Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO	

12866	and	EO	13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Interagency	Comments	on	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency	(EPA)	draft final	rule	titled,

“Protection	of	Stratospheric	Ozone: Change	of	Listing	Status	for	Certain	Substitutes	Under

the	Significant	New	Alternatives	Policy	(SNAP)	Program,”	(RIN 2060-AS18)

1) Monohull	Recreational	Boats	Less	Than	20	Feet	in	Length

The	commenting	agency	has	requested	a	narrow	use	exemption	to	allow	for	the	continued	use

through	Jnauary	1,	2022,	similar	to	the	military	and	space-related	applications, of	currently	

used	foam	blowing	agents	(HFC-134a,	HFC-245fa,	HFC-365mfc	and	blends	thereof;	Formacel	TI,	

and	Formacel	Z-6)	for	rigid	polyurethane,	marine	flotation	foams	specifically	for	monohull

recreational	boats	less	than	twenty	feet	in	length.

33	CFR	Part	183	(Boats	and	Associated	Equipment),	Subparts	F	(Flotation	Requirements	for	

Inboard	Boats,	Inboard/Outdrive	Boats,	and	Airboats),	G	(Flotation	Requirements	for	Outboard	

Boats	Rated	for	Engines	of	More	than	2	Horsepower),	and	H	(Flotation	Requirements	for	

Outboard	Boats	Rated	for	Engines	of	2	Horsepower	or	Less),	require	all	manufacturers	of	

monohull	recreational	boats	less	than	twenty	feet	in	length	(except	sailboats,	canoes,	kayaks,	

inflatable	boats,	submersibles,	surface	effect	vessels,	amphibious	vessels,	and	race	boats)	to	

provide	sufficient	flotation	foam	within	the	boat	to	insure	that	the	boat	will	not	sink	if	the	boat	

swamps	or	capsizes.		This	requirement	allows	the	occupants	to	hold	onto	the	boat	until	they	can	

be	rescued.

Manufacturers	are	required	by	regulation	to	certify	that	their	boats	have	enough	flotation	to	

meet	the	regulations.		Although	this	is	a	self-certification	requirement,	the	federal	agency	that	

requires	these	certifications has	a	program	to	inspect	boats	at	the	factory	to	ensure	compliance	

with	the	certification.		However,	these	inspections	are	only	completed	on	a	small	number	of	

manufacturers	each	year.		The	federal	agency also	has	a	program	whereby	it	buys	a	small	

sampling	of	boats	on	the	open	market	and	performs	in-water	flotation	testing	to	ensure	

compliance	with	the	regulations.		Unfortunately,	the	latest	annual	test	results	showed	a	56%	

failure	rate	for	boats	in	this	testing	program.		If	a	manufacturer	has	sold	boats	that	fail	the	

flotation	testing,	all	of	the	boats	of	that	model	that	were	sold	must	be	recalled	and	brought	into	

compliance	at	no	cost	to	the	boat	owner.		One	case	involved	the	recall	of	over	twelve	thousand	

boats.			

To	meet	the	flotation	requirements,	many	of	the	manufacturers	inject	foam	into	boat	bilges	

using	HFC-134a	as	the	blowing	agent.		Discontinuing	the	use	of	HFC-134a	will	require	transition	

to	an	alternative	blowing	agent	that	will	need	to	be	developed	and	tested	with	the	other	

ingredients	used	in	the	foam	formulation.		The	commenting	agency requires	multiple	tests	to	be	

performed	on	the	flotation	foam	that	include	measuring	the	reduction	of	buoyant	force	of	the	

foam	under	several	conditions,	including	a	30	day	immersion	in	a	saturated	gasoline	vapor	

atmosphere,	a	24	hour	and	a	30	day	immersion	in	gasoline,	a	24	hour	and	30	day	immersion	in	

oil,	and	a	24	hour	and	30	day	immersion	in	bilge	cleaner.		The	foam	created	using	the	

alternative	blowing	agent	will	need	to	pass	all	of	these	tests prior	to	being	able	to	manufacturer	

any	recreational	boats.		
The	EPA rule	includes	a	schedule	for	the	development	and	testing	of	a	new	marine	foam	

formulation	that	requires	commercial	availability	of	an	alternative	by	January	1,	2020.		The	

rule’s	preamble	discussion	of	BASF’s	comment	on	polyurethan marine	flotation	foam,	though	

describes	a	development	and	testing	process	that	takes	at	least	four	to	five	years.		

Consequently,	the	2020	date	may	be	attainable	but	it	presumes	optimum	results	and	no	

setbacks	in	every	step	of	the	development	and	testing	process.		

Because	the	performance	of	the	marine	flotation	foam	is	directly	related	to	the	safety	of	the	

boating	public,	and	because	January	1,	2020	may	be	an	unrealistic	deadline,	the commenting	

agency is	requesting	that	marine	flotation	foam	used	in	monohull	recreational	boats	less	than	

twenty	feet	in	length	be	included	in	the	Narrowed	Use	Limits	exception	with	military	or	spaceand	aeronautics-related	applications	involving	performance	or	safety	requirements.		Although	

EPA	correctly	points	out	there	are	differences	between	marine	flotation	applications	and	

unique	military	and	space	applications,	failure	of	an	alternative	marine	flotation	foam	several	

years	into	the	testing	phases	will	not	leave	enough time	to	successfully	develop	and	test	a	

second	alternative	by	January	1,	2020.

2) Marine	Lifesaving	Equipment	That	Uses	Foam	Flotation	Material

The	commenting	agency is	also	concerned	about	the	impact	of	this	rule	on	agency	approved	

lifesaving	equipment	that	uses	foam	flotation	material	such	as	lifeboats,	rescue	boats,	

lifejackets,	ring	buoys,	or	other	personal	flotation	devices,	which	are	regulated	under	46	CFR	

Parts	160	(Lifesaving	Equipment)	and	164	(Materials).		Manufacturers	of	agency approved	

lifesaving	equipment	must	submit	test	reports	to	demonstrate	that	the	foams	used	in	their	

products	conform	to	specific	performance	requirements	such	as	buoyancy,	compressibility,	

tensile	strength,	and	oil	absorption.		These	tests	are	intended	to	ensure	that	the	foam	material	

will	provide	the	requisite	buoyancy	in	new	condition	and	over	a	reasonable	period	of	exposure	

to	the	marine	environment.		Like	the	recreational	boat	applications,	development	and	testing	

alternative	foam	for	these	lifeboat,	rescue	boat,	and	lifesaving	equipment	applications	takes	at	

least	four	to	five	years,	and	could	easily	take	longer.		

As	part	of	this	comment,	it	would	be	helpful	to	understand	if	these	types	of	foam	materials	

would	also	be	covered	under	the	rigid	polyurethane:	marine	flotation	foam	end	use	or	some	

other.		Lifeboats	and	rescue	boats	would	likely	use	a	rigid	polyurethane	whereas	lifejackets,	

ring	buoys,	and	personal	flotation	devices would	use	a	flexible	type	foam.		In	which	end	use	

categories	would	each	of	these	products	fall?

3) Retail	Food	Refrigeration

The	commenter	requests	EPA	to	consider	a	narrow	use	exemption	to	provide	some	additional

time	for	small	manufacturing	firms	(firms with	less	than	500	employees)	to	comply	with	the	

new	supermarket	systems’ January	2019	requirement	and	for	the	new	remote	condensing	

systems’	January	2020	requirements.		The	use	exemption	could	also	be	narrowed	further	to	

reduce	any potential	impacts	of	the	exemption	by	limiting	the	use to	a	certain	percentage	of	

their	2016	year	CO2-equivalent	quantity	of	the	otherwise	delisted	chemical	during	the	

extension	period.
Small	businesses	could	use	the	additional	time	as	they	will	likely	be	last	in	line	to	obtain	access	

to	consultants,	HFC		substitutes,	equipment,	components,	and	lab	time,	and	lack	the	technical	

and	financial	resources	to	develop,	test,	and	certify	their	products	in	the	short	lead-times	

provided	by	EPA.		The	commenter	is	also	concerned	about	any potential	constraints in	chemical	

supplier	personnel,	consultants,	laboratory	time	and	necessary	equipment	and	chemicals	for	

the	transition,	it	would	be	best	that	the	largest	end-uses	for	each	sector	be	first	in	line	for	these	

resources.			Technical	solutions	developed	for	the	larger	end-uses	will	inform	the	smaller	enduses.		We	expect	this	has	been	the	experience	of	Coca	Cola	as	it	has	progressed	through	their	

years	long	process	to	transition	hundreds	of	end-uses,	and	it	is	only	24	percent	complete	today.

The	commenter	also	reviewed	a	number	of	the	public	comments	submitted	and	have	identified

specific	concerns	with	small	businesses’	ability	to	meet	EPA’s	proposed	transition	dates.		

Commenters	that	requested	additional	time	include:		the	Commercial	Food	Equipment	Service	

Association	(CEFSA);	Traulsen;	the	National	Marine	Manufacturers	Association	(NMMA);	the	

Association	of	Home	Appliance	Manufacturers	(AHAM);	BASF;	the	Air-Conditioning,	Heating,	

and	Refrigeration	Institute	(AHRI);	the	North	American	Association	of	Food	Equipment	

Manufacturers	(NAFEM);	and	Solvay.		

 CEFSA	requested	that	EPA	extend	the	compliance timeline	5	years	for	all	manufacturers	

and	ideally	by	10	years	to	accommodate	small	businesses.	

 Traulsen	estimated	that	compressor	products	would	not	be	commercially	available	until	

2	to	3	years,	and	stated	that	this	“roadblock	would	be	exponentially	worse	for	smaller	

manufacturers.”

 NMMA	cited	small	business	financial	and	logistical	hardships	that	will	lead	to	small	boat	

builders	being	unable	to	meet	EPA’s	proposed	HFC	134a	transition	date	of	January	1,	

2017.	Although	the	final	rule	revises	this	date	to	January	1,	2020,	NMMA’s	comments	

indicated	that	they	are	not	confident	that	compliance	with	the	transition	away	from	

HFC-134	can	occur	before	January	1,	2022.			NMMA	also	suggested	a	small	business	

hardship	exemption	for	small	businesses	that	are	unable	to	meet	the	EPA	deadline.		

 Comments	from	AHAM	note	that	smaller	companies	that	are	focused	on	the	domestic	

U.S.	market	lack	the	resources	and	technical	expertise	of	larger	global	companies.	They	

stress	that	achieving	the	“last	tranche	of	100%	transition”	changes	will	be	particularly	

costly	for	the	smaller	firms.

 BASF	notes	that	they	serve	both	large	corporations	and	family-owned	small	businesses,	

and	that	they	expect	small	businesses	to	be	most	adversely	affected	by	EPA’s	proposed	

changes	because	they	will	support	their	large	customers	first.	

 AHRI’s	comments	indicate	that	the	majority	of	commercial	refrigeration	and	walk-in	

cooler/freezer	manufacturers	are	small	businesses	with	limited	financial	and	human	

resources,	and	that	the	proposed	short	compliance	time	frames	will	place	a	huge	

financial	and	technical	burden	on	these	entities.

 NAFEM	notes	that	small	manufacturers	are	faced	with	uncertainty	as	to	which	

refrigerants	and	blowing	agents	will	be	available	in	the	future	since	large	manufacturers	

can	use	their	influence	with	suppliers	to	dominate	the	market	for	certain	products.		

Small	manufacturers	will	have	to	“wait	and	see	what	products	will	become	available.”

 Solvay	asserts	that	EPA	did	not	adequately	evaluate	small	business	impacts,	and	

indicates	that	the	unique	uses	and	needs	of	spray	foams/spray	foam	users	justify	

exempting	them	from	EPA’s	proposed	delisting	in	part	because	this	sector	is	dominated	

by	a	unique	set	of	vulnerable	small	business	end	users.
a) New	Supermarket	Systems

As	identified	in	the	draft	Preamble	of	the	final	rule,	comments	from	Hussmann,	Master-Bilt,	

Lennox,	Zero	Zone,	and	the	Air-Conditioning,	Heating,	and	Refrigeration	Institute	(AHRI)	all	

noted	the	need	for	additional	time	for	new	Supermarket	Systems.		Additional	transition	

time	is	needed	to	address	a	number	of	concerns	including	energy	efficiency,	reliability,	and	

product	performance	issues.1

 Hussman	had	requested	September	2018	assuming	September	2015	publication	of	

the	final	rule.

 AHRI	had	requested	mid-2018.

 Lennox	submitted	comments	suggesting	they	would	need	until	mid-2019 to	

transition.		Lennox’s	comments	mirror	those	from	AHRI:	“...given	the	limited	use	of	

R-407	family	refrigerants	to	date,	OEM’s	need	at	least	3	years	to	develop	complete	

product	lines,	technical	literature	and	contractor	training	materials	to	serve	the	

market.”	

 In	the	case	of	Zero	Zone,	they	indicated	that	existing	products	are	not	performing	

properly:	“The	industry	has	used	some	of	the	alternate	refrigerants	listed	(R407a	

and	R407c).		We	have	supplied	display	cases	and	compressor	systems	with alternate	

refrigerants.		A	number	of	the	systems	have	experienced	odd	performance	

characteristics.		We	believe	the	odd	performance	characteristics	relate	to	the	high	

glide	of	the	alternate	refrigerants.		The	industry	needs	additional	time	to	eliminate	

the performance	issues	and	design	product	that	uses	these	refrigerants	in	the	most	

energy	efficient	manner.”		

b) New	Remote	Condensing	Units

An	analogous	set	of	comments	was	submitted	to	EPA	on	the	transition	dates	for	New	

Remote	Condensing	Units ranging	from 2020	to	2025.	 The	concerns	include	the	availability	

of	alternatives,	and	the	need	to	design	and	test	products	using	those	alternatives and	that	

AHRI	similarly	recommended	that	the	compliance	date	for	remote	condensing	units	occur	

after	the	date	for	supermarkets.	 Some	energy	efficiency	challenges	exist	for new	remotecondensing	unit	equipment	that	will	need	to	meet	both	DOE	and	National	Sanitation	

Foundation	(NSF)	standards	that	may	necessitate	additional	time.		

 Lennox requested	the	agency	finalize	compliance	for	new	Remote	Condensing	Units	

five	years	from	publication	of	the	final	rule,	which	would	be	September	2020	(final	

rule	+	five	years).

 AHRI’s	comments	suggested	that	that	the	proposed	change	in	HFC	status	in	

condensing	units	should	not	be	implemented	until	a	minimum	of	six	years	from	the	

publication	of	the	final	rule,	which	would	be	September	2021	(final	rule	+	six	

years).

2

 

2 “we ask that EPA reconsider its proposal and provide a minimum of 6 years from the publication of the final rule to 

allow manufacturers of stand-alone and condensing units adequate time to transition away from high global warming 

potential (GWP) refrigerants...” The reference to 3 years in AHRI’s comments is specific to Supermarket Systems.
 Continental	Refrigerator	commented	that	for	new	retail	food refrigeration	

condensing	units	that	R-404A	charge	size	exceeding	500	grams	(17.64	ounces)	in	

each	circuit be	moved	to	January	1,	2021.

 Nor-Lake	requested	2025.

 Rheem requested	no	sooner	than	June	5,	2022	for	delisting	of	R-404A	(five	years	

after	effective	date	of	the	new	DOE	efficiency	standards).

 Master-Bilt Products	requested 2025.