full charge greater than 50 pounds" test is applied to each independent
refrigeration circuit in an appliance. NEDA/CAP notes that this
interpretation is cited in the preamble of the 1995 rule and should be
made explicit in the regulation itself in order to avoid inadvertent
confusion. NEDA/CAP believes that EPA should reaffirm that an appliance
with two independent refrigerant circuits of 49 pounds each does not
trigger the requirements applicable to an "appliance with a full charge
greater than 50 pounds." NEDA/CAP believes this addition to the
regulations will further streamline and clarify an essential component
of the refrigerant leak repair rule. [0165]

FMI states that the definition of “appliance” in the Proposed Rule
is overly broad, and places an undue and unnecessary burden on
owners/operators of systems typical of those found in a supermarket. FMI
believes this burden makes the Proposed Rule inconsistent with E.O.
13563. FMI also notes the EPA definitions of “Comfort Cooling
Appliance” and “Commercial Refrigeration Appliance” in §82.152.4
are vague and would seem to regard a supermarket system in its entirety
as a single appliance. FMI feels the implication of this in implementing
EPA’s remedy to retire or retrofit an “appliance” with a leak rate
exceeding 20 percent and failing the three strike rule would be to
replace or retrofit all cases, unit coolers, condensers, compressor
systems and interconnecting piping that comprise the full system. FMI
states that, as the Proposed Rule has mandated that two tests be
conducted for each leak repair, this is not an unlikely scenario.
Furthermore, FMI believes refrigeration and comfort cooling systems are
integrated in certain stores, so conceivably a leaking air conditioning
component could trigger replacement or retrofitting of all refrigeration
components. FMI considers this to be an unduly burdensome and wasteful
remedy. FMI believes this is especially true when considering a typical
supermarket scenario where the failed portion of the system might be a
discrete piece of equipment (e.g. an air-cooled condenser) that may be
of much older vintage than other fully functional and compliant parts of
the system that had been replaced in a recent remodel.

FMI suggests two options for addressing the concern over the present
definition: to broaden the definition of component (see the component
definition earlier in the comment summary) or to constrain the
definition of appliance with more technically precise language that
doesn’t capture a field-erected, supermarket type, system in its
entirety. FMI sees this as the most straight-forward approach, though
additional revisions to the regulations would be necessary (e.g. leak
rate definition, §82.156(i), §82.156(j)) so that the use of the newly
defined terms would not alter the intent of the regulations. [0164]
[0150]

“Engineered System”

EPA received one comment suggesting the inclusion of “engineered
system” as a new definition in the proposed rule.

FMI proposes defining the new term “Engineered System,” which is
typical of those systems used in the supermarket industry. These
definitions borrow some language from American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, which is generally
recognized by governments and regulatory agencies as the authoritative
source of standards for the industry. FMI believes this might help with
EPA’s intended definition and use of the term, “appliance.”
FMI’s proposed new definition for “Engineered System” reads as
follows:

 “A field-erected refrigeration or comfort cooling system comprised of
multiple appliances or Components interconnected by refrigerant piping,
forming a closed circuit in which refrigerant is circulated between one
or more evaporators and a central condenser”.

FMI believes the definition would allow owners/operators of engineered
systems to implement the “retire” option for a three-strike failed
appliance (e.g., refrigerated merchandiser, condenser) rather than the
entire system. [0150]

Refrigerant

EPA received one comment suggesting the modifications to the definition
of “refrigerants” in the proposed rule.

CARB believes that high-GWP, non-ODS refrigerants (substitutes for Class
I and Class II refrigerants) should be included in the rule’s
definition of refrigerants. CARB notes that phasing out of various ODS
compounds  and the retrofit provisions of the current rule will likely
cause facilities to transition into ODS substitute refrigerants such as
HFCs, which, although not harmful to the stratospheric ozone layer, are
potent GHGs.  The commenter notes that, considering the U.S.EPA
Endangerment Finding on GHGs, it does not seem reasonable to transition
from one class of high-GWP compounds into another and not implement
controls on the second class of compounds. Moreover, the commenter
states that the purpose and scope (§82.150) as well as the no-venting
etc. provisions of the current rule apply to all refrigerants including
the ODS substitute refrigerants; therefore, CARB believes that these
refrigerants should also be subject to the required practices such as
leak repair, retrofit and retirement, and recordkeeping requirements of
the rule. [0130]

Duty Types

EPA received one comment suggesting to add a fourth duty type in the
proposed rule to cover refrigeration systems that are charged with
>10,000 lbs of refrigerant.

ESS believes that thousands of regulated entities have identified
systems that do not fall under the three major duty types as “Other
Refrigeration” with a current leak trigger rate of 15%, and suggest
adding a fourth duty type. The fourth duty type, according to ESS,
should include other refrigeration systems that are very large (i.e.,
>10,000 lbs), such as refrigerated air dryers, non-food cold storage,
wind tunnels, electrical equipment room cooling, non-occupied control
rooms, environmental (climatic) chambers, growth chambers,
turbine/engine inlet air cooling, test chambers, test cells and
aquariums. ESS believes that none of these examples are for people
comfort, food storage, or removing heat from a product in production.

ESS suggests that once all four duty types are established, a definition
should be created to address when multiple duty types are served by a
central system or single appliance. The commenter believes that once a
multiple duty type definition is created, it can then be removed from
the proposed IPR definition changes.

The commenter also notes that Commercial Refrigeration as originally
created was simple: if appliance is 50 lbs and greater and it contained
food for retail sales, storage, or post production, it was Commercial
refrigeration. The commenter states that the food industry including
retail sales/distribution, food manufacturers and large cafeterias are
big enough to hold their own designation. The commenter suggests that,
with the proposed change to Commercial Refrigeration Appliance, EPA has
allowed any manufactured product to be included in the definition. ESS
believes this change will cause confusion and add compliance costs. ESS
believes that, because Other Refrigeration has not been defined, EPA has
granted manufactured non-food products stored and currently designated
by industry as Other Refrigeration an extended leak trigger rate from
current 15% up to the proposed 20%.

ESS suggests adding the following language: “Multiple Duty types
served by an appliance or a system means the Duty Type that is selected
shall be based on which duty type has 51 percent or more of the total
load on an annualized basis.” ESS also suggests adding the following
language: “Other Refrigeration appliance means any appliance that does
not fit the definition of Comfort, Industrial or Commercial appliance
clearly. Other refrigeration includes but is not limited to,
refrigerated air dryers, non-food cold storage, wind tunnels, electrical
equipment room cooling, non-occupied control rooms, environmental
chambers, growth chambers, turbine/engine inlet air cooling, test
chambers, aquariums and test cells (10% trigger rate).” [0140]

Refrigeration Circuit

EPA received one comment suggesting the inclusion of “refrigerant
circuit” as a new definition in the proposed rule.

Coto Consulting, Inc. seeks an explicit discussion about how multiple
"refrigeration circuits" are defined as part of a "refrigeration
system." The commenter notes in California Air Resources Board's
Regulation for the management of High GWP Refrigerants for Stationary
Sources, a refrigeration system is explicitly defined “by a single
refrigeration circuit" under 95382(a)(57), and the commenter notes
SCAQMD's Rule 1415.1 contains an identical definition under
Section(c)(46). The commenter seeks an explicit definition of circuit,
along with any guidance or clarification EPA could provide. The
commenter provided the graphic below to depict a typical situation that
the commenter has seen with HVAC&R systems. The commenter would like to
confirm that each of the three discrete refrigeration Circuits #1, #2
and #3 (49, 49 and 51 lbs, respectively) is subject to the 50-lb
applicability determination and not the aggregate refrigerant amount
(149 lbs) [0161]:

(graphic provided by commenter 0161)

Required Practices

EPA received 27 comments on required practices.  Comments were in
reference to the following required practices outlined in the proposed
rule:

  REF _Ref380487587 \r \h  0 	Repair of Leaks and Leak Repair Trigger
Rates

  REF _Ref380414106 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.1.1  	Requirement to repair
all leaks if the leak repair trigger rate has been breached

  REF _Ref380414129 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.1.2 	Costs associated with
lowering the leak repair trigger rates

  REF _Ref380414141 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.1.3 	Proposed leak repair
trigger rates of 20% for industrial process refrigeration appliances and
commercial refrigeration appliances and 10% for comfort cooling
appliances

  REF _Ref378773577 \r \h  4.2 	Verification of Repairs

  REF _Ref380414324 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Requirement to perform a follow-up verification test no sooner
than 24-hours after repairs are completed

  REF _Ref380417148 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.2.1 	Requirement that
initial and follow-up verification tests be performed for all types of
appliances subject to the leak repair requirements

  REF _Ref380417154 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.2.2 	Use of the word
“immediately” in 82.156(i) and (j)

  REF _Ref379555631 \r \h  4.3 	Requirement to Develop and Complete
Retrofit/Retirement Plans

  REF _Ref380417189 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.3.1 	Proposal to shorten
the one-year timeframe that is currently granted to owners or operators
to complete appliance retrofit/retirement plans

  REF _Ref380417198 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.3.2 	Requirement to replace
leaking components

  REF _Ref380417214 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.3.3 	Minimum requirements
for a retrofit/retirement plan

  REF _Ref378773580 \r \h  4.4 	Extension to Repair and
Retrofit/Retirement Timelines

  REF _Ref380417242 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.4.1 	Proposal to remove the
120-day exemption when owners or operators of industrial process
refrigeration appliances undergo an industrial process shutdown

  REF _Ref380417250 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.4.2 	Proposal to allow
extensions

  REF _Ref378773581 \r \h  0 	Worst Leaker Provision

  REF _Ref380417265 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.5.1 	The worst leaker
provision

  REF _Ref380417289 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.5.2 	Two proposed options
for the worst leaker provision

  REF _Ref380417307 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.5.3 	Concerns about
requiring the retrofit/retirement of an appliance based upon the failure
of an initial verification test

  REF _Ref380417312 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.5.4 	Replacement of
components rather than the entire appliance

Count	Commenter	Organization	Docket ID No

1	Dale Herendeen	AbitibiBowater	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0138

2	Lorraine Krupa Gershman	American Chemistry Council (ACC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0139

3	Paul Shorb	AT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0154

4	Shannon S. Broome	Auto Industry Forum (the Forum)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0148

5	Pamela Gupta	California Air and Resources Board (CARB)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0130

6	Robert D. Bessette	Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0145

7	Donald R. Schregardus	Department of Defense (DoD)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0133

8	Kevin Phillips	Eastman Chemical Company Texas Operations (Eastman)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0137

9	Steven Ehrlich	Environmental Support Solutions (ESS)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0140

10	Ram K. Singhal	Flexible Packaging Association (FPA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0152

11	Erik R. Lieberman	Food Marketing Institute (FMI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0150

12

	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0164

13	Robert W. Schenker	General Electric Company (GE)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0153

14	Henry Eby	Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0146

15	Leslie Sue Ritts	National Environmental Development Association’s
Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0151

16	Frederick G. Fedri	Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0144

17	Christopher J. Sutton	Perkins Coie, LLP	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0160

18	Reid Jennings	Private Citizen Comment	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0124

19	Anonymous

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0131

20

	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0162

21

	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0141

22	Rob Uhl	Safeway Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0136

23	Christianna Papazahariou	Shecco	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0149

24	Anonymous	Southern Company	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0135

25	Ronald T. Mendes	Supervalu, Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0143

26	John Myers	Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0163

27	Kathleen Tobin	Verizon Communications Inc. (Verizon)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0129

Repair of Leaks and Leak Repair Trigger Rates

Requirement to repair all leaks if the leak repair trigger rate has been
breached

EPA received ten comments on the proposed requirement to repair all
leaks within 30 days of discovery when the appliance leaks above the
respective leak repair trigger rate. Nine of these comments stated that
EPA should not require repairs to all leaks. Commenters maintained that
the requirement is not practical for large, complex appliances because
it can be difficult to identify and repair some leaks; that businesses
would incur unnecessary expenses because a full system leak test would
be required every time the leak repair trigger rate has been breached;
that mere knowledge of a leak should not violate the intentional venting
prohibition in Section 608(c); and that there should be an exception for
leakage from appliance valves, seals, gaskets, and other fittings. Two
of the commenters recommended that EPA revise the language to “all
known leaks.”

One comment supported the requirement to repair all leaks and believes
that leaks in appliance valves, seals, gaskets, and other fittings must
also be addressed during leak repair.

USEC commented that EPA’s goal of fixing all leaks and achieving a
zero percent leak rate is commendable, but not practical or possible for
a large complex system with many components or refrigerant circuits.
USEC believes that clarification is needed for when repairs to “all”
leaks are required and asks if the all leak repair requirement is only
applicable to when the leak rate trigger rates are exceeded. USEC
comments that for large complex industrial process refrigeration (IPR)
appliances, it is not possible to identify numerous small leaks; the
leaks may be internal to other equipment and not easily accessed without
system shutdown.  The commenter notes that it is only the larger, more
substantial leaks that become identifiable and repairable. USEC states
that even where small leaks can be identified, it may not be practical
to repair them because it robs resources that are better used for
identifying and repairing more substantial leaks. USEC also notes that
the requirement assumes no new leaks develop during the up to 30 day
period allowed for repair. The commenter believes it is likely that even
if all existing leaks could be identified and repaired during the 30 day
period, new leaks will have developed. USEC also states that a zero
percent leak rate is not reasonable as evidenced by the current and
proposed leak rate trigger thresholds. USEC notes that for IPR
appliances the current leak rate threshold is 35 percent with a proposed
leak rate threshold of 20 percent. USEC concludes that while the
requirement may work on smaller, simpler appliances, it is not workable
for large, complex appliances and should not be included in the final
rule. [0125]

Eastman believes EPA should maintain the current requirement at section
82.156(i)(2), as repairs to “all” leaks is subjective. The commenter
explains that many seals in refrigeration equipment rely on the oil
barrier that forms to keep refrigerant from escaping and also keeps the
seal lubricated so the seal does not burn up and/or ruin. However,
refrigerant is in contact with the oil against that seal and under the
right conditions the seal could show signs of refrigerant vapors, but
only in de minimis quantities. Eastman states that if an appliance had
three leak locations other than the appliance’s compressor seal and
the seal is operating per its design specifications, as described in the
oiling scenario above, then “all” leaks cannot be repaired and an
owner/operation would be in noncompliance with the regulation. [0137]

ACC notes that it is not always feasible to find, let alone repair, all
of the leaks. ACC suggests that, rather than requiring all leaks to be
repaired, EPA instead require facilities to “make a good-faith effort
to repair all leaks” and keep documentation of such repair efforts.
[0139]

CIBO believes that it is unreasonable to require “all” leaks to be
repaired. CIBO maintains that EPA’s belief that owners don’t try to
repair all leaks is unfounded, and states that most owners/operators and
service providers do try to fix all leaks when they are servicing
appliances. However, CIBO believes it is unreasonable for EPA to require
all leaks to be fixed within 30 days when not every leak may be known
and where some leaks may be difficult to repair. CIBO urges EPA not to
require owners/operators to fix all leaks within 30 days, as owners or
service providers should not be penalized for their best efforts to
reduce leaks. [0145]

The Auto Industry Forum is concerned with the new requirement that
“all” leaks be repaired particularly as it may relate to the
preamble statement. The Auto Industry Forum notes that EPA appears to
imply that if there are any unrepaired leaks at all, that the
intentional venting prohibition is violated. The Auto Industry Forum
believes this is incorrect and that contrary to EPA’s statement in the
preamble, it is a change in regulation and does impose a new
requirement. The Auto Industry Forum quotes the statutory venting
prohibitions and states that the existence of a leak or knowledge of a
leak does not create a “knowing” venting or otherwise “knowing
release.”  The Auto Industry Forum states that EPA has correctly
acknowledged that there can always be minor leakage from appliance
valves, seals, gaskets, and other fittings, even though these are very
tight systems. The Auto Industry Forum believes it is thus important for
EPA to clarify that mere knowledge of a leak does not violate the
Section 608(c) prohibitions. The commenter suggests that EPA eliminate
the word “all” before leak at the places it occurs in the proposed
rule, including in sections 82.156(i) and (j), since this represents a
change in policy and regulation that (1) is unwarranted under the
statutes and (2) is being accomplished without proper notice or
justification in the proposed rule. The Auto Industry Forum also
comments that EPA would have to provide an exception for the routine
leakage that occurs from fittings and the like. EPA would be compelled
to add language in sections 82.156(i) and (j) stating that: “Some
level of minor refrigerant leakage from appliance valves, seals,
gaskets, and other fittings is not subject to the requirement to repair
‘‘all’’ leaks in according to regulation.”  [0148]

Perkins Coie, LLP believes that this proposed change to the current
requirements would add unnecessary expense to businesses that rely on
regulated comfort cooling appliances. Perkins Coie, LLP states that if a
compressor fails resulting in a leak triggering the leak repair
requirement, the technician, in addition to fixing the known leak, will
be required to audit the entire appliance for all other leaks to ensure
that he/she is in compliance with the proposed regulation. The commenter
believes that EPA's proposed requirement for a business to find all
leaks if the leak rate trigger has been breached will result in (i) a
significant increase in man hours to complete the leak repair; and (ii)
lost income due to a business's unnecessary "down time" resulting from
the appliance not being in use.  Perkins Coie, LLP also comments that
there is no documentation to support EPA's premise that technicians are
putting regulated appliances back into service without repairing
identified leaks when a leak rate trigger is breached. Perkins Coie, LLP
believes the proposed requirement will result in additional expense to
businesses with no measurable reduction in refrigerant emissions. [0160]

An anonymous commenter believes that the use of the word “all” is
vague, and should be rephrased as “all known” leaks. The commenter
notes that based on the preamble, EPA expects some level of leakage from
seals, gaskets, and other fittings. The commenter recommends that EPA
clarify what it means to repair “all” leaks and if some level of
leakage is acceptable. The commenter states that the use of the word
“all” would also infer that once a leak is found that the owner
should look for additional leaks to ensure that all leaks have been
repaired. The commenter notes that when a packing leak is discovered on
a valve, the repair often consists of simply tightening the packing to
stop the leak. The commenter notes that in this example, the repair is
completed without evacuating the appliance since the refrigerant circuit
is not violated. The commenter states that the leak has stopped, but
this does not mean that “all” leaks have been repaired; other
unknown leaks could be present that would not be detected without
evacuating the unit and doing a complete system leak test. The commenter
believes that the use of the word “all” in the proposed rule would
now require that owners always completely shut down every appliance,
evacuate the refrigerant and do a full system leak test in order to
verify that “all” leaks have been repaired. The commenter states
that unnecessary refrigerant evacuations can lead to an increase in
emissions and would significantly increase the cost of maintaining
equipment. [0162]

NEDA/CAP’s members object to this requirement as ambiguous and
arbitrary. NEDA/CAP believes that the rule should require responses to
“all known leaks.” NEDA/CAP also notes that depending on their
locations, some leaks may not be able to be repaired within 30 days.
NEDA/CAP believes that EPA’s rule should provide that if such leaks
are identified, extensions for repairing them may be necessary if the
location and reason for additional maintenance time is necessary.
NEDA/CAP notes that this will particularly be the case when the leak
occurs from industrial refrigeration systems, because not only does a
process unit have to be dismantled to make the repair, but the
manufacturing process has to be shutdown, necessitating losses in the
form of product, downtime and potential contract issues with customers.
[0151]

CARB commented that all leaks should be required to be repaired
irrespective of their sources. CARB believes that the proposed allowance
discussed on page 78568 of the Federal Register posting that leaks in
appliance valves, seals, gaskets, and other fittings need not be
addressed during leak repair should not be included in the amended rule.
CARB notes that while it is not possible to prevent all leaks; valves,
seals, gaskets, and other fittings can be significant leak locations
particularly where there is a rotating or sliding shaft as in a valve or
shaft seal or other points of motion or stress. [0130]

Costs associated with lowering the leak repair trigger rates

EPA received seven comments related to the costs and benefits of various
leak repair trigger rate scenarios on page 78597. Five comments received
state that the costs of this proposed change exceed the benefits that it
would achieve. One of those comments also states that the benefits EPA
calculated are not evenly distributed among all sources of emissions,
and recommends that EPA evaluate whether it can target certain sources
to comply with the lower leak rates. Two comments state that a change in
the leak rate trigger for repairs will result in additional and
unnecessary costs.

NEDA/CAP and FPA believe that EPA’s own analysis suggests that the
costs of lowering the leak repair trigger rate for appliances far
exceeds the benefits that it would achieve. While emission reductions
are valuable, having a monetized benefit of only $1.6 million with a
cost of $38 million does not appear to be a reasonable trade off. The
commenters urge EPA to not change the current leak rate triggers. [0151,
0152]

AT&T states that all cost/benefit scenarios examined by EPA showed that
the calculated benefits from the reduction in emissions were outweighed
by the costs of such reductions. AT&T appreciates that there are
limitations to any specific cost/benefit analysis but comments that the
benefits EPA is calculating for all regulatory options are not evenly
distributed among all source categories; instead, they are largely
associated with a few main source categories of emissions. AT&T notes
that the six largest source categories of benefits from the leak repair
option EPA proposed account for 329.5 ODP-weighted tons out of a total
of 384.1 ODP-weighted tons. AT&T believes that in finalizing the
application of new trigger rates for leak repair, EPA should evaluate
whether it can better target the sources that should comply with lower
leak rates and consider differentiating rates for different source
categories. [0154]

CIBO believes $38.2 million cost for $1.6 million benefits is arbitrary
and not supported by the record. [0145]

TVA believes that lowering the leak rates as proposed would result in
significant additional costs as a result of more frequent repairs and
replacements that would be necessary across the county. [0163]

Southern Company comments that a change in the leak rate trigger for
repairs could result in additional unnecessary costs.  Southern Company
states that lowering the leak rate threshold from 15% to 10% will
require more service calls and require more repairs and replacements of
existing equipment across the country, which will entail significant
additional costs. [0135]

AbitibiBowater comments that the change in leak rate for triggering
repairs from 35% to 20% is unnecessary and will lead to increased
regulatory burden and costs. [0138]

Proposed leak repair trigger rates of 20% for industrial process
refrigeration appliances and commercial refrigeration appliances and 10%
for comfort cooling appliances

EPA sought comment 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% for
industrial process refrigeration appliances and commercial refrigeration
appliances and 10% for comfort cooling appliances.

EPA received seven comments specific to this issue. Four of these
comments state that the leak repair trigger rate should be maintained at
15% for comfort cooling appliances. Three of these comments state that
the leak repair trigger rate should be maintained at 35% for industrial
process equipment components, emphasizing the complexities associated
with these appliances.  One comment offers support for the new proposed
trigger rates, one comment requests clarification regarding if the new
trigger rates only apply going forward, and one comment questions the
use of data from California’s South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD).

Comfort cooling

CIBO comments that for comfort cooling, the 10% trigger rate is very low
and very small amounts of added refrigerant will trigger these
requirements. CIBO believes that while these units may be able to make
repairs in most instances within 30 days, lowering the trigger to 10%
may impose unnecessary burdens for these units. CIBO recommends that EPA
retain the current leak trigger rate. [0145]

ACC opposes lowering the leak repair trigger rate for comfort cooling
appliances since these systems typically have a full charge not much
greater than 50 pounds and the amount of refrigerant that leaks would
not be a large amount at either 15 or 10 percent. ACC notes that in many
cases, degraded performance would not be noticed until the system has
lost more than 15% of its charge. [0139]

Perkins Coie, LLP opposes changing the leak rate trigger for comfort
cooling appliances because it will be costly to businesses (the number
of service calls required to repair leaks exceeding the lower leak rate
repair requirement will significantly increase, along with the
administrative time and associated costs necessary to process the
additional documentation generated from the increased number and
frequency of service calls), without a sufficient environmental benefit
to justify the additional costs. [0160]

NEDA/CAP expressed concern that lowering the leak trigger to 10% may
prompt retrofits or replacements with other equipment that will have a
likelihood of challenging annual capital budgets and competing for other
pollution control and process change resources. NEDA/CAP notes that
repairing these units within 30 days is far more feasible than shutting
down process equipment to repair industrial refrigeration assemblies.
NEDA/CAP states that replacement of air conditioners for certain
manufacturing that is space-constrained may also create engineering
concerns for replacing roof units for which structural engineering is
required since the footprint of new equipment seems generally larger to
handle less efficient refrigerant substitutes. [0151]

Industrial Process Refrigeration

CIBO believes that industry maintenance practices are sufficient to
minimize leaks and recommends that EPA retain the current leak trigger
rate. CIBO comments that EPA fails to account for the complexities
related to repair, replace or retrofit of industrial process equipment
components. CIBO members believe that reduction of the leak rates as
proposed could trigger more repairs that would require facility or
process downtime. CIBO comments that even if EPA fails to provide more
time for industrial process repairs requiring shutdown, the current 35%
leak rate provides industry with much greater flexibility than afforded
by the 20% leak rate trigger. CIBO notes that in general, companies that
discover slow leaks in industrial process equipment plan to fix those
known leaks as soon as possible or when shutdown is required will fix
those units during the first scheduled downtime. Given that these
industrial process refrigeration units are integral parts of the
production processes at facilities, failure to maintain this equipment
could result in unplanned and costly downtime at a facility. [0145]

TVA states that for chillers used in the nuclear industry, it is
critically important to retain the flexibility provided by the current
35% leak rate. TVA states that given that some of these chillers are an
inherent part of the nuclear generation process, failure to maintain
their operation at critical junctures could jeopardize the operation of
the entire generation unit. TVA notes that this could force TVA to enter
an unplanned Limited Condition of Operation (LCO) at a nuclear unit,
which if not resolved within a specified period of time (stated in the
plant’s technical specification attachment to the operating license),
could require TVA to shut down a reactor for certain periods. TVA notes
that a forced shutdown of this nature could have a significant adverse
economic impact on TVA’s power generation operation. TVA believes that
the mandate of Section 608 to develop standards that are achievable
should take into account factors such as whether the standards allow the
necessary flexibility to operate the plant, which relies on the
refrigeration system, in a safe and reliable manner. [0163]

NEDA/CAP emphasizes that it is more difficult to repair, replace or
retrofit industrial process equipment components than comfort cooling
components. Because industrial refrigeration systems are integrated and
specially engineered into process equipment, they require shutdown of
process equipment for repair and depending on the equipment, substantial
lead time to design replacement components or replacement. NEDA/CAP
states that recognizing these engineering and cost issues (from shutting
down process equipment so that repairs can be made), reduction of the
leak rates as proposed could trigger more repairs which would require
facility or process downtime. NEDA/CAP believes that EPA must allow more
time for repairs requiring process shutdown for industrial process
refrigeration appliances in the first instance, but that even if EPA
fails to provide more time for industrial process repairs requiring
shutdown, the current 35% leak rate provides industry with much greater
flexibility than afforded by the 20% leak rate trigger.  NEDA/CAP
believes that most companies who discover slow leaks in their industrial
process equipment will plan to fix those known leaks as soon as possible
or when scheduled outages and seasonal manufacturing process unit
“turn-arounds” next occur.  NEDA/CAP believes that industry
maintenance practices are sufficient to minimize leaks. [0151]

General:

Shecco welcomes the described reductions in the leak repair trigger
rates as the minimum level. [0149]

An anonymous commenter requested clarification regarding if the new leak
repair trigger rates would only apply going forward from a particular
date, or if it would be necessary to recalculate the leak rate for
existing records as well. [0141]

NEDA/CAP notes that as a basis for lowering the leak rate triggers, EPA
discusses the agency’s review of thousands of appliance repair records
maintained by California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD).  NEDA/CAP states that the data EPA references on page 78571 of
the Notice came from commercial refrigeration systems in supermarkets
and is not necessarily pertinent since grocers may be more sensitive to
diminished performance of refrigerators, particularly for perishable
foods.  NEDA/CAP also questions whether it is reasonable to rely on
repair record data from SCAQMD as a basis for the proposed decision
because there is so little industry located there.  NEDA/CAP urges EPA
to study additional impacts before the proposed revisions to the leak
rate definitions are finalized, and to sample other jurisdictions where
there is significant industrial activity in the northeast, Midwest, or
Texas.  NEDA/CAP believes EPA would find a much more substantial
economic effect on businesses as a result of changing the percentages
for both industrial refrigeration appliances and air conditioners.
[0151]

Verification of Repairs

Requirement that initial and follow-up verification tests be performed
for all types of appliances subject to the leak repair requirements

EPA proposed a new 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 received three
comments stating that the commenters were not opposed to this expansion.

CIBO does not object to expanding the verification requirements to
comfort cooling units with charges of more than 50 pounds, even though
this will require some additional recordkeeping. [0145]

GE is not concerned with the extension of the initial and follow-up
verification tests to comfort cooling and commercial appliances. GE
believes it makes sense that verification be required following leak
repairs for comfort cooling and commercial appliances in the same manner
as with the industrial process refrigeration appliances. GE currently
recommends that its sites perform verification tests following comfort
cooling appliance leak repairs as a best practice.  GE agrees that
§82.152, §82.156 (i) and §82.156 (j) should be revised to require
initial and follow-up verification tests for all appliances with greater
than 50 pounds of refrigerant. [0153]

FMI does not oppose EPA's proposed amendment to extend the follow-up
verification test requirement to commercial refrigeration appliances.
[0150]

Use of the word “immediately” in 82.156(i) and (j)

EPA received five comments opposed to the inclusion of the word
“immediately” in 82.156 (i) and (j).

ACC comments that EPA should remove the word "immediately" from the
regulatory requirement §82.156(j)(1). ACC suggests the following
revision: "Owners and/or operators shall conduct an initial verification
test as soon as practicable after conclusion of the repairs.” ACC
notes that this revision provides the owner/operator flexibility as to
when the initial verification test is conducted. [0139]

CIBO notes that it generally takes time for records to get from service
providers to owners of equipment, who perform leak rate calculations, so
it is unrealistic and unnecessary to require calculations to be
completed immediately. [0145]

The Auto Industry Forum comments that the term "immediately" is
undefined and practically unachievable. Auto Industry Forum notes that
Dictionary.com defines immediately as: “without lapse of times;
without delay; instantly; at once.” The Auto Industry Forum believes
that imposing a time requirement for the initial verification test is
unnecessary because this check should occur prior to adding refrigerant
to the appliance. The Auto Industry Forum states that if EPA includes a
time requirement, it must be associated with the addition of refrigerant
and the operation of the appliance, and recognize that workers take
required breaks, may need to go to an office to get information to
complete calculations, or may need to do other tasks.  The Auto Industry
Forum also notes that some initial verification tests (e.g., the deep
vacuum check of very large appliances) can take several hours to
complete. The Auto Industry Forum includes text edits in their comments
recommending that the word “immediately” be deleted from every
instance in sections 82.156(i) and (j). [0148]

An anonymous commenter believes the use of the word “immediately” is
unnecessarily stringent. The commenter states that the addition of
“immediately” means that the technician or someone at the facility
would have to calculate the leak rate at the time of the service. The
commenter notes that in some cases, the data needed to properly
calculate the leak rate may not be immediately available to the
technician. As an example, a contractor called in over the weekend to
service an appliance finds out that parts will have to be ordered to
make the repair, but since the appliance is critical to production the
technician adds some refrigerant to keep it operating until the parts
can be obtained to make the repair. The commenter notes that under this
circumstance, use of the word “immediately” would potentially
require plant personnel to be called for the sole reason of calculating
the leak rate, since a contractor would not typically have the required
information available. The commenter states that the only important
thing about calculating the leak rate is to make sure that it is
calculated soon enough to ensure that any required repair timelines are
met, and suggests updating the language accordingly.  [0162]

NEDA/CAP notes that there is a lag time between the receipt of
information from service providers to appliance owners who calculate the
leak rate. NEDA/CAP also does not believe it is necessary to calculate
the leak rate immediately, and proposes that the leak rate be calculated
no longer than two weeks following receipt of service records from the
contractor. [0151]

Requirement to Develop and Complete Retrofit/Retirement Plans

Proposal to shorten the one-year timeframe that is currently granted to
owners or operators to complete appliance retrofit/retirement plans

EPA received eight comments on the proposal to shorten the one-year
timeframe currently granted to complete retrofit/retirement plans. Seven
comments oppose the time reduction. These comments state that design and
replacement of custom industrial appliances takes longer than six
months; that corporate approvals for capital expenditures are generally
required at least one year in advance; and that shutdown of process
equipment may be required for extensive periods of time, which must also
be planned far in advance particularly for the nuclear industry. One
comment supports the time reduction because it will substantially affect
the ODP-weighted metric tons being released into the atmosphere.

Eastman comments that EPA should continue to allow up to one year to
retrofit/retire industrial refrigeration appliances.  Eastman notes that
many larger (e.g., >50 lb. appliances) industrial appliances are custom
made and the design and replacement of a custom refrigeration appliance
can take more than six months. [0137]

FPA’s members believe that it is unreasonable to shorten the time it
takes to implement a plan to retrofit or replace an appliance for
several reasons:

First, most plants are constrained by corporate requirements for
justifications of capital expenditures, which generally are approved at
least a year in advance. If a significant industrial refrigeration unit
or an air conditioner must be retrofitted or replaced, it will therefore
be difficult to obtain funding and implement a retrofit or replacement
program.

Second, if the appliance that must be replaced is an industrial
refrigeration assembly that is integrated into a process line, then
production must be shut down to enable replacement, which may also
require significant engineering time to ensure that the unit works as
intended with the process. Many manufacturers are constrained by capital
budgets and will not be able to obtain funding for the replacement or
retrofit of significant pieces of equipment.

Third, many industrial process refrigeration units have to be specially
fabricated and six months is not a sufficient lead time for engineering,
fabrication and installation. [0152]

Southern Company comments that shortening the repair or retrofit
timeline from one year to six months could place an unreasonable burden
on their facilities with very large custom appliances. Southern Company
notes that many of their systems are very large and very costly (at
least several hundred thousand dollars), and these systems would require
an extended period of time for design, budgeting, and installation of
new equipment, which could be very disruptive to operations. Southern
Company believes certain larger systems could not be retired and
replaced in the six months EPA has proposed. [0135]

CIBO comments that EPA should not shorten the length of time allowed for
completion of retrofit/retirement plans. CIBO believes that six months
is an unreasonable amount of time in which to design, fund, order,
obtain and install a new appliance. CIBO states that EPA has no reason
to cut the time period for sources to make needed repairs, nor record
support, such as emission reductions based on the types of timeframes of
repairs undertaken by the range of facilities that would be affected by
this rule, to support the proposal. CIBO believes the amendment is
arbitrary and should not be made. CIBO recommends that the current 1
year timeframe and provisions that allow for extensions when these
extensions are warranted should be retained. [0145]

NEDA/CAP comments that six months is an extremely short period for the
replacement of large equipment which is likely to require capitalization
(i.e., the project cannot be implemented with maintenance budgets which
limit expenditure amounts to less than $10,000-$100,000, depending on
the size of the company).  NEDA/CAP states that industrial refrigeration
systems, which are integrated with process equipment, frequently require
extensive engineering involving the process equipment, unique design and
fabrication off-site, and finally, shutdown of process equipment for
potentially extensive periods of time to replace or retrofit. NEDA/CAP
notes that there also has been some concern expressed that even for roof
air conditioning units, additional structural engineering may be needed
to safely remove and replace an air conditioner with a new unit.
NEDA/CAP believes that the shorter period is not supported without
additional assessment by the agency. NEDA/CAP also maintains that the
six month proposal ignores an important business reality about the time
needed for approval of capital budget items, especially for small and
medium size manufacturing businesses. NEDA/CAP therefore suggests that
EPA retain the current provision, or that it allow additional time for
the replacement or retrofit of industrial refrigeration systems provided
documentation shows that the operator is reasonably diligent in
implementing the replacement or retrofit. [0151]

ACC comments that complex industrial process refrigeration systems are
in many cases closely integrated with complex manufacturing process, and
their replacement or retrofit typically requires capital expenditures
along with detailed engineering, equipment procurement, construction,
and a process shutdown to incorporate the new system into the existing
operations. ACC believes EPA should continue to maintain a 1-year period
to either permanently retire or retrofit an industrial process
refrigeration unit to allow industry adequate time to perform
engineering analysis, identify replacement systems, acquire the
equipment, adequately plan and execute any shutdown activities while
minimizing emissions, and plan for additional work that may be required
during the shutdown period. [0139]

TVA recommends that EPA retain the current one year schedule for a
retrofit/retirement. TVA believes that a six month lead time to replace
a large chiller or DX unit is neither reasonable nor practical for the
following reasons:

In a non-nuclear application, the purchase of a 350 ton chiller
typically has a 4 to 6 month lead time from manufacturer’s receipt of
order. In addition, time is required to engineer the interfaces between
the new chiller and existing chiller plant, upgrade the equipment room
to meet various safety regulations and, for government installations
such as TVA’s, competitively bid the job. This requires well defined
scope and specifications for the request for proposals (RFP) with the
actual bidding process taking approximately a month to twelve weeks from
RFP to contract award, depending on complexity of the job and the
agency’s specific procurement policies and regulations. The
installation of the chiller can take anywhere from one week to one month
or more, depending on scope of chiller replacement and the associated
modifications required for the equipment room. From beginning to end to
complete the replacement in 6 to 9 months is highly improbable.

The type of equipment used in a nuclear application is a
custom-engineered and custom-built piece specific to a particular plant.
Extra chillers are not stockpiled by the manufacturer. This equipment
has specific quality and testing requirements, which must meet the
plant’s NRC mandated Quality Assurance (QA) programs required by
Federal Law (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B). This often adds several months
to the commercial grade equipment’s lead time. Due to the congestion
in the powerhouse and plant operational requirements, a chiller
replacement in a nuclear application has to be coordinated with other
plant outage and modification activities. In many cases, plant
engineering work must be completed before the chiller specifications are
released for bids and the contract awarded (especially government
projects). In the nuclear business, this means a lengthy design control
process that meets the plant’s legally mandated QA requirements. This
design control process can take from 4 to 16 weeks due to the number and
complexity of drawings, specifications, safety reviews, and engineering
reviews that are typically required. Thus, the total process of
replacing a chiller can take a minimum of 9 to 12 months under the best
of conditions with much of this time being outside the scope or control
of the equipment supplier.

Six months to complete a retrofit or retirement of an industrial process
refrigeration unit fails to recognize the unique situation in nuclear
industry where planned outages are typically scheduled on an 18-24 month
cycle. [0163]

A private citizen strongly supports the retrofit time reduction.  The
commenter believes that it is a much-needed change that will prevent the
worst-leaking systems from continuously exceeding leak rate limits,
while still providing a more economical option to the operator than
requiring the decommissioning and replacement of a system. [0124]

Requirement to replace leaking components

EPA sought comment on the effectiveness and feasibility of requiring
owners or operators of comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration, and
IPR appliances to replace leaking components in their entirety upon
failure of an initial or follow up verification. EPA proposed a second
option whereby owners and operators may decide on a case by case basis
if a component or its subassembly requires replacement in order to
completely repair the appliance. EPA received five comments in support
of option 2, rather than option 1.

Eastman believes EPA should not make it mandatory that leaking
components be replaced if a verification repair(s) is/are unsuccessful.
The commenter states that a facility should be allowed an unlimited
number of repairs attempts to equipment within the 30 day time period.
Eastman notes that many items can ultimately be repaired and the
requirement to replace the component(s) that is leaking would be costly
if the component(s) is repaired and the leak is stopped. Eastman
supports EPA’s proposed 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. [0137]

CIBO supports EPA's assertion that industry should not be forced to
retrofit or replace equipment when a simple leak repair will address the
issue at hand, and conclusion that it is appropriate for appliance
owners or operators to decide how to repair leaking appliances and when
replacement or retrofit is the best solution, as is existing practice.
[0145]

Southern Company supports EPA’s proposal to allow appliance owners the
flexibility in each instance of a leak to determine whether the leak is
best addressed by a repair of the leaking component or through its
replacement. Southern Company maintains that not all circumstances will
be similar, and requiring a component replacement where a simple repair
would suffice will result in unnecessary costs with no benefit to the
environment. [ 0135]

FMI comments that if EPA decides to move forward in extending
retrofit/retirement requirements to commercial refrigeration and comfort
cooling appliances, FMI prefers the second option proposed by EPA 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 because it will reduce the odds that replacement of
a component is required in circumstances where it is not necessary or
warranted. [0150]

Safeway Inc disagrees that if a component (evaporator) keeps leaking it
should be replaced, rather than continually repaired. [0136]

Minimum requirements for a retrofit/retirement plan

EPA sought comment on the minimum requirements for retrofit/retirement
plans.  EPA received two comments concerned that the required details
are unlikely to be available so early in the retrofit/retirement
process.  These two comments also maintain that EPA should not require
the plan to be kept at the physical location of the appliance.

The Auto Industry Forum is concerned that the details of a retirement or
retrofit plan will not be known at the time a decision is made to either
retire or retrofit an appliance. The Auto Industry Forum comments that
typically, an engineering evaluation and project will have to be
undertaken to assess which option makes the best business sense. The
Auto Industry Forum states that it will take time to investigate the
costs and timing associated with both options. The Auto Industry Forum
states that should a retrofit program be ultimately decided, then the
details and procedures will be developed in conjunction with the
contractor/supplier retained to perform the work. The Auto Industry
Forum comments that if it is decided to retire the appliance, then
documentation of that decision should be all that is necessary, together
with a record that the appliance was retired within 6 months after
accounting for any system mothballs. [0148]

CIBO comments that EPA’s proposed minimum requirements for retrofit
and replacement plans are excessively detailed, particularly given that
a plan must be completed within 30 days of discovering a leak, when
details are unlikely to be available. In particular, CIBO points to the
procedures for flushing old refrigerant and lubricant, changes in
lubricants, filters, gaskets, orings, or valves; the plan for the
disposition of the recovered refrigerant the plan for the disposition of
the appliance, if retired, and a six-month schedule for the complete
retrofit or retirement of the appliance. [0145]

The Auto Industry Forum comments that EPA should not require the plan to
be maintained with the appliance itself or even at the facility.  The
Auto Industry Forum believes flexibility should be provided such that it
could be maintained at the facility, typically in the maintenance office
where the evaluation and ordering of equipment would occur, or at
another facility or office and made available within a reasonable time
to EPA when requested. The Auto Industry Forum notes that in some cases,
multiple offices and buildings are managed by another centralized
administrative office. The Auto Industry Forum believes that the plan
should be maintained at the location where it is being managed so long
as it is readily accessible to the facility, and believes that having
the plan attached to the appliance serves no purpose. The Auto Industry
Forum proposes text edits to subsection (n.) [0148]

CIBO does not believe it is EPA’s intent to require that a retrofit
plan be kept near the physical location of the appliance and urges EPA
to revise the language of 82.156 (l)(1) to delete the “at the physical
location” phrase making it consistent with the provisions of 82.166
(n).  CIBO comments that if it was EPA’s intent for owners to keep a
retrofit plan at the physical location of the appliance, CIBO urges EPA
to reconsider and suggests instead requiring owners to keep the plan
with the other records for the program at the site. [0145]

Extension to Repair and Retrofit/ Retirement Timelines

Proposal to remove the 120-day exemption when owners or operators of
industrial process refrigeration appliances undergo an industrial
process shutdown

EPA proposed to remove the 120 day exemption when owners or operators of
industrial process refrigeration appliances undergo an industrial
process shutdown. EPA received five comments in opposition to this
proposal, which emphasize that industrial process refrigeration systems
are fundamentally different and more complex than comfort cooling
systems. Commenters note that the shutdown of an industrial process
refrigeration unit will in many cases result in the need to shut down an
industrial manufacturing process, and must be coordinated with other
activities at a site.

Eastman believes that gaining regulatory simplicity is not sufficient
reason to eliminate the 120-day repair period exemption. Eastman
explains that industrial process refrigeration units may in some
instances supply refrigeration for more than one industrial
manufacturing process; therefore, jumping straight to mothballing an
appliance because the 120-day requirement is eliminated will in some
instances stop manufacturing from one or multiple manufacturing
processes. The commenter notes that it is true that mothballing could
occur, but this does not address the need for process refrigeration to
continue manufacturing, when an industrial process shutdown is needed to
repair the appliance. Eastman states that the Chemical Manufacturers
Association and other groups worked years ago with EPA to develop the
120 day exemption, which should not be eliminated for industrial process
refrigeration appliances. [0137]

ACC disagrees with EPA’s proposal to remove the 120-day exemption when
owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration appliances
undergo an industrial process shutdown. ACC comments that the chemical
industry operates many comfort cooling systems and industrial process
refrigeration systems, that these systems are fundamentally different
from one another, and that EPA should continue to regulate them in a
different manner. ACC believes that EPA’s stated effort in this
proposal - to provide regulatory simplicity and to harmonize the
requirements between comfort cooling systems and industrial process
refrigeration - fails to recognize the complexity of industrial process
refrigeration systems and the complex production processes that they
support ACC’s experience is that these systems are different in a
number of ways, including:

Industrial process refrigeration units have a much higher level of
integration with chemical production plants and, thus, cannot be
isolated, mothballed, and repaired in the same manner as comfort cooling
systems. In many cases, planned shutdowns and associated repairs must be
coordinated among the other production activities at a given site. This
level of coordination and maintenance planning may require, in some
cases, up to 120 days to make the repairs on larger systems without
excessive disruption to interdependent manufacturing activities.

The time required to procure a large replacement unit can extend up to a
year in some cases, given the need for specialized site-specific design
for a specific industrial process in a specific location, and the
planning timelines associated with the high cost of replacing a large
unit.

Comfort cooling systems can be shut down for repairs and in some cases
can be replaced with rental units within a matter of hours. This option
does not exist for most industrial process refrigeration units as these
are typically "one of a kind" custom designed systems. Repairs for
comfort cooling systems are also different because repairs do not
typically include the engineering oversight that comes with the repair
of industrial process refrigeration units due to their direct
integration into the manufacturing process.

The shutdown of an industrial process refrigeration unit will in many
cases result in the need to shut down a chemical manufacturing process.
The shutdown of a process may lead to increased emissions of criteria
air pollutants and resulting re-start emissions, some of which may or
may not be authorized by existing State air permitting programs and
regulations. The ability to coordinate repairs of the industrial process
refrigeration system with other planned shutdowns was a critical
consideration in the original provision of a 120-day repair period
allowed for industrial process refrigeration, and remains a concern
today.

Industrial process refrigeration systems are typically larger and
contain more refrigerant than typical comfort cooling systems. Thus,
maintenance repairs and follow-up leak verification tests typically are
more complex, which drives the need for more time to make these repairs.
[0139]

OCC comments that EPA should retain the 120-day exemption when owners or
operators require an industrial process shutdown to complete a repair.
OCC believes that in order to clearly define repair obligations when a
shutdown is required, the amendment should address the timeline
activities required when a shutdown of a process is needed with adequate
time built in for acquiring the requisite parts and providing for a safe
and cost effective shutdown within the time period allowed. OCC states
that the argument for the elimination of the 120 day delay for
industrial process refrigeration versus other air conditioning sectors
ignores the reasoning and arguments that were brought forward in the
original rulemaking, which is that industrial process refrigeration
systems are integrally connected to a major process and may be more
complex and larger than their counterparts in other segments such as in
the comfort cooling area. [0144]

CIBO comments that EPA should not eliminate the 120-day provision for
repairing industrial process equipment that requires process shutdown to
repair. CIBO states that in making these changes and eliminating the
definition of “industrial process shutdown,” EPA is removing
important repair provisions needed by industrial process equipment. CIBO
states that the amount of time allowed for repairs in current
regulations is critical for certain units and urges EPA not to eliminate
it. CIBO notes that there are a range of possible repair problems that
must continue to be accounted for in the rule; for example, repairs may
be needed for certain industrial process equipment that are integral
components of a manufacturing process that cannot be taken off line
without significant economic penalties. CIBO states that EPA should not
constrain repair provisions for facilities running highly complex
manufacturing processes. CIBO recommends that the definition of
“industrial process shutdown” be retained as well as the provisions
that allow industrial process equipment to have up to 120 days to repair
units when repairing those units requires an industrial process
shutdown. [0145]

NEDA/CAP believes EPA’s proposal is unreasonable because industrial
refrigeration systems are fundamentally different from cooling systems
and as a general matter require shutdown of manufacturing processes in
order to dismantle the equipment. NEDA/CAP notes that air conditioning
equipment can be more or less swapped out and piping changes if they are
necessary do not generally require interruption of most manufacturing
process units for long periods of time, but industrial refrigeration
units are integrated into process equipment, generally at several
production steps on a manufacturing line. NEDA/CAP urges EPA to leave
the existing 120 day exemption in place for leaks from industrial
refrigeration systems so that losses from production that must be
interrupted to remedy a leak can be minimized, reducing ancillary
significant costs to businesses and potential resulting losses to
employees and communities.  [0151]

Proposal to allow extensions

EPA received six comments regarding the proposal to allow extensions to
the requirement to repair leaks within 30 days, and to grant similar
exemptions to all appliance owners or operators who cannot complete
required retrofit/retirement plans in the proposed 6 month time frame,
provided that recordkeeping requirements are fulfilled. One comment
supports this additional flexibility as written. Three comments
recommend that EPA broaden the automatic extension to cover additional
possible causes for delay and to increase the amount of time provided in
the extension. Two comments maintain that EPA should continue to allow
case-by-case extensions for one to three years for certain conditions.

FMI applauds EPA for granting owners or operators of comfort cooling and
commercial refrigeration equipment this additional flexibility. [0150]

FPA comments that it does not appear that an automatic extension is
available for engineering or delays in seeking and obtaining approval
for capital expenditures in the normal course of business. FPA’s
members are concerned that less than one year is not sufficient time for
retrofit or replacements of industrial refrigeration equipment to be
implemented. [0152]

CIBO notes that while EPA will allow more time in cases where a quoted
deliver time is more than 12 weeks, the provisions allow for only 12
weeks after the date of delivery to complete installation. CIBO believes
this may be insufficient in many cases, particularly when a scheduled
industrial process shutdown with downtime is needed for installation of
industrial process equipment which is integral to the process.  [0145]

NEDA/CAP supports the automatic extension due to the unavailability of
parts within 12 weeks of the 6 month period to complete retrofit plans,
but believes that it is not broad enough to cover shutdowns, engineering
delays due to design and fabrication of equipment, delays that result
from capitalization justifications and other related corporate
procedures, and other production and business delays. NEDA/CAP
recommends that as long as these justifications are documented with
supporting information, EPA should broaden the bases for automatic
extensions and extend these to six additional months. [0151]

An anonymous commenter recommends that EPA should allow case-by-case
exemptions for special circumstances. The commenter states that
previously, the owner could have up to 3 years in some
circumstances. The commenter provides the example that other government
agencies may be required to approve a change in refrigerant type for
certain validated products that are manufactured, and states that seven
months would likely not be sufficient time to replace or retrofit the
appliance and have the revalidation of the change approved by other
agencies. [0162]

TVA recommends that EPA retain the current one year or two year
extensions provided in the current regulations for certain conditions.
[0163]

Worst Leaker Provision

The worst leaker provision

EPA received 12 general comments about the worst leaker provision.
Eleven comments were submitted in opposition to the worst leaker
provision, while one comment was submitted in support of the worst
leaker provision. Of the comments opposing the worst leaker provision,
seven comments (from Eastman, DoD, ACC, Supervalu, Inc., TVA, FMI, and
OCC) maintain that the provision should not be applicable to three
unrelated leaks, which could result in retrofitting and/or retiring
appliances when the actual need is unnecessary and costly. Three
comments state that the provision is a disincentive to repair leaks for
fear of failing verification tests. Three comments maintain that the
regulations should allow an operator a full 180 days to address leaks
and implement additional repairs without fear of failing to repair the
leak during one of the first three leak repair attempts. Three comments
are regarding clarification for ambiguous language. Lastly, two comments
state that EPA has not properly quantified the costs associated with
these new requirements.

Eastman comments that EPA should only require that a component(s) be
retrofitted or retired if the follow-up verification test fails and the
30-day or 120-day time period has expired without successful follow-up
repairs. Eastman notes that in many instances, the initial follow up may
reveal repair was unsuccessful, but subsequent repair efforts could
result in successful repair within the 30 day (120 day) time period,
thus the component(s) should not be required to be replaced, and the
appliance should not be required to be retired or retrofitted. Eastman
believes that if an owner/operator has more than three component
replacements during a six month period, but repairs the appliance
successfully, EPA should not require retrofit or retirement when
successful repairs are made. Eastman provides the following example for
one refrigeration appliance: one compressor seal fails but is
successfully replaced, a small valve fails and is successfully replaced,
and a refrigerant line develops a split but is successfully repaired.
Eastman believes that EPA should not require retrofit to a lower ODS
refrigerant and/or retirement when such repairs can be made.  Eastman
notes that larger capacity appliances could be required to be
retrofitted and/or retired when the actual need is unnecessary and
costly. [0137]

The Department of Defense (DoD) comments that the proposed worst leaker
provision is overly prescriptive and may result in the replacement of
appliances before they reach end-of-life. DoD provides an example of a
six-year old R-22 appliance in overall good condition that is shown to
be leaking above the allowable annual leakage rate:

The owner calls in an outside service technician to locate and repair
the leak. The technician locates a leak in piping in the area of a
refrigerant charging valve, brazes the pipe to repair the leak, and then
conducts an initial verification test. The appliance fails the test
because there is another leak from a valve that was not identified
during the initial leak investigation (strike 1). The technician repairs
this additional leak and the appliance passes an initial verification
and is returned to service. Twelve days later the technician returns to
conduct a follow-up verification and the appliance fails this test
because the technician did a poor brazing job and vibration caused a
failure (strike 2). The appliance is then repaired properly and passes
all verifications. Two months later, refrigerant is added to the
appliance and calculations show that it has again exceeded the maximum
annual leakage rate. It is determined that the compressor shaft seal is
faulty. A replacement shaft seal is installed and the appliance once
again passes initial verification. Twenty days later when the technician
returns for a follow-up verification, oil is observed coming from the
replaced shaft seal indicating a refrigerant leak (strike 3). It is
determined that the replacement shaft seal was a faulty part that failed
after a few hours of operation. At this point the owner is now forced to
replace or retrofit the appliance. In this case, the causes of the
failed verifications are likely an inept outside service technician and
a faulty replacement part. However, the owner is now faced with the
requirement to replace an appliance at the cost of over $100,000 even
though the overall condition of the appliance is very good. [0133]

DoD notes that One Military Service surveyed a few of their
installations on potential costs to comply with the worst leaker
provision and developed a cost assessment for 127 installations. This
cost assessment showed an initial first year capital cost for equipment
retrofits and replacements of $39 million and recurring annual
operational and capital costs of over $18 million. DoD notes that if
these estimates are accurate, then the cost for this service alone
exceeds the low end of the NPRM estimated costs for the entire nation.
DoD recommends that EPA eliminate the worst leaker provision or consider
a revision to make it more flexible and reduce its overall cost. DoD
suggests that EPA might consider allowing owners or operators an option
to document the causes of the failed verifications and actions being
taken to prevent or reduce future leaks and failed leak repair attempts
via an appliance leak management plan in lieu of requiring the
replacement or retrofit of the overall appliance; if after developing
this plan the appliance again fails three verifications in 6 months, DoD
believes the owner should then be required to replace or retrofit the
appliance. [0133]

ACC and NEDA/CAP object to the requirement in proposed § 82.156(j)(4)
to replace an entire industrial process refrigeration system after three
failed leak verification attempts within 6 months. They believe the
proposed requirement is a disincentive to try to repair leaks in the
most expeditious manner for fear of failure of three verification tests
within a 6-month timeframe. They believe this is an onerous and very
expensive part of the proposed rule language. ACC and NEDA/CAP maintain
that the owner/operator should be provided a full 180 days to address
leaks that are technically difficult to resolve without being subject to
penalty for failing to repair the leak during one of the first three
leak repair attempts. This would allow additional repair attempts to be
made during the 180-day period without a mandatory requirement to retire
or retrofit the appliance after three failed verification tests. This
time period would also minimize the potential misconduct of repair
companies from making inferior repairs in an attempt to sell new units
instead. ACC and NEDA/CAP request that the proposed rule text be
modified as follows: “Owners and/or operators of commercial
refrigeration or industrial process refrigeration appliances must repair
the leaking component or retire or retrofit the appliance to use a
refrigerant or substitute with a lower ozone depleting potential (ODP),
in accordance with paragraph (l) of this section, if the appliance has
experienced at least three failed verification tests within a
consecutive six-month period and the owner/operator has not been able to
repair the existing leak(s) within 180 days of a failed verification
test.” [0139, 0151]

Supervalu, Inc. comments that the requirement to replace or retire the
appliance if any individual component had three leak events within a
six-month period appears to be applicable notwithstanding that the leaks
within a component may be unrelated. Supervalu, Inc. notes that if three
unrelated leaks occurred within a six-month period, the owner or
operator would be required to retire or replace the component
(condenser) or the entire appliance. Supervalu, Inc. believes these
requirements would be overly burdensome. Supervalu, Inc. does not oppose
the rule applying to three leaks in the same location or causally
related, but does not believe it should be applicable to unrelated
leaks. [0143]

TVA has concerns with the “worst leaker” provision because, by
failing to take into account the cause of the leak, the provision would
force the retirement or retrofitting of an entire appliance even under
conditions in which it is clear that only certain isolated components
need to be replaced. TVA notes that the straight count of failed
verification tests does not to take into account the likelihood that
leaks on separate components may be unrelated. TVA believes that
retirement of an otherwise robust and functional unit merely because a
certain component needs replacement would be a waste of resources.
According to TVA, there is always a point in the lifecycle of a chiller
or other HVAC equipment at which a decision must be made to replace or
repair the unit. The appropriate decision model would dictate the
balancing of criteria developed by authoritative sources such as
American Society of Heating and Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Engineers that incorporate expected remaining service life, refrigerant
management considerations (including ODS management) and energy usage
(reducing emissions from power generation) in the model. This approach,
based on best professional judgment, is a better decision tool for
retrofit/retirement decision than using failures as the sole decision
mechanism.  [0163]

FMI has serious concerns with this provision of the rule as written and
believes the “three strikes rule” should be removed from the
Proposed Rule.  FMI states that if EPA does decide to craft a final rule
with this provision, unless the definition of appliance is significantly
changed, this provision will impose enormous—and unnecessary—burdens
on the supermarket industry. [0150]

OCC comments that the proposed language should be rewritten to align
with information contained in the preamble. In particular, OCC believes
clarification is needed between pages 78563: “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,” which
seems to indicate that the EPA proposes changes to the leak repair
requirements that will allow changes to the individual refrigeration
appliance component in lieu of retirement of an entire appliance, and
page 78576 which covers worst leaker provisions mandating a retirement
or retrofit of the entire appliance if the appliance experienced three
failed verification tests within a consecutive six-month period,
regardless of whether the appliance leaked at the identical component.
OCC believes the cause related to failures must be taken into account,
since a straight test count would unduly require expensive (and
wasteful) retirement or retrofit activities. OCC provides an example of
a component that is repaired but fails the follow-up repair test
verification and is subsequently replaced, requiring another initial and
verification test, which would bring the test count to two. OCC notes
that if the component itself was later found to be defective from the
factory (or is found to be improperly installed) and is discovered
within the 6 months, necessitating another repair, one component would
have caused the worst leaker provision to apply to an otherwise usable
and tight system. OCC states that retirement of a fully functional unit
would be a costly waste of resources. [0144]

The Auto Industry Forum comments that the provision does not state
clearly that the 3-failed test requirement applies to a single leak
rather than another leak discovered as part of the test or all other
leaks. The Auto Industry Forum provides an example that if a facility
repairs one leak, and the verification test discovers another leak, that
should not be considered a failed verification test for the first leak
because the first leak did not cause the failure. The Auto Industry
Forum believes that this is particularly confusing with EPA’s addition
of the requirement to “repair all leaks” and contrasts the preamble
discussion that the Auto Industry Forum believes more appropriately
focuses on components and failures of tests for the particular component
repaired or replaced. The Auto Industry Forum states that the rule
cannot drive replacement of units simply because an owner conducts
testing and learns of additional leaks through that testing, even if the
repair is valid, or could be made valid through additional efforts or a
component replacement. The Auto Industry Forum also notes that the rule
provides no explanation as to why “three” is the correct number of
failed tests that indicates an appliance needs retrofitting or
replacement. The Auto Industry Forum believes this is particularly true
if EPA intends the three failed test requirement to apply across
multiple leaks. The Auto Industry Forum comments that EPA should not be
establishing policies that discourage people from testing for fear of
triggering a retrofit/replacement requirement. The Auto Industry Forum
recommends that EPA clarify that plans to retire or retrofit can only be
triggered if there are three failed tests for the same leak. [0148]

Southern Company generally disagrees with EPA’s “worst-leaker”
proposal because it could require retirement or retrofit of an entire
appliance even under circumstances in which it may be clear that only
component replacements are needed. Southern Company believes that the
“worst leaker” proposal fails to take into account the likelihood
that leaks on separate components are likely to be entirely unrelated to
one another. Southern Company states that the proximity in time of three
unrelated leaks does not necessarily suggest that an entire appliance is
in need of replacement, particularly if the appliance has neither
experienced leaks in the past nor would be expected to leak again in the
future following the replacement of a certain component.   [0135]

CIBO comments that the worst leaker requirement provides a disincentive
for owners or operators to try to fix leaks as quickly as possible when
these leaks may be technically difficult to repair, for fear of having
to replace the entire appliance. CIBO also comments that EPA has not
properly quantified the costs associated with these new requirements.
CIBO does not believe these costs warrant such drastic measures. CIBO
suggests that EPA modify the proposed rule text at: 82.156 (j) (4) to
read: “Owners and operators of commercial refrigeration or industrial
process refrigeration appliances must repair the leaking component or
retire or retrofit the appliance to use a refrigerant or substitute with
a lower ozone depleting potential (ODP), in accordance with paragraph
(l) of this section, if the appliance has experienced at least three
failed verification tests within a consecutive six-month period and the
owner/operator has not been able to repair the existing leak(s) within
180 days of a failed verification test.” [0145]

NEDA/CAP comments that the proposed requirement is a potential
disincentive to try to repair leaks in the most expeditious manner (for
fear of failure of three verification tests within a 6 months), and that
there are other alternatives that are less costly and equally effective.
NEDA/CAP also believes that the regulations should allow an operator a
full 180 days to address leaks and implement additional repairs, without
fear of failing to repair the leak during one of the first three leak
repair attempts.  [0151]

AT&T comments that the use of the term "tests" in 40 C.F.R. §
82.1560)(4) -- which requires retirement or retrofit if an appliance has
experienced "three failed verification tests within a consecutive
six-month period" -- is different from the preamble's reference to
"verifications", and so creates some potential ambiguity. AT&T believes
that EPA should clarify that the proposed §82.l 56(j)(4) refers to
three different repair attempts, not to individual tests that may be
conducted during a single repair attempt. [0154]

ESS is concerned that the language starting on page 78575 is confusing
to industry as it relates to 3 failed verification tests in 6 months.
The commenter is concerned that, for example, if a major leak on a
condenser coil is repaired 3 times in 6 months with clear evidence that
each event was in a different location and each repair passed the
initial and follow-up test, EPA may choose to fine the organization for
failure to replace or retrofit the system. ESS suggests that EPA revise
the worst leaker section with support from industry and the other
commenters to language that is clearly understood by all sides. [0140]

EPA received one comment in support of the worst-leaker provision.

A private citizen strongly supports the worst-leaker provision, and
comments that it is much more helpful in regulating ODS releases.  The
commenter notes that the provision as revised would target the highest
polluting systems for regulation.  [0124]

Two proposed options for the worst leaker provision

EPA received five comments related to the worst leaker provision
options. Of these five commenters, two expressed support for Option 2.

Southern Company comments that they support Option 2, as it allows
sources the greatest flexibility in selecting the most appropriate means
of addressing a leaking appliance.  Southern Company notes that under
Option 1, sources would be required to replace an entire appliance that
had just received several new components, which would clearly not be a
cost-effective means of addressing leaks. [0135]

One private citizen states that Option 2 would provide for more
flexibility for the system operators, while also providing higher levels
of regulation for systems that repeatedly leak ODS. [0124]

Two commenters raised concerns about both proposed options, and one
commenter requested further clarification.

AT&T comments that for either option, the question arises how EPA would
treat a system with more than one refrigerant circuit. Whichever option
EPA chooses, AT&T requests that EPA make it clear that each circuit
should be considered separately. With regard to Option 1, AT&T comments
that the replacement of components on one refrigerant circuit should not
be combined with replacement of components performed on separate
circuits, for purposes of triggering the system retrofit requirements.
With regard to Option 2, AT&T comments that a failure on one refrigerant
circuit should not be combined with a failure on a separate circuit, for
purposes of triggering the system retrofit requirements. [0154]

Perkins Coie, LLP believes both options are rather extreme measures that
will, in certain circumstances, impair the viability of a company using
regulated comfort cooling appliances. Perkins Coie, LLP  notes that
under the first option, for example, an owner or operator that receives
defective components on a new appliance (i.e. condenser coils) from the
manufacturer resulting in either a failed initial verification test or
follow-up verification test within a consecutive six-month period would
be required to retire or retrofit the entire appliance. Perkins Coie,
LLP states that in this scenario, the defective component(s) will most
likely be covered by a warranty and, therefore, replacement of the
component would have little or no impact to the business; however,
replacement or retrofitting the entire appliance (particularly a new
appliance) as a result of a manufacturer's defect would require the
business to incur a significant expense. Perkins Coie, LLP notes that
the capital cost to replace a regulated comfort cooling appliance can be
$500,000 to $750,000 or more; by comparison, a successful repair of an
appliance with warranted components would likely cost less than $5,000.
The commenter states that the same analysis holds true for the second
option described in EPA's Proposed Rule: an owner or operator, or the
manufacturer under warranty, can typically repair leaks or replace
defective components on an appliance with little impact to the business,
but requiring the owner or operator to retrofit or retire the entire
appliance after the failure of three initial or follow-up verification
tests in any combination on any part of the appliance could be
devastating to the business. Perkins Coie, LLP believes that the
proposal will not result in the measurable reductions of refrigerant
emissions, and EPA should not pursue the "worst leaker" provision
because it is too drastic a remedy and too costly for businesses. [0160]

An anonymous commenter requests further clarification on the specifics
of the two options:

Regarding Option 1 and the requirement for retrofit or retirement of an
entire appliance if “it experiences three component replacements
during a consecutive six-month period,” the commenter requests
clarification regarding if this means that (1) any three component
replacements would trigger this requirement, or (2) if it is only
triggered if a specific component is replaced three times.

Regarding Option 2 and the statement that the retrofit/retire
requirements would be triggered if “the entire appliance fails three
initial or follow-up verifications during a consecutive six-month
period,” the commenter requests clarification regarding if this means
any three failed verification tests or if all three failed tests have to
be for the same leak location (i.e. a specific valve). [0141]

Concerns about requiring the retrofit/retirement of an appliance based
upon the failure of an initial verification test

EPA received seven comments expressing concern about the requirement to
retrofit or retire an appliance based upon the failure of an initial
verification test.

LCRA has serious concerns requiring the mandatory replacement of
appliances as proposed in 82.156(i) and (j). LCRA believes it is
unreasonable to require the replacement based upon the failure of
initial leak tests because initial leak tests are used to immediately
verify the success of a repair to the appliance or appliance component
and may indicate that further actions are required to accomplish the
specific repair.  LCRA comments that a failed follow-up verification
test is a better indicator of possible systemic issues in an appliance
or appliance component that may require replacement. LCRA suggests that
40 CFR 82.156(i)(4) and (j)(4) be modified to clarify that only the
failure of three follow-up verification tests would trigger the
replacement or retrofit requirement. [0146]

CIBO comments that they would want to ensure that failure of an initial
verification test, where refrigerant is not involved in the test, is not
considered to be one of these three “failures”. [0145]

The Auto Industry Forum does not agree with the new requirement that an
appliance be retired or retrofitted if it has failed three verification
tests, especially three initial verification tests, in a six-month
period. The Auto Industry Forum states that as proposed, this new
requirement appears to include any verification test – an initial
verification or a follow up verification. The Auto Industry Forum states
that it also ignores the fact that a large appliance may have more than
one leak, such that if the technician repairs one leak adequately, he or
she may find that there is still a leak elsewhere in the system that he
or she discovers when performing the initial leak verification test for
the first repair. The Auto Industry Forum believes that requiring
appliances to be retired or retrofitted after 3 initial leak
verifications is inappropriate as there is no harm to the environment
when there has been no refrigerant added. The Auto Industry Forum notes
that these types of tests are often used to diagnose and locate leaks
within the appliance, especially when there is more than a single leak.
The Auto Industry Forum notes that follow-up verification tests, on the
other hand, are the tests for confirming that the leaks were repaired as
expected once the appliance is charged and operated at it normal
temperature and pressure, validating the result of a successful initial
verification test. [0148]

An anonymous commenter does not believe that the failure of an initial
verification test should be considered as part of a requirement to
replace or retrofit the unit. The commenter notes that by simply stating
three failed verification tests, the proposal would include either
initial or follow-up verification tests.  The commenter notes that
initial verification tests are quite often done when the unit has been
evacuated and does not contain any refrigerant. The commenter states
that in this circumstance a failed test does not do any harm to the
environment since the unit does not contain any refrigerant and
therefore should not be included in the three failed attempts. The
commenter provides a second example of when a valve packing leaks and
the technician makes a repair attempt by tightening the valve packing
and then does an initial leak test to see if adjusting the packing
stopped the leak. If that leak test fails, the technician would
typically proceed with replacing the valve. The commenter notes that in
this circumstance, the failed initial test in which the technician tried
to stop the leak by tightening the packing would count toward the three
failed tests. The commenter believes this could discourage early repair
attempts to stop or minimize emissions by encouraging putting off
repairs until the technician can ensure that the repair will be
successful.  The commenter recommends that initial verification tests
should not be included in the three failed test requirement to replace
or retrofit. [0162]

Eastman comments that EPA should only require a retrofit or retirement
plan if the follow-up verification tests are unsuccessful during the
allowed repair period, not initial repair failure efforts. [0137]

Two commenters (ACC and TVA) comment that the failure of an initial
verification test, where refrigerant is not involved in the test, should
not be considered as one of the three failures.  [0139, 0163]

Replacement of components rather than the entire appliance

EPA received seven comments proposing that EPA consider requiring the
replacement of the specific component(s) at which leaks are occurring
instead of requiring the retrofit or replacement of the entire
appliance.

LCRA comments that it is unreasonable to require the replacement of the
entire appliance that has failed three verification tests when the
replacement of individual components may effectively reduce emissions.
LCRA notes that EPA acknowledged that this requirement would present a
significant burden, and LCRA therefore believes that an owner or
operator should have the flexibility of replacing a component rather
than the entire appliance.  LCRA suggests that 40 CFR 82.156(i)(4) and
(j)(4) be modified to include “appliance or appliance component” in
lieu of “appliance.” [0146]

CIBO comments that in most cases, retrofit or replacement of the entire
unit is unnecessary where replacing the component that causes the leak
will address the problem. [0145]

NEDA/CAP urges EPA to consider requiring the replacement of the specific
component or components at which the leaks are occurring instead of
requiring the retrofit or replacement of the entire industrial process
refrigeration system. [0151]

FMI believes a significantly more cost effective approach would be to
require only the problematic component be replaced. FMI believes that
mandating the scrapping or retrofitting of an entire system that could
function properly within the leak repair thresholds for many years
because of one leaky component imposes enormous costs with very limited
benefit.  FMI notes that the Proposed Rule is crafted in such a manner
where there will be unnecessary conversions and retirements. FMI
provides the following example: “A condenser in a system is leaking,
and a technician attempts to repair it. He checks the repair and it
fails the initial verification test. Strike one. The next day he works
on the condenser again and makes another attempt to repair it. The
repair is tested and again fails. Strike two. The retailer decides to
replace the condenser with a new device. The replacement condenser is
installed the following week and the leak is eliminated. Three weeks
later, a valve leaks elsewhere in the system because of a faulty gasket.
The technician attempts to tighten the connections but the leak
continues. An initial verification test is failed.  If the gasket had
been replaced the repair would have held. The whole system must now be
retrofitted or replaced because of a faulty gasket.” FMI notes that
under the existing rules the technician could have reexamined the issue
and replaced the gasket, but under the Proposed Rule, the whole system
must be replaced, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. FMI
believes that much less costly alternatives, such as requiring the
replacement of components that leak repeatedly, rather than requiring
the entire replacement of a system, should be incorporated into the
Proposed Rule. FMI believes that components that repeatedly fail
verification tests should be required to be replaced.  FMI recommends
that EPA strike paragraph (i)(4) and replace it with: “(4) Owners or
operators of comfort cooling appliances must retrofit the appliance to
use a refrigerant or substitute with a lower ozone depleting potential
(ODP) in accordance with paragraph (l) of this section, or replace any
component, if the component has experienced three failed verification
tests within a consecutive six month period.”  FMI also recommends
that EPA strike paragraph (j)(4) and replace it with: “(4) Owners or
operators of commercial refrigeration appliances must retrofit the
appliance to use a refrigerant or substitute with a lower ozone
depleting potential (ODP) in accordance with paragraph (l) of this
section, or replace any component, if the component has experienced
three failed verification tests within a consecutive six month
period.” [0164]

As an alternative to EPA’s “worst leaker” proposal, Southern
Company would recommend that only component replacement be required
after three failed verifications within six months. [0135]

Two commenters (ACC and TVA) believe that the rule should require the
replacement of the specific component(s) that causes the leak, not the
retrofit or retirement of the entire industrial process refrigeration
system. [0139, 0163]

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

EPA received 19 comments on recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Comments were in reference to the following categories:

  REF _Ref380578000 \r \h  5.1 	Service Records

  REF _Ref380420763 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  5.1.1 	Requirement to keep
records on-site

  REF _Ref380420775 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Electronic Reporting

  REF _Ref380420796 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  5.1.2 	Recordkeeping
requirements for persons servicing appliances

  REF _Ref378777772 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  5.2 	Records Documenting the
Fate of Recovered Refrigerant

  REF _Ref380578012 \r \h  5.3 	Documenting the Determination of the
Appliance Full Charge

  REF _Ref379552264 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  5.4 	Other Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements

Count	Commenter	Organization	Docket ID No

1	Rasma I. Zvaners	American Bakers Association (ABA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0142

2	Lorraine Krupa Gershman	American Chemistry Council (ACC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0139

3	Paul Shorb	AT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0154

4	Shannon S. Broome	Auto Industry Forum (the Forum)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0148

5	David P. Hutchison	CH2M-WG Idaho, LLC (CWI)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0155

6	I. Herbold Miller	Cornell University Environmental Health & Safety
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0132

7	Robert D. Bessette	Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0145

8	Donald R. Schregardus	Department of Defense (DoD)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0133

9	Randy Stocker	Emerson Climate	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0099

10	Erik R. Lieberman	Food Marketing Institute (FMI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0150

11	Leslie Sue Ritts	National Environmental Development Association’s
Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0151

12

	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0165

13	Anonymous	Private Citizen Comment	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0141

14	Rob Uhl	Safeway Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0136

15	Christianna Papazahariou	Shecco	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0149

16	Anonymous	Southern Company	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0135

17	Ronald T. Mendes	Supervalu, Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0143

18	Brian A. Bell	United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0125

19	Kathleen Tobin	Verizon Communications Inc. (Verizon)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0129

Service Records

Requirement to keep records on-site

EPA received nine comments related to the requirement to keep records
on-site. Eight commenters state that these requirements would be a
significant burden, especially for those with several facilities in
various locations, and propose modifications to the requirement. One
commenter supports the requirement, but proposes that EPA requires
records to be kept at a second physical location as well. EPA received 6
comments requesting that the Agency allow records to be maintained
electronically.

Verizon and AT&T comment that while the requirement to keep records
on-site may not place undue burdens upon parties with relatively few
locations, the costs and burdens will be significant for businesses like
Verizon and AT&T which have many locations due to the physical nature of
the national telecommunications systems they operate. The commenters
note that these costs and burdens are exacerbated when applied to
facilities that are normally unoccupied and do not have a dedicated
certified technician on-site. The commenters stated that these costs and
burdens can be greatly reduced by allowing businesses with multiple
small locations to keep files in a central location, provided that
copies can be quickly produced electronically or by facsimile at the
local facility upon request. The commenters believe that this change
would not compromise the benefits of the proposed rule and note that the
EPA has already recognized the advantages of allowing for centralized
record maintenance under other rules promulgated under the authority of
the CAA. For example, final regulations for National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engines require that records be "readily accessible" with reference to
specific location. AT&T believes that adopting similar regulator
language would satisfy EPA’s concern that records be "immediately
available upon request." Verizon specifically notes that allowing the
records to be centralized has potential benefits; for instance, keeping
records in a centralized location greatly reduces the possibility of
accidental disturbance of records kept in many local offices through
which various employees may pass. Verizon believes that by centralizing
the records it becomes far easier for a business to perform audits and
assure that the records are being properly maintained. [0129, 0154]

One commenter states that there are several requirements in the proposed
revisions to the regulations requiring records or plans be maintained
“at the physical location of the affected appliance.”  The commenter
states that maintaining records and plans “on‐site” is likely
practical for smaller, less geographically diverse facilities; however,
larger geographically diverse facilities need the option to maintain
records and plans in centralized location(s) that may be physically
separate from the location of a piece of equipment. The commenter also
notes that not requiring the records and plans be maintained at the
physical location of the equipment will allow affected parties to
maintain records and plans electronically. The commenter believes it is
sufficient to require owners or operators to maintain plans and records
for the specified record retention period without specifying that those
records be maintained at the physical location of the piece of
equipment. [0132]

DoD notes that the proposed rule requires that service records be
maintained on-site for a minimum of three years, and the preamble
indicates that on-site is at the physical location of the appliance
undergoing service. DoD comments that keeping records at the physical
location of the affected appliance may subject them to weathering or
loss, and is not compatible with many electronic record-keeping systems.
DoD notes that appliance servicing records are currently maintained at
the facility/installation, where they can be properly controlled,
stored, protected, retrieved, and disposed. DoD recommends that EPA
allow service records to be maintained on-site or at prescribed
locations at a facility or installation where the affected equipment is
physically located. [0133]

Southern Company comments that maintaining service records at the site
of the appliance will interfere with the ability of Southern Company to
coordinate and manage compliance among its many facilities.  Southern
Company believes that requiring records to be maintained at the site
where refrigerant equipment is located will not provide better
oversight, but rather may actually interfere with the efficient and
effective management of appliance maintenance. For most of Southern
Company’s operations, appliance maintenance is managed by a corporate
or regional facilities department that is centrally located. Although
some invoices and records are maintained at the facility, all official
records are kept centrally in the corporate/regional offices files by
the staff that uses them to budget for expenses, track any possible
leaks, and ensure proper maintenance is performed in a timely manner.
Personnel at the facility operate and observe the equipment at their
site, but generally are not trained for equipment maintenance and
instead depend on the certified corporate or regional staff for
maintenance and compliance with regulatory requirements. Southern
Company notes that if EPA finalizes its proposal to require all records
be maintained at each individual facility, the records needed by the
centralized facilities departments could be widely dispersed across an
entire state. [0135]

ACC comments that the statement that records should be kept at the
“physical location” of the refrigeration system could be
misinterpreted to mean at the chiller. ACC notes that many facilities
utilize contractors that are responsible for maintaining the equipment,
and keep the records off-site at the contractors‟ places of business.
ACC suggests that the preamble language be revised in the final rule to
reflect that the records should be “made available upon request” and
not necessarily kept at the “physical location” of the refrigeration
system. [0139]

Supervalu, Inc. comments that they have no objection to the proposed
provision requiring more detailed written verification of all repair
attempts. However, Supervalu, Inc. believes it would be burdensome to be
required to maintain these records on site. Supervalu, Inc. notes that
many supermarkets maintain service records electronically in a
centralized database that are readily available (i.e., generally
available within a one or two hour window, if requested). Supervalu,
Inc. contends that maintaining records in a central database should be
an alternative to requiring that physical records be maintained on site.
[0143]

CWI comments that in some situations, area hazards such as radiation or
restricted access conditions make it impractical to maintain records at
the physical location of the appliance. CWI notes that service records
may also be accessible utilizing a variety of methods, including
electronic copies of service records which can be viewed at multiple
computer station locations. The commenter suggests that EPA eliminate
the phrase, "at the physical location of the appliance" from the
requirement to maintain service records and just state that these
records need to be made available to EPA for review upon request, and
maintained where they may be easily retrievable for refrigeration
technicians who service appliance(s) subject to the required practices.
[0155]

Shecco agrees in principle that records are being kept at the physical
locations of the appliances, but invites the Agency to consider the
possibility of requiring additional record keeping of basic information
at a second physical location to account for the cases of catastrophic
events that the industry reports to be an often cause of leaks, and when
there is a high risk of the record being destroyed. [0149]

Verizon believes it should be clarified that records may be kept in hard
copy or electronic form. [0129]

AT&T requests that EPA modify the proposed requirements contained in 40
C.F.R. §82.166 to allow records to be maintained in either paper form
or electronically. The commenter believes that doing so would be more
consistent with normal business practice, less burdensome, and fully
consistent with EPA’s enforcement needs. [0154]

Safeway Inc comments that it would be beneficial to all involved if
electronic record keeping was mentioned and allowed. [0136]

FMI requests that EPA clarify the recordkeeping requirements of §82.166
to confirm that it is acceptable for the full system charge, leak rate
calculations, leak verification tests, etc. to be summarized or
transcribed from original service records and available on-site in
electronic format, provided that the source documents can be made
available to EPA within some reasonable period of time (e.g., 30 days).
FMI believes that requiring the maintenance of paper records would be
unnecessarily burdensome.  FMI states that it would unnecessarily
consume staff time and lead to redundant recordkeeping.  FMI also notes
that allowing records to be available electronically would lead to
environmental benefits by reducing paper consumption. [0150, 0164]

NEDA/CAP comments that two aspects of recordkeeping seemed peculiar.
NEDA/CAP notes that EPA’s rules at 82.156 (l) (1) would require leak
records to be maintained at the physical location of an appliance, and
retrofit plans would be required to be maintained “on-site at the
physical location of the affected appliance in accordance with 82.166
(n).  NEDA/CAP suggests that a better alternative might be to maintain
electronic centralized recordkeeping because of the detail that will be
involved, with minimum logs or even “tagging” regarding service at
the “actual” location of the appliance. [0151]

Recordkeeping requirements for persons servicing appliances

EPA received two comments on the proposed recordkeeping requirements for
persons servicing appliances.  ABA supports the proposed change, while
CIBO believes these additional recordkeeping requirements are too
burdensome.

ABA notes that EPA’s proposed changes would apply to bakeries’
in-house personnel that service the equipment. ABA supports the proposed
change to the recordkeeping; as bakers continue to monitor their
refrigeration equipment and have it repaired as necessary, it is
necessary that service and repair companies be required to provide
proper documentation to the equipment owner. ABA believes that equipment
owners should not be held responsible if vendors fail to properly
document their servicing activities. [0142]

CIBO notes that EPA proposes minimum recordkeeping requirements for
persons servicing appliances [[82.166 (j)] and for owners or operators
of appliances [82.166 (k)], which include much more detail than has
previously been required]. CIBO states that while many of these details
are valuable to owners of appliances, EPA fails to appreciate how much
effort is required to ensure that every single item EPA proposes is
recorded. CIBO comments that currently, getting the more modest records
required of owners and operators often requires substantial follow-up
effort. CIBO urges EPA not to add to the current burden by adding
substantial new records for each and every service call on appliances.
CIBO recommends that EPA maintain the current requirements and not
require substantial additional details for these service records. CIBO
notes that owners/operators must keep these records for many years, and
the additional recordkeeping requirements proposed are simply too
burdensome. [0145]

Records Documenting the Fate of Recovered Refrigerant

EPA received two comments on records documenting the fate of recovered
refrigerant.

ACC comments that in §82.166(u), the sale or distribution of used
refrigerant records should not apply to transfers governed by
§§82.154(g)(4) or (5). [0139]

An anonymous commenter requests further clarification on what is meant
by the “Ultimate fate” of recovered refrigerants. Specifically the
commenter asks about the level of detail that would be required for
recovered refrigerant that is kept on site for use at a later date.  For
example, the commenter states that if a store has three refrigeration
racks and one is converted from R22 to R407A, typically the R22 would be
recovered, the amount recovered would be documented, that amount would
be added to that specific store’s refrigerant inventory records, and
the store would have a form on file showing the removal of the
refrigerant and that the refrigerant was kept on site for future use in
one of the other R22 rack systems. The commenter inquires if that is an
appropriate level of detail.  The commenter notes that if a technician
decides to move some of that recovered refrigerant to another store in
the area, the store would track an inventory transfer in their software
for the amount (in lbs) that was moved from the old inventory location
to the new inventory location. The commenter inquires if that is
specific enough, or if actual cylinder numbers would need to be tracked.
[0141]

Documenting the Determination of the Appliance Full Charge

EPA is proposing to require owners or operators to maintain records
documenting the full charge determination, regardless of the means used
to calculate or determine the appliance full charge.  EPA received two
comments regarding these recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

CWI comments that, according to EPA, the full charge determination is
required in order to calculate the leak rate upon addition of
refrigerant. CWI believes this implies that the additional recordkeeping
requirement only applies to refrigeration units with a full charge
greater than 50 pounds of refrigerant. CWI requests that further
clarification be provided on whether this proposed recordkeeping
requirement only applies to refrigeration units with a full charge
greater than 50 pounds of refrigerant. [0155]

The Auto Industry Forum comments that the proposed rule does not allow
any time for owners to implement these new recordkeeping requirements.
The Auto Industry Forum believes that generating and/or updating the
full charge records and related documentation for every appliance will
take a significant amount of time for owners. [0148]

Other Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

EPA received six other comments that relate to recordkeeping and
reporting requirements. Three commenters request clarification regarding
when recordkeeping requirements are applicable, and three commenters
request time to phase in the recordkeeping changes. One commenter
proposes that EPA require additional recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, while another states that the proposed changes in
recordkeeping and reporting should be excluded from the final rule
altogether.

NEDA/CAP and ACC urge EPA to clarify that the proposal’s recordkeeping
requirements are only applicable when the maintenance or repair of an
appliance involves the addition of refrigerant. The commenters state
that maintenance, service or repair where the refrigerant is removed and
replaced without addition is not included, and maintenance, service or
repair where the refrigerant is untouched is not included. Therefore,
§82.166(k) should not require records of “refrigerant recovered from
the appliance” but records of “refrigerant recovered from but not
returned to the appliance.” Also, the commenters believe the proposed
section 82.166(m) should state that the requirement for refrigerants
disposal is satisfied by manifests and related records required to be
maintained by the operator under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. [0139, 0151]

ACC also states that the requirement in §82.166(m) should be clarified
such that only the refrigerant recovered greater than 50 pounds is
subject to recordkeeping. Further, ACC strongly urges EPA to provide at
least a 2-year phase-in to the recordkeeping changes to allow owners and
service companies to modify data systems and retrain technicians. [0139]

NEDA/CAP comments that EPA should clarify that the same approach to
determining the applicability threshold for leak repairs (based on the
capacity of each circuit in an appliance) applies equally with respect
to recordkeeping requirements for appliances “with a full charge
greater than 50 pounds” such that for appliances with multiple
circuits, each with a capacity of no more charge of 50 pounds, these
recordkeeping provisions do not apply. NEDA/CAP believes that there is
no basis in the regulations for treating recordkeeping any differently
from leak repair with respect to the “greater than 50 pound” test.
NEDA/CAP states that from a streamlining and policy perspective, it
would seem to make sense for the two requirements to reflect the same
applicability threshold.  NEDA/CAP believes that recordkeeping for
circuits not subject to the leak repair requirements are not necessary
to support the other provisions of the rule. [0165]

NEDA/CAP notes that EPA is proposing significant changes in
recordkeeping – so much so that  they are surprised that this proposal
does not qualify as a major regulatory action because of the impacts for
operators which will need to keep full documentation of how full charges
were determined, detailed service records including initial verification
and follow-up verification tests based on minimum recordkeeping
requirements detailed in the proposal and detailed records of
refrigerants that are transported off site.  NEDA/CAP urges EPA to
provide at least a 1 year from the effective date of the final rule to
phase in to the recordkeeping changes, due to the significant changes
that EPA proposes. NEDA/CAP believes this time will allow owners and
service companies to modify data systems and retrain technicians, and
additional time will also accommodate technician training providers
which NEDA/CAP believes will be required for both onsite maintenance and
off site service providers to be updated regarding the additional
requirements. [0165, 0151]

The Auto Industry Forum recommends that EPA provide a 2 year transition
period for facilities to implement the new recordkeeping requirements in
Section 82.166.  The Auto Industry Forum comments that these
requirements will require training and gathering of information that may
not be readily available. The Auto Industry Forum also recommends that
EPA make these requirements prospective and not require that historic
records, which may not be available, be generated. [0148]

Emerson Climate comments that EPA should require quarterly reporting of
1) leak rate by asset with refrigerant type and asset capacity; and 2)
maintenance (repair) events and service (fill) events with technician
EPA number. Emerson Climate believes this serves the purpose of
proactively policing the leak rate but also provides valuable and actual
data to the EPA of refrigerants in use, location of failures and how
much refrigerant is being vented that has mostly been anecdotal
information to date.  Emerson Climate comments that EPA should also
require fill events to be auditable through two way comparison of
service event record against invoice (for 3rd party service), or weighed
cylinders log (internal service); this would not be submitted but
records must be on file.  The commenter notes that this provides on-site
data that can be audited. The commenter notes that the entities that
fall under EPA 608 regulation already have several mandatory monthly,
quarterly and annual reporting requirements to municipal, county, state
and federal agencies (e.g., Labor Dept., Dept. of Ag, Waste Water
Treatment, Landfill, etc.) so the infrastructure to collect this data
and the staff to prepare it already exists. [0099]

USEC comments that the proposed changes to reporting and record-keeping
requirements are not necessary and place additional burdens on both the
servicing personnel and the appliance owner or operator. USEC notes that
while EPA believes the current practices may not provide sufficient
information for owners or operators to make decisions on the fate of
their appliances, the appliance owner or operator is capable of
obtaining this information as necessary without an EPA mandate. The
commenter states that appliance owners and operators have a vested
interest in the cost and operation of their equipment, and EPA should
let them use their best professional judgment to make independent
inquiries of the servicing technician to obtain the information they may
require including replacement costs. USEC comments this is especially
true for appliance owners or operators who use in-house service
personnel. The commenter states that the additional requirements will
increase burdens on the regulated community through costs associated
with implementation, changes to recordkeeping activities, retraining of
servicing personnel, etc. [0125]

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

EPA received five comments on Statutory and Executive Order Reviews,
specifically related to Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and
Review, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Count	Commenter	Organization	Docket ID No

1	Rasma I. Zvaners	American Bakers Association (ABA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0142

2	Paul Shorb	AT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0154

3	Erik R. Lieberman	Food Marketing Institute (FMI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0164

4	Brian A. Bell		United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0125

5	Kathleen Tobin	Verizon Communications Inc. (Verizon)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0129

ABA, AT&T, Verizon, and FMI comment that the rule is unnecessarily
burdensome and may not be in accordance with President Obama’s
Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.”
ABA contends that the rule’s costs exceed benefits. USEC believes that
EPA has underestimated compliance costs. FMI holds that EPA has
incorrectly certified that the rule will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.

ABA is concerned that the estimated costs of the proposal ($135 million)
far outweigh its benefits ($2.5 million). While ABA recognizes that the
EPA proposed its amendments prior to President Obama’s January 2011
executive order that aims to promote economic growth, ABA is nonetheless
concerned that this proposal contradicts the President’s stated desire
that agencies, including EPA, not place “unreasonable burdens on
industry.” Additionally, ABA believes the EPA hasn’t undertaken a
study of the effect of the proposed regulation and attendant costs on
jobs and employment in the baking industry, as required by section 321
of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7621.  [0142]

AT&T is concerned that some aspects of the proposed rulemaking would be
overly burdensome and EPA may be able to apply less burdensome
requirements in accordance with President Obama’s recent executive
order, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,”  [0154]

Verizon is concerned that certain aspects of the proposed rule are
unnecessarily costly and burdensome and requests that the final rule be
modified to address these concerns. Verizon is primarily concerned about
the costs and burdens that would be placed on businesses with multiple
office facilities with cooling units primarily used to control
temperature and/or humidity in those facilities. Verizon believes that
some of the administrative and regulatory burdens that would be created
by the proposed rule are unnecessary and easily avoidable by following
their suggestions. [0129]

USEC believes that compliance costs are grossly underestimated. USEC
notes that the proposed rule estimates 133,777 appliance owners or
operators will be affected at an annual cost of $139,803—amounting to
$1.05 per appliance owner or operator. Given that an hour wage rate
equals $25/hour, EPA predicts each owner or operating spending 3 minutes
per year in implementing the new requirements. USEC believes that an
appliance owner or operator will more realistically spend many hours per
year in new compliance activities: new record-keeping, technician
retraining, procedure rewriting, and other administrative costs. USEC
assumes that each appliance owner or operator will spend 4 hours/year,
at $25/hour, resulting in an annual cost of $100/owner or operator. USEC
then multiplies this rate by the 133,777 owners or operators to yield an
annualized cost of $13.4 million. USEC states that if 1 hour is expended
each month, the annualized cost exceeds $40 million.  [0125]

FMI agrees with EPA’s goal of breaking the cycle of repeat repairs and
recharges on refrigeration or comfort cooling appliances, and suggested
alternatives to the Proposed Rule which will achieve this goal, without
placing unnecessary—and very costly—burdens on food retailers and
wholesalers. FMI cites E.O. 13563, 42 U.S.C. § 7617 and the Regulatory
Flexibility Act as an impetus for EPA to consider less burdensome
alternatives and tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on
society.

FMI states that EPA is required to consider the impact of the Proposed
Rule on small businesses, and believes that the Administrator is
mistaken in certifying that the Proposed Rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
FMI believes that the Proposed Rule will have a very significant impact
on thousands of small business grocers, costing them hundreds or
thousands of more dollars per repair. The commenter holds that EPA
should conduct a proper initial regulatory flexibility analysis which
fully considers the impact of the Proposed Rule on small firms and
considers less burdensome alternatives. [0164]

General Comments and Other Issues

EPA received 19 comments concerning other issues associated with the
proposed rule. Comments were in reference to the following categories:

  REF _Ref380421726 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  7.1 	General Support for the
Proposed Regulations

  REF _Ref380421744 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  7.2 	General Opposition to
the Proposed Regulations

  REF _Ref379891265 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  7.3 	Applicability to systems
with a charge less than or equal to 50 lbs

  REF _Ref380421784 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  7.4 	Preamble discussion of
“knowingly venting”

  REF _Ref379891269 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  7.5 	Other Issues

Count	Commenter	Organization	Docket ID No

1	James D. Jones	Alcoa Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0134

2	David P. Hutchison	CH2M-WG Idaho, LLC (CWI)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0155

3	I. Herbold Miller	Cornell University Environmental Health & Safety
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0132

4	Christina Schwerdtfeger	Coto Consulting, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0161

5	Robert D. Bessette	Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0145

6	Steven Ehrlich	Environmental Support Solutions (ESS)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0140

7	Ram Singhal	Flexible Packaging Association (FPA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0152

8	Erik R. Lieberman	Food Marketing Institute (FMI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0150

9	Leslie Sue Ritts	National Environmental Development Association’s
Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0151

10	David D. Doniger 	Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0147

11	Frederick G. Fedri	Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0144

12	Reid Jennings	Private Citizen Comment	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0124

13	Anonymous

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0098

14

	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0157

15	Anonymous	Southern Company	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0135

16	Jon M. Loney	Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0126

17	John Myers

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0163

18	Brian A. Bell 	United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0125

19	Shannon S. Broome	Auto Industry Forum (the Forum)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0148

General Support for the Proposed Regulations

EPA received three comments stating general support for the proposed
regulations.

NRDC generally supports the proposed revisions because they strengthen
the effectiveness of refrigerant leak prevention safeguards.  [0147]

An anonymous commenter wishes to protect the ozone and supports the
proposed regulations.  [0157]

One commenter states that the benefits of minimizing the use of ODS are