CHARLOTTE CHICAGO IRVING LONDON LO S ANGELES NEW YORK OAKLAND WASHINGTON, DC WWW.KATTENLAW.COM

LONDON AFFILIATE: KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN UK LLP

A limited liability partnership including professional corporations March 7, 2012

Ms. Cindy Newberg U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Stratospheric Program Division 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (6205J) Washington, D.C. 20460 Attn: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0167

Filed electronically on regulations.gov and sent via email to newberg.cindy@epa.gov

Re: Data in Support of Previously Filed Comments on Protection of Stratospheric
Ozone: Amendments to the Section 608 Leak Repair Requirements – Proposed Rule

, 75 Fed. Reg. 78,558 (Dec. 15, 2010)

Dear Ms. Newberg:

The Auto Industry Forum is pleased to submit the enclosed informa tion with respect to the revised definition of “follow-up verificati on test” in the proposed amendments to the regulations for leak repair for ozone depleting substances (“ODS ”) as promulgated at 75 Fed. Reg. 78,558 (Dec. 15, 2010). This submittal follows up on the meeting between Forum members and EPA staff last July to discuss its comments and provides additional information related to the discussion at that meeting.

The Auto Industry Forum is a sub-coalition of the Air Permitting Forum, comprised of automobile manufacturing companies addressing issues under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) with particular effect on stationary sources in the automobile industry. The Auto Industry Forum’s members operate automobile assembly and co mponent manufacturing plants, research and development facilities, and administrative offi ces throughout the United States, which require both industrial process and comfort cooling. Ther efore, these facilities are subject to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. part 82, which EPA proposed to amend in the above-referenced rulemaking action.

In its February 14, 2011, submittal, the Au to Industry Forum commented that EPA

should delete the words “no sooner than 24 hours” from the proposed revision to the definition of “follow-up verification test” in proposed Section 82.152 as follows:

Follow-up verification test means, for the purposes of §82.156(i), those a tests
that validates the effectiveness of involve checking the repairs within 30 days ofMs. Cindy Newberg March 7, 2012 Page 2

the appliance's returning to normal operating characteristics and conditions but no sooner than 24 hours after completion of repairs . Follow-up verification tests include, but are not limited to, the use of soap bubbles, electronic or ultrasonic leak detectors, pressure or vacuum test s, fluorescent dye and black light, infrared or near infrared tests, and handheld gas detection devices. f or appliances from which the refrigerant charge has been ev acuated means a test conducted after the appliance or po rtion of the appliance has resu med operation at normal operating characteristics and conditions of temperat ure and pressure, except in cases where sound professional judgment dictates that th ese tests will be mo re meaningful if performed prior to the retur n to normal operating characteristics and conditions. A

follow

- up verification test with respect to repairs conducted without evacuation of the refrigerant charge means a reverification test conducted after the initial verification test and usually within 30 days of normal operating conditions. Where an appliance is not evacuated, it is only necessary to c onclude any required changes in pressure, temper ature or other conditions to return the appliance to normal operating characteristics and conditions

.

The Auto Industry Forum explained that, it is both unnecessary and imposes unreasonable costs to establish a 24-hour waiting period after an appliance is repaired before a follow-up verification may be conducted. Mo reover, it is better to know sooner than later if the appliance is still leaking. The Auto I ndustry Forum, therefore, commen ted that it opposes adding to the definition of “follow-up verifica tion test” a 24-hour wait period be fore the follow-up verification test can be conducted. In its comments, the Auto Industry Forum described how it is generally preferable to complete the follow-up verification as soon as the unit is brought back on line and achieves normal operating characteristics and conditions ( i.e., temperature and pressure) to assure that the leak as been properly repair ed. The reasons it is preferable include:

A. If the repair is not successful, waiting 24 hours to make that determination risks additional refrigerant loss and harm to th e environment and coul d pose risk to the appliance itself.

B. The 24-hour waiting period requirement imposes substantial additional costs because it requires a facility to have the re frigerant technician leave and return to the site. Many businesses do not have “i n-house” technicians, using contractors to perform the service, so this change would increase the costs of the rule substantially.

C. There is no reason to require a 24-hour delay in additi on to the requirement that the unit return to normal operating characteristics and conditions. EPA has not explained why this change is necessary ( e.g., any evidence that testing as soon as the unit returns to normal ope rating characteristics and c onditions is inappropriateMs. Cindy Newberg March 7, 2012 Page 3

or fails to provide sufficient assurance that leaks are detected). In addition, there is no explanation in the r ecord of the basis for sele cting 24 hours as opposed to some other time period. The fundamental requiremen t should continue to be simply that the unit is returned to normal operation.

D. Imposing a 24-hour waiting period creates a greater risk that the follow-up test will not occur. As a practical matter, fac ilities typically have technicians perform the follow-up verification test once normal operating characteristics and conditions are achieved to pr ovide additional assurance that the technician will meet the regulatory obligation within the 30-day requirement. A 24-hour waiting period would introduce another variable into the repair process that risks a leak not being detected or a succe ssful repair being confirmed.

To help provide additional record support for maintaining the current requirement, the Auto Industry Forum recently obtained inform ation from member company facilities the underlying data that supported the explanation in the comments as to why the 24-hour waiting period was unnecessary. Engineering staff at me mber company facilities report that, following the completion of repairs, appliance systems have been found to reach stea dy state within a very short time period following startup, generally no mo re than about 15 minutes. Put another way, the effectiveness of repairs is verifiable thr ough the verification tests de scribed in the proposed amended regulation very soon afte r the appliance returns to norma l operating characteristics and conditions, such that a 24-hour waiting period is both unjustified and unnecessary.

The Auto Industry Forum’s members inte rviewed appliance service technicians employed by their facilities as well as third-party contractors they utilize for appliance service. These technicians consistently re ported that the effectiveness of repairs is veri fied soon after repair completion and return of the appliance to normal operating characteristics and conditions. All of those surveyed also reported that if the leak test should happen to find a leak, it would be preferable to find it soon after completion of the repair rather than 24 hours later because the technician would still be working on the applia nce and could more easily troubleshoot problems. Specific comments made by thos e interviewed by the Forum member companies include the following:

• One lead HVAC third-party technician st ated that the equipment is generally

normalized within a few minutes following startup. He noted that the technicians

have a clear idea as to whether a leak has been repaired prior to charging the system because they check it under vacuum with a mi crometer prior to charge. If the system is not tight, the technicians will simply not charge the unit. The follow-up leak verification test, then, accord ing to the lead HVAC techni cian, actually serves as a

second check to the micrometer vacuum check.Ms. Cindy Newberg March 7, 2012 Page 4

• A third-party contractor who is familiar with a variety of appliances from ice machines to rooftop HVAC to large chiller units indicated that all units return to normal operating characteristics and conditions in 5 to 15 minutes

.

This data provides further support for the comments submitted during the public comment period indicating that EPA should revise the proposed rule to eliminate the 24-hour waiting period for “follow-up leak verification.”

Please contact me at 202-625-3715 with any questions.

Sincerely,

/s/

Shannon S. Broome