[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30353-30356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8177]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-8174-9]


Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Data Availability; 
New Information Concerning SNAP Program Proposal on Ozone Depleting 
Substitutes in Foam Blowing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability and request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making available 
to the public new information related to a November 4, 2005 proposed 
rule under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program under 
section 612 of the Clean Air Act (70 FR 67120). The SNAP program 
reviews alternatives to Class I and Class II ozone depleting substances 
and approves the use of alternatives which reduce the overall risk to 
public health and the environment. The November 4, 2005 proposed rule 
proposed to list two hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)--HCFC-22 and 
HCFC-142b--as unacceptable substitutes in foam blowing applications, 
but proposed to grandfather existing users until January 1, 2010. In 
response to the November 2005 proposal, EPA received public comments, 
which have been made available through the Air Docket (see General 
Information section below for docket contact information). The Agency 
has also received additional information regarding the technical 
viability of non-ozone depleting alternatives in blowing agents 
available for polyurethane ``pour foam'' and the extruded polystyrene 
foam industries. Today, the Agency is requesting comment on these 
materials. We plan to consider this information, and any comment 
received during the comment period, in determining what future action 
to take on our November 4, 2005 proposal regarding the use of HCFC-22 
and HCFC-142b in foam blowing applications. This information may impact 
the outcome of the final rule, such as adjusting the January 1, 2010 
grandfathering date or clarifying the definition of ``existing use.''

DATES: We will accept comments on the new data through June 26, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Comments may also be submitted electronically, by facsimile, 
or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as 
provided at the beginning of the supplementary information section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this 
notice, contact Seema Schappelle by telephone at (202) 343-9548, or by 
e-mail at [email protected]. Overnight or courier deliveries 
should be sent to the office location at 1310 L Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20005. Notices and rulemakings under the SNAP program 
are available on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. How Can I Get Copies of Related Information ?
    B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?
    C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?
II. What is today's action?
III. What information is EPA making available for review and 
comment?
IV. Where can I get the data being made available for comment?
V. Why is EPA making this data available?
VI. What is EPA not taking comment on?
VII. What supporting documentation do I need to include in my 
comments?

I. General Information

A. How Can I Get Copies of Related Information?

1. Docket
    EPA has established an official public docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0507 (continuation of OAR-2003-0228 and Docket 
A-2000-18). The official public docket consists of the documents 
specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, 
and other information related to this action. Hard copies of documents 
from prior to the public comment period are found under Docket ID No. 
A-2000-18. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket 
does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official 
public docket is the collection of materials that is available for 
public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket 
Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1742, 
and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-
1742.
2. Electronic Access
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment

[[Page 30354]]

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index 
listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access 
those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. 
Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification 
number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. 
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public 
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic 
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be 
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in 
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all 
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access 
any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket 
facility identified in section I.B.1. above.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, 
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment 
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment 
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that 
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's 
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the 
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or 
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public 
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will 
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where 
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph 
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief 
description written by the docket staff.

B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or 
through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 
identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject 
line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your 
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments 
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' 
EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to 
submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, 
please follow the instructions in section I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets 
or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
1. Electronically
    If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA 
recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail 
address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also 
include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM 
you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. 
This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment 
and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due 
to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance 
of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, 
and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a 
comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public 
docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment.
    Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to 
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go 
directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the 
online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic 
public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select ``Information 
Sources,'' ``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' Once in the system, key in 
Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0507. The system is an ``anonymous access'' 
system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or 
other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your 
comment.
    Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0507. In contrast to 
EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an 
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to 
the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's 
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail 
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public 
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the 
mailing address identified in section I.B.1. These electronic 
submissions will be accepted in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect or ASCII 
file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of 
encryption.
2. By Mail
    Send two copies of your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0507.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier
    Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, 
Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC., Attention 
Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0507. Such deliveries are only accepted during 
the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified in section I.B.1.
4. By Facsimile
    Fax your comments to: 202-566-1741, Attention Docket ID. No. OAR-
2004-0507.

C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. 
Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following 
address: Seema Schappelle, U.S. EPA, 8th floor, 1310 L Street NW, 
Washington DC 20005 via overnight delivery service, Attention Docket ID 
No. OAR-2004-0507. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as 
CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you 
submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as 
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the 
specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2.
    In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not 
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion 
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit 
the copy that does

[[Page 30355]]

not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD 
ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI 
will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public 
docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the 
procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. What is today's action?

    Today, we are requesting comment on additional information 
developed after the comment period on the appropriate period for 
grandfathering existing users in certain end uses for foam blowing 
applications. In the November 4, 2005 proposed rule, EPA proposed two 
actions regarding the acceptability of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in the 
foam sector. First, EPA proposed to find HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as 
unacceptable foam blowing agent substitutes for HCFC-141b in commercial 
refrigeration, sandwich panels, and slabstock and ``other'' foam, but 
proposed to grandfather existing users until January 1, 2010. Second, 
EPA proposed to find HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b unacceptable as substitutes 
for CFCs in all foam end-uses, but proposed to grandfather existing 
users until January 1, 2010.
    Based on the public comments received, it became apparent that 
several manufacturers had made significant progress in adopting non-
ozone depleting substances (ODS) alternatives for specific foam 
applications. Beginning with a previous proposal on the use of HCFC-22 
and HCFC-142b in foam manufacturing on July 11, 2000 (65 FR 42653), the 
Agency has continually monitored the progress of the industry's 
transition to alternatives. In the July 22, 2002 final SNAP rule to 
that proposal (67 FR 47703), EPA reiterated that it would monitor 
progress on the transition and make adjustments as needed: ``EPA is 
continuing to review the commercial refrigeration, sandwich panels, and 
slabstock and other foams end-uses to determine the progress of non-
ozone depleting alternatives. As non-ozone depleting alternatives 
become more widely available, the Agency will reevaluate the 
acceptability of HCFCs in these end uses. Therefore, foam manufacturers 
within these applications that are using HCFCs should begin using non-
ozone depleting alternatives as soon as they are available in 
anticipation of future EPA action restricting the use of HCFCs.''
    In keeping with that policy, especially in light of public comments 
on the November 2005 proposal, EPA asked Stratus Consulting, Inc. to 
evaluate the availability and technical viability of alternatives in 
the polyurethane ``pour foam'' and the extruded polystyrene foam 
industries. We are making the evaluation from Stratus available for 
comment and plan to consider this information and any comment received 
during the comment period in determining what the appropriate 
grandfathering period should be for existing use of HCFC-22 and HCFC-
142b in foam blowing applications.

III. What information is EPA making available for review and comment?

    EPA is making available two reports by Stratus Consulting, Inc. on 
the availability and technical viability of alternatives in the 
polyurethane ``pour foam'' and the extruded polystyrene foam 
industries. The information for these assessments was collected 
directly from industry representatives through meetings and phone 
conversations. The conclusions (and in the case of pour foam, 
recommendations) provided in these two reports are provided below.
1. Polyurethane ``Pour Foam''
a. Conclusions
    i. Non-ODS alternatives are available, currently being formulated 
by systems houses, and technically viable across all end uses.
    ii. No technical performance hurdles to using non-ODS alternatives 
were identified that cannot be overcome either through design changes 
or with support from suppliers and systems houses.
    iii. EPA's 2000 SNAP proposal, which addresses the use of HCFCs in 
foam manufacturing, stated that it can take up to four years to 
complete blowing agent transitions (U.S. EPA, 2000). The transition 
requires six steps: (1) Obtaining new permits or modifying existing 
permits, (2) changing equipment to optimize production and ensure 
worker safety, (3) establishing raw material suppliers, (4) developing 
formulations, (5) testing final products, and (6) obtaining final 
product review and approval by relevant boards and agencies. Companies 
that chose to plan ahead for the eventual phase-out of HCFC-22 and 
HCFC-142b could have initiated this process in the period from 2002 to 
2003, when the current suite of alternatives became available, if not 
before, and could have completed the first four steps by the current 
date. Thus, these companies could anticipate completing their 
conversion by 2006 or 2007.
    iv. Those companies that have not taken the initial steps to 
transition to non-ODS blowing agents should be able to have market-
ready products by January 2008. This is based on two findings. First, 
most if not all, systems houses have already developed non-ODS 
formulations; and second, several manufacturers of finished pour foam 
products (including walk-in storage coolers, reach-in storage coolers, 
metal panels, insulated beverage dispensers, picnic coolers, and entry 
and garage doors) were able to convert to non-ODS formulations within 
18 months.
    v. Several end users that converted from HCFC-141b to HCFC-22 made 
the decision to convert to HCFC-22 under the assumption that HCFC-22 
would be an acceptable alternative until January 1, 2010 (Russell, 
2006f).
    vi. Those companies that have already converted to HFC alternatives 
are bearing higher system costs than those that have not. While some of 
these companies were forced to convert to HFCs because they used HCFC-
141b for an extended period of time and were therefore unable to allot 
the time necessary to transition to HCFC-22, others chose to convert to 
HFC alternatives to be environmentally proactive and avoid a second 
conversion in the future.
    vii. Any grandfathering period for current HCFC-22 users that would 
extend beyond January 1, 2008 would put those who have already 
converted to HFCs in a higher cost position for an extended period of 
time. Companies that converted and adopted ozone friendly substitutes 
to HCFC-141b based on EPA's July 11, 2000 proposed rulemaking, are 
competitively disadvantaged.
    viii. Shortening the grandfather period is consistent with the 
spirit of the narrowed use limits. However, product sectors should be 
allowed sufficient time to complete the conversions.
b. Recommendations
    i. EPA needs to allow sufficient time for companies to test final 
products, and obtain final review and approval from customers, code 
bodies, agencies, and relevant boards in order to complete conversions 
to non-ODS-alternatives across product sectors. It is probable that end 
users will be able to complete the final steps for a successful 
conversion in 9-14 months.
    ii. If EPA chooses to remove the narrowed use limits for sandwich 
panels, slabstock, and other pour foam applications, a grandfathering 
deadline of January 1, 2008 is recommended for existing users. By this 
date, all companies would have had sufficient time to convert to 
available non-ODS

[[Page 30356]]

alternatives. This timeline would give companies that converted from 
HCFC-141b to HCFC-22 several more years of operations and cost savings 
to offset their initial costs of converting from HCFC-141b to HCFC-22.
2. Extruded Polystyrene Foam
c. Conclusions
    i. XPS boardstock made from non-ODS blowing agent technology has 
been produced in Europe since 2001. These products have been 
commercially accepted by the existing customer base, and the industry 
did not experience a loss of competitive position with respect to non-
XPS foam insulation products (BASF, 2004; Dow Chemical Company, 2005).
    ii. The characterization of R-value specifications differs between 
Europe and the United States. This is a major driving force for U.S. 
manufacturers optimizing blowing agents because specific R-values have 
a more direct effect on the competitiveness of the product in this 
country.
    iii. European and United States markets demand different physical 
dimensions. As described above, narrower, thicker, and higher density 
products are easier to produce with alternative formulations such as 
those commercialized in Europe.
    iv. The chemical and physical property comparisons between non-ODS 
alternatives and HCFC-142b and HCFC-22 indicate that commercially 
viable alternatives will be adopted shortly by U.S. manufacturers. In 
fact, companies considering additional capacity are likely to have 
developed a viable solution before committing funds for capital 
expansion.
    v. U.S. manufacturers are probably considering the following 
options, based on the physical properties of these blowing agents both 
individually and when incorporated into blends (UNEP, 2005):

1. HFC-134a
2. Hydrocarbons
3. Ethanol
4. HFC-152a
5. CO2
6. Other alternatives currently under development.

    vi. It takes approximately 30-36 months to order and install new 
equipment, and manufacture products that meet specifications. 
Formulations need to be identified by 2007 to meet the January 1, 2010, 
deadline; thus these lines will be ready for manufacturing integration 
in late 2008 or early 2009. It would benefit companies developing new 
capacity before January 1, 2010, to install flexible technologies that 
could use HCFC-142b, if necessary, and easily switch to alternatives by 
the deadline.
    The Agency is seeking comments on the accuracy and thoroughness of 
the information in the two reports summarized above.

IV. Where can I get the data being made available for comment?

    All of the data in which we are seeking comment can be obtained 
through the Air Docket (see General Information section above for 
docket contact information). Reference numbers are as follows:

--Memo on Review of SNAP Approved Non-Ozone Depleting Blowing Agents 
Available to the Extruded Polystyrene Foam Industry--Air Docket, OAR-
2004-0507 reference number XX
--Memo on Technical Viability of SNAP Approved Non-Ozone Depleting 
Blowing Agents Available for Pour Foam Applications--Air Docket, OAR-
2004-0507 reference number XX

V. Why is EPA making this data available?

    We are soliciting comment on this new information to ensure that we 
use the best information available when we determine how to proceed on 
the grandfathering period proposed in our November 4, 2005 proposal to 
list HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as unacceptable. Because the information on 
which we are seeking comment will be considered by EPA in determining 
how to proceed on our proposal regarding the use of HCFC-22 and HCFC-
142b in foam blowing applications, the Agency is providing the public 
with an opportunity to comment on the quality of the available 
information. This information will be used to ensure that issues 
relating to the technical viability of alternatives and industry 
impacts are fully considered by EPA prior to moving forward with a 
rulemaking in the foams sector.

VI. What is EPA not taking comment on?

    EPA is only accepting comments on accuracy and completeness of the 
information outlined in today's Federal Register Notice.

VII. What supporting documentation do I need to include in my comments?

    Please provide any published studies or raw data supporting your 
position.

    Dated: May 12, 2006.
Brian McLean,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation.
 [FR Doc. E6-8177 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P