Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Leak Repair Requirements for Appliances Using Substitute Refrigerants, 1972-1993 [05-429]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

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



[[Page 1971]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 82



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

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

[[Page 1972]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-7858-7]
RIN 2060-AM05


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

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

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

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated and 
potentially affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed 
in the table could also be affected. To determine whether your company 
is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the 
applicability

[[Page 1973]]

criteria contained in section 608 of the CAA Amendments of 1990. The 
applicability criteria are discussed below and in regulations published 
on December 30, 1993 (58 FR 69638). If you have questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person 
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. How Can I Get Copies of Related Information?

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

II. Overview

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

A. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act

    Section 608 of the CAA requires EPA to establish a comprehensive 
program to limit emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. Section 608 
also prohibits the knowingly venting or otherwise knowingly release or 
disposal of ozone-depleting refrigerants and their substitutes during 
the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of air-conditioning and 
refrigeration appliances.
    Section 608 is divided into three subsections. In brief, the first, 
section 608(a), requires EPA to promulgate regulations to reduce the 
use and emission of class I substances (i.e., CFCs, halons, carbon 
tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform) and class II substances (HCFCs) 
to the lowest achievable level, and to maximize the recycling of such 
substances. Second, section 608(b) requires that the regulations 
promulgated pursuant to subsection (a) contain requirements for the 
safe disposal of class I and class II substances. Finally, section 
608(c) establishes self-effectuating prohibitions on the knowingly 
venting, release or disposal into the environment of any class I or 
class II substances, and eventually their substitutes, during servicing 
and disposal of air-conditioning or refrigeration appliances.
    Section 608(a) provides EPA authority to promulgate the 
requirements in today's rule. Section 608(a) requires EPA to promulgate 
regulations regarding use and disposal of class I and II substances to 
``reduce the use and emission of such substances to the lowest 
achievable level'' and ``maximize the recapture and recycling of such 
substances.'' Section 608(a) further provides that ``such regulations 
may include requirements to use alternative substances (including 
substances which are not class I or class II substances) * * * or to 
promote the use of safe alternatives pursuant to section [612] or any 
combination of the foregoing'' EPA's authority to promulgate 
regulations regarding use of class I and II substances (including 
requirements to use alternatives) is sufficiently broad to include 
requirements on how to use alternatives.
    Section 608(c) provides in paragraph (1) that, effective July 1, 
1992, it is ``unlawful for any person, in the course of maintaining, 
servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance or industrial 
process refrigeration, to knowingly vent or otherwise knowingly release 
or dispose of any class I or class II substance used as a refrigerant 
in such appliance (or industrial process refrigeration) in a manner 
which permits such substance to enter the environment.'' The statute 
exempts from this prohibition ``[d]e minimis releases associated with 
good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose'' of a 
substance. To implement and enforce the venting prohibitions of this 
section, EPA through its regulations interprets releases to meet the 
criteria for exempted de minimis releases when they occur while the 
recycling and recovery requirements of sections 608 and 609 regulations 
are followed (Sec.  82.154(a)).
    EPA is promulgating leak repair regulations to implement and 
clarify the requirements of section 608(c)(2), which extends the 
prohibition on venting to substitutes for CFC and HCFC refrigerants. 
These regulations also carry out its mandate under section 608(a) to 
minimize emissions of ozone-depleting substances to the lowest 
achievable level.

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

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

[[Page 1974]]

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

III. Final Rule

A. Overview

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

B. Definitions

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

[[Page 1975]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 1976]]

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

[[Page 1977]]

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

C. Required Practices for Leak Repair

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

[[Page 1978]]

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

[[Page 1979]]

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

[[Page 1980]]

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