INITIAL REVIEW
The initial review of this rule shall occur no later than in th e third
calendar year after the year in which the rule is adopted.
Initial Review of Rule
As a rule that requires a RFA, RAFA or JIS, this rule will be ini tially
reviewed in the calendar year 2022, which is no later than the 3rd year af-
ter the year in which this rule is being adopted.
Assessment of Public Comment
A total of 56 distinct comments were submitted by the public i n re-
sponse to the Department’s proposed revisions to the regula tion for
Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings (Part 205). This
summary highlights key issues raised by the public and the Department’s
response to those comments.
1. General Comments
The Department received general comments in support of the r egula-
tion and responded by thanking those commenters for their su pport in
lowering volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from ar chitectural
and industrial maintenance coatings.
2. Public Health Concerns
The Department received several comments raising health-r elated
concerns regarding one or more AIM categories. The health-related com-
ments were primarily focused on ﬂoor coating products. The Department
responded stating that New York State currently has nonatta inment areas
for ozone which has been shown to result in respiratory issue s. The
Department’s intention in revising Part 205 is to lower the V OC content
from AIM coatings resulting in reduced emissions of VOCs to address the
creation of ozone across the state. Some commenters health concerns were
focused on indoor air quality and while the intention of this regulation is
to reduce ambient ozone concentrations, the Department understands that
by lowering the VOCs and by eliminating some exemptions that an ad-
ditional beneﬁt from the regulation may be improved indoor air quality.
3. Two-Year Sell Through
The majority of comments received by the Department were regarding
the two-year sell through and the quart exemption. Commente rs stated
that a two-year sell through did not allow enough time to get products off
the shelves. The Department also received a few comments asking for no
sell-through provision. After review of the comments in this category, the
Department revised subdivision 205.3(h) to allow the sell- through of
products through May 1, 2023. This will allow for the sell-th rough of
product for two years and four months from the compliance date of Janu-
ary 1, 2021 for the revised VOC limits, which is over three years from the
date of promulgation of this regulation.
4. Elimination of the Quart Exemption
The majority of comments in this category were opposed to eliminating
the quart exemption. Commenters stated that it was not feasi ble and did
not take into consideration the harsh winter weather New Yor k State
experiences. Some commenters discussed speciﬁc products a ssociated
with the arts or other industries which relied on the exemption. Some com-
menters stated that removal of the exemption would result in patchy sur-
faces and increased corrosion.
In response to comments the Department explained that the pr oposal
was intended to address the practice of bundling and the pote ntial for
circumvention of the VOC limits. While many products are, in fact, used
in small quantities, ﬂoor coatings are typically used in large quantities and
therefore have the greatest potential to circumvent the VOC limits by
bundling quarts. As stated on page 17 of the RIS, the Departme nt
considered the elimination of the quart exemption for ﬂoor coatings only,
as an alternative to the full elimination of the exemption. The Department
received the most complaints about ﬂoor coatings, and no com ments
indicated this category was needed in small containers.
Based on the Department’s consideration of the comments, in cluding
those in favor of retaining the exemption for certain produc ts and the
reported misuse of quarts focused on ﬂoor coatings, the Depa rtment
revised the proposed regulation to retain the quart exempti on in subdivi-
sion 205.1(b) while eliminating the exemption for ﬂoor coatings only. The
Department also revised the language of subdivision 205.1( b) to clarify
the prohibition against the practice of bundling of quart co ntainers
intended to be combined and applied.
5. Compliance Schedule
A commenter stated that the new standards should take effect on Janu-
ary 1, 2020. The Department responded that it has determined that suppli-
ers, sellers and manufacturers will need the time after the promulgation of
this regulation to plan and prepare for the new standards. While the Depart-
ment would like to see the environmental beneﬁts of VOC reduc tions as
soon as practicable, the effective date of January 1, 2021 is reasonable
based on the comments received.
6. VOC Limits
Some commenters suggested different methods in reducing VOC emis-
sions such as an overall ten percent reduction. In addition, some comment-ers stated that the VOC limits may be difﬁcult to attain. The D epartment
responded that the lower VOC content limits are the best method for reduc-
ing VOC emissions while allowing manufacturers to develop a consistent
product across regions. The VOC content limits in the regula tion are ap-
propriate and necessary to lower VOC emissions in New York from these
products. Further, the proposed VOC content limits have been in effect in
California since 2008, Maryland (2016), Delaware (2017) an d Utah
(2019). The technology to manufacture coatings that meet th e new limits
is currently available and has been available for years. Furthermore, DEC
has worked with stakeholders for several years to discuss th e proposed
limits. The new VOC limits are consistent with the OTC model rule.
7. Cost of Compliance
A commenter stated that cost was not adequately assessed for the re-
moval of the quart exemption. The Department responded that stakehold-
ers have anecdotally indicated that products sold in quart c ontainers are
not used often and when used, they are used sparingly. In addi tion, the
Department has received complaints about quart containers being used in
large quantities which circumvents the reasoning behind th e regulation,
which is improved air quality and attaining the national ambient air qual-
ity standard for ozone. Since the proposed lower standards h ave been ef-
fective in California since 2008, manufacturers have had th e time to
develop and sell compliant product. Based on the Department’s consider-
ation of the comments, including those in favor of retaining the exemption
for certain products and the reported misuse of quarts focus ed on ﬂoor
coatings, the Department has revised the regulation to reta in the quart
exemption in subdivision 205.1(b) while eliminating the ex emption for
ﬂoor coatings only. The Department also revised the language of subdivi-
sion 205.1(b) to clarify the prohibition against the practice of bundling of
quart containers intended to be combined and applied.
PROPOSED RULE MAKING
HEARING(S) SCHEDULED
Certain Substances That Contain Hydroﬂuorocarbons, Highly-
Potent Greenhouse Gases
I.D. No. ENV-53-19-00016-P
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Pro-
cedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following proposed rule:
Proposed Action: Addition of Part 494 to Title 6 NYCRR.
Statutory authority: Environmental Conservation Law, sections 1-0101,
1-0303, 3-0301, 19-0103, 19-0105, 19-0107, 19-0301, 19-0303, 19-0305,
71-2103 and 71-2105
Subject: Certain substances that contain hydroﬂuorocarbons, highl y-
potent greenhouse gases.
Purpose: Remove greenhouse gas emission sources that endanger publi c
health and the environment.
Public hearing(s) will be held at: 12:30 p.m., March 4, 2020 at Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation, Public Assembly Rm. 129A/B, 625
Broadway, Albany, NY; 12:30 p.m., March 6, 2020 at Henrietta Public
Library, Community Rm., 625 Calkins Rd., Rochester, NY; 12: 30 p.m.,
March 9, 2020 at Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 2
Ofﬁce, 8th Fl., Rm. 834A/834B, 47-40 21st St., Long Island City, NY .
Interpreter Service: Interpreter services will be made available to hearing
impaired persons, at no charge, upon written request submitted within rea-
sonable time prior to the scheduled public hearing. The writ ten request
must be addressed to the agency representative designated in the paragraph
below.
Accessibility: All public hearings have been scheduled at places reason-
ably accessible to persons with a mobility impairment.
Substance of proposed rule (Full text is posted at the follow ing State
website: https://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/ propregulations.html): Part
494, Hydroﬂuorocarbon Standards And Reporting
The Department of Environmental Conservation (Department) proposes
to create a new 6 NYCRR Part 494, Hydroﬂuorocarbon Standards and
Reporting, adopting regulatory provisions previously pro mulgated by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), whic h were
partially vacated in 2017. This proposal would prohibit certain hydroﬂuo-
rocarbon substances in the speciﬁc end-uses identiﬁed by the EPA as hav-
ing safe and available alternatives. The proposal would als o require that
certain manufacturers include a written disclosure statement and maintain
speciﬁc records.
Section 494.1 Purpose
This section provides the purpose of the rulemaking, which i ncludes
mitigation of greenhouse gas pollution.
Section 494.2 ApplicabilityNYS Register/December 31, 2019 Rule Making Activities
11This section lists the regulated entities as persons who sel l, offer for
sale, enter into commerce, use, or install the substances in speciﬁc end-
uses that would be prohibited pursuant to this Part.
Section 494.3 Deﬁnitions
This section lists the deﬁnitions to be used for this Part, which are pri-
marily derived from EPA regulatory language or other related regulations.
Section 494.4 Prohibitions
This section lists the prohibitions on certain hydroﬂuoroc arbon sub-
stances in speciﬁc end-uses.
Section 494.5 Exemptions
This section exempts certain hydroﬂuorocarbon substances in speciﬁc
end-uses from the prohibitions listed in Section 494.4. Exemptions include
medical, industrial, military, space, and aviation end-us es that may not
have safe and available alternatives.
Section 494.6 Disclosure Requirements
This section mandates certain manufacturers to provide a label or writ-
ten disclosure statement to buyers regarding the regulated substances and
established prohibitions under this Part.
Section 494.7 Recordkeeping Requirements
This section requires certain manufacturers maintain spec iﬁc records,
including records pertaining to the sale and type of product or equipment
containing regulated substances in the speciﬁc end-uses li sted in Section
494.4.
Section 494.8 Severability
This section establishes that the sections of the rule are severable.
Text of proposed rule and any required statements and analyses may be
obtained from: Suzanne Hagell, NYSDEC Ofﬁce of Climate Change, 625
Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-3251, (518) 402-8448, email:
suzanne.hagell@dec.ny.gov
Data, views or arguments may be submitted to: Same as above.
Public comment will be received until: Five days after the last scheduled
public hearing.
Additional matter required by statute: Pursuant to Article 8 of the
Environmental Conservation Law (the State Environmental Q uality
Review Act), a Short Environmental Assessment Form, a Negative Decla-
ration and a Coastal Assessment Form have been prepared and are on ﬁle.
Summary of Regulatory Impact Statement (Full text is posted at the fol-
lowing State website: https://www.dec.ny.gov/regulatio ns/
propregulations.html):
A key source of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are hydroﬂuorocarbo ns
(HFCs). Part 494 would adopt regulatory provisions similar to those
promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
pursuant to the Clean Air Act and Signiﬁcant New Alternative s Program
(SNAP) but have since been partially vacated by the courts. S peciﬁcally,
Part 494 would prohibit speciﬁc HFCs in certain refrigerant s, aerosol
propellants, and foam-blowing agents uses. In the absence o f national
policies and federal action, New York State has the opportun ity to adopt
an action that will have a signiﬁcant impact on GHG emissions in the
State while building off of the extensive analysis and publi c review that
formed the basis of the EPA rulemakings.
1. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority to promulgate this rulemaking is de rived from
the Department’s obligations set out in the Environmental C onservation
Law (ECL) at Sections 1-0101, 1-0303, 3-0301, 19-0103, 19-0 105, 19-
0107, 19-0301, 19-0303, 19-0305, 71-2103, 71-2105.
ECL Section 1-0101. This section declares that it is a policy of New
York State to conserve, improve and protect its natural reso urces and
environment and control air pollution. This section furthe r declares that
the Department shall promote patterns of development and te chnology
which minimize adverse impact on the environment. The propo sed
rulemaking prohibits HFCs in certain end-uses, which minim izes the
adverse impact on the environment from HFC emissions, thereby protect-
ing the State’s natural resources and environment.
ECL Section 1-0303. This section deﬁnes the term ‘‘pollution’’ as “the
presence in the environment of conditions and or contaminants in quanti-
ties of characteristics which are or may be injurious to huma n, plant or
animal life or to property or which unreasonably interfere w ith the
comfortable enjoyment of life and property throughout such areas of the
state as shall be affected thereby.’’ Part 494 will remove co ntaminants in
the form of HFC emissions and associated atmospheric concentrations of
GHGs from the environment which are injurious to human, plan t and
animal life or to property throughout the State.
ECL Section 3-0301. This section empowers the Department to carry
out the environmental policy of New York State set forth in section 1-0101.
Section 3-0301 speciﬁcally empowers the Department to, amo ng other
things: provide for the prevention and abatement of air pollution; monitor
the environment to afford more effective and efﬁcient contr ol practices;
identify changes in ecological systems and to warn of emerge ncy condi-
tions; and adopt such regulations as may be necessary, conve nient or de-sirable to effectuate the environmental policy of the State . The proposed
rulemaking is necessary, convenient, and desirable to effectuate the State’s
policy of reducing GHG emissions.
ECL Section 19-0103. This section declares that it is the policy of New
York State to maintain a reasonable degree of purity of air re sources. In
carrying out such policy, the Department is required to bala nce public
health and welfare, the industrial development of the State , propagation
and protection of ﬂora and fauna, and the protection of personal property
and other resources. To that end, the Department is required to use all
available practical and reasonable methods to prevent and control air pol-
lution in the State. The proposed rulemaking meets this requ irement by
preventing and controlling HFC emissions in the State, while also balanc-
ing interests through the establishment of speciﬁc exemptions.
ECL Section 19-0105. This section declares that it is the pur pose of
Article 19 of the ECL to safeguard the air resources of New Yor k State
under a program which is consistent with the policy expresse d in section
19-0103 and in accordance with other provisions of Article 1 9. The
proposed rulemaking serves to establish a regulatory program of limiting
HFCs in certain end-uses, consistent with the policy expres sed in Article
19 of preventing and controlling air pollution, including G HGs such as
HFCs.
ECL Section 19-0107. ‘‘Air contaminant’’ is deﬁned as ‘‘a du st, fume,
gas, mist, odor, smoke, vapor, pollen, noise or any combination thereof.’’
‘‘Air pollution’’ is deﬁned as ‘‘the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of
one or more air contaminants in quantities, of characterist ics and of a
duration which are injurious to human, plant or animal life or to property
or which unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoy ment of life
and property throughout the State or throughout such areas of the State as
shall be affected thereby.’’ HFC is an ‘‘air contaminant’’ t hat causes ‘‘air
pollution’’ as deﬁned in the ECL because it is a gas that is present in the at-
mosphere in quantities that engender climate change.
ECL Section 19-0301. This section declares that the Department has the
power to promulgate regulations for preventing, controlling or prohibiting
air pollution. This section provides authority for the Department to estab-
lish the proposed rulemaking because it furthers preventing and control of
air pollution in the form of HFC emissions and associated atm ospheric
concentrations of GHGs.
ECL Section 19-0303 also establishes procedures for adopting any code,
rule or regulation which contains a requirement that is more stringent than
the Clean Air Act or regulations issued pursuant to the Act by the EPA.
This requires the Department to include analysis in the Regulatory Impact
Statement (RIS) explaining state regulatory requirements that are more
stringent than those found in the Clean Air Act or its impleme nting
regulations. The Federal Standards section, as well as else where in this
RIS, also explains how Part 494 would meet criteria in Section 19-0303(4),
if it was applicable to this rulemaking. Further, the cost-e ffectiveness of
the proposed revisions and whether reasonably available alternatives exist
is discussed in the RIS.
ECL Section 19-0305. This section authorizes the Departmen t to
enforce the codes, rules and regulations established in acc ordance with
Article 19.
Finally, Sections 71-2103 and 71-2105 set forth the civil an d criminal
penalty structures for violations of Article 19, as well as r egulations
promulgated thereunder.
2. Legislative Objectives
There is strong scientiﬁc evidence that the earth’s climate is changing
and that GHGs from HFCs and other human activities are the maj or
contributor to this change. Climate change represents an en ormous
environmental challenge for the State because, unabated, it will have seri-
ous adverse impacts on the State’s natural resources, publi c health, and
infrastructure. HFCs are potent GHGs with up to 14,800 times the climate
forcing ability of carbon dioxide.
Articles 1 and 3 of the ECL set out the overall state policy of protection
of the environment and provide general authority to adopt an d enforce
measures to achieve this goal, including the regulation of a ir pollution
originating from consumer products. Article 19 of the ECL wa s speciﬁ-
cally adopted for the purpose of safeguarding the air resour ces of New
York from pollution. Further, to meet the State’s commitmen ts regarding
the reduction of GHG emissions, and consistent with existin g legislative
enactments in the Climate Leadership and Community Protect ion Act,
Part 494 will control emissions of ﬂuorinated greenhouse ga ses that con-
tribute to climate change.
3. Needs and Beneﬁts
Analyses conducted by the California Air Resources Board on behalf of
the United State Climate Alliance suggests that the proposed action would
result in annual emissions of HFCs in New York State that are 16% lower
in 2030 compared to a Business As Usual scenario. Between 202 0 and
2030, 17 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent emissions wo uld be
avoided by the proposed action.
Stakeholder OutreachNYS Register/December 31, 2019 Rule Making Activities
12The Department conducted pre-proposal, stakeholder outreach through-
out 2019, beginning with two public webinars held on Novembe r 14 and
18, 2018 to discuss the likely provisions of Part 494. The sta keholder
groups consisted of the regulated community to be affected b y the
proposed regulation, consultants, and interested environ mental advocacy
groups.
4. Costs
The EPA estimated that the nationwide implementation of these prohibi-
tions would result in a cumulative cost over the lifetime of affected equip-
ment of up to $114.6 million1. New York State’s share of these costs could
be up to $6.9 million, as New York State makes up 6% of the U.S.
population. However, this likely overestimates actual cos ts as: a) EPA’s
estimate of costs are primarily applied to manufacturers th at are not lo-
cated in New York State; b) the current proposal is more limited in scope
than the EPA rules; and c) EPA rules began going into effect in 2016.
EPA determined that the majority of affected businesses would be retail
food operations, but fewer than 0.1% of these businesses would incur any
new costs, or costs greater than those already incurred as a result of other
federal regulations. Instead, 79% of the total estimated cost from the EPA
program would be incurred on manufacturers of stationary air-conditioning
equipment ($63 million) and polystyrene foam products ($27 .5 million),
which represent fewer than 20 businesses nationwide.
For the largest set of businesses affected by this action, or retail food
businesses, the EPA considered that there would be no new costs as these
entities are also in the process of replacing the affected equipment pursu-
ant to the phase-down of ozone-depleting substances. The af fected busi-
nesses may choose to transition to other, more climate-friendly and energy-
efﬁcient alternatives that would involve new costs.
The proposed action could indirectly affect consumers and b usinesses
as it may affect the availability of products and equipment on the market,
but such costs are also limited. In the case of consumer produ cts, the
proposed action applies to the sale and use of products manufactured after
an effective date, not the continued sale of previously-man ufactured
products already in the State. In the case of equipment, the p roposed ac-
tion would not affect systems already installed or their servicing.
This proposed action may also impose new administrative and record-
keeping costs for certain manufacturers, however, the cost s are limited.
The Department may incur costs to issue and enforce the proposed action
but can properly administer the regulation with the application of existing
resources and current Department staff.
5. Paperwork
The proposed rule will impose minimal additional paperwork on certain
manufacturers for recordkeeping and the creation and distr ibution of a
written disclosure statement but is not expected to be unduly burdensome.
6. Local Government Mandates
Part 494 will not create any mandates for local governments a s
compared to other entities.
7. Duplication
This proposal does not duplicate, overlap, or conﬂict with a ny other
existing federal or State regulations or statutes. As state d earlier, while
Part 494 is based on regulations previously promulgated by EPA, such ap-
plicable regulatory provisions and HFC restrictions have s ince been
vacated by courts and/or removed by the agency.
8. Alternatives
The Department considers the no action alternative infeasi ble because
HFC emissions would further increase 36% in New York State by 2030,
based on a Business as Usual scenario, reaching 10% of total a llowable
GHG emissions in the State. The proposed action and compliance sched-
ule were primarily based on EPA’s SNAP rules, which considered a rigor-
ous evaluation of available alternatives as well as extensive public review.
An alternative that relies on voluntary actions and incenti ves to achieve
the same level of reduction would be cost-prohibitive at this scale.
9. Federal Standards
As discussed, there are no enforced federal rules or other re strictions
for the provisions proposed in Part 494. Therefore, this proposal does not
result in the imposition of requirements that exceed any min imum stan-
dards of the federal government for the same or similar subject areas.
10. Compliance Schedule
This regulation will adopt a compliance schedule that prohibits speciﬁc
substances in certain equipment and products:
January 1, 2021: Aerosol propellants; supermarket systems , remote
condensing units, stand-alone units; one-component spray foam sealant
and high-pressure two-component spray foams; rigid polyur ethane and
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, rigid polyuretha ne slabstock and
other, rigid polyurethane appliance foam, rigid polyureth ane commercial
refrigeration and sandwich panels, rigid polyurethane mar ine ﬂotation
foam, ﬂexible polyurethane, integral skin polyurethane, p olystyrene
extruded sheet, phenolic insulation board and bunstock, an d polyoleﬁn;
low-pressure, two-component spray foam; polystyrene extruded board-
stock and billet (XPS); household refrigerators and freeze rs (compact),vending machines, and refrigerated food processing and dis pensing
equipment.
January 1, 2022: Household refrigerators and freezers (oth er than
built-in or compact).
January 1, 2023: Cold storage warehouses and household refr igerators
and freezers (built-in).
January 1, 2024: Centrifugal chillers and positive displacement chillers.
— — — — — — — — — — —1Supporting documents in EPA Docket ID Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014 –
0198 and EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0663
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. Effect of Rule:
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservatio n is
proposing to adopt prohibitions on the use of certain hydroﬂ uorocarbon
(HFC) substances in certain end-uses. The proposed rulemak ing applies
statewide. Part 494 would adopt provisions similar to those in rules
promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
pursuant to the Clean Air Act and Signiﬁcant New Alternative s Program
(SNAP) in 2015 and 2016 but have since been partially vacated by the
courts. The EPA analyzed the nationwide economic impacts of these rules
in their rulemakings and found that there would be no signiﬁcant costs to
small businesses. Speciﬁcally, the majority of businesses, including small
businesses, affected by the national rules were retail food operations that
were not expected to incur a change in costs, for example because ‘drop-
in’ alternatives would still be allowed. In total, 99% of the small business
that EPA determined would be affected by their rule were foun d to have
zero additional costs. Of the remaining 442 small businesse s nationwide
that would incur a cost, 69 were expected to have costs in excess of 3% of
annual sales, i.e., fewer than 100 businesses nationwide an d fewer than
20% of affected entities. Therefore, the Department believ es that the ef-
fects are mitigated by the scope of the proposed rule, which o nly applies
to newly-manufactured or installed products or equipment and to end-uses
for which safe alternatives are already available on the mar ket, as
determined by the EPA. The proposed rule also provides ﬂexibility based
on safety and other considerations and includes the exempti ons that ac-
companied these prohibitions when they were adopted in the E PA SNAP
Program. Finally, in order to ensure compliance and provide for enforce-
ability, the proposed rule requires disclosure and recordk eeping require-
ments on covered end-uses.
2. Compliance Requirements:
This is not a mandate on local governments. Local government s have
no additional compliance obligations as compared to other subject entities.
The proposed rulemaking establishes prohibitions on certain hydroﬂuoro-
carbon substances in speciﬁc end-uses, including equipmen t or products
in air-conditioning, refrigeration, aerosol propellant, or foam-blowing.
The proposed rulemaking further mandates recordkeeping an d written
disclosure statement requirements on certain manufacturers.
3. Professional Services:
There is no speciﬁc requirement or need for entities to contr act for
professional services in order to comply with the proposed r ule., and the
Department does not believe that regulated entities would need to acquire
professional services to comply with Part 494.
4. Compliance Costs:
Based on the analysis of costs and economic impacts conducted by the
EPA, compliance costs are expected to be insigniﬁcant.
5. Economic and Technological Feasibility:
Compliance with this rule is technologically feasible for a ll entities,
including small businesses and local governments. The feas ibility of this
rule was determined in the EPA rulemaking processes, during which the
speciﬁc end-uses included in the rules were determined to be those for
which alternatives are available on the market.
6. Minimizing Adverse Impact:
The Department has considered the issues and determined that Part 494
will not have an adverse impact on small businesses or local governments.
The ability to comply with Part 494 will not be inﬂuenced by whether the
regulatory provisions apply to a local government or small b usiness, as
compared to some other entity. Additionally, most if not all of the small
businesses directly affected by Part 494, i.e. retail food o perations, are
required under the federal phase-down of ozone-depleting s ubstances to
replace non-compliant equipment. These businesses will no t be required
under this proposal to make a full transition away from HFC-b ased
refrigerants, but are allowed to continue to use many existi ng HFC
refrigerants that are lower cost than the climate-friendly alternatives. Ad-
ditionally, the national prohibitions on aerosol propellants went into effect
in 2016. As such, this rulemaking should not have an adverse i mpact as
the affected businesses, such as the retailers of consumer p roducts, were
already expected be in compliance.
7. Small Business and Local Government Participation:
The Department conducted pre-proposal, stakeholder outreach through-NYS Register/December 31, 2019 Rule Making Activities
13out 2019, beginning with two public webinars held on Novembe r 14 and
18, 2018 to discuss the likely provisions of Part 494. Additional meetings
regarding speciﬁc sectors also occurred, such as a meeting with the equip-
ment manufacturing sector on December 11, 2018 and the foam- blowing
sector on February 26, 2019. The stakeholder groups consist ed of the
regulated community to be affected by the proposed regulation, consul-
tants, and interested environmental advocacy groups. The Department will
hold public hearings on Part 494 and small businesses and loc al govern-
ments will be able to comment on the proposed rule during the notice and
comment period.
Rural Area Flexibility Analysis
1. Types and Estimated Numbers of Rural Areas:
The proposed rulemaking will apply statewide, and there are no require-
ments in the proposed rule that would apply only to rural areas.
2. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements; and
Professional Services:
The proposed rulemaking establishes prohibitions on certain hydroﬂuo-
rocarbon substances in speciﬁc end-uses and mandates recordkeeping and
written disclosure statement requirements on certain manufacturers. There
are no speciﬁc prohibitions in the proposed regulation that apply exclu-
sively to rural areas, and the compliance requirements apply regardless of
whether the regulated entity is located in a rural area.
3. Costs:
Although the largest number of affected businesses are food stores,
which may also be located in rural areas, the EPA analysis did not consider
the regulatory provisions of Part 494 to incur new costs on th ose stores.
This conclusion was found the EPA’s nationwide economic impacts analy-
sis conducted in its rulemakings promulgated pursuant to th e Clean Air
Act and Signiﬁcant New Alternatives Program (SNAP) in 2015 and 2016
adopting similar provisions in Part 494 but have since been p artially
vacated by the courts.
4. Minimizing Adverse Impact:
The Department has considered the issues and determined that Part 494
will not have an adverse impact on rural areas.
5. Rural Area Participation:
The Department conducted pre-proposal, stakeholder outreach through-
out 2019, beginning with two public webinars held on Novembe r 14 and
18, 2018 to discuss the likely provisions of Part 494. Additional meetings
regarding speciﬁc sectors also occurred, such as a meeting with the equip-
ment manufacturing sector on December 11, 2018 and the foam- blowing
sector on February 26, 2019. The stakeholder groups consist ed of the
regulated community to be affected by the proposed regulation, consul-
tants, and interested environmental advocacy groups. The Department will
hold public hearings on Part 494 in upstate and other rural areas and will
notify interested parties of this proposed rulemaking.
Job Impact Statement
1. Nature of Impact:
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservatio n is
proposing to adopt prohibitions on the use of certain hydroﬂ uorocarbon
(HFC) substances in certain end-uses. This rulemaking would adopt provi-
sions similar to those promulgated by the United States Envi ronmental
Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to the Clean Air Act and Sig niﬁcant
New Alternatives Program (SNAP) in 2015 and 2016 but have since been
partially vacated by the courts. Speciﬁcally, Part 494 would adopt prohibi-
tions of certain products and equipment that use certain hydroﬂuorocarbon
substances, speciﬁcally those prohibitions on air-condit ioning, refrigera-
tion, aerosol propellant, and foam-blowing applications. These prohibi-
tions apply to new or retroﬁtted equipment and new products o nly, the
State is not proposing prohibitions on the sell-through of p reviously-
manufactured products or equipment, or on the servicing of p reviously
installed equipment. The proposed rulemaking applies statewide.
2. Categories and Numbers Affected:
To estimate the potential impacts on jobs and local communit ies, the
Department relied on EPA’s analysis conducted during the pr omulgation
of the SNAP rules. Part 494 is not expected to impact jobs and e mploy-
ment opportunities in New York State. The Department believ es that
potential job impacts are mitigated by the scope of the propo sed rule,
which only applies to newly-manufactured or installed products and equip-
ment and to end-uses for which safe alternatives are already available on
the market, as determined by the EPA. The rule does not prohibit the sale
of products or equipment manufactured prior to the effective year indicated
in the proposed rule or to the continued maintenance of existing equipment.
3. Regions of Adverse Impact:
The proposed rulemaking applies statewide. There are no regions of the
State where jobs or employment opportunities are expected to be adversely
impacted by this rule.
4. Minimizing Adverse Impact:
As detailed above, this rule is not expected to have a signiﬁcant adverse
impact on jobs and employment.Department of Financial Services
EMERGENCY/PROPOSED
RULE MAKING
NO HEARING(S) SCHEDULED
Rules Governing the Procedures for Adjudicatory Proceedings
Before the Department of Financial Services
I.D. No. DFS-53-19-00013-EP
Filing No. 1153
Filing Date: 2019-12-17
Effective Date: 2019-12-17
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Pro-
cedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following action:
Proposed Action: Repeal of Supervisory Procedure G 111 of Title 3
NYCRR; Part 4 of Title 11 NYCRR; and addition of Part 2 to Title 23
NYCRR.
Statutory authority: Financial Services Law, sections 202, 302; State
Administrative Procedure Act, art. 3
Finding of necessity for emergency rule: Preservation of general welfare.
Speciﬁc reasons underlying the ﬁnding of necessity: The 2011 Laws of
New York, Chapter 62 consolidated the former New York State B anking
and Insurance Departments into the Department of Financial Services
(“Department”), effective October 3, 2011, establishing o ne agency
responsible for the regulation and oversight of banking, in surance, and
other ﬁnancial services industries. The legislation empowers the Superin-
tendent of Financial Services (“Superintendent”) with mor e expansive
authority than that held by the heads of the individual Banking and Insur-
ance Departments when those departments were separate agencies.
The Department’s current administrative adjudication pro cedures, set
forth in two separate sets of regulations promulgated under the Banking
and Insurance Laws, are insufﬁcient to meet the Superintend ent’s
expanded statutory authority. Additionally, in creating the Department, the
legislature also empowered it with new authority that only exists under the
new Financial Services Law. At present, there are no rules go verning
adjudicatory proceedings under the Financial Services Law . The need to
rectify this insufﬁciency is now urgent.
The Department is presently engaged in a number of critical investiga-
tions and enforcement activities for which it intends to hol d hearings.
Some of these matters present issues that may have an impact u pon both
the Banking and Insurance authority of the Department, and o thers that
may have an impact upon authority contained solely in the Financial Ser-
vices Law. As such, the Department ﬁnds that the present bifurcated rules
contained in the separate Banking and Insurance regulation s are inade-
quate for the purpose. Accordingly, this rulemaking repeal s Supervisory
Procedure G 111 of 3 NYCRR and Part 4 of 11 NYCRR, the Banking and
Insurance rules governing administrative adjudicatory proceedings before
the former individual departments, and replaces those rule s with a new
regulation, added to 23 NYCRR, to provide one set of uniﬁed rules govern-
ing the procedures for adjudicatory proceedings before the Department,
under all of its authority. Without emergency adoption of this set of uniﬁed
procedures, the Department’s investigations would be undu ly delayed,
negatively impacting the ability of the Department to prote ct consumers
and markets from unlawful behavior.
It is therefore imperative that this amendment be promulgat ed on an
emergency basis for the public’s general welfare.
Subject: Rules Governing the Procedures for Adjudicatory Proceedin gs
Before the Department of Financial Services.
Purpose: To unify and clarify the procedures for adjudicatory proceedings
before the Department of Financial Services.
Text of emergency/proposed rule: Part 4 of 11 NYCRR and Supervisory
Procedure G 111 of 3 NYCRR are hereby repealed. A new Part 2 is added
to 23 NYCRR.
New Part 2 is added to 23 NYCRR to read as follows:
Rules Governing The Procedures For Adjudicatory Proceedings Before
The Department Of Financial Services
§ 2.1 Applicability.
(a) This Part applies to The New York State Department of Fina ncial
Services (“Department”) adjudicatory proceedings, as deﬁ ned in State
Administrative Procedure Act section 102.3, commenced on o r after the
effective date of this Part or an applicable amendment there to, except it
shall not apply to:NYS Register/December 31, 2019 Rule Making Activities
14