State of California  
AIR RESOURCES BOARD  
 
 
 
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED REGULATION FOR 
PROHIBITIONS ON USE OF CERTAIN HYDROFLUOROCARBON S IN 
STATIONARY REFRIGERATION AND FOAM  END -USES  
 
 
 
STAFF REPORT: INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS  
 
 
 
 
DATE OF RELEASE:  JANUARY 30,  2018  
SCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION:  MARCH 22, 2018 
 
 
 
 
Location : 
 
California Environmental Protection Agency  
Air Resources Board  
Riverside County Administrative Center  
 4080 Lemon St., 1st Floor  
Riverside, California 92501  
 
 
 
This report has been reviewed by the staff of the California Air Resources Board and 
approved for publication.  Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect 
the views and policie s of the California Air Resources Board, nor does mention of trade 
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS  
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   ................................ ................................ ...............................  1 
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND  ................................ ................................ ..... 2 
A. What are Hydrofluorocarbons?  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 2 
B. Why Regulate Stationary Refrigeration End -Use Sectors?  ................................ ..........................  3 
C. Why Regulate Foam End -Use Sectors?  ................................ ................................ ..........................  3 
D. Which End -Use Sectors Will be Covered By This Regulation?  ................................ ....................  3 
E. What Are the Requirements of the Proposed Regulation?  ................................ ...........................  9 
F. What Are the Emissions and Expected Reductions?  ................................ ................................ .... 9 
G. Who Will be Impacted by the Regulation?  ................................ ................................ ......................  9 
H. What Are the Expected Costs?  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10 
I. Was There a Public Process to Develop the Regulation?  ................................ ..........................  11 
J. California Legislative Mandates and Legal Authority to Regulate  ................................ .............  11 
K. State: Existing CARB Measures  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 
L. Federal: Existing U.S. EPA Measures  ................................ ................................ ...........................  13 
M. Global: The Kigali Amendment  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 14 
N. Federal SNAP Rules at Risk  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  15 
O. California Adaptation of HFC Prohibitions Listed in Federal Rules  ................................ ..........  16 
II. PROBLEM THAT THE PRO POSAL IS INTEN DED TO ADDRESS  .........................  17 
III. SUMMARY AND RAT IONALE FOR CARB’S DE TERMINATION THAT EAC H 
ADOPTION IS REASONAB LY NECESSARY  ................................ ...................  17 
Section 95371. Purpose  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  18 
Section 9537 2. Applicability  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  18 
Section 9537 3. Definitions  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  19 
Section 95374. List of Prohibited Substitutes  ................................ ................................ ...................  19 
Section 95375. Requirements  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  20 
Section 95376. Enforcement  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  20 
Section 95377. Severability  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  21 
IV. BENEFITS ANTICIP ATED FROM THE REGULA TORY ACTION  INCLUDING THE 
BENEFITS OR GOALS PR OVIDED IN THE AUTHOR IZING STATUTE   .........  21 
V. AIR QUALITY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  23 
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS  ................................ ................................ ...............  23 
A. Introduction  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 23 
B. Analysis  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  24 
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL J USTICE ................................ ................................ .................  24 
 
 ii 
 VIII. ECONOMIC IMPAC TS ASSESSMENT  ................................ ................................  25 
A. Summary  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  25 
B. Legal Requirements  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  25 
C. Cost Impacts Analysis  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  26 
Breakdown of Affected Businesses by Sector  ................................ ................................ ..................  27 
Methodology  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 30 
Cost to Small Businesses  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  32 
Cost to Typical Businesses  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  32 
Cost to State Government and Local Agencies  ................................ ................................ ...............  33 
IX. EVALUATION OF RE GULATORY ALTERNATIVE S ................................ .............  33 
Alternative 1: No Action  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  34 
Alternative 2: Adopt U.S. EPA SNAP Rules in their Entirety  ................................ ............................  34 
Remaining SNAP Rules 20 and 21 End -Use Sect ors to be Addressed through Other Actions  ....... 35 
Alternative 3: Small Business Alternative  ................................ ................................ ..........................  38 
Alternative 4: Performance Standards in Place of Prescriptive Standards  ................................ .... 38 
Health and Safety Code Section 57005 Major Regulation Alternatives  ................................ ...........  39 
X. JUSTIFICATION FOR  ADOPTION OF REGULATI ON DIFFERENT FROM 
FEDERAL REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE COD E OF FEDERAL 
REGULATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 39 
XI. PUBLIC PROCESS F OR DEVELOPMENT OF TH E PROPOSED ACTION       
(PRE -REGULATORY INFO RMATION)  ................................ .............................  40 
XII. REFERENCES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 41 
XIII. APPENDICES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  43 
APPEDNIX A. Pro posed Regulation  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...A.1 
APPEDNIX B. Emission Estimates   ................................ ................................ ................................ ....B.1 1 
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  
 
Climate change is one of the most serious environmental threats facing the world today.  
California is experiencin g the effects of climate change and  has committed to take 
action.  Beginning with Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) ,1 the California Global Warming 
Solutions Act of 2006 , California create d a comprehensive, multi -year program to reduce 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in California.  To further the goals of AB 32, in 2016 
the Legislature enacted Senate Bill  32 (SB 32)2 requir ing a 40 percent  reduction in GHG 
emissions below 1990 levels by 2030 . 
 
Short -lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) , are among 
the most harmful pollutants as they are powerful climate forcers.   While they remain in 
the atmosphere for a much shorter time than carbon dioxide (CO 2), their relative  climate 
forcing  (how effectively they heat the atmosphere)  can be tens , hundreds  or even 
thousands of times greater than CO 2.  Recognizing the importance of reducing HFCs, 
the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1383  (SB 1383)3 in 2016,  which requires a 
40 percent  reduction of HFC emissions below 2013 levels by 2030.  
 
To meet California’s mandates under AB 32, SB 32, and SB 1383, the California Air 
Resources Board ( CARB or Board) was relying , in substantial part, on the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency ’s (U.S. EPA) Significant New Alternatives Policy 
(SNAP) Program , Rules 20 and 21 (SNAP Rule s).  However, on August 8, 2017, in 
Mexichem Fluor. v.  U.S. EPA , the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) published 
a decision limiting U.S. EPA’s ability to require replacement of  HFCs under the SNAP 
Rules.  Although respondents and amicus curi ae, including CARB , several states, and a 
group of administrative law professors are actively defending these rules in court, 
immediate action is necessary to maintain and enforce prohibitions  for certain end-uses 
of HFCs to achieve California’s HFC emission s reduction  goal. 
 
In this rulemaking, CARB staff proposes to adopt into state regulations specific 
prohibitions on the use of high -global warming potential ( GWP ) refrigerants in new and 
retrofit stationary refrigeration equipment  and certain HFCs used as blowing agents in 
foam end -uses .  The first stationary refrigeration equipment category is r etail food 
refrigeration , which  includes stand -alone equipment, refrigerated food processing and 
dispensing equipment, remote condensing units, and supermarket systems .  New and 
retrofit vending machines are the second stationary refrigeration category.  The third 
category is foam end -uses , which  include rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate 
laminated boardstock, flexible polyurethane, integral skin polyurethane, polystyrene 
extruded sheet, and phenolic insulation board and bunstock .  CARB staff are  also 
proposing t o adopt a record -keeping requi rement that would require the production of 
these documents if CARB requests them, and a dis closure  requirement on the invoice 
produced by the manufacturer  for these end -uses.  
                                                 
 
1 AB 32  (Núñez, Stat.  2006 , Ch. 488 ). 
2 SB 32  (Pavley, Stat.  2016 , Ch. 249 ). 
3 SB 1383 (Lara, Stat . 2016 , Ch. 395 ). 2 
 I. INTRODUCTION  AND BACKGROUND  
 
A. What are Hydrofluorocarbons?  
 
HFCs are synthetic gases that are used in a variety of applications, including 
refrigeration, air -conditioning, foam blowing, solvents, aerosols, and fire suppression  
(Figure 1).   HFCs are SLCPs which are powerful climate forcers that remain in the 
atmosph ere for a much shorter period of time than longer -lived climate pollutants, such 
as CO 2, but are more potent when measured in terms of global warming potential 
(GWP),4 which can be tens, hundreds , or even thousands of times greater than CO 2. 
 
FIGURE 1.  CALIFORNIA HFC EMISSIONS BY SECTOR (2013)  
 
 
California HFC emissions (in CO 2-equivalents) by sector in 2013 using the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment (AR4) 
100-year GWP values (IPCC 2007).  Source: California’s High Glob al Warming Potential 
Gases Emission Inventory , 2015 (CARB 201 6a). 
 
 
                                                 
 
4 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed the concept of GWP as an index to 
evaluate the climate impacts of different GHGs, including SLCPs.   This metric provides a comparison of 
the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the  atmosphere relative to CO 2 over a specified time horizon.  GWP 
accounts for the lifetime of different GHGs in the atmosphere, and the amount of energy they absorb on a 
per-kilogram basis, relative to CO 2, to represent the relative climate forcing of a kil ogram of emissions 
when averaged over a time period of interest (for example, 20  years or 100 years).  Current practice in 
most of the world for developing GHG emission inventories, including California's inventory, is to use GWP 
values from the 4th Assess ment Report of the IPCC (AR4), which was released in 2007 (IPCC 2007).  The 
SLCP Strategy uses 20 -yr GWP values from AR4.  However, this proposed rulemaking and ISOR uses 
100-yr GWP values from AR4 to be consistent with current industry practices.  Stationary 
Refrigeration
43%
Stationary Air -conditioning
24%Mobile AC + Transport 
Refrig eration
19%Propellants
7%Insulating Foam
6%Solvents, Fire 
Suppressants
1%3 
 HFCs are the primary substitutes for ozone -depleting substances , such as 
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs).   These substances 
are controlled under the 1987 Montreal Protocol  on Substances that Deplete the Ozone 
Layer (Montreal Protocol) —the international treaty governing the protection of the 
stratospheric ozone.   Under the  Montreal Protocol , CFCs have been comp letely banned 
for new production and consumption, and HCFCs are currently being phased out of new 
production and consumption in the United States , with a complete ban  beginning 
January 1, 2020 (U.S. EPA 201 6). 
 
A major concern with respect to HFCs is that their contribution to climate forcing  is 
expected to increase rapidly in the future as they continue to re place ozone -depleting 
substances and demand for air -conditioning and  refrigeration grows (Velders et al. 2009 , 
2014).   Currently, HFCs are two  percent  of the total global climate forcing (IPCC 2014 a).  
HFCs are the fastest growing source of GHG emissions in California and the world.  
A lack of action to prevent the growth of HFCs would greatly undermine efforts to 
address climate change.  
 
B. Why Regulate Stationary Refrigeration End -Use Sectors ? 
 
Stationary refrigeration is the largest source of HFC emissions in California, comprising 
more than 40  percent  of all H FC emissions from all sources.  Refrigerants with much 
lower GWPs are available, equivalent in  cost to high -GWP HFCs, and commonly used 
today in stationary refrigeration and air -conditioning equipment.  
 
C. Why Regulate Foam End -Use Sectors?  
 
The foam end -use sectors in this regulation traditionally used foam expansion agents 
that were ozone -depleting or high -GWP fluorinated gases (F -gases).  Although the end -
use sectors do not currently use ozone -depleting or high -GWP foam expansion agents, 
they are included in the regulation to maintain industry consistency and prevent the use 
of high -GWP HFCs in future foam production.  
 
D. Which End -Use Sectors Will Be Covered By This Regulation?  
 
CARB proposes to adopt the HFC refrigerant and foam expansion agent prohibitions in 
regulation section 95374  “List of Prohibited Substitutes”  for three end-use sectors that 
were previously included  in SNAP Rules  20 and 21 .  Below is a  short non -exhaustive 
description (used by U.S. EPA) of each end -use sector included in the regulation:  
 
 Retail Food Refrigeration (new and retrofit).  This end -use category, also known as  
commercial refrigeration, includes equipment designed to store and d isplay chilled or 
frozen goods for commercial sale.  This end -use includes the following categories of 
equipment , as described below : 
 
o Stand -alone Equipment (new and retrofit).  This equipment category includes 
refrigerators, freezers, and reach -in coolers (either open or with doors) , where 4 
 all refrigeration components are integrated and, for the smallest types, the 
refrigeration circuit is entirely brazed or welded.  These systems are fully 
charged with refrigerant at the factory and typically require only an electricity 
supply to begin operation.  
 
o Refrigerated Food Processing and Dispensing Equipment (new and retrofit).   
This equipment category  dispenses and often processes a variety of food and 
beverage products.   This equipment will process the product by  combining 
ingredients, mixing and preparing it at the proper temperature, while others 
function mainly as a holding tank to deliver the product at the desired 
temperature or to deliver chilled ingredients for the processing, mixing , and 
preparation.  Some  may use a refrigerant in a heat pump, or utilize was te heat 
from the cooling system  to provide hot beverages.  Some may also provide 
heating functions to melt or dislodge ice or for sanitation purpo ses.  This 
equipment can be self -contained or can be connected via piping to a dedicated 
condensing unit located elsewhere.   Equipment within this end -use category 
include chilled and frozen beverages (carbonated and non -carbonated, alcoholic 
and nonalcoholic); frozen custards, gelato, ice cream, Italian ice , sorbets and 
yogurts; milkshakes, ‘‘slushies’’ and smoothies, and whipped cream.  
 
o Remote Condensing Units (new and retrofit).   This equipment category t ypical 
has refrigerating capacities from 1 kW to 20 kW (0.3 to 5.7 refrigeration tons) 
and are composed  of one (sometimes two) compressor(s), one condenser, and 
one receiver assembled into a single unit, which is normally located external to 
the sales area.  The condenser (and often other parts of the system) is located 
outside the space or area cooled by t he evaporator, typically ejecting heat to the 
outdoor ambient environment.  They are commonly installed in convenience 
stores, specialty shops (e.g., bakeries, butcher shops), supermarkets, 
restaurants, and other locations where food is stored, served , or sold.  
 
o Supermarket Systems (new and retrofit).   This equipment category includes 
multiplex or centralized systems, which operate with racks of compressors 
installed in a machinery room.  There are two main  design classifications : direct 
and indirect systems.   For direct systems, the refrigerant circulates from the 
machinery room to the sales area, where it evaporates in display -case heat 
exchangers, and then returns in vapor phase to the suction headers of the 
compressor racks.   Another direct superma rket design, often referred to as a 
distributed refrigeration system, uses an array of separate compressor racks 
located near the display cases rather than having a central compressor rack 
system.   Indirect supermarket designs include secondary loop system s and 
cascade refrigeration.   Indirect systems use a “chiller” (not to be confused with 
the “chiller” end -use) or other refrigeration system to cool a secondary fluid that 
is then circulated throughout the store to the cases.  
 
 5 
  Vending Machines ( new and retrofit) .  This end -use category covers  self-contained 
units that dispense goods that must be kept cold or frozen.  
 
 Foams.   This end -use category is  manufactured with foam blowing agents and 
encompass es a wide variety of applications , including refrigerators, buildings, 
automobiles, furniture, packaging, and many more.  The blowing agent is used to 
create a cellular structure from liquid plastic resin, and in the case of foam used for 
insulation it functions as an insulating component of the foam.   For purposes of this 
regulation, the following foams are included:  
 
o Rigid Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock.   This 
includes insulation for roofing and walls.  For purposes of this proposed 
regulation, it does not include rigid polyurethane appliance foam, rigid 
polyurethane commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels, rigid 
polyurethane marine flotation foam, rigid polyurethane spray foam, and 
rigid polyurethane one -component foam sealants.  
 
o Flexible Polyurethane.   This includes foam furniture, bedding, chair 
cushions, and shoe soles.  
 
o Integral Skin Polyurethane.   This includes car steering wheels, dashboards, 
and shoe soles.  
 
o Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet.   This includes foam for packaging and 
buoyancy or floatation.  It i s also made into food -service items, including 
hinged polystyrene containers (for "take -out" from restaurants); food trays 
(meat and poultry) plates, bowls, and retail egg containers.  
 
o Phenolic Insulation Board and Bunstock.   This includes ins ulation for 
roofing and walls.  Bunstock or bun stock is a large solid box -like structure 
formed during the production of polystyrene insulation.  
 
TABLE 1. GWP VALUES OF PROHIBITED SUBSTITUES  
 BY SECTOR AND END -USE 
 
General 
End-Use Specific  
End-Use Substitute  Effective Date  GWP 
Values of 
Prohibited 
Substitutes  
Retail Food 
Refrigeration  Supermarket 
Systems (new)  HFC-227ea,  
R-404A, R -407B, R -421B, 
R-422A, R -422C, R -422D, 
R-428A, R -434A, R -507A  Prohibited  as of 
September 1, 
2018  2,729 to 
3,985  
Retail Food 
Refrigeration  Supermarket 
Systems (retrofit)  R-404A, R -407B, R -421B, 
R-422A, R -422C, R -422D, 
R-428A, R -434A, R -507A  Prohibited  as of 
September 1, 
2018  2,729 to 
3,985  6 
 General 
End-Use Specific  
End-Use Substitute  Effective Date  GWP 
Values of 
Prohibited 
Substitutes  
Retail Food 
Refrigeration  Remote 
Condensing 
Units (new)  HFC-227ea,  
R-404A,  R-407B, R -421B, 
R-422A, R -422C, R -422D, 
R-428A, R -434A, R -507A  Prohibited  as of 
September 1, 
2018  2,729 to 
3,985  
Retail Food 
Refrigeration  Remote 
Condensing 
Units (retrofit)  R-404A, R -407B, R -421B, 
R-422A, R -422C, R -422D, 
R-428A, R -434A, R -507A  Prohibited  as of 
September 1, 
2018  2,729 to 
3,985  
Retail Food 
Refrigeration  Stand -alone 
Medium -
Temperature 
Units - with a 
compressor 
capacity below 
2,200 Btu/hr and 
not containing a 
flooded 
evaporator (new)  FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC -
134a, HFC -227ea, KDD6, 
R-125/290/134a/600a 
(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R -
404A, R -407A, R -407B, 
R-407C, R -407F, R -410A, 
R-410B, R -417A, R -421A, 
R-421B, R -422A, R -422B, 
R-422C, R -422D, R -424A, 
R-426A, R -428A, R -434A, 
R-437A, R -438A, R -507A, 
RS-24 (2002 formulation), 
RS-44 (2003 formulati on), 
SP34E, THR -03 Prohibited  as of 
January 1, 2019  900 to 
3,985  
Retail Food 
Refrigeration  Stand -alone 
Medium -
Temperature 
Units - with a 
compressor 
capacity below 
2,200 Btu/hr and 
containing a 
flooded 
evaporator (new)  FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC -
134a, HFC -227ea,  KDD6, 
R-125/290/134a/600a 
(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R -
404A, R -407A, R -407B, 
R-407C, R -407F, R -410A, 
R-410B, R -417A, R -421A, 
R-421B, R -422A, R -422B, 
R-422C, R -422D, R -424A, 
R-426A, R -428A, R -434A, 
R-437A, R -438A, R -507A, 
RS-24 (2002 formulation), 
RS-44 (2003 fo rmulation), 
SP34E, THR -03 Prohibited  as of 
January 1, 2020  900 to 
3,985  7 
 General 
End-Use Specific  
End-Use Substitute  Effective Date  GWP 
Values of 
Prohibited 
Substitutes  
Retail Food 
Refrigeration  Stand -alone 
Medium -
Temperature 
Units - with a 
compressor 
capacity equal to 
or greater than 
2,200 Btu/hr 
(new)  FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC -
134a, HFC -227ea, KDD6, 
R-125/290/134a/600a 
(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R -
404A, R -407A, R -407B, 
R-407C, R -407F, R -410A, 
R-410B, R -417A, R -421A, 
R-421B, R -422A, R -422B, 
R-422C, R -422D, R -424A, 
R-426A, R -428A, R -434A, 
R-437A, R -438A, R -507A, 
RS-24 (2002 formulation), 
RS-44 (2003 formulati on), 
SP34E, THR -03 Prohibited  as of 
January 1, 2020  900 to 
3,985  
Retail Food 
Refrigeration  Stand -alone 
Low-
Temperature 
Units (new)  HFC-227ea, KDD6,         
R-125/290/134a/600a 
(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R -
404A, R -407A, R -407B, 
R-407C, R -407F, R -410A, 
R-410B, R-417A, R -421A, 
R-421B, R -422A, R -422B, 
R-422C, R -422D, R -424A, 
R-428A, R -434A, R -437A, 
R-438A, R -507A, RS -44 
(2003 formulation)  Prohibited  as of 
January 1, 2020  1,800 to 
3,985  
Retail Food 
Refrigeration  Stand -alone 
Units (retrofit)  R-404A, R -507A  Prohibited  as of 
September 1, 
2018  3,922 and 
3,985  
Vending 
Machines  Vending 
Machines (new)  FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC -
134a, KDD6,                  
R-125/290/134a/600a 
(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5),         
R-404A, R -407C, R -410A, 
R-410B, R -417A, R -421A, 
R-422B, R -422C, R-422D, 
R-426A, R -437A, R -438A, 
R-507A, RS -24 (2002 
formulation), SP34E  Prohibited  as of 
January 1, 2019  1,100 to 
3,985  8 
 General 
End-Use Specific  
End-Use Substitute  Effective Date  GWP 
Values of 
Prohibited 
Substitutes  
Vending 
Machines  Vending 
Machines 
(retrofit)  R-404A, R -507A  Prohibited  as of 
September 1, 
2018   3,922 and 
3,985  
Retail Food 
Refrigeration  Refrigerated 
Food Processing 
and Dispensing 
Equipment (new)  HFC-227ea, KDD6,          
R-125/290/134a/600a 
(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5),         
R-404A, R -407A, R -407B, 
R-407C, R -407F, R -410A, 
R-410B, R -417A, R -421A, 
R-421B, R -422A, R -422B, 
R-422C, R -422D, R -424A, 
R-428A, R -434A, R -437A, 
R-438A, R -507A, RS -44 
(2003 formulation)  Prohibited  as of 
January 1, 2021  1,770 to 
3,990  
Foam  Rigid 
Polyurethane 
and 
Polyisocyanurate 
Laminated 
Boardstock  HFC-134a, HFC -245fa, 
HFC-365mfc and blends 
thereof  Acceptable 
subject to 
narrowed use 
limits for military 
or space and 
aeronautics  
related 
applications  and 
prohibited for all 
other uses as of 
September 1, 
2018.* 
 
Prohibited for all 
uses as of 
January 1, 2022  
 794 to 
1,430  
Foam  Flexible 
Polyurethane  HFC-134a, HFC -245fa, 
HFC-365mfc, and blends 
thereof  794 to 
1,430  
Foam  Integral Skin 
Polyurethane  HFC-134a, HFC -245fa, 
HFC-365mfc, and blends 
thereof; Formacel TI ; and 
Formacel Z -6 777 to 
1,500  
Foam  Polystyrene 
Extruded Sheet  HFC-134a, HFC -245fa, 
HFC-365mfc, and blends 
thereof; Formacel TI ; and 
Formacel Z -6 777 to 
1,500  
Foam  Phenolic 
Insulation Board 
and Bunstock  HFC-143a, HFC -134a, 
HFC-245fa, HFC -365mfc, 
and blends thereof  794 to 
4,470  
*Foam Sectors:  Under the narrowed use limit, use is limited to military or space - and 
aeronautics -related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain 
that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety 
requirements.  
 
Additional end -use se ctors in SNAP Rules 20 and 21 will not be included in this 
regulation ; these end -use sectors will be covered through additional rulemaking for 
end-use sectors identified in the SLCP Strategy, or through other CARB measures .  9 
 Section I, Subsection O “California Adaptation of HFC Prohibitions Listed in Federal 
Rules” and Section IX , Alternative 2,  “Evaluation of Regulatory Alternatives” provides the 
rationale for the exclusion of certain HFC end -use sectors listed in the SNAP Rules.  
 
E. What Are the Requirements of the Proposed Regulation?  
 
The proposed  regulation would adopt certain HFC prohibitions from U.S. EPA ’s SNAP 
Rules 20 and 21, which prohibit  certain high -GWP  HFCs  in new equipment and in 
retrofit s of existing  equipment , and used as blowing agents in  specific foam  end-uses.  
A retrofit here means changing the type of refrig erant used in equipment .  Specifically, 
new and retrofitted retail food refrigeration and vending machine equipment  could no 
longer use refrigerants that are prohibited by this regulation .  Additionally certain HFCs 
would be prohibited in  specific  foam end -use sectors.  The proposed regulation also 
requires record -keeping , and invoice disc losure  language for equipment  or materials  sold 
or entered into commerce in the State of California  and provides an enforcement 
mechanism if a regulated party violates the proposed regulation . 
 
F. What Are the Emissions and Expected Reductions?  
 
The estimate for current business -as-usual (BAU)  emissions from the end -use sectors 
regulated by the proposed regulation is 5.9 million metric tons CO 2 equivalents per year 
(MMTCO 2E/yr).  With the proposed regulation in place, a nnual reductions are estimated 
at up to 3.4 MMTCO 2E by the year 2030.  CARB does  not expect any increase in the 
indirect CO 2 emissions  from increased energy usage, as the lower -GWP replacement 
refrigerant  technologie s that would be chosen are either more energy efficient or equal in 
energy efficiency to the baseline high -GWP refrigerants.  
 
G. Who Will be Impacted by the Regulation?  
 
The proposed regulation would apply to any person who sells, installs, uses, or enters 
into commerce, in the State of California, any substitute in end -uses listed in Table 1. 
The end -use is the equipment and the substitute is the refrigerant, which are listed in 
Table 1.  
 
The impacts of the regul ation will be borne primarily by foam manufacturers and 
refrigeration equipment manufacturers who have either developed, or  will develop 
compliant materials and equipment.  Contractors, installers of equipment, and service 
technicians would be impacted by the requirement to design, purchase, install, and 
service only compliant equipment.  The impact to end -users of the foam and refrigeration 
equipment will be negligible, as their main responsibility will be to purchase only 
compliant foam products or refrig eration equipment (non -compliant foam and equipment 
would be illegal to sell or provide, allowing the regulation to have a minimal impact on 
business owners and small -businesses).  
 
 10 
 H. What Are the Expected Costs?  
 
Total statewide costs of the regulation over  20 years are estimated to be $ 4.25 million.  
The U.S. EPA estimated the cumulative 20 -year total cost of the refrigerant portions of 
SNAP Rules 20 and 21  in the proposed regulation  to be $23.5 million for the entire 
nation, for the end -use sectors covered  by California’s proposed r egulation .  California ’s 
share of the national cost was estimated by scaling to California’s 12.1  percent  share of 
the U.S. population  (Census 2016) , along with manufacturer’s mark -up amounted $4.12 
million if the SNAP Rules are vacated.   The estimated costs are likely to be on the high 
side because some refrigerant equipment manufacturers have already complied with the 
SNAP rules.  Since foam end -use manufacturers had already complied with the SNAP 
Rules that became effective Jan uary 1, 2017, no additional manufacturing costs were 
attributable to this proposed regulation.  
 
The proposed regulation for California would require record -keeping , and a one -time 
update , to include a disclosure statement  on invoices by manufacturers of refrigeration  
equipment  and foam end -uses .  The affected businesses already keep all the records 
that will be required for the record -keeping provision , thus there is no additional record -
keeping cost.   The total costs  of providing records  and the one -time cost to update the 
invoice language amount to $130,000 .  Reports would not be routinely required, rather 
only on an as -requested basis.  
 
The initial cost for small businesses for all affected sectors except stand -alone 
equipment for retail food sector are expected to be zero.  The stand -alone equipment 
sector is the only affected sector in which small business impacts have been identified.  
The initial cost for small businesses in the stand -alone equipment sector, however, is  
expected to be  approximately  $14,200, including $ 14,100  compliance cost and $80  
record -keeping cost.   The initial cost for a typical businesses are expected to range from 
$80 to approximately  $254,20 0, including $0 to $ 254,100  compliance cost and $80 
disclosure and providing record s cost.  The cost to report sales records (upon request) 
for all affected businesses  is est imated to be $ 40 per business  only in years 2, 5, 10, 15, 
20, assuming  sales records are requested  in these years , which would be  $130,000 in 
total for the 20 -year lif e of the regulation for all businesses . 
 
The estimated cost per metric ton of CO 2E (MTCO 2E) reduced is less than 
$1.00/MTCO 2E reductio ns, with a state -wide cost of $210 ,000 per year and reductions of 
up to 3.4 MMTCO 2E per year by 2030.  
 
The initial and annual costs for an individual manufacturer are expected to be minimal at 
most, with negligible costs for end -users , such as retail food stores.  
 
The only cost to foam  manufacturers  will be adding  disclosure  language  to invoices  and 
providing  records  in years  CARB  requests  records.   As per U.S. EPA SNAP  Rules,  foam 
manufacturers  have  been  prohibited  from using  the HFC foam  expansion  agents  listed  in 
this regulation  since  January  1, 2017.  
 11 
 Further  discussion  of the costs  can be found  in Section  VIII, “Economic  Impacts  
Assessment.”  
 
I. Was There a Public Process to Develop the Regulation?  
 
Consistent with Government Code sections 11346, subdivision (b), and 11346.45, 
subdivision (a), and with the Board’s long -standing practice, CARB staff held a public 
works hop and had several other meetings with interested stakeholders during the 
development of the proposed regulation.  The workshop was advertised broadly in 
advance using related CARB email lists, webpages, and other outreach methods, while 
simultaneously ad vertising the availability of a new dedicated email list and webpage for 
future HFC measure related announcements.  CARB staff worked closely with 
stakeholders, reviewing their comments from both the workshop along with several 
follow -up meetings to discus s their comments and recommendations.  
 
There was also a public process during the adoption of the U.S. EPA SNAP Rules 
beginning in 2014.   Costs, benefits, and requirements of the se SNAP  Rules were 
developed in collaboration with national stakeholders by actively soliciting feedback and 
sharing information pertinent to the proposed rulemaking.  
 
These informal pre -rulemaking  discussions , the workshop,  and information provided 
during the adoption of the SNAP Rules  provided CARB  with useful information that w as 
considered during development of the regulation that is now being proposed for formal 
public comment.   Further discussion of the public process can be found in Section XI, 
“Public Process for Development of the Proposed Action (Pre -Regulatory Informatio n).” 
 
J. California Legislative Mandates and Legal Authority to Regulate  
 
California is committed to lead and support pioneering effort s to protect the environment 
and improve public health while maintaining a vibrant economy .  California made a 
groundbreaking  commitment to address climate change w ith the passage of AB 32  – the 
“California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 .”  AB 32  charges CARB with reducing 
statewide GHG emissions to 1990 emission levels by 2020 and maintaining a statewide 
GHG  emission limit, while seeking continuing GHG emission s reduction.   In 2016,  
California strengthened its commitment when Governor Brown signed  SB 32, the 
“California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emission Limit,” codifying an 
additional reduction target for statewide GHG emissions of 40  percent  below 1990 
emission levels by 2030.  
 
Achieving deep reductions in HFC emissions  and other SLCP  is necessary to meet  the 
GHG emission s reduction  called for by AB 32 and SB 3 2.  Recognizing this, t he 
California Legislature passed Senate Bill 605 ( SB 605 ),5 the “Short -Lived Climate 
Pollutants Act ,” requiring CARB to develop a plan to reduce emissions of SLCPs, and S B 
1383 , the “Short -Lived Climate Pollutants: Methane Emissions:  Dairy and Livestock: 
                                                 
 
5 SB 605  (Lara, Stat. 2014 , Ch. 523 ). 12 
 Organic Waste: Landfills Act ,” requiring CARB to approve and begin implementing the 
plan by January 1, 2018.  SB  1383 also sets targets for statewide reductions in SLCP 
emissions by 40 percent  below 2013 levels by 2030 for HFCs as wel l as targets for black 
carbon and methane.   The Board adopted CARB’s SLCP Strategy in March 2017 , which  
describes CARB’s strategy for reducing  annual HFC emissions to meet the SB  1383 
2030 goal,  therefore avoiding the worst impacts of climate change and me eting air 
quality goals in California.  
 
Hence, California Health and Safety Code sections 38510, 38598, 38560, 38562, 38566, 
38580, 39600, 39601, and 41511 grant  CARB authority to adopt regulations that reduce 
emissions of GHGs and HFCs and to “do that which is necessary ” to carry out CARB’s 
purpose.  California Health and Safety Code sections 39730, 39730.5 grant CARB 
authority to regulate HFCs.  CARB is therefore authorized to regulate stationary 
refrigeration and foam end -uses as emission s source s of HFCs . 
 
K. State: Existing CARB Measures  
 
California  has existing regulations to reduce emissions from  non-residential stationary 
refrigeration equipment , motor vehicle air -conditioning,  self-sealing valve  requirement for 
small cans of automotive refrigerants purchase d by “do -it-yourself” (DIY) mechanics,  
consumer product aerosol propellants , and semiconductor manufacturing.  A brief 
description of current California HFC regulations  follows : 
 
 Refrigerant Management Program (RMP) :  The RMP (Cal. Code of Regs ., tit. 17, 
§§ 95380, et seq.) is modeled after the U.S. EPA Clean Air Act , Section 608 
program to protect the stratospheric ozone layer by reducing usage and 
emissions of ozone -depleting substances .  In addition to ozone -depleting 
substances , CARB also in cluded non -ozone -depleting substance  HFC 
refrigerants with a 100 -year GWP  of 150 or great er (considered “high -GWP”).   
RMP requires facilities with refrigeration systems with more than 50 pounds of 
high-GWP refrigerant (for example, supermarkets and cold storage warehouses) 
to inspect for and repair leaks, maintain service records, and in some cases, 
report refrigerant use.  The regulation also affects any person who installs, 
services or disposes of any equipment  using a high -GWP refrigerant; and 
refrigerant wholesalers, distributors and reclaimers.   The RMP  has helped 
change industry practices to become more proactive in preventing refrigerant 
leaks, which has helped businesses save money by avoiding system repairs and 
downtime as well as the cost of replacement refrigerant.  
 Advanced  Clean  Cars  (ACC)  Program:   HFC emissions  from transportation  are 
largely  from mobile  vehicle  air-conditioning  (MVAC) .  The components  of the 
ACC  program  are the Low-Emission  Vehicle  (LEV)  regulations  (contained  in 
various  sections,  commencing  with Cal. Code  of Regs., tit. 13, §§1900  et seq.)  
that reduce  criteria  pollutants  and GHG  emissions  from light- and medium -duty 
vehicles,  and the Zero-Emission  Vehicle  (ZEV)  regulation  (commencing  with Cal. 
Code  of Regs,  tit. 13, §§1962.1,  et seq),  which  requires  manufacturers  to 13 
 produce  an increasing  number  of pure ZEVs  (meaning  battery  electric  and fuel 
cell electric  vehicles),  with provisions  to also produce  plug-in hybrid  electric  
vehicles  (PHEV)  in the 2018  through  2025  model  years.   As California  and the 
U.S. EPA implement  the MVAC  credits  programs  under  their light-duty vehicle  
GHG  emission  standards,  and the MVAC  leakage  standards  under  their heavy -
duty vehicle  GHG  emission  standards,  the share  of HFC emissions  from the 
transportation  sector  are expected  to decline . 
 
 Small -can “DIYer” Regulation for Mobile Vehicle AC Re -charging:   The DIYer 
regulation (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 17, §§ 95360, et seq.) reduce s emissions from 
small containers of automoti ve refrigerant by requir ing the use of self -sealing 
valves on containers, improved labeling instructions, a refundable deposit 
recycling program, and an education program that emphasizes best practices for 
vehicle recharging.  
 
 Consumer Product Aerosol Propellant Regulations:   The consumer products 
regulation (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 17, §§ 95409, et seq.)  prohibits aerosol 
propellants with a GWP of 150 or greater used in  spray dusters (keyboard 
dusters), boat horns, tire inflators, and other consumer aero sol products.  
 
 Semiconductor Manufacturing F -gas Regulations:   Regulations for 
semiconductor manufacturing (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 17, §§ 95320, et seq.)  set 
emission standards for operators of semiconductor operations and requires 
reporting of F -gas use.  In addition to HFCs, other F -gases are included : 
perfluorocarbons (PFCs) , sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF 3). 
 
L. Federal: Existing U.S. EPA Measures  
The U.S. EPA regulates  HFCs  under  two separate  sections  of the Clean  Air Act.  The 
existing  federal  regulations  on HFCs  include  the following  provisions:  
 U.S. EPA Rule 612 (40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 82, Subpart G, 
Appendices U and V):   The SNAP Program was established under Section 
612 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7671k, et seq.) to identify and evaluate 
substitutes for ozone -depleting substances.   The program looks at overall risks 
to human health and the environment from existing and new substitutes; 
publishes lists; promotes the use of acceptable substances; and  provides the 
public with information.  
 
Under the Obama Administration, the 2013 Climate Action Plan directed the 
U.S. EPA to use their authority through the SNAP Program to consider climate 
impact as part of their comparative risk framework for evaluating  alternatives.  
SNAP Rules 20 and 21 were the first SNAP Rules to prohibit high -GWP HFCs 
in certain end -uses where more climate -friendly alternatives were readily 
available and posed a lower overall risk to human health and the environment.  
 14 
 The most recen t lists were published in “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 
Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes Under the Significant New 
Alternatives Policy Program” [80 Federal Register 42870 (July 20, 2015)] and 
“Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: New Listings of Substitutes; Changes of 
Listing Status; and Reinterpretation of Unacceptability for Closed Cell Foam 
Products Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program; and Revision 
of Clean Air Act Section 6 08 Venting Prohibition for Propane.” [81 Fed. Reg. 
86778 (Dec. 1, 2016)] . 
 U.S. EPA Rule 608 (40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 82, Subpart  F):  
Section 608 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7671g, et seq.) prohibits the 
knowing release of refrigerant du ring the maintenance, service, repair, or 
disposal of air -conditioning and refrigeration equipment.  The U.S. EPA 
requires proper refrigerant management practices by owners and operators 
of refrigeration and air -conditioning systems, technicians, and others.  
 
M. Global: The Kigali Amendment  
 
The Montreal Protocol , a 1987 environmental agreement , brought the world together to 
repair the ozone layer .  The Kigali Amendment amends the Montreal Protocol  to include 
HFCs and phase  down the production and consump tion of HFCs globally to protect 
against climate change.   Phasing down HFCs under the Montreal Protocol is expected to 
avoid up to 0.5 °C warming by the end of the century.   The international agreement is an 
outcome of the Twenty -Eighth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protoco l (MOP28) , 
which was held in Kigali, Rwanda in October 2016.   Recently  the Kigali Amendment was 
ratified by more than 20 countries, the threshold number needed for the agreement to 
enter into force on January 1, 2019.  
 
Under the Kigali Amendment, d eveloped countries must begin to phase  down HFC 
production and consumption in 2019, with an increasing cap until only 15  percent  of 
production and consumption remains by 2036.  Developing countries will begin a 
phasedown in 2029, and  developing countries in hot ambient climates will have until 
2032 to begin a phasedown.  
 
The phasedo wn schedule is shown in Table 2 below:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 TABLE 2: GLOBAL HFC PRODUCTION/CONSUMPTION CAP  
PHASEDOWN SCHEDULE  * 
 
Year  Developed 
Countries  Developing  
Countries 
Group 1  Developing 
Countries 
Group 2 ** 
2017 -2018  No Freeze    
2019  90%   
2024  60% Freeze   
2028    Freeze  
2029  30% 90%  
2032    90% 
2034  20%   
2035   70%  
2036  15%   
2037    80% 
2040   50%  
2040    70% 
2045   20%  
2047    15% 
* The baseline  to calculate a production/consumption cap for developed countries is the annual 
average of HFC consumption (CO 2-equivalents) in 2011, 2012, and 2013, plus 15  percent  of the 
annual average consumption of HCFCs in 2011 -2013.  
 
**Group 2 countries include the  Gulf Coast Countries (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab 
Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman), India, Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan.  
 
It is important to note that  the Kigali Amendment has yet to be ratified by the United 
States.   To take effect in the United  States , the Amendment must be ratified by the 
U.S. Senate, followed by legislation or  rulemaking by U.S.  EPA to provide a mechanism 
for implementing the phasedown schedule.  
 
N. Federal SNAP Rules at Risk  
 
On August 8, 2017, the D.C. Circuit  ruled in favor of petitioners , Mexichem Fluor and 
Arkema , in two consolidated cases challenging U.S. EPA’s authority to require 
manufacturers who have already replaced ozone -depleting substances  with HFC 
substitutes to then replace those HFC substitutes  with alternative approved substitute 
chemicals under the SNAP Program’s Rule 20.  The Rule is being defended by 
environmental groups, low -GWP refrigerant manufacturers, and a group of administrative 
law professors.  CARB and Attorney Generals from multiple states also filed an amicus 
brief defending the Rule.  A similar court case against SNAP Rule 21 has been held in 
abeyance pending resolution of the SNAP Rule 20 legal case . 
 
 
 16 
 Due to the uncertainty surrounding the recent court ruling on the federal SNAP 
regulations , and U.S. ratificat ion of the Kigali Agreement, CARB is reviewing  the strategy 
for reaching the SB  1383 HFC emission s target .  CARB’s first priority is to counter any 
lost reductions from a court decision to vacate SNAP Rule 20.  The second ste p is to 
take additional action to require the use of more environmentally friendly alternatives in 
refrigeration and air -conditioning systems in California.  
 
O. California Adaptation of HFC Prohibitions Listed in  Federal Rules  
 
While awaiting a response from the D.C. Circuit , CARB is creating  regulatory certainty  by 
regulating HFCs used in retail food refrigeration , vending machine s, and foam  end-uses  
originally addressed  in the SNAP Rules.  The provisions relating to retail food 
refrigeration are the most impactful in terms of emissions and also because the 
compliance dates have already passed or are immediately upcoming.  
 
Other sectors addressed in  the SNAP Rules include stationary air -condi tioning, mobile 
vehicle air -conditioning (MVAC), propellants, solvents , and fire -suppressants.  CARB  is 
anticipating proposing additional rules to implement more stringent SLCP measures , 
which will cover end -uses such as stationary air -conditioning , which have later 
effectiveness dates in the SNAP Rules.  
 
This rulemaking addresses stationary refrigeration in vending machines, retail food 
sectors, and foam end -use sectors , which have currently existing or upcoming 
effectiveness dates in the SNAP Rules.  In the retail food refrigeration sector, vacating 
the SNAP Rules would create a gap between when the SNAP Rules were to take effect 
and when new CARB SLCP measures could take effect.  This time period, 2018 to 2020, 
is critical for retail food refrigeratio n as o lder equipment using HCFC -22, an 
ozone -depleting refrigerant with a GWP of 1810, are rapidly being replaced.  A window 
of opportunity exists in the next five years to accelerate the transition of refrigeration and 
air-conditioning equipment to lower -GWP refrigerants, before another generation of 
equipment is locked into using higher -GWP refrigerants over their average lifetimes of 15 
to 20 years.  
 
The SNAP Rules would have functionally prohibited new equipment in retail food from 
using a refrigerant w ith a GWP greater than 2100, a slight increase in GWP from 
HCFC -22.  However, without the SNAP Rules in place, the default refrigerants used 
would have GWPs in excess of 3900, more than doubling the global warming from this 
one sector.  The large impact of  a gap in prohibiting harmful HFC s in new and retrofit 
refriger ant equipment, is due to the 15 - to 20 -year average lifetime of equipment.  
 
The foam end -use sectors listed in this regulation have not used high -GWP  HFC foam 
expansion agents for several years, and using low -GWP agents in their production is the 
current business practice .  However, the foam end -use sectors listed are included in the 
regulation to prevent  potential  future use of high -GWP HFCs in new product ion of foam.  
 17 
 Other end -use sectors are better addressed through other existing regulatory framework 
in California, including the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) Program for MVAC and the 
Consumer Product Regulation for propellants.  
 
II. PROBLEM THAT THE PROPOSAL IS INTENDED TO ADDRESS  
 
California has  specific legal mandates to reduce GHG and more specifically, HFC 
emissions.  Beginning with AB 32,  California create d a comprehensive, multi -year 
program to reduce GHG  emissions in California.   In 2016, the Legislature directed 
California to further reduce GHG emissions with the enactment of SB 32, requir ing a 
40 percent  reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2030.   As indicated above, 
HFCs are powerful climate forcers  with a relative cl imate forcing impact that is tens or 
even thousands of times greater than CO 2.  In 2016, the Legislature enacted SB 1383, 
requiring  a 40 percent  reduction of HFC emissions below 2013 levels by 2030.  
 
Fluorinated gases are projected to grow rapidly through 2030.  CARB  has identified retail 
food refrigeration end -uses as being large sources of HFC emissions in California.  
CARB’s Scoping Plan and SLCP Strategy identify HFCs  as an important  GHG and SLCP 
mitigation measure.  Unless emissions  reductions  from these sectors are maintained , 
they will grow exponentially, making it more difficult to both maintain current State GHG 
emission limits under AB 32, and to meet California’s future mandates under SB 32  and 
SB 1383 . 
 
Accordingly, HFC emissions from retail food refrigeration, vending machines, and certain 
foam end -use sectors must be reduced. California was relying in substantial part on 
U.S. EPA’s SNAP Rules .  In a recent court decision by the D.C. Circu it, U.S. EPA’s 
ability to require replacement of  HFCs under the SNAP Rules  is limited .  Although 
environmental groups, industry, several states, CARB , and administrative law professors 
are actively defending these rules in court, immediate action is necessary to maintain 
and enforce prohibitions  for certain end-uses of HFCs.   Emissions from other end -use 
sectors are being addressed through separate regulatory efforts.  
 
III. SUMMARY AND RATIONALE FOR CARB’S DETERMINATION THAT EACH 
ADOPTION IS REASONABLY NEC ESSARY  
 
In this chapter, CARB  provides a brief summary of the provisions included in the 
proposed regulation, explaining the rationale for CARB’s determination that each 
provision of the regulation is: (1) reasonably necessary to carry out the purpose of t he 
statutes or other provisions of law that the action is implementing, interpreting, or making 
specific ; and (2) reasonably necessary to address the problem for which the regulation is 
proposed.  
 
 
 
 18 
 Section 95371 . Purpose.  
 
Summary of Section 95371  
 
This section states that the purpose of the proposed regulation is to reduce HFC 
emissions by adopting specific U.S. EPA SNAP prohibitions for certain substitutes in 
refrigeration and foam end -uses .  It also states that  the proposed regulation has been 
designed to meet  GHG reduction targets established in the California Global Warming 
Solutions Act, as codified in Health and Safety Code section 385 00 et seq. , HFC 
emissions reduction targets identified in Health and Safety Code section 39730.5, and in 
the Sh ort Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy developed pursuant to Health and Safety 
Code sections 39730 and 39730.5.  
 
Rationale  of Section 95371  
 
This section establishes that the proposed regulation will maintain  HFC emissions 
reductions from refrigeration, vending machine, and certain foam end -uses and provide 
reference under applicable CARB authority.  This provision of the  proposed regulation is  
reasonably  necessary to inform the regulated community why the proposed regulation is 
being adopted – to maintain HFC emission s reduction s and comply with legal mandates 
under existing laws —AB 32, SB 32, SB 605, and SB  1383.   The emission s reduction 
targets for 2030 are especially relevant for this proposed rulemaking because CARB’s 
strategy for meeting these targets includes past and near -term action to comply with 
SNAP Rules 20 and 21 effective dates.  
 
GHG  emissions are contributing to global warming , which has a multitude of negative 
effects upon human health and the environment, as listed in n umerous studies, and 
notably summed up in the 2014 Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) from the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Working Grou p II report “Climate 
Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability”  (IPCC 2014 b).  The HFC 
emissions reduction will account for approximately 10  percent  of all GHG  reductions 
required by SB 32  and 24 percent  of all HFC emission s reduction  required by SB  1383 . 
 
Section  95372 . Applicability.  
 
Summary of Section 95372  
 
This section specifies who is  responsible for complying with the regulatory requirements  
and provides reference under applicable CARB authority.   The regulation applies to any 
person who (1) sells, (2) installs, (3) uses, or (4) enters into commerce, in the State of 
California, any su bstitute in end -uses listed in Table 1, section 95374.  
 
Rationale of Section 95372  
 
This section ensures that the proposed regulation will apply to designated new and 
retrofit end -use categories.  Compliance would not be limited to only the end -user of the  19 
 equipment, but to the entire supply chain of the equipment, from manufacturer, to 
distributor, seller, installer, operator and the end-user—which is necessary to ensure 
compliance with the proposed regulation.  
 
Section 95373 . Definitions.  
 
Summary of Section 95373  
 
This section establishes definitions for the terms used in the proposed regulation  and 
provides reference under applicable CARB authority.  
 
Rationale of Section 95373  
 
Establishing definitions for key terms provides clarity and specificity in the proposed 
regulation , which is necessary for the regulated community to understand the 
requirements and  which refrigerants, equipment, and actions are covered by the 
proposed regulation.   The definitions are consistent with generally accepted descrip tions 
and understandings of refrigeration equipment  and foam end -uses . 
 
Section 95374. List of Prohibited Substitutes.  
 
Summary of Section 95374  
 
This section lists the specific types of refrigeration  and foam end -use sectors and HFCs 
that are prohibited in new and retrofitted equipment  for retail refrigeration and vending 
machine end -uses , and in foam end -uses  and provides reference under applicable 
CARB authority .  Retrofitted equipment  are those which have the original refrigerant 
designed to be used in the equipment  replaced with a new type of refrigerant . 
 
Table 1 in Section I. “Introduction and Background” Subsection D. “Which End -use 
Sectors Will be Covered by This Regulation?” prov ides the general end -use, specific 
end-use, prohibited substitutes, effective date, and corresponding GWP.  
 
The first stationary refrigeration equipment category is retail food refrigeration, which 
includes new and retrofit stand -alone equipment, refrigerated food processing and 
dispensing equipment, remote condensing units, and supermarket systems .  New and 
retrofit vending machines are the second stationary refrigeration category.  The third 
category is foam end -uses, which  include rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate 
laminated boardstock, flexible polyurethane, integral skin polyurethane, polystyrene 
extruded sheet, and phenolic insulation board and bunstock . 
 
Rationale of Section 95374  
 
This section is necessary to main tain required HFC emissions reductions in California as 
originally required by the U.S. EPA SNAP Program.  The sectors were chosen because 
they have the largest HFC emission impacts , as shown in Table 1 and have upcoming 20 
 effective dates in the SNAP R ules.  The substances listed have high-GWP values, which 
will contribute to  climate change.  Thus , prohibiting these substances will reduce the 
impacts of climate change and lower the overall risk to human health and the 
environment by the status change date.  The foam end -use sectors included also have 
existing effectiveness dates .  It was necessary to include them to prevent future use of 
high-GWP HFCs in new production of foam.  
 
Other end -use sectors are being addressed through other measures.   Please see 
Section I, Introduction and Background, Subsection O for a description of the rationale 
for excluding certain sectors.  Additionally, please see Section IX, Evaluation of 
Alternatives, Alternative 2 , for additional descriptions supporting CARB ’s decision to 
address other sectors through other measures.  
 
Section 95375 . Requirements . 
 
Summary of Section 95375  
 
This section contains the prohibition on using HFCs in refrigeration and foam end -use 
sectors, as listed in section 95374, as well as disclo sure and record -keeping 
requirements to support enforcement in California  and provides reference under 
applicable CARB authority . 
 
Rationale of Section 95375  
 
This section is necessary for CARB to be able to enforce the regulation.  The record -
keeping requirement is necessary for CARB to confirm that all products are compliant 
with the regula tory requirements.  The disclosure  requirement is necessary to inform the 
consumer that the product is legal in California, thereby reducing the chance of 
non-compl iant products entering into the stream of commerce in California.  
 
Section 95376 .  Enforcement . 
 
Summary of Section 95376  
 
This section specifies the types of violations that may occur under this proposed 
regulation.  Subsection (a) specifies that failure to comply with any requirement 
constitutes a separate violation, which includes failure to retain or produce any records. 
Subsection (b) specifies that submitting or producing inaccurate information or records is 
a separate violation.  Subsection (c) speci fies that falsifying any information or record is 
a separate violation.   Subsection (d) provides the provision of the Health and Safety 
Code (section 38580) under which CARB would be seeking penalties and subsection (e) 
provides notice that any violation m ay be enjoined pursuant to the Health and Safety 
Code section 41513.  
 
 
 21 
 Rationale of Section 95376  
 
This section is required to specify that failure to comply with any of the proposed 
requirements is subject to enforcement action.  Each enforcement provisi on is clearly 
identified  so as to provide notice to the regulated entities and ensure  the proposed 
regulation is not interpreted in such a way to mean that a regulated party is not subject to 
enforcement action.   It ensures that the regulated parties will comply with the 
requirements of the regulation.  
 
Section 95377 . Severability . 
 
Summary of Section 95377  
 
This section specifies that each part of the proposed regulation is severable.  
 
Rationale of Section 95377  
 
This section is necessary so that the proposed regulation is not interpreted in such a way 
to mean that a future determination, which invalidates any part of the proposed 
regulation, does not invalidate any other requirement in the proposed regulation, 
therefore keeping the proposed regulation  in full force and effect.  
 
IV. BENEFITS ANTICIPATED FROM THE REGULATORY ACTION  INCLUDING 
THE BENEFITS OR GOALS PROVIDED IN THE AUTHORIZING STATUTE  
 
As a part of developing the HFC measures in the SLCP Strategy, CARB estimated 
business -as-usual (BAU) HFC emissions for California through 2050.  CARB also 
conducted an analysis to determine if the global HFC phasedown schedule  with 
reductions in productio n and consumption of HFCs beginning 2019 would be sufficient to 
allow California to meet its SB  1383 emissions reduction goal, without additional 
reduction measures nationally or in California ( CARB 2017 c).  In developing both the 
BAU forecast and emission  reduction scenarios, CARB use d California’s High Global 
Warming Potential Gases Emission Inventory  (CARB 2016 a, 2017b) as well as a 
peer-reviewed, California -specific HFC emissions mo del developed by CARB (Gallagher, 
G. et al. 2014).  
 
CARB has estimated annual emissions in 2013, the baseline year for the SB  1383 target, 
to be 16.5 MMTCO 2E. By 2030, annual HFC emissions are expected to grow to 
27.0 MMCO 2E even with existing CARB Rules in place (as of January 1, 2017).  To meet 
a 40 percent  reduction in HFC  emis sions below 2013 levels, annual emissions in 
California must decrease by 17.1 MMTCO 2E to reach 9.9 MMCO 2E per year in annual 
emissions in 2030.   CARB was anticipating achieving 26  percent  of the reductions 
needed from the implementation of the Kigali Amendment in the United States, 
24 percent  from SNAP Rules 20 and 21, 45  percent  from additional CARB regulations 
and incentives for air -conditioning and refrigeration systems , and another 5  percent  from 
other CARB reduction measures , which may include  provisions for transportation 22 
 refrigeration units, heavy -duty motor vehicle air conditioning, and chronically leaking 
refrigeration equipment (see Figure 2 below).  
 
FIGURE 2. POTENTIAL HFC EMISSION REDUCTIONS  
FROM EXISTING AND PROPOSED MEASURES  
 
 
International, national, and state measures will be needed to achieve the 
required HFC Emission Reductions by 2030 in California.  The U.S.  EPA SNAP 
program is an integral part of the measures needed.  
 
In Table 3, CARB  estimates the following HFC emission s reductions , shown in 
MMTCO 2E, in California expected from implementing the proposed  regulation . 
 
TABLE 3. EXPECTED HFC EMISSION S REDUCTIONS  IN CALIFORNIA  
 
Year  Annual Reductions  
(MMTCO 2E) Cumulative Reductions  
(MMTCO 2E) 
2018  0.3 0.3 
2019  0.4 0.7 
2020  0.7 1.4 
2021  0.9 2.4 
2022  1.2 3.6 
2023  1.5 5.1 
2024  1.7 6.8 
2025  2.0 8.8 
2026  2.3 11.1 
2027  2.5 13.6 051015202530Million Metric Tonnes of CO2EHFC Emissions in California, 2030
Business -as-Usual = 27 MMTCO2E 
Emissions Goal = 9.9 MMTCO2E
BAU
U.S. EPA SNAP (24%)Kigali Phasedown (26%)
CARB Regulation and 
Incentives for AC and 
Refrigeration (45%)
Emissions 
GoalOther (5%)
Potential Reductions23 
 Year  Annual Reductions  
(MMTCO 2E) Cumulative Reductions  
(MMTCO 2E) 
2028  2.8 16.5 
2029  3.1 19.6 
2030  3.4 22.9 
 
Appendix B contains additional details on the assumptions and emissions factors used to 
estimate emissions reductions as a result of adopting the proposed regulation.  
 
No reductions in criteria pollutants are anticipated.  
 
V. AIR QUALITY  
 
All air quality benefits are from the reductions of GHGs .  CARB do es not anticipate any  
reduction in criteria or toxic air contaminants.  As shown in the preceding emissions 
reductions table, annual GHG reductions are estimated to be  up to  3.4 MMTCO 2E by t he 
year 2030, with cumulative reductions of 22.9 MMTCO 2E from 2018 through 2030.  
 
Prohibiting the very -high GWP refrigerants may result in added energy efficiency in 
refrigeration equipment using alternative refrigerants, reducing electricity usage, which 
would reduce emissions caused by generating electricity.  However, U.S. EPA did not 
quantify  energy benefits from SNAP  Rules 20 and 21 .  Similarly, California will not 
attempt to show air quality benefits resulting from less electricity generated  as a result of 
this proposed regulation . 
 
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL  ANALYSIS  
 
A. Introductio n 
 
This chapter provides the basis for CARB’s determination that the proposed regulation is 
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  
A brief explanation of this determination is provided in section B below.  
 
CARB’s regulatory program, which involves the adoption, approval, amendment, or 
repeal of standards, rules, regulations, or plans for the protection and enhancement of 
the State’s ambient air quality, has been certified by the California Secretary for Natural 
Resources under Public Resources Code section 21080.5 of CEQA (14 C al. Code Regs. 
§ 15251(d)).  Public agencies with certified regulatory programs are exempt from certain 
CEQA requirements, including but not limited to, preparing environmental impact reports, 
negative declarations, and initial studies.  CARB, as a lead agency, prepares a substitute 
environmental document (referred to as an “Environmental Analysis” or “EA”) as pa rt of 
the Staff Report prepared for a proposed action to comply with CEQA (17  Cal. Code 
Regs. §§ 60000 -60008).  If the regulation is finalized, a Notice of Exemption will be filed 
with the Office of the Secretary for the Natural Resources Agency and the St ate 
Clearinghouse for public inspection.  
 24 
 B. Analysis  
 
CARB has determined that the proposed regulation is categorically exempt from CEQA 
under the “Class 8” exemption (14 C al. Code Regs. § 15308) because it is an action 
taken by a regulatory agency for the p rotection of the environment.  
 
The proposed regulation will add to State regulations the end -use sectors and prohibited 
HFCs as listed in section 95374  of title 17, California Code of Regulations .  The HFC 
prohibitions in end -use sectors that the  U.S. EPA SNAP program currently regulates  are 
at risk of being vacated through federal court action.  The applicable end-use sectors 
and HFC prohibitions as regulated by the U.S.  EPA SNAP program will be adopted  into 
the proposed CARB regulation as listed in section 95374  of title 17, California Code of 
Regulations . 
 
The U.S.  EPA SNAP program is an integral part of meeting the  state’s  target of 
40 percent  reduction in HFC emissions below  2013 levels by 2030 as required by 
SB 1383 and as described in the SLCP  Strategy developed pursuant to that section.  
CARB counts on SNAP for approximately 24  percent  of the reductions needed.  This 
new regulation will assure emissions reduction within California associated with the 
applicable parts of the SNAP Rules through preserving prohibitions  on use of  certain 
substances . 
 
The proposed action is designed to protect the environment and CARB has determined 
there is no substantial evidence indicating the proposal could adversely affect air quality 
or any other en vironmental resource area, or that any of the exceptions to the exemption 
applies (14 C al. Code Regs. § 15300.2); therefore, this activity is exempt from CEQA.  
 
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE  
 
State law defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment of people  of all races, 
cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and 
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.   Government  Code , 
section  65040.12 , subdivision (c). CARB  is committed to making environmental  justice 
an integral part of its activities.   The Board approved its Environmental Justice Policies 
and Actions (Policies) on December 13, 2001, to establish a framework for incorporating 
environmental justice into CARB's programs consistent wit h the direc tives of State law . 
These policies apply to all communities in California, but recognize that environmental 
justice issues have been raised more in the context of low -income and minority 
communities . 
 
The proposed regulation aims to reduce the impacts of c limate change , which would 
otherwise be expected to exacerbate or create environmental injustice.  There are no 
known negative environmental justice impacts that have been identified with regard to 
the proposed regulation.  
 25 
 VIII. ECONOMIC IMPACTS ASSESSMENT  
 
A. Summary  
 
The economic impacts assessment was conducted to meet current legal requirements 
under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  This chapter  contains the estimated 
costs to businesses and public agencies to comply with the proposed amendments to 
the regulation.  
 
The costs of the proposed regulation was estimated by scaling the U.S. EPA nationwide 
cost to California’s 12.1  percent  of the U.S. population, along with manufacturers’ 
markup and the amount of time and materials required to comply with ea ch of the 
adopted  provisions of the proposed regulation for each end -use sector.  The 
approximations of costs provide a general estimate of the economic impacts that typical 
end-use sectors might encounter.  Individual companies may experience different 
impacts than those projected here, depending on various factors.  
 
The cost of the proposed regulation was estimated to be  $4.12 million in compliance 
costs and $130,000 in reporting costs and the one -time cost to update the invoice  
language , for a total of $4.25 million . 
 
CARB has determined that the additional costs of the proposed adoption would not 
adversely affect businesses.  As a result, CARB does not expect a noticeable change in 
employment, business creation, expansion, or elimination, or business co mpetitiveness 
in California.   
 
CARB does anticipate benefits to the health and welfare of California residents and the 
state’s environment as outlined in section IV above but does not anticipate any cost or 
benefits to worker safety.  
 
B. Legal Requirements  
 
Section 11346.2 of the Government Code  requires an economic impact assessment for 
non-major regulations or a standard regulatory impact analys is (SRIA) for major 
regulations  to be included in the ISOR when proposing to adopt, amend, or repeal a  
regulation.   A major regulation is defined  by section 11342.548 of the Government Code  
as a regulation that will have a potential economic impact  to California business 
enter prises and individuals in an amount exceeding $5 0 million in any 12-month period .  
CARB  has determined that the proposed regulatory requirements do not meet the major 
regulation threshold because the economic impact is below $50 million . 
 
For non -major regulations, s ections 11346.2 and 11346.3 of the Government Code 
require state agencies to  assess the potential for adverse economic impacts on 
California business enterprises and individuals when proposing to adopt or amend any 
administrative regulation.   The assessment shall include a consideration of the impact of 
the proposed regulation or amendments on California jobs ; business expansion, 26 
 elimination, or creation ; the ability of California businesses to compete ; and benefits of 
the regulation to the health and welfare of California residents, worker safety, and the 
state’s environment.  
 
The costs to comply with the proposed regulation are below $50 million and less t han 
$10 million in any one year.   Therefore the proposed regulation does not meet the major 
regulation threshold as specified in Government Code section 11342.548 or Health and 
Safety Code section 57005.  
 
C. Cost Impacts  Analysis  
 
The proposed regulation would only apply to entities in the stationary commercial 
refrigeration sector in five end-use categories , and end -use categories in the foam 
sector, which  includes rigid polyurethane and pol yisocyanurate laminated boardstock, 
flexible polyurethane, integral skin polyurethane, and phenolic insulation board and 
bunstock  (Table 4).  The regulatory costs and benefits include the following: The number 
of affected bu sinesses is 49,500, of that, 28,400 (62  percent ) are small companies. In 
total, the cost of the proposed regulation will result i n an impact of $4.25 million  over its 
lifetime of 20 years.  The impact on state government will be $658,000  in the next three 
years .  The proposed regulation will not result in the  creation of jobs  because  of the 
minimal cost impact of the proposed regulation.   The impact to health and welfare of 
California residents, workers safety, or California ’s environment due to the proposed 
regulation will be approximately 3.4 MMTCO 2E reduction in HFC emissions annually  by 
2030 . A more expansive description of the costs by sector is described in Table 5.  
 
TABLE 4: SECTORS AFFECTED BY PROPOSED REGULATION  
 
End Use Sector  Number of 
Affected 
Companies  Number of 
Small 
Companies  Percentage 
of Small 
Companies  
Supermarket Systems - Retail Food  2,700  1,100  41 
Remote Condensing Units  43,100  27,300  63 
Stand -alone Equipment - Retail Food  30 20 67 
Vending Machines  10 0 0 
Retail Food Refrigeration – New Refrigerated Food 
Processing and Dispensing Equipment  20 0 0 
Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing  10 0 0 
Polyurethane and Other Foam Product Manufacturing  60 0 0 
Total  45,900  28,400  62 
 
 
 
 27 
 Breakdown of Affected Businesses by  Sector  
 
Retail Food Refrigeration – Supermarket Systems : 
 
The proposed regulation would affect a total of 2, 700 companies: approximately 
340 refrigeration equipment manufacturers  based on equipment registered in the 
CARB RMP  Refrigerant Regis tration and Reporting System (R3) tool’s online 
database;  approximately 2,000 contractors with the appropriate and active State 
C-38 or C-20 license to install or retrofit the refrigerant contained in the 
refrigeration equipment ; and approximately 3 60 retail food companies that could 
retrofit their existing equipment by removing the existing refrigerant and replacing 
it with a compliant refrigerant in the same equipment  based on registered 
companies in R3 . 
 
The CARB R3 has a list of 170 of the principal ref rigeration equipment  
manufacturers used in the registration of refrigeration equipment .  The list was 
derived from outreach to facilities with stationary refrigeration equipment  regulated 
under the RMP regulation.  Additional entries by R3 users indicate t he existence 
of a total of approximately 3 40 manufacturers.  In the registration of refrigeration 
equipment  in R3 , the top 10 manufacturers constitute 55  percent  of the registered 
refrigeration equipment .  None of the equipment manufacturers are believed to be 
located in California and they are not expected to be small businesses .  Based on  
the manufacturing scale needed to produce the equipment , none of these 
manufacturers are expected to have fewer than 100 employees.  
 
The installation of the equipment i s mostly done by construction contractors with 
the required California Contractor State License Board (CSLB) license ( C-38 – 
Refrigeration Contractor),  or larger equipment service companies who also have 
the appropriate required contractor’s license.  The service companies would also 
be the entities that retrofit existing equipment.  CARB  estimates that 
approximately 43  percent  (860) of the 2,000 installers and service companies are 
considered to be small businesses because they are independently owned and 
operated with fewer than 100 employees.  
 
The SNAP Rules that are to be adopted  in the proposed regulation also apply to 
retrofits of the existing equipment to remove the existing refrigerant and replac e it 
with a new refrigerant in the same equipment.  The R3 data was again used to 
determine the number of entities with refrigeration equipment  in the retail food 
sector expected  to retrofit the refrigerant in their refrigeration systems that would 
be affec ted by the proposed regulation , which include the following  North 
American Industry Classification System ( NAICS ) codes : 445110, 452910, 
452112, 447110, 453998, 445299, 445230, 445120, 445210, 445291, 445220, 
452990  and 446191.  These data indicate approximately 360  retail food 
companies registered in R3.  
 28 
 All companies in the state with facilities that use at least one refrigeration system  
with more than 50 pounds of refrigerant are required to register using the R3 
online reporting system .  Of thes e approximately 360 companies, approximately  
300 have Dun and Bradstreet employee number information and approximately 
200 (72 percent ) were determined likely to be small businesses with fewer than 
100 employees.  Extrapolating from this  percent  of small b usinesses to the total 
360 companies indicates approximately  260 small businesses.  Although the 
aforementioned entities would potentially choose to  retrofit, there is no 
require ment  to retrofit.  Each year approximately  3 percent  of the facilities are 
likely to retrofit their refrigerant type.  Likewise, approximately  7 percent  of the 
facilities are likely to install new refrigeration systems each year.  
 
Remote Condensing Units : 
 
Remote condensing units are manufactured by an estimated 10  manufacturers , 
8 of which account for more than 90  percent  of new equipment .  None of 
equipment manufacturers are believed to be located in California and they are not 
expected to be small businesses due to the manufacturing scale needed to 
produce the equipment; none are expected to have fewer than 100 employees.  
 
An estimated 43,100 f acilities that contain remote condensing units  are potentially 
subject to retrofit requirements .  These  would include convenience stores, 
specialty food stores, pharmacies and drug stores, ho tels, and restaurants.  
Of these stores there are approximately 1 4,000  convenience and specialty food 
stores and 3,3 00 pharmacies and drug stores in California  (NAICS codes 44512, 
44521, 44522, 44523, 445291, 445292, 445299, 4453, 446110, 452990.  
In addit ion there are approximately 2 6,000 hotels and restaurants  (NAICS codes 
72111, 72112, 72211, 722211, 722212, 722213, 72241) that are likely to have 
remote condensing units potentially subject to retrofit of the refrigerant type  (ICF 
2015a, 2015b) .  Approximately 63  percent , or 27, 300, are likely to be small 
businesses . 
 
Although the aforementioned entities may potentially choose to retrofit, there is no 
requirement to retrofit.  Approximately 5  percent  of the affected entities are 
expected to replace  their existing refrigeration system with a new refrigeration 
system , assuming a 20 -year equipment lifetime.  
 
The same set of service companies as noted above in the supermarket systems 
discussion would be affected to retrofit remote condensing units.  
 
Stand-Alone Retail Food Refrigeration Units : 
 
Stand -alone (self -contained) refrigeration units used in retail food refrigeration are 
found at many convenience stores, supermarkets, and restaurants.  According to 
information derived from the North American Ass ociation of Food Equipment 
Manufacturers  (NAFEM ), there are approximately 30 manufacturers of the 29 
 stand -alone refrigeration units affected by the proposed regulation of which 
90 percent  of the market share are manufactured by large companies and 
10 percent  by small businesses.  Twenty  manufacturers were determined to be 
small businesses with fewer than 100 employees  who account for the remaining 
10 percent  of the market share . 
 
Approximately 5  percent  of the affected entities are expected to replace their  
existing equipment  with a new equipment , assuming a 20 -year equipment lifetime.  
Stand-alone units are typically not economical to retrofit because they are small 
units; they are more likely to be replaced with new units.  However, for those that 
retrofit , the same set of service companies (as noted above in the supermarket 
systems discussion ) would be the affected entities and be affected similarly . 
 
Vending Machines : 
 
Based on information provided by the vending machine industry, t here are 
approximately 10 companies who manufacture the equipment and would be 
affected by the proposed regulation, of which none are considered to be small 
businesses.  Of these 10 companies,  2 account for more than 50  percent  of the 
vending machines manu factured.   Approximately 7 percent  of the existing vending 
machines  are expected to be replace d with new vending machines each year. 
The lifetime of a vending machine is on average, 15 years.  Vending machines 
are typically not economical to retrofit becau se they are small units; they are more 
likely to be replaced with new units.  
 
Retail Food Refrigeration – New Refrigerated Food Processing and Dispensing 
Equipment : 
 
There are approximately 20 companies who manufacture the refrigerated food 
processing and dispensing equipment  (ICF 2016)  and they are not considered to 
be small businesses.  
 
Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing : 
 
There  are approximately  10 potentially  affected  businesses  who manufacture  the 
foam  systems  (companies  who manufacture  the basic  chemical  composition)  of 
polystyrene  foam  (ICF 2015b) .  None  of the manufacturers  are considered  small  
businesses.   These  businesses  use HFCs  in their product,  however,  the specific  
HFC that they are known  to use (HFC -152a)  is not affected  by the prohibiti ons.  
The companies  who manufacture  the foam  systems  typically  market  the foam  
system  to other  manufactures  and consumers  who combine  the elements  of the 
foam  system  to make  a foam  product.   The SNAP  prohibitions  for this end-use 
went  into effect  January  1, 2017,  thus all foam  system  manufactures  are currently  30 
 not using  the prohibited  HFCs and are not affected  by the proposed  regulation  
with the exception  of the record -keeping  and disclosure  provisions.  
 
Urethane and Other Foam Product Manufacturing : 
 
There  are approximately  60 businesses  potentially  affected  by the proposed  
regulation  who manufacture  foam  systems  for polyurethane  products  in the four 
affected  end-use categories  (Rigid  Polyurethane  and Polyisocyanurate  Laminated  
Boardstock,  Flexible  Polyuret hane,  Integral  Skin Polyurethane,  and Phenolic  
Insulation  Board  and Bunstock ; ICF 2016) .  However,  none  of these  businesses  
use HFCs  prohibited  by SNAP  Rule 20 in the foam  systems  (ICF 2015a) .  
The SNAP  prohibitions  for these end-uses went  into effect  Janu ary 1, 2017,  thus 
all manufactures  are current ly not using  the prohibited  HFCs and are not affected  
by the proposed  regulation .  The end-uses  are included  in the regulation  to 
prevent  new businesses  entering  the field from using  HFCs  if the SNAP  Appendix  
U (Rule  20) is vacated  by the courts.   None  of the manufacturers  are considered  
small  businesses.  
 
Overall, of a total of 45, 900 potentially affected businesses  (Table 4) , 62 percent  
or 28,4 00 businesses are considered to be small businesses because they are 
independently owned and operated and have fewer than 100 employees.  
 
Methodology  
 
The costs of the proposed regulation was estimated by scaling the U.S. EPA nationwide 
cost to California’s 12.1  percent  of the U.S. population, along with manufacturers’ 
markup and the amount of time and materials required to comply with each of the 
adopted provisions of the proposed regulation for each end -use sector.  
 
To determine the costs of SNAP Rules  20 and 21 , the U.S.  EPA commissioned studies 
by ICF International  that estimated the nationwide annualized costs of the Rules  
(ICF 2015 b, 2016 ).  The studies determined that SNAP Rule 20 was unlikely to impose 
cost on the retail food industry.  The industry would con tinue to operate under BAU 
because the SNAP Rules do  not require any business transition to a lower -GWP 
refrigerant or alternative technology.  
 
The studies, however, estimated the nationwide annualized cost of SNAP R ule 20 to be 
$1.8 million at  a 7 percent  discount rate over a 20 -year equipment life, or approximately 
$19.1 million in total, for manufacturers of stand -alone equipment and vending machines 
as shown in Table 5.  The studies for SNAP R ule 21 show an annualized nationwide cost 
to be $0.42 million  over a 20 -year equipment life, or approximately $4.4 million in total for 
manufacturers of refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment.  The total 
nation -wide cost of the portions of SNAP R ules 20 and 21 in the proposed regulation is 
$23.5 milli on (ICF 2015b, 2016) .  The California share of the costs were then estimated 
based on the California apportioned share of the national population: 12.1  percent  of the 
U.S. population between 2010 and 2016; therefore, indicating that the California share of  31 
 the Federal total compliance cost would be $2.8 million.   Considering the refrigeration 
industry average gross profit margin  of 31  percent  as percent  of sales  for the past five 
years  (Bizminer 2017) , the California share of the federal total compliance cost including 
the mark -up cost from manufacturers to California buyers would amount to 
$4.12 [i.e., $2.8/(1 – 0.31)] million.   The California estimated costs are likely to be on the 
high side because some affected manufacturers hav e already complied with the federal 
SNAP rules.  
 
TABLE 5: COSTS TO SECTORS AFFECTED BY PROPOSED REGULATION  
 
End Use Sector  U.S. 
Initial 
Cost 
(Million  $) California 
Initial 
Cost P lus 
Mark -up 
(Million  $) California Initial 
Cost Per 
Manufacturer  
Typical 
Business  Small 
Business  
Supermarket Systems - Retail Food  0 0 0 0 
Remote Condensing Units  0 0 0 0 
Stand -alone Equipment - Retail Food  16.1 2.8 254,100  14,100  
Vending Machines  3.0 0.5 52,000  0 
Retail Food Refrigeration – New Refrigerated 
Food Processing and Dispensing Equipment  4.4 0.8 38,900  0 
Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing  0 0 0 0 
Polyurethane and Other Foam Product 
Manufacturing  0 0 0 0 
Total  23.5 4.1 - - 
 
Supermarket  systems,  remote  condensing  units,  polystyrene  foam  manufacturing,  and 
polyurethane  foam  manufacturing  end uses  all have  compliance  dates  in the SNAP  
Rules  of January  1, 2017  or before,  therefore,  no additional  costs  are attributable  to this 
proposed  regulation  to meet  the reducti ons in use of the specified  HFCs. 
 
If enacted as a State regulation, the proposed regulation would require affected 
manufacturers to maintain records although it does not mandate routine reporting;  the 
regulation allows CARB to request the records when desired .  CARB has found that 
manufacturers currently record the information required for other purposes, such as 
warrantees, etc.; thus, no additional cost is indicated for record -keeping.  
 
Since  the manufacturers  are nation -wide,  a nation -wide estimate  of employee  wages  and 
benefits  was used.   According  to the U.S. Bureau  of Labor  Statistics  (BLS 2017 ), 
employee  compensation  for the manufacturing  sector  the median  wage  was $25.98  per 
hour in June  2017  and the benefit  amounted  to $13.86  (53.4  percent  of the hourly  wage).   
Therefore,  total hourly  labor  cost was estimated  to be $39.84.  
 32 
 The disclosure  statement  mandated  by the regulation  on each  invoice  would  require  a 
one-time change  to the invoice  language.   This change  is estimated  to take one hour;  
approximately  $40 per refrigeration  equipment  manufacturer  and $16,135  (i.e., $39.84  x 
405) for all manufacturers.   The disclosure  statement  is also mandated  by the proposed  
regulation  for the foam  end-use sectors.   Incorporating  the disclosure  statement  on the 
invoice  would  require  a one-time change  to the invoice  language.   This change  is 
estimated  to take one hour,  approximately  $40 per affected  foam  manufacturer  and 
$2,789  (i.e. $39.84 x 70) for all manufacturers.  
 
Although  there  are no legal  requirements  on how often  CARB  can and will request  
records , for the purpose  of providing  a cost estimate,  CARB  could  request  records  from 
the manufacturers  the first and second  year,  then the fifth year and every  five years  
thereafter.   CARB  estimates  that it will take one hour to query  the records  for this report;  
approximately  $239  (i.e., $39.84  x 6) per manufacturer  and $98,811  (i.e., $239  x 405) for 
all manufacturers  over 20 years.   Similarly,  to provide  a cost estimate  CARB  could  
reques t records  from the polystyrene  foam  manufacturers  for the first and second  year,  
then the fifth year and every  five years  thereafter  for a total of 6 times  over 20 years.   
CARB  estimates  that it will take one hour to query  the records  for this report;  
appro ximately  $239  (i.e., $39.84  x 6) per polystyrene  foam  manufacturer  and $16,733  
(i.e., $239  x 70) for all manufacturers  over 20 years.  
 
Therefore, total statewide costs of the regulation over its 20 -year lifetime are estimated 
to be $4. 25 million (i.e. $4.1 2 million in compliance costs plus $ 130,000  in disclosure and 
record production  costs) over its 20 -year lifetime . 
 
Cost to Small Business es 
 
The initial  cost for small  businesses  for all affected  sectors  except  stand -alone  
equipment  for the retail  food sector  are expected  to be zero.   The stand -alone  sector  is 
the only affected  sector  in which  CARB  has identified  small  businesses.   The initial  cost 
for small  businesses  in the stand -alone  equipment  sector,  however,  is expected  to be 
approximately  $14,200, including  approximately  $14,100  compliance  cost,  $40 one-time 
cost to update  the invoice  to include  the disclosure  statement,  and $40 to query  and 
submit  the sales  records  in response  to an expected  CARB  request.   Annual  ongoing  
cost will be $40 only in years  2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 when  sales  records  are expected  to be 
requested.  
 
Cost to Typical  Business es 
 
The initial cost for a typical business  is expected to range from  approximately  $80 to 
$254,200, including $0 to $ 254,100  compliance cost, $40 one -time cost to update the 
invoice to include the disclosure statement, and $40 to query and submit the sales 
records in response to an expected CARB re quest.  Annual ongoing cost will be $40 only 
in years  2, 5, 19, 15, and 20 when  records are expected to be requested.  
 
 33 
 TABLE 6. INITIAL AND ONGOING COSTS FOR A TYPICAL BUSINESS  
*Ongoing  cost occurs  only in years  2, 5, 10, 15 and 20 when  sales  records  are requested.  
 
Since affected businesses already maintain the required records, the cost of record -
keeping is zero.  However, affected manufacturers are expected to make a one -time 
change to their invoice language and report their sales records in years 1, 2, 5, and 
every five years thereafter when CARB is expected to request records.  CARB  estimates 
it will take one hour to update the invoice language and one hour to query the records 
per manufacturer at the total reporting cost of $80  in the first year and $40 per report in 
years 2, 5, 10, 25, and 20 when CARB is expected to request sales records form 
manufacturers.  
 
Cost to State Government and Local Agencies  
 
The proposed regulation is expected  to have no impacts  on local agencies , school 
districts,  or State government  agenc ies except CARB.  The agency will require two 
additional Air Pollution Specialist (APS) staff to implement and enforce the proposed 
regulation starting in the 2018 -2019 fiscal year.  The staff cost is zero in the current 
(2017 -2018) fiscal year and $330,000 fo r the 2018 -2019 first year and $328,000 for 
2019 -2020 and thereafter, for a total three -year cost of $658,000.  
 
IX. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES  
 
Government Code section 11346.2 , subdivision (b)(4) requires CARB  to consider and 
evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed regulatory action and provide reasons 
for rejecting those alternatives.  This section discusses alternatives evaluated and 
provides reasons why these alternatives were not included in the pr oposal.  As explained 
below, n o alternative proposed was found to be less burdensome and equally effective in 
achieving the purposes of the regulation in a manner than ensures full compliance with 
the authorizing law.  The Board has not identified any reas onable alternatives that would 
lessen any adverse impact on small business.  
 End Use Sector  Initial Cost  Ongoing 
Cost*  
Supermarket Systems - Retail Food  $80 $40 
Remote Condensing Units  $80 $40 
Stand -alone Equipment - Retail Food  $254,200  $40 
Vending Machines  $52,100  $40 
Retail Food Refrigeration – New Refrigerated Food Processing 
and Dispensing Equipment  $39,000  $40 
Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing  $80 $40 
Polyurethane and Other Foam Product Manufacturing  $80 $40 34 
 Alternative 1: No Action  
 
The first alternative CARB staff considered was to take no action.  CARB staff 
rejected this alternative because without the proposed  rule, AB 32, SB 32 and SB 
1383  emission s reductions  targets would be seriously jeopardized  – California would 
lose the expected annual emissions reduction of 3.4 MMTCO 2E. Immediate action is 
key to counteract the uncertainty caused by the August 8, 2017 D.C. Circuit  Court 
ruling in Mexichem Fluor v. U.S. EPA  and to prevent harm to the environment that 
reverting back to high -GWP refrigerants  and foam blowing agents  would cause.  
In addition, CARB  would be left without enforcement mechanisms to achieve the 
emissions re duction required by statute in the event that the SNAP Rules  are vacated 
or otherwise held unenforceable by a federal court.  California enforcement entities 
are more familiar with the affected entities and better able to provide focused and 
effective enfo rcement.  
 
Alternative 2: Adopt U.S. EPA SNAP Rules in t heir Entirety  
 
The second  alternative  would  be to adopt  SNAP  Rules  20 and 21 for all end-use 
sectors , not just specific  end-uses  (foam,  retail  food refrigeration  and vending  
machine  end-uses ).  Other  end-uses  listed  in SNAP  Rules  20 and 21, which  are not 
being  addressed  through  this proposed  rulemaking  by CARB  include  propellants,  
solvents,  certain  foam  blowing  end-uses , fire suppressant s, chillers,  cold storage  
warehouses,  household  refrigerators  and freezers,  and air-conditioning  end-uses  
including  motor  vehicle  air conditioning  (MVAC) . This alternative  was proposed  by 
environmental  groups  after the workshop.  
 
This alternative  would  increase  annual  emissions  reduction  from a maximum  of 3.4 
MMTCO 2E to 4.1 MMTCO 2E by 2030  (an increase  of 0.7 MMTCO 2E in reductions).   
However,  adopting  all SNAP  requirements  would  increase  the California  share  of 
total federal  compliance  costs,  including  mark -up, by 39 times  from $4.1 million  to 
$162.2 million.   The pie chart below  (Figure  3) shows  the relative  HFC emissions  in 
California  from end-use sectors  included  in SNAP  Rules  20 and 21 prohibitions.   Note  
that the pie chart  only shows  HFC emissions  reductions  from those  end-use sectors  
specifically  regulated  by SNAP  Rules 20 and 21. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 35 
 FIGURE 3. POTENTIAL HFC EMISSIONS REDUCTION S BY 2030 IN END -USE 
SECTORS COVERED BY SNAP RULES 20 AND  21 ADDRESSED BY THIS 
PROPOSED REGULATION  
 
 
Potential emissions reduction from end -use Sectors in SNAP Rules not covered by the proposed 
regulation are shaded green.  Other  actions may be taken to reduce emissions from these sectors.  
 
Approximately , a maximum annual emission reduction of 4.1 MMTCO 2 in year 2030 
is expected from SNAP Rules 20 and 21.  This regulation will achieve  up to  
approximately 3.4  MMTCO 2E annual emissions reduction  by 2030, which is 
approximately 80  percent  of the emissions reduction expected from SNAP Rules.  
The remaining HFC emissions from end -use sectors not directly included in this 
regulation will be a ddressed and mitigated through other measures, as discussed 
below  and in Section I. Subsection O “California Adaptation of HFC Prohibitions 
Listed in Federal Rules.”  
 
Remaining SNAP Rules 20 and 21 End -Use Sectors to be Addressed Through  Other 
Actions  
 
For reference, we show the relative emissions of just those end -use sectors in 
SNAP Rules 20 and 21 not covered directly by this regulation (the following pie 
chart Figure 4 is a subset of the green shaded sectors in the previous Figure 3) .  
Figure 4 shows th at the light -duty MVAC sector comprises more than two -thirds of 
the HFC emissions in SNAP Rules 20 and 21 end -use sectors that will be 
addressed through other actions.  The rationale for not adopting MVAC and the 
other end -use sectors within this regulatio n is described below.  
 
 The proposed regulation 
acheives ≈ 3.4 MMTCO2E 
reductions from the following 
end-use sectors: 
.
●Supermarket Systems
●Remote Condensing Units
●Stand -alone
(Self -contained)
●Refrigerated Food
Processing and
Dispensing Equipment
●Vending Machines
●Foam (specific end -uses)The proposed regulation 
does not include 
emissions reductions 
(≈ 0.7 MMTCO2E)from the 
following end -use sectors:
.
●Light -duty MVAC
●Chillers
●Cold Storage
●Aerosol Propellants
●Household 
Refrigerator -Freezers
●Foam (several end -
uses)80%20%Potential 
Reductions in CA 
from SNAP Rules ≈ 
4.1 MMTCO2E36 
 FIGURE 4. RELATIVE HFC EMISSIONS FROM END -USE SECTORS IN SNAP 
RULES 20 AND 21 TO BE ADDRESSED THROUGH OTHER ACTIONS  
 
 
 
Relative emissions of end -use sectors regulated by SNAP Rules 20 and 21.  CARB analysis 
2017.  
 
MVAC - Light Duty  Vehicles : 
 
CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) program in 2012.  This program, 
developed in coordination with U.S. EPA  and National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA), combined the control of smog -causing pollutants and 
GHG emissions int o a single coordinated set of requirements for model years 
2015 through 2025.  The requirements of the ACC  program in California were 
subsequently adopted nationally as a Federal Program.  
 
Although SNAP Rule 20 bans HFC -134a (GWP 1430) for light -duty MVAC 
beginning Model Year MY  2021, many auto manufacturers are already making 
light-duty vehicles with AC systems using HFO -1234yf as the refrigerant, with a 
GWP less than 10.  Other auto manufacturers are developing MVAC  systems 
using CO 2 as the refrigerant (G WP of one).  The Federal Clean Cars program 
gives auto makers fuel efficiency credit incentives for low -leak, low -GWP, and 
fuel-efficient MVAC systems for new light -duty vehicles.  
 
Chillers : 
 
SNAP Rule 21 prohibits certain high -GWP HFCs in new chillers for  most uses 
beginning January 1, 2024.  CARB has proposed regulations (as part of the SLCP 
Strategy) to prohibit all high -GWP refrigerants from new chillers beginning Light -duty 
MVAC
68%
Aerosol 
Propellants
12%Insulating 
Foam
7%Chillers
6%Household 
Refrigerator -
freezers
4%Cold Storage
3%37 
 January 1, 2021.  Therefore, the  existing  SNAP  Rule 21  prohibitions will be 
redundant and unnecessary for California.  
 
Cold Storage : 
 
SNAP Rule 21 prohibits certain high -GWP HFCs in new chillers beginning 
January 1, 2023.  Cold storage facilities using more than 50 pounds of high -GWP 
refrigerant in any system are already covered by the leak inspection and repair 
requirements of the RMP .  As part of the SLCP Strategy, CARB proposed 
regulations will include cold storage in the stationary refrigeration requirements, 
which prohibit high -GWP refrigerants in new equipment beginning January 1, 
2021.  
 
Foam : 
 
CARB is including the foam sectors cov ered by SNAP Rule 20 prohibitions in 
certain HFCs beginning January 1, 2017.  The other foam sectors where the 
SNAP Rule 20 and 21 HFC prohibitions have not yet begun will be addressed 
through additional rulemaking in California  when CARB begins to adopt S LCP 
Strategy measures . 
 
Aerosol Propellants : 
 
CARB has had consumer product aerosol propellant regulations in place since 
2008 that prohibit propellant s with a GWP of 150 or greater  in spray dusters 
(keyboard dusters), boat horns, tire inflators, and other  consumer aerosol 
products.   The SNAP Rule 20 prohibitions on HFC -125, HFC -134a, HFC -227ea, 
and blends of HFC -134a and HFC -227ea in new aerosol propellant products 
beginning January 1, 2016 , are either covered by existing CARB regulations or 
will be consid ered in the future. Therefore, adopting SNAP requirement for 
aerosol propellants is not necessary.  
 
Household Refrigerator -Freezers : 
 
SNAP Rule 21 prohibits certain high -GWP HFCs in new refrigerator -freezers 
beginning January 1, 2021.  According to the Ass ociation of Home Appliance 
Manufacturers (AHAM) the appliance industry determined that in order to meet 
Department of Energy ( DOE ) energy efficiency requirements for new equipment , 
the best alternative refrigerant to replace HFC -134a was isobutane  (R-600a), a 
highly flammable hydrocarbon.  However, SNAP regulations limited the amount of 
highly flammable refrigerant in equipment  to 57 grams or less, which was 
insufficient to operate a standard household refrigerator -freezer.  Appliance 
industry plan s to transition to isobutane refrigerant were delayed while appealing 
to the U.S. EPA to increase the allowable refrigerant charge sizes of highly 
flammable refrigerants.  
 38 
 On November 20, 2017, U.S. EPA issued a new rule that allowed up to 150 grams 
of hig hly flammable refrigerants in new household refrigerator -freezers, paving the 
way for manufacturers to begin producing low -GWP equipment .  AHAM has 
proposed a  voluntary transition , nationally to low -GWP refrigerant, low -GWP 
insulation equipment  from all ma jor applia nce manufacturers.  
 
CARB will work in collaboration with U.S. EPA and the appliance industry to 
ensure that the voluntary program is backed up by alte rnate requirements if 
necessary and may consider  including this sector in future rulemakings.  
 
The CARB analysis of HFC end -use sectors covered in SNAP Rules 20 and 21 
concludes that HFC emissions from the end -use sectors not included in this 
regulation will be reduced more effectively using the alternate reductions 
approaches described above.  
 
Alternative 3: Small Business Alternative  
 
CARB considered an exemption for small business to lessen any potential adverse 
impact.  This alternative was rejected for the following four reasons.  First, the 
proposed regulation is the adaptation of a portion of federal SNAP Rules which have 
been or are at risk of being vacated.  CARB’s exemption of small businesses will be 
in contradiction of the SNAP Rules if they are not vacated .  Second, any exem ption of 
small businesses would be temporary because CARB needs the emissions reduction 
from small businesses to achieve emissions reduction targets for 2030.   A delay in 
the implementation of the proposed regulation requirements on small business would 
be less cost effective.  Third, an exemption for small businesses will create confusion 
among end -users because it would be difficult to distinguish between compliant and 
non-compliant equipment.   Finally, enforcement would be significantly complicated 
becau se inspectors would have to distinguish between compliant and non -compliant 
equipment on the basis of  the business size  of the equipment manufacturer . 
 
Alternative 4: Performance Standards in Place of Prescriptive Standards  
 
The proposed regulation does not mandate the use of specific technologies or 
equipment.  It prohibits use of certain HFCs and requires the regulated parties to 
keep certai n records and insert a disclosure  statement on their invoice explaining the 
equipment or product is legal for sale in California.  It is not clear whether the list of 
prohibited substances are prescriptive standards because there are many ways to 
comply with the requirements and there is no requirement to use a specific 
substance.  However to the extent that these standards are prescriptive, they are 
necessary to ensure proper reductions in HFCs to mitigate climate change, and to 
comply with legal mandates.  To the extent the disclaimer an d record -keeping 
requirements are prescriptive, they are necessary  for proper enforcement of the 
regulation without significant cost to the regulated party and to place the consumer on 
notice.  39 
 Health and Safety Code section 57005 Major Regulation Alternati ves 
 
The proposed regulation will not result in a total economic impact on state businesses  
of more than $10 million in one or more years of implementation.  Therefore, this 
proposal is not  a major regulation as defined by  Health and Safety Code section 
57005.  
 
X. JUSTIFICATION FOR ADOPTION OF REGULATIONS DIFFERENT  FROM 
FEDERAL REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE CODE OF FEDERAL 
REGULATIONS  
 
Under s ection 612 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7671k) U.S. EPA is authorized to 
require direct replacement of ozone -depleting substances.  Sections 604 -606 of the 
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7671c -e) imposes  a specific phase -out schedule  for listed 
substances .  Under the SNAP program, U.S. EPA adopted a list of ozone -depleting 
substances that must be replaced and also lists substances for replacement and 
substances that are “safe” or unsafe substitutes.  Under the SNAP program, U.S. EPA 
may require manufacturers to stop using listed chemicals and replace them with listed 
safe substitute substan ces.  The lists of safe and prohibited substances are fluid and 
may change over time.  In 2015, U.S. EPA promulgated a final rule (“2015 Rule”) that 
removed HFCs from the “safe” substitute category list to the “prohibited” list (40 C.F.R. 
Part 82, Subpart G). 
 
Mexichem Fluor, Inc. and Arkema, Inc. sought review of U.S. EPA’s 2015 Rule , arguing 
that U.S. EPA did not have authority to require manufacturers to replace HFCs with 
alternative substances.  The D.C. Circuit granted the petitions and vacated the 201 5 
Rule to the extent it requires manufacturers to replace HFCs with a substitute substance  
if the manufacturers replaced the use of ozone -depleting substances with the HFCs at a 
time when the HFCs were considered a safe substitute substance .  En banc revie w of 
the D.C. Circuit decision is being considered.  However, even if en banc review is 
granted and the decision is reversed, it is expected for this case to ultimately result in 
U.S. Supreme Court review, which will take at a minimum, two years for Califo rnia to 
know the ultimate resolution.  
 
Even if the SNAP Rules are not vacated, CARB’s proposed regulations are authorized 
by law.  Under the federal Clean Air Act , 42 U.S.C. 7401(c), Congress stated the 
purpose of the law is to provide states with the primary responsibility to reduce air 
pollution and this section of the federal Clean Air Act related to ozone -depleting 
substances  does not specifically preempt state regulations.   Moreover, California’s 
proposed regulation does not duplicate the federal standard but rather, is narrower and 
more stringent .  California’s proposed regulation is concerned with reducing HFC 
emissions within California while the SNAP Rules are concerned w ith limiting HFC 
emissions nationwide.  
 
 40 
 The proposed regulations are necessary and t he cost of differing State regulations is 
justified by the benefit to human health, public safety, public welfare, or the environment. 
Under AB 32, SB 32, and SB 1383, Cal ifornia has specific legal mandates that it must 
meet to reduce both GHGs and HFCs.  If the D.C. Circuit’s ruling stands, it will 
profoundly disrupt California’s efforts to reduce HFC emissions in California as mandated 
by State law . The use of HFCs is increasing in California.  Also, the products using HFCs 
often have a n average  lifetime upwards of 15 to 20 years.  Once a product using HFCs is 
installed or otherwise placed into use in California, it is difficult to require removal, an d 
thus “locks in” those HFC emissions for 15 or more years.  Therefore, California must 
ensure use of HFCs is curtailed as soon as possible, otherwise it will become  far more 
difficult to fend off increases of HFCs.  
 
XI. PUBLIC PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION  (PRE-
REGULATORY INFORMATION ) 
 
The original SNAP Rules were  the subject of a lengthy public process to develop the 
regulations, with U.S. EPA working closely with stakeholders beginning with an August 6, 
2014 Federal Register Notice of Propos ed Rulemaking, with adoption dates of July 20, 
2015 for Rule 20, and December 1, 2016 for Rule 21.  Costs, benefits, and requirements 
of the se SNAP  Rules were developed in collaboration with national stakeholders by 
actively soliciting feedback and sharing  information pertinent to the proposed rulemaking.  
 
Consistent with Government Code sections 11346, subdivision (b), and 11346.45, 
subdivision (a), and with the Board’s long -standing practice, CARB staff held a public 
workshop and had several other meeting s with interested stakeholders during the 
development of the proposed regulation.  
 
CARB staff have  worked closely for the past eight years with the regulated entities , many 
of which are  subject to California’s RMP that was approved by the Board on December 
9, 2009.  CARB have also worked with these same stakeholders in the development of 
the AB 32 Scoping Plan (2008 and the updated 2014 version), and in the development of 
the SLCP Strategy (CARB 2017 a). 
 
For this rulemaking, CARB staff held a pre -rulemaking public workshop on October 24, 
2017 , to discuss the proposed action and related proposals.  The workshop presentation 
and draft rule language as well as other workshop details and background materials 
including CARB’s Kigali Amendment California R eductions Methodology Final Draft 
(CARB 2017 c) were posted online and public feedback was solicited, received and 
analyzed via questions during the workshop as well as written comments at a new HFC 
Measures webpage  (https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/hfc -reduction -measures -rulemaking ).  
Written comments were invited to be submitted at an online portal through November 10, 
2017.  Thirteen public comments were received at the comment submission webp age.6  
                                                 
 
6 CARB, Workshop Comment Log , https://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm2/bccommlog.php?listname=hfc -
measure -ws (last visited Dec. 28, 2017).  41 
 The workshop was webcast and the video recording of the workshop was posted online,7 
which had been requested by a number of stakeholders.  
 
The workshop was advertised broadly in advance using related CARB email lists, 
webpages and other outreach methods, while simultaneously advertising the availability 
of a new dedicated email list and webpage for future HFC measure related 
announcements.8 
 
The development of this regulatory proposal has further been aided and informed by 
related public processes .  These related sources of input have included:  
 
 The U.S. EPA regulatory process , particularly for SNAP Rules 20 and 21, 
including public comments received, as documented in the Federal Register 
and elsewhere;  
 The development of CARB’s Short -Lived Climate  Pollutant Strategy, re quired 
by legislation (SB  605 and SB  1383),  which included numerous workshops 
throughout the state as well as a CEQA review process;  
 Directly meeting with diverse stakeholders upon request;  
 Review of published contemporary industry n ews and opinion articles and 
other communications found in trade journals, newspapers and other written 
sources;  and 
 Informational meetings with other regulatory entities , including U.S. EPA and 
other agencies.  
 
These informal pre -rulemaking discussions provided CARB  with useful information that 
was considered during development of the regulation that is now being proposed for 
formal public comment.  
 
 
X. REFERENCES  
 
1. (Bizmin er 2017) Bizminer; Industry Financial Report, [3334] Ventilation, Heating, Air -
Conditioning, and Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing, ALL US, 
Sales Class: industry -wide, Sector: Manufacturing, NAICS -6 industries Applied: 
333413, 333414, 333415. Release date: June 2017, produced fo r ISOR on 
December 14, 2017 
(http://www.bizminer.com/reports/if_report.php?id=1549779&format=html ). 
 
2. (BLS  2017) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Table 11, Private industr y workers, 
by major industry group: employer costs per hours worked for employee 
compensation and costs as a  percent age of total compensation, 2004 -2017. In: 
                                                 
 
7 CARB, Workshop  (Oct. 24, 2017), available at 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=0SOTKiIucMI  
8 CARB, HFC Reduction Measures , https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our -work/programs/hfc -reduction -measures  
(last visited Dec. 28, 2017).  42 
 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, National Compensation Survey, 
p. 220.  September 2017.  
 
3. (CARB  2016a)  California’s High Global Warming Potential Gases Emission 
Inventory: Emission Inventory Methodology and Technical Support Document, 
2015  Edition.  April 2016.  
 
4. (CARB 2016b ) California’s 2000 -2014 Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory: 
Technical Support Document, 2016 Edition.  September 2016.  
 
5. (CARB 2017a ) Short -Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy.  March 2017.  
 
6. (CARB 2017 b) California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2015 - Trends of 
Emissions and Other Indicators , 2017 Edition .  June 6, 2017.  
 
7. (CARB  2017c)  Potential Impact of the Kigali Amendment on California HFC 
Emissions: Estimates and Methodology used to Model Potential Greenhouse Gas 
Reduction in California from the Global Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) Phasedown 
Agreement of October 15, 2016, in Kigali, Rwan da (“Kigali Amendment”). Final . 
December  15, 2017.  
 
8. (California Department of Finance  2017)  P-1: State Population Projections 
(2010 -2060): Total Population by County. In Excel worksheet: Total Estimated and 
Projected Population for California and Counties:  July 1, 20 10 to July 1, 2060 in 
5-year Increments.  February 2017.  
 
9. (Gallagher, G. et al. , 2014) High -global Warming Potential F -gas Emissions in 
California: Comparison of Ambient -based versus Inventory -based Emission 
Estimates, and Implications of Estimate Refinements. Environmental Science & 
Technology 2014, 48(2), pp . 1084−1093.   2014.  
 
10. (ICF 2015a ) Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the 
Listing Status of High -GWP Alternatives – Revised.   July 2015 . 
 
11. (ICF 2015b ) Revised Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of 
High-GWP Alternatives.  July 2015.  
 
12. (ICF 2016 ) Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes for the Listing Status of High -
GWP alternatives Used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire 
Suppression .  September 2016.  
 
13. (IPCC  2007 ) 2.10.2 Direct Global Warming Potentials. In: IPCC Fourth 
Assessment  Report (AR4): Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical 
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report 
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp . 211-214.  2007.  
 43 
 14. (IPCC  2014a)  Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of 
Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report 
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  2014.  
 
15. (IPCC  2014 b) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptati on, and vulnerability. In: Fifth 
Assessment Report (AR5) from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC), Working Group II.  2014.  
 
16. (UNEP  2016) United Nations Environment Programme  (UNEP), Decision XXVIII/ --- 
Further Amendment of the Montreal Protocol. In: Dubai pathway on 
hydrofluorocarbons,  Decision XXVIII/ --- Further Amendment of the Montreal 
Protocol, Submitted by the Contact group on HFCs, Twenty -Eighth Meeting of the 
Parties t o the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer , p. 2. 
October 14, 2016 . 
 
17. (Census  2016) U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division; Table 1. Annual Estimates 
of the Resident Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: 
April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016 (NST -EST2016 -01). Release Date: December 2016 
(downloaded from https://www2.census.gov/programs -surveys/popest/tables/2010 -
2016/state/totals/nst -est2016 -01.xlsx  on December 14, 2017 ).  
 
18. (U.S. EPA 2016)  U.S. Action to Meet the Montreal Protocol Phaseout Schedule. 
Table on website, “Phaseout of Class II Ozone -Depleting Substances” printed to 
PDF Dec. 5, 2017 from URL: https://www.epa.gov/ods -phaseout/phaseout -class -
ii-ozone -depleting -substances . 
 
19. (Velders, et al. , 2009) The large contribution of projected HFC emissions to future 
climate forcing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United 
States of Ame rica (PNAS), 106(27), pp . 10949 –10954.   July 7, 2009.  
 
20. (Velders, et al., 2014) Growth of climate change commitments from HFC banks 
and emissions. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 14, pp . 4563 –4572.   May 12, 
2014.  
 
 
XIV. APPENDICES  
 
Appendix A :  Proposed Regulation Order  
 
Appendix B :  Emission Estimates