The Alliance 

for Responsible Atmospheric Policy 

STATEMENT OF 

THE ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE ATMOSPHERIC POLICY 

Kevin Fay, Alliance Executive Director 

August 27, 2014 

Re: Proposed Rule on Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain 

Substitutes under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program 

On behalf of the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy (Alliance), we are providing these initial 

oral comments regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Proposed Rule on Protection 

of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes under the Signiticant New 

Alternatives Policy Program. 79 Fed. Reg. 46125. (August 6, 2014). 

The Alliance is an industry coalition organized in 1980 to address the issue of stratospheric ozone 

depletion and the production and use of fluorocarbon compounds. The organization is composed of 

manufacturers and businesses, including their trade associations that rely on HCFCs and HFCs. 

According to a recent study, the US fluorocarbon using and producing industries contribute more than 

$158 billion annually in goods and services to the US economy, and provide employment to more than 

700,000 individuals with an industry-wide payroll of more than $32 billion. Today, the Alliance 

coordinates industry participation in the development of reasonable international and government policies 

at the nexus of ozone protection and climate change. The Alliance is proud to continue its long history of 

working in a positive manner with EPA on the protection of stratospheric ozone and the mitigation of 

climate change. 

The Alliance appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed change of listing status for certain 

compounds under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. While Alliance member 

companies will comment individually on the specific changes in listing status proposed in the rule, there 

are a number of broader concerns which are shared across the fluorocarbon producing and using sectors, 

that we will touch upon. 

First, EPA has publicly stated its position, as part of the North American Amendment proposal to the 

Montreal Protocol, that it seeks to achieve a gradual phasedown of HFC production and consumption on a 

GWP-weighted basis. EPA has supported the gradual phase down approach in order to allow for 

effective technology development and introduction, to allow for the building codes and safety standards 

process to catch up with the newly available low-GWP compounds and technologies and to ensure 

continued improvement of energy efficiency performance where relevant. The Alliance supports these 

goals. As announced earlier this year, the Alliance also supports the negotiation of such an amendment to 

the Montreal Protocol as the best means of achieving ozone and climate environmental objectives while 

considering performance, safety, energy efficiency, and technology availability. 

2111 WILSON BOULEVARD, 8TH FLOOR, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22201 

Phone: 703-243-0344 • Fax: 703-243-2874 • Web: www.alliancepolicy.org 
The Alliance is concerned that in many cases, the transition dates in the proposed rule are inconsistent 

with EPA's stated position that there should be a"gradual phasedown" of HFCs. With the proposed rule 

not likely to be finalized before the first or second quarter of 2015, the proposed transition deadlines in 

2016 and 2017 are unfeasible to impossible for many companies and inconsistent with support for the 

concept of a gradual phasedown as stated by EPA. 

Second, the Alliance believes that the SNAP rulemaking schedule should be better coordinated with the 

ongoing DOE energy efficiency rulemaking schedules. The proposed modifications have significant 

energy efficiency implications whether for foam insulation or air-conditioning and refrigeration 

equipment. Any proposed changes to SNAP listing status should ensure that the alternatives whose use is 

being encouraged by the changes meet requirements of stringent new DOE efficiency standards being 

promulgated simultaneously to this SNAP rulemaking. 

Given the important energy efficiency consequences of this proposed rule, it is unclear how this action 

will meet the statutory standard of "no greater risk to human health and the environment." By forcing 

previously acceptable substitutes off the market, these proposals could, in fact, result in less efficiency, 

not more, in the near term. Change of status determinations, in most cases, should not be made based on 

one attribute alone, such as global warming potential. 

Third, the SNAP change of listing status process should be used sparingly as the economic implications 

should require a higher standard of care in considering transition dates and market assumptions than is 

needed for the SNAP listing approval process. Whereas SNAP listing does not place a burden on 

companies to change their operations, a change of listing status requires adjustments to business models 

or practices that might not otherwise occur, potentially to a company's economic detriment. This does 

not mean that some relatively rapid transitions are not achievable, nor does it mean that transitions are not 

already taking place. However, final transition deadlines should take into account reasonable timeframes 

from an economic standpoint and, other competing regulatory initiatives such as energy efficiency 

standards, building codes, and safety standards issues. 

Lastly, it must be recognized that EPA has so far failed to respond to the petition filed by the Alliance 

earlier this year to extend Section 608 rules to HFCs. The immediate environmental benefit of preventing 

service emissions and leaks from existing equipment is likely far greater than any marginal benefit in the 

immediate implementation of the de-listing proposal. 

In the recently sponsored Montreal Protocol workshop on HFC management, Alliance speakers and 

others documented the significant progress in the last few years on the development, availability and 

implementation of low-GWP HFC alternatives. The involved industries have already accepted the 

challenge of minimizing the climate change impacts of ODS substitutes and have made rapid progress. 

SNAP change of status activities should be limited and take into account the important considerations we 

have cited above. We should all work together to achieve an effective global regime to phasedown HFCs 

that follows the Protocol's historical pattern of ensuring measures that are both environmentally and 

economically acceptable. 

Again, the Alliance appreciates the opportunity to share its thoughts on the proposed rule today and looks 

forward to working with EPA in a constructive manner to achieve an environmentally beneficial, safety 

enhancing, economically viabie rule.