[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67120-67129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21927]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[OAR-2003-0228, FRL-7993-2]
RIN 2060-AN11
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Ozone Depleting
Substitutes in Foam Blowing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
to determine that HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are unacceptable for use in the
foam sector under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP)
Program under section 612 of the Clean Air Act. The SNAP program
reviews alternatives to Class I and Class II ozone depleting substances
and approves use of alternatives which do not present a greater risk to
public health and the environment than the substance they replace or
than other available substitutes. Specifically, EPA is taking two
actions. First, in response to a court decision upholding a challenge
to EPA's July 2002 final rule finding HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b acceptable
subject to Narrowed Use Limits in three foam end uses, we are proposing
to find HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b unacceptable as substitutes for HCFC-141b
in the foam end uses of commercial refrigeration, sandwich panels,
slabstock and ``other'' foams. Second, in the July 2002 final rule, EPA
withdrew a proposed action to find HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b unacceptable
as substitutes for CFCs in all foam end uses. We are now issuing a new
proposal to find HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b unacceptable as substitutes for
CFCs in all foam end uses.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before
December 5, 2005, unless a public hearing is requested. If requested by
November 21, 2005 a hearing will be held on December 5, 2005 and the
comment period will be extended until January 3, 2006 by a document
published in the Federal Register. Inquires regarding a public hearing
should be directed to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2004-
0507 by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking portal www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting comments;
[[Page 67121]]
Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET,
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments;
Fax comments to (202) 566-1741; or
Mail/hand delivery: Submit comments to Air and Radiation
Docket at EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108, Mail Code
6102T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: (202) 566-1742.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0507.
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET,
regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the federal
regulations.gov Web sites are ``anonymous access'' systems, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your
e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit EDOCKET on-line or see the
Federal Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102).
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index
at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard
copy at the Air and Radiation Docket EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The 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 Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzie Kocchi, Stratospheric Protection
Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (6205J), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 343-9387; fax number: (202) 343-2363; e-mail
address: [email protected]. The published versions of notices and
rulemakings under the SNAP program are available on EPA's Stratospheric
Ozone Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents:
This action is divided into six sections:
I. Regulated Entities
II. Section 612 Program
A. Statutory Requirements
B. Regulatory History
C. Listing Decisions
III. Listing Decisions on HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in the Foam Sector
A. Background
B. Proposal
IV. Summary
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
VI. Additional Information
I. Regulated Entities
Today's rule regulates the use of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as foam
blowing agents used in the manufacture of rigid polyurethane/
polyisocyanurate and extruded polystyrene foam products. Businesses
that currently might be using HCFC-22 and HCFC-142bb, or might want to
use it in the future, include:
--Businesses that manufacture polyurethane/polyisocyanurate foam
systems
--Businesses that use polyurethane/polyisocyanurate systems to apply
insulation to buildings, roofs, pipes, etc.
--Businesses that use manufacture extruded polystyrene foam insulation
for buildings, roofs, pipes, etc.
Table 1 lists potentially regulated entities:
Table 1.--Potentially Regulated Entities, by North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) Code or Subsector
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS code or Description of
Category subsector regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................... 326150 Urethane and Other Foam
Product (except
Polystyrene)
Manufacturing.
Industry....................... 326140 Polystyrene Foam
Product Manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a guide
regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. If you have
any questions about whether this action applies to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the preceding section, FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION.
II. Section 612 Program
A. Statutory Requirements
Section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to develop a
program for evaluating alternatives to ozone depleting substances
(ODS). EPA refers to this program as the Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are:
Rulemaking--Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate
rules making it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon,
halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform,
[[Page 67122]]
methyl bromide, and hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II
(hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance with any substitute that the
Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health or
the environment where the Administrator has identified an alternative
that (1) reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment,
and (2) is currently or potentially available.
Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes--Section
612(c) also requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes
unacceptable for specific uses. EPA must publish a corresponding list
of acceptable alternatives for specific uses.
Petition Process--Section 612(d) grants the right to any
person to petition EPA to add a substitute to or delete a substitute
from the lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency
has 90 days to grant or deny a petition. When the Agency grants a
petition, EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional six
months.
90-day Notification--Section 612(e) directs EPA to require
any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance
to notify EPA not less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals
are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new uses as
substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also provide EPA
with the producer's health and safety studies on such substitutes.
Outreach--Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator
shall seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and
resources to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying
and developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key
commercial applications.
Clearinghouse--Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to
set up a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product
substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are available
for products and manufacturing processes which use class I and II
substances.
B. Regulatory History
On March 18, 1994, EPA published a rule (59 FR 13044) which
described the process for administering the SNAP program and issued
EPA's first acceptability lists for substitutes in the major industrial
use sectors. These sectors include: refrigeration and air conditioning,
foam manufacturing, solvents cleaning, fire suppression and explosion
protection, sterilants; aerosols, adhesives, coatings and inks; and
tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal industrial
sectors that historically consumed large volumes of ozone depleting
compounds.
EPA defines a ``substitute'' as any chemical, product substitute,
or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or new, that
could replace a class I or class II substance (40 CFR 82.172). Anyone
who produces a substitute must provide EPA with health and safety
studies on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into
interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative (40 CFR
82.174(a)). This requirement applies to chemical manufacturers, but may
include importers, formulators, or end-users when they are responsible
for introducing a substitute into commerce.
C. Listing Decisions
Under section 612, EPA has considerable discretion in the risk
management decisions it can make under the SNAP program. In the 1994
SNAP rule, the Agency identified four possible decision categories:
acceptable; acceptable subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to
narrowed use limits; and unacceptable (40 CFR 82.180(b)). Fully
acceptable substitutes, i.e., those with no restrictions, can be used
for all applications within the relevant sector end-use.
After reviewing a substitute, EPA may make a determination that a
substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions of use are met to
minimize risk to human health and the environment. Such substitutes are
described as ``acceptable subject to use conditions.''
Even though EPA can restrict the use of a substitute based on the
potential for adverse effects, it may be necessary to permit a narrowed
range of use within a sector end-use because of the lack of
alternatives for specialized applications. Users intending to adopt a
substitute acceptable with narrowed use limits must first ascertain
that other acceptable alternatives are not technically feasible.
Companies must document the results of their evaluation, and retain the
results on file for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. This
documentation must include descriptions of substitutes examined and
rejected, processes or products in which the substitute is needed,
reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance,
technical or safety standards, and the anticipated date other
substitutes will be available and projected time for switching to other
available substitutes. The use of such substitutes in applications and
end-uses which are not specified as acceptable in the narrowed use
limit is unacceptable and violates Section 612 of the CAA and the SNAP
regulations. (40 CFR 82.174).
EPA does not believe that notice and comment rulemaking procedures
are required to list alternatives as acceptable with no restrictions.
Such listings do not impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior
license to use a substitute. Consequently, EPA adds substitutes to the
list of acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new
listings (59 FR 13044). Updates to the acceptable lists are published
as separate Notices of Acceptability in the Federal Register.
As described in the original March 18, 1994 rule for the SNAP
program (59 FR 13044), EPA believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking
is required to place any alternative on the list of prohibited
substitutes, to list a substitute as acceptable only under certain use
conditions or narrowed use limits, or to remove an alternative from
either the list of prohibited or acceptable substitutes. In this
proposed rule, EPA is revising its determination regarding the
acceptability of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as substitutes for HCFC-141b and
CFCs in the foam blowing sector. The section below presents a detailed
discussion of the proposal being made today.
III. Listing Decisions on HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in the Foam Sector
A. Background
A major goal of the SNAP program is to facilitate the transition
away from ODS to alternatives that pose less risk to human health and
the environment. In 1994, EPA listed several HCFCs as acceptable
replacements for CFCs \1\ because the Agency believed that HCFCs
provided a temporary bridge to alternatives that do not deplete
stratospheric ozone (i.e., ``ozone-friendly'' alternatives). At that
time, EPA believed that HCFCs were necessary transitional alternatives
to CFC blowing agents in thermal insulating foam (59 FR 13083). As a
result, HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b have become common foam blowing agents in
place of CFCs. Pursuant to the CAA and the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are
scheduled to be phased out of production and import in the United
States on January 1, 2010.\2\ Since the time EPA initially listed HCFC-
22 and
[[Page 67123]]
HCFC-142b as acceptable in certain foam blowing uses, the Agency has
listed several other non-ODS alternative blowing agents, including
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, and other
compounds, as acceptable substitutes in foam blowing.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Historically, CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113 and CFC-114 have all
been used as blowing agents in the foam industry, with CFC-11 in
polyurethane applications and CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene
boardstock applications being the two most popular CFC blowing
agents (March 18, 1994, 59 FR 13082).
\2\ The phaseout schedule was established on December 10, 1993
(58 FR 65018) as authorized under section 606 of the Clean Air Act.
\3\ These listings are published in the following Federal
Register notices: September 3, 1996 (61 FR 47012), March 10, 1997
(62 FR 10700), June 3, 1997 (62 FR 30275), February 24, 1998 (63 FR
9151), June 8, 1998 (634 FR 30410), December 6, 1999 (64 FR 68039),
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19327), June 19, 2000 (65 FR 37900), December
18, 2000 (65 FR 78977), August 21, 2003 (68 FR 50533) and October 1,
2004 (69 FR 58903).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a final rule published on July 22, 2002, EPA did the following:
(1) Found HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b acceptable substitutes for HCFC-141b
with Narrowed Use Limits in the foam end uses of commercial
refrigeration, sandwich panels, and rigid polyurethane slabstock and
``other'' foams end uses; (2) withdrew a proposed decision to list
HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as unacceptable substitutes for CFCs for all foam
end uses; (3) listed HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as unacceptable substitutes
for HCFC-141b in the foam end uses of rigid polyurethane/
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, rigid polyurethane appliance
foam and rigid polyurethane spray foam; and (4) listed HCFC-124 as an
unacceptable substitute in all foam end uses. This proposal again takes
action with respect to two of the actions addressed in the July 2002
rule. First, in light of a recent court decision (Honeywell Int'l v.
EPA, 374 F.3d 1363 (D.C. Cir 2004), modified on rehearing 393 F.3d 1315
(D.C. Cir. 2005)), EPA is proposing to list HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as
unacceptable substitutes for HCFC-141b in commercial refrigeration,
sandwich panels, and slabstock and ``other'' foam, but is proposing to
grandfather existing users until January 1, 2010. Second, EPA is once
again proposing to list HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as unacceptable
substitutes for CFCs in all foam end uses, but is proposing to
grandfather existing users until January 1, 2010.
HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b Unacceptable as Substitutes for HCFC-141b
After the publication of the July 22, 2002 final rule, Honeywell
International filed suit in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (the Court), challenging the Narrowed Use
Limits that the Agency established for HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b. Among
other things, Honeywell alleged that EPA improperly considered costs in
determining to establish Narrowed Use Limits instead of finding HCFC-22
and HCFC-142b unacceptable for certain end uses. EPA argued that the
decision was based solely on technical feasibility and, though not
precluded from considering costs, it had not done so as part of the
decision. The Court upheld Honeywell's challenge, explaining that
various preamble statements indicated that EPA had considered costs,
but that EPA had not explained the basis for doing so (Honeywell Int'l
v. EPA, 374 F.3d 1363 (DC Cir 2004), modified on rehearing 393 F.3d
1315 (D.C. Cir. 2005)). In light of the Court's decision, EPA is
required to reassess its action with respect to the acceptability of
HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as substitutes for HCFC-141b in commercial
refrigeration, sandwich panels, and slabstock and ``other'' foam. After
considering new information on alternatives, the Agency is proposing to
find HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b unacceptable as substitutes for HCFC-141b in
commercial refrigeration, sandwich panels, and slabstock and ``other''
foam applications based on the technical viability of alternatives, as
detailed in a section below. Therefore, EPA does not need to address
whether other alternatives are so costly that they justify some limited
acceptability determination for these substitutes.
The majority of the applications in the end uses covered by the
Narrowed Use Limits are applications referred to as ``pour foam''. Pour
foam represents a diverse sector of the polyurethane industry comprised
of a wide range of applications and fragmented HCFC use including:
commercial refrigeration (such as walk-in coolers), doors (such as
entry doors or garage doors), refrigerated transport, vending machines,
residential architectural panels, tank and pipe insulation, marine
flotation foams, floral foam and taxidermy foam.
The pour foam sector operates differently than many other end uses
regulated under SNAP. Rather than the end user directly buying and
using an alternative, the alternative is first processed by a
formulator, known as a ``systems house''. The formulators purchase raw
materials, including the blowing agent (e.g. HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b),
isocyanates, surfactants, and fire retardants from suppliers, and then
blend the materials into a foam system. Formulators tend to sell pour
foam systems in drums or other containers where the isocyanate is kept
separate from the blowing agent and other ingredients. Because the re-
formulating and testing is done by the formulators, they are relied
upon for much of the technical expertise and support provided to the
ultimate end user, in this case, pour foam manufacturers. The pour foam
manufacturers purchase these systems from the formulators in order to
produce the actual foam product (e.g., walk-in coolers). Thus, in the
pour foam sector, formulators are responsible for implementing
alternatives to the ozone-depleting blowing agents and providing the
pour foam manufacturers with systems that produce foam meeting
technical, safety, and performance requirements. Both the formulators
and pour foam manufacturers are subject to SNAP regulations because
both use the blowing agent--formulators blend the blowing agent into a
foam formulation, and manufacturers produce the foam with aid of the
blowing agent.
There are approximately 15-20 systems houses in the U.S. that
formulate pour foam systems and include both large and small
businesses. EPA concluded in the 2002 final rule, that at that time,
some pour foam applications, particularly those with thermal
performance requirements, did not have technically viable ozone-
friendly alternatives available. As the Agency explained, ``EPA
believes that ozone-friendly alternatives to HCFC-141b have not been
fully developed and implemented across the spectrum of applications
within these end-uses'' (67 FR 47707). Therefore, EPA established the
Narrowed Use Limits to provide the formulators of pour foam systems who
found alternatives were not technically viable in certain applications
the flexibility to switch to the less harmful ozone depleting chemicals
of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b.
EPA did not intend for the 2002 Narrowed Use Limits to remain in
place permanently. As the Agency stated in the final rule, ``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'' (67 FR
47704). Based on the information provided to EPA since the publication
of the final rule in July 2002, EPA believes today that, alternatives
are now widely available, technically viable, and in use in the end
uses covered by the Narrowed Use Limits determination that was vacated
[[Page 67124]]
by the Court (Docket OAR-2004-0507, Documents 0004 through
0011).
HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b Unacceptable as Substitutes for CFCs
The 2002 final rule withdrew a proposal published in 2000 to change
the listing of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as substitutes for CFCs from
acceptable to unacceptable. EPA had proposed to list these substitutes
as unacceptable for new users effective 60 days after publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register, but to allow existing users of
HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b to continue use of those substitutes (i.e., be
``grandfathered'') until January 1, 2005. The Agency explained that it
was appropriate to grandfather existing use of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b,
because EPA believed ``that it could take foam manufacturers up to four
years to transition to alternatives'' (65 FR 42659).\4\ Commenters on
the proposal largely agreed with EPA's assessment of the amount of time
it takes to transition to alternatives in many foam applications.
Additionally, the recent phaseout of HCFC-141b and the implementation
of alternatives in those foam applications in which HCFC-141b was
previously used has further demonstrated the accuracy of that four-year
transition timeline. Grandfathering allows those who had made a good
faith transition to a SNAP-approved alternative sufficient time to
transition to a different alternative while prohibiting new investment
in an alternative that no longer meets the test for being SNAP-approved
(i.e., availability of other alternatives that provide less risk to
human health and the environment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The decision to grandfather is based on the criteria
established in Sierra Club v. EPA (719 F.2D 436 (DC CIR. 1983)). The
criteria EPA examines to judge the appropriateness of grandfathering
includes: (1) Is the new rule an abrupt departure from Agency
practice, (2) what is the extent the interested parties relied on
the previous rule, (3) what is the burden of the new rule on the
interested parties and (4) what is the statutory interest in making
the new rule effective immediately, as opposed to grandfathering
interested parties (59 FR 13057).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time of the proposal, the information available to EPA
suggested that non-ozone depleting chemicals were technically viable as
replacements and existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b could switch
to these alternatives within four years. After the proposal, EPA
gathered additional information regarding the technical viability of
alternatives and presented that information in a Notice of Data
Availability (NODA) (May 23, 2001, 66 FR 28408). Based on all of the
information before the Agency, including comments on the proposed rule
and the information made available through the NODA, EPA withdrew the
proposal to list HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as unacceptable substitutes for
CFCs in the July 22, 2002 final rule. In particular, the extruded
polystyrene industry, the largest user of HCFC-142b, and the
polyurethane manufacturers using HCFC-22, cited technical constraints
in implementing non-ODP alternatives. The Agency agreed and withdrew
that portion of the proposal because EPA believed, at that time, there
were technical constraints ``in switching to ozone-friendly
alternatives for these users within the next several years'' (67 FR
47707).
Since the July 2002 final rule, the phaseout of HCFC-141b in 2003,
and the action of the Court in 2004, EPA has gathered new information
on the technical viability of non-ODP alternatives to HCFC-22 and HCFC-
142b in the foam industry (Docket OAR-2004-0507, Documents
0004 through 0011). Today, EPA is proposing two actions regarding the
acceptability of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in the foam sector. First, EPA
is proposing to find HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b unacceptable as substitutes
for HCFC-141b in the foam end uses of commercial refrigeration,
sandwich panels, and slabstock and ``other'' foam, but is proposing to
grandfather existing users until January 1, 2010. Second, EPA is
proposing to find HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b unacceptable as substitutes for
CFCs in all foam end uses, but is proposing to grandfather existing
users until January 1, 2010. EPA's decisions are based on the technical
viability of alternatives.
B. Proposal
(1) HCFC-22, HCFC-142b and Blends Thereof Are Proposed as Unacceptable
as Substitutes for HCFC-141b in the Foam End-Uses of Commercial
Refrigeration, Sandwich Panels, and Slabstock and ``Other'' Foam
This proposal would prohibit users of HCFC-141b to switch to HCFC-
22 and HCFC-142b in commercial refrigeration, sandwich panels, and
slabstock and ``other'' foams end uses. Based on the information EPA
has received since 2002, the Agency believes that ozone-friendly
alternatives are now technically viable and available in these three
end uses. The information found in docket OAR-2004-0507 demonstrates
that several SNAP-approved non-ODP alternatives, including
hydrocarbons, HFC-245fa, HFC-134a, methyl formate and water, are widely
available, technically viable in the foam end uses addressed by this
proposal, and are being sold in the market today across the commercial
refrigeration, sandwich panels, and slabstock and ``other'' foam end
uses (Docket OAR-2004-0507, Documents 0004 through 0011).
This listing would be effective 60 days following publication of a
final action in the Federal Register. However, EPA is proposing that
existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as of the date of publication
of this proposal in the Federal Register be grandfathered (i.e.,
allowed to continue their use) until January 1, 2010.\5\ EPA is
proposing to grandfather existing users from the unacceptability
determination based on our analysis under the four-part test
established in Sierra Club v. EPA. The four parts of this test are
described earlier in the preamble and are discussed on page 13057 of
EPA's original SNAP rule (published on March 18, 1994). The Agency
believes it is appropriate to grandfather these users for the same
reasons provided below with respect to users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b
who switched to these substitutes as an alternative for CFCs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In this context, existing use is defined as current use of
HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b to manufacture actual foam products that
are sold into commercial markets..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) HCFC-22, HCFC-142b and Blends Thereof Are Proposed as Unacceptable
as Substitutes for CFCs in All Foam End Uses
Due to the technical viability and availability of ozone-friendly
alternatives, this proposal, if finalized, would prohibit any new use
of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as substitutes for CFCs in all foam end uses.
This listing would be effective 60 days following publication of a
final action in the Federal Register. However, EPA is proposing that
existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as of the date of publication
of this proposal in the Federal Register be grandfathered (i.e.,
allowed to continue their use) until January 1, 2010 based on our
analysis under the four-part test established in Sierra Club v. EPA.
EPA listed HCFCs as acceptable substitutes for CFCs in 1994 and
although HCFCs are transitional substances, clearly users relied on the
Agency's prior acceptability listing of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b when they
transitioned from CFCs in foam applications.\6\ Thus, for the existing
[[Page 67125]]
users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b that invested in good faith in these
chemicals as replacements for CFC blowing agents, EPA believes it is
appropriate to provide time for these users to transition to ozone-
friendly alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Similarly, even through the 2002 final rule was eventually
vacated by the Court in 2004, at that time users of HCFC-141b that
transitioned to HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in commercial refrigeration,
sandwich panels, and slabstock and other foam relied on EPA's
acceptability determination as it appeared in the 2002 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained earlier, EPA believes that in some foam applications,
particularly thermal insulation applications, it can take up to four
years to complete a blowing agent transition. Requiring all existing
users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b to comply immediately with the proposed
unacceptability determination could place an undue burden on those
entities mainly due to the amount of time and actions necessary to
complete a successful blowing agent transition. For example, a recent
review of the extruded polystyrene foam sector (which encompasses the
largest use of HCFC-142b) found that companies in that industry would
``likely experience technical constraints with the alternatives'' if
they had to transition before January 1, 2010 because of the time it
takes to test and implement a new blowing agent, including completing
equipment and process modifications as well as gaining building code
approval for the new products (Docket OAR-2004-0507-003).
Equally, many of the polyurethane manufacturers using HCFC-22 are
making foam products that have thermal insulation requirements, such as
walk-in coolers or metal panels. Before transitioning, those
manufacturers would need to undertake several preparatory actions, such
as:
(1) Making changes to existing equipment in order to optimize
production and ensure worker safety;
(2) Establish raw material suppliers;
(3) Develop formulations;
(4) Test final products; and
(5) Obtain final product review and approval by industry and
governmental standard setting bodies for flammability, building codes,
and other safety and performance requirements).
Based on the transition requirements described above, EPA believes
it is appropriate that existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in foam
applications be allowed to continue using these chemicals until January
1, 2010 in order to ensure a safe transition to non-ODP alternative
blowing agents. The SNAP program is designed to encourage the
transition away from ozone depleting chemicals, however, the balance of
the factors related to existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b
discussed above outweigh EPA's statutory interest in applying the
unacceptability determination immediately to all users. EPA believes
its goal of encouraging the transition away from HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b
is still satisfied as new use of these substances will not be permitted
in the foam sector and existing users will begin their transition to
non-ODP alternatives. Due to the fact that ozone-friendly alternatives
are available in nearly all foam applications, EPA strongly encourages
all existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b to begin their transition
to alternatives immediately and to complete the transition as soon as
possible prior to January 1, 2010.
Request for Comments on Unique Applications Requiring HCFC-22 and HCFC-
142b
In past rulemakings, where necessary, EPA has allowed specific,
unique applications to continue use of a substitute that EPA has found
to be unacceptable. For example, in the recent SNAP final rule
published on September 30, 2004, EPA found the use of HCFC-141b
unacceptable in all foam applications. However, based on technical
information submitted to EPA during the comment period, the Agency
exempted ``the use of HCFC-141b for space vehicle, nuclear and defense
foam applications from the unacceptability determination'' (69 FR
58272). EPA is not aware of any specialized foam applications that
would require continued use of HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b beyond January 1,
2010; however, the Agency is requesting comment about any applications
that would require the use of HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b as blowing agents
beyond January 1, 2010. When submitting information about such an
application, please provide as much detail as possible about the
application, the technical constraints to using alternatives, and the
specific plan to implement alternatives, as well as any other relevant
information.
As discussed above, ozone-friendly alternatives exist for nearly
all foam applications, particularly in the pour foam products found in
the end uses of commercial refrigeration, sandwich panels, and
slabstock and ``other'' foam. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to (1) list
HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as unacceptable substitutes for HCFC-141b in
commercial refrigeration, sandwich panels, and slabstock and ``other''
foam; and (2) list HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as unacceptable substitutes
for CFCs in all foam end uses. These listings would be effective 60
days after the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
Existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as of November 4, 2005 would be
grandfathered until January 1, 2010.
IV. Summary
A major objective of the SNAP program is to facilitate the
transition from ozone-depleting chemicals by promoting the use of
substitutes which present a lower risk to human health and the
environment (40 CFR 82.170(a)). In this light, a key policy interest of
the SNAP program is promoting the shift from ODSs to alternatives
posing lower overall risk and that are currently or potentially
available (59 FR 13044). Today's proposal to list HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b
as unacceptable substitutes for HCFC-141b in certain foam applications
and as unacceptable substitutes for CFCs in all foam end uses is based
on EPA's finding that the use of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in applications
where non-ozone depleting alternatives are technically viable and
commercially available, would contribute to unnecessary depletion of
the ozone layer, and will delay the transition to alternatives that
pose lower overall risk to the health and the environment. EPA is
allowing existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b to continue use until
no later than January 1, 2010 to ensure that they will be able to
adjust their manufacturing processes to safely accommodate the use of
non-ODP alternatives.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51,735 (October 4, 1993)) the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
[[Page 67126]]
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified
EPA that it considers this proposal a ``significant regulatory action''
within the meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has submitted this
action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions
or recommendations will be documented in the public record.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this rule under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0226.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements
contained in the existing regulations in subpart G of 40 CFR part 82
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0226. This Information
Collection Request (ICR) included five types of respondent reporting
and recordkeeping activities pursuant to SNAP regulations: submission
of a SNAP petition, filing a SNAP/Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Addendum, notification for test marketing activity, recordkeeping for
substitutes acceptable subject to use restrictions, and recordkeeping
for small volume uses.
Copies of the ICR document(s) may be obtained from Susan Auby, by
mail at the Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information
Collection, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460, by e-mail at [email protected], or by calling (202) 566-1672. A
copy may also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
Include the ICR and/or OMB number in any correspondence.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The RFA requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking
requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or any other
statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule, a small
entity is defined as:
(1) A small business that has fewer than 500 employees;
(2) A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and
(3) A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field.
The types of businesses that are subject to today's final rule
include businesses that manufacture polyurethane/polyisocyanurate foam
systems (NAICS 326150) and businesses that use polyurethane/
polyisocyanurate systems to apply insulation to buildings, roofs,
pipes, etc. (NAICS 326150).
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA does not
believe that small businesses will be adversely impacted by this
proposal. The majority of the small businesses in the foam industry
operate in the polyurethane foam sector as opposed to the extruded
polystyrene foam sector (this rule covers both sectors). In the context
of this proposal, small businesses (if they are still using an HCFC at
all) are likely using HCFC-22 to manufacture pour foam applications
such as commercial refrigeration, sandwich panels, and slabstock and
``other'' foam. As explained below, the polyurethane pour foam sector
operates differently than other SNAP sectors in that a small number of
companies supply a much larger number of actual pour foam
manufacturers.
There are approximately 20 formulators in the U.S. that supply pour
foam manufacturers foam systems which consist of two drums of
ingredients including the blowing agent (e.g., HCFC-22). Some of the
formulators are large businesses but many are small and their
customers, the manufacturers, number in the thousands. The pour foam
manufacturers use the foam system to produce the actual foam product
(e.g., vending machine or metal panel). In this situation, the
formulators are responsible for implementing alternatives to the ozone-
depleting blowing agent and providing the pour foam manufacturers with
systems that produce foam meeting the necessary requirements, technical
or otherwise. However, both the formulators and pour foam manufacturers
are subject to SNAP regulations because both use the blowing agent.
Information in the docket OAR-2004-0507 demonstrates that non-ODP
alternatives are technically viable and commercially available. In
fact, small businesses at both the formulator and pour foam
manufacturer levels are already supplying and using non-ODP
alternatives in applications such as commercial refrigeration, sandwich
panels and slabstock and ``other'' foam. Therefore, those small
businesses will not be adversely affected by the proposal to find HCFC-
22 and HCFC-142b unacceptable for use because they have already
implemented alternatives.
Equally, those small businesses that are still using HCFC-22 in
pour foam applications will not be significantly impacted by this
rulemaking. It is estimated that there are thousands of pour foam
manufacturers, many of which are small businesses. However, these
manufacturers will not be adversely impacted by this proposed rule
because they buy their pour foam systems from the approximately 20 pour
foam formulators discussed above. It is those 20 formulators that are
responsible for implementing the alternatives to ozone depleting
blowing agents (HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b) and providing a foam system to
the pour foam manufacturers that meets all technical and performance
requirements.
In addition, manufacturers and users of HCFCs have had more than 10
years to prepare for the January 1, 2010 deadline for phasing out
production of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142 in the U.S. since the HCFC phaseout
schedule was
[[Page 67127]]
established by a separate EPA regulation in 1993 (58 FR 65018). Today's
proposal does not effect that long-standing phaseout date but rather
would allow continued use of these chemicals until the phaseout
deadline of January 1, 2010. Furthermore, the costs of the HCFC
phaseout and the transition to non-ozone depleting alternatives were
accounted for in a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that was performed
in 1993 for the phaseout rule mentioned above. A memo found in the
docket at OAR-2004-0507-0012 details the impacts of this proposal,
including a discussion of the related 1993 phaseout rule and RIA, on
both the pour foam formulators and pour foam manufacturers and
concludes there will not be significant impact on a substantial number
of small businesses. In fact, most formulators that are still using
HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b have also implemented alternatives and sell
both types of systems to their customers, the manufacturers (OAR-2004-
0507-0008). Based on this, it is clear that alternatives to ODS have
been identified and there are no technical constraints to implementing
those alternatives.
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to further reduce the impact of this rule on small entities.
Based on acceptability decisions in previous final rules, the Agency
believes that some existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b, including
small businesses, invested in good faith in SNAP-approved alternatives
that EPA now finds unacceptable. Accordingly, it is appropriate for EPA
to balance their interest against our statutory obligation to
facilitate the transition away from ozone depleting chemicals as
required by the four part test established in Sierra Club v. EPA.
Grandfathering existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b, some of which
are small businesses, allows those users approximately four years to
transition to ozone-friendly alternatives. This is the time cited by
small businesses when explaining their transition process in comments
to separate but related rulemakings (see Air Docket A-2000-18) as well
as being the time that has been needed for the transitions from other
ODS, the most recent one being HCFC-141b.
Grandfathering existing use of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b until January
1, 2010 aligns the unacceptability determination with the production
phaseout date of those two chemicals. In many cases, companies plan
their transition to non-ODP alternatives around the production and
import phaseout deadline, due to both the greatly restricted supply and
higher prices associated with the phased out ODS. Companies, in
commenting on EPA's 2000 proposal to find HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b
unacceptable as substitutes for CFCs objected to the fact that EPA was
proposing an unacceptability determination before the production and
import phaseout. Those commenters suggested EPA move the
unacceptability determination to a later date that was in line with the
phaseout (i.e., January 1, 2010). The 2003 phaseout of HCFC-141b
demonstrated that restricted supply of that chemical resulted in higher
prices for the foam sector which inevitably had some impact on the
small businesses both at the formulator and manufacturer level. This
proposed unacceptability determination would avoid that situation and
level the playing field in the foam industry by requiring all
businesses to transition from HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b on the same date,
and in accordance with the production and import phaseout date (the
date many of them are likely planning on completing their transition).
Therefore, this proposal does not place any additional burden on
existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in the foam sector that have
both had sufficient advance notice and had planned to transition to
non-ODP alternatives on or before the production phaseout date.
As discussed in the preamble and noted in the docket, there are
numerous alternatives that are technically viable and available for all
foam applications. In fact, some users have already transitioned away
from HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b, particularly in pour foam applications
(Docket OAR-2004-0507, Documents 0004 through 0011). The
actions proposed here may well provide benefits to small businesses who
have transitioned to alternatives and made good faith efforts and
investments in the transition because they will be able to compete on a
level playing field with those that are still using ODS blowing agents.
EPA continues to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed
rule on small entities, and welcome comments on issues related to such
impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Today's proposed rule does not affect State,
local, or tribal governments. The enforceable requirements of the rule
for the private sector affect only a small number of foam manufacturers
that could potentially have switched to use HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in
the United States and those currently using HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b. With
regard to potential new users, there are technically viable
alternatives for those manufacturers. With regard to existing users,
there are viable alternatives that will be feasible to use once the
manufacturers have made the necessary adjustments to its facility and
products. The impact of this rule on the private sector is less than
$100 million per year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has determined
that this rule contains no regulatory
[[Page 67128]]
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This regulation applies directly to facilities that use
these substances and not to governmental entities.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255 (August
10, 1999)), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposal applies directly
to facilities that use these substances and not to governmental
entities. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. In
the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and
local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249 (November 9, 2000)),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Today's proposal applies directly to facilities that use these
substances and does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health & Safety Risks (62 FR 19885 (April 23, 1997)) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it
is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866,
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The use of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in
foam manufacture occurs in the workplace where we expect adults are
more likely to be present than children, and thus, the agents do not
put children at risk disproportionately.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action would
impact the manufacture of foam using HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b. Further, we
have concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy
effects.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law
104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards. This action does not involve
technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.
VI. Additional Information
For more information on EPA's process for administering the SNAP
program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the SNAP
final rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1994
(59 FR 13044). Notices and rulemakings under the SNAP program, as well
as EPA publications on protection of stratospheric ozone, are available
from EPA's Ozone Depletion Web site at ``http://www.epa.gov/ozone/''
and from the Stratospheric Protection Hotline number at (800) 296-1996.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 28, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
2. Subpart G is amended by adding Appendix N to read as follows:
Appendix N to Subpart G of Part 82--Unacceptable Substitutes Listed
in the [date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]
final rule, effective [date 60 days after Federal Register publication
date of final rule].
[[Page 67129]]
Foam Blowing Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacements for HCFC-141b in HCFC-22, HCFC-142b................ Unacceptable \1\.......... Alternatives
the following rigid exist with
polyurethane applications: lower or zero-
ODP.
--Commercial Refrigeration
--Sandwich Panels
--Slabstock and Other
Foams
Replacements for CFCs in the HCFC-22, HCFC-142b................ Unacceptable \2\.......... Alternatives
following foam applications: exist with
lower or zero-
ODP.
--Rigid polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate
laminated boardstock
--Rigid polyurethane
appliance
--Rigid polyurethane spray
and commercial
refrigeration, and
sandwich panels
--Rigid polyurethane
slabstock and other foams
--Polystyrene extruded
insulation boardstock and
billet
--Phenolic insulation
board and bunstock
--Flexible polyurethane
--Polystyrene extruded
sheet
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The unacceptability determination is effective on January 1, 2010 for existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-
142b as of November 4, 2005 of this proposed rule.
\2\ The unacceptability determination is effective on January 1, 2010 for existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-
142b as of November 4, 2005 of this proposed rule.
[FR Doc. 05-21927 Filed 11-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P