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.

The benefits (quantified and not) are all discussed in the technical support document starting on page 

56. The benefits are first discussed in the preamble starting on page 9, and EPA has added text to note

the unquantified benefits at the end of that section.

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?

In the discussion on page 32, EPA is explaining that the de minimis exemption that exists for ODS 

refrigerants has not been fully implemented for HFCs and other substitutes in EPA’s regulations. By 

extending the regulatory provisions implementing this exemption, EPA is providing clear guidance on 

what is required to prevent violating the statutory venting prohibition while using substitute 

refrigerants. In this proposal, and in this section, EPA is not requiring anyone to use, or prohibiting 

anyone from using substitute refrigerants, nor do the current 608 requirements prohibit their use. 

Examples of substitutes for ODS include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs), 

hydrocarbons, ammonia, and carbon dioxide (a full list of acceptable substitutes/alternatives is 

available at http://www3.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants). EPA has exempted some refrigerants in 

specific end uses from the venting prohibition (see 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1)), where it has determined that

their venting does not pose a threat to the environment, so the revised 608 regulations would 

primarily apply to the fluorinated refrigerants and refrigerant blends. 

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

33.

This discussion (now on page 34) is meant to serve as a summary and not the full-fledged explanation 

of the agency’s rationale for the proposed requirement. That discussion is in section IV.F.6 starts on 

page 131. EPA has added an additional sentence on page 34 to summarize what the CARB data show.

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.

The primary purpose of discussing California’s experience so frequently is to explain a source of data 

that EPA used. The purpose of this rule is not to harmonize with California’s requirements across the 

board as the requirements proposed in this rule are sometimes less stringent than those in California 

(for example, California effectively has a leak rate requirement of zero, not 10% and 20% as proposed 

here). However, the agency has developed the requirements such that they avoid conflict with 

California’s requirements, where possible. Additionally, with regard to small cans, this rule does 

harmonize with California’s self-sealing valve requirement. 

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.
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	

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

2

Since the leak rate calculation is already required currently for ODS used in the same types of 

equipment as would be covered in this rule, and the proposed leak repair requirements more broadly 

are very similar (and in many ways identical to) the existing requirements for ODS that have been in 

place since 1993, most of the regulated community is well aware of the leak repair and leak rate 

recordkeeping requirements. This assessment is supported by feedback from stakeholders indicating 

that many (if not most) facilities manage their HFC systems the same way they manage the ODS 

systems. In short, the learning curve should be minimal for the proposed changes. 

EPA intends to develop comprehensive compliance assistance documents that will accompany the 

final rule (as stated on page 111). For the leak repair requirements, these documents will be similar to 

the assistance documents already developed for ODS equipment (see 

http://www3.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/compguid/compguid.html). 

On the cost of sending records to EPA, it is important to note that the overwhelming majority of these 

records are maintained, but never sent to EPA. EPA is only requiring reporting in very limited 

situations (summarized at pages 156 and 183). For the appliance maintenance and leak repair 

requirements, owners and operators of appliances with 50 or more pounds must only report to EPA 

when they are requesting an extension from the required timelines specified in the rule. Generally 

speaking, this information would not be expected to contain CBI.

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 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	

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

3

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.

EPA agrees that there are inherent trivial leaks in some systems even when installed properly. EPA has 

added text to page 141 to take comment on this point.

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.

EPA is taking comment on higher and lower leak rates, but believes the lead proposal is reasonable

and can be supported by most 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.

EPA agrees with the commenter.

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).

EPA takes comment on a lower or higher two-year leak rate. However, because of the structure of the 

lead proposal, which does not create an exemption for catastrophic, unavoidable releases, the agency 

believes 75% is a reasonable proposed level to target the appliances that leak the most. As stated in 

the proposal, “If comments indicate an exception for catastrophic leaks should be provided, the 

agency would likely finalize a lower leak limit and would potentially shorten the timeframe over 

which the requirement would apply (i.e., two consecutive six-month periods instead of two 

consecutive twelve-month periods).” 

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.

EPA agrees with the commenter.

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.

EPA agrees with the commenter.
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	

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

4

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.

EPA agrees with the commenter.

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.

EPA agrees with the commenter.

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."

Change made.

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.”

This seems unnecessary given EPA cites the technical support document by name in the preceding 

paragraph and includes a sentence at the end of the paragraph at issue.

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 

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” 

Change accepted.

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

According to the Ozone Secretariat’s website, the Montreal Protocol is universally ratified. We’ve 

modified the sentence to read “all countries recognized by the United Nations.”

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

use”

Change accepted.
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	

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

5

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).”

Change accepted.

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.”

Change accepted.

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).”

Additional text was added to page 23.

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

likelihood of certain cataracts.”

Citations added to the preamble on page 24.

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

Change accepted.

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...”

Change accepted.

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

adopt a reasonable means.”

This interpretation is based on bedrock principles of administrative law, as articulated in Chevron 

U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Under Chevron, where a statute directly speaks to a precise 

question at issue, that congressional intent governs, but where statutory language is silent or 

ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the agency that administers the statute has discretion to 

adopt a reasonable interpretation of the statutory language. Accordingly, because the Clean Air Act 

does not speak directly to how EPA should take economic considerations into account, if at all, in 

regulatory actions under section 608, the Agency has discretion in how it chooses to do so, if at all, so 

long as its approach is reasonable. Further, EPA’s interpretations supporting its consideration of 

economic factors in this proposal are consistent with interpretations supporting its consideration of 

economic factors in prior rulemakings as well. See 58 Fed. Reg. 28667-28668 (May 14, 1993).
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	

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

6

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

commercial refrigeration as...”

Change accepted.

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).”

Change accepted.

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.”

Change accepted.

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.”

This seems unnecessary since it is defined in the regulatory text and the definition of appliance is 

discussed elsewhere in the preamble.

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

industrial process refrigeration...”

Change accepted.

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

test...”

Change accepted.

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

rate...”

Since we are not changing both of the formulas used in the definition of “leak rate,” providing the full 

definition here would likely be confusing.

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

This seems unnecessary since it is defined in the regulatory text and elsewhere in the preamble.

34. It may be helpful to clearly define the amended term. “...amend the definition of the term onetime expansion device...”
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	

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

7

Change accepted.

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

refrigerant...”

Change accepted.

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.”

EPA revised the language on page 80 to explain that compliance with the sales restriction is largely 

carried out by distributors who sell refrigerant. Distributors have been successful at limiting sales of 

ODS refrigerant to uncertified technicians and are very supportive of continuing in this role with HFCs.

EPA also has used traditional enforcement techniques to ensure compliance with this requirement for 

ODS and would expect to do so as necessary for substitutes in the future.

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? 

EPA intends to develop comprehensive compliance assistance documents that will accompany the 

final rule (as stated around page 111). 

On the second point, the impact of this requirement is calculated in the Technical Support Document 

and in the draft Supporting Statement for the Information Collection Request renewal under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

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

the system is not leaking.”

Other than using automatic leak detection equipment, this is the most appropriate way to create an 

exemption from the annual leak inspection requirement for appliances with 50 or more pounds.

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.”

EPA is taking comment on this issue and has proposed allowing technicians the ability to opt out of 

inclusion in their certifying organization’s public database.

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 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	

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

8

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 

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

paragraph 87.157(g)(4).

EPA has developed a proposed extension request process for owners or operators of federally-owned 

appliances containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant that wish to conduct leak inspections less 

frequently. The proposed extension opportunity and recordkeeping and reporting requirements are

described in more detail on pages 130, 156, 158, 184, and 189 and at the proposed 82.157(b)(5), 

82.157(l)(12), and 82.157(m)(4). 

In summary, under the revised proposal, extension requests must show that the appliance has a

history of minimal leakage and is remotely located or is otherwise difficult to access for routine

maintenance. Additionally, the request must explain why installation of automatic leak detection 

equipment is not practical and what leak inspection schedule would be reasonable given the

circumstances. The frequency of inspections cannot be longer than once every three years, although 

we are taking comment on using two years instead for the longest window between inspections.

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).

Addressed in response to comment 6.

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.

Our intent is to prohibit manufacturing of small cans without a self-sealing valve beginning 1 year 

from publication of the final rule. All small cans manufactured prior to that date can be sold for an 

additional year. So, in effect, the cans could be sold for two years after the final rule is published. This 

timeline is based on feedback from CARB, which requires self-sealing valves and has experience with 

the appropriate amount of transition time, and associations representing small can manufacturers. 

We have clarified the preamble language.

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

instead of recordkeeping provisions?
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	

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

9

Yes. Change accepted.