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. From the commenting agency’s perspective, this rule is a very helpful driver in our efforts to 

secure an HFC amendment in 2016 by showing that HFC alternatives are available, and that the 

US is delivering domestically to reduce HFC use and emissions. This rule would significantly 

help the negotiations if the proposal is out by mid-March, this would be far enough in advance 

of the April 4-8 Open-ended working group meeting that other countries would be aware of it 

and we can speak to the proposal at the meeting. Second, the commenting agency would ask 

that we make utmost efforts to finalize the rule by mid-September, in advance of the October 

10-14 Meeting of the Parties where the commenting agency hopes to adopt an HFC amendment.

2. Has EPA considered including window air conditioning units? Or are there other categories of 

equipment that EPA thinks should be included as well?

3. Table numbers refer to tables in the screening analysis for the following comments:

a. Aggregation in the screening analysis - EPA should not be considering the aggregated 

impacts on small entities to support its RFA certification. This rule is a series of 

separable provisions that do not interact with each other, so aggregation masks 

significant economic effects. In particular, working from table 19 of the screening 

analysis, if considered separately, two of the product/uses regulated here appear to lead 

to significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities. 

b. Annualization in the screening analysis - While annualization may be appropriate in 

cost-benefit analyses, it should not be used in screening analyses. Annualization 

assumes that a small business can effect a loan for the purposes of regulatory 

compliance at a rate of 7% over the annualization period. (In one case, EPA uses 20 

years. In another case, it uses 25 years. Neither would be available to a small business, 

even for productive investment in facilities.) Please express compliance costs in terms 

of capital (or one-time) costs and operating costs to help evaluate the likely economic 

impacts. 

c. Energy Efficiency Standards - The interaction between the DOE energy efficiency 

standards and this proposed rule are more significant than discussed and has the 

potential to significantly increase costs. It appears that the cost estimates in the 

screening analysis assumes that replacement with 450 and 513 will have no energy 

efficiency impacts. Are there any other sources for the assertion that 450 and 513 are 

drop-in replacements that require no upfront re-engineering or changes to maintain 

energy efficiency? 

For small entities, a short gap between energy efficiency standards and SNAP standards 

means that they either have to go through two engineering cycles on their products in a 

very short period of time or their compliance date for SNAP would, in effect, be the 

earlier date for energy efficiency standards. If the practical effect of the two rules 
together is an earlier compliance date, how does that affect EPA’s finding that there is 

enough time to meet the technical challenges of adopting substitutes? If engineering for 

both regulation has to be combined, then it would increase the costs.

d. Cold Storage – The commenter has concerns about the certification for this sector. This 

section leaves the impression that the universe of small entities that produce packaged 

systems with fluorinated refrigerants would be significantly affected (i.e, 4 of 4). Table 

19 implies that all four of these entities would experience a significant economic impact. 

Advocacy encourages EPA to consider alternatives that would significantly reduce the 

burden on these four entities.

e. Spray – The commenter has significant concerns about the certification for this industry. 

Even though the number of small entities in the NAICS code is several hundred, the 

whole NAICS code is not the appropriate number against which to compare for the 

purposes of determining a “substantial number.” Considered as a separable part of this 

rulemaking, table 19 would imply that almost half of the small entities affected would 

experience significant impacts. Since these impacts are presented as annualized over 25 

years, this may be a significant understatement of costs.

f. Repair and Maintenance - I’m not completely sure how this rule would impact repair 

and maintenance of equipment manufactured before the effective dates. Would a partial 

replacement of refrigerator parts and recharge with phased out HFC still be allowed? 

How are these service providers regulated? Are there any estimates of the size of this 

kind of repair market and the extent to which it extends the useful life of regulated 

products?

4. The commenter conducts research and operations across a wide spectrum of technical areas 

and levels of readiness. In general, the commenter uses HFCs as replacements for ozonedepleting substances (ODSs) in numerous applications, including certain mission-critical 

applications for which appropriate substitutes have not been identified. These uses can include 

precision cleaning, foam blowing, and possibly other applications. Because of the dynamic 

nature of our Agency’s work, particularly as regards space flight programs currently being 

developed, it is not possible to identify all possible mission-critical uses of high-GWP 

substances, even the limited subset of materials and applications addressed in the proposed 

Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program rule.

Two proposed provisions are of particular concern, as detailed below. 

a. Extension of the proposed narrowed use limit for spray foams by three years, to expire 

on January 1, 2025. EPA is proposing to list as unacceptable several HFC and HFC blend 

foam blowing agents for certain spray foam applications. EPA is also proposing an 

exception to this listing for military or space-and aeronautics-related applications when 

used in low pressure two-component and high pressure two-component spray foams. 

This exception would be a narrowed use limit expiring on January 1, 2022.

As currently written, the proposed rule would allow the commenting agency to use 

through Calendar Year (CY) 2021 mission-critical HFC 245fa-based cryoinsulation 

spray foams being qualified for use on space flight hardware. These foams replace 
HCFC 141b-blown foams, which in turn replaced CFC 11-blown foams in similar 

applications. Each of these successive foam replacement efforts took several years 

due to the challenging operational environment and the lengthy requalification 

process associated with human rating. The commenting agency has begun planning 

a research program for our human-rated systems that would screen numerous foam 

chemistries as possible substitutes. However, since no single chemistry has yet 

been identified that can meet the rigorous technical and safety requirements of 

human-rated space flight systems, it could take several years to complete 

replacement work. Considering the length of the federal budgetary cycle and the 

length of time the commenter anticipates being needed to identify, develop, test and 

implement substitutes, the commenter does not expect to be able to deploy 

replacement foams in the proposed timeframe. Although the commenter is not 

certain how much time will be required for substitution work, the commenter 

believes an additional three years for this narrowed use limit should be adequate.

b. Exemption of spaceflight hardware and related support equipment from the proposed 

import ban on products composed of or incorporating closed cell foams made with 

unacceptable blowing agents.

EPA is proposing to apply the unacceptability determinations in this action for foam 

blowing agents, as well as all listings for foam blowing agents codified in the 

appendices to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G, to closed cell foam products and products 

containing closed cell foam. This would mean that closed cell foam products and 

products containing closed cell foams manufactured abroad and imported could not 

be used in the United States if the foam blowing agent was listed as unacceptable.

The commenting agency uses parts and components made abroad to meet 

challenging mission requirements and, in some cases, as part of international 

agreements with partners such as Japan, Canada, Russia, and the European Union. 

These components may comprise or incorporate closed cell foam products or 

products containing closed cell foams made with blowing agents listed as 

unacceptable. It is critical that the commenting agency be allowed to use parts and 

components that are qualified for spaceflight applications to minimize risk to our 

crews, vehicles and overall mission.

We request that EPA consider exempting spaceflight hardware and related support 

equipment from this proposed provision. This would allow continued use of parts 

and components needed for mission safety and to meet the technical requirements 

of the commenter’s partners.

In addition, NASA has reviewed the recently updated draft language providing 

“narrowed use limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications” 

through CY 2024 for certain refrigerants used in centrifugal chillers and positive 

displacement chillers. We concur with this updated draft language.

5. Much of the supporting analysis referenced by EPA as contained within contracted research 

reports was not available to the commenting agency and thus, we were unable to determine the 
underlying assumptions that went into the analysis. From the commenting agencies’

perspective, there are several areas where it appears (under cursory review) that the 

occupational exposure perspective may have been insufficiently and/or inappropriately 

considered. For example:

a. In many instances, the EPA analysis relies on AEGL values for short-term exposure and 

does not use NIOSH IDLH values. This occurs in both occupational and non-occupational 

analysis but given that many workers commute or work in affected vehicles for 

significant time periods, the “consumer” analysis needs to also consider occupational 

exposure criterion. 

b. EPA’s occupational exposure analysis was consistently limited to service technicians 

and apparently did not consider the potential occupational exposures that could result 

to workers in numerous industries affected by the proposed rule, but most notably 

workers in transportation, public (to include fire/rescue/police), healthcare and service 

sectors.

c. When considering flammability issues, they rely on Lower Flammability Levels (LFL) 

(and apparent assumptions of even mixing throughout spaces) as opposed to the 

traditional 10% of Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) criteria. 

d. EPA needs to add minimum enclosure volume requirements as a proposed use 

condition for placement of new equipment that uses flammable refrigerants. Ice 

machines, vending machines and water coolers are often placed within custom wall 

cubicles that would exacerbate the flammability hazards associated with potential leaks 

and these size restrictions do not appear to have been adequately considered within 

EPA’s analysis. 

e. Combustion byproduct analysis for HFO-1234yf only focused on hydrogen fluoride 

whereas recent research ((http://www.en.unimuenchen.de/news/newsarchiv/2014/kornath_refrigerant.html) seems to indicates 

carbonyl fluoride (much more toxic) should also be considered.

f. In the combustion byproduct analysis, AEGL values were again referenced for potential 

occupational exposure scenarios where ILDH values are more applicable and in this 

case, would likely have led to a different conclusion. 

g. Low-to-no repetition data points (with insufficient information provided regarding 

sample protocol, collection point, etc.) appear to have been used to make definitive risk 

conclusions without considering statistical variability and the impact it could have on 

subsequent safety conclusions.

h. There is a strong reliance upon UL listing requirements (especially as they relate to 

refrigerant charge limits) without providing the details of assumptions made by the UL 

in determining that such limits were safe. We cannot verify the accuracy of this 

approach. Our own calculations identified very plausible scenarios where the proposed 

refrigerant charge limits could create atmospheres in excess of 10% of LEL under 

catastrophic release scenarios discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking. 
6. The provision concerning the 2022 phase-out of HFC-134a in centrifugal and positive 

displacement compressor chillers will adversely impact national security unless narrowed use 

limits are crafted for our mission-critical applications in marine vessels. The commenting 

agency is working closely with industry partners that produce this mission-critical hardware to 

identify and eventually qualify suitable lower-GWP alternatives. However, the lower-GWP 

alternatives currently being offered or proposed for use in commercial chillers either do not 

meet the commenting agency's military-unique requirements or will require longer timeframes 

to test for military suitability, and then redesign, qualify, and procure new chillers for the 

agency’s shipbuilding programs.