Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	

EO12866/13563 Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

1

1. This reviewer’s first concern is that the costs exceed the benefits. While this is within the CAA 

statue, EPA should provide clear guidance on any missing categories of benefits and their rough 

expected magnitude in the preamble.

2. This reviewer would also like to see more discussion on page 32 of how stakeholders can comply 

if they cannot use substitute refrigerants. What are the other substitutes?

3. This reviewer would also like to see more justification for the two-year leak limit given on page 

33.

4. There is quite a bit of discussion about California’s rules. Are these rules designed to harmonize 

with those in California? If so, it may be helpful to mention this clearly early in the preamble.

5. This reviewer is concerned about the burden of the leak rate calculation (see page 130 and 152). 

Will very clear guidance be given to all refrigerator operators to lessen the record-keeping cost? 

It seems that it would be significant. Especially since any records with CBI would have to be 

mailed to EPA.

6. EPA is proposing to require the repair of all identified leaks once the applicable leak rate is 

exceeded for an appliance. EPA also notes that some leaks may be so trivial that they are not 

noticed in a leak inspection and therefore would not need to be repaired. However, even small 

trivial leaks that are normal due to the design and operation of the appliance are likely to be 

“noticed” when using common electronic leak inspection devices with leak detection 

sensitivities of one-half ounce per year or lower. 

As EPA states in the preamble to the proposal, some commenters on the 2010 Leak Repair 

Rule stated that some leaks may be trivial and located on seals, gaskets, valves, and fittings 

where leakage occurs regardless of repairs. EPA appears to concur with this assessment, but 

states that these trivial leaks may not be noticed during leak inspection. This reviewer believes 

that virtually every leak, no matter how trivial may be noticed during a leak inspection, 

especially if using electronic leak detectors which generally have leak detection capabilities of 

one-half ounce per year or lower. Also, newly manufactured appliances such as large building 

chillers routinely containing 500-4000 pounds of refrigerant will leak at rates equivalent to 

about 0.5% of charge per year (2.5 lbs – 20 lbs/year), meaning that even new equipment if 

inspected would likely have several leaks that would be noticed. The normal leak detection 

process for technicians using electronic leak detectors would be to first begin scanning the 

appliance for leaks using the highest sensitivity setting and then once the unit alarms, switch to 

a lower sensitivity to attempt to quantify the leak and/or look for other indications of significant 

leakage such as oil stains, pin holes, cracks, etc. Using this investigative process, the technician 

would then determine whether this is actually a significant refrigerant leak or just trivial leakage 

normally associated with the design and operation of the appliance. The current language in the 

preamble to the rule may cause confusion since a technician may feel the need to document 

these trivial leaks and attempt to repair them since they were “noticed” during a leak 

inspection. 

This reviewer recommends that the EPA modify the existing discussion in the preamble to 

the rule to clarify that trivial leaks if noticed during leak inspection such as those that normally 

occur from seals, gaskets, valves, and other fittings need not be identified, recorded, and 

repaired if they do not contribute to significant refrigerant leakage from the appliance.
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	

EO12866/13563 Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

2

7. The leak rate for commercial refrigeration appliances and industrial process refrigeration could 

be set even lower than the proposed 20%. But we could be supportive of keeping it at the 

proposed level if that is what is needed in order to find a middle ground among the relevant 

stakeholders.

8. The Montreal Protocol’s scientific bodies and Industry reports confirm that refrigerant leaks 

account for an important portion of avoidable emissions of ODS and HFCs. This rule plays an 

important role in reducing unnecessary emissions of these ozone-depleting and/or high global 

warming potential gases.

9. We would encourage EPA to take a more ambitious approach to the strengthened leakage 

requirements (i.e. allow less than 75% leakage rate in a two year period).

10. The United States is one of the main advocates pushing for a phase down of HFCs under the MP,

reinforced in the President’s Climate Action Plan. This rule is an opportunity for the U.S. to 

demonstrate that domestic steps to control HFCs are achievable.

11. To maximize environmental and political benefits of the rule, our hope is that this proposed rule 

be announced at the White House HFC event on October 15th and the Montreal Protocol 

Meeting of the Parties the first week in November where we will be pushing the global 

community to adopt an amendment to phase down HFCs.

12. The HFC emissions reductions generated by this rule as proposed will further advance efforts to 

achieve the United States’ Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) submitted to 

the UNFCCC.

13. We have observed that in the international community, through both the Climate and Clean Air

Coalition HFC Initiative, and the Ban Ki Moon U.N. Climate Summit, US industry associations are

taking a lead to push more effective refrigerant management practices globally, including the 

elements of this proposal. The Same U.S. industry associations are working to highlight some of 

these efforts at the Climate COP in Paris in December. This rule, while domestic, sends an 

important signal to the global community, and reinforces the messages of U.S. industry 

leadership internationally.

14. The FR notice, on p. 10, 6 lines up from the bottom, "signing of the Montreal Protocol" should 

read "adoption of the Montreal Protocol."

15. It may be helpful to include a direct citation for this analysis, in addition to the mention below of 

the technical support document. “EPA estimates that the proposed revisions will prevent 

damage to the stratospheric ozone layer by reducing emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants 

by approximately 116 metric tons per year, weighted by the ozone-depletion potential (ODP) of 

the gases emitted.”

16. Suggested re-write to improve clarity and maintain consistent terminology: “The stratospheric 

ozone layer protects life on Earth from the sun's harmful radiation. This natural shield has been 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	

EO12866/13563 Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

3

gradually depleted by man-made chemicals.” “The Earth’s ozone layer protects all life from the 

sun’s harmful radiation, but human activities have damaged this shield” 

17. Please confirm the accuracy of this statement. “Today, all countries in the world...”

18. For consistency, suggest, “Use of non-ODS alternatives” “2. Many non-ODS alternatives are in 

use”

19. On page 18 recommend deleting “Two years later” at the following sentence: “Two years later, 

in July 2015, EPA finalized a rule that changed the listing status for certain substitutes previously 

listed as acceptable under the SNAP program (80 FR 42870).”

20. Suggested re-write for clarity: “Adverse health effects associated with exposure to UV radiation 

include skin cancer, cataracts and immune suppression.” “Public health concerns from exposure 

to UV radiation include skin cancer, cataracts, and immune suppression.”

21. This two sections on skin cancer may benefit from an introductory sentence or two highlighting 

the connection of UV radiation to skin cancer. Citations included. “Skin cancer is the most 

common form of cancer in the United States, with more than 3.5 million new cases diagnosed 

annually (American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts and Figures, 2015).”

22. Any citations to include to validate this? “Research has shown that UV radiation increases the 

likelihood of certain cataracts.”

23. Suggested edit for consistency, “The Earth” instead of “Our planet...”

24. Suggested edit for completeness: “For more information on GHGs and climate change in the 

United States.” “...on the impacts of climate change in the United States...”

25. Has EPA looked to similar scenarios in case law for interpretation? “...EPA has discretion to 

adopt a reasonable means.”

26. For added clarity, suggest including the final definition at the end. “This rule proposes to define 

commercial refrigeration as...”

27. Suggested insert: “This rule proposes to define follow-up verification as...” “The proposed 

revisions describe what the test is and how it is conducted and not what the regulatory 

requirements of the test are, which this rule proposes to move to §82.157(f).”

28. Suggested insert: “This rule proposes to define full charge as...” “EPA noted in the proposed 

2010 Leak Repair Rule that owners or operators of commercial refrigeration appliances and IPR 

have expressed concerns that the full charge may not be accurately determined due to seasonal 

variances that may alter the amount of refrigerant in an appliance.”

29. It may be helpful to clearly define the amended term. “The proposed changes to the terms 

appliance and refrigerant carry over into this term as well.”
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	

EO12866/13563 Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

4

30. It may be helpful to clearly define the amended term. “...amend the definition of the term 

industrial process refrigeration...”

31. It may be helpful to clearly define the amended term. “...definition of the term initial verification 

test...”

32. It may be helpful to clearly define the amended term. “...amend the definition of the term leak 

rate...”

33. It may be helpful to clearly define the amended term. “...amend the definition of the term lowpressure appliance...”

34. It may be helpful to clearly define the amended term. “...amend the definition of the term onetime expansion device...”

35. For consistency, suggested edit: “(two pounds or less of refrigerant.)” “...(two pounds or less) of 

refrigerant...”

36. How will EPA address the enforcement of this expanded policy? “Limiting the sale of substitute 

refrigerants to technicians who have demonstrated knowledge of safe handling practices is 

important to minimizing the release of refrigerants during the maintenance, servicing and repair 

of appliances containing substitute refrigerants.”

37. For required recordkeeping by persons recovering a refrigerant from an appliance, will EPA be 

issuing additional guidance regarding this new policy? In addition, is there available analysis on 

the scope or impact of this reporting requirement? 

38. Is this the sole indication of non-leakage? “Not needing to add refrigerant is an indication that 

the system is not leaking.”

39. Consider the sensitivities and privacy implications regarding this new policy (even for those 

outside of the federal system). “Agency should establish a national database of certified 

technicians.”

40. This reviewer conducts research and operations across a wide spectrum of locations and types 

of facilities, from the rocket range in Poker Flat, Alaska to the Aquarius Reef Base off the shores 

of Key Largo, Florida. As a result, NASA appliances covered by the proposed rule may be located 

remotely or be otherwise difficult to access for routine maintenance. This situation could pose 

challenges in meeting the periodic inspection requirements outlined in the proposed rule, 

§82.157(b).

41. This reviewer requests that EPA provide regulatory relief for inspecting appliances located 

remotely or be otherwise difficult to access for routine maintenance, by establishing a waiver 

petition process. Ideally, such waivers would extend the frequency of required inspections for 

remotely-located equipment with minimal history of leakage. For example, a piece of 

equipment normally subject to annual leak inspection might be approved for inspection every 

two or three years instead. It might make sense to insert the waiver petition process at a new 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	

EO12866/13563 Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

5

paragraph 87.157(b)(5), worded similarly to the extensions request process in the proposed rule 

paragraph 87.157(g)(4).

42. Additionally, EPA states on page 137 of the preamble that there is no intention to require 

reporting and repair of trivial leaks. This reviewer suggests that EPA state more clearly in the 

proposed regulatory language, particularly in section 82.157 or in the definitions, that trivial 

leakage at gaskets, seals, and other joints should not be considered leakage that must be 

repaired as required in paragraph 82.157(e).

43. What is the basis for a one-year sell-through provision? This reviewer recommends the agency 

extend to two-years or at least start the one-year sell-through provisions at the date of 

implementation.

44. On Page 183, first sentence under Summary of Reporting Provisions, should it be reporting 

instead of recordkeeping provisions?