Document QJwqY8z7Y6vMLoe4GMdDQLav7

BN ve wesmmsastn coat `Summary minofumeettinegwisth EPEE and EFCTCon23/42021 participants: | (e|:r(cErFcC)TC) (Ever); (cua); (Cuma); (Cuma); EPEE and the EFCTC expressed their concern about the intativ taken in some Member tates that potentially could ead to prohibition of PEAS. Theynotedthat it was not appropriate to reat all PEAS in thesame way and that HFCsandHFOs should not be covered because in their view chemical they are not PFAS strict sensu, but only their potential breakdownproducts,whose occurrence in manycases has, inthe industry view, not been demonstrated, would quaiya PEAS. If aesbsreontaidalPFusAeSpprroohhiibbiittiioonn, issihncoeweitvweoruilndtrootdhuecrewdi,seHFnCotabnedpoHsFsOibulseitngosreecptloarcseshhioguhlldyqwuaarlimfiynfgorHEanC.S in `gmaansyRaepgpulliaatnicoens,.Tinhehyisswugagyesmteadnyteomiinscsliuodne mcaenabseuarvoetiosdepdr.event emissions from HFOs in the future DG CLMA took note of their concern and mentioned tha the PFASinitiativews within theremitof he REACH Directive, and was spearheaded by the iniitive of some MemberStates (OF, OK, SE, 35 well 5 NO) andthat there were close contacts tothe collegues in DG ENV toensureconsistency betweenthepolices, swell5 to theNOenvironmental agency whoi investigating HFOS/HCs in thiscontext.DG CLIMA confirmed that an essentialuseexempion wasbein considered. Alo, in the gas review impact assessment the Commision i exploring th possibiltyofexpanding the scope. for the emission containment measuretos also cover equipment containing HFOS.