October 5, 2015 

Ms. Gina McCarthy 

Administrator 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

William Jefferson Clinton Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, 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: 

New 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 President Obama's Climate 

Action Plan. 

We welcome the opportunity to provide 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 achieved with clear standards, which will lead to best practices, not business as 

usual, BAU. 

While not included in the September 2014 Administration's Private 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 

given 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 conditioning 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 

that this can be achieved through the initiatives 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 consumption 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 interims of leak rates 

recovery and reclaim are major efforts that will achieve the stated goals to reduce 

emissions. 

IV. Reducing Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Curbing Emissions of Hydrof/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 of greenhouse 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 chemical alternatives. In 

addition, the President has directed his Administration to purchase cleaner alternatives 

to HFCs whenever 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 Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), is now taking up Super Fund Financial 

Responsibility, which might apply to the 608 Rule do 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 Significant New Alternative 

Program (SNAP) stakeholders. 
.. <__r

_ ~EW ERA GROUP 1!'(. 

.... 

Gina McCarthy 

Letter 

October 5, 2015 

Page 3 

We hope that our recommendations: 

1. Leak rates should be set at zero 

2. Any facility that process CFCs HCFCs HFCs or HFO should be subject to the 

regulatory requirements and authority of Section 608. 

3. Recordkeeping 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 any 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: 
rMAI'II<.. t"AL.L.VI~t: • .)t1. , I'JtW ..JtH:,tY 

CHAIRMAN 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

{!ongress of tbe ilniteb ~tates 

j!)ouse of l\eprcsentatibes 

COMMITIEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 R AYBURN H ousE OFFICE B u iLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 

The Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pe1msylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Administrator McCarthy: 

Majority (2021 225-2927 

Minouty (2021 225-36<1 I 

April I, 20 15 

RANKING MEMBER 

I write regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's August 6, 20 14, proposed 

rulcmaking. ··Protection or Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes 

Under the Significant Nc\\" Alternatives Policy Program," published at 79 Fed. Reg. 46126, 

which would restrict many commonly used hydrotluorocarbons (HFCs). ln the 1990s, HFCs 

were approved under the Clean Air Act as environmentally acceptable substitutes for banned 

ozone depleting substances, but \Vith this action, EPA is now targeting HFCs as greenhouse 

gases and proposing to prohibit their use in a number of important applications. 

There arc signiticant concerns about the consequences of the proposed rule, and I write 

speci tically to request additional information relating to this rulemaking. J\s discussed below. I 

understand the consensus among the affected companies in the refrigeration, motor vehicle, and 

insulation industries is that the proposed compliance requirements are not feasible, would cause 

considerable economic harm and job losses, and may increase rather than reduce risks to the 

American public. In addition, I believe that the proposed rule is an unlawful attempt by EPA to 

set global \·Varming policy using Clean Air Act authority not intended for that purpose. 

I. The Proposed Rule· s Compliance Challenges 

A. Unrealistic Deadlines 

Many of the implementation difficulties ofthe proposed rule stem from its highly 

compressed compliance timeframcs under which regulated companies must modify their 

products to usc IIFC alternatives. I understand that tew of these companies believe that 

compliant products can be designed, tested. certified, and manufactured under the proposed 

schedule. EPA relies primarily on the President's Climate Action Plan. and in particular its stated 

goal of leading the ,,·oriel on HFC restrictions, as the agency's justification for the rul e as 
Letter to the Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Page 2 

proposed. However. the tight deadlines are not required under any of the relevant statutory 

provisions, and they may in l'act violate the la"v by imposing more costs than benefits. 

The January 1. 2016 deadline for commercial refrigeration equipment is among the most 

problematic aspects of the proposed rule. I understand that manufacturers of this equipment arc 

in near-unanimity that replacing HFCs as refrigerants by this date is impossible. EPA asserts that 

acceptable alternatives can quickly replace the delisted HFCs with minimal moditications. but in 

most cases the proposed rule will necessitate major product redesigns. The same is true for the 

proposed January l, 2017 deadline lor using HFCs as toam blowing agents for insulation. ror 

these applications, many additional years would be required to develop and deploy satisfactory 

substitutes. It should be noted that there are some HFC blends not prohibited by the proposed 

rule that may allow for an easier transition, but their use as substitutes is problematic given that 

they may be the target of subsequent EPA rules. 

For motor vehicle air-conditioners. EPA's proposed HFC delisting takes eftect with the 

202 1 model year. Although this transition period is longer than the others under the proposed 

rule, automakers have noted in their filed comments that it still poses problems. especially given 

their long product de,·elopmcnt cycles and the extensive air-conditioner redesigns necessary to 

use substitutes. EPA downplays the costs by claiming that automakers are li kely to replace HFCs 

anyway under the existing National Program for Model Year 2017-2025 CAf-E and GHG 

Standards (CAFE/GHG rul e) tinalizecl in 20 12. However, under the CAFE/GHG rule, 

automakcrs are given the lkxibi lity to earn compliance credits via several means, only one or 

which is the replacerrtcnt of HrC refrigerants with compounds having a lower global warming 

potential (GWP). The proposed rule eliminates this flexibility and requires that all vehicle 

models- including those lor which a transition away from I IFCs would not make economic 

sense - switch ro new refrigerants by 202 1. Many automakers also believe that the only feasible 

alternative under this timeframe is a proprietary compound that currently costs about 20 times 

more than the HFCs it would replace and tor which adequacy of future supplies is uncertain. 

B. Potential Con!licts With Other Regulations 

For the refrigeration sector, the rapid introduction of new refrigerants and insulation 

under the proposed rul e is further complicated by a separate set of Department of Energy (DOE) 

efficiency standards impacting some of the same equipment. This includes a residential 

refrigerator standard that took effect this year as well as standards applicable to several 

categories ofcommercial refrigeration equipment that will take effect in 20 17. By limiting the 

choices of available refrigerants and foam blowing agents, the proposed rule has many 

manufacturers concerned about achieving DOE's required energy efticiency gains. In ret. some 

of the HFCs now· targeted by EP !\are being used precisely because of their cfticiency. and DOF 

assumed their continued availability in promulgating its standards. 

Furthermore, EP 1\ and DOE have apparently made no attempt to coordinate lhe 

implementation deadlines of rules affecting the same products. Since both agencies' rules 

necessitate expensive product redesigns !hat can take several years, the absence of harmonized 

deadl ines has greatly exacerbated the compliance burden. For example, residential refrigerator 

manufacturers just completed the years-long process of redesigning their products to meet the 
Lener to the Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Page 3 

new DOE efticiency standard. II" the proposed EPA rule is tinalized, many manufacturers will be 

forced to undertake another redesign because the foam blowing agents chosen to help meet 

DOE's requirements will no longer be allowed in 20 17. 

The products covered by the proposed EPA rule may fall within the jurisdiction of other 

federal agencies in addition to DOE. For example, replacements tor 1-l FC-using medical and 

laboratory equipment must comply with a number of Food and Drug Administration regulations. 

and covered products used on boats must be approved by the United States Coast Guard. Also, 

the workplaces affected by the proposed rule must comply \Vith all applicable Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration requirements. This adds to the cumulative regulatory burden 

and complicates adherence to the proposed rul e's strict deadlines. 

C. Concerns With Alternatives 

Throughout the proposed rule. EPA t·ocuscs on addressing the perceived risks posed by 

the continued use of HFCs, but the agency dovmplays the fact that the alternatives present risks 

of their own. Most notably, there are several product categories for which the only realistic 

alternatives are tlammable hydrocarbons. This creates potential safety concerns as "veil as 

additional regulatory hurdles in the manufacture. installation, use, maintenance, and disposal or 

affected products. 

Manufacturers switching to llammable refrigerants or foam-blowing agents must 

undertake extensive and costly changes at their production facilit ies to reduce the risks to 

employees. The products using flammable compounds will have to be redesigned and certified to 

comply with a host of regulatory requirements. This includes strict limits on the amount of 

flammable refrigerant aJIO\;ved in each piece of equipment, which can constrain their size and 

cooling capacity. Equipment containing tlammable compounds must also comply with all 

applicable tire and building code provisions, and may impact insurance rates. Much of the 

compliance burden will fall on small businesses that are end users of refrigeration equipment, as 

well as schools, hospitals and other public buildings. 

Even with extensive precautions, the risks of using flammable compounds can never be 

completely eliminated. For example, there may be increased potential risks to employees and 

customers fi·om flammable refri gerants used in a restaurant kitchen near open flames for 

cooking. These risks also extend to those who service this equipment. and the additional training 

and procedures necessary to reduce these risks will likely add to repair costs. 

Beyond flammability. some HfC alternatives raise toxicity and other safety concerns that 

have not yet been fully assessed. iVIoreover. many substitutes are also volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), ancl their usc in the production of refrigeration equipment and insulation 

could lead to potential violations of other EPA regulations addressing ground-level ozone. 

Addressing all of the risks posed by IIFC alternatives will necessitate much more transition time 

than is provided in the proposed rule. 

II. Costs of the Proposed Rule 
Letter to the Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Page 4 

EPA's preliminary analysis of the proposed rule projects costs no higher than $30.5 

million. This estimate greatly understates the difficulties of replacing the delisted HFCs by the 

proposed deadlines. In sharp contrast to EPA's cost estimates. a September 10,20 14 White 

House press release on HFCs announced that the member companies of the Air Conditioning, 

Heating, & Reti·igeration Institute "will commit to spending $5 billion in new R&D and capital 

expenditures to develop and commcrciali 7.e low global warming potential (GWP) technologies 

over the next ten years." This commitment by just one affected trade association to spend 160 

times more than EPA's cost estimate strongly suggests that the transition away from HFCs "viii 

be considerably more expensive than the agency has assumed. In addition, I understand that at 

least one company has estimated that its own compliance costs will be considerably higher than 

EPA's projected total for all affected entities. casting further doubt on the plausibility of the 

agency's analysis. 

As a consequence of its low cost estimate, EPA asserts that the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

does not apply because the proposed rule does not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. The agency does not fully acknowledge the challenges to 

small manufacturers, many of whom Jack the resources to handle such an abrupt product 

overhaul and thus will face even greater eli niculties than larger manufacturers. In fact, a number 

of small manufacturers have expressed fears or closures and job losses as a consequence of the 

proposed rule. The agency also dismisses as negligible the impacts on the million or more small 

business end users of affected products such as restaurants and convenience stores. In reality, 

many small entities are concerned not only about the potentially higher purchase price of 

compliant equipment, but also higher ongoing costs such as more expensive maintenance and 

repairs, as well as ancillary costs like increased insurance rates and rents. The service technician 

community would also face many challenges dealing with compliant equipment. I believe there 

is no question that a substantial number of small entities will be significantly impacted. 

The proposed rule would also apply to American exports of' motor vehicles and other 

affected products. This may place these exports at a global disadvantage and tlu-eaten the jobs 

associated with them. Most nations have no plans to impose HFC restrictions like those in the 

proposed rule. This creates a dual disadvantage for American products sold abroad: compliance 

with the proposed rule may drive up the price of American-manufactured goods, while foreign 

markets without similar HFC restrictions are unlikely to have access to the infi·astmcture and 

technical capability to service equipment using new alternati ve compounds. Meanwhile, HFCusing motor vehicles and other goods Ji·om non-U.S. manufacturers will remain available in 

these markets for the foreseeable future. 

Ultimately, American consumers would bear much of the cost of the proposed rule. 

Motor vehicle buyers may have to contend with costlier air-conditioners. Some types of 

insulation may become less el'fective, potentially adding to energy bills. Indirectly, food prices 

may increase. as every step in their processing, transportation, storage and retailing that requires 

refrigeration may become more expensive. Beyond costs, rhe quality and reliability of impacted 

products may suffer, and choices may be reducccl. Public safety may also be compromised. 

III. Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Rule 
Letter to the Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Page 5 

EPA treats the contribution of Hf.Cs to global warming as the overriding consideration in 

the proposed rule, but even the agency vvould have to acknowledge the proposed rule would 

make an extremely small contribution to addressing it. In pursuing the administration's climate 

change agenda, EPA has thus far focused most of its attention on carbon dioxide rather than 

HFCs. The agency concedes that HFCs currently account for only 1.5 percent of greenhouse gas 

emissions and "are 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 growth is expected from developing nations not 

subject to the proposed rule. 

EPA estimates that the proposed rule would reduce IWC t:missions by 31 to 42 million 

metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent in 2020, and 88 to I 17 million in 2030. To place those 

ligures in perspective, the above-mentioned CAFE/GHG rule was estimated to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions by 2 billion metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent over the life of the 

vehicles regulated by the rule. And that rule was assessed by EPA to have a negligible impact on 

temperatures (an EPA-estimated 0.0074 to 0.0176 degree Celsius reduction by 21 00). Indeed, 

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has conceded that the CAFE/GHG rule was among those 

whose impact on the climate would likely be too small to detect. EPA did not estimate the 

temperature reduction rrom the proposed Hf.C ruk as the agency did with C;\f.E/GHG, but it 

would presumably be very minor. 

Further, the proposed rule's modest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions may be at 

least partially offset by other emissions increases. iVIost of the greenhouse gas contribution ti·om 

refrigeration systems is associated with the carbon dioxide emissions attributable to their energy 

use and not with leaked refrigerants and foam blowing agents. As discussed previously, many 

manutacturers are concerned that the proposed rule may neccssi tate the use of less energy 

efficient refrigerants and less effective insulation relative to HFCs, resulting in increased energy 

use and thus higher carbon dioxide emissions. The likelihood or such counterproductive results is 

greatly increased by the abrupt deadlines, 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 carbon dioxide emissions. as would any 

increase in insulation cost that leads to reduced usage. 

Overall, given the miniscule global warming impact of the proposed HFC restrictions, 

and the very real problems associated with a rush toward phasing out HFCs. it appears that the 

proposed rule would, on balance, not be effective in meeting the primary objective of addressing 

global warming. 

IV. Questions About Legal Authority 

The proposed rule is being promulgated pursuant to Subchapter VI or the Clean Air Act 

Amendments or 1990, entitled ·'Stratospheric Ozone Depletion'' ("Title Vr} As the title 

indicates, this subchapter addresses those compounds listed as ozone depleting substances. lt 

contains no specific authority to address global warming. In tct. the only mention of global 
Letter to the Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Page 6 

warming in Title VI states that the global warming potential of a listed substance .. shall not be 

construed to be the basis of any additional regulation under this chapter." 

Title VI sets out the process by which EPA approves alternatives to the cla!:iS I or class II 

ozone depleting substances that were being phased out. Under these provisions. it is unlawful: 

··to replace any class I or class ll substance with any substitute substance which the 

Administrator determines inay present adverse effects to human health or the 

environment, where the Administrator has identified an alternative to such replacement 

thatt I) reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment: and 

(2) is currently or potentially available." 

It was pursuant to these provisions that EPA developed the Significant New Alternatives 

Policy (SNAP) program in 1994 and approved HFCs as non-ozone depleting substitutes for class 

l or class II substances. 

By novv. the process of replacing ozone depleting substances is virtually complete. With 

very few exceptions, they are no longer used in newly manunH.:turecl products. At this point. the 

S 1AP program should not be expanded an additional step to replace previously-approved 

alternatives to ozone depleting substances. For this reason. as a general matter. the proposed 

rule seeking to delist HFCs based on their global warming potential does not appear to be 

authorized under the Clean Air Act. 

There are also many specific legal issues with the proposed rule. For example, given the 

modest benefits and significant problems with EPA's chosen deadlines to clelist HfCs, it is 

doubtful that the agency has met its requirement of reducing the overall risk to human health and 

the environment. And given that EPA had previously approved HFCs as acceptable under SNAP, 

it is far from clear that the agency has adequately justified its reversal in now deeming HFCs 

unacceptable. Nonetheless, as a threshold matter, EPA has no express statutory authority to 

regulate HFCs as greenhouse gases. 

In view of these concerns, please respond to the following questions by May I, 2015: 

I. What is the justification for the shor1 compliance timerrames in the proposed rule? 

a. Did EPA consider less stringent deadlines. and if so. why were they rejected? 

b. Are the proposed rule's tight deadlines mandated unclt:r the Clean Air /\ct. or 

were they chosen at the discretion of EPA? 

c. Given that EPA believes that the HfTs addressed under the proposed rule me 

currently responsible for only 1.5 percent or anthropog~nic warming and .. arc a 

small part of the problem today," why do they need to be targeted so qui ckly'! 
Letter to the Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Page 7 

d. Does EPA agree that extending the deadlines by several years would considerably 

reduce the compliance dirticulties and costs for regulated entities? 

2. For the CAFE/GHG rule, EPA calculated the extent that future temperatures and sea 

leve ls would be reduced as a consequence of that rul e. Using the same methodology, 

what is the estimated reduction in future temperatures and sea levels attributable to the 

proposed rule? 

a. Would the future temperature and sea level impact of the proposed rule be 

appreciably different if the deadlines were delayed by 5 or I 0 years? lf so, by 

how much? 

b. Is it possible that a delay in the compliance dendlines by 5 or I 0 years would 

substantially reduce the costs associated with the proposed rule while having only 

a de minimis marginal climate impact? 

c. I las EPA taken into account the potential for the proposed rule to result in 

increased carbon dioxide emissions if the substitutes for H res prove to be less 

energy efficient and/or more expensive? If so, please provide the analysis used 

in the proposed rule. 

3. Given that the proposed rule affects products that are also targeted by Department or 

Energy rules, has EPA coordinated with DOE in promulgating the proposed ru k? If so. 

please provide the details of any coordination. 

a. Does EPA see any potential conflicts between the proposed rule and DOE energy 

conservation standards? ff so, please explain the steps taken to reduce potential 

conflicts, including eftorts to harmonize compliance deadlines. 

b. Has EPA coordinated with other federal agencies that also regulate the products 

and workplaces affected by the proposed rule? 

c. Has EPA considered whether regulated entities will have sufficient time to 

complete all of the testing and certifications necessary to comply with applicable 

federal regulations by the deadlines in the proposed rul e? If so. please list the 

applicable regulations and the amount of time EPA believes will be needed for 

regulated entities to comply "vith them. 

d. What actions has EPA taken to comply with the executive orders and memoranda 

requiring improved coordination and harmonization or multiple regulations 

affecting the same industry, including Executive Order 13563 requiring agencies 

10 consider cumulative regulatory burdens, and the ivlarch :20, 2012 Ofticc of 

Intormation and Regulatory Affairs memorandum requiring bl:ller coordination or 

the timing, content, and requirements of multiple rukmakings aiTccting n 

particular industry? 
Letter to the Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Page 8 

4. Does EPA anticipate increased use of flammable hydrocarbons as reti·igerants and foam 

blowing agents as a consequence of the proposed rule? 

:t. Docs EPA agree that a transition from non-flammable to llammablc compounds 

increases safety risks for manufacturers, small business owners. and consumers? 

b. Docs EPA believe that the technical, legal, and regulatory issues raised by the usc 

of flammable compounds can be resolved in time to meet the deadlines in the 

proposed rule? 

c. Has EPA considered the additional costs to small business end users of equipment 

containing flammable compounds? 

5. Is EPA in the process of revising its estimate that the proposed rule would cost no more 

than $30.5 million dollars? 

a. If not, ho\.v does EPA reconcile its estimate with the stated commitment by the 

Air Conditioning, Heating, & Refrigeration fnstitute to spend $5 billion dollars 

de\·eloping and deploying HFC substitutes? 

b. Does EPA believe that no manufacturers will be forced to scale back production 

or shut down as a consequence of the proposed rule, and that no jobs will be lost? 

c. Does EPA believe that a substantial number of small entities (including small 

business manufacturers, end users, and service technicians) will not experience a 

significant economic impact as a consequence of the proposed rule and thus that u 

SBREF A panel is not necessary? If so, what communications with small cmities 

is that determination based upon? 

ct. Has EPA considered the potential economic impact of lost export revenues 

anributable to the proposed rule? 

6. What Clean Air Act or other statutory provision does EPA rely upon in proposing to 

regulate HfCs based on their global warming potential? 

a. Does EPA consider HFCs to be either a class I or class 11 ozone depleting 

substance as defined in Subchapter VI of the Clean Air Act .Amendments of 

1990? If not, how can the provisions in Subchapter VI for replac ing class I or 

class 11 substances be applied to HFCs? 

b. Does EPA believe that the proposed rule would reduce the overall risk to human 

health nnd the enviromnent? If so, hovv did the agency weigh the positi\·e and 

negative impacts of the proposed ru le to arrive al that conclusion? 

c. Given that EPA previously approved HFCs as acceptable under SNAP. what new 

evidence supports the proposed status change to unacceptable? 
Letter to the Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Page 9 

Should you have any questions, please contact Ben Lieberman or Mary Neumayr of the 

majority committee staff at (202) 225-2927. 

Sincerely, 

~ Ed Whitfield? 6L~I.4J Chairman 

Subcommittee on Energy 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.gov
u.s. Companies Leading to Reduce Emissions of HFC Climate Pollutants I whllehouse.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 is announcing new private sector 

commitments and executive actions to reduce emissions of 

hydroflourocarbons (HFCs), powerful greenhouse gases that exacerbat e 

climate change. 

Today, fulfil ling 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 5 
U.S. Companies Leading to Reduce Emissions of HFC Climate Pollutants I whltehouse.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, air conditioners, refrigerators, 

foams and other products they manufacture and use. 

Across the entire HFC supply chain, from production to manufacturing to retail, 

American businesses large 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 HFC 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 sheet. 

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 regulations 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 sectorspecific workshops. 

• New research and development funding from the Department of Energy, to 

encourage next generation, climate- and ozone-friendly cooling and heating, 

ventilation, 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 5 
u.s. Companies Leading to Reduce Emissions of HFC Climate Pollutants I whltehouse.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 HFCs, 

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 scale. Recent studies show the hole in the ozone layer is 

closing, and reinforce the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol to phase 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 their 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 phase down HFCs under the Montreal 

Protocol. 

The leadership demonstrated today by U.S. industries 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 should also read: 

• President Obama's action Qlan on climate changs;, 

• It onlY. takes 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 President 

https://www .w hltehouse.gov /blog/20 14/09/16/ us-com panles-leadlng- reduce-emlsslons- hfc - cllm ate- pollutants Page 3 of 5 
U.S. Companies leading to Reduce Emissions of HFC Climate Pollutants I whltehouse.gov 10/2/15 10:14 A~ 

THE IRAN DEAL 

Find out how we plan to prevent 

Iran from obtaining a nuclear 

weapon. 

f 

HOME 

BRIEFING ROOM 

From the News 

Room 

l•l.t't _ _: 1' 

•' 

From the Press 

Office 

I'' 

a + 

ISSUES 

Popular Topics 

2015 State of the 

iJmo11 

lrnrnrgrntron Ar.tron 

f{;'"HS~ tllP Wag~ 

·..;peAl! 

Top Issues 

,, '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 more about the biggest 

step we've ever taken to combat 

climate change. 

Discover- and share- what the 

President and the White House 

are doing to help move America 

forward. 

THE 

ADMINISTRATION 

People 

President Barf.lck 

Obarna 

Vice Presrdent Joe 

Brc ~n 

r~.t. LadY. Mrc t1elle 

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 

PARTICIPATE 

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_ 

Join Us 

~· ··_! 

20.!_~) l d: 

Holt 

I !_.. -

1600 PENN 

Inside the White 

House 

I liiCh\' •• 

~ .. , ,\II 

History & 

Grounds 

,rJ 1 ,., 

h ttps://WWW. whitehouse .gov 1 blog/20 14/ 09/ 16/ us-co mpanles-leadl ng - red uce- emlssions-hfc-cllmate-pollutants Page 4 of 5 
U.S. Companies leading to Reduce Emissions 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 

r echnQIOgy 

Tr.~cL: 

_·. I~\ • 

OU1er A< lv1sury 

B(;dr~l_~ 

Executive 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 

~ AccessibilitY. 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 .whltehouse.gov Jblog 120 14 /09/16/us-companles-leading - red uce-emisslons- hfc -cllm ate-pollutants 

10/2/lS 10:14 Ah 

n~.~.;rdt)ll~ <: .~ ()ffr.:.;: 

h(~llt -:·. \ 'l 

Cxccutrvt-' Offrce 

U.t..J!I.C!Ul<t 

~\Hllf_l :J_j 11~! 

A1r Force One 

Our 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 5 
Ct-\1. DnuLEY 

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

The Honorable John Shimkus 

merican• 

Chemistry 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 important 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 elements 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 strong 

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. com0 700 Second St., NE I Washington, DC 20002 I {202) 249.7000 
The 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 legislation by the full Energy and Commerce 

Committee. 

Sincerely, 

Cal Dooley 

americanchemistry .com® 700 Second St., NE I Washington, DC 20002 I (202) 249.7000