From the prepublished rule… (emphasis ours)
Comment: EPA received several comments related to the proposed time for changing the listing status of HFC-134a in MVAC… Effective Altruism at the University of Maryland commented that HFC-134a should be listed as unacceptable as of January 2017, and the California Air Resource Board (CARB) commented that MY 2018 is a reasonable timeframe for the unacceptable listing to apply.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenters that suggested that an earlier transition year would result in greater environmental benefits to the extent that it would result in earlier reduction of use of HFC-134a in MVAC. However, in considering whether other listed alternatives are available that pose lower overall risk, EPA needs to consider whether there are any technical challenges that would prevent use of those alternatives consistent with the use conditions which are necessary to ensure that they pose lower risk than HFC-134a. EPA does not agree that a safe, smooth transition in compliance with the use conditions required for the lowerGWP alternatives can be made for all vehicles prior to MY 2021 in the United States. This is based on the need to transition most vehicles during redesign cycles, which in many cases requires hardware changes, as discussed above. EPA has also considered the potential benefits to aligning our domestic transition to the EU’s, in light of the fact that the transition to MVAC systems using one of the three alternatives began earlier than we predicted, and in light of the adequate supply of alternatives. Based on our current understanding and the information provided by commenters, especially the automobile manufacturers, the Agency has concluded that MY 2021 is the earliest date by which all model vehicles can be safely transitioned to lowerGWP alternatives in accordance with the use conditions.
We note that even though we are establishing MY 2021 as the date by which HFC-134a will be unacceptable, 52 EPA expects health and safety benefits will be realized sooner, as manufacturers will be designing new models each year using lower-GWP refrigerants for MVAC. The benefits analysis provided with the NPRM (EPA, 2014) and the analysis associated with this final action (EPA, 2015b) use a “business as usual” scenario that assumes a transition in refrigerant for MVAC will occur for vehicles manufactured and sold in the United States, in order to be consistent with the LD GHG Rule, and that assumes no regulatory action, and thus no benefits, under SNAP. However, our analysis of the effects of a change of status for MVAC as of MY 2021 shows some benefits beyond the “business as usual” scenario, reflecting the use of lower-GWP refrigerants in exported vehicles.
While not relevant to EPA’s decision regarding the appropriate date for changing the status of HFC-134a for use in MVAC, EPA also agrees its action to change the status of HFC- 134a will send a valuable signal to the international community regarding the continued use of high-GWP alternatives.
We regret that the EPA chose not to comply with our suggestion, but it was very informative to see how the EPA concluded to persist with the MY 2021 deadline. The EPA projects that it would be difficult for the industry to adjust to a change in the status of HFC – 134a under the timeline we proposed, and that manufacturers are likely to informally comply with the change before the deadline.
Going forward, we’re going to try and consider industry counters to our suggestions. We did not anticipate the volume of comments that came after our own suggesting a change similar to the one we proposed, and in the full version of the rule there are many references to other groups recommending a change in the deadline. Currently, we absolutely consider whether other groups have made comments on a rule we are considering, and whether our input is unique.
In regards to the EPA’s response, we believe that for most cars the transmission can be made compliant quickly and easily, so we find it unfortunate that the EPA can’t implement a partial restriction.
