two primary types of
nonmelanoma skin cancers. Basal cell carcinomas are the most common
type of skin cancer tumors. They usually appear as small, fleshy bumps
or nodules on the head and neck, but can occur on other skin areas.
Basal cell carcinoma grows slowly, and rarely spreads to other parts of
the body. It can, however, penetrate to the bone and cause considerable
damage. Squamous cell carcinomas are tumors that may appear as nodules
or as red, scaly patches. This cancer can develop into large masses,
and unlike basal cell carcinoma, it can spread to other parts of the
body. Other UV-related skin disorders include actinic keratoses and
premature aging of the skin. Actinic keratoses are skin growths that
occur on body areas exposed to the sun. The face, hands, forearms, and
the ``V'' of the neck are especially susceptible to this type of
lesion. Although premalignant, actinic keratoses are a risk factor for
squamous cell carcinoma. Chronic exposure to the sun also causes
premature aging, which over time can make the skin become thick,
wrinkled, and leathery.
    Cataracts are a form of eye damage in which a loss of transparency
in the lens of the eye clouds vision. If left untreated, cataracts can
lead to blindness. Research has shown that UV radiation increases the
likelihood of certain cataracts. Although curable with modern eye
surgery, cataracts diminish the eyesight of millions of Americans.
Other kinds of eye damage include pterygium (i.e., tissue growth that
can block vision), skin cancer around the eyes, and degeneration of the
macula (i.e., the part of the retina where visual perception is most
acute).

A. Purpose and Scope

    Currently, EPA describes the purpose of Subpart F as an effort to
reduce emissions of class I and class II refrigerants and their
substitutes to the lowest achievable level by maximizing the recapture
and recycling of such refrigerants during the service, maintenance,
repair, and disposal of appliances and restricting the sale of
refrigerants consisting in whole or in part of a class I or class II
ODS in accordance with Title VI of the Clean Air Act. The regulations
are applicable to any person servicing, maintaining, or repairing
appliances. This subpart also applies to persons disposing of
appliances, including small appliances and motor vehicle air
conditioners. In addition, this subpart applies to refrigerant
reclaimers, technician certifying programs, appliance owners or
operators, manufacturers of appliances, manufacturers of recycling and
recovery equipment, approved recycling and recovery equipment testing
organizations, persons selling class I or class II refrigerants or
offering class I or class II refrigerants for sale, and persons
purchasing class I or class II refrigerants (69 FR 11978; March 12,
2004).
    EPA wishes to clarify that the regulations also apply persons using
refrigerants who are owners or operators of appliances with large
refrigerant charges. It is not the intent of the Subpart F regulations
to exclude such persons; therefore, the Agency proposes to add ``use''
to paragraph (a) of the Purpose and Scope section to read as follows:

    The purpose and scope of this subpart is to reduce the use and
emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants to the lowest achievable
level and encourage the use of substitutes, by maximizing the
recapture and recycling of such ozone-depleting substances during
the use, service, maintenance, repair, and disposal of appliances
and by restricting the sale of refrigerants in accordance with Title
VI of the Clean Air Act.

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

B. Definitions

1. Comfort Cooling Appliance
    The leak repair requirements have placed refrigeration and air-
conditioning equipment (i.e., appliances) into three categories:
comfort cooling (air-conditioning), commercial refrigeration, and
industrial process refrigeration appliances. However, EPA has not
included a definition of comfort cooling appliance in Subpart F at
Sec.  82.152. EPA has relied on equipment that the Agency believes is
commonly recognized as ``chillers'' and light commercial heating,
ventilation, and air-conditioning systems that provide cooling and/or
humidity control. They may be used for the comfort of occupants or for
climate control to protect equipment within a facility, such as in
computer rooms.
    For purposes of the leak repair requirements, comfort cooling
appliances include air-conditioning systems that use refrigerant (with
charge sizes greater than 50 pounds) to transfer heat in order to
control heat and/or humidity in a facility, such as a commercial office
building. EPA considers the sum of all of the cooling system's
components as an appliance, meaning that the major components that make
up the refrigerant circuit such as the compressor, heat exchangers
(condenser and evaporator), and expansion valves are all part of the
comfort cooling appliance. Comfort cooling appliances are also
comprised of other components such as receivers, filter driers, pumps,
manifolds, oil separators, and associated piping.
    In order to provide greater clarity to the existing leak repair
provisions, EPA proposes to add a definition for comfort cooling
appliance at Sec.  82.152 that reads as follows: ``Comfort cooling
appliance means any air-conditioning appliance used to provide cooling
in order to control heat and/or humidity in facilities, such as office
buildings and computer rooms. Comfort cooling appliances include
building chillers, as well as roof-top self-contained units typically
used to cool small to medium-size office and light commercial
buildings. Chillers that would be subject to the leak repair
requirements include, but are not limited to, those using R-12, R-11,
and R-123. Self-contained units that provide comfort cooling that would
be captured by the proposed definition of comfort cooling appliance
include, but are not limited to, those using R-22.'' EPA seeks comment
on the applicability of the proposed definition of comfort cooling
appliance to air-conditioning equipment that is typically used to
provide cooling/humidity controlled environments.
2. Commercial Refrigeration Appliance
    For the purposes of the leak repair requirements, EPA currently
defines commercial refrigeration appliance as:

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

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

also includes appliances using ozone-depleting refrigerants that are
used to store or warehouse perishable goods or any other product
requiring temperature controlled storage. Such appliances may be found
in industrial settings where a manufactured product requires cold
storage, but the appliance itself would not be considered as an
industrial process refrigeration appliance.
    EPA proposes to amend the definition of commercial refrigeration to
remove any ambiguity concerning the types of appliances that are
subject to the leak repair regulations. The last sentence of the
current definition at Sec.  82.152 states, that all of the equipment
contains large refrigerant charges, typically over 75 pounds. While
accurate, this sentence has caused some confusion as to whether or not
the leak repair requirements are applicable to appliances with a full
charge of more than 50 pounds as stated in the leak repair required
practices or 75 pounds as referenced in the definition of commercial
refrigeration appliance. EPA proposes to remove the 75 pound reference
from the last sentence of the definition. The Agency feels that it is
not required since the threshold for the leak repair requirements is a
refrigerant charge greater than 50 pounds. EPA seeks comment on whether
the proposed amendment to the definition provides greater clarity to
the definition of commercial refrigeration appliance and reduces
uncertainty regarding the applicability of the leak repair provisions.
    Over the past several years, EPA has received questions from the
grocery and supermarket sector concerning what constitutes a commercial
refrigeration appliance. EPA reminds readers that commercial
refrigeration appliances typically found in grocery stores and
supermarkets are not limited to what is typically referred to as ``a
rack'' or ``compressor rack,'' but include the ``rack system.'' This
means that all of the major refrigeration components making up the
refrigerant circuit that are typically found in supermarket
refrigeration equipment, including the condenser, compressor rack,
receiver, evaporator, filter driers, and liquid and suction manifolds
comprise the commercial refrigeration appliance. The commercial
refrigeration appliance also includes the display cases, walk-in
coolers and freezers, field and rack piping, valves, and regulators.
EPA will clarify later in this action when retrofits or retirements of
commercial refrigeration appliances are required in the commercial
refrigeration sector.
    EPA's proposed definition of commercial refrigeration appliance
means any refrigeration appliance used to store perishable goods in
retail food, cold storage warehousing, or any other sector requiring
cold storage. Retail food includes the refrigeration equipment found in
supermarkets, grocery and convenience stores, restaurants, and other
food service establishments. Cold storage includes the refrigeration
equipment used to house perishable goods or any manufactured product
requiring refrigerated storage. EPA requests comment on the definition
of commercial refrigeration appliance. Specifically, EPA seeks comments
on the inclusion of the compressor rack system in the Agency's current
interpretation of what comprises a commercial refrigeration appliance.
3. Critical (Appliance) Component
    EPA currently defines critical component as a component without
which industrial process refrigeration equipment will not function,
will be unsafe in its intended environment, and/or will be subject to
failures that would cause the industrial process served by the
refrigeration appliance to be unsafe. EPA is considering changing the
definition to delete the term ``critical'' and simply define
``component.'' EPA is also proposing to delete the safety aspect from
the definition, because the Agency believes that while safety is vital,
it should not be used as a means of distinguishing what meets the
proposed revised definition of ``component.'' EPA considers components
as the major parts of the appliance that typically make up the
refrigerant circuit such as the compressor, heat exchangers (condenser
and evaporator), and valves (e.g., heat recovery, expansion, charging).
Other components may include receivers, manifolds, filter driers, and
refrigerant piping. EPA believes that the meaning of the definition can
be presented without necessarily classifying the component as critical.
    The current definition of critical component has implications for
the leak repair requirements, because owners or operators of industrial
process refrigeration appliances may be granted additional time to make
repairs, if they can show that repairs cannot be completed within
specified timelines due to the amount of time needed to deliver
components or their subassemblies. Later in this action, EPA proposes
changes to the leak repair requirements that will allow changes to the
individual refrigeration appliance components in lieu of retirement of
an entire appliance. In addition, EPA is seeking a consistent set of
regulations for all types of appliances. The unavailability of
components is not a situation that is unique to owners or operators of
industrial process refrigeration appliances. EPA believes that owners
or operators of comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances
should be granted the same flexibility as owners of industrial process
refrigeration appliances when requesting additional time to make
repairs due to the unavailability of components. Having similar
requirements for all affected appliances also provides for a more
consistent set of regulations that should reduce the level of
complexity inherent in the current leak repair regulations.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing to change the definition so that it is
not limited to industrial process refrigeration appliances, but also
includes comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances. EPA
proposes to replace the current definition of ``critical component''
with ``component,'' which will mean an essential appliance component,
without which the appliance will not function (e.g., compressor,
condenser, evaporator). EPA seeks comment on the proposed change to the
definition of critical component.
4. Initial and Follow-Up Verification Tests
    Current leak repair requirements at Sec.  82.156 mandate the
validation of repairs by both an initial verification and a follow-up
verification. The purpose of the initial verification test is to make
certain that appliance owners or operators instruct service contractors
and technicians to verify repairs as soon as possible, after conclusion
of repairs. EPA currently defines the term at Sec.  82.152 to read in
part: ``those leak tests that are conducted as soon as practicable
after the repair is completed. An initial verification test, with
regard to the leak repairs that require the evacuation of the appliance
or portion of the appliance, means a test conducted prior to the
replacement of the full refrigerant charge and before the appliance or
portion of the appliance has reached operation at normal operating
characteristics and conditions of temperature and pressure. An initial
verification test with regard to repairs conducted without the
evacuation of the refrigerant charge means a test conducted as soon as
practicable after the conclusion of the repair work.''
    The purpose of the follow-up verification is to make certain that
service personnel return to check the efficacy of repair efforts after
the appliance is operating under normal operational characteristics and

conditions. Follow-up verification tests involve the additional
verification of repairs by checking the repairs within 30 days of the
appliance's returning to normal operating characteristics and
conditions. EPA currently defines the term at Sec.  82.152 to read in
part: ``those tests that involve checking the repairs within 30 days of
the appliance's returning to normal operating characteristics and
conditions. Follow-up verification tests for appliances from which the
refrigerant charge has been evacuated means a test conducted after the
appliance or portion of the appliance has resumed operation at normal
operating characteristics and conditions of temperature and pressure,
except in cases where sound professional judgment dictates that these
tests will be more meaningful if performed prior to the return to
normal operating characteristics and conditions. A follow-up
verification test with respect to repairs conducted without evacuation
of the refrigerant charge means an additional verification test
conducted after the initial verification test and usually within 30
days of normal operating conditions. Where an appliance is not
evacuated, it is only necessary to conclude any required changes in
pressure, temperature or other conditions to return the appliance to
normal operating characteristics and conditions.''
    EPA believes that it is common practice for technicians and
contractors to perform verification immediately upon completion of
repairs; however, it has been reported to EPA that many owners or
operators have follow-up verifications performed immediately upon
completion of the initial verification. The intent of the follow-up
verification is for appliance owners or operators to conduct
verification of repairs after the appliance has operated under normal
conditions over an extended period of time (but no longer than 30
days), in order to ensure that the repairs hold under normal operating
conditions.
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of follow-up verification
to reduce the likelihood of repeat repair attempts and subsequent
releases of refrigerant by making the tests applicable to comfort
cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances as well as industrial
process refrigeration appliances. EPA proposes to require owners or
operators of commercial, comfort cooling, and industrial process
refrigeration appliances with refrigerant charges greater than 50
pounds to perform follow-up verifications after the repaired appliance
has operated under normal conditions for an extended period of time.
EPA proposes that once the appliance returns to normal operating
characteristics and conditions, that follow-up verification tests occur
no sooner than one full day (i.e., 24 hours) after the repairs to the
leaking appliance have been completed, but within 30 days of the
appliance repair. EPA is proposing a definition that reads:
    Follow-up verification test means a test that validates the
effectiveness of repairs within 30 days of the appliance's return to
normal operating characteristics and conditions but no sooner than 24
hours after completion of repairs. Follow-up verification tests
include, but are not limited to, the use of soap bubbles, electronic or
ultrasonic leak detectors, pressure or vacuum tests, fluorescent dye
and black light, infrared or near infrared tests, and handheld gas
detection devices.
    While EPA is not specifying one specific test to satisfy the
definition of follow-up verification, the Agency is including in the
proposed definition several means of conducting verification tests.
These methods are not meant to be all-inclusive, but are intended to
provide examples of known methodologies of performing leak repair
verification tests.
    EPA provides additional discussion of both initial and follow-up
verification tests and the proposal to extend the requirement to
perform such tests to comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration
appliances in Section C.4 of today's proposed rule. EPA requests
comment on the proposed amendment to the definition of follow-up
verification. In particular, the Agency is asking for public comment on
the selection of 24 hours as an appropriate amount of time, at a
minimum, that must transpire before owners or operators have follow-up
verification tests performed on appliances that are subject to the leak
repair requirements.
5. Full Charge and Seasonal Variance
    Compliance with the leak repair requirements requires calculating
both the full charge of the appliance and the leak rate. By definition
of leak rate (at Sec.  82.152), appliance owners or operators cannot
make a determination of the leak rate without knowledge of the
appliance's full charge. EPA has provided flexibility in the
determination of full charge by allowing appliance owners or operators
to select from an array of options in determining the full charge. EPA
has never mandated one particular method, and in fact relies on the
appliance owner or operator's determination of the appliance's full
charge.
    EPA currently defines full charge at Sec.  82.152 as: ``the amount
of refrigerant required for normal operating characteristics and
conditions of the appliance as determined by using one or a combination
of the following four methods: (1) Use the equipment manufacturer's
determination of the correct full charge for the equipment; (2)
Determine the full charge by making appropriate calculations based on
component sizes, density of refrigerant, volume of piping, and other
relevant considerations; (3) Use actual measurements of the amount of
refrigerant added or evacuated from the appliance; and/or (4) Use an
established range based on the best available data regarding the normal
operating characteristics and conditions for the appliance, where the
midpoint of the range will serve as the full charge, and where records
are maintained in accordance with Sec.  82.166(q).''
    EPA believes that the four methods allow owners or operators to
either rely on manufacturer's data, actual refrigerant weights, or
their own engineering and operating experience with their appliances in
order to determine the full charge. EPA understands that in some
instances manufacturer's data might not be available. The Agency also
understands that some appliances, such as commercial refrigeration and
industrial process refrigeration appliances, are unique in nature and
erected in the field, and that attempts to shutdown operations in order
to recover and weigh the refrigerant charge may not always be practical
for these appliances.
    EPA believes that an option allowing a combination of methodologies
is not in line with one of the goals of this NPRM to create a
streamlined set of regulatory requirements. Therefore, EPA seeks
comment on the proposal to remove the option of allowing a combination
of the methods, while continuing to allow owners or operators to use
any one method of their choosing in determining the full charge.
    EPA believes that records documenting the determination of the full
charge should be maintained. This is especially true in instances where
the owner or operator is relying on calculations or engineering
estimates to determine the full charge. The leak repair requirements
currently have such a requirement, but only for those owners or
operators choosing to determine the full charge by using an established
range in their estimate. Therefore, EPA is proposing a change in the
definition of full charge that requires the maintenance of a written
record documenting the determination of the

full charge, regardless of the means used to make such a determination.
EPA does not believe that this proposed change will result in
additional burden since owners or operators must determine the full
charge of the appliance in order to comply with the existing leak
repair required practices, at Sec.  82.156. By definition (of leak rate
at Sec.  82.152) owners or operators would need to make a determination
of the equipment's full charge in order to determine steps required to
comply with existing regulations. EPA requests comment on its assertion
that the proposed definition of leak rate will not pose additional
burden, since owners or operators would need to make a determination of
the equipment's full charge in order to determine steps required to
comply with existing regulations. Further discussion on the
recordkeeping requirement for determination of the full charge is
provided in Section D.4.
    Owners or operators of commercial and industrial process
refrigeration appliances have expressed concerns that the full charge
may not be accurately determined due to seasonal variances that may
alter the amount of refrigerant in an appliance. Ambient conditions and
other factors may affect the amount of refrigerant in certain appliance
components, but such variances do not mean that the full charge cannot
be determined. EPA believes that owners or operators can estimate the
effect that seasonal variances have on appliance components by making
calculations based on component sizes, density of refrigerant, volume
of piping, and other relevant considerations. While seasonal variances
in ambient temperature and pressure have the effect of forcing
refrigerant to different appliance components (for example, from an
appliance's receiver to the condenser), the Agency does not support the
notion that seasonal variances cause the refrigerant to be emitted to
the atmosphere.
    EPA believes that regulatory flexibility should be considered as a
regulatory option by allowing owners or operators to take seasonal
variances into account in determining the full charge, EPA is proposing
to amend the second option by including seasonal variances as well as
other relevant considerations. EPA is also proposing to add a
definition for seasonal variance, at Sec.  82.152, that reads: The need
to add refrigerant to an appliance due to a change in ambient
conditions caused by a change in season, followed by the subsequent
removal of refrigerant in the corresponding change in season, where
both the addition and removal of refrigerant occurs within one
consecutive 12-month period.
    The proposed definition of ``full charge'' means the amount of
refrigerant required for normal operating characteristics and
conditions of the appliance, as determined by using one of the
following four methods: (1) Use the equipment manufacturer's
determination of the full charge; (2) Use appropriate calculations
based on component sizes, density of refrigerant, volume of piping,
seasonal variances, and other relevant considerations; (3) Use actual
measurements of the amount of refrigerant added or evacuated from the
appliance; or (4) Use an established range based on the best available
data regarding the normal operating characteristics and conditions for
the appliance, where the midpoint of the range will serve as the full
charge. EPA intends for owners or operators of affected appliances to
commit to one methodology in determining the full charge for the life
of the appliance. EPA seeks comment on whether the proposed changes
have any impact or burden on an owner or operator's ability to
determine the full charge.
6. Industrial Process Refrigeration
    Industrial process refrigeration appliances include a vast array of
refrigeration equipment used in manufacturing or production processes.
Such appliances may be used to generate electricity, process or create
food and beverages, manufacture pharmaceuticals or chemicals, or in any
other process that is essential to the manufacture of an end product.
EPA differentiates industrial process refrigeration from comfort
cooling or commercial refrigeration appliances in that the end product
cannot be completely manufactured in the absence of such refrigeration
appliances. Currently, the definition of industrial process
refrigeration reads:

    Industrial process refrigeration means, for the purposes of
Sec.  82.156(i), complex customized appliances used in the chemical,
pharmaceutical, petrochemical and manufacturing industries. These
appliances are directly linked to the industrial process. This
sector also includes industrial ice machines, appliances used
directly in the generation of electricity, and ice rinks. Where one
appliance is used for both industrial process refrigeration and
other applications, it will be considered industrial process
refrigeration equipment if 50 percent or more of its operating
capacity is used for industrial process refrigeration.

    EPA is proposing to clarify that the definition of industrial
process refrigeration includes the industrial process refrigeration
appliances found in an array of manufacturing industries. In addition,
EPA does not see a need to cross-reference the required practices in
the definition and is also proposing to remove the cross-reference to
Sec.  82.156(i). The proposed definition of ``industrial process
refrigeration appliance'' means refrigeration equipment, that may be
complex or customized, that is used in a manufacturing process.
Industrial process refrigeration appliances include refrigeration
equipment that is directly linked to a manufacturing process, including
but not limited to appliances used in the chemical; pharmaceutical;
petrochemical; food or beverage manufacturing, packaging or processing;
power generation; and industrial ice manufacturing industries. Where
one appliance is used for both industrial process refrigeration and
another type of refrigeration or air-conditioning application, the
appliance will be considered an industrial process refrigeration
appliance if 50 percent or more of its operating capacity is used for
industrial process refrigeration. EPA views these amendments as
clarifications and not as substantive changes from the current
definition. However, EPA seeks public comment on the proposed
clarifications.
    EPA is proposing a parallel change to the definition of industrial
process shutdown by removing the reference to Sec.  82.156(i). As noted
above, EPA does not see the need to cross-reference required practices
in the definition. Further discussion of the deletion of the definition
of industrial process shutdown is provided in section C.5, ``Extension
to repair and retrofit and retirement timelines,'' of today's NPRM.
7. Leak Rate
    EPA published a final rule on leak repair (January 11, 2005; 70 FR
1975) that discussed in detail the advantages and disadvantages of
using the EPA annualized method or rolling average method as described
in the definition of ``leak rate'' at Sec.  82.152. EPA believes that
there are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. The
annualizing method may capture some leaks more quickly than the rolling
average, and in some instances may cause a delay in repairs by owners
or operators whose appliances leak slowly but show no signs of leakage
until a relatively large percentage of the refrigerant charge has been
lost. Whereas, the rolling average method may capture sudden leaks more
quickly than the annualizing method and may permit owners or operators
to delay repair of certain types of leaks longer than the annualizing
method. The current definition of ``leak repair''

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

This method does not allow for the time period over which leaks are
evaluated to extend beyond 365 days, because it annualizes by
multiplying the percentage of refrigerant lost by the shorter of the
number of days since refrigerant was last added to the appliance or 365
days. Method 2--The Rolling Average Method is summarized as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE10.013

Similarly, this method does not allow for the time period over which
leaks are evaluated to extend beyond 365 days, because it aggregates
the amount of refrigerant added to the appliance over the past 365 days
or since the last time that repairs were made if that period is less
than one year.
    In an effort to provide greater clarity to the leak repair
requirements, EPA is proposing to change the definition of leak rate by
removing the annualizing method (i.e., Method 1). EPA understands that
many appliance owners or operators have chosen to use the Annualizing
Method; however, EPA believes that the Rolling Average Method is more
in line with what most in the regulated community would consider as a
true rolling average. It takes a true snapshot of the amount of
refrigerant that is added to an appliance over a consecutive 12-month
period by simply looking at the ratio of the amount of refrigerant
added over the last consecutive 12-month period and the full charge.
EPA requests comment on the exclusive use of the rolling average method
in defining the term ``leak rate.''
    EPA has considered an option to maintain the current definition of
leak rate, but believes that the current leak repair requirements raise
the question of when a leak event ceases. In other words, when does the
leak repair clock start over? While the definition of leak rate is
limited to a consecutive 12-month period, there is no linkage to an
event that would show due diligence in making repairs or verification
that the repairs did indeed hold, thus providing a rationale for
closing the leak event. EPA believes that such rationale is found in
the verification of repairs. The leak repair clock for a leak event
should be stopped after successful initial verification and follow-up
verification and documentation of repairs for all leaks. EPA is
proposing to amend the leak rate definition such that it is dependent
upon the successful completion of a follow-up verification test. EPA is
also proposing to delete ``measured'' from the definition of leak rate.
This change is warranted because the rate is based upon a calculation
that in itself is not a physical measurement but a calculation. The
proposed definition of leak rate reads:

    The rate at which an appliance is losing refrigerant, calculated
at the time of refrigerant addition. The leak rate is expressed in
terms of the percentage of the appliance's full charge that has been
lost since the last successful repair over a consecutive 12-month
period, and is calculated by:
    (i) Step 1. Taking the number of pounds of refrigerant added to
the appliance since the last successful follow-up verification or
the number of pounds of refrigerant added during the previous 365-
day period (if the last successful follow-up verification occurred
more than one year ago); (ii) Step 2. Divide the result of Step 1.
by the number of pounds of refrigerant the appliance contains at
full charge; (iii) Step 3. Multiply the result of Step 2. by 100 to
obtain a percentage. This method is summarized in the following
formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE10.014

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

8. Normal Operating Characteristics or Conditions
    The current definition of Normal operating characteristics or
conditions, found at Sec.  82.152, means for the purposes of Sec.
82.156(i), temperatures, pressures, fluid flows, speeds and other
characteristics that would normally be expected for a given process
load and ambient condition during operation. Normal operating
characteristics and conditions are marked by the absence of atypical
conditions affecting the operation of the refrigeration appliance.
    As a part of today's NPRM, EPA is suggesting several edits to the
leak repair required practices at Sec.  82.156(i). EPA does not see a
need to cross-reference the required practices, so the Agency is
proposing to remove the reference to Sec.  82.156(i). Therefore the
reference to Sec.  82.156(i) would also need to change. EPA is also
proposing to add a reference to the appliance's ``full charge'' in
defining normal operating characteristics or conditions. EPA believes
that the appliance's full charge is a state of its normal
characteristics and should be reflected as such in the definition.
EPA's proposed definition of Normal operating characteristics and
conditions means the appliance operating temperatures, pressures, fluid
flows, speeds and other characteristics, including full charge of the
appliance, that would be expected for a given process load and ambient
condition during operation. Normal operating characteristics and
conditions are marked by the absence of atypical conditions affecting
the operation of the refrigeration appliance. EPA views these
amendments as minor edits that provide consistency with similar
proposed edits and is not considering or proposing other changes to the
definition. EPA seeks comment on the effectiveness of the proposed
changes to delete the reference to Sec.  82.156(i) and include a
reference to the appliance's full charge.
9. Retrofit, Repair, and Retire
    Many appliance owners or operators have incorrectly equated the two
terms retrofit and repair. EPA does not view a retrofit or the need to
retrofit as a repair. EPA considers a repair as an action that
addresses the leaking appliance or more specifically the affected
component(s) of the leaking appliance. Repairs may include replacement
of components or component subassemblies, whereas a retrofit involves
the conversion of an appliance so that it is compatible for use with a
substitute with a lower ODP. Retrofits often require changes to the
appliance (for example, change in lubricants, filter driers, gaskets,
o-rings, and in some cases, changes in components) in order to acquire
system compatibility.
    EPA considers substitutes as those alternatives for ODS
refrigerants that have been found acceptable for use in a specified
refrigeration or air-conditioning end-use, in accordance with Section
612 of the Clean Air (i.e., the EPA Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP) program codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G). The current
definition of substitute at Sec.  82.152 means any chemical or product,
whether existing or new, that is used by any person as an EPA approved
replacement for a class I or II ozone-depleting substance in a given
refrigeration or air-conditioning end-use. Whereas, a refrigerant, as
defined at Sec.  82.152, ``means any substance consisting in part or
whole of a class I or class II ozone-depleting substance that is used
for heat transfer purposes and provides a cooling effect.'' Therefore,
for purposes of the Section 608 refrigerant regulations (including the
leak repair requirements), EPA considers any substance used to provide
a cooling effect that consists of an ODS as a refrigerant. Therefore, a
class II substance used as substitute for a class I that has been found
acceptable under SNAP for any specific refrigeration or air-
conditioning end-use may also be considered a refrigerant (e.g., the
use of R-22 as a SNAP-acceptable substitute for R-502 in retail food
refrigeration or commercial refrigeration). Similarly, refrigerants
could include SNAP-acceptable substitutes if such substitutes were/are
a blend in which at least one of its components is an ODS (e.g., the
use of R-401A as a SNAP-acceptable substitute for R-12 in retail food
refrigeration or commercial refrigeration).
    Current leak repair requirements limit retrofits to conversion of
IPR appliances so that they are compatible for use with refrigerants
with a lower or equivalent ODP or substitutes with an equivalent or
lower ODP (Sec.  82.156(i)(7)). As the U.S. completes the phaseout of
class II ODS, such as HCFC-22,\5\ EPA believes that it is not
reasonable to allow an appliance retrofit to a substitute with an
equivalent ODP. EPA also believes that a retrofit must include a change
in refrigerant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The concern with the current definition is that by allowing a
retrofit to a refrigerant with an equivalent ODP, the Agency could
unintentionally permit the continued use of the same refrigerant that
leaked from the appliance. EPA does not feel that such action is a
retrofit. Nor does EPA believe that such action meets the intent of the
regulations to reduce the use and emissions of ODS by having such
systems retrofitted (i.e., converted) to a non-ODS; therefore, the
Agency feels that clarification is warranted.
    EPA is also concerned that the leak repair requirements could be
misinterpreted as requiring the retrofit of appliances without
addressing leaks. In order to address these concerns and provide
regulatory clarity, EPA is proposing a definition for ``retrofit'' that
means the repair and conversion of an appliance from a refrigerant to a
substitute with a lower ozone-depleting potential. Retrofit includes
the conversion of the appliance to achieve system compatibility with
the new substitute and may include, but is not limited to, changes in
lubricants, gaskets, filters, driers, valves, o-rings or appliance
components. EPA believes that it is unlikely that a SNAP-acceptable
alternative for a specific refrigeration or air-conditioning end-use
would have an equivalent ODP to the refrigerant being replaced.\6\ EPA
seeks comment on the proposed definition of retrofit as it relates to
the conversion of leaking appliances, and the likelihood that a SNAP-
acceptable alternative for a specific stationary refrigeration or air-
conditioning end-use would have an equivalent ODP to the (ODS)
refrigerant being replaced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The intended effect of the SNAP program is to expedite
movement away from ozone depleting substances while avoiding a shift
into high-risk substitutes posing other environmental problems. EPA
considers energy savings, flammability, and toxicity, in addition to
ozone depletion potential, in its SNAP review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has not finalized a definition of retire, retirement, or
retired even though these terms are referenced throughout the leak
repair regulations. EPA considers retirement of appliances to mean the
disassembly and retirement of the entire appliance including its major
components, such that the appliance as a whole cannot be used by any
person in the future. Retirement means that any remaining refrigerant
would be recovered from the appliance and properly stored for reuse by
the same owner, unless that recovered refrigerant is reclaimed or
destroyed. Recovery efforts would be followed by the

dismantling and proper disposal of the compliance components. Hence,
retirement does not mean that the appliance is undergoing ``system
mothballing,'' as defined at Sec.  82.152,\7\ until it is ready to be
used once again. Retirement should also not be confused with a repair.
Repair may include the removal of a faulty component, but such removal
does not mean that the appliance as a whole has been retired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In order to make this distinction between a repair, system
mothballing, and retirement, EPA is proposing to define ``retire'' as
the permanent removal from service of the entire appliance rendering it
unfit for use by the current or any future owner or operator. EPA
requests comment on the proposed definition of retire, and the
distinction that it provides with respect to the term repair.

C. Required Practices

    Final regulations promulgated by EPA under section 608 of the Act
(58 FR 28660; May 14, 1993), established leak repair requirements at
Sec.  82.156 to further minimize emissions of class I and class II ODS
used as refrigerants. The rule states that appliances that normally
hold a refrigerant charge greater than 50 pounds are subject to the
leak repair requirements. An annual leak rate of 35 percent of the full
charge was established for industrial process refrigeration and
commercial refrigeration appliances, while an annual leak rate of 15
percent was established for comfort cooling appliances.
1. Repair of Leaks and Leak Repair Trigger Rates
    The goal of the required practices, found at Sec.  82.156, is to
reduce refrigerant emissions by encouraging owners or operators of
industrial process refrigeration, comfort cooling, and commercial
refrigeration appliances to successfully repair appliances or retrofit
(i.e., convert), retire, or replace leaking refrigeration and air-
conditioning equipment (i.e., appliances) that cannot be successfully
repaired or maintained. One of the goals of the leak repair regulations
is to address the repair and maintenance of appliances with large
refrigerant charges, particularly as they age. Via regulation, EPA has
intended to reduce the use and emissions of ozone-depleting
refrigerants by requiring owners or operators of appliances to
effectively address leaks in their appliances, and to replace,
retrofit, or retire appliances that cannot be effectively repaired,
hence breaking cycles of repeat repair attempts followed by refrigerant
recharges. EPA has occasionally found that owners or operators of
appliances make repair attempts followed by refrigerant recharge
multiple times, sometimes over the span of just a few months. Such
repetitive actions unnecessarily increase emissions of refrigerant to
the atmosphere. These actions are amplified when taking into account
the large charge size of some appliances.
    EPA's aim is to reduce emissions by breaking the cycle of repair
and recharge of appliances. Often owners or operators state that they
always make repairs, and in some refrigeration end-uses, repairs must
be made in order to remain in business. EPA does not dispute this
point, but repeated repair attempts, without verifying repairs,
followed by additional refrigerant recharges have adverse effects on
the environment. In many instances, repeated repair attempts result in
hundreds of pounds of refrigerant released into the atmosphere by one
appliance. The aim of the leak repair regulations is to reduce
emissions of refrigerants to the lowest achievable level by addressing
leaks, specifically components with common failures. Repeat component
failures may be an indication of a greater maintenance issue or the end
of the equipment's useful lifetime.
    The required practices at Sec.  82.156 currently require owners or
operators of industrial process refrigeration (Sec.  82.156(i)(2)),
comfort cooling (Sec.  82.156(i)(5)), and commercial refrigeration
appliances (Sec.  82.156(i)(1)) with refrigerant charges of more than
50 pounds to repair leaks within 30 days, unless owners or operators
decide to immediately retrofit or retire the appliance. Retrofit or
retirement plans must be completed within 30 days of discovering the
leak and must be fully implemented within one-year of the plan's date.
For those appliances not undergoing retrofit or retirement, the repairs
must bring the leak rate to below the applicable leak rate of 35 or 15
percent.
    This requirement has allowed scenarios where owners or operators
could decide to not repair all known leaks within an appliance, as long
as repair efforts brought the leak rate of the appliance to beneath the
associated leak rate. The problem with such a scenario is that owners
or operators may assume that they have complied with the leak repair
requirements, but may find themselves out of compliance if another leak
resulting in a calculated leak rate greater than the applicable trigger
rate occurs shortly after the initial repair effort was completed.
Absent repair verification, the owner or operator may not know that the
appliance's leak rate was brought beneath the applicable leak repair
trigger rate until the next addition of refrigerant.
    EPA is proposing changes that will reduce the opportunity for
selective repair of appliances. Leaving some appliance leaks unattended
does not reduce emissions of refrigerants to the lowest achievable
level. Since selective repairs can result in excessive refrigerant
emissions to the atmosphere, with associated human health and
environment impacts, and have the potential to hinder compliance with
the leak repair requirements, EPA is proposing that owners or operators
of comfort cooling, industrial process refrigeration, or commercial
refrigeration appliances with a full charge greater than 50 pounds of
refrigerant repair all leaks within the appliance within 30 days, if
the leak rate exceeds the applicable leak repair trigger rate.
    This proposal, if promulgated, means that appliance owners or
operators cannot be selective about repairs made to appliances that
leak in excess of the leak repair trigger rate, since the leaks would
have to be repaired within 30 days of the date that the appliance's
leak rate exceeds the leak repair trigger rate. EPA believes that this
proposal will remove ambiguity concerning compliance with the leak
repair requirements by requiring the repair of all leaks once the leak
repair trigger rate has been breached; thereby removing any question as
to whether a repair attempt was sufficient. EPA understands that some
level of refrigerant leakage from appliance valves, seals, gaskets, and
other fittings occurs. By requiring owners or operators to repair
``all'' leaks once the leak repair trigger rate has been breached, it
is not EPA's intent to require that owners or operators address leaks
from such fittings. However, EPA strongly encourages appliance owners
or operators to address leaks from fittings as an additional means of
reducing emissions, especially if addressing such leaks will reduce the
leak rate of the appliance. EPA requests comment on the proposed
requirement to repair all leaks within 30 days of discovery when the
appliance leaks above the respective leak repair trigger rate.
    The current and proposed requirement to repair leaks references

leak rate. Leak rate, as currently defined at Sec.  82.152, allows two
methods for calculating the leak rate that projects the percentage of
leakage over a consecutive 12-month period. Current required practices
do not mandate the calculation of the leak rate each time that
refrigerant is added to the appliance. Such action is implied since
owners or operators may not be able to determine compliance without
calculating the leak rate each time refrigerant is added to the
appliance. For example, if a commercial refrigeration appliance owner
adds refrigerant to the appliance but does not calculate the leak rate,
the owner would have no means of determining if the appliance's leak
rate was kept beneath 35 percent. Hence, the owner would not know if
further action was warranted. In order to reinforce the required
practices, EPA is proposing language that would require the calculation
of the leak rate (as defined at Sec.  82.152) upon each addition of
refrigerant to the appliance, unless the addition is made in order to
recharge refrigerant immediately following a retrofit or the addition
is made to counter a seasonal variance (where records documenting the
seasonal variance are maintained as proposed at Sec.  82.166). EPA
views these proposed requirements as reinforcements of a requirement by
reference that will aid in the interpretation of the leak repair
regulations. EPA seeks comment on the proposed changes to the required
practices at Sec.  82.156.
a. Applicable Leak Rate for Commercial, Comfort Cooling, and Industrial
Process Refrigeration Appliances
    The intent of proposing lower leak repair trigger rates is to
reduce use and emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants from
appliances with large refrigerant charges, particularly as they age.
EPA believes that this is best accomplished by tightening existing
regulations and requiring repair of appliances, possible retrofit or
conversion of ODS appliances, and possible appliance replacement of
components when they cannot be satisfactorily maintained or repaired
within the specified timelines.
    Many owners or operators of appliances (particularly commercial
refrigeration and industrial process refrigeration appliance owners or
operators) have stated that they always repair leaks, and must do so in
order for their businesses to remain viable. Comments provided in
response to the June 11, 1998 NPRM (63 FR 32044), by The National
Grocers Association (NGA) echo this point. The NGA commented in
response to the 1998 proposed rule that, ``* * * Eliminating leaks is a
primary concern in designing new refrigeration equipment. Systems are
being made tighter and new equipment may also reduce the refrigerant
charge. For obvious reasons, the older the refrigeration system is, the
higher the leak rate.'' Such statements are reinforced by EPA
evaluation of leak reports submitted to the Agency from owners or
operators of industrial process refrigeration, commercial supermarket
chains, and chillers of various sizes and refrigerant types. Review of
this data shows that many leaks from comfort cooling, commercial
refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration appliances with
more than 50 pounds of refrigerant are caused by catastrophic events,
and often times repairs can and do occur within 30 days. EPA agrees
that many businesses are dependent upon repair of appliances and that
it may not be in the best financial interests of many appliance owners
or operators to allow their appliances to continue to leak. Hence, the
Agency views the leak repair trigger rates and the leak repair
requirements as a reinforcement of current repair practices, while
further reducing the use and emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants.
    As a means of reducing emissions of ozone-depleting substances to
the lowest achievable level, EPA is proposing to tighten the 15 and 35
percent leak repair trigger rates for comfort cooling, commercial
refrigeration, and IPR appliances. EPA has considered multiple leak
repair trigger rates of: (1) 5% for comfort cooling and 10% for
commercial refrigeration and IPR appliances; (2) 5% for comfort cooling
and 20% for commercial refrigeration and IPR appliances; (3) 5% for
comfort cooling and 30% for commercial refrigeration and IPR
appliances; (4) 10% for comfort cooling and 10% for commercial
refrigeration and IPR appliances; (5) 10% for comfort cooling and 20%
for commercial refrigeration and IPR appliances; and (6) 10% for
comfort cooling and 30% for commercial refrigeration and IPR
appliances. Within each option, EPA has considered whether additional
emissions reduction is gained by requiring: (1) the replacement of
leaking appliance components after the failure of repair verification;
or by (2) maintaining the existing regulatory flexibility allowing
owners/operators to make unlimited attempts at repair (followed by
subsequent refrigerant recharges) without a mandate to actually replace
a leaking component.
    Under the first scenario, leaking components that fail verification
tests must be replaced within 30 days. Under the second scenario, the
owners or operators must still make repairs to leaking appliances, but
owners or operators have the discretion to determine whether or not
repairs will include the replacement of leaking components. Under both
scenarios, repairs must be completed within 30 days of leak detection,
and verifications (immediate and follow-up within 30 days) must be
conducted. A summary of the scenarios with estimated costs and benefits
is summarized as follows:

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

    5 (10% and 20%)..............................                 38.2                  316                  1.6
    6 (10% and 30%)..............................                 28.5                  198                  1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based in part on EPA analysis (see accompanying Screening Analysis
to Examine the Economic Impact of Proposed Revisions to the Refrigerant
Recycling and Emissions Rule, EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167),
the Agency has decided to propose a reduction of the leak repair
trigger rate for comfort cooling appliances from 15 to 10 percent and
for commercial refrigeration appliance and industrial process
refrigeration appliances from 35 to 20 percent. EPA believes that this
combination of leak repair trigger rates provides for continued
flexibility in allowing appliance owners or operators to decide upon
the necessary action needed to repair leaking appliances, and also
provides for additional environmental benefit in terms of avoided
refrigerant emissions. EPA estimates that the total expected annual
incremental cost of the proposed options across all affected sectors is
between $86.5 million and $135.6 million for the six options under the
first scenario (requiring component replacement), and between $28.5
million and $53.2 million for the six options under the second
scenario. EPA also estimates that a reduction of the leak repair
trigger rate for comfort cooling appliances from 15 to 10 percent and
for commercial refrigeration appliance and industrial process
refrigeration appliances from 35 to 20 percent will result in the
lowest costs at $38.2 million, with the largest environmental benefit
316 ODP weighted tons, when compared to the other five options that
were considered. EPA requests comment on the estimated costs associated
with this NPRM.
    The proposed 10 and 20 percent leak rates are not viewed by EPA as
the optimal leak rate that can be achieved by appliances at the point
of original installation or as the appliance ages. Nor does the Agency
view the leak repair trigger rates as an exemption to the CAA statutory
venting prohibition. The leak rates are a trigger point that requires
that the appliance be repaired, retired, or retrofitted by a set date
(e.g., 30 days from addition of refrigerant). It is not necessarily a
violation for an appliance owner or operator to discover a leak greater
than the leak repair trigger rate; however, it would be a violation of
the proposed required practices at Sec.  82.156 to allow that appliance
to continue to leak above the trigger rate without making and verifying
the efficacy of repairs in a timely manner. EPA would expect that
appliances would undergo more repairs as they age. It is also expected
that the overwhelming majority of appliances that are at least 10 years
of age would contain ozone-depleting refrigerants. The result is that
it is reasonable to expect that the majority of older ODS appliances
will leak with more frequency in the near future, thus increasing the
likelihood that incidences of repair attempts and refrigerant recharges
would increase over time for these aging appliances.
    Therein lies the benefit of the leak repair regulations. A
prohibition against venting in itself may not stop the cycle of
unsuccessful repair attempts followed by refrigerant recharge, and a
breach of the leak repair trigger rates does not automatically mean a
violation of the leak repair required practices. A breach of the leak
repair trigger rates sets a chain of events that will address the
appliance as a whole by requiring a timely repair, verification, and
possible retirement of the entire appliance if it shows a history of
leak events.
    Again, EPA is not making claims as to the optimal leak rate for
different types of appliances, but on the ability of appliance owners
or operators to address those leaks within 30 days of when the proposed
leak repair rates are triggered. However, EPA notes that it has made
efforts to set leak repair trigger rates that are based on historical
service records of actual refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment,
leak tightness claims of equipment manufacturers, as well as
testimonies from equipment owners or operators and the groups that
represent them. EPA has reviewed a number of data sources in proposing
to lower the leak repair trigger rates. EPA has reviewed leak data
submitted to California's South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD). SCAQMD is responsible for controlling emissions primarily
from stationary sources of air pollution. California South Coast Air
Quality Management is an air pollution control agency that services the
areas of Orange County and the urban portions of Los Angeles,
Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The agency reaches about 16
million people on a 10,743 square mile radius, which is half of the
population of the state of California.
    Similar to the EPA's requirements under Section 608 of the Act,
SCAQMD has issued Rule 1415 aimed at reducing emissions of ozone-
depleting refrigerants from stationary refrigeration and air-
conditioning systems. The rule requires any person within SCAQMD's
jurisdiction, who owns or operates a refrigeration system, to minimize
refrigerant leakage. A refrigeration system is defined for the purposes
of the rule, ``as any non-vehicular equipment used for cooling or
freezing, which holds more than 50 pounds of any combination of class I
and/or class II refrigerant, including, but not limited to,
refrigerators, freezers, or air-conditioning equipment or systems.''
Under Rule 1415, SCAQMD collects the following information every two
years from owners or operators of stationary refrigeration systems
holding more than 50 pounds of an ozone depleting refrigerant (http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/forms/1415form2.doc): Number of refrigeration
systems in operation; type of refrigerant in each refrigeration system;
amount of refrigerant in each refrigeration system; date of the last
annual audit or maintenance performed for each refrigeration system;
and the amount of additional refrigerant charged every year. For the
purposes of the rule, additional refrigerant charge is defined as the
quantity of refrigerant (in pounds) charged to a refrigeration system
in order to bring the system to a full-capacity charge and replace
refrigerant that has leaked.
    EPA has reviewed data for over 4,750 pieces of equipment from
SCAQMD covering the time-period 2004 through 2005. The data includes
refrigeration and air-conditioning systems that meet EPA's existing and
proposed definitions of industrial process refrigeration appliances
(e.g., food processing industry, pharmaceutical manufacturing), comfort
cooling refrigeration appliances (e.g. office buildings, schools and
universities, hospitals), and commercial refrigeration appliances
(e.g., refrigerated warehouses, supermarkets, retail box

stores). The appliances that were evaluated all had ODS refrigerant
charges greater than 50 pounds. EPA's review shows that a tightening of
the leak rate for commercial refrigeration appliances to 20 percent
results in 8 percent of the 1,722 systems examined facing mandatory
repair within 30 days. Similarly, EPA evaluated data from 2,700 comfort
cooling appliances and 350 industrial process refrigeration appliances.
The Agency's review shows that lowering the leak rate to 20 percent for
industrial process refrigeration will result in slightly less than 5
percent of systems facing mandatory repair within 30 days, and lowering
the leak rate to 10 percent for comfort cooling applications will
result in slightly less than 1 percent of systems facing mandatory
repair within 30 days. The data collected includes businesses of all
sizes that meet the reporting criteria.
    The SCAQMD leak repair data for commercial refrigeration systems is
consistent with EPA's independent analysis on the commercial
refrigeration sector. EPA's Draft Analysis of U.S. Commercial
Supermarket Refrigeration Systems (2005) presents descriptions and a
wide range of data collected on five types of supermarket refrigeration
systems: Direct expansion (DX), secondary loops, distributed, low-
charge multiplex, and advanced self-contained systems. The analysis
summarized information on commercial refrigeration appliances gathered
from published literature, proceedings from technical conferences,
technical trade journals and magazines, and interviews with industry
experts. EPA estimates that there are more than 34,000 supermarkets in
the United States, each operating 3-4 commercial refrigeration
appliances with combined charge sizes of several thousand pounds. EPA
also estimates that DX systems using HCFC-22 refrigerant dominant the
commercial refrigeration sector with an estimated 60 to 80 percent of
new market sales in the United States. EPA notes that leak rates can
vary widely; the reduction in leakage from DX systems can be explained
by a number of steps taken by equipment manufacturers and users to
minimize leakage, including: Designing the system for tightness,
practicing maintenance procedures for early detection and leakage
repairs; training personnel. EPA estimates that annual leak rates for
DX systems range from 3 percent to 35 percent for in-use equipment,
with the higher annual leak rates (25%) being more characteristic of
older appliances and the lower ones (15%) being more characteristic of
newer appliances.
    EPA has also considered comments on leak rates that were submitted
in response to a NPRM issued on June 11, 1998 (63 FR 32044). In that
NPRM, EPA proposed to lower the leak repair trigger rates and also
extend the leak repair required practices and associated recordkeeping
and reporting to substitute refrigerants. FMI noted in their August 31,
1998 response to the NPRM that * * * the targeted leak rates of 15
percent and 10 percent for equipment built before and after 1992, was
unattainable * * *. We believe that rates of 25 percent for equipment
manufactured before 1992 and 20 percent for equipment manufactured
after 1992 are more realistic. Similar comments were stated by major
supermarket chains noting that * * *. Leak rates of 25% would be more
practical and allow more effective refrigerant management.
    EPA believes that the equipment designs for which leak data has
been reported should not differ according to the business size of the
reporting entity. For example, both a small independent grocery store
and a major supermarket chain might report on leak history of a typical
DX refrigeration system. However, EPA would not expect the operating
characteristics of the DX system to differ based on the size of the
reporting entity. The charge sizes may differ, but the Agency would
expect that the general mechanics of the systems would not vary greatly
as a function of the size of the owner or operator. EPA expects similar
results for owners or operators of appliances in other refrigeration
and air-conditioning end-use sectors (i.e., comfort cooling, commercial
refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration). The Agency seeks
comment on this expectation and also requests substantiating leak data
from owners or operators of comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration,
and industrial process refrigeration appliances.
    Again, it is not EPA's intention to estimate the lowest achievable
leak rate for existing equipment. However, review of actual leak data
does reinforce the notion that repair of leaks beneath 20 and 10
percent within 30 days is achievable, and would reduce emissions of
ODS. EPA seeks comments on the ability or lack thereof of owners or
operators of commercial refrigeration and comfort cooling and
industrial process refrigeration appliances to repair leaks within 30
days when their appliances leak above the proposed leak repair trigger
rates of 20 percent for industrial process refrigeration and commercial
refrigeration appliances and 10 percent for comfort cooling
refrigeration appliances.
2. Addition of Refrigerant Due to Seasonal Variances
    The proposed leak repair required practices require that the owner
or operator determine the full charge of the appliance in order to
determine the leak rate of the leaking appliance. In today's NPRM, EPA
has proposed to amend the definition of ``full charge'' to mean:

the amount of refrigerant required for normal operating characteristics
and conditions of the appliance as determined by using one of the
following four methods: (1) Use the equipment manufacturer's
determination of the full charge; (2) Use of calculations based on
component sizes, density of refrigerant, volume of piping, seasonal
variances, and other relevant considerations; (3) Use actual
measurements of the amount of refrigerant evacuated from the appliance;
or (4) Use an established range based on the best available data
regarding the normal operating characteristics and conditions for the
appliance, where the midpoint of the range will serve as the full
charge.

    EPA is also proposing changes to the required practices in order to
acknowledge the rare occasion or need to add refrigerant to an
appliance due to a change in seasons. In parts of the country that
experience large temperature swings during the year, refrigerant in
appliances can migrate from one component to another (i.e., from the
condenser to the receiver). This migration results in a need to add
refrigerant to an appliance (or ``flood the condenser'') in the season
of lower ambient (i.e., fall or winter). Refrigerant receivers must be
properly sized in order to hold the appliances' full charge (i.e., the
normal operating refrigerant charge plus the additional charge needed
to flood the condenser) during periods with lower ambient conditions.
However, EPA understands that owners or operators of appliances without
properly sized receivers that need to add refrigerant to the appliance
in the fall or winter would also have to remove refrigerant the next
spring in order to prevent high head pressures at design ambient
conditions. This technique, often referred to as a winter-summer charge
procedure or a seasonal adjustment, may occur without the presence of a
leak. EPA would not expect seasonal adjustments to be an issue for
appliances with properly designed system receivers, because the owner
or operator would not need to add refrigerant to account for wintertime
operation.
    In a properly charged, non-leaking system, EPA would expect that

additions of refrigerant during months with lower ambient conditions
(i.e., fall or winter) would necessitate an equivalent amount of
refrigerant removal in the higher ambient months (i.e., spring or
summer). EPA believes that appliances with properly sized receivers
provide the flexibility needed to account for seasonal variances, and
the Agency does not expect multiple additions of refrigerant in order
to account for seasonal variance; however, EPA seeks comment on its
consideration of seasonal variance and the likelihood of multiple
refrigerant additions to account for seasonal variance in any one
calendar year.
    EPA is not opposed to the concept of exempting addition of
refrigerant due to a seasonal variance from the requirement to
calculate the leak rate upon addition of refrigerant. As previously
discussed, EPA has proposed to define seasonal variance in such a way
as to negate the addition and subsequent removal of refrigerant due to
change in seasons, by making the definition contingent upon the future
removal of refrigerant in the next season after the addition of
refrigerant. However, any exemption to the required practice to
calculate the leak rate due to seasonal variance should be accounted
for in a service record. Therefore, in order to receive an exemption to
the requirement to calculate the leak rate upon a seasonal variance
addition of refrigerant, EPA is proposing that both the addition and
subsequent removal of refrigerant due to seasonal variances are
accounted for and documented as a condition for receiving an exemption.
In order to implement this exemption, EPA is proposing language at
Sec.  82.156 requiring owners or operators to determine the leak rate
upon each addition of refrigerant, except in cases where the addition
of refrigerant is due to a seasonal variance. The proposed exemption is
contingent upon the owner or operator's maintenance of records
documenting the amount of refrigerant added to the appliance in one
season and the amount of refrigerant removed from the appliance in the
subsequent season. Both the addition and removal must take place within
a consecutive 12-month period. Such additions and removal of
refrigerant would be documented as proposed at Sec.  82.166(r). EPA
seeks comment on the need and effectiveness of a limited exemption [to
the requirement to calculate the leak rate upon addition of
refrigerant] for seasonal variance in cases where the appliance owner
or operator has documented the date, type and amount of refrigerant
added and removed from the appliance to account for the seasonal
variance. EPA also seeks comment on the need to document the capacity
of the receiver, as well as a requirement making the exemption
contingent upon an equivalent amount of refrigerant being removed and
added over a consecutive 12-month period.
3. Verification of Repairs
    The current leak repair verification requirements only apply to
owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration and federally-
owned commercial and comfort cooling appliances whose owners are
granted additional time to make repairs. EPA has found the lack of a
verification requirement to be problematic for owners or operators of
comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances. The lack of a
verification requirement may leave owners or operators of comfort
cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances with an uncertainty as
to whether their repair efforts have brought them into compliance with
the leak repair requirements. The current leak repair regulations
require repair of the comfort cooling or commercial refrigeration
appliance within 30 days, without any requirement to verify repairs. A
lack of verification allows a scenario by which insufficient or
incomplete repairs might be attempted which will lead to future leaks.
Continued leaks, especially when they are at the same location or
component in the appliance, could be interpreted as an insufficient
repair, which did not bring the leak rate of the entire appliance
beneath the leak repair trigger rate.
    EPA sees no reason why verification should not be mandated for all
types of appliances with refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds
(i.e., comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliance in
addition to industrial process refrigeration appliances). The
environmental benefit of verifying repairs applies to comfort cooling
and commercial refrigeration appliances as well as industrial process
refrigeration appliances; therefore, EPA is proposing a requirement
that owners or operators of all types of appliances that are subject to
the leak repair requirements perform both an initial and follow-up
verification of repairs.
    EPA is also concerned with the amount of time taken between the
initial and follow-up verification tests. The Agency understands that
most technicians pressure check appliances immediately following
repairs. The Agency considers such pressure checks as satisfying the
initial verification requirements, currently required for industrial
process refrigeration appliances. EPA's concern is that follow-up
verifications do not appear to be a part of normal operating procedures
for most service calls. Follow-up verifications require a technician to
perform a second test after the appliance has operated under normal
operating conditions for an extended period of time. EPA believes that
such follow-up verification is an indicator of the success of repairs
and must be required of all appliances that have leaked refrigerant
above the leak repair trigger rate. Such a requirement to perform
follow-up verifications is in place for owners or operators of
industrial process refrigeration. However, the current leak repair
required practices do not set a minimum amount of time that must pass
between such verifications.
    EPA has found that in some instances follow-up verifications are
performed immediately after repairs and the initial verification. In
many cases verifications have been performed without documentation to
support the verification efforts. The Agency is proposing a requirement
that all owners or operators of commercial, industrial process
refrigeration, and comfort cooling appliances with refrigerant charges
greater than 50 pounds that leak above the annual leak repair trigger
rate repair all leaks within 30 days of discovery (as made evident by
the need to add refrigerant that is not the result of a seasonal
variance) and perform both initial and follow-up verification, where
the follow-up verification occurs no sooner than 24 hours after repairs
have been made. EPA requests comment on the clarification that follow-
up verification testing take place at least 24 hours after repairs have
been made and the appliance has operated under typical conditions. EPA
also requests comment on the additional burden or costs that
stakeholders may incur as a result of the proposed requirement that
follow-up verification take place at least 24 hours after repairs have
been made.
4. Requirement to Develop and Complete Retrofit/Retirement Plans
    EPA currently requires owners or operators of industrial process
refrigeration appliances that have failed an initial or follow-up
verification test to develop a dated and written retrofit/retirement
plan within 30 days of the failed verification and implement the plan
within one year. Owners or operators of comfort cooling and commercial
refrigeration appliances are currently not required to perform
verification tests and, in lieu of making repairs within 30 days, are
given the option to draft and implement retrofit/

retirement plans within 30 days of discovering a leak greater than the
applicable trigger rate.
    EPA has heard concerns of appliance owners or operators that a
requirement to retrofit or retire an entire appliance because it has
failed a verification test may not always be practical. Some owners or
operators would prefer to have the ability to replace a faulty
component before they are required to retrofit or retire an entire
appliance. The Agency does not wish to place an undue burden of large
scale conversions and retirements upon owners or operators when repair
via complete replacement of the leaking appliance component might
satisfactorily repair the appliance.
    In order to provide a greater level of flexibility, EPA has
considered several options that would trigger the requirement to
retrofit or retire a leaking appliance. The first proposed option would
require owners or operators of comfort cooling, commercial
refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration appliances to
replace a leaking component in its entirety upon failure of an initial
or follow-up verification test. Such a proposal would be a departure
from the current requirement for owners or operators of industrial
process refrigeration appliances to retire or retrofit the appliance
upon such a failure. Under this scenario EPA could require replacement
of the leaking component and all of its subassemblies within 30 days of
the failed verification. EPA believes that such a requirement would
reduce emissions by addressing the source of the failure and removing
the potential for cyclic repair attempts followed by subsequent
refrigerant recharge. The Agency seeks comment on the effectiveness and
feasibility of requiring owners or operators of comfort cooling,
commercial refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration
appliances to replace leaking components in their entirety upon failure
of an initial or follow-up verification. EPA is interested in comments
concerning its belief that refrigerant emissions might be reduced by
requiring component replacement, in lieu of repeat repair attempts and
subsequent refrigerant recharges.
    EPA is considering a second option that would allow owners or
operators to decide on a case-by-case basis if a component or its
subassembly requires replacement in order to completely repair the
appliance. EPA recognizes that this option would allow a greater level
of flexibility to owners or operators of impacted appliances; however,
the Agency is concerned that such flexibility could allow increased
refrigerant emissions by allowing appliance owners or operators to make
multiple repair attempts to an appliance or a specific appliance
component in lieu of taking action to completely repair the appliance
via a component replacement.\8\ A benefit of this proposal is that it
eliminates the chance of mandatory component replacement in cases where
it might not be warranted. The owner or operator would have the
flexibility of determining if wholesale component replacement would be
the best means of addressing a leaking appliance. EPA is selecting this
option as its lead proposal to amend the required practice, by removing
the requirement to retrofit or retire an industrial process
refrigeration appliance upon failure of an initial or follow-up
verification test. EPA is also proposing to extend this requirement to
owners or operators of commercial refrigeration and comfort cooling
appliances with refrigerant full charges greater than 50 pounds. EPA
believes that this proposal will reduce refrigerant emissions while
establishing a consistent set of regulatory required practices. The
Agency seeks comment on the effectiveness and feasibility of adhering
to the proposed changes to the required practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    EPA also proposes to shorten the one-year timeframe that is
currently granted to owners or operators to complete appliance
retrofit/retirement plans. The Agency does not wish to allow
refrigerant emissions from faulty equipment by allowing an extensive
amount of time to pass before appliance owners or operators complete
required retrofit/retirement plans. EPA proposes a six-month timeframe
to complete retrofit/retirement plans for appliances that have
encountered three failed verification tests (either initial or follow-
up) within a consecutive six-month period. EPA provides further
discussion of this proposed requirement in the ``Worst Leaker'' section
of this preamble.
    EPA has often been asked what should be included in a retrofit/
retirement plan. The Agency has not previously mandated a specified
listing of items to be included in retrofit/retirement plans due to the
complex nature of many appliances. The Agency felt that one listing of
items may not fit all types of appliances considering the wide array of
configurations and refrigerant choices that may be encountered by
appliance owners or operators. However, EPA finds merit in providing a
minimum set of requirements that are likely to be encountered by any
type of appliance that is undergoing a conversion from a refrigerant to
a substitute with a lower ODP.
    EPA is proposing, at Sec.  82.166(n), that appliance owners or
operators who are subject to the requirement to develop a retrofit or
retirement plan include a minimum set of requirements into such plans.
These requirements are universal in that all owners or operators of
appliances undergoing a conversion from a refrigerant to a substitute
with a lower ODP should consider such steps. EPA proposes to require
that retrofit/retirement plans provide the following information for
each appliance for which a retrofit/retirement plan is required to be
developed:
     Identification and location of the appliance;
     Type and full charge of the refrigerant used by the
leaking appliance;
     Type and full charge of the substitute to which the
appliance will be converted, if retrofitted;
     Itemized procedure for the appliance conversion to a
substitute with a lower ODP, including changes required for
compatibility with the new substitute (for example, procedure for
flushing old refrigerant and lubricant; and changes in lubricants,
filters, gaskets, o-rings, or valves);
     Plan for the disposition of recovered refrigerant;
     Plan for the disposition of the appliance, if retired; and
a
     Six-month schedule for completion of the appliance
retrofit or retirement.

EPA does not intend for this list to be all inclusive. However, EPA
believes that, at a minimum, such requirements should be considered by
any owner or operator that is retrofitting or retiring a leaking
appliance. EPA seeks public comment on these minimum requirements.
Specifically, the Agency requests comment on whether there are other
minimal factors that should be considered when developing a retrofit/
retirement plan.
    EPA has heard concerns from appliance owners or operators that the
Agency is forcing the retrofit of HCFC appliances to substitutes
without addressing leaks. EPA promotes a systematic approach to
addressing repairs, retrofits, or retirements of appliances. The first
step in any retrofit plan should be to identify and repair all leaks.
Retrofitting appliances without first repairing the appliance is not
consistent with the intent of the leak repair regulations to promote
actions that will reduce use and emissions of

ODS and promote the use of substitutes when feasible. EPA-accepted
substitutes (under SNAP) for commercial refrigeration, comfort cooling,
and industrial process refrigeration appliances are available, as are
industry retrofit procedures. Many chemical and equipment manufacturers
provide conversion or retrofit guidelines that specify that repair of
the appliance must be done prior to initiating retrofit procedures. EPA
believes that repair of appliances prior to retrofit is a standard
industry practice and does not need to be specifically called for in
the proposed definition of retrofit. However, EPA seeks comment on the
effectiveness of industry retrofit guidelines in promoting the repair
of appliances prior to making an attempt to retrofit appliances.
    EPA wishes to clarify that the retrofit (i.e., the conversion) of
an appliance to use a substitute with a lower ODP is only required for
appliances using refrigerants (i.e., substances that consist in part or
whole of an ODS). However, the installation of new appliances using
non-ODS substitutes does not provide an exemption to the refrigerant
venting prohibitions of Section 608 of the Clean Air Act or Sec.
82.154. It remains a violation of Section 608(c)(2) of the Act as well
as the regulatory prohibition at Sec.  82.154(a)(1) to knowingly
release substitutes (such as R-134a, R-410A, R-404A, etc.) during the
maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of appliances; therefore,
efforts to isolate leaking components or use recovery/recycling
equipment in order to recover such substitutes are still required, even
though the leak repair regulations do not currently apply to appliances
using non-ODS substitutes.
    EPA also wishes to clarify that the current requirement to retrofit
to a refrigerant or a substitute with a lower or equivalent ODP does
not mean that the same refrigerant can be returned to the leaking
appliance. Such actions do not satisfy the regulatory intent or the
proposed definition of ``retrofit.'' The requirement to retrofit to a
refrigerant or substitute with a lower or equivalent ODP than the
previous refrigerant means the owner or operator is switching
refrigerants. So while the Agency allows flexibility in refrigerant and
substitute choices, the intent is not to allow the continued use of the
leaking refrigerant in the retrofit/retirement plan.
    In order to provide consistency with the proposed definition of
``retrofit,'' EPA proposes to change the required practice to make it
clear that a retrofit must include a change (i.e., a conversion) from a
refrigerant to a substitute with a lower ODP. As an example, this
proposed change would mean that an appliance using a CFC or HCFC
refrigerant such as R-12 (with an ODP of 1.0) or R-22 (with an ODP of
0.055), could be retrofitted to use a SNAP-acceptable HFC substitute
such as R-134a or R-410A (both non-ODS substitutes). EPA believes that
this proposed change will remove any ambiguity as to what the Agency
considers a retrofit in regards to refrigerant and substitute choices.
5. Extension To Repair and Retrofit/Retirement Timelines
    The current leak repair required practices allow extensions to the
repair or retrofit/retirement deadlines for industrial process
refrigeration and federally-owned appliances under certain conditions.
Extensions are granted to owners or operators of industrial process
refrigeration appliances if the necessary parts are unavailable or if
requirements of other applicable Federal, State, or local regulations
make a repair within 30 (or 120 days when an industrial process
shutdown is required) \9\ impossible (Sec.  82.156(i)(2)(i)). This
exemption also applies to owners or operators of federally-owned
comfort cooling and commercial appliances. There is no similar
exemption granted to owners or operators of comfort cooling and
commercial refrigeration appliances with refrigerant charges greater
than 50 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Currently, there are three separate regulatory paths that may
result in extensions to the 30 day requirement (or 120 days if an
industrial process shutdown is required) to repair leaks or the one-
year requirement to complete implementation of retrofit/retirement
plans for industrial process refrigeration and federally-owned comfort
cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances. Under the first path,
an extension of one additional year may be granted if the quoted
delivery time for any critical component needed to complete retrofit is
greater than 30 weeks (Sec.  82.156(i)(7)(ii)(C)). Under the second
path, an extension is granted (to the extent reasonably necessary) for
retrofit delays occasioned by the requirements of other applicable
Federal, State, or local laws or regulations, or due to the
unavailability of a suitable replacement refrigerant with a lower ozone
depletion potential (Sec.  82.156(i)(7)(i)). The final regulatory path
allows an additional extension to the one-year retrofit completion
deadline if additional time in excess of the one-year under the first
path is required. This third extension, which in essence is a two-year
extension, is contingent upon EPA notification prior to the end of the
ninth month of the first additional one-year extension (Sec.
82.156(i)(7)(iii)).
    These exemptions do not currently apply to owners or operators of
comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances. However, in
accordance with Sec.  82.156(i)(1)(i), owners or operators of
federally-owned commercial refrigerant appliances may receive
extensions to the 30 or 120-day timeframe to complete repairs if they
document repair efforts, and notify EPA of their inability to comply
within 30 days of discovering the leaks (as evidenced by the need to
add refrigerant). Owners or operators of federally-owned commercial
refrigerant appliances may also receive extensions, if the commercial
refrigeration appliance is located in an area subject to radiological
contamination, or where the shutting down of the appliance will
directly lead to radiological contamination. Once extensions are
granted to owners or operators of federally-owned commercial
refrigerant appliances, their appliances are treated as if they were
industrial process refrigeration appliances, meaning that all of the
applicable industrial process refrigeration leak repair requirements
and reporting/recordkeeping requirements would apply (Sec.
82.156(i)(3)).
    EPA believes that the regulatory extension process should be
amended due to its complexity. In addition, EPA believes that the
opportunity to obtain extensions that is available to owners or
operators of industrial process refrigeration and federally-owned
commercial refrigeration appliances should be made available to owners
or operators of all appliance categories. Therefore, the Agency
proposes to allow extensions to the requirement to repair leaks within
30 days, if the leak rate of the appliance is above 20 percent for
industrial process refrigeration and commercial refrigeration
appliances and 10 percent for comfort cooling appliances, regardless if
they are federally-owned. EPA also proposes to grant similar exemptions
to all appliance owners or operators who cannot complete required
retrofit/retirement plans in the proposed six-month timeframe, provided
that they fulfill the recordkeeping requirements discussed below.

    The extensions would be applicable to all appliances and not
limited to industrial process refrigeration or federally owned
commercial refrigeration appliances, if any one of the following
conditions applies: (i) The appliance is located in an area subject to
radiological contamination or where the shutting down of the appliance
will directly lead to radiological contamination, and where such
records are maintained in accordance with Sec.  82.166(o); (ii) The
necessary parts for an appliance component are unavailable and the
owner or operator maintains a written statement from the appliance or
component manufacturer or distributor stating the unavailability of
parts, and where such records are maintained in accordance with Sec.