Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Data Availability; New Information Concerning SNAP Program Proposal on Ozone Depleting Substitutes in Foam Blowing, 30353-30356 [E6-8177]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
On May
22, 2006, the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking entitled ‘‘Transportation
Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)
Implementation in the Maritime Sector;
Hazardous Materials Endorsement for a
Commercial Driver’s License’’ (the
‘‘TWIC proposed rule’’) and the Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking entitled
‘‘Consolidation of Merchant Mariner
Qualification Credentials’’ (the ‘‘MMC
proposed rule’’) were published in the
Federal Register (71 FR 29396 and 71
FR 29462, respectively). At the time of
submission to the Office of the Federal
Register for publication, only the dates
and cities of the public meetings were
known. Specific location information is
now available and is provided in this
notice. Additionally, a typographical
error was made in the rulemaking
documents with respect to the day of
the week for the St. Louis and Long
Beach public meetings which are
corrected in this notice.
Interested individuals are encouraged
to attend, provide comments and ask
questions about the TWIC and MMC
rules.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Agenda of Meetings
These meetings will be held to take
comments regarding both the TWIC
proposed rule (Docket Nos. TSA–2006–
24191; USCG–2006–24196) and the
MMC proposed rule (Docket No. USCG–
2006–24371). We will receive comments
organized by Code of Federal Regulation
(CFR) Titles, in the anticipated order of
49 CFR, then 33 CFR, and finishing with
46 CFR.
The meetings are expected to run
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. with the exception
of Long Beach which is planned from 10
a.m. to 6 p.m. We may end the meetings
early if there are no additional
comments or questions.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Information on Services for Individuals
With Disabilities
For information on facilities or
services for individuals with disabilities
or to request special assistance at the
meetings, please contact the hotel where
the meeting will be held, or the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
Dated: May 22, 2006.
Howard L. Hime,
Acting Director of Standards, Assistant
Commandant for Prevention, U.S. Coast
Guard.
Dated: May 23, 2006.
Mardi Ruth Thompson,
Deputy Chief Counsel, Transportation
Security Administration.
[FR Doc. 06–4900 Filed 5–23–06; 3:21 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:00 May 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of data availability and
request for comment.
AGENCY:
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30353
For
further information about this notice,
contact Seema Schappelle by telephone
at (202) 343–9548, or by e-mail at
schappelle.seema@epa.gov. 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 https://
www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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
E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM
26MYP1
30354
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA
Dockets at https://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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:00 May 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 https://
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 A-And-RDocket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID
No. OAR–2004–0507. In contrast to
EPA’s electronic public docket, EPA’s email 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
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM
26MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
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 nonozone 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:00 May 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30355
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 nonODS 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
E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM
26MYP1
30356
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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.
2. Extruded Polystyrene Foam
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
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.
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
c. Conclusions
i. XPS boardstock made from nonODS 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:00 May 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–R04–SFUND–2006–0385; FRL–8173–
8]
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the
Cedartown Industries, Inc. site from the
National Priorities List: request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4
announces its intent to delete the
Cedartown Industries, Inc. site (the Site)
from the National Priorities List (NPL)
and requests public comment on this
proposed action. The NPL constitutes
Appendix B of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part
300, which EPA promulgated pursuant
to section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA
and the State of Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (GEPD) have
determined that the Site poses no
significant threat to public health or the
environment and therefore, further
response measures pursuant to CERCLA
are not appropriate.
DATES: Comments concerning this
proposed action may be submitted on or
before: June 26, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
SFUND–2006–0385, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: farrier.brian@epa.gov
• Fax: 404–562–8896/Attn Brian
Farrier
• Mail: Brian Farrier, U.S. EPA
Region 4, WMD–SRTSB, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. In
addition, please mail a copy of your
comments on the information collection
provisions to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attn
Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R04–SFUND–2006–
0385. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM
26MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30353-30356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 schappelle.seema@epa.gov. 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 https://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 https://
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 https://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 A-And-R-
Docket@epa.gov, 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