Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	

EO12866	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Comments on Environmental Protection Agency’s “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program”, RIN 2060-AS18

Executive Summary

 Suggest including the estimated costs and benefits be included up front in the summary to 

frame why we are doing this rulemaking. Please see the OMB memo from January 12, 

2012 describing what should be included in an executive summary: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/clarifyingregulatory-requirements_executive-summaries.pdf

Compliance Dates

 Commenter had sent a comment in a previous round asking about the date in mobile air 

conditioning, and whether it could be earlier than MY 2021 for HFC-134a. Since that 

time, the G-7 agreed to language that we put forward agreeing that, “...We will also 

continue to take action to promote the rapid deployment of climate-friendly and safe 

alternatives in motor vehicle air-conditioning...”. I see that we are requesting comments 

on the MY 2017 and MY 2019 dates, so that’s appreciated, but just wanted to flag that I 

tend to think that 2021 is not something other countries would view as ‘promoting the 

rapid deployment’. Is there any way to propose MY 2019, and ask for comments on 

2017 and 2021 instead of this approach? It would also be good to solicit comments on a 

later date of MY 2025.

 Considering the developmental status of our current space flight programs and evolving 

hardware requirements, we do not anticipate having viable replacement foams by the 

proposed 01/01/2022 deadline. We recognize that EPA may want to set a challenging 

deadline to help drive substitution as much as possible, but we deem it unlikely that we 

will be able to identify, qualify, and implement an alternate blowing agent by that date. 

Will we be able to request an extension?

 Suggest that EPA add an overarching comment that requests input from the public 

regarding earlier and later compliance dates than those proposed? There are a few places 

in the preamble where this is flagged for specific cases, but it would be a good idea to 

request comment so that the agency can consider any new information along with what is 

currently known. 

 As a general matter, we think EPA should propose an aggressive but realistic rule that 

pushes the market forward toward climate-friendly alternatives. In that context, we are 

concerned about the comments we see on what CSPA says is needed. We understand 

CSPA is a trade association, and the comments seem to suggest where industry would 

like an exception that we should try to accommodate. We encourage careful 

consideration of all changes. If EPA deems it necessary, then OK, but we need to be very

careful not to simply put in exemptions for all comers. 

 Has EPA considered having an extension of the compliance date for small production 

lines – for all uses? You can cost-effectively perform R&D on large production line, but 

for a small line, it may not pay to continue the line. Such a line may be salvaged by an 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	

EO12866	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

extension of time for compliance. This type of flexibility is often employed by the air 

office for manufacturers of equipment, such as lawn mowers or boats with diesel engines, 

and I believe for wood stoves for the same reason. Perhaps we should develop a proposal 

with an additional two years for product lines involving less than a specific quantity of 

CO2 Equivalents. There are many thousands of product lines involved in this rule – from 

the very large (auto manufacturing) to the very small (refrigerants, foam uses). 

Program Flexibility

 Please confirm that the credits earned under the GHG/CAFE vehicle rules would still be 

valid even if this rule were finalized. Would automakers still be able to use the credits 

they have previously earned under this new rulemaking? Does this rule have any affect 

on those credits such as reducing their value, expiration date, tradability, etc?

 One commenter suggested that EPA should consider creating some type of set-aside for 

specialty vehicles. The idea would be to allow for compliance flexibility for some of the 

very unique cases that might arise during implementation. EPA could create some type 

of petitioning process and a limited pool of credits. How would the agency recommend 

that it would be implemented? 

 Commenter asked whether proposals could be made for domestic refrigeration (on the 

refrigerant side specifically) and for small AC units. It could be I have missed this, but I

don’t see a response in the document. I get the sense EPA may view this as a next step 

rather than something to do here, but wondering if that needs to be reflected somehow.