CHARLOTTE CHICAGO IRVING LONDON LOS 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 information with respect to 

the revised definition of “follow-up verification 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 component manufacturing plants, research and 

development facilities, and administrative offices throughout the United States, which require 

both industrial process and comfort cooling. Therefore, 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 Auto 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 of 
 

Ms. 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 tests, fluorescent dye and black light, infrared 

or near infrared tests, and handheld gas detection devices. for appliances from 

which the refrigerant charge has been evacuated means a test conducted after the 

appliance or portion of the appliance has resumed operation at normal operating 

characteristics and conditions of temperature and pressure, except in cases where 

sound professional judgment dictates that these tests will be more meaningful if 

performed prior to the return 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 conclude any required 

changes in pressure, temperature 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. Moreover, it is better to know sooner than later if the appliance 

is still leaking. The Auto Industry Forum, therefore, commented that it opposes adding to the 

definition of “follow-up verification test” a 24-hour wait period before 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 repaired. 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 the environment and could 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 refrigerant technician leave and return to 

the site. Many businesses do not have “in-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 addition 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 operating characteristics and conditions is inappropriate 
 

Ms. 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 record of the basis for selecting 24 hours as opposed to 

some other time period. The fundamental requirement 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, facilities typically have technicians perform 

the follow-up verification test once normal operating characteristics and 

conditions are achieved to provide 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 successful repair being confirmed. 

To help provide additional record support for maintaining the current requirement, the 

Auto Industry Forum recently obtained information 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 member company facilities report that, following 

the completion of repairs, appliance systems have been found to reach steady state within a very 

short time period following startup, generally no more than about 15 minutes. Put another way, 

the effectiveness of repairs is verifiable through the verification tests described in the proposed 

amended regulation very soon after the appliance returns to normal operating characteristics and 

conditions, such that a 24-hour waiting period is both unjustified and unnecessary. 

The Auto Industry Forum’s members interviewed appliance service technicians 

employed by their facilities as well as third-party contractors they utilize for appliance service. 

These technicians consistently reported that the effectiveness of repairs is verified 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 appliance and could more easily troubleshoot problems. 

Specific comments made by those interviewed by the Forum member companies include the 

following: 

• One lead HVAC third-party technician stated 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 micrometer prior to charge. If the system 

is not tight, the technicians will simply not charge the unit. The follow-up leak 

verification test, then, according to the lead HVAC technician, 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