Department of Environmental Conservation

D E C banner

Assessment of Public Comments- Adopted Part 494

6 NYCRR Part 494 Hydrofluorocarbon Standards and Reporting

Comments received from December 31, 2019 through March 16, 2020

In December 2019, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Department) proposed regulations pertaining to the regulation of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Comments on the proposed regulation were accepted from December 31, 2019 to March 16, 2020. Public hearings were held on March 4, 2020 in Albany, New York, March 6, 2020 in Rochester, New York, and March 9, 2020 in Long Island City, New York. This Assessment of Public Comments responds to all substantive comments received during the public comment period, including written comments as well as oral statements made at the three public hearings. Comments were compiled, reviewed, and categorized based on their content.


General Comments

Comment 1: The Commenter supports the proposed rule. (Commenter 2, 4, 8-15, 17-24, 26, 31- 40)

Comment 2: By adopting a former United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policy, the State is providing multiple benefits to the regulated industry including: (i) reinstating certainty to the market in the face of uncertain federal policy; (ii) appropriately rewarding those business entities that invested in research and development to comply with the EPA policy; and (iii) aiding United State business entities to remain competitive in the global market as HFCs are phased down internationally under the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol. (Commenter 2, 12, 22, 26).

Comment 3: No State regulation should supersede the Kigali Amendment or the EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. A market-based phasedown will perform better than one in which State regulations dictate. (Commenter 1)

Comment 4 : Federal regulations are the most desirable way to regulate the phasedown of HFCs. (Commenter 16)
Response to Comments 1-4: The Department appreciates the support that these commenters expressed for the global phasedown of HFCs. The Department agrees that a clear and certain timetable will minimize disruption to United States industry and that participation in a global phasedown is best achieved through national policy. However, under the current federal Administration, EPA is unfortunately not currently seeking to implement HFC policies and has rescinded existing HFC policies. Additionally, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit partially vacated Rules 20 and 21 of the EPA SNAP program that the Department has adopted in this regulation. The significant changes that have occurred in federal policy in recent years have led to uncertainty for industry as well as for those States, including New York, that recognize the urgent need for action to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. The rule is intended to reinstate this certainty and reinforce the previous SNAP and Kigali Amendment policies.

Comment 5: The Commenter appreciates the unified approach taken by the Department and other State governments to implement aligned regulations and requests that States maintain uniformity and avoid a "patchwork" of policies due to challenges to affected business entities. (Commenter 4, 5, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 22, 28)
Response to Comment 5: The Department will continue to work with States in the United States Climate Alliance to develop HFC reduction policies, per the direction of Governor Cuomo. The Department conducted extensive outreach with the United States Climate Alliance, other state agencies, and stakeholders in 2018 and 2019 to develop the rule and continues to track developments in other states into 2020. Wherever possible, the Department has made revisions in order to retain as much functional consistency as possible. That said, states cannot adopt identical regulations due to the variety of procedural requirements and other considerations. Additionally, some states enacted aspects of the EPA SNAP rules into statute, in addition to or in lieu of regulations, which would entail another set of procedures. The language found in state statutes may not be appropriate for state regulations. Statutes provide direction to Executive agencies like the Department; state agencies such as the Department implement and enforce such statutes through regulations. Where possible, the Department has considered how the direction provided in state and federal laws is best translated into regulatory language.

Comment 6: Alternative refrigerants have benefits other than reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, including energy efficiency. (Commenter 2, 35)
Response to Comment 6: Thank you for your comment. The Department agrees that manufacturers and end-users will benefit from the replacement of equipment and products with alternatives that are more energy efficient and less harmful to the environment.

Acceptable Substitutes

Comment 7: The rule should list acceptable substitutes by listing the alternatives that will be allowed in lieu of the prohibited substances in the end-uses listed or by establishing Global Warming Potential (GWP) thresholds on the substances allowed for use in the state. Simply prohibiting specific HFCs from being used in certain products may not truly reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of these products. (Commenter 6, 39)
Response to Comment 7: The EPA SNAP program determines which substances are allowed for use in the United States as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances. The full list of allowable substances is available from the EPA. The rule addresses specific substances that were removed from the list of allowable substitutes, or "delisted", after an extensive rulemaking process and public review by EPA, pursuant to the partially vacated SNAP Rules 20 and 21. The current rule does not affect the use of any other substances nor does it seek to enable the use of any substance that has not yet been approved by the EPA pursuant to the SNAP program.

Applicability

Comment 8: In this case, does "residential use" [494.3(ee)] include use in housing facilities like dormitories, townhouse communities, and apartment buildings and even residential facilities such as assisted living facilities? (Commenter 3)
Response to Comment 8: Pursuant to the definition provided in the regulation, "residential use" means use by a private individual in a household for non-commercial purposes, so it depends on the type of person using the prohibited substance in a specific end-use and the purpose of its use.

Comment 9: The Commenter asks if a specific industry is affected by the proposed rule and refers to a specific North American Industry Classification System code (NAICS).
Response to Comment 9: The Department is adopting prohibitions previously promulgated by the EPA in SNAP Rules 20 and 21. The affected industries, and NAICS codes, are referenced in the original EPA rulemaking documents and can be found in the Federal Register.

Comment 10: The rule must provide clear language regarding "sell-through", or the continued sale of equipment or products that were shipped prior to the prohibition date of this rule; that there are no restrictions on storing or transporting affected substances, equipment, or products in the State; and that the prohibitions apply to equipment and products manufactured after the prohibition date and not to equipment or products manufactured prior to that date. Specifically, the rule should specify that equipment and products manufactured prior to the prohibition date can continue to be sold, used, etc. (Commenter 5, 16, 19, 20, 26, 28)
Response to Comment 10: Except where an existing system is retrofitted after the applicable prohibition date, the Department never intended for the rule to prohibit products and equipment manufactured prior to the applicable prohibition date. Although already implicit to the terms of this regulation as originally proposed, the Department has revised the regulation to clarify any ambiguity and include explicit language in subdivision 494.2(c) that reflects this and provides clear direction regarding "sell-through". This clarifying "sell-through" provision is also consistent with language included in other states' corresponding HFC regulations.

Definitions

Comment 11: The Commenter requests that the Department also adopt a United States Department of Energy (DOE) definition of "residential consumer refrigeration product" that the State of Vermont placed into its HFC legislation. (Commenter 5)
Response to Comment 11: Although the term "residential consumer refrigeration product" does not exist in the referenced DOE regulation, it includes the following, "consumer refrigeration product means a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, freezer, or miscellaneous refrigeration product." The EPA SNAP program refers to such equipment as "household refrigerators and freezers," which is included as a defined term in subdivision 494.3(l), and this term has been applied in proposed regulations by other states. The definition of these terms is the same in that the terms encompass the same types of equipment.

Comment 12: The Commenter recommends that the Department use the same definition of "aerosol propellant" as in 6 NYCRR Part 235. (Commenter 12)
Response to Comment 12: The Department agrees that the Part 235 is intended to address the same products and considers the definition in Part 235 to be functionally equivalent to the definition that was initially proposed for purposes of this Part 494 regulation. The Department has revised the definition of "aerosol propellant" in Part 494 so that it is the same in both rules.

Comment 13: The Commenter recommends using definitions for polyurethane and related end-uses that are more internally consistent and consistent with SNAP rules proposed in other states. Additionally, the terms "foam" and "foam blowing agent" should be treated as distinct. (Commenter 20, 28)

Comment 14: The term "foam-blowing agent" is confusing. We suggest using commonly understood terms like "equipment" or "product". (Commenter 13)
Response to Comment 13 and 14: The Department generally agrees and has adopted the technical definitions recommended by Commenter 28, with three exceptions. The term "foam blowing agent" has been removed from the regulation as it is implicit to the definition of foam. Although HFCs are used as foam blowing agents, the resulting foam product is the end-use that is being referenced in this rule. Secondly, the term "polyurethane" has not been added to the list of definitions. Instead, all end-use definitions have been simplified to refer to the type of foam. Finally, the Department has not used the examples provided within the recommended definitions where they were unnecessary. For example, "flexible polyurethane" is now defined as "a non-rigid polyurethane foam", but the additional phrase, "including but not limited to that used in furniture" has been omitted.

Comment 15: The Commenter recommends modifying the definition of "phenolic insulation board and bunstock" by removing the phrase "a large solid box-like structure formed during the production of polystyrene insulation." (Commenter 20)
Response to Comment 15: The Department has modified the definition of "phenolic insulation board and bunstock" for accuracy and to be consistent with the definitions for other foam products. Only phenolic bunstock is addressed in this regulation and the EPA SNAP program refers to the end-use as "phenolic insulation board and bunstock". As bunstock is formed in "box-like structures" that may be fabricated into other shapes, the revised definition refers to both potential forms of the foam product.

Prohibition Dates

Comment 16: The Department should maintain the proposed prohibition dates as adopted by the EPA. Delays are unnecessary and undermine emission reductions because the affected equipment and products will be a source of emissions throughout their life. (Commenter 18)

Comment 17: The Department should adopt earlier prohibition dates to those proposed to increase the strength of the rule. (Commenter 37, 39)
Response to Comments 16 and 17: The intent of the proposed rule is to adopt the prohibitions developed by the EPA after an extensive rulemaking process. The Department agreed with the rationale provided by the EPA regarding the scope and timing of these prohibitions and did not consider proposing prohibition dates that were earlier than those adopted by the EPA. However, the Department considered extensions to the prohibition dates on a case-by-case basis if such extensions would increase the potential for emission reductions within the State as noted below.

Comment 18: For end-uses prohibitions with a prohibition date of January 1, 2021, the manufacturers will have too little time to comply. As such, an additional period of time is requested. (Commenter 19, 30)

Comment 19: Although low-GWP refrigerant is already available, original equipment manufacturers simply do not have the products ready to be mass-produced or that local distributors are trained to carry them. Based on our contractor and wholesaler sales experience, it is likely that there will be refrigerants stockpiled and sales from across state lines into New York State that would be un-accounted for or deserting valuable inventory which would become unsellable. (Commenter 1)
Response to Comments 18 and 19: The Department disagrees that there has been insufficient time to prepare for the prohibitions proposed in this regulation. The prohibitions listed in the rule were adopted by the EPA in 2015 (Rule 20) and 2016 (Rule 21), after extensive public review, and such prohibitions were in place nationwide until 2019. Therefore, regulated industry was on notice of these prohibitions on a nationwide basis years prior to the proposal and subsequent finalization of this rule in the State. New York State also announced its intention to adopt the prohibitions in Rules 20 and 21 in 2018. Additionally, as clarified in response to comment 10, this rule does not impact the continued use of existing equipment or its servicing.

Comment 20: The Commenter supports the adoption of the EPA SNAP rule and the prohibition dates for Polystyrene Extruded Boardstock and Billet (XPS) therein because companies have made investments to comply with the timeline that had been adopted by EPA. (Commenter 26)

Comment 21: The Commenters request that the prohibition date for Polystyrene Extruded Boardstock and Billet (XPS) and Rigid Polyurethane Sprays be extended one year, e.g., from January 2021 to January 2022. The Commenters also request that a "carve-out" be added to allow for blends of the otherwise prohibited substances that may be approved by EPA in the future. The Department should be uniform with other states that have agreed to this request. Finally, reformulation takes 12-18 months, but the proposed rule allows "only a few months at most to comply after the proposal becomes final." (Commenter 25, 27, 30)
Comment 22: In the Regulatory Impact Statement, the Department indicated that HFCs are 5% of the State's greenhouse gas emissions. The foam end-uses are 8% of HFC emissions, which is far less than other end-use sectors. The emissions associated with foam insulation are therefore negligible and the benefits of insulation for meeting overall greenhouse gas goals via improved energy efficiency and for reducing consumer energy bills is more consequential. (Commenter 25, 27, 30)
Response to Comments 20, 21, and 22: There is not sufficient reason to extend the compliance period or weaken the original SNAP provisions with regards to GWP, particularly as alternatives are available that would not impose the same risks to the State given their lower GWP. Furthermore, climate change is the result of the combined impact of many emission sources, which makes arguments about the relatively small contribution of a given source less relevant and unpersuasive. In addition, pursuant to the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, Chapter 106 of the Laws of 2019 (Climate Act) the State is statutorily required to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions 40% by 2030 and 85% by 2050 from 1990 levels, and must also seek to achieve net zero emissions. Unlike other sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the State, HFC emissions have increased exponentially since 1990. Therefore, every opportunity to eliminate emission sources is vital, including the emissions associated with insulation foams.

In addition, as described above in response to comments 18 and 19, the regulated industry has long had notice about the timing and substance of the upcoming prohibitions.
Pursuant to the State Administrative Procedure Act, the Department can amend its regulations at any time, and is required to review regulations on a periodic basis. If there is a final EPA action listing new substances pursuant to SNAP, and such final action relates to the prohibitions that are the subject of this rulemaking, the Department will review and determine if additional action is necessary and in conformity with the Climate Act requirements, such as potential amendment of the regulatory language and express terms. Similarly, when undertaking the required periodic reviews, the Department will review the regulation in relation to any relevant final EPA actions.

Comment 23: The Commenter requests that the prohibition date for vending machines be extended from January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022. The industry prefers to transition fully to the lowest GWP option, or R-290, rather than to make an interim transition to other available alternatives with much higher GWP. However, building codes must be updated enable the use of R-290 in all applications. (Commenter 7)
Response to Comment 23: The Department agrees that in this case there is a potential opportunity for further HFC emission reductions with the extension of one additional year for this end-use to allow for transition to lower GWP alternatives that may be enabled by updated building codes. Therefore, in the final rule, this prohibition date has been changed from January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 in 494.4(c)(12). However, this extension is applied only to new equipment and is not applied to equipment retrofits.

Administrative Requirements (Disclosures and Labelling)

Comment 24: The Department's allowance for compliance via the regulatory requirements of other jurisdictions is appreciated as it simplifies compliance. (Commenter 13)

Comment 25: The disclosure or labelling requirements in the Department's rule should be consistent with other states and generic. (Commenter 5, 19, 22)

Response to Comments 24 and 25: The Department agrees that an ideal solution is to establish a standardized approach among states that can be easily accommodated by the compliance entities. This was the rationale for allowing the required statement to be combined with that of other states, particularly the statement already required by the State of California.
The intent of the administrative requirement in Part 494 is to enable persons to understand that the equipment or product in question cannot be used in New York State with a substance that is prohibited by this Part. This notification is particularly relevant where the equipment or product is not fully assembled prior to entering the State and the prohibited substances are installed at a location in the State. The alternative approaches proposed by the other states include either a generic statement that the equipment or product is acceptable or provide information on the substance used in the equipment or product. These approaches are only relevant for equipment and products that are "pre-charged" before entering the state and they provide no information as to whether the contents are prohibited in New York State.
The Department has made some minor clarifying revisions to the administrative requirements, as discussed below.

Comment 26: Some equipment end-uses are already subject to disclosure or labelling requirements for the purposes of safety and this includes the type of refrigerant. Additional requirements are not necessary. (Commenter 5, 16, 22)
Response to Comment 26: The Department recognizes that some of the equipment and products covered by this regulation are already required to provide some information as to contents, such as for safety. However, the Department is unaware of any requirement that indicates whether the contents are prohibited in New York State.

Comment 27: Any disclosure requirement should allow for the labeling of products or product packaging, as labeling individual product units may not be feasible or practical. (Commenter 13)
Response to Comment 27: The Department agrees and has revised the regulation in section 494.6 to provide this option.

Comment 28: The Commenter supports disclosure or labelling only for end-uses that currently use HFCs or at such time as HFCs are used in the future and suggests alternative language. (Commenter 13)
Response to Comment 28: The administrative and recordkeeping requirements apply to all end-uses subject to the regulation to provide notice to persons that the equipment or product in question cannot be used in New York State with a substance that is prohibited by this Part and to ensure and track compliance.

Enforcement (Record-Keeping)

Comment 29: The proposed rule should more clearly describe applicable enforcement procedures. (Commenter 21, 24)
Response to Comment 29: The Department's enforcement authority and procedures are laid out in Article 71 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL). In particular, as noted in the Regulatory Impact Statement, ECL Sections 71-2103 and 71-2105 set forth the civil and criminal penalty structures for violations of Article 19, as well as regulations promulgated thereunder, including Part 494.

Comment 30: Confidential business information should not be provided or decipherable from the required record-keeping. This is subject to federal Department of Justice policy [a reference is not provided]. (Commenter 16, 19)
Response to Comment 30: To the extent that the Department requests records pursuant to this regulation, and such records include Confidential Business Information, the Department is already subject to restrictions on the use and storage of such information pursuant to Article 6 of the Public Officers Law.

Comment 31: The record-keeping requirement is inadequate as an enforcement mechanism. (Commenter 1, 24)

Comment 32: The record-keeping requirement should be struck entirely as an ineffective enforcement mechanism, as unnecessary, and as overly-challenging for manufacturers given the complexity of the supply chain. (Commenter 1)

Comment 33: The record-keeping requirement should be struck because it is not necessary for the effective enforcement of the prohibitions, overly broad in that the requirements apply to manufacturers that do not use the prohibited substances, and would create inconsistencies with other jurisdictions' regulations. The actual equipment or product sold within New York is the best evidence of compliance. The administrative requirements will not deter bad actors and only create additional administrative burdens for good actors. (Commenter 13)

Comment 34: Other states have agreed to remove record-keeping requirements from their proposed SNAP rules. (Commenter 16)

Comment 35: Stricter record-keeping requirements are needed, e.g., based on system size along with other requirements. (Comment 39)

Comment 36: Maintain the disclosure and record-keeping requirements as proposed. The Commenter disagrees that record-keeping should not be required as access to relevant data is essential for public management. (Commenter 23)
Response to Comments 31-36: The Department frequently relies on record-keeping as a mechanism to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements and to establish a record over a period of time. In this case, the requirements were written to align with those already in place in the State of California, so as to not introduce additional requirements on the same entities. The Department believes that the recordkeeping requirements in Section 494.7 will serve to facilitate compliance and enforcement, while not imposing additional requirements beyond those that exist in other states. Therefore, the Department did not make substantive revisions to the recordkeeping requirements in Section 494.7.

Comment 37: HVAC equipment end-uses should be exempted from disclosure and record-keeping requirements. The Department should employ internet or electronic disclosure via the AHRI Directory. (Commenter 16, 19)
Response to Comment 37: The Department appreciates the intent of the suggestion to enable a third-party to maintain the records of multiple entities as a simplified approach to compliance, however, this is not sufficient for the purposes of ensuring that the Department is able to access the records from individual entities as needed. Additionally, the information that is required is not currently available in the AHRI Directory. Regulated entities may be able to use the services of third parties to assist in compliance, but it is the regulated entity, not the third party who will be contacted at such time as a record is requested.

Additional HFC Policy

Comment 38: This rule is not sufficient to meet the State's climate goals. The Department should undertake additional policies. Examples provided included regulatory and non-regulatory policies and programs directed at existing equipment, additional end-uses, end-users, leak management, refrigerant recycling and reuse, and proper disposal. (Commenter 9, 14-15, 17-19, 21, 23-24, 31-34, 36-39)
Response to Comment 38: The Department agrees that additional policies that are beyond the scope of this regulation will be needed to reduce HFC emissions in line with the State's statutory greenhouse gas reduction requirements and goals, as set forth in the Climate Act. The Department intends to undertake additional regulatory and policy actions to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including HFCs, consistent with the requirements of the Climate Act.

Comment 39: Communities in New York require assistance from the Department in addressing HFC emissions. (Commenter 32, 33)
Response to Comment 39: The Department appreciates the hard work that community groups in New York have continued to put into addressing HFC emissions in recent years and in drawing attention to the need for additional statewide policies as well as programs to support local action.

Comment 40: New York State should establish a legal limit or emission reduction goal for HFC emissions from all sources as has been adopted into law in other states. Comments suggested that this be undertaken in the statewide emission limits that are to be promulgated by the Department per the Climate Act, which should specify a specific emission limit for HFCs. (Commenter 14, 17)
Response to Comment 40: The current regulation adopts specific prohibitions on the use of HFCs as previously promulgated on the national level as part of the EPA SNAP program. An economy-wide reduction goal, whether regulatory or legislative, is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The Department is proposing a separate rulemaking, Part 496, Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emission Limits, to implement the statewide emission limits set forth in the Climate Act in ECL Section 75-0107. As noted above in response to comment 38, the Department intends to undertake additional regulatory and policy actions to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including HFCs, consistent with the requirements of the Climate Act.

Comment 41: The Commenter supports the proposed rule but requests that the rule be revised to include additional regulatory elements that have been proposed in the State of California, including the use of GWP thresholds on the end-uses proposed in this rule, applying such thresholds to additional end-uses not included in this rule, and the application of company-specific GWP compliance goals for the retail food industry. (Commenter 4, 17, 21, 23)
Response to Comment 41: The proposed rules in the State of California, which have not yet been finalized, cover additional end-uses that are beyond the scope of the current rulemaking. The Department therefore has not included these elements in this rulemaking.

Comment 42: The benefit of eliminating fossil fuels by switching to heat pumps is cumulatively much greater than the potential negative impact of losing the system's refrigerant charge into the atmosphere. The Commenter recommends incentives and other policies and programs to encourage best practices to minimize refrigerant loss. (Commenter 15)

Comment 43: The proposed rule should be expanded to encompass equipment such as heat pumps that also contain high-GWP refrigerants. (Commenter 8, 9, 17, 38-39)
Response to Comments 42 and 43: The intent of the current regulation is to adopt specific prohibitions on the use of HFC-based substances that were previously promulgated on the national level pursuant to the EPA SNAP program. These prohibitions did not extend to heat pumps and many other kinds of equipment that also utilize high-GWP refrigerants. Additional consideration would be needed in order to develop policies that are appropriate for those uses.

Comment 44: The proposed rule does not include other aspects of the EPA SNAP program including requirements regarding leakage. (Commenter 39)
Response to Comment 44: The Department is adopting prohibitions on the use of specific substances that were "delisted" from the EPA SNAP program pursuant to Rules 20 and 21 as acceptable substitutes for ozone-depleting substances. Other sections of the federal Clean Air Act also regulate intentional and unintentional releases of ozone-depleting substances and their substitutes. That separate policy is beyond the scope of the current rulemaking and was not considered as part of this regulation.

Comment 45: The proposed rule or future regulatory or non-regulatory actions by the Department should address the need for technician training to ensure the safe use of alternative refrigerants. (Commenter 1, 16, 19)
Response to Comment 45: While the need for technician training to ensure the safe use of alternative refrigerants is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, the Department agrees that the safe use of any substance is important.

Comment 46: Additional changes to building codes will be needed to enable the full transition to alternative refrigerants given flammability concerns. (Commenter 1, 7, 8, 15, 16, 18, 19, 41)
Response to Comment 46: The Department agrees that additional changes to state and municipal building codes may be needed to enable the use of new alternatives. These issues are also considered by EPA in its development of the SNAP program. The SNAP prohibitions adopted in the current rule reflect the EPA's extensive public process, which included an evaluation of the availability of acceptable alternatives for the end-uses included in this rule.

Comment 47: The proposed rule should specifically address and possibly allow for the use of reclaimed refrigerant as an acceptable alternative to the refrigerants that are prohibited in this rule. (Commenter 1, 16, 17)
Response to Comment 47: The Department also considers refrigerant reclamation to be potentially valuable as a component of HFC reduction policy, but it was not considered as part of the current regulation. If reclaimed refrigerant was in demand and had a high monetary value, it is possible that users may be incentivized to collect rather than release these refrigerants. However, the policies that may be required to properly verify and monitor reclaimed refrigerant is beyond the scope of the current rulemaking, which is focused on adopting prohibitions on the use of specific substances. Additionally, reclaimed refrigerant would have the same impact in terms of GWP as virgin refrigerant. The current rule is specifically intended to address the use of refrigerants in newly manufactured equipment, which unlike existing equipment, can use alternative substances that are not as harmful if released into the atmosphere.

Comment 48: Why were mobile sources (vehicle air-conditioning) not included in the proposed rule? (Commenter 9, 35)
Response to Comment 48: To be consistent with other United States Climate Alliance states, this rulemaking does not regulate mobile vehicle air-conditioning.

Comment 49: The commenter notes that there is a double problem with ice cream trucks that would be a source of refrigerant emissions as well carbon dioxide released from the exhaust while idling. (Commenter 9)
Response to Comment 49: This regulation is focused on HFCs; vehicle idling is outside the scope of this regulation. However, ice cream trucks may be subject to HFC prohibitions in the refrigerant-related end-uses listed in the regulation.


List of Commenters
1 H. Brad Kivlan, IV, Dynatemp International, Inc.
2 Durwood Zaelke, Stephen Anderson, Kristen Taddonio, Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development
3 Ilene Miller
4 Ronald Shebik, Hussman Corporation
5 Kevin Messner, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
6 Mary Yuen
7 Wes Fisher, National Automatic Merchandising Association
8 Patrick Landy
9 Catherine Skopic, Sierra Club NYC
10 Melissa Carlson, Roctricity LLC
11 Alex R. Kaplan
12 Nicholas Georges, Household & Commercial Products Association
13 Justin Kocher, Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association
14 Costa Constantinides, New York City Council Committee on Environmental Protection
15 Brian B. Eden, HeatSmart Tompkins
16 Charlie McCrudden (via Christina Banoub), Daikin US Corporation
17 Christina Starr, EIA
18 Christina Theodorides, NRDC and undersigned
19 Jennifer Kate, AHRI
20 Jessica Olsen, Honeywell
21 Julia Casagrande, NYC
22 Kevin Washington, Illinois Tool Works
23 Mark Schaeffer
24 Michael Helme, New Yorkers for Cool Refrigeration Management
25 Michelle Gross, DuPont
26 Paul Lewandowski, Owens Corning
27 Peter Geosits, Koura
28 Stephen Wieroniey, American Chemistry Council
29 Ramon Torres, ThermoFisher
30 Alan Karpman, Arkema
31 Marcy Denker, New Yorkers for Cool Refrigeration Management
32 Tara Vamos, New Yorkers for Cool Refrigeration Management
33 Janelle Peotter, New Yorkers for Cool Refrigeration Management
34 Pat Wartinger, Pachamama Alliance of the Rochester Area
35 David Ruben
36 Milena Novy-Marx P
37 Patricia Dorland, Pachamama Alliance of the Rochester Area
38 Susan Brown, Pachamama Alliance of the Rochester Area
39 Rachel Goodgal, 350.ORG and undersigned
40 Keith Voos, Drawdown
41 Anthony Sannazzaro, High Mark

1 Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 866 F.3d 451, 453 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (partially vacating Rule 20); Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 760 F. App'x 6, 8 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (partially vacating Rule 21).

2 https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/atoms/files/2018-stateofthestatebook.pdf; https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-directs-dec-phase-out-use-hydrofluorocarbons-new-york-state

3 Section 430.2 of Subpart A of 10 C.F.R. Part 430.

4 ECL § 75-0107.

5 ECL § 75-0103(11).

6 California Code of Regulations Title 17, Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 10, Article 4, Subarticle 5, Section 95375 Requirements.

7 ibid