## 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	Engi nes	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, inflata ble	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	o nto	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	certific ations 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 sa mpling	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	bo ats	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	u sed	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	gasoli ne	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	di sc ussion	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	space and	aeronautics - related	applications	involving	performance	or	safety	requ irements.		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	f oam	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	li fesaving	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	l ifejackets, 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 com menter	requests	EPA	to consider	a	narrow	use	exemption	to	provide	some	addition al 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 us e to a	certain	percentage	o f their	2016	year	CO2 - equivalent	quantity	of	the	otherwise	delisted	chemical	during	the e xtension	period.Small	businesses could	use	the	additional	time	as	they	will	likely be	last	in	line	to	obta in	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	end uses.		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 Manuf acturers	(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	compre ssor	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.  Comme nts	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	fi rst.  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 fina ncial	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	do minate	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,	co mments	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. A dditional	transition time	is	needed	to	address	a	number	of	con cerns	including	energy	efficiency,	reliability,	and product	performance	issues. 1  Hussman	had	requested	September	2018 assu ming	September	2015	publication	of the	final	rule.  AHRI	had	requested	m id - 2018 .  Lenn ox	submitted	comments	suggesting	they	would	need until	m id - 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	Uni ts 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. S ome	energy	ef ficiency	challenges	exist	for new	remote condensing	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	comp liance	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	n ew	retail	food refrigeration condensing	units	that R- 404A	charge	size	exceeding	5 00	grams	(17.64	ounces)	in each	circuit be	moved	to January	1,	2021.  Nor - Lake	requested 2025 .  Rheem requested	n o	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 .