October 5, 2015 Ms

. Gina McCarthy Administrator United States Environmental Prote ction Agency William Jefferson Clinton Building 12 00 Pennsylvania A ve, N

. W

. Washington , DC 20460 Re: RIN: 2060-AS51 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Update to the Refrigerant Management Requirements Under Section 608 of the Clean Air Act Dear Ms

. McCarthy : N ew Era Group Inc

. is a non-profit organization representing the issues and concerns of small businesses that are vital in meeting the stated goal of Pres ident Obama ' s Climate Action Plan. We welcome the opportunity to pro v ide unbiased and factual suggestions to strengthen existing regulations to the goal of reduction of GHG Emissions

. Our submissions to EPA are centered around the facts that containment of all refrigerant chemicals can only be ach i eved with clear standards, which will lead to best practices , not business as usual , BAU

. While not included in the September 2014 Administration's Pri vate Sector Partnership , the Counsel of Environmental Quality gained commitments to new chemicals going forward and with no mention of the existing refrigerants that stand to be vented if not give n proper consideration. New Era and its members are the core businesses that are obligated by law to handle and maintain the refrigerants that are in the large installed base of air co nditioning in the United States. The Administration, and for that matter the world, is attempting to form a consensus to phase-down the production and consumption of hydroflurocarbons

. New Era asserts t hat this can be achieved through the initiat ives given to EPA back in December of 2014.

" We've a/so intensified our climate cooperation with major emerging economies like India and Brazil , and China
- the world 's largest emitter. So, for example, earlier this month , President Xi of China and I reached an important agreement to jointly phase down our production and co nsumption of dangerous hydrofluorocarbons, and we intend to take more steps together in the months to come. It will make a difference

. It's a significant step in the reduction of carbon emissions. 1 ' (Applause.)Gina McCarthy Letter October 5 , 2015 Page2
There can be no push back that Refrigerant Management in te ri ms of leak rates recovery and reclaim are major efforts that will achieve the stated goals to reduce emissio ns . IV. Reducing Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions Curbing Emissions ofHydrof/uorocarbons: Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) , which are primarily used for refrigeration and air conditioning, are potent greenhouse gases. In the United States, emissions of HFCs are expected to nearly triple by 2030 , and double from current levels of 1

. 5 percent ofgreenhouse gas emissions to 3 percent by 2020. To reduce emissions of HFCs, the United States can and will lead both through international diplomacy as well as domestic actions

. In fact , the Administration has already acted by including a flexible and powerful incentive in the fuel economy and carbon pollution standards for cars and trucks to encourage automakers to reduce HFC leakage and transition away from the most potent HFCs in vehicle air conditioning systems. Moving forward, the Environmental Protection Agency will use its authority through the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program to encourage private sector investment in low-emissions technology by identifying and approving climate-friendly chemicals while prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful ch emical alternatives. In addition, the President has directed his Administration to purchase cleaner alternatives to HFCs whenev er feasible and transition over time to equipment that uses safer and more sustainable alternatives. Within the context of environmental stewardship , this rule cannot any longer ignore revisions to the Toxic Substance Control Act of 2015, which has the strong support of the American Chemistry Association

. The Comprehensive Environme ntal Response , Compensa tion , and Liability Act (CERCLA), is now taking up Super Fund Financial Responsibility , which might apply to the 608 Rule d o to issues of toxicity and flammability of the new Class of refrigerants being introduced. The 608 Rule must not exclude the fact that according to the United States Bureau of the Census there are 113 million homes in the United States 87% are air conditioned and this does not included all the sectors represented by the Significa nt New Alternative Program (SNAP) stakeholders

.

# ..<__ r _**~EW** 

### ERA GROUP 1 !' (. 

# .... Gina McCarthy Letter October 5, 2015 Page 3
We h ope that our recommendations : 1. Leak rates should be set at zero 2. Any facility that process C FCs HCFCs HFCs or HFO should be subject to the regulatory requirements a nd authority of Section 608

. 3. R ecordkeeping of all purchased and installed refrigerants should be implemented 4

. As a first step EPA must institute a Compliance Audit Program to insure education and compliance with the rapid changes the have been made

. 5

. Certify terms such as ownership and reclaiming There will not be a ny greater opportunity to strengthen the 608 Section than now . Thank you and we will be more than happy to answer questions or provide additional information on these critical matters. Respectfully

# ~- Peter Williams
Attachements :rMA I 'II<..**t"AL.L.VI~t:** • .)t1
. , I'JtW ..JtH:,tY CHA I RMA N O N E HUN D R E D FOURTE E N T H C ONGRESS 

# {!ongress 

# of tbe il n iteb**~tates** 

## j!)o u se of l\eprcsentati b es COMMITIEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 2125 R AYBURN H ousE OFFI CE B u i LD I NG WASHINGTON, D C 20515 -6 115

T he Honorable G in a McCart hy Ad min is trator U.S. Env ironmental Protec tion Agency 1 200 Pe 1m sylv ania Avenue, N W Washington, DC 20460 Dear Admini s trator McCa rth y : Majori ty (20 21 225-2927 M inou t y (2021 225-36<1 I

Ap ril I , 20 1 5 RANKING MEMBER

I write re gard i ng the En v ir o nm enta l Protection Agenc y's A ugu s t 6, 20 14 , proposed rulcmaking. ··Prot ec tion 

# or S trato s ph e ri c Ozone: C hang e of Listing Status for Certain S ubstitute s U

nd er the S ign ificant Nc\\" A lte rnati ves Pol icy Program, " published at 79 Fed. Re g . 46126 , w hi ch wou ld r estrict many co mmonl y used hydrotluorocarbons ( HFC s). ln the 1990 s, HFC s we r e approved under th e C lean Air Act as environm entally acceptable substitutes for banned ozone depleting s ub s tances, b ut \Vith this action, E PA is now targeti n g HF Cs as greenhouse gases and propo s ing to prohibit th e ir use in a number of important a p plicat ions. There arc s ig niti ca nt co nc ern s a bo ut th e cons equ e nces of th e propos ed rul e, and I write speci ticall y to r eq ues t add iti o nal information r elat ing to this rulemaking. J\s di scussed be low. I under s tand th e consensus a mo ng th e affected companie s in the r e frige ration , motor vehicle, and insulation industri es is that the proposed compliance requirements are not feas ible , wo uld cause considerabl e eco nomi c harm and job los ses , and may inc rease rather than reduce risks to the American publi c. In addition, I beli eve that the proposed rule is an unlaw f ul atte mpt by EPA to se t g lobal \· Varmin g policy using Clean Air Act authorit y not intended for that purpos e . I. T he Pr oposed Rule· s Comp lian ce Cha ll enges A
. Unrealistic Dead lin e s Many of the implementation difficulties ofthe proposed rule stem from its highl y c ompre ssed compliance timef ramc s under wh ich r egu la t ed companies must modify their product s to usc IIF C alternat ive s . I und erstand th at tew of these compani es believe that compliant produ c t s can be des ig n ed , tested. ce rtifi ed , and manufactured under the propo se d schedul e . EPA r e lie s primari ly o n the Pres id ent 's C limate Actio n Pl a n. a nd in particular its s tat ed goal of le adin g th e ,, ·oriel o n HFC r es triction s, as the age ncy's ju s tific at ion for the rul e a sLetter to the Honorable G in a McC ar thy Pa ge 2 proposed
. Howeve r. th e tight deadlines are not r eq uired under any of the rel evant stat ut ory provi s ions , a nd th ey ma y in l'act vio late the la"v b y imp os in g more cos ts than be nefit s. T he January 1. 2016 dead lin e for co mm ercial refrig e ration equipment is among th e most prob le mati c aspects of th e proposed rule. I und e rs tand that manufa c turer s of thi s eq uipment arc in near-unanimity that replacing HFC s as refrigerant s by this date i s imp oss ibl e . EPA asserts that acceptable a lternati ves can quickly replace th e de li sted HFCs wi th minimal m od iti ca ti o n s . but in most cases the proposed rul e will necessitate ma j o r product red es ig ns. The sa me is tru e f o r th e proposed January l , 20 17 deadline lor usi ng HF Cs as t o am blowing agents f o r in su latio n . ror these app li cati o ns, man y add iti ona l years wo uld be required to de ve l op and deplo y sati s fact ory subst itut es . It should be noted th a t there are some H FC blends not prohibited by the propo sed rule that ma y a ll ow for an easier transition, but th e ir use as s ub s titut es i s problematic gi ven that the y ma y be the target of s ub seq uent EPA rules. For motor vehicle air-conditioners. EPA' s propose d HF C deli s tin g takes eftect w ith th e 202 1 model yea r. Although this transition period is lo nge r t han the others under the propo sed rule, a ut omakers have no t ed in their filed co mm e nt s that it s till po ses pro blem s. espec iall y g i ven th e ir long product de , ·e lop mcnt cycles a nd th e ex tens ive a ir-condition e r redesigns necessary to use s ub s titutes. EPA downplays the costs by claim in g that a uto mak ers ar e li ke ly t o r ep lac e HFC s anyway und er the exist in g Nat ional Program for Model Year 2017-2025 CAf-E a n d GHG S tandard s (CAFE / GHG rul e) tinali zecl in 20 12
. However, und e r the CA FE/ GHG rul e, automakcrs are g iven the lkxibi lity t o ea rn compliance credit s v ia seve ral mean s, only one 

## or wh ich is the replac e rrt c nt o f HrC ref ri ge rant s with compounds havin g a lower global warming potential (GWP)
. T h e proposed rule e liminate s this flexibility and requir es that a ll vehicle mod e l s- includin g tho se lor whi ch a transit ion away from I IFCs wou ld not make eco nomi c sense - sw itch ro new refrigeran ts by 202 1. Many automakers also believe th at the only feasible a ltern ative under this tim ef r ame is a proprietary compo und th a t currently cos ts abo ut 20 tim es more than the HF Cs it would replace and t o r which adequacy of future supplies is unc erta in. B. Potential Con!licts With Other Re g ulation s Fo r the refri ge ration secto r, the rapid introduction o f new refrigerant s and in s ulati on under th e proposed rul e is fu rth er compl ic at ed by a se parate set of Departme nt of Energy (DOE) efficiency stand a rd s imp act i ng some of th e same equipment. Th is includ es a residential refrig e rator s tandard that took effect thi s year as well as s tandards app li cable to several categori es ofcommercial ref rige ration equipment that wi ll take effect in 20 1 7. 

### B y limitin g the choices of avai lable r efr ige rants a nd foam blowing agents , the proposed rul e ha s ma ny manufacturers concerned about ac hi evi ng DO E's req uired e ner gy e fti c ie ncy gai n s . In**ret.** some of the HFCs no w· tar geted by EP !\are being used prec isely because of th e ir cftic ie ncy . a n d DOF assumed their co ntinu ed avai labilit y in promulgating its sta ndards. Furthermore, E P 1\ and DOE have apparent ly mad e no attempt to coo rdinat e lh e implementation deadline s of rules affecting the sa m e products. Since bo th age ncies' rules neces s itate expensive product redesign s !hat ca n take seve r a l ye ar s, th e absence of harmonized deadl in es has greatly exacerbated the comp liance burden. Fo r ex ample , res id ential ref ri gerator manufacturers just comp leted th e yea rs- long process of r ed es i gni n g th e ir prod u c ts t o mee t th eLener t o th e H o no rable Gina McCarthy Pa ge 3
new DOE e fticiency sta ndard. II" the propo se d EPA rule is tinali zed, man y manufa ct urers w ill be forced to undertake another r edes ig n becaus e the foam blowing agents chos e n to he lp meet DOE' s requirem ents w ill no lo nge r be a llowed in 20 17. T he produ cts c overed by th e proposed EP A rule ma y f a ll with in the juri s diction of other federal agencies in addit io n to DO E. F o r exa mpl e, rep lac ement s t o r 1-l F C-u s ing m ed ic a l and laboratory equip m e nt must comply with a number of Food and Drug Admin is tration r egu l a ti ons . a nd c o ve red products used on b oa ts mu st be approved by the Unit ed States Coas t Guard. Also , th e workp l aces affected by the propos ed rul e must comp ly \Vith all applicable Occupational Safety and Hea lth Administration requirement s. This ad ds to th e c umulati ve regulatory burden a nd com pli ca te s adherence t o the proposed rul e's s trict deadlines. C
. Concerns With Alternatives Throughout th e proposed rul e . E PA t · oc uscs o n addressing th e perce i ved ri sks posed by the co ntinued use of HFCs , but th e agenc y dovmpla ys the fact th at th e alternatives present risks of their own. Most notabl y, there are seve ral pr oduct catego rie s for which th e onl y realistic alt ernatives are tlammable hydrocarbon s . This cre a t es potential s af e ty concern s as " v

eil as additional regulatory hurdl es in the manufa ctur e . installation , u se, maintenan ce, and disposal or affected products. Manufacturers sw itchin g to ll amm ab le r efr igera nt s or foam -bl ow in g agen ts mu s t und ertake ex tensive and cost ly changes at their pr od uction facilit i es to reduc e the ri sks to emplo yees. The product s using flammable compou nd s wi ll ha ve to be redesigned and certified to comp ly with a host of regulator y requir ement s. This in c ludes s tri c t limit s on the amount of flammable refrigerant aJIO\ ; ved in eac h piece of equipment , whic h can constrain their size and coo lin g capacity
. Equipment conta inin g tlamm a bl e compou nds must also comply with a ll ap pli cable tire and buildin g code provi s ions , and may impact insurance rates. Much of the co mplianc e burden will fall on s mall bu si nesses th at are end u se rs of refrigerati o n equipm ent , as well as sc hoo l s, hos pital s and ot her publi c bui ldings. Even with extensive precautions , th e ri sks of using flammable compounds can nev er be comp lete ly e limin ated. For example , there may be incre as ed potential ri s ks t o employees and c ust omers fi ·om flammabl e r e fri gerants used in a resta urant kitchen near ope n fl ames for cooking
. These risks also exte nd to tho se w ho se rvice this equipm e nt. and th e additi onal training a nd pro ce dures ne cessa r y to reduce these risks w ill lik ely ad d to repair costs. Beyond flammability. some HfC alternat ives raise toxic it y an d other safe ty co nce rn s that ha ve not yet be en full y assessed. iV I oreover. many s ubstitutes are a ls o vo latile o rga ni c compo und s (VOCs), ancl their u sc in the production of r ef

ri ge rati o n eq uipm ent and insulati o n cou ld lead to potentia l violations of o th er EPA regu lati o ns add r ess in g g ro und-le ve l ozone. Addressi ng all of the risk s p osed by I IFC alternatives will necessitate mu c h more tran s ition time than is provided in th e proposed rule. II. Costs of the Proposed RuleLetter to the Honorabl e Gina McCarthy Pa ge 4 EPA 's pre liminary analysis of th e propo se d rul e projec t s costs no hi gher than $30.5 million. Thi s estimate g re atl y under s tate s the difficulti es of replacing the delisted HFCs by th e proposed deadline s. In s ha rp contra s t to EPA ' s cos t es tim ates. a Sep t e mb er 10,20 14 White H

o use press rel ease on HFC s announced that the member compani es of the Air Co nditi o nin g, H

eating, & Reti·igeration In st itute " will co mmit to spe ndin g $5 billion in new R&D and cap it al e xpenditure s to develop and co mm c r c ia li 7.e low g lo bal warmin g po tential (GWP) t ec hn o logies ove r the nex t ten years . " This commitment b y just on e affected trade assoc i a ti o n to spe nd 160 times mor e than EPA 's cost estimate s tro n g ly s ugges ts that the tran s iti o n away from HF Cs "viii be considerably more ex p en s iv e th a n th e ag enc y ha s assumed. In addition , I unders tand that a t least o n e co mp any ha s es tim ated th at its ow n comp li ance cos ts w ill be co n s iderabl y hi g her than EPA's projec ted total for a ll affected en titi es. cast in g further doubt o n the plau s ibility of th e age nc y's ana lys is . As a co nse qu e nce o f it s low cost es timat e , EP A asserts th at th e R eg ul ato r y Fl ex ibility Ac t does not app ly be caus e th e proposed rule do es not hav e a s ign ifi can t econo mic impact o n a s ub s tantial numb er of s mall e ntitie s. The agenc y d oes not fully acknowledge the c hallen ges t o s ma ll manufacturers, man y of whom J ack th e r esources to ha ndl e suc h a n ab rupt prod uct ov erhaul a nd t hu s will face even great er eli ni c ultie s than la r ge r manufacturer s. In fact , a numb er o f s mall manufacturers have e xpre sse d fears o r c los ure s a nd job losses as a co n se quence of the proposed rul e. The agency al s o dis mi sses as ne g li g ible the impact s o n th e million or mor e smal l busine ss e nd users of affected product s such as r es taurant s and conve ni ence sto r es. In reality, man y s ma ll e ntiti es a r e concerned not only about the potentially hi g he r purchas e pric e of co mpli ant equipment , but a lso high er ongo in g cos ts s uch as more ex pe nsi ve maintenance and repairs , as we ll as ancillary costs lik e i ncreased in s urance rates and r ent s. Th e service technician c ommunity would also face man y c hall enges deal ing w ith compliant eq uipm ent. I bel ieve th er e is n o question that a substantial numb er of s mall entities will be s i gn ifi cant ly imp acted. The propos ed rule wou ld also app ly t o A m e rican ex port s of' motor ve hicl es and other a ff ec ted products. This may place the se expo rt s at a global di sa dvanta ge a nd tlu- ea t e n the job s assoc ia ted with them. Most nati o ns ha ve no plans to imp ose HF C r es triction s like tho se in th e proposed rul e . This crea t e s a dual di sadva nt age for American product s sold abroad: comp li anc e with th e propos ed rul e ma y drive up th e pric e of Ame ri can -manufac tur ed goods , whil e fore ig n mark ets without similar HF C re s tri c ti ons are unlikely to have access t o the infi ·as tmcture and techn ica l capab ilit y to se rv ice equipment using n ew a lte rn a ti ve co mp ou nd s. Meanwhile , HF Cusin g motor vehi cl es and other goods Ji· om no n- U.S. manufacturers will r e mai n ava ilabl e in the se market s for th e fore see abl e future . U ltimately , Am erican cons um e rs wo uld bear much of th e cost of th e propo se d ru le. Motor ve hicle buyers ma y ha ve to co nt end wi th cos tli e r air-condi ti o ne rs . Some typ es of insulation ma y become less e l'fe ctive, potentially adding to energy bi ll s . Indirec tl y, food pric es may in c r ease. as eve r y s tep in their proce ss ing, tran s portation, s t orage and retailing that r equire s refrigeration ma y become more expen s ive. Bey o nd co s ts , rhe qua lit y and r e li abi li ty of im pacted products may s uffer, and c ho ice s may b e r educc cl
. Publi c s af ety may al so be com pr om i sed
. III. E n v ir onment a l Co nsequ e nce s of the Proposed Ru leLetter to the Honorable Gina McCarthy Page 5 EPA treat s the co n tribution of Hf.C s to global warming as th e overriding consideration in the proposed rule , but even the age n cy vvould have to acknowledge the proposed rule would make an extremely s mall contribution to addressing it. In pursuing the administration's c limate change agenda, EPA has thus far focused mo st of its atte nti on on ca rbon dioxide rather than HFCs. The age n cy concedes that HFCs currently account for only 1.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and "a re a small part of the problem today."' Thus, there is little justification for the precipitous delisting of HFCs. And although EPA and others project 1-If.C usage and emissions to increase in the decades ahead. most of that g rowth is expected from developing nations not s ubject to the proposed rule. EPA estimates that the proposed rule would reduce IW C t:missio ns by 3 1 to 42 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent in 2020, and 88 to I 17 million in 2030
. To place those ligures i n perspect i ve, the above-mentioned CAFE/ GHG rule was estimated to reduce g reenhouse gas emissions by 2 billion me tric tons carbon dioxide equivalent over the life of the vehicles regu lated by the ru le. And that rule was assessed by EPA to have a negligib le impact on t e mpe ratures (an EPA-estimated 0.0074 to 0 .017 6 degree Celsius reduction by 21 00). In deed , EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has conceded that th e CAFE / GHG rule was among those whose impact on the climate would likel y be too s mall to detect. EPA did not estimate the t e mperature reduction rrom the proposed Hf.C ruk as the agency did with C ;\f.E/ GHG, but it would presumably be very min or. Further, the proposed rul e's m odest reductions in g ree nhou se gas emissions may be at least partially offset by other emissions increa ses . iVIost of th e g re e nhou se gas contribution ti·om refrigeration systems is associated with the carbon dioxide em iss ions attributable to their energy use and not with leaked refrigerants and foam blowing agents. As discussed previousl y, many manutacturers are concerned that the proposed rule may neccss itate the use of less energy efficient refrigerants and less effective insulation relative to HFC s, resulting in increa sed energy u se and thus hig h er carbon dioxide emissions. The likelihood or such counterproductive result s is greatly increased by the abrupt deadline s, which do not provide nearly enough time to optimize the energy efficiency of new systems using HFC alternatives. ln addition. the increased cost of compliant equipment may encourage owners of old and less efficient systems to keep them in use longer rather than replace them. Similarly , for foam-blown insulation used in buildings , any reduction in effectiveness would result in increased carbo n dioxide emissions. as would any increase in insulation cost that leads to reduced usage. O verall, given the miniscule global warming impact of the proposed HFC restrictions, and the very real problems associated with a ru sh toward phasing out HFC s . it appear s that the proposed rule would, on balance, not be effec tiv e in meeting the primary objective of addressing globa l warming. IV. Questions About Legal Authority The proposed rule is being promulgated pur s uant to Subc hapt er VI or the Clean A ir Act Amendment s or 1990, enti tled · 'St rato sph eric Ozone Depleti o n'' (" Title Vr} As the title indicates, this s ubchapter addresses those compounds listed as ozone depleting substances. lt conta in s no specific authority to address global warming. In**tct.** the on ly menti o n of globalLetter t o the H o norable Gina McCart hy Pa ge 6
wa rmin g in Title VI s tates that the global warming potential o f a listed s ub s tance
.. s hall not be construed to be the ba s is of any ad ditional reg ulation und e r this chap t e r. " Title 

### VI sets out th e proces s by which EPA approves a lternati ves t o the cla !:iS I or cla ss II ozone depleting substances that were being pha se d ou t. U nd er these provisio ns . it is unlawful: ··to repl ace any class I or cla ss ll s ub s tan ce with any s ub s titut e substa nce which the Admin ist rat o r d ete rmine s inay present adverse effects to human hea lth o r the e nv iro nm e nt , where th e Administrator has id entifi e d an alternative to suc h rep lace m e ntthat

### t I ) r ed uces the ove rall ris k to human he al th and the env ironm e nt: and (2) is cu rrently o r potentially avai lable." It was pursuant to these provision s th at EPA developed th e Significant New Alternative s Polic y (SNA P) pro g ram in 1994 an d approved HFC s as non - ozone depleting s ub sti tut es for class l o r cl ass II substances. By novv. th e process of replacin g ozone depleting s ubstances is virtually comp lete
. With ve ry few exce ption s, they are no lon ge r used in new ly manunH.: tur ecl produc ts. At thi s point. th e S 1AP p rogra m s hould not be ex pand ed a n add iti o nal s tep to replace previously-app roved alt e rnative s to ozone dep le tin g s ub stances. For thi s reason. as a gene ral matter. the proposed rule seeking to delist HFC s bas ed on their global warmin g potential does not appear to be authorized under the Clean Air Act. Th ere are also many spec ifi c legal i ss ues with the propos ed rul e. F o r example , g iven the modest benef it s and s ignificant problems with EP A's chosen deadlines to clelist HfC s, it is doubtf ul that the agency ha s met its requirement of r ed u ci ng the overa ll ri sk to hum an health and the enviro nment. And given that EPA had previou s ly approved HFCs as acceptab le under SNAP, it is far from cl ear that the agency has adequately justified its r eve rsa l in now deeming HFCs unacceptab le. Nonethe less , as a thre sho ld matt e r, EPA has no express s ta tut o r y authority t o re g ulate HFCs as gree nhou se gases. In v iew o f these concern s, please respond to the following questions by May I , 20 1 5: I. Wha t i s the justification for the shor1 compliance timerrames in th e pro pos ed rul e?
a . Did EPA consider less stringent dea dlin es. and if so. why were they rejected ? b. A re the proposed rule's ti g ht deadline s mand ated unclt:r th e C lean Air /\ct. or were they chosen a t the di sc retion of EPA?
c . Give n that EPA bel i eves that the HfT s addres se d und e r the proposed rule me c urre ntl y respon s ible for o nl y 1. 5 percent or**anthropog~nic** warming and
.. arc a s mall part of th e probl em today," why do th ey need to be t a rge t ed so q ui ckly'!Letter to the H onora bl e Gina McCarthy Page 7 d
. Does EPA agree that extendin g the d ead lin es by seve ra l years would considerably reduce th e comp lian ce dirticultie s and co s ts for re gu lated e ntiti es? 2. For the CAFE/G HG rul e, EPA calculated th e extent th at future t e mperatures a nd sea le ve ls wou ld be reduced as a consequence of that rul e. Us in g th e sa me m ethodo log y, what i s the es timated reduction in future temperature s a nd sea lev e l s attributabl e t o the proposed rule ?
a . Would th e futu r e temperature and sea level impact of the propo se d rule be apprec iably different if the deadlines we r e delayed by 5 o r I0 yea r s? lf so, by ho w mu c h? b
. Is it po ss ible that a d e lay in the complianc e dendlin es by 5 or I0 years would s ub s tanti a ll y reduc e the cos ts associated with the proposed rule while ha vi ng only a de minimis marginal c limate impact ?
c. Ila s EPA tak en into account the p otential f o r th e proposed rul e to r es ult in increase d carbon dioxide emissions if the s ub s titut es for Hres prove to be less e nergy effic ie nt and/o r m o re ex pe nsi ve? I f so, please provide th e a na lys is used in the proposed rule. 3. Given th at the proposed rul e affects produ c ts that are a lso targe t ed by Depart m ent or Energy rules , h as EPA coo rdinat ed w ith DO E in promulgating the proposed ru k? If so . ple as e provide the details of any co ordination.
a . Does EPA see any p otential conflicts between the p r oposed rul e a nd DOE ener gy co nservation sta ndard s? ff so, please explain th e steps taken to reduce potential co nflicts , including eftorts to harmoni ze complianc e dea dlin es. b. Has EPA coordinated with other federal agencies that also regulate th e products and workplaces affected by the propo sed rule?

c. Has EPA consid e red whet her regulated entitie s will hav e sufficient time to c omplet e all of the testing a nd certification s necessa r y to comp ly with applicable fe d e ral r eg ulations by th e deadline s in th e proposed rul e? If so. plea se li s t th e ap plicabl e r eg ulati o ns and th e amount of time EPA believes will be needed for regu lated e ntitie s to co mply " vith th em. d. What actio n s has EPA taken to comply with th e executive orders and m emo rand a r e quirin g improved coordination and harm o ni zat ion 

# or multiple regulations affect ing the same industry, includ in g Executive Order 13563 req ui ring agencies 10 conside r cumu lative regulatory burdens, and the iv l arch :20, 2012 Ofticc of In tor mati on a nd Regulatory Affa ir s memorandum requiring bl:ller coordination or the timing, content, and require m en ts of multiple rukmakings aiTccting n pa rticular industry?Letter to th e Honorable Gina McCarthy Pag e 8 4. Does EPA a nti c ipate in c reased us e of flammable hydrocarbons as reti ·ig era nt s and foa m blow in g agents a s a co n seq ue nce of the proposed rul e?

: t. Docs EPA agree th a t a tran s ition from n on-flammable to llamm ab lc compounds increases safe ty ri sks for manufacturers , s ma ll busines s ow ne rs. and consumer s? b. Do cs 

### E P A believe that th e technical , leg a l, and regulat o ry is s ue s rai se d by th e usc of flamm a bl e co mp ounds can be reso lved in time t o mee t th e deadline s in the proposed rul e?

c. H as EPA co n si dered th e add iti o na l cos ts to s mall busin ess end u se r s of equipment con taining flammable co mpound s? 5. Is EPA in the process of rev isin g it s estimate that th e propo sed rule would cos t no m o re than $30 .5 million d o ll ars?

a . If not, h o\.v does EPA r econcile it s estimate with th e stated comm itm ent by th e Ai r Co nditi on in g, Heating , & Refrige rati o n fnstitut e to spe nd $5 billi o n dollar s de\ · e lop in g and deployi ng HFC substitut es? b. Does E PA believe that no manuf act ur ers w ill be forced t o scale back production o r s hut down as a conseque nce of th e prop osed rul e, and that no jobs will 

### be lo s t ?


### c. Does E PA believe that a substa ntial numb er of s ma ll e ntiti es ( in c lu d in g sma ll business manufacture rs, e n d u sers, and se r v i ce t e chnici an s) w ill not experience 

### a s ignificant eco no mi c impa ct as a consequ e nc e of th e propos e d rul e a nd thu s tha t u S BREFA pane l is not necessary ? If so, what communication s wi th s ma ll c miti es is that det e rmination ba se d up on? 

### ct
. Ha s EPA co n s id e red th e potential e conomi c imp act of lost export reve nue s an ribut a ble to th e proposed rul e? 

### 6. What Clean Air Act o r o th er statutory prov ision do es EPA r ely upon in propo s in g to regulate HfC s ba se d on their g lobal warming potentia l ?

a. Does E PA co nsid er HF Cs to be either a clas s I or c lass 11 o z one depleting s ub s tance as def in ed in S ubchapt er VI of the C l ea n Ai r Act .Amendments of 1990? If not, how can the pro v isions in S u bchap te r VI for r ep lac in g c lass I or class 11 s ubstances be applied to HF Cs? b. Does EPA believe th at the proposed ru le would reduce th e overall ri sk to human healt h nnd th e e nvi r o mn e nt ? If so, hovv did the agency weigh th e positi\ ·e and negative impacts of the prop osed ru le to arrive al th at conclusion ?
c. Given th at EPA prev iou s ly a ppro ved HF Cs as accep tab le und er SNA P. what new evidence supports the proposed status c hange to unac ce ptable ?Letter to the Honorable Gina McCarthy Page 9
Shou ld you have any questions, please contact Ben L ieberman or Mary Neumay r of the majority committee staff at (202) 225-2927.

Sincere l y,

# ~**6L~I.4J** Ed Whitfie l d? Chairman Subcomm ittee o n Ene rgy and Pov.rer

# Copyrighted page(s) removed. Copyrighted material is not available in Regulations.gov since it may not be reproduced without consent of the copyright holder. Removed pages can be viewed at the USEPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room. Address: 1301 Constitution Ave, NW Room 3334 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: 202-566-1744 Email: docket-customerservice@epa.govu.s . Companies Leading to Reduce Emissions of HFC Clim at e Pollutants I w hllehouse.gov 10/2/15 10:14**A~** 

### the WHITE HOUSE PRESTDENTBARACKOBAMA



# U.S. Companies Leading to Reduce Emissions ofHFC Climate Pollutants
SEPTEMBER 16 , 2014 AT 2:18 PM ET BY JOHN POQEST A



## Summary: Today, fulfilling a commitment under the President's Climate Action Plan, the Obama Administration i s announc ing new private s ecto r commitmen t s and exec u tive actions to reduce emissions of hydroflou rocar bons (HFCs), powerful gree nhouse gases that exacerb at e climate change
. Today, fulfil lin g a commitment under the President's Climate Action Plan , the Obama Administration is announcing new private sector commitments and executive actions to reduce emissions of hydroflourocarbons (HFCs), powerful greenhouse gases that exacerbate climate change. Taken together, these commitments will reduce cumulative global consumption of HFCs by the equivalent of 700 

### million metric tons of carbon dioxide through 2025. That's an amount equal to 1.5% of the world's 2010 greenhouse gas emissions-or, in other words, it's like taking nearly 15 million cars off the road for 10 

### years.

https://www.whltehouse.gov 1 blog/2 0 14/09/16/us-companles-leading
- reduce
- emlssions
- hfc
- climate-pollutants Page 1 of 5U.S. Companies Leading to Reduce Emissions of HFC Climate Pollutants I whlt eh ouse.gov 10/2/15 10:14 AM 

### HF(s, used primarily in air conditioning and refrigeration, are greenhouse gases with up to 10,000 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. Unless we act, U.S. emissions of these potent greenhouse gases would nearly double by 

### 2020 and triple by 

### 2030. Announced today, U.S. industries are leading the way in helping fulfill the President's pledge by investing billions of dollars to develop and deploy the next generation of safe, cost - effective alternatives to HFCs, and by incorporating these climate-friendly technologies into the cars, ai r condit ioners, refrigerators, foams and other products they manufacture and use. Across the entire HFC supply chain, from production to manufacturing to retail, American businesses lar ge and small are committing to phase down HFCs and accelerate the uptake of climate-friendly alternatives. For example, industry groups are pledging to support policies to reduce global HFC emissions , to increase research and development spending, and to develop and commercial ize HF C alternatives. Chemical companies are pledging to phase down the manufacturing of HFCs and to accelerate production of HFC alternatives. Beverage companies and retailers are pledging to buy HFC-free equipment. For a full list of companies and commitments, please check out our fact sh eet. The Obama Administration is also announcing new federal actions to increase the uptake of safer alternatives to HFCs and encourage the development of new technologies by:

• Promoting HFC alternatives within the federal government, including by updating regu l ations for contractors and evaluating more sustainable options in federal buildings. • Encouraging private sector investment in low-emissions technology, including expanding the list of climate-friendly HFC alternatives and organizing sectorspec ific workshops. • New research and development funding from the Department of Energy , to encourage next generation, climate
- and ozone-friendly cooling and heating , ve ntilation, and air conditioning systems.

https://WWW .whltehouse.gov /blog /2014/09/ 16 / us-companl es-leadlng
- reduce-emlsslons
- hfc-ell mate-pollutants Page 2 of 5u.s. Companies Leading to Reduce Emissions of HFC Climate Pollutants I whlteho use.gov 10/2/lS 10:14 AM 

### Moreover, earlier this summer, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed two new rules under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program that would smooth the transition to climate-friendly alternatives to HFC s, including expanding the list of acceptable alternatives and limiting the use of some of the most harmful HFCs where alternatives are available. All of these actions add to the gathering momentum toward an amendment to the Montreal Protocol, the landmark international agreement signed 27 years ago today to phase out the use of chemicals harmful to the ozone layer, to tackle HFCs on a global sca le

. Recent studies show the hole in the ozone layer i s closing, and reinforce the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol to pha se down harmful pollutants. Importantly , the U .S. and China have already agreed to work together to phase down the consumption and production of HFCs, and G-20 leaders followed suit by expressing the i r own support for similar measures. And just yesterday, former Indian Minister of Environment Jairam Ramesh called for his country, to join a global effort to phas e down HFCs under the Montreal Protocol. The leadership demonstrated today by U.S

. indu str ies and the federal government taking on HFCs is welcome news for the planet and will help prompt other countries and companies to take action on climate change. John Podesta is Counselor to the President.



### You s hould also read:

• President Obama's action Qlan on climate changs;, • It onlY. tak es three minutes to see whY. we must act on climate change • A behind-the-scenes look at the solar ganels on the White House roof • How limiting carbon emissions from nuclear giants will rnake us healthier


## Tohn Podesta



# - Former Counselor to the P res ident

https : //www
. whltehouse.gov/blog/20 14/09/16/ us-com panles-leadlng
- reduce-emlsslons
- hfc
- cllm ate - pollutants Page 3 of 5U.S. Companies leading to Reduce Emissions of HFC Climate Pollutan t s I whltehouse

. gov 10/2/15 10 : 14**A~**

THE I RAN DEA L 

### Find out how we plan to p revent Iran fr om obtaining a nuclear weapon.


# f

HOME BRIEFIN G R O OM F rom th e N ews Room

l•l.t't

_ _: 1'

•' Fro m th e P ress Office

I'' 

# a 

# +

ISS U ES Popu l ar Topics 20 15 S tate of th e 

### iJmo11 lrnrnrgrntron Ar. t ron**f{;'"HS~** tllP**Wag~** ·..;peAl! To p Is su es

,, 'l ! I··**!{~** ll r Ht-:1 Ill i**'~JJ I**  V

. '·:-;ll.ll._l
.. !..d,! .£: .·nm_tqr ajt1lll

llllicllt> l,ttdlllJL

. (' 1 I ·il.!_' I**.~** ;!..:. 

# -·-----· CLEAN POWER PLAN SHAREABLES 

## . ..

-------



### Learn mo r e about the biggest step we've ever taken to combat climate c h ange. Di s cover- and sha r e - what th e Pre s ident and the White Hou se ar e do ing to h e lp mov e America forward.

THE ADMINISTRATION People P resident Barf.l ck Oba rn a Vice Presrdent Joe**Brc ~n** **r~.t.** LadY. Mr c t1 elle OJ.Eil.llil .lrl_l**l)rQr'~n** The CdlJIItd**Li<c:C,:~IIIVl~** t 

### J!.!J.l&..ll1 l_ll?.**Pr8Sid~!11** ··l8111l r v\!httfl f lr**··~i_lr·;]dr·r~p** PARTICI PA TE Digital FoliO\ '. UJ;. w 

### 0< JCial _Mt l • \fv f'

### J!.t e_ r.**~h\.!...** J.**~** M< htl ' !J.!:w J.JL r c•::l_ J o i n Us**~·** ··_!**20.!_~)** l d: Holt I !_..

- 16 0 0 PENN I nside the White Hou s e

I liiCh\' ••**~** .., ,\II History & Grounds

,rJ 1 ,.,
h ttps ://WWW

.whit e h o use .gov 1 bl o g /2 0 14 / 09 / 16/ us-co mpanles-leadl ng - red uce - emlssions-hfc -c llmate-pollutant s Page 4 of 5U.S. Companies leading to Reduce E mi ssions of HFC Climate Pollutants I whltehouse.gov**L~mar_l\.>!** Press Bnelinq::, S I ale.!.!ill.D§_C!**fu"'!f'llS8~** White House Sc tlP.dulr. PrE:sKlentral Actions b..e_q is latio n NrlfT)ir1<=JIICHlS**~~ ~)pOifliiTH-=nl!·**  D!SCIQsure>s More r lr.:o.t " -·-·--.-•- [ IJ_,S**thi~IK!l!** EthiC.§. li.! lli.l.Ll.1! 

### v. !J.Qrn8!dllQ !::ie<;;urt!Y. Heimancrng nural**J~•\'** r More .':2!a110rs & Social**~ecunty** I i'lX8S 

### rechnQIOgy**Tr.~cL:**

_·.**I~\** • OU1er A< lv1sury**B(;dr~l_~** Executi ve Offices 0.10C2..Q1 M**q!lillH~D** 1 en t Jilld Budget QffJCf:! of Science and l ecllnology Polrcy, Councrl of Ec_onornrc**Advgc_~** Counctl on Environmental Q.uQilly National Security Council See All Initiatives u.s Mov: .j_o i 11111!)£ QI!;:OS 1 IS 2 Many Reach**Hig~** StarltJR A111erica Special Events State of the Un1on Inauguration Medal of Freedom**~** Ac cessibilitY. CQRy.rlght Information Admrnrstrativn 1 rlter 'lli

### tum> Whrte House**tml!2~ Pre~g_g!lli<i!**  lnnovat1on F-eHO\vs Speak Out We the PeopiR Petrtrons Contact the Whtte J-:!OUS8 Citizens Mednl**~ Chang~** 

http s:// www . whlteh ou s e.gov J blog 120 14 /09/16/ u s-co mpanles -lea ding

- red uce -e mis slo ns - hfc -cllm a te-pollutants 1 0/2/lS 10:14 A h**n~.~.;rdt)ll~** <:**.~** ()ffr.:.;:**h(~llt** -:·. \ 'l Cxccutrvt-' Offrce U.t..J!I.C!Ul<t**~\Hllf_l** :J_j**11~!** A1r Force One O ur Government Jjl8 LXRI**t!IIV~;** Hr('lndl rtug I**r-~gt--.latrve** Hr (ll_l(':ll • I t**~** If !_I• r..ll fl!._nnc!,**llH;_Con~ltllttto_n** f-eeler**~l.Ag£11Ctes f~**  (_QrT**IIlli~ [lr-~ctrrlJl~'**  •:_V0!1!l9



# . 

# ',,

PageS of 5Ct-\1

. DnuLEY PRES!DE:<T
. \':D C'FO

The Honorable John Shimkus 

### merican • Chemi s try ouncil

May 13,2015

The Honorable Paul Tonko Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment and

the Economy Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 the Economy Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Chairman Shimkus and Ranking Member Tonko : On behalf of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and our member companies, I am writing to express our support for the new draft TSCA Modernization Act of2015, scheduled for markup in your subcommittee on May 14 , 2015
. Industry labor, environmental, public health and consumer groups all agree that it is time to reform TSCA
. Thanks to your leadership and steadfast commitment to this important issue, the draft and the Subcommittee markup mean we are closer to achieving that goal than ever before. The inclusive , bipartisan process you have led, and the i mportant support of Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Pallone, have resulted in an approach to TSCA reform that will build confidence in the U.S. chemical regulatory system, protect human health and the environment from significant risks, and meet the commercial and competitive interests of the U.S. chemical industry and the national economy . The revised draft of the TSCA Modernization Act addresses the fundamental el ements of effective reform of the Act EPA is provided authority to mandate the generation of new information on chemicals, conduct risk evaluations on priority chemicals according to clear deadlines, and review claims to protect confidential business information. EPA's risk decisions must be based on health and environmental considerations , not costs or benefits. Importantly, the draft provides for a stron g and cohesive federal system while maintaining a role for states · in the protection of their citizens and environment, and it provides EPA the additional resources necessary to evaluate risks. Your efforts to develop the draft and hold a markup are significant milestones in the TSCA reform effort. Along with the recent passage by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee of the "Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act" (S. 697), your Subcommittee 's action is providing an important impetus to achieving TSCA reform this year .
americanchemistry. com 0 700 Second St., NE I Washington , DC 20002 I {20 2) 249. 7 000The Honorable John Shimkus The Honorable Paul Tonko May 13, 2015 Page2

We look forward to the Subcommittee 's approval of the draft TSCA Modernization Act of2015 on May 14, and encourage swift consideration of the legi s l ation by the full Energy and Commerce Committee. Sincerely,

Cal Dooley

americanchemis t ry . c om® 700 S econd St

. , NE I W ashin gton, DC 20002 I (202) 24 9. 7000