The Alliance 

January 31, 2014 

VIAE-MAIL 

Administrator Gina McCarthy 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: Petition to Extend the Requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 82, Subpart F to HFCs 

Dear Administrator McCarthy: 

The Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy ("Alliance"), pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. Section 553(e), respectfully petitions the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to 

extend the regulations promulgated under Section 608 of the Clean Air Act, and codified at 40 

C.F.R. Part 82, Subpart F, to hydrofluorocarbons ("HFCs") and other substitutes for class I and 

class II ozone depleting chemicals. The Alliance is an industry coalition that was organized in 

1980 to, among other things, promote policies relating to ozone depleting substances and their 

substitutes that are reasonable, scientifically sound, and economically, socially and 

environmentally effective and responsible. The Alliance's members consist of manufacturers 

and businesses in a number of industry sectors, including air conditioning, refrigeration, 

appliance manufacturing, foam insulation manufacturing, and aerosol manufacturing, which use 

and rely upon HFCs. A list of Alliance members is attached (Attachment 1 ). The Alliance 

works towards its goals by coordinating industry participation in the development of 

international and U.S. government policies regarding ozone protection and climate change. The 

Alliance supports a planned, orderly global phase down of substances with high global warming 

potential ("GWP"), improved application energy efficiency, leakage reduction, and recovery, 

reuse, or destruction at application end-of-life. 

Under the Montreal Protocol, production of class I Ozone Depleting Chemicals, 

also known as chlorofluorocarbons ("CFCs"), was phased out by 1996, and production of all 

class II Ozone Depleting Chemicals, also known as hydrochlorofluorocarbons ("HCFCs"), will 

be phased out by 2030. As a result of these phase-outs, class I and class II substances are being 

increasingly replaced by the use of HFCs and other substitutes that have zero ozone-depletion 

potentials ("ODPs"). The transition away from ozone depleting substances ("ODSs") under the 

Montreal Protocol, and the transition to HFCs, has dramatically reduced current and future ozone 

depletion. However, notwithstanding the success of the global phase-out of ODSs, potential 

emissions from the increased use of HFCs and other substitutes may have climate impacts, since 

a number of HFCs are considered to be potent greenhouse gases ("GHGs") with varying 

atmospheric lifetimes and high GWPs. 

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

Phone: 703-243-0344 • Fax: 703-243-2874 • Web: www.alliancepolicy.org 
January 31, 2014 

Page2 

In response to this concern, the United States, Canada, and Mexico have jointly 

proposed an amendment to the Montreal Protocol that would establish a gradual phase down of 

HFC production and consumption. The EPA estimates cumulative benefits of the HFC phase 

down at about 1,900 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTC02eq) through 

2020, and about 84,100 MMTC02eq through 2050. Cumulative benefits simply from HFC-23 

byproduct emissions controls are estimated at an additional 11,300 MMTC02eq through 2050 

(See Attachment 2). 

The Section 608 regulations were expressly adopted for the purpose of reducing 

class I and class II ODS emissions. Since many of those compounds are also high GWP 

compounds, their phase-out has had the added benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In 

fact, analysis has shown that the controls under the Montreal Protocol and Title VI of the Clean 

Air Act have achieved more than 6 times the reduction of GHG emissions than achieved under 

the first implementation period of the Kyoto Protocol (See Attachment 3). 

Currently, it is projected that approximately two-thirds ofHFC emissions occur as 

a result of commercial refrigeration and mobile air conditioning system leaks and service 

practice. Attachment 4 shows a current analysis between projected HFC emissions and 

atmospheric observations by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Extending 

the Section 608 regulations to HFCs would increase the environmental benefits already realized 

from the Section 608 regulations, through reduced HFC emissions, and would complement the 

United States' goal of a global phase down in HFC production and consumption. 

Section 608(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act provides that, effective November 15, 

1995, the prohibition against knowingly venting or otherwise knowingly releasing or disposing 

of any class I or class II substance in Section 608( c )(1) also applies to any substitute substance 

for a class I or class II substance, which include HFCs, unless EPA were to determine that the 

venting, releasing, or disposing of the substitute does not threaten the environment. 42 U.S.C. § 

7671g(c)(2). On June 11, 1998, EPA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed 

rulemaking that would have extended the Section 608 regulations to HFCs and other substitutes. 

63 Fed. Reg. 32,044-32,099 (June 11, 1998) (See Attachment 5.) In that notice of proposed 

rulemaking, EPA determined that it has the statutory authority to extend the Section 608 

regulations to HFCs. EPA never finalized that rule. However, in 2004, the EPA formally issued 

regulations extending the "no venting" prohibition to HFCs and other substitute substances. 

By this petition, the Alliance requests that EPA revisit this rulemaking and 

finalize the regulations proposed back in 1998 extending the Section 608 regulations relating to 

refrigerant sales and distribution restrictions, and the evacuation, certification, reclamation and 

recovery, leak repair, reporting and recordkeeping requirements to HFCs. 

In the 1998 notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA derived its authority for the 

rulemaking from its Section 608( c )(2) authority to prohibit the venting of substitutes. The 

Alliance agrees with EPA's reasoning that extending the certification, evacuation, and other 

requirements to substitute refrigerants would allow it to implement Section 608(c)(2) more 

effectively. EPA previously proposed to define the exception for de minimis releases such that it 

would only apply if a person complied with the proposed recapture, recycling, and disposal 

requirements. As a result, compliance with the venting prohibition would require compliance 

with the proposed requirements. EPA believed that it had "sufficient authority under sections 
January 31,2014 

Page 3 

608(c)(2) and 301(a) [which allows the Administrator to prescribe regulations as necessary to 

carry out his or her functions under the Act] to implement section 608(c)(2) by requiring 

compliance with the proposed provisions, as a matter of law, without in each instance first 

requiring a demonstration that the person's activities have actually released refrigerant." 63 Fed. 

Reg. 32,060. 

The Alliance also agrees with EPA's reasoning that its authority to promulgate 

regulations regarding class I and II substances, including the requirement to use alternatives, is 

"sufficiently broad to include requirements on how to use alternatives, where this is needed to 

reduce emissions and maximize recycling of class I and II substances." 63 Fed. Reg. 32,046. 

The Section 608 regulations were promulgated for the purpose of reducing "the 

emissions of class I and class II refrigerants and their substitutes to the lowest achievable level 

by maximizing the recapture and recycling of such refrigerants during the service, maintenance, 

repair, and disposal of appliances and restricting the sale of refrigerants consisting in whole or in 

part of a class I and class II ODS in accordance with Title VI ofthe Clean Air Act." Despite this 

broad regulatory agenda and the clear path the Agency has set forth for accomplishing these 

goals, the regulations remain insufficiently robust to reduce emissions of class I and class II 

substitutes, including HFCs, to their lowest achievable level. There are several reasons why 

imposing the evacuation, certification, and other requirements to HFCs will lower emissions: 

• Extending recovery and evacuation requirements to HFCs will help ensure 

they are not vented to the atmosphere during servicing and repair and that 

they will be recovered for further use, and minimizing the need to replace 

HFCs lost to the atmosphere. 

• Extending the technician certification requirements, along with the sales 

restriction, to HFCs, would ensure that persons lacking the appropriate 

expertise do not release or contaminate class I and class II substances 

while using substitutes to recharge or perform other work on systems 

containing class I and class II substances. 

• Extending the reclamation and recovery requirements to HFCs would 

prevent refrigerant releases and refrigerant contamination, and ensure a 

viable market for used refrigerants. 

• Extending the leak repair requirements to HFCs would lower HFC 

emissions resulting from equipment and appliance leaks. 

• Extending the recovery and recycling equipment certification 

requirements to equipment used with HFCs would provide reliable 

information on recovery and recycling equipment and would also 

maximize recycling and minimize emissions of HFCs. 

• Extending the reporting and recordkeeping requirements to HFCs would 

help ensure that the required service practices are consistently followed. 
January 31, 2014 

Page 4 

In conclusion, EPA should exercise its regulatory authority to enforce Section 

608(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act by extending to HFCs the regulations set forth in 40 C.F.R. Part 

82, Subpart F. The Alliance strongly believes that a more robust regulatory framework that 

includes HFCs as well as class I and class II substances is necessary to ensure better enforcement 

of the statutory prohibition against the knowing release or disposal of HFCs. In addition, a 

stronger regulatory framework would also support a global phase down of HFCs under the 

Montreal Protocol. 

Sincerely, 

/G f--; 

Kevin Fay 

Executive Director 

Attachments: 

1. Members of the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy 

2. Benefits of Addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol 

3. The Importance of the Montreal Protocol in Protecting Climate 

4. HFC Global Emissions and Measurements 

5. EPA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Refrigerant Recycling; 

Substitute Refrigerants (June 11, 1998) 

cc: Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, EPA 

Sarah Dunham, Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs, EPA 

Drusilla Hufford, Director, Stratospheric Protection Division, EPA