Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program; Supplemental Proposal, 55549-55560 [2021-21031]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 6, 2021 / Proposed Rules
the Commission initiate a rulemaking
proceeding to consider changes to
analytical principles relating to periodic
reports (Proposal Six). This document
informs the public of the filing, invites
public comment, and takes other
administrative steps.
DATES: Comments are due: October 28,
2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
electronically via the Commission’s
Filing Online system at https://
www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit
comments electronically should contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by
telephone for advice on filing
alternatives.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
202–789–6820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Proposal Six
III. Notice and Comment
IV. Ordering Paragraphs
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
I. Introduction
On September 28, 2021, the Postal
Service filed a petition pursuant to 39
CFR 3050.11 requesting that the
Commission initiate a rulemaking
proceeding to consider changes to
analytical principles relating to periodic
reports.1 The Petition identifies the
proposed analytical changes filed in this
docket as Proposal Six.
II. Proposal Six
Background. The Postal Service
estimates the mail processing costs
avoided due to mailer workshare
activities for First-Class Mail presort
letters and cards using the First-Class
Mail letters mail processing cost model.
Petition, Proposal Six at 1. The Postal
Service determines the avoided costs for
each workshare discount through
modeling of the typical mail processing
flow of First-Class Mail presort letters
and cards by rate category. Id.
Historically, the Postal Service has
offered a single price for First-Class Mail
nonautomation presort categories. Id.
However, in Docket No. R2021–2, the
Postal Service restructured its pricing
for the First-Class Mail presort
categories, creating separate prices for
Nonmachinable 5-Digit letters,
Nonmachinable 3-Digit Letters,
Nonmachinable mixed area distribution
center (MADC) Letters, Nonautomation
1 Petition of the United States Postal Service for
the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed
Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Six),
September 28, 2021 (Petition).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Oct 05, 2021
Jkt 256001
Machinable automated area distribution
center (AADC) Letters, and
Nonautomation Machinable mixed
automation area distribution center
(MAADC) Letters.2
The Commission accepted the
proposed changes to the Mail
Classification Schedule associated with
this new rate structure but determined
that the Metered Letters benchmark was
not appropriate for determining the
costs avoided by the new
Nonautomation Machinable Letters
Mixed AADC and Nonmachinable
Letters Mixed area distribution center
(ADC) workshare discounts.3 For this
reason, the Commission directed the
Postal Service develop a methodology to
disaggregate the Metered Letters
benchmark into the machinable and
nonmachinable components within 90
days of Order No. 5937. Id.
Proposal. With Proposal Six, the
Postal Service seeks to revise the FirstClass Mail letters mail processing cost
model to disaggregate metered mail into
machinable and nonmachinable
categories. Petition, Proposal Six at 2.
Citing data limitations, the Postal
Service proposes to disaggregate the
costs between these pricing categories
through modeling. Id. at 3. The Postal
Service notes that ‘‘[t]he same
methodology that is used to disaggregate
[In-Office Cost System]-derived mail
processing unit costs for First-Class
presorted letter costs by rate category is
used to disaggregate metered mail letter
costs by machinability in this proposal.’’
Id. The Postal Service’s adjusted model
is included with the Petition. See Excel
file USPS–FY20–10 FCM Letters Prop
6.xlsx.
Impact. The impacts of Proposal Six
are outlined in Table 1 and Table 2 of
the proposal. Petition, Proposal Six at
4–5. The Postal Service estimates that
the worksharing related unit costs will
be 13.123 cents for Machinable Metered
Letters and 44.824 cents for
Nonmachinable Metered Letters. Id. at
4. Avoided costs will decrease $0.001
for Automation Mixed AADC Letters
and $0.002 for Nonautomation
Machinable Mixed AADC Letters. Id. at
5. The Postal Service estimates $0.101
in avoided costs for Nonautomation
Nonmachinable Mixed ADC Letters. Id.
2 Docket No. R2021–2, United States Postal
Service Notice of Market-Dominant Price Change,
May 28, 2021, at 8–9.
3 Docket No. R2021–2, Order on Price
Adjustments for First-Class Mail, USPS Marketing
Mail, Periodicals, Package Services, and Special
Services Products and Related Mail Classification
Changes, July 19, 2021, at 82 (Order No. 5937).
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55549
III. Notice and Comment
The Commission establishes Docket
No. RM2021–9 for consideration of
matters raised by the Petition. More
information on the Petition may be
accessed via the Commission’s website
at https://www.prc.gov. Interested
persons may submit comments on the
Petition and Proposal Six no later than
October 28, 2021. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C.
505, Katalin K. Clendenin is designated
as an officer of the Commission (Public
Representative) to represent the
interests of the general public in this
proceeding.
IV. Ordering Paragraphs
It is ordered:
1. The Commission establishes Docket
No. RM2021–9 for consideration of the
matters raised by the Petition of the
United States Postal Service for the
Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider
Proposed Changes in Analytical
Principles (Proposal Six), filed
September 28, 2021.
2. Comments by interested persons in
this proceeding are due no later than
October 28, 2021.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the
Commission appoints Katalin K.
Clendenin to serve as an officer of the
Commission (Public Representative) to
represent the interests of the general
public in this docket.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for
publication of this order in the Federal
Register.
By the Commission.
Erica A. Barker,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021–21757 Filed 10–5–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0698; FRL–7826.1–
02–OAR]
RIN 2060–AV31
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:
Listing of Substitutes Under the
Significant New Alternatives Policy
Program; Supplemental Proposal
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s
Significant New Alternatives Policy
program, the Agency is proposing, as an
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
55550
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 6, 2021 / Proposed Rules
additional option, to list for a limited
period of time certain substances in the
foamblowing sector, extruded
polystyrene: Boardstock and billet enduse, as acceptable, subject to narrowed
use limits. This proposal supplements
the Agency’s June 12, 2020, proposal
with respect to the proposed listings in
the foam-blowing sector, taking into
consideration public comments and
information received since issuance of
the initial proposal. In the June 12,
2020, proposal, EPA proposed to list
three foam blowing agent blends as
acceptable. In this supplemental
proposal, EPA is proposing an
additional approach to list these blends
as acceptable, subject to narrowed use
limits, in the foam blowing sector,
extruded polystyrene: Boardstock and
billet end-use, from the effective date of
a final rule based on this supplemental
proposal until January 1, 2023. The
Agency is providing an opportunity for
public comment on this additional
approach for the listings in the foam
blowing sector, as well as reopening the
public comment period for the proposed
listings in the foam blowing sector in
the June 12, 2020, proposal. The Agency
is not reopening for comment those
other portions of the June 12, 2020,
proposal which are addressed in a
separate final rule issued May 6, 2021.
DATES: Comments on this supplemental
proposal must be received on or before
November 22, 2021. Any party
requesting a public hearing must notify
the contact listed below under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 5 p.m.
Eastern Daylight Time on October 12,
2021. If a virtual hearing is held, it will
take place on or before October 21, 2021
and further information will be
provided on EPA’s Stratospheric Ozone
website at www.epa.gov/snap.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0698, to
the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or withdrawn. EPA may publish
any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Oct 05, 2021
Jkt 256001
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, EPA’s full public comment
policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. The EPA is temporarily
suspending its Docket Center and
Reading Room for public visitors, with
limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID–19. Our Docket
Center staff will continue to provide
remote customer service via email,
phone, and webform. We encourage the
public to submit comments via https://
www.regulations.gov or email, as there
may be a delay in processing mail and
faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may
be received by scheduled appointment
only. For further information on EPA
Docket Center services and the current
status, please visit us online at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christina Thompson, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of
Atmospheric Programs (Mail Code
6205T), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: 202–564–0983; email address:
thompson.christina@epa.gov. Notices
and rulemakings under EPA’s
Significant New Alternatives Policy
program are available on EPA’s
Stratospheric Ozone website at https://
www.epa.gov/snap/snap-regulations.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General information
A. Executive Summary and Background
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. What acronyms and abbreviations are
used in the preamble?
II. What did EPA propose in the 2020 NPRM,
including for extruded polystyrene:
boardstock and billet?
III. What public comments and publicly
available information has EPA included
in the docket with respect to the
proposed XPS listings since issuing the
2020 NPRM?
A. Public Comments
B. Additional Information
IV. What is EPA proposing in this
supplemental proposal?
A. Listing of Three Blends of HFC-134a as
Acceptable, Subject to Narrowed Use
Limits
B. What are the three proposed HFC-134a
blends and how do they compare to
other foam blowing agents in the same
end-use?
C. Status of Specific HFC Blends
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory 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
and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Population
VI. References
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary and Background
Pursuant to the Significant New
Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program,
EPA is proposing to list three foam
blowing agent blends as acceptable,
subject to narrowed use limits, in the
foam blowing sector, extruded
polystyrene: Boardstock and billet enduse. This proposal supplements the
Agency’s June 12, 2020, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), hereafter
referred to as the ‘‘2020 NPRM’’ (85 FR
35874), with respect to the proposal to
list these blends as acceptable, taking
into consideration public comments and
information received since issuance of
the initial proposal. In the 2020 NPRM,
EPA proposed to list three foam blowing
agent blends as acceptable. In this
supplemental proposal, EPA is
proposing an additional approach to list
the following blends as acceptable,
subject to narrowed use limits, for use
in extruded polystyrene: Boardstock and
billet (XPS):
• Blends of 40 to 52 percent
hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-134a and the
remainder hydrofluoroolefin (HFO)1234ze(E);
• Blends of 40 to 52 percent HFC134a with 40 to 60 percent HFO1234ze(E) and 10 to 20 percent each
water and carbon dioxide (CO2); and
• Blends with maximum of 51
percent HFC-134a, 17 to 41 percent
HFC-152a, up to 20 percent CO2, and
one to 13 percent water.
If the approach discussed in this
supplemental proposal is finalized, all
three blends would be acceptable
subject to a narrowed use limit for use
in XPS from the effective date of a final
rule based on this supplemental
proposal until January 1, 2023, where
other alternatives are not technically
feasible for reasons of performance or
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 6, 2021 / Proposed Rules
safety. EPA is taking comment on the
proposed listings as well as the specific
narrowed use limits discussed in this
supplemental proposal. The Agency is
also reopening the public comment
period on the proposed acceptable
listings for the same three foam blowing
blends in the 2020 NPRM, in light of
information that has become publicly
available and included in the docket for
this rulemaking after the comment
period closed for that proposal.
In addition to listings for XPS, the
2020 NPRM included proposed listings
of refrigerants for use in certain
refrigeration and air conditioning enduses, as well as a proposal to remove
Powdered Aerosol E from the list of fire
suppression substitutes acceptable
subject to use conditions in total
flooding applications. EPA is not
reopening the comment period for those
other portions of the 2020 NPRM which
were addressed in a separate final rule
(May 6, 2021; 86 FR 24444). Rather, this
supplemental proposal relates only to
the XPS listings. EPA intends to
respond to comments on the 2020
NPRM’s proposed listings for XPS
together with comments on this
supplemental proposal in a future final
rule.
This supplemental proposal is not
EPA’s response to the Mexichem Fluor,
Inc. v. EPA decision of the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (‘‘the D.C. Circuit’’).1
In this supplemental proposal, as in the
2020 NPRM, EPA refers to listings made
in a final rule issued on July 20, 2015.
See 80 FR 42870 (‘‘2015 Rule’’). The
2015 Rule, among other things, changed
the listings for certain HFCs and blends
from acceptable to unacceptable in
various end-uses in the aerosols,
refrigeration and air conditioning, and
foam blowing sectors. After a challenge
to the 2015 Rule, the D.C. Circuit issued
a partial vacatur of the 2015 Rule ‘‘to the
extent it requires manufacturers to
replace HFCs with a substitute
substance’’ 2 and remanded the rule to
EPA for further proceedings.3 The D.C.
Circuit also upheld EPA’s listing
changes as being reasonable and not
‘‘arbitrary and capricious.’’ 4 EPA
intends to respond to the D.C. Circuit’s
decision in a future action.
The SNAP program implements
section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
1 866
F.3d 451 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
F.3d at 462.
3 Later, the court issued a similar decision on
portions of a similar final rule issued December 1,
2016. 81 FR 86778 (‘‘2016 Rule’’). See Mexichem
Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, Judgment, Case No. 17–1024
(D.C. Cir. Apr. 5, 2019), 760 F. App’x 6 (Mem).
4 Mexichem Fluor, 866 F.3d at 462–63.
2 866
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Oct 05, 2021
Jkt 256001
55551
Background on the SNAP program is
provided in the 2020 NPRM.
For additional information on the
SNAP program, visit the SNAP portion
of EPA’s Ozone Layer Protection
website at www.epa.gov/snap. Copies of
the full lists of acceptable substitutes for
ozone depleting substances (ODS) in all
industrial sectors are available at
www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-sector.
For more information on the Agency’s
process for administering the SNAP
program or criteria for evaluation of
substitutes, refer to the initial SNAP
rulemaking published on March 18,
1994 (59 FR 13044), codified at 40 CFR
part 82, subpart G. SNAP decisions and
the appropriate Federal Register
citations are found at www.epa.gov/
snap/snap-regulations. Substitutes
listed as unacceptable; acceptable,
subject to narrowed use limits; or
acceptable, subject to use conditions,
are also listed in the appendices to 40
CFR part 82, subpart G.
NIOSH—National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health
NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NRC—National Research Council
ODP—Ozone Depletion Potential
ODS—Ozone Depleting Substances
OMB—United States Office of Management
and Budget
OSHA—United States Occupational Safety
and Health Administration
PEL—Permissible Exposure Limit
PIR—Polyisocyanurate
ppm—Parts Per Million
PRA—Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act
SDS—Safety Data Sheet
SNAP—Significant New Alternatives Policy
STEL—Short-term Exposure Limit
UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UL—Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
USGCRP—U.S. Global Change Research
Program
VOC—Volatile Organic Compounds
WEEL—Workplace Environmental Exposure
Limit
WMO—World Meteorological Organization
XPS—Extruded Polystyrene: Boardstock and
Billet
B. Does this action apply to me?
The following list identifies regulated
entities that may be affected by this
proposed rule and their respective
North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes:
• All Other Basic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing (NAICS 325199)
• Polystyrene Foam Product
Manufacturing (NAICS 326140)
II. What did EPA propose in the 2020
NPRM, including for extruded
polystyrene: Boardstock and billet?
In the 2015 Rule, EPA changed the
status of HFC-134a for use in XPS, from
‘‘acceptable’’ to ‘‘acceptable subject to
narrowed use limits for military or
space- and aeronautics-related
applications’’ and ‘‘unacceptable for all
other uses as of January 1, 2021,’’ and
as ‘‘unacceptable for all uses as of
January 1, 2022.’’ In another final rule
issued December 1, 2016 (81 FR 86778),
among other things, EPA revised the
change of status dates for XPS for spaceand aeronautics-related applications,
such that they are ‘‘acceptable subject to
narrowed use limits from January 1,
2021, through December 31, 2024,’’ and
‘‘unacceptable as of January 1, 2025.’’
The December 1, 2016 final rule also
applied unacceptability determinations
for foam blowing agents to closed cell
foam products and products containing
closed cell foam.
In the 2020 NPRM, EPA proposed to
list three blends containing HFC-134a as
acceptable blowing agents in XPS:
Blends of 40 to 52 percent HFC-134a by
weight and the remainder HFO1234ze(E); blends of 40 to 52 percent
HFC-134a with 40 to 60 percent HFO1234ze(E) and 10 to 20 percent each
water and CO2 by weight; and blends
with maximum of 51 percent HFC-134a,
17 to 41 percent HFC-152a, up to 20
percent CO2 and 1 to 13 percent water.
EPA also proposed to revise the
unacceptable listing for blends of
certain HFCs in XPS for consistency
with the proposed acceptable listings for
those blends of HFC-134a. Redacted
submissions and supporting
C. What acronyms and abbreviations are
used in the preamble?
Below is a list of acronyms and
abbreviations used in the preamble of
this document:
AIHA—American Industrial Hygiene
Association
ASTM—American Society for Testing and
Materials
CAA—Clean Air Act
CAS Reg. No.—Chemical Abstracts Service
Registry Identification Number
CBI—Confidential Business Information
CFR—Code of Federal Regulations
CO2—Carbon Dioxide
ECCC—Environment and Climate Change
Canada
EPA—United States Environmental
Protection Agency
EPS—Expanded Polystyrene
EU—European Union
FR—Federal Register
FTOC—Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical
Options Committee
GWP—Global Warming Potential
HF—Hydrofluoric acid
HFC—Hydrofluorocarbon
HFO—Hydrofluoroolefin
ICF—ICF International, Inc.
IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change
NAICS—North American Industrial
Classification System
NFPA—National Fire Protection Association
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
55552
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 6, 2021 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
documentation for these blends are
provided in the docket for this proposed
rule (EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0698) at
https://www.regulations.gov.5 6 7
In the 2020 NPRM, EPA proposed to
list those three specific blends of HFC134a as acceptable in XPS, stating that
‘‘[t]hese blends have higher [global
warming potentials] GWPs and are
otherwise comparable or lower in risk
than other alternatives listed as
acceptable; however, EPA is taking this
action because the Agency believes that
other acceptable alternatives are not
generally available for most needs under
this end-use.’’ 85 FR 35888.
EPA also stated in the 2020 NPRM
that, in order for substitutes to be
‘‘available’’ in the XPS end-use, they
must be capable of blowing foam that
meets the technical needs of XPS
products including density and ability
to meet testing requirements of building
codes and standards, such as for thermal
efficiency, compressive strength, and
flame and smoke generation (85 FR
35888). Further, EPA noted that the
company that initially submitted the
three blends to the SNAP program for
review indicated their difficulty meeting
requirements for insulation value (‘‘Rvalue’’) with neat 8 acceptable blowing
agents such as HFO-1234ze(E), HFC152a, and CO2.9 The submitter indicated
that if in some cases it could meet Rvalue requirements with those neat
blowing agents, these alternatives were
not able to meet other requirements
such as compressive strength, density
and thickness, or fire test results. The
submitter also identified challenges
with meeting code requirements for XPS
products manufactured with flammable
substitutes (e.g., HFC-152a, light
saturated hydrocarbons C3-C6, and
methyl formate) and provided examples
of failed test results 10 (85 FR 35888).
5 Supporting Documentation for SNAP Rule 23
Listing of Blends of 40 to 52 Percent HFC-134a by
Weight and the Remainder HFO-1234ze(E) in
Extruded Polystyrene: Boardstock and Billet.
Submission Received July 20, 2017. Docket ID EPA–
HQ–OAR–2019–0698–0023.
6 Supporting Documentation for SNAP Rule 23
Listing of Blends of 40 to 52 Percent HFC-134a with
40 to 60 Percent HFO-1234ze(E) and 10 to 20
Percent Each Water and CO2 by Weight in Extruded
Polystyrene: Boardstock and Billet. Submission
Received September 24, 2018. Docket ID EPA–HQ–
OAR–2019–0698–0024.
7 Supporting Documentation for SNAP Rule 23
Listing of Blends with Maximum of 51 Percent
HFC-134a, 17 to 41 Percent HFC-152a, up to 20
Percent CO2 and One to 13 Percent Water in
Extruded Polystyrene: Boardstock and Billet.
Submission Received November 7, 2019. Docket ID
EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0698–0025.
8 Individual, unblended blowing agents.
9 DuPont, 2019b. December 17, 2019 Letter from
DuPont Performance Building Solutions to EPA.
Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0698–0008.
10 DuPont, 2019b. Op. cit.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Oct 05, 2021
Jkt 256001
Based on the evidence before the
Agency at the time of the 2020 NPRM,
EPA stated that it appeared that only
one of the substitutes that the Agency
believed at the time of the 2015 Rule
would be available for use in XPS foam
as of January 1, 2021, was in fact
available, and that it likely could only
be used to meet the needs for some
portion of the XPS foams market.11
Based on concerns about ensuring that
the needs of the full XPS foams market
in the United States could be met and
not limiting the choice of acceptable
substitutes to only one option, EPA
proposed to list additional blowing
agent options for XPS that have been
proven to work for this end-use.
In the 2020 NPRM, EPA also proposed
to revise the current unacceptable
listing for blends of certain HFCs in XPS
in appendix U to 40 CFR part 82,
subpart G. The listing for unacceptable
substitutes in XPS states that HFC-134a,
HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends
thereof; and Formacel TI, Formacel B,
and Formacel Z-6 are ‘‘unacceptable as
of January 1, 2021, except where
allowed under a narrowed use limit.’’
For consistency with the proposed
acceptable listings, EPA proposed to
revise this listing of unacceptable
substitutes for XPS in appendix U to
read that the substitutes are
‘‘Unacceptable as of January 1, 2021
except where allowed under a narrowed
use limit or where blends are
specifically listed as acceptable.’’ The
2020 NPRM further stated that EPA was
not opening up for comment other
aspects of the existing listing (85 FR
35889).
The 2020 NPRM also included
proposals that are not affected by this
supplemental proposal. Those were
proposals for listing three refrigerants as
acceptable, subject to narrowed use
limits, for use in retail food
refrigeration—medium-temperature
stand-alone units for new equipment
and for listing six refrigerants as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, in
certain types of new equipment for
residential and light commercial air
conditioning and heat pumps, as well as
a proposal to remove Powdered Aerosol
E from the list of fire suppression
substitutes that are ‘‘acceptable subject
to use conditions’’ in total flooding
applications (85 FR 35874–75). The
comment period for those portions of
the proposal ended on July 27, 2020.
11 In the 2020 NPRM, EPA further stated that the
set of products that may be able to be manufactured
with that substitute, HFC-152a, would account for
a minority of the current market for XPS (85 FR
35888, footnote 54). As discussed further below, the
statement that HFC-152a was being used alone may
have been a misunderstanding.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
This supplemental proposal does not
reopen the comment period for those
portions of the 2020 NPRM which were
addressed in a separate final rule issued
on May 6, 2021 (86 FR 24444).
III. What public comments and publicly
available information has EPA included
in the docket with respect to the
proposed XPS listings since issuing the
2020 NPRM?
During the public comment period for
the 2020 NPRM, EPA received
comments with respect to the proposal
to list three blends containing HFC-134a
as acceptable blowing agents in XPS.
EPA also received and found
information related to the role of codes
and standards for residential insulation
and the availability of alternative foam
blowing agents. These comments and
additional information supplement the
information available to the Agency at
the time of the 2020 NPRM and are
available in the public docket.
A. Public Comments
In this section of the preamble, EPA
is summarizing certain relevant public
comments that shared new information
or suggested different approaches to
listing the three proposed blends. EPA
also received other public comments
related to the proposed listings in the
2020 NPRM for three blends of HFC134a for XPS that are not summarized
below. The Agency intends to address
all comments on the 2020 NPRM and on
this supplemental proposal in any
subsequent final rule.
Most of the public comments on foam
blowing agents for XPS in the 2020
NPRM opposed listing the proposed
blends as acceptable, while two
manufacturers of XPS supported the
proposed acceptable listings. Opposing
commenters stated that there are other
alternatives commercially available with
lower GWP for use in XPS boardstock
that are currently being used in other
countries, such as Japan, Saudi Arabia,
Canada, and member nations of the
European Union (EU); and those
commenters provided links to further
information. Those commenters
included one manufacturer of XPS,
manufacturers of competing types of
foam insulation (e.g., polyisocyanurate
[PIR] laminated boardstock, expanded
polystyrene [EPS]) and their trade
organizations, blowing agent producers,
and environmental organizations. Two
environmental organizations provided
information on recent research into the
use of CO2 as a blowing agent for XPS.
Some of the commenters also requested
that EPA list additional blowing agents
for XPS that were under the SNAP
program’s review at the time of the 2020
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 6, 2021 / Proposed Rules
NPRM. In contrast, the submitter of the
three proposed blends commented that
because of differences in XPS
manufacturing and code requirements
across jurisdictions, comparing XPS
blowing agents between the U.S.,
Canada, and the EU is not appropriate.
That commenter stated that they had
patented low-GWP blends for the
Japanese market, but that those blends
could not meet the stricter fire codes in
the North American market. A different
U.S. XPS manufacturer commented that
they had been using Formacel Z-6, a
blend of HFC-152a, HFC-134a, and HFC134, and requested that EPA, if listing
the three proposed blends as acceptable
in its final rule, clarify that the version
of the Formacel Z-6 blend used in the
commenter’s products is acceptable; at
the time of the 2020 NPRM, EPA had
incorrectly understood that this
company was using neat HFC-152a as
their blowing agent.12
Some commenters mentioned that
certain states have adopted regulations
that control HFCs.13 The submitter of
the proposed blends specifically
mentioned timelines imposed by state
regulations prohibiting certain blowing
agents in XPS as a reason why they
needed to use the proposed blends. An
environmental group also noted in its
comments that to be ‘‘fully compliant
with the various state adoptions of the
Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP) Program in the United States
and Canadian Environmental Protection
Act in Canada,’’ as the submitter claims,
the submitter would need to use
already-approved substances.14 Another
manufacturer of XPS commented that
the majority of the state laws that
prohibit HFC-134a in XPS contemplate
further regulatory action ‘‘to conform’’
state law to any federal SNAP
requirement that approves a previously
prohibited HFC blend for foam blowing.
This commenter expressed concern that
EPA’s decisions in the rule could flow
through to state law and that there could
be inappropriate environmental and
potentially anticompetitive impacts if
EPA were to reach a conclusion (i.e.,
finalize the proposed listings for the
three blends in the 2020 NPRM) without
knowledge of all U.S. products available
in the market.
Commenters disagree as to whether
flammability of substitutes currently
listed as acceptable was of concern.
Some commenters commented that
flammability risks of blowing agents
already listed as acceptable, and
particularly of HFO-1234ze(E), were not
significantly different from flammability
risks for HFC-134a. In contrast, the
original submitter of the proposed
blends commented that during use of
HFO-1234ze(E) without HFC-134a, they
had ‘‘industrial hygiene’’ events where
excessive hydrofluoric acid (HF) was
generated due to decomposition of the
blowing agent under heat and more
cases of ‘‘unplanned combustion’’; they
reported that these problems were
resolved when using HFC-134a in the
blend.
Multiple commenters representing
manufacturers of EPS or of PIR foam
insulation questioned statements in the
preamble to the 2020 NPRM concerning
12 This misunderstanding was the basis for the
Agency’s statements in the 2020 NPRM that ‘‘one
of the three manufacturers of XPS in the United
States has had some success using neat HFC-152a
as a blowing agent to manufacture some XPS
products’’ and ‘‘only one of the substitutes that the
Agency believed at the time of the 2015 Rule would
be available for use in XPS foam as of January 1,
2021 is in fact available and likely could only be
used to meet the needs for some portion of the XPS
foams market.’’ 85 FR at 35888. Subsequent to the
2020 NPRM, EPA has learned from public
comments that, in fact, no U.S. XPS manufacturers
are using neat HFC-152a.
13 To provide additional context, EPA notes that
several states have taken action to restrict the use
of certain HFCs as foam blowing agents for XPS that
would prohibit use of HFC-134a or blends thereof.
To date, twelve of those states have issued final
rules: California, Colorado, Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.
Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia have
established a compliance deadline of January 1,
2022; Delaware has a compliance deadline of
September 1, 2021; Maryland has a compliance
deadline of July 1, 2021; and the remaining six
states have a compliance deadline of January 1,
2021.
14 EPA is aware of Canadian regulations (the
Ozone-Depleting Substances and Halocarbon
Alternatives Regulations) which as of January 1,
2021, prohibit the import and the manufacture of
a plastic foam or a rigid foam product in which a
listed HFC (including HFC-134a) is used as a
foaming agent (i.e., blowing agent) if the GWP of the
foaming agent is greater than 150. (Additional
information is available about these regulations
online at https://pollution-waste.canada.ca/
environmental-protection-registry/regulations/
view?Id=129.) The regulations include provisions to
issue essential purpose permits that would allow
for the manufacture or import of a foam product if
the product will be used for an essential purpose
and if a permit is specifically issued under the
regulations for that purpose. Environment and
Climate Change Canada (ECCC) issued essential
purpose permits for the import and/or manufacture
of three companies’ brands of extruded polystyrene
foam insulation boardstock with a foaming agent
containing HFCs and with a GWP below specified
value. One of these was an essential purpose permit
expiring on December 31, 2022 for XPS using a
foam blowing agent containing HFCs and with a
GWP of 750 or less manufactured by DuPont; this
description corresponds with the blends proposed
in the 2020 NPRM and in this supplemental
proposal for XPS. ECCC also issued essential
purpose permits expiring on December 31, 2021 for
XPS manufactured by Owens Corning and by
Kingspan Insulation. The information pertaining to
essential purpose permits issued by ECCC is
available online at: https://www.canada.ca/en/
environment-climate-change/services/canadianenvironmental-protection-act-registry/permits/
authorizations-ozone-depleting-substances.html.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Oct 05, 2021
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55553
codes and standards and how they
relate to having sufficient options for
the XPS end-use. For example,
representatives of the EPS industry
commented that the specifications of
American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) Standard C578 are
only required by building codes in
certain situations, such as use abovegrade. Commenters from the EPS
industry stated that XPS products could
still be sold as a different type
classification of insulation under the
ASTM C578 standard if they failed to
meet the specifications for the type
classifications for which XPS typically
is used (e.g., multiple types requiring an
R-value of at least 5 per inch).
Manufacturers of XPS foam responded
to such comments in a presentation
given to EPA,15 stating that a change to
a different type classification would
impact their ability to fill their
customer’s specific application needs
and reductions in R-value force an
increase in product thicknesses to
comply with building energy codes. A
commenter from the EPS industry stated
that there are a variety of flammabilityrelated tests for insulation foam,
including both testing for flame and
smoke generation that is required by
building codes (ASTM E84 or
Underwriters Laboratories [UL] 723) and
others ‘‘for which alternative solutions
exist in the code if the product fails
these tests, such as FM [Factory Mutual]
4880, NFPA [National Fire Protection
Association] 286, UL 1715, etc.’’
One commenter suggested that a
sunset date be included for any
‘‘Acceptable’’ formulations that include
high-GWP chemicals. This commenter
stated that that they recognize that
change takes time and suggested that the
blends proposed in the 2020 NPRM
provide a phased approach to
eventually eliminate high-GWP HFC
foaming agents from XPS products in
the United States. The commenter also
suggested that if the EPA decides the
three proposed blends should be added
to the ‘‘Acceptable’’ list, the
corresponding ‘‘Unacceptable’’ list
should be updated to include a deadline
for these formulas and not be left open
ended. The submitter of the three
proposed blends also mentioned timing
as a concern in their comments on the
2020 NPRM, stating non-flammable
blowing agent blends are necessary
because of state regulatory timelines for
transition away from prohibited
components of blowing agents in XPS in
some cases as early as January 1, 2021.
15 DuPont, 2020a. August 23, 2020. DuPont
Performance Building Solutions. SNAP Rule 23
Discussion with EPA.
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
55554
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 6, 2021 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
That commenter stated that products
that meet qualification testing with
flammable blowing agents require
longer development lead times. The
submitter of the three proposed blends
subsequently sent EPA a late comment,
noting the other comment concerning a
sunset date or deadline for the proposed
blends and stating that they would
support the inclusion of a two-year
deadline for the blends in the final rule,
where the blends would no longer be
‘‘acceptable’’ after the deadline. In this
late comment, the submitter of the three
proposed blends said ‘‘[i]ncluding a
deadline in the final rule could alleviate
many of the concerns raised by
commenters, as a deadline would
significantly limit the scope of any
alleged impacts of the rule.’’ They also
stated that they are ‘‘committed and
actively working to find solutions with
further reduced [GWP],’’ and that they
‘‘view the SNAP Rule 23 blends as a
critical, but not permanent, step in
[their] GWP phasedown plan.’’ 16 The
EPA will address all comments received
regarding these three blends in the XPS
end-use on the 2020 NPRM and on this
supplemental proposal in considering
any final action on them.
B. Additional Information
The Agency has obtained additional
information since issuance of the 2020
NPRM. Some of this is information
provided by commenters, such as the
names and websites of XPS
manufacturers in Europe and Asia using
low-GWP blowing agents and a link to
a report, ‘‘Final Scientific Report for
DOE/EERE, A New Generation of
Building Insulation by Foaming
Polymer Blend Materials with CO2’’
(Industrial Science & Technology
Network, Inc. 2016).17 The information
on the XPS manufacturers in Europe
and Asia indicates that a number of XPS
manufacturers globally are using foamblowing agents that comply with
regulations restricting their GWP to 150
or less; however, there is not
corresponding information indicating
that the same industry standards or code
requirements apply in these countries as
in the United States. The DOE/EERE
report concerns an experimental
technology for using CO2 in XPS with
improved thermal insulation values.
The report indicates that the technology
is not yet commercially available. EPA
also has learned that the company
16 DuPont, 2020b. November 20, 2020 Letter from
J. Hansbro, DuPont Performance Building Solutions,
to C. Grundler and C. Newberg, EPA. Available in
docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0698.
17 This report is in the docket for this rulemaking,
EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0986, and is available online
at https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1244652.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Oct 05, 2021
Jkt 256001
Soprema, which manufactures XPS in
Europe using CO2, now operates a
facility in Canada that uses a blowing
agent with a GWP less than 50 to
manufacture XPS.18
Other publicly available information
included in the docket for this
rulemaking after the 2020 NPRM
includes the 2018 report of the Rigid
and Flexible Foams Technical Options
Committee (FTOC 2018). FTOC 2018
states that some reasons why CO2 could
not be adopted universally as a blowing
agent include the following:
• Processing difficulties with CO2 and
even CO2/oxygenated hydrocarbon or
CO2/hydrocarbon blends;
• The higher gaseous thermal
conductivity leading to poorer thermal
efficiency of the foam;
• Costs of conversion—including
licensing constraints resulting from
patents; and
• Loss of processing flexibility ruling
out some board geometries completely.
FTOC 2018 also states,
CO2-based blends are now dominant in the
European extruded polystyrene (XPS)
industry either alone or blended with other
blowing agents. . . . In North America
where the lower lambda [i.e., with higher
thermal resistance and energy efficiency]
product is required, HFCs still dominate. By
contrast, much of the European XPS market
is targeted at requirements, such as floor
insulation, where its moisture resistance is
particularly valuable. In these applications,
board geometries are less critical.
In addition, since issuance of the 2020
NPRM, EPA has continued our review
of submissions for new substitutes for
use in XPS. On December 11, 2020, the
Agency listed blends of 10 to 99 percent
by weight HFO-1336mzz(Z) and the
remainder HFC-152a as acceptable for
use in XPS (85 FR 79863). Those blends
have an ozone depletion potential (ODP)
of zero, range in GWP from about three
to 110, contain chemicals that are
excluded from the definition of volatile
organic compounds (VOC), are
flammable depending on the specific
composition of the blend, and are able
to be used consistent with the
workplace environmental exposure
limits (WEELs) for HFC-152a and for
HFO-1336mzz(Z). For more detailed
information on the human health and
environmental effects of these blends,
see ‘‘Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:
Determination 36 for Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program’’ (85 FR
79863) and public docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2003–0118 at
www.regulations.gov. In addition, since
issuance of the 2020 NPRM, EPA’s
18 https://blog.soprema.ca/en/whats-new-withsopra-xps.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SNAP program has received and is
continuing its technical review of
additional submissions of foam blowing
agents for use in XPS.
IV. What is EPA proposing in this
supplemental proposal?
Taking into consideration the
information discussed in the 2020
NPRM, the public comments received
on the 2020 NPRM and information
available to EPA since issuance of that
initial proposal, EPA is proposing to list
the following three blends of HFC-134a
as ‘‘acceptable, subject to narrowed use
limits,’’ in XPS from the effective date
of a final rule based on this
supplemental proposal until January 1,
2023:
• Blends of 40 to 52 percent HFC134a and the remainder HFO-1234ze(E);
• Blends of 40 to 52 percent HFC134a with 40 to 60 percent HFO1234ze(E) and 10 to 20 percent each
water and CO2; and
• Blends with maximum of 51
percent HFC-134a, 17 to 41 percent
HFC-152a, up to 20 percent CO2 and one
to 13 percent water.
These are the same three blowing
agent blends of HFC-134a that EPA
proposed to list as ‘‘acceptable’’ in the
2020 NPRM. Through this supplemental
proposal, EPA is offering an opportunity
for comment on modifications to the
listings for these three blends proposed
in the 2020 NPRM as well as the
specific narrowed use limits. As noted
above, in light of information that has
become publicly available and included
in the docket after the comment period
closed for the 2020 NPRM, we are also
reopening the public comment period
on the proposed listings in the 2020
NPRM for these same three blends—i.e.,
listing the three proposed blends as
‘‘acceptable’’ and changing the
unacceptability listing for HFC blends
in XPS to allow for specific
‘‘acceptable’’ listings. You may find the
proposed regulatory text at the end of
this document.
A. Listing of Three Blends of HFC-134a
as Acceptable, Subject to Narrowed Use
Limits
Under SNAP, listings of substitutes as
‘‘acceptable, subject to narrowed use
limits,’’ permit a narrowed range of use
of a substitute within an end-use or
sector. As described in the 1994 SNAP
Framework Rule (Mar. 18, 1994) (59 FR
13044 at 13051), where EPA narrows
uses, a substitute will be acceptable for
use only in certain applications under
SNAP, as where other alternatives are
not technically feasible due to
performance or safety requirements.
Thus, narrowed use limits define in
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 6, 2021 / Proposed Rules
which end-uses and applications an
otherwise unacceptable substitute may
be used under SNAP.
In this supplemental proposal, EPA is
proposing to list the three HFC-134a
blends as ‘‘acceptable, subject to
narrowed use limits,’’ because publicly
available information that EPA has
included in the docket supports
consideration of this additional option
as an alternative to the proposal to list
them as ‘‘acceptable’’ without restriction
in the 2020 NPRM. This information
indicates that a new blowing agent is
potentially available and others are
likely to be available in the future that
would result in overall risk to human
health and the environment comparable
to currently acceptable substitutes and
lower than the overall risks of the
proposed blends. Since issuance of the
2020 NPRM, EPA has listed another
blowing agent as acceptable for use in
XPS: Blends of 10 to 99 percent by
weight HFO-1336mzz(Z) and the
remainder HFC-152a. In addition, as
commenters have noted, other blowing
agents such as HFO-1234ze(E) and CO2
are being used successfully for
manufacturing XPS in other countries
where there are requirements to use
blowing agents with a GWP less than
150. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
include a narrowed use limit in the
listing that would allow use under
SNAP of the proposed blends in XPS
from the effective date of a final rule
based on this supplemental proposal
until January 1, 2023, where other
alternatives are not technically feasible
for reasons of performance or safety. At
the same time, EPA is proposing to list
the three blends of HFC-134a as
acceptable, subject to narrowed use
limits, because we understand that U.S.
XPS manufacturers are in the process of
transitioning to other lower GWP
blowing agents, and we understand that
additional technical work is needed. For
example, if an XPS manufacturer has
not been using highly or moderately
flammable blowing agents in the past, it
will require additional time to test and
adjust engineering controls to address
the higher degree of flammability and
the greater amount of HF that would be
generated with the more flammable
blowing agents. In addition, even with
non-flammable blowing agents such as
CO2, additional time would be required
to test and, if necessary, to adjust
formulations or manufacturing
processes, in order to meet performance
requirements. Based on a late comment
from one XPS manufacturer, we expect
that it will take no more than two years
from the original change of status date
of January 1, 2021, for that work to be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Oct 05, 2021
Jkt 256001
complete, such that these other blowing
agents will be available and can meet
the needs met by current XPS products.
EPA is proposing that the three
proposed blends would be acceptable
from the effective date of the final rule
associated with this supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking—which
we anticipate would be 30 days after
publication of a final rule in the Federal
Register—until January 1, 2023, to allow
a limited time for fine-tuning of new
formulations currently in development.
This timing would also be consistent
with a time period suggested in a late
comment from the submitter of the three
blends. We note that we may issue a
final rule with a different time period
e.g., 18 or 36 months after January 1,
2021, for example, if comments and
information submitted during the public
comment period on this supplemental
proposal indicate that a different time
period would be reasonable.
The existing SNAP rules pertaining to
narrowed use limits provide that users
intending to adopt a substitute
‘‘acceptable with narrowed use limits’’
must ascertain that other alternatives are
not technically feasible and document
the results of their evaluation that
showed the other alternatives to be not
technically feasible and maintain that
documentation in their files. 40 CFR
82.180(b)(3). This documentation,
which does not need to be submitted to
EPA unless requested to demonstrate
compliance, ‘‘shall 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.’’ 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3).
EPA is also reopening comment on
the proposed ‘‘acceptable’’ listings for
these three blends of HFC-134a from the
2020 NPRM, in light of information that
has become publicly available and
included in the public docket after the
comment period closed for that
proposal, including the listing of
another blowing agent as acceptable for
use in XPS (blends of 10 to 99 percent
by weight HFO-1336mzz(Z) and the
remainder HFC-152a).19 Further, EPA
requests comment on whether there are
likely to be adequate options available
by January 1, 2023, that would reduce
overall risks to human health and the
19 In
this regard, EPA notes that section IV.B of
this supplemental proposal discusses the three
proposed HFC-134a blends and how they compare
to other foam blowing agents in the same end-use,
including the most recently listed acceptable
alternative.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55555
environment, and whether those options
would prove to be technically feasible
and sufficient in supply by that date to
serve the full needs of the XPS foam
market. If, taking all the relevant and
available information into account, EPA
were to conclude that there would not
be adequate options, or that the options
would not prove to be technically
feasible or sufficient in supply, an
acceptable, unrestricted listing without
a sunset date, as proposed in the 2020
NPRM, might be more appropriate than
a listing as ‘‘acceptable subject to
narrowed use limits’’ or an ‘‘acceptable’’
listing with a sunset date.
In the 2015 Rule, EPA changed the
status of certain HFCs and HFC blends
from ‘‘acceptable’’ to ‘‘unacceptable’’ in
XPS as of January 1, 2021, including
HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and
blends thereof.20 Recognizing that
multiple steps needed to be taken to
transition to other blowing agents,
including research and testing, EPA
provided several years for those actions
prior to the change of status date of
January 1, 2021. The Agency now
anticipates that sufficient alternatives
will be available and technically
feasible for XPS by January 1, 2023.
Thus, EPA is proposing to list
additional blowing agent options for
XPS that have been proven to work for
this end-use on a limited basis by listing
them as ‘‘acceptable, subject to
narrowed use limits’’ from the effective
date of a final rule based on this
supplemental proposal until January 1,
2023.
EPA is taking comment on the
proposed listings as well as the specific
narrowed use limits discussed above. In
particular, EPA requests comment on
the appropriate time period for listing
the blends as ‘‘acceptable, subject to
narrowed use limits.’’ We also request
comment on whether January 1, 2023, is
a reasonable date or whether, as noted
above, the Agency should consider an
earlier or later date in the range of July
1, 2022 to January 1, 2024, and why. In
addition, EPA is considering whether
there are other possible approaches to
issuing a time-limited acceptable listing
for these three blends for use in the XPS
end-use, such as adding an ‘‘acceptable’’
listing with a sunset date in the same
range to the SNAP listings in 40 CFR
part 82, subpart G (e.g., listing as
‘‘acceptable from the effective date of
the final rule to January 1, 2023’’). This
20 As noted above, the D.C. Circuit partially
vacated and remanded the 2015 Rule while also
upholding EPA’s listing changes as being
reasonable and not ‘‘arbitrary and capricious.’’
Mexichem Fluor, 866 F.3d at 462–63. This
supplemental proposal is not EPA’s response to the
court’s decision.
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
55556
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 6, 2021 / Proposed Rules
alternative approach would have the
effect of listing these three blends as
acceptable for a similar, limited time as
for the proposal to list the blends as
‘‘acceptable, subject to narrowed use
limits,’’ but the time limitation would
not be expressed as a narrowed use
limit. Under this alternative approach,
the user would not need to ascertain
further that other alternatives are not
technically feasible, document the
results of their evaluation that showed
the other alternatives to be not
technically feasible, or maintain that
documentation in their files, unlike
with narrowed use limits.21 EPA solicits
comments on this alternative approach.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
B. What are the three proposed HFC134a blends and how do they compare
to other foam blowing agents in the
same end-use?
EPA notes that the information in this
section is similar to that provided in the
2020 NPRM (85 FR at 35887), but is
updated to reflect the most recent listing
of acceptable substitutes for XPS
(December 11, 2020; 85 FR 79863). In
addition, EPA has updated GWP values
to use the 100-year GWP from the
Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018
(WMO, 2018) for certain compounds
that did not have a GWP value
published in the International Panel on
Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment
Report (e.g., HFOs, methyl formate).
EPA is proposing to list as
‘‘acceptable subject to narrowed use
limits’’ (1) blends of 40 to 52 percent
HFC-134a by weight and the remainder
HFO-1234ze(E) for use in XPS (hereafter
referred to as ‘‘HFC-134a/HFO1234ze(E) blends’’); (2) blends of 40 to
52 percent HFC-134a with 40 to 60
percent HFO-1234ze(E) and 10 to 20
percent each water and CO2 by weight
for use in XPS (hereafter referred to as
‘‘CO2/water/HFC-134a/HFO-1234ze(E)
blends’’); and (3) blends with maximum
of 51 percent HFC-134a, 17 to 41
percent HFC-152a, up to 20 percent CO2
and 1 to 13 percent water (hereafter
referred to as ‘‘HFC-134a/HFC-152a/
CO2/water blends’’). The components of
the blends are co-blown and component
percentages are by weight.
HFC-134a is also known as 1,1,1,2tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811–
97–2). HFC-152a, also known as 1,1,
difluoroethane, has CAS Reg. No. 75–
37–6. HFO-1234ze is also known as
HFC-1234ze, HFO-1234ze(E) or trans1,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg.
No. 29118–24–9). CO2 has CAS Reg. No.
21 I.e., under the alternative approach, it would
not be necessary to meet the requirements of 40
CFR 82.180(b)(3).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Oct 05, 2021
Jkt 256001
124–38–9, and water has CAS Reg. No.
7732–18–5.
Redacted submissions and supporting
documentation for these blends are
provided in the docket related to this
supplemental proposal (EPA–HQ–OAR–
2019–0698) at https://
www.regulations.gov. EPA performed
assessments to examine the health and
environmental risks of these substitutes.
These assessments are available in the
docket related to this supplemental
proposal.22 23 24
Environmental information: The
substitutes have ODPs of zero. Their
components, HFC-134a, HFC-152a,
HFO-1234ze(E), CO2, and water have
GWPs of 1,430,25 124,26 one,27 one,28
and less than one,29 respectively. If
these values are weighted by mass
percentage, then the blends range in
GWP from about 580 to 750.30 HFC134a, HFC-152a, HFO-1234ze(E), CO2,
and water—components of the blends—
are excluded from EPA’s regulatory
22 ICF, 2020a. Risk Screen on Substitutes in
Extruded Polystyrene Boardstock and Billet Foam;
Substitute: Blends of 40 to 52 Percent HFC-134a by
Weight and the Remainder HFO-1234ze(E) (HFCHFO Co-blowing Agents).
23 ICF, 2020b. Risk Screen on Substitutes in
Extruded Polystyrene Boardstock and Billet Foam;
Substitute: Blends of 40 to 52 Percent HFC-134a
with 40 to 60 Percent HFO-1234ze(E) and 10 to 20
Percent Each Water and CO2 by Weight (Co-blowing
Blends).
24 ICF, 2020c. Risk Screen on Substitutes in
Extruded Polystyrene Boardstock and Billet Foam;
Substitute: Blends with Maximum of 51 Percent
HFC-134a, 17 to 41 Percent HFC-152a, up to 20
Percent CO2 and One to 13 Percent Water (Blends
for Foam Blowing).
25 IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z.,
Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., and Miller,
H.L. (eds.). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Available online at: www.ipcc.ch/publications_
and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html.
26 IPCC, 2007.
27 WMO (World Meteorological Organization),
Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018,
Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project—
Report No. 58, 588 pp., Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/
files/2019-05/SAP-2018-Assessment-report.pdf. In
this action, the 100-year GWP values are used.
28 IPCC, 2007.
29 Sherwood et al 2018. This paper estimated that
water vapor emitted near Earth’s surface due to
anthropogenic sources (e.g. irrigation) would have
a GWP of ¥10¥3 to 5 × 10¥4. ‘‘The global warming
potential of near-surface emitted water vapour,’’
Steven C Sherwood, Vishal Dixit and Chryse´is
Salomez. Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018) 104006.
30 A GWP of 580 corresponds to formulations
containing approximately 40 percent HFC-134a and
the remainder either HFO-1234ze(E); HFO1234ze(E), CO2, and water; or HFC-152a, CO2, and
water. A GWP of 750 corresponds to formulations
containing 52 percent HFC-134a and the remainder
either HFO-1234ze(E); HFO-1234ze(E), CO2, and
water; or alternatively containing 51 percent HFC134a and the remainder HFC-152a, CO2, and water.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
definition of VOC under CAA
regulations that address the
development of state implementation
plans to attain and maintain the
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. See 40 CFR 51.100(s).
Flammability information: The
component HFC-152a is moderately
flammable. The other components of the
blends are non-flammable at standard
temperature and pressure using the
standard test method ASTM E681.
However, at higher temperatures, such
as the temperatures typical for extruding
XPS, HFC-134a and HFO-1234ze(E) may
be flammable, particularly at higher
humidity levels.31 The XPS
manufacturer submitting the blends has
found that blends containing 50 percent
or more HFC-134a have acceptable
flammable process stability under
conditions of use (i.e., XPS extrusion).32
Toxicity and exposure data: Potential
health effects of these substitutes at
lower concentrations include headache,
nausea, drowsiness, and dizziness. The
substitutes may also irritate the skin or
eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently
high concentrations, they may cause
central nervous system depression and
affect respiration. The substitutes could
cause asphyxiation, if air is displaced by
vapors in a confined space. These health
effects are common to many foam
blowing agents.
The American Industrial Hygiene
Association (AIHA) has established
WEELs of 1,000 ppm as an eight-hour
time-weighted average for HFC-134a
and HFC-152a and 800 ppm for HFO1234ze(E). CO2 has an eight hour/day,
40 hour/week permissible exposure
limit (PEL) of 5000 ppm in the
workplace required by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), and a 15-minute recommended
short-term exposure limit (STEL) of
30,000 ppm established by the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH). EPA anticipates that
users will be able to meet the AIHA
WEELs, OSHA PEL, and NIOSH STEL
and address potential health risks by
following requirements and
recommendations in the manufacturer’s
safety data sheets (SDSs) and other
safety precautions common to the foam
blowing industry.
Comparison to other substitutes in
this end-use: HFC-134a/HFO-1234ze(E)
31 Bellair and Hood, 2019. Comprehensive
evaluation of the flammability and ignitability of
HFO-1234ze, R.J. Bellair and L. Hood, Process
Safety and Environmental Protection 132 (2019)
273–284. Available online at doi.org/10.1016/
j.psep.2019.09.033.
32 DuPont, 2019a. August 23, 2019. Letter from
DuPont Performance Building Solutions to EPA.
Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0698–0007.
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 6, 2021 / Proposed Rules
blends, CO2/water/HFC-134a/HFO1234ze(E) blends, and HFC-134a/HFC152a/CO2/water blends have ODPs of
zero, comparable to all other acceptable
substitutes in this end-use, such as
blends of 10 to 99 percent by weight
HFO-1336mzz(Z) and the remainder
HFC-152a 33 (hereafter called ‘‘HFO1336mzz(Z)/HFC-152a blends’’), HFC152a, HFO-1234ze(E), methyl formate,
and CO2.
The GWPs of 580 to 750 for the HFC134a/HFO-1234ze(E) blends, the CO2/
water/HFC-134a/HFO-1234ze(E) blends,
and HFC-134a/HFC-152a/CO2/water
blends are higher than those for
acceptable alternatives such as HFC152a, HFO-1234ze(E), HFO-1336mzz(Z)/
HFC-152a blends, light saturated
hydrocarbons C3-C6 34 and methyl
formate, with respective GWPs of 124,
less than one, 35 three to 110,36 less than
one,37 and 11.38
Information regarding the
flammability and toxicity of other
acceptable alternatives is provided in
the listing decisions previously made
(see https://www.epa.gov/snap/
substitutes-polystyrene-extrudedboardstock-and-billet). Flammability
and toxicity risks of the HFC-134a/HFO1234ze(E), the CO2/water/HFC-134a/
HFO-1234ze(E) blends, and HFC-134a/
HFC-152a/CO2/water blends are
comparable to or lower than
flammability and toxicity risks of other
available substitutes in the same enduse. Toxicity risks can be minimized by
use consistent with the AIHA WEELs,
OSHA PEL, NIOSH STEL,
recommendations in the manufacturer’s
SDSs, and other safety precautions
common in the foam-blowing industry.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
C. Status of Specific HFC Blends
The existing SNAP listings in
appendix U to 40 CFR subpart G include
an unacceptable listing for XPS for
‘‘HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc,
and blends thereof; Formacel TI,
Formacel B, and Formacel Z-6’’ under
which those alternatives are
‘‘unacceptable as of January 1, 2021,
except where allowed under a narrowed
use limit.’’ In the 2020 NPRM, EPA
proposed to revise this listing of
33 These blends range in composition from 10
percent HFO-1336mzz(Z) and 90 percent HFC-152a
to 99 percent HFO-1336mzz(Z) and 1 percent HFC152a.
34 That is, alkanes with three to six carbons such
as butane, n-pentane, isopentane, and cyclopentane.
35 WMO, 2018.
36 HFO-1336mzz(Z) and HFC-152a, have GWPs of
about two (WMO, 2018) and 124 (IPCC, 2007),
respectively. If these values are weighted by mass
percentage, then the blends range in GWP from
about three to about 110.
37 WMO, 2018.
38 WMO, 2018.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Oct 05, 2021
Jkt 256001
unacceptable substitutes for XPS to add
an exception to the unacceptability of
blends of HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, or HFC365mfc for cases ‘‘where blends are
specifically listed as acceptable.’’ 85 FR
35889. That change was proposed to
allow for consistency between the
proposed acceptable listings for these
blends for XPS in the 2020 NPRM and
the existing unacceptable listing for
HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and
blends thereof; and Formacel TI,
Formacel B, and Formacel Z-6. EPA
notes that if we finalize the proposed
change of listing the three blends of
HFC-134a as ‘‘acceptable, subject to
narrowed use limits,’’ no change would
be needed to appendix U for
consistency, as the existing listing
already includes the text ‘‘except where
allowed under a narrowed use limit.’’
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is a significant regulatory
action that was submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review. Any changes made in response
to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden under the
PRA. OMB has previously approved the
information collection activities
contained in the existing regulations
and has assigned OMB control number
2060–0226. The approved Information
Collection Request includes five types
of respondent reporting and
recordkeeping activities pursuant to
SNAP regulations: Submission of a
SNAP petition, filing a Toxic
Substances Control Act/SNAP
Addendum, notification for test
marketing activity, recordkeeping for
substitutes acceptable subject to use
restrictions, and recordkeeping for small
volume uses. This rule contains no new
requirements for reporting or
recordkeeping.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This action will not
impose any requirements on small
entities. The companies that may
consider using the proposed blends,
manufacturers of XPS products, are not
small businesses.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55557
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does
not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The action imposes no
enforceable duty on any state, local, or
tribal governments, or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action 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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. It will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments, on
the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action. EPA periodically
updates tribal officials on air regulations
through the monthly meetings of the
National Tribal Air Association and will
share information on this rulemaking
through this and other fora.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because
EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children. The EPA has not conducted a
separate analysis of risks to infants and
children associated with this rule. Any
risks to children are not different than
the risks to the general population. This
action’s health and risk assessments are
contained in the comparisons of toxicity
for the various substitutes, as well as in
the risk screens for the substitutes that
are proposed to be listed. The risk
screens are in the docket for this
rulemaking.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ because it is not likely to
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
55558
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 6, 2021 / Proposed Rules
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The blowing agents proposed in this
action would enable the continued
manufacture of insulation foam that
maintain current levels of thermal
efficiency.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Population
A regulatory action may involve
potential environmental justice
concerns if it could (1) create new
disproportionate impacts on minority
populations, low-income populations,
and/or indigenous peoples; (2)
exacerbate existing disproportionate
impacts on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous
peoples; or (3) present opportunities to
address existing disproportionate
impacts on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous
peoples through the action under
development.
In EPA’s 2009 and 2016
Endangerment Findings, the
Administrator considered climate
change risks to minority populations
and low-income populations, finding
that certain parts of the population may
be especially vulnerable based on their
characteristics or circumstances,
including the poor, the elderly, the very
young, those already in poor health, the
disabled, those living alone, and/or
indigenous populations dependent on
one or limited resources due to factors
including but not limited to geography,
access, and mobility. More recent
assessment reports by the U.S. Global
Change Research Program (USGCRP),
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), and the National
Research Council of the National
Academies (NRC) demonstrate that the
potential impacts of climate change
raise environmental justice issues.
These reports concluded that poorer
communities can be especially
vulnerable to climate change impacts
because they tend to have more limited
adaptive capacities and are more
dependent on climate-sensitive
resources such as local water and food
supplies. In corollary, some
communities of color—specifically,
populations defined jointly by both
ethnic/racial characteristics and
geographic location—may be uniquely
vulnerable to climate change health
impacts in the United States. Native
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Oct 05, 2021
Jkt 256001
American tribal communities possess
unique vulnerabilities to climate
change, particularly those impacted by
degradation of natural and cultural
resources within established reservation
boundaries and threats to traditional
subsistence lifestyles. Tribal
communities whose health, economic
well-being, and cultural traditions that
depend upon the natural environment
will likely be affected by the
degradation of ecosystem goods and
services associated with climate change.
The EPA believes that this action does
not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous
peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (February 16, 1994; 59 FR 7629).
In light of the controls on production
and consumption of HFCs under the
American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act (December 27, 2020;
Pub. L.116–260), if the proposed listings
were finalized, they would not be
expected to change the overall amount
of HFCs manufactured or imported in
the United States or to adversely impact
the climate. Additionally, this limited
action does not present a meaningful
opportunity to address existing
disproportionate impacts.
EPA’s analysis indicates that other
environmental impacts and human
health impacts of the proposed
substitutes are comparable to or less
than those of other substitutes that are
listed as acceptable for the same enduse. For EPA’s analysis of the human
health and environmental impacts of
these substitutes, see the risk screens in
the public docket for this rulemaking
(ICF, 2020a; ICF, 2020b; ICF, 2020c).
The limited period of time for the
proposed listings in this supplemental
proposal would further reduce any
impacts compared to the proposed
listings for XPS in the 2020 NPRM.
Based on these considerations, EPA
expects that, if this supplemental
proposal becomes final as proposed, the
effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous
peoples would not be
disproportionately high and adverse.
VI. References
Unless specified otherwise, all
documents are available electronically
through the Federal Docket Management
System, Docket number EPA–HQ–OAR–
2019–0698.
Bellair and Hood, 2019. Bellair, R.J. and
Hood, L. Comprehensive evaluation of
the flammability and ignitability of HFO1234ze. Process Safety and
Environmental Protection 132, 273–284.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Available online at doi.org/10.1016/
j.psep.2019.09.033.
DuPont, 2019a. August 23, 2019. Letter from
DuPont Performance Building Solutions
to EPA. Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–
0698–0007.
DuPont, 2019b. December 17, 2019 Letter
from DuPont Performance Building
Solutions to EPA. Docket ID EPA–HQ–
OAR–2019–0698–0008.
DuPont, 2020a. August 23, 2020. DuPont
Performance Building Solutions. SNAP
Rule 23 Discussion with EPA.
DuPont, 2020b. November 20, 2020 Letter
from J. Hansbro, DuPont Performance
Building Solutions, to C. Grundler and C.
Newberg, EPA.
FTOC, 2018. 2018 Report of the Rigid and
Flexible Foams Technical Options
Committee. 2018 Assessment Report.
Available online at https://
ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/
teap.
ICF, 2020a. Risk Screen on Substitutes in
Extruded Polystyrene Boardstock and
Billet Foam; Substitute: Blends of 40 to
52 Percent HFC-134a by Weight and the
Remainder HFO-1234ze(E) (HFC-HFO
Co-blowing Agents).
ICF, 2020b. Risk Screen on Substitutes in
Extruded Polystyrene Boardstock and
Billet Foam; Substitute: Blends of 40 to
52 Percent HFC-134a with 40 to 60
Percent HFO-1234ze(E) and 10 to 20
Percent Each Water and CO2 by Weight
(Co-blowing Blends).
ICF, 2020c. Risk Screen on Substitutes in
Extruded Polystyrene Boardstock and
Billet Foam; Substitute: Blends with
Maximum of 51 Percent HFC-134a, 17 to
41 Percent HFC-152a, up to 20 Percent
CO2 and One to 13 Percent Water
(Blends for Foam Blowing).
Industrial Science & Technology Network,
Inc. 2016. Final Scientific Report for
DOE/EERE, A New Generation of
Building Insulation by Foaming Polymer
Blend Materials with CO2. Industrial
Science & Technology Network, Inc.
Available online at: https://
www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1244652.
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning,
M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B.,
Tignor, M., and Miller, H.L. (eds.).
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY,
USA. Available online at: www.ipcc.ch/
publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/
contents.html.
Sherwood et al. 2018. Sherwood, S.C.,
Vishal, D., and Salomez, C. (2018) The
global warming potential of near-surface
emitted water vapour. Environ. Res.
Lett.,13 104006. Available online at
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/
10.1088/1748-9326/aae018/pdf.
WMO (World Meteorological Organization),
Scientific Assessment of Ozone
Depletion: 2018, Global Ozone Research
and Monitoring Project—Report No. 58,
588 pp., Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 6, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/
sites/default/files/2019-05/SAP-2018Assessment-report.pdf.
b. Add a table titled ‘‘Foam Blowing
Agents—Substitutes Acceptable Subject
to Narrowed Use Limits’’ after the table
titled ‘‘Refrigerants—Substitutes
Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions’’.
The addition and revision read as
follows:
■
PART 82—PROTECTION OF
STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
1. The authority citation for part 82
continues to read as follows:
■
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Stratospheric ozone layer.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671–
7671q.
Subpart G—Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program
2. In appendix W to subpart G of part
82:
■ a. Revise the heading for appendix W
to subpart G of part 82.
■
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 82 as follows:
55559
Appendix W to Subpart G of Part 82—
Substitutes Listed in the May 6, 2021
Final Rule and the [Date of publication
of final rule in the Federal Register]
Final Rule—Effective June 7, 2021 and
[Date 30 days after date of publication
of the final rule in the Federal Register]
*
*
*
*
*
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS
End-use
Substitute
Decision
Narrowed use limits
Extruded Polystyrene:
Boardstock and Billet.
Blends of 40 to 52 percent HFC-134a by
weight and the remainder HFO1234ze(E).
Acceptable Subject to
Narrowed Use Limits.
Extruded Polystyrene:
Boardstock and Billet.
Blends of 40 to 52 percent HFC-134a with
40 to 60 percent
HFO-1234ze(E) and
10 to 20 percent
each water and CO2
by weight.
Acceptable Subject to
Narrowed Use Limits.
Extruded Polystyrene:
Boardstock and Billet.
Blends with maximum
of 51 percent HFC134a, 17 to 41 percent HFC-152a, up
to 20 percent CO2
and one to 13 percent water.
Acceptable Subject to
Narrowed Use Limits.
Acceptable from [insert date 30 days after date
of publication of final rule] until January 1,
2023: only for use where reasonable efforts
have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not yet technically feasible for
reasons of performance or safety.
Users are required to document and retain the
results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating
compliance. Information shall include descriptions of:
• Process or product in which the substitute is
needed;
• Substitutes examined and rejected;
• Reason for rejection of other alternatives,
e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or
• Anticipated date other substitutes will be
available and projected time for switching.
Acceptable from [insert date 30 days after date
of publication of final rule] until January 1,
2023: Only for use where reasonable efforts
have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not yet technically feasible for
reasons of performance or safety.
Users are required to document and retain the
results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating
compliance. Information shall include descriptions of:
• Process or product in which the substitute is
needed;
• Substitutes examined and rejected;
• Reason for rejection of other alternatives,
e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or
• Anticipated date other substitutes will be
available and projected time for switching.
Acceptable from [insert date 30 days after date
of publication of final rule] until January 1,
2023 only for use where reasonable efforts
have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not yet technically feasible for
reasons of performance or safety.
Users are required to document and retain the
results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating
compliance. Information shall include descriptions of:
• Process or product in which the substitute is
needed;
• Substitutes examined and rejected;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Oct 05, 2021
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
Further
information
55560
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 6, 2021 / Proposed Rules
FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS—Continued
End-use
Substitute
Decision
Narrowed use limits
Further
information
• Reason for rejection of other alternatives,
e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or
• Anticipated date other substitutes will be
available and projected time for switching.
[FR Doc. 2021–21031 Filed 10–5–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 300, 679, and 680
[Docket No. 210929–0201]
RIN 0648–BK76
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Regulatory
Amendment To Remove GOA
Sablefish IFQ Pot Gear Tags and
Notary Certification Requirements
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS issues a proposed rule
to modify recordkeeping and reporting
requirements to remove pot gear tag
requirements in the sablefish Individual
Fishing Quota (IFQ) fishery in the Gulf
of Alaska (GOA) and remove
requirements to obtain and submit a
notary certification on various
programs’ application forms. This action
is intended to reduce administrative
burden on the regulated fishing industry
and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS). This action promotes
the goals and objectives of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Halibut
Act, fishery management plans (FMPs),
and other applicable laws.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
November 5, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2021–0084, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and enter
NOAA–NMFS–2021–0084 in the Search
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Oct 05, 2021
Jkt 256001
box. Click on the ‘‘Comment’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region NMFS. Mail
comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau,
AK 99802–1668.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous).
Electronic copies of the Regulatory
Impact Review (referred to as the
Analysis) and Categorical Exclusion
prepared for this action are available
from www.regulations.gov or from the
NMFS Alaska Region website at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska.
Written comments regarding the
burden-hour estimates or other aspects
of the collection-of-information
requirements contained in this proposed
rule may be submitted to NMFS at the
above address and to www.reginfo.gov/
public/do/PRAMain. Find this
particular information collection by
selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day
Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or
by using the search function.’’
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alicia M Miller at 907–586–7228 or
Alicia.m.miller@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for Action
NMFS manages the groundfish
fisheries in the U.S. exclusive economic
zone (U.S. EEZ) off Alaska under the
FMP for Groundfish of the GOA (GOA
FMP), and the FMP for Groundfish of
the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
(BSAI) Management Area (BSAI FMP).
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NMFS manages the king and Tanner
crab fisheries in the U.S. EEZ of the
FMP for BSAI King and Tanner Crabs
(Crab FMP).
The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council)
prepared, and NMFS approved, the
BSAI FMP, the GOA FMP, and the Crab
FMP under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
et seq. Regulations governing and
implementing the BSAI and GOA FMPs
appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.
Regulations governing and
implementing the Crab FMP appear at
50 CFR parts 600 and 680.
The International Pacific Halibut
Commission (IPHC) and NMFS manage
fishing for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus
stenolepis) through regulations at 50
CFR part 300, subpart E, established
under authority of the Northern Pacific
Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act), 16
U.S.C. 773–773k. Throughout the
remainder of this preamble, Pacific
halibut is referred to as halibut. The
IPHC adopts annual management
measures governing fishing for halibut
under the Convention between the
United States and Canada for the
Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of
the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea
(Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario,
on March 2, 1953, as amended by a
Protocol Amending the Convention
(signed at Washington, DC, on March
29, 1979). The IPHC regulations are
subject to acceptance by the Secretary of
State with concurrence from the
Secretary of Commerce (Secretary).
After acceptance by the Secretary of
State and the Secretary, NMFS
publishes the annual management
measures in the Federal Register
pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62. The Halibut
Act, at section 773c(c), also authorizes
the Council to develop halibut fishery
regulations, including limited access
regulations, that are in addition to, and
not in conflict with, approved IPHC
regulations.
Background
In April 2021, the Council requested
NMFS propose regulations to remove
the requirement to obtain a notary
certification on IFQ Program application
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 6, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55549-55560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21031]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0698; FRL-7826.1-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV31
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes Under
the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program; Supplemental Proposal
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Significant New Alternatives Policy program, the Agency is proposing,
as an
[[Page 55550]]
additional option, to list for a limited period of time certain
substances in the foamblowing sector, extruded polystyrene: Boardstock
and billet end-use, as acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits. This
proposal supplements the Agency's June 12, 2020, proposal with respect
to the proposed listings in the foam-blowing sector, taking into
consideration public comments and information received since issuance
of the initial proposal. In the June 12, 2020, proposal, EPA proposed
to list three foam blowing agent blends as acceptable. In this
supplemental proposal, EPA is proposing an additional approach to list
these blends as acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, in the foam
blowing sector, extruded polystyrene: Boardstock and billet end-use,
from the effective date of a final rule based on this supplemental
proposal until January 1, 2023. The Agency is providing an opportunity
for public comment on this additional approach for the listings in the
foam blowing sector, as well as reopening the public comment period for
the proposed listings in the foam blowing sector in the June 12, 2020,
proposal. The Agency is not reopening for comment those other portions
of the June 12, 2020, proposal which are addressed in a separate final
rule issued May 6, 2021.
DATES: Comments on this supplemental proposal must be received on or
before November 22, 2021. Any party requesting a public hearing must
notify the contact listed below under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on October 12, 2021. If a virtual
hearing is held, it will take place on or before October 21, 2021 and
further information will be provided on EPA's Stratospheric Ozone
website at www.epa.gov/snap.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0698, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
withdrawn. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, EPA's full public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. The EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket
Center and Reading Room for public visitors, with limited exceptions,
to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff
will continue to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and
webform. We encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov or email, as there may be a delay in processing
mail and faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may be received by
scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA Docket
Center services and the current status, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Thompson, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (Mail Code 6205T),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-0983; email address:
[email protected]. Notices and rulemakings under EPA's
Significant New Alternatives Policy program are available on EPA's
Stratospheric Ozone website at https://www.epa.gov/snap/snap-regulations.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General information
A. Executive Summary and Background
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble?
II. What did EPA propose in the 2020 NPRM, including for extruded
polystyrene: boardstock and billet?
III. What public comments and publicly available information has EPA
included in the docket with respect to the proposed XPS listings
since issuing the 2020 NPRM?
A. Public Comments
B. Additional Information
IV. What is EPA proposing in this supplemental proposal?
A. Listing of Three Blends of HFC-134a as Acceptable, Subject to
Narrowed Use Limits
B. What are the three proposed HFC-134a blends and how do they
compare to other foam blowing agents in the same end-use?
C. Status of Specific HFC Blends
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 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 and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Population
VI. References
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary and Background
Pursuant to the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program,
EPA is proposing to list three foam blowing agent blends as acceptable,
subject to narrowed use limits, in the foam blowing sector, extruded
polystyrene: Boardstock and billet end-use. This proposal supplements
the Agency's June 12, 2020, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM),
hereafter referred to as the ``2020 NPRM'' (85 FR 35874), with respect
to the proposal to list these blends as acceptable, taking into
consideration public comments and information received since issuance
of the initial proposal. In the 2020 NPRM, EPA proposed to list three
foam blowing agent blends as acceptable. In this supplemental proposal,
EPA is proposing an additional approach to list the following blends as
acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, for use in extruded
polystyrene: Boardstock and billet (XPS):
Blends of 40 to 52 percent hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-134a
and the remainder hydrofluoroolefin (HFO)-1234ze(E);
Blends of 40 to 52 percent HFC-134a with 40 to 60 percent
HFO-1234ze(E) and 10 to 20 percent each water and carbon dioxide
(CO2); and
Blends with maximum of 51 percent HFC-134a, 17 to 41
percent HFC-152a, up to 20 percent CO2, and one to 13
percent water.
If the approach discussed in this supplemental proposal is
finalized, all three blends would be acceptable subject to a narrowed
use limit for use in XPS from the effective date of a final rule based
on this supplemental proposal until January 1, 2023, where other
alternatives are not technically feasible for reasons of performance or
[[Page 55551]]
safety. EPA is taking comment on the proposed listings as well as the
specific narrowed use limits discussed in this supplemental proposal.
The Agency is also reopening the public comment period on the proposed
acceptable listings for the same three foam blowing blends in the 2020
NPRM, in light of information that has become publicly available and
included in the docket for this rulemaking after the comment period
closed for that proposal.
In addition to listings for XPS, the 2020 NPRM included proposed
listings of refrigerants for use in certain refrigeration and air
conditioning end-uses, as well as a proposal to remove Powdered Aerosol
E from the list of fire suppression substitutes acceptable subject to
use conditions in total flooding applications. EPA is not reopening the
comment period for those other portions of the 2020 NPRM which were
addressed in a separate final rule (May 6, 2021; 86 FR 24444). Rather,
this supplemental proposal relates only to the XPS listings. EPA
intends to respond to comments on the 2020 NPRM's proposed listings for
XPS together with comments on this supplemental proposal in a future
final rule.
This supplemental proposal is not EPA's response to the Mexichem
Fluor, Inc. v. EPA decision of the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (``the D.C. Circuit'').\1\ In this
supplemental proposal, as in the 2020 NPRM, EPA refers to listings made
in a final rule issued on July 20, 2015. See 80 FR 42870 (``2015
Rule''). The 2015 Rule, among other things, changed the listings for
certain HFCs and blends from acceptable to unacceptable in various end-
uses in the aerosols, refrigeration and air conditioning, and foam
blowing sectors. After a challenge to the 2015 Rule, the D.C. Circuit
issued a partial vacatur of the 2015 Rule ``to the extent it requires
manufacturers to replace HFCs with a substitute substance'' \2\ and
remanded the rule to EPA for further proceedings.\3\ The D.C. Circuit
also upheld EPA's listing changes as being reasonable and not
``arbitrary and capricious.'' \4\ EPA intends to respond to the D.C.
Circuit's decision in a future action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 866 F.3d 451 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
\2\ 866 F.3d at 462.
\3\ Later, the court issued a similar decision on portions of a
similar final rule issued December 1, 2016. 81 FR 86778 (``2016
Rule''). See Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, Judgment, Case No. 17-1024
(D.C. Cir. Apr. 5, 2019), 760 F. App'x 6 (Mem).
\4\ Mexichem Fluor, 866 F.3d at 462-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SNAP program implements section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Background on the SNAP program is provided in the 2020 NPRM.
For additional information on the SNAP program, visit the SNAP
portion of EPA's Ozone Layer Protection website at www.epa.gov/snap.
Copies of the full lists of acceptable substitutes for ozone depleting
substances (ODS) in all industrial sectors are available at
www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-sector. For more information on the
Agency's process for administering the SNAP program or criteria for
evaluation of substitutes, refer to the initial SNAP rulemaking
published on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), codified at 40 CFR part 82,
subpart G. SNAP decisions and the appropriate Federal Register
citations are found at www.epa.gov/snap/snap-regulations. Substitutes
listed as unacceptable; acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits; or
acceptable, subject to use conditions, are also listed in the
appendices to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.
B. Does this action apply to me?
The following list identifies regulated entities that may be
affected by this proposed rule and their respective North American
Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes:
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS
325199)
Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing (NAICS 326140)
C. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble?
Below is a list of acronyms and abbreviations used in the preamble
of this document:
AIHA--American Industrial Hygiene Association
ASTM--American Society for Testing and Materials
CAA--Clean Air Act
CAS Reg. No.--Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Identification
Number
CBI--Confidential Business Information
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CO2--Carbon Dioxide
ECCC--Environment and Climate Change Canada
EPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPS--Expanded Polystyrene
EU--European Union
FR--Federal Register
FTOC--Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical Options Committee
GWP--Global Warming Potential
HF--Hydrofluoric acid
HFC--Hydrofluorocarbon
HFO--Hydrofluoroolefin
ICF--ICF International, Inc.
IPCC--Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
NAICS--North American Industrial Classification System
NFPA--National Fire Protection Association
NIOSH--National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NRC--National Research Council
ODP--Ozone Depletion Potential
ODS--Ozone Depleting Substances
OMB--United States Office of Management and Budget
OSHA--United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PEL--Permissible Exposure Limit
PIR--Polyisocyanurate
ppm--Parts Per Million
PRA--Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
SDS--Safety Data Sheet
SNAP--Significant New Alternatives Policy
STEL--Short-term Exposure Limit
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UL--Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
USGCRP--U.S. Global Change Research Program
VOC--Volatile Organic Compounds
WEEL--Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit
WMO--World Meteorological Organization
XPS--Extruded Polystyrene: Boardstock and Billet
II. What did EPA propose in the 2020 NPRM, including for extruded
polystyrene: Boardstock and billet?
In the 2015 Rule, EPA changed the status of HFC-134a for use in
XPS, from ``acceptable'' to ``acceptable subject to narrowed use limits
for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications'' and
``unacceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 2021,'' and as
``unacceptable for all uses as of January 1, 2022.'' In another final
rule issued December 1, 2016 (81 FR 86778), among other things, EPA
revised the change of status dates for XPS for space- and aeronautics-
related applications, such that they are ``acceptable subject to
narrowed use limits from January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2024,''
and ``unacceptable as of January 1, 2025.'' The December 1, 2016 final
rule also applied unacceptability determinations for foam blowing
agents to closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell
foam.
In the 2020 NPRM, EPA proposed to list three blends containing HFC-
134a as acceptable blowing agents in XPS: Blends of 40 to 52 percent
HFC-134a by weight and the remainder HFO-1234ze(E); blends of 40 to 52
percent HFC-134a with 40 to 60 percent HFO-1234ze(E) and 10 to 20
percent each water and CO2 by weight; and blends with
maximum of 51 percent HFC-134a, 17 to 41 percent HFC-152a, up to 20
percent CO2 and 1 to 13 percent water. EPA also proposed to
revise the unacceptable listing for blends of certain HFCs in XPS for
consistency with the proposed acceptable listings for those blends of
HFC-134a. Redacted submissions and supporting
[[Page 55552]]
documentation for these blends are provided in the docket for this
proposed rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0698) at https://www.regulations.gov.\5\
\6\ \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Supporting Documentation for SNAP Rule 23 Listing of Blends
of 40 to 52 Percent HFC-134a by Weight and the Remainder HFO-
1234ze(E) in Extruded Polystyrene: Boardstock and Billet. Submission
Received July 20, 2017. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0698-0023.
\6\ Supporting Documentation for SNAP Rule 23 Listing of Blends
of 40 to 52 Percent HFC-134a with 40 to 60 Percent HFO-1234ze(E) and
10 to 20 Percent Each Water and CO2 by Weight in Extruded
Polystyrene: Boardstock and Billet. Submission Received September
24, 2018. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0698-0024.
\7\ Supporting Documentation for SNAP Rule 23 Listing of Blends
with Maximum of 51 Percent HFC-134a, 17 to 41 Percent HFC-152a, up
to 20 Percent CO2 and One to 13 Percent Water in Extruded
Polystyrene: Boardstock and Billet. Submission Received November 7,
2019. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0698-0025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2020 NPRM, EPA proposed to list those three specific blends
of HFC-134a as acceptable in XPS, stating that ``[t]hese blends have
higher [global warming potentials] GWPs and are otherwise comparable or
lower in risk than other alternatives listed as acceptable; however,
EPA is taking this action because the Agency believes that other
acceptable alternatives are not generally available for most needs
under this end-use.'' 85 FR 35888.
EPA also stated in the 2020 NPRM that, in order for substitutes to
be ``available'' in the XPS end-use, they must be capable of blowing
foam that meets the technical needs of XPS products including density
and ability to meet testing requirements of building codes and
standards, such as for thermal efficiency, compressive strength, and
flame and smoke generation (85 FR 35888). Further, EPA noted that the
company that initially submitted the three blends to the SNAP program
for review indicated their difficulty meeting requirements for
insulation value (``R-value'') with neat \8\ acceptable blowing agents
such as HFO-1234ze(E), HFC-152a, and CO2.\9\ The submitter
indicated that if in some cases it could meet R-value requirements with
those neat blowing agents, these alternatives were not able to meet
other requirements such as compressive strength, density and thickness,
or fire test results. The submitter also identified challenges with
meeting code requirements for XPS products manufactured with flammable
substitutes (e.g., HFC-152a, light saturated hydrocarbons C3-C6, and
methyl formate) and provided examples of failed test results \10\ (85
FR 35888).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Individual, unblended blowing agents.
\9\ DuPont, 2019b. December 17, 2019 Letter from DuPont
Performance Building Solutions to EPA. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0698-0008.
\10\ DuPont, 2019b. Op. cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the evidence before the Agency at the time of the 2020
NPRM, EPA stated that it appeared that only one of the substitutes that
the Agency believed at the time of the 2015 Rule would be available for
use in XPS foam as of January 1, 2021, was in fact available, and that
it likely could only be used to meet the needs for some portion of the
XPS foams market.\11\ Based on concerns about ensuring that the needs
of the full XPS foams market in the United States could be met and not
limiting the choice of acceptable substitutes to only one option, EPA
proposed to list additional blowing agent options for XPS that have
been proven to work for this end-use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In the 2020 NPRM, EPA further stated that the set of
products that may be able to be manufactured with that substitute,
HFC-152a, would account for a minority of the current market for XPS
(85 FR 35888, footnote 54). As discussed further below, the
statement that HFC-152a was being used alone may have been a
misunderstanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2020 NPRM, EPA also proposed to revise the current
unacceptable listing for blends of certain HFCs in XPS in appendix U to
40 CFR part 82, subpart G. The listing for unacceptable substitutes in
XPS states that HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof;
and Formacel TI, Formacel B, and Formacel Z-6 are ``unacceptable as of
January 1, 2021, except where allowed under a narrowed use limit.'' For
consistency with the proposed acceptable listings, EPA proposed to
revise this listing of unacceptable substitutes for XPS in appendix U
to read that the substitutes are ``Unacceptable as of January 1, 2021
except where allowed under a narrowed use limit or where blends are
specifically listed as acceptable.'' The 2020 NPRM further stated that
EPA was not opening up for comment other aspects of the existing
listing (85 FR 35889).
The 2020 NPRM also included proposals that are not affected by this
supplemental proposal. Those were proposals for listing three
refrigerants as acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, for use in
retail food refrigeration--medium-temperature stand-alone units for new
equipment and for listing six refrigerants as acceptable, subject to
use conditions, in certain types of new equipment for residential and
light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps, as well as a proposal
to remove Powdered Aerosol E from the list of fire suppression
substitutes that are ``acceptable subject to use conditions'' in total
flooding applications (85 FR 35874-75). The comment period for those
portions of the proposal ended on July 27, 2020. This supplemental
proposal does not reopen the comment period for those portions of the
2020 NPRM which were addressed in a separate final rule issued on May
6, 2021 (86 FR 24444).
III. What public comments and publicly available information has EPA
included in the docket with respect to the proposed XPS listings since
issuing the 2020 NPRM?
During the public comment period for the 2020 NPRM, EPA received
comments with respect to the proposal to list three blends containing
HFC-134a as acceptable blowing agents in XPS. EPA also received and
found information related to the role of codes and standards for
residential insulation and the availability of alternative foam blowing
agents. These comments and additional information supplement the
information available to the Agency at the time of the 2020 NPRM and
are available in the public docket.
A. Public Comments
In this section of the preamble, EPA is summarizing certain
relevant public comments that shared new information or suggested
different approaches to listing the three proposed blends. EPA also
received other public comments related to the proposed listings in the
2020 NPRM for three blends of HFC-134a for XPS that are not summarized
below. The Agency intends to address all comments on the 2020 NPRM and
on this supplemental proposal in any subsequent final rule.
Most of the public comments on foam blowing agents for XPS in the
2020 NPRM opposed listing the proposed blends as acceptable, while two
manufacturers of XPS supported the proposed acceptable listings.
Opposing commenters stated that there are other alternatives
commercially available with lower GWP for use in XPS boardstock that
are currently being used in other countries, such as Japan, Saudi
Arabia, Canada, and member nations of the European Union (EU); and
those commenters provided links to further information. Those
commenters included one manufacturer of XPS, manufacturers of competing
types of foam insulation (e.g., polyisocyanurate [PIR] laminated
boardstock, expanded polystyrene [EPS]) and their trade organizations,
blowing agent producers, and environmental organizations. Two
environmental organizations provided information on recent research
into the use of CO2 as a blowing agent for XPS. Some of the
commenters also requested that EPA list additional blowing agents for
XPS that were under the SNAP program's review at the time of the 2020
[[Page 55553]]
NPRM. In contrast, the submitter of the three proposed blends commented
that because of differences in XPS manufacturing and code requirements
across jurisdictions, comparing XPS blowing agents between the U.S.,
Canada, and the EU is not appropriate. That commenter stated that they
had patented low-GWP blends for the Japanese market, but that those
blends could not meet the stricter fire codes in the North American
market. A different U.S. XPS manufacturer commented that they had been
using Formacel Z-6, a blend of HFC-152a, HFC-134a, and HFC-134, and
requested that EPA, if listing the three proposed blends as acceptable
in its final rule, clarify that the version of the Formacel Z-6 blend
used in the commenter's products is acceptable; at the time of the 2020
NPRM, EPA had incorrectly understood that this company was using neat
HFC-152a as their blowing agent.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ This misunderstanding was the basis for the Agency's
statements in the 2020 NPRM that ``one of the three manufacturers of
XPS in the United States has had some success using neat HFC-152a as
a blowing agent to manufacture some XPS products'' and ``only one of
the substitutes that the Agency believed at the time of the 2015
Rule would be available for use in XPS foam as of January 1, 2021 is
in fact available and likely could only be used to meet the needs
for some portion of the XPS foams market.'' 85 FR at 35888.
Subsequent to the 2020 NPRM, EPA has learned from public comments
that, in fact, no U.S. XPS manufacturers are using neat HFC-152a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters mentioned that certain states have adopted
regulations that control HFCs.\13\ The submitter of the proposed blends
specifically mentioned timelines imposed by state regulations
prohibiting certain blowing agents in XPS as a reason why they needed
to use the proposed blends. An environmental group also noted in its
comments that to be ``fully compliant with the various state adoptions
of the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program in the United
States and Canadian Environmental Protection Act in Canada,'' as the
submitter claims, the submitter would need to use already-approved
substances.\14\ Another manufacturer of XPS commented that the majority
of the state laws that prohibit HFC-134a in XPS contemplate further
regulatory action ``to conform'' state law to any federal SNAP
requirement that approves a previously prohibited HFC blend for foam
blowing. This commenter expressed concern that EPA's decisions in the
rule could flow through to state law and that there could be
inappropriate environmental and potentially anticompetitive impacts if
EPA were to reach a conclusion (i.e., finalize the proposed listings
for the three blends in the 2020 NPRM) without knowledge of all U.S.
products available in the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ To provide additional context, EPA notes that several
states have taken action to restrict the use of certain HFCs as foam
blowing agents for XPS that would prohibit use of HFC-134a or blends
thereof. To date, twelve of those states have issued final rules:
California, Colorado, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.
Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia have established a
compliance deadline of January 1, 2022; Delaware has a compliance
deadline of September 1, 2021; Maryland has a compliance deadline of
July 1, 2021; and the remaining six states have a compliance
deadline of January 1, 2021.
\14\ EPA is aware of Canadian regulations (the Ozone-Depleting
Substances and Halocarbon Alternatives Regulations) which as of
January 1, 2021, prohibit the import and the manufacture of a
plastic foam or a rigid foam product in which a listed HFC
(including HFC-134a) is used as a foaming agent (i.e., blowing
agent) if the GWP of the foaming agent is greater than 150.
(Additional information is available about these regulations online
at https://pollution-waste.canada.ca/environmental-protection-registry/regulations/view?Id=129.) The regulations include
provisions to issue essential purpose permits that would allow for
the manufacture or import of a foam product if the product will be
used for an essential purpose and if a permit is specifically issued
under the regulations for that purpose. Environment and Climate
Change Canada (ECCC) issued essential purpose permits for the import
and/or manufacture of three companies' brands of extruded
polystyrene foam insulation boardstock with a foaming agent
containing HFCs and with a GWP below specified value. One of these
was an essential purpose permit expiring on December 31, 2022 for
XPS using a foam blowing agent containing HFCs and with a GWP of 750
or less manufactured by DuPont; this description corresponds with
the blends proposed in the 2020 NPRM and in this supplemental
proposal for XPS. ECCC also issued essential purpose permits
expiring on December 31, 2021 for XPS manufactured by Owens Corning
and by Kingspan Insulation. The information pertaining to essential
purpose permits issued by ECCC is available online at: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/canadian-environmental-protection-act-registry/permits/authorizations-ozone-depleting-substances.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters disagree as to whether flammability of substitutes
currently listed as acceptable was of concern. Some commenters
commented that flammability risks of blowing agents already listed as
acceptable, and particularly of HFO-1234ze(E), were not significantly
different from flammability risks for HFC-134a. In contrast, the
original submitter of the proposed blends commented that during use of
HFO-1234ze(E) without HFC-134a, they had ``industrial hygiene'' events
where excessive hydrofluoric acid (HF) was generated due to
decomposition of the blowing agent under heat and more cases of
``unplanned combustion''; they reported that these problems were
resolved when using HFC-134a in the blend.
Multiple commenters representing manufacturers of EPS or of PIR
foam insulation questioned statements in the preamble to the 2020 NPRM
concerning codes and standards and how they relate to having sufficient
options for the XPS end-use. For example, representatives of the EPS
industry commented that the specifications of American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard C578 are only required by
building codes in certain situations, such as use above-grade.
Commenters from the EPS industry stated that XPS products could still
be sold as a different type classification of insulation under the ASTM
C578 standard if they failed to meet the specifications for the type
classifications for which XPS typically is used (e.g., multiple types
requiring an R-value of at least 5 per inch). Manufacturers of XPS foam
responded to such comments in a presentation given to EPA,\15\ stating
that a change to a different type classification would impact their
ability to fill their customer's specific application needs and
reductions in R-value force an increase in product thicknesses to
comply with building energy codes. A commenter from the EPS industry
stated that there are a variety of flammability-related tests for
insulation foam, including both testing for flame and smoke generation
that is required by building codes (ASTM E84 or Underwriters
Laboratories [UL] 723) and others ``for which alternative solutions
exist in the code if the product fails these tests, such as FM [Factory
Mutual] 4880, NFPA [National Fire Protection Association] 286, UL 1715,
etc.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ DuPont, 2020a. August 23, 2020. DuPont Performance Building
Solutions. SNAP Rule 23 Discussion with EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter suggested that a sunset date be included for any
``Acceptable'' formulations that include high-GWP chemicals. This
commenter stated that that they recognize that change takes time and
suggested that the blends proposed in the 2020 NPRM provide a phased
approach to eventually eliminate high-GWP HFC foaming agents from XPS
products in the United States. The commenter also suggested that if the
EPA decides the three proposed blends should be added to the
``Acceptable'' list, the corresponding ``Unacceptable'' list should be
updated to include a deadline for these formulas and not be left open
ended. The submitter of the three proposed blends also mentioned timing
as a concern in their comments on the 2020 NPRM, stating non-flammable
blowing agent blends are necessary because of state regulatory
timelines for transition away from prohibited components of blowing
agents in XPS in some cases as early as January 1, 2021.
[[Page 55554]]
That commenter stated that products that meet qualification testing
with flammable blowing agents require longer development lead times.
The submitter of the three proposed blends subsequently sent EPA a late
comment, noting the other comment concerning a sunset date or deadline
for the proposed blends and stating that they would support the
inclusion of a two-year deadline for the blends in the final rule,
where the blends would no longer be ``acceptable'' after the deadline.
In this late comment, the submitter of the three proposed blends said
``[i]ncluding a deadline in the final rule could alleviate many of the
concerns raised by commenters, as a deadline would significantly limit
the scope of any alleged impacts of the rule.'' They also stated that
they are ``committed and actively working to find solutions with
further reduced [GWP],'' and that they ``view the SNAP Rule 23 blends
as a critical, but not permanent, step in [their] GWP phasedown plan.''
\16\ The EPA will address all comments received regarding these three
blends in the XPS end-use on the 2020 NPRM and on this supplemental
proposal in considering any final action on them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ DuPont, 2020b. November 20, 2020 Letter from J. Hansbro,
DuPont Performance Building Solutions, to C. Grundler and C.
Newberg, EPA. Available in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0698.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Additional Information
The Agency has obtained additional information since issuance of
the 2020 NPRM. Some of this is information provided by commenters, such
as the names and websites of XPS manufacturers in Europe and Asia using
low-GWP blowing agents and a link to a report, ``Final Scientific
Report for DOE/EERE, A New Generation of Building Insulation by Foaming
Polymer Blend Materials with CO2'' (Industrial Science &
Technology Network, Inc. 2016).\17\ The information on the XPS
manufacturers in Europe and Asia indicates that a number of XPS
manufacturers globally are using foam-blowing agents that comply with
regulations restricting their GWP to 150 or less; however, there is not
corresponding information indicating that the same industry standards
or code requirements apply in these countries as in the United States.
The DOE/EERE report concerns an experimental technology for using
CO2 in XPS with improved thermal insulation values. The
report indicates that the technology is not yet commercially available.
EPA also has learned that the company Soprema, which manufactures XPS
in Europe using CO2, now operates a facility in Canada that
uses a blowing agent with a GWP less than 50 to manufacture XPS.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ This report is in the docket for this rulemaking, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0986, and is available online at https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1244652.
\18\ https://blog.soprema.ca/en/whats-new-with-sopra-xps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other publicly available information included in the docket for
this rulemaking after the 2020 NPRM includes the 2018 report of the
Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical Options Committee (FTOC 2018). FTOC
2018 states that some reasons why CO2 could not be adopted
universally as a blowing agent include the following:
Processing difficulties with CO2 and even
CO2/oxygenated hydrocarbon or CO2/hydrocarbon
blends;
The higher gaseous thermal conductivity leading to poorer
thermal efficiency of the foam;
Costs of conversion--including licensing constraints
resulting from patents; and
Loss of processing flexibility ruling out some board
geometries completely. FTOC 2018 also states,
CO2-based blends are now dominant in the European
extruded polystyrene (XPS) industry either alone or blended with
other blowing agents. . . . In North America where the lower lambda
[i.e., with higher thermal resistance and energy efficiency] product
is required, HFCs still dominate. By contrast, much of the European
XPS market is targeted at requirements, such as floor insulation,
where its moisture resistance is particularly valuable. In these
applications, board geometries are less critical.
In addition, since issuance of the 2020 NPRM, EPA has continued our
review of submissions for new substitutes for use in XPS. On December
11, 2020, the Agency listed blends of 10 to 99 percent by weight HFO-
1336mzz(Z) and the remainder HFC-152a as acceptable for use in XPS (85
FR 79863). Those blends have an ozone depletion potential (ODP) of
zero, range in GWP from about three to 110, contain chemicals that are
excluded from the definition of volatile organic compounds (VOC), are
flammable depending on the specific composition of the blend, and are
able to be used consistent with the workplace environmental exposure
limits (WEELs) for HFC-152a and for HFO-1336mzz(Z). For more detailed
information on the human health and environmental effects of these
blends, see ``Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Determination 36 for
Significant New Alternatives Policy Program'' (85 FR 79863) and public
docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov. In addition, since
issuance of the 2020 NPRM, EPA's SNAP program has received and is
continuing its technical review of additional submissions of foam
blowing agents for use in XPS.
IV. What is EPA proposing in this supplemental proposal?
Taking into consideration the information discussed in the 2020
NPRM, the public comments received on the 2020 NPRM and information
available to EPA since issuance of that initial proposal, EPA is
proposing to list the following three blends of HFC-134a as
``acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits,'' in XPS from the
effective date of a final rule based on this supplemental proposal
until January 1, 2023:
Blends of 40 to 52 percent HFC-134a and the remainder HFO-
1234ze(E);
Blends of 40 to 52 percent HFC-134a with 40 to 60 percent
HFO-1234ze(E) and 10 to 20 percent each water and CO2; and
Blends with maximum of 51 percent HFC-134a, 17 to 41
percent HFC-152a, up to 20 percent CO2 and one to 13 percent
water.
These are the same three blowing agent blends of HFC-134a that EPA
proposed to list as ``acceptable'' in the 2020 NPRM. Through this
supplemental proposal, EPA is offering an opportunity for comment on
modifications to the listings for these three blends proposed in the
2020 NPRM as well as the specific narrowed use limits. As noted above,
in light of information that has become publicly available and included
in the docket after the comment period closed for the 2020 NPRM, we are
also reopening the public comment period on the proposed listings in
the 2020 NPRM for these same three blends--i.e., listing the three
proposed blends as ``acceptable'' and changing the unacceptability
listing for HFC blends in XPS to allow for specific ``acceptable''
listings. You may find the proposed regulatory text at the end of this
document.
A. Listing of Three Blends of HFC-134a as Acceptable, Subject to
Narrowed Use Limits
Under SNAP, listings of substitutes as ``acceptable, subject to
narrowed use limits,'' permit a narrowed range of use of a substitute
within an end-use or sector. As described in the 1994 SNAP Framework
Rule (Mar. 18, 1994) (59 FR 13044 at 13051), where EPA narrows uses, a
substitute will be acceptable for use only in certain applications
under SNAP, as where other alternatives are not technically feasible
due to performance or safety requirements. Thus, narrowed use limits
define in
[[Page 55555]]
which end-uses and applications an otherwise unacceptable substitute
may be used under SNAP.
In this supplemental proposal, EPA is proposing to list the three
HFC-134a blends as ``acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits,''
because publicly available information that EPA has included in the
docket supports consideration of this additional option as an
alternative to the proposal to list them as ``acceptable'' without
restriction in the 2020 NPRM. This information indicates that a new
blowing agent is potentially available and others are likely to be
available in the future that would result in overall risk to human
health and the environment comparable to currently acceptable
substitutes and lower than the overall risks of the proposed blends.
Since issuance of the 2020 NPRM, EPA has listed another blowing agent
as acceptable for use in XPS: Blends of 10 to 99 percent by weight HFO-
1336mzz(Z) and the remainder HFC-152a. In addition, as commenters have
noted, other blowing agents such as HFO-1234ze(E) and CO2
are being used successfully for manufacturing XPS in other countries
where there are requirements to use blowing agents with a GWP less than
150. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to include a narrowed use limit in
the listing that would allow use under SNAP of the proposed blends in
XPS from the effective date of a final rule based on this supplemental
proposal until January 1, 2023, where other alternatives are not
technically feasible for reasons of performance or safety. At the same
time, EPA is proposing to list the three blends of HFC-134a as
acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, because we understand that
U.S. XPS manufacturers are in the process of transitioning to other
lower GWP blowing agents, and we understand that additional technical
work is needed. For example, if an XPS manufacturer has not been using
highly or moderately flammable blowing agents in the past, it will
require additional time to test and adjust engineering controls to
address the higher degree of flammability and the greater amount of HF
that would be generated with the more flammable blowing agents. In
addition, even with non-flammable blowing agents such as
CO2, additional time would be required to test and, if
necessary, to adjust formulations or manufacturing processes, in order
to meet performance requirements. Based on a late comment from one XPS
manufacturer, we expect that it will take no more than two years from
the original change of status date of January 1, 2021, for that work to
be complete, such that these other blowing agents will be available and
can meet the needs met by current XPS products.
EPA is proposing that the three proposed blends would be acceptable
from the effective date of the final rule associated with this
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking--which we anticipate would
be 30 days after publication of a final rule in the Federal Register--
until January 1, 2023, to allow a limited time for fine-tuning of new
formulations currently in development. This timing would also be
consistent with a time period suggested in a late comment from the
submitter of the three blends. We note that we may issue a final rule
with a different time period e.g., 18 or 36 months after January 1,
2021, for example, if comments and information submitted during the
public comment period on this supplemental proposal indicate that a
different time period would be reasonable.
The existing SNAP rules pertaining to narrowed use limits provide
that users intending to adopt a substitute ``acceptable with narrowed
use limits'' must ascertain that other alternatives are not technically
feasible and document the results of their evaluation that showed the
other alternatives to be not technically feasible and maintain that
documentation in their files. 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). This documentation,
which does not need to be submitted to EPA unless requested to
demonstrate compliance, ``shall 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.'' 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3).
EPA is also reopening comment on the proposed ``acceptable''
listings for these three blends of HFC-134a from the 2020 NPRM, in
light of information that has become publicly available and included in
the public docket after the comment period closed for that proposal,
including the listing of another blowing agent as acceptable for use in
XPS (blends of 10 to 99 percent by weight HFO-1336mzz(Z) and the
remainder HFC-152a).\19\ Further, EPA requests comment on whether there
are likely to be adequate options available by January 1, 2023, that
would reduce overall risks to human health and the environment, and
whether those options would prove to be technically feasible and
sufficient in supply by that date to serve the full needs of the XPS
foam market. If, taking all the relevant and available information into
account, EPA were to conclude that there would not be adequate options,
or that the options would not prove to be technically feasible or
sufficient in supply, an acceptable, unrestricted listing without a
sunset date, as proposed in the 2020 NPRM, might be more appropriate
than a listing as ``acceptable subject to narrowed use limits'' or an
``acceptable'' listing with a sunset date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ In this regard, EPA notes that section IV.B of this
supplemental proposal discusses the three proposed HFC-134a blends
and how they compare to other foam blowing agents in the same end-
use, including the most recently listed acceptable alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2015 Rule, EPA changed the status of certain HFCs and HFC
blends from ``acceptable'' to ``unacceptable'' in XPS as of January 1,
2021, including HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends
thereof.\20\ Recognizing that multiple steps needed to be taken to
transition to other blowing agents, including research and testing, EPA
provided several years for those actions prior to the change of status
date of January 1, 2021. The Agency now anticipates that sufficient
alternatives will be available and technically feasible for XPS by
January 1, 2023. Thus, EPA is proposing to list additional blowing
agent options for XPS that have been proven to work for this end-use on
a limited basis by listing them as ``acceptable, subject to narrowed
use limits'' from the effective date of a final rule based on this
supplemental proposal until January 1, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ As noted above, the D.C. Circuit partially vacated and
remanded the 2015 Rule while also upholding EPA's listing changes as
being reasonable and not ``arbitrary and capricious.'' Mexichem
Fluor, 866 F.3d at 462-63. This supplemental proposal is not EPA's
response to the court's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is taking comment on the proposed listings as well as the
specific narrowed use limits discussed above. In particular, EPA
requests comment on the appropriate time period for listing the blends
as ``acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits.'' We also request
comment on whether January 1, 2023, is a reasonable date or whether, as
noted above, the Agency should consider an earlier or later date in the
range of July 1, 2022 to January 1, 2024, and why. In addition, EPA is
considering whether there are other possible approaches to issuing a
time-limited acceptable listing for these three blends for use in the
XPS end-use, such as adding an ``acceptable'' listing with a sunset
date in the same range to the SNAP listings in 40 CFR part 82, subpart
G (e.g., listing as ``acceptable from the effective date of the final
rule to January 1, 2023''). This
[[Page 55556]]
alternative approach would have the effect of listing these three
blends as acceptable for a similar, limited time as for the proposal to
list the blends as ``acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits,'' but
the time limitation would not be expressed as a narrowed use limit.
Under this alternative approach, the user would not need to ascertain
further that other alternatives are not technically feasible, document
the results of their evaluation that showed the other alternatives to
be not technically feasible, or maintain that documentation in their
files, unlike with narrowed use limits.\21\ EPA solicits comments on
this alternative approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ I.e., under the alternative approach, it would not be
necessary to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What are the three proposed HFC-134a blends and how do they compare
to other foam blowing agents in the same end-use?
EPA notes that the information in this section is similar to that
provided in the 2020 NPRM (85 FR at 35887), but is updated to reflect
the most recent listing of acceptable substitutes for XPS (December 11,
2020; 85 FR 79863). In addition, EPA has updated GWP values to use the
100-year GWP from the Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018 (WMO, 2018)
for certain compounds that did not have a GWP value published in the
International Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report (e.g.,
HFOs, methyl formate).
EPA is proposing to list as ``acceptable subject to narrowed use
limits'' (1) blends of 40 to 52 percent HFC-134a by weight and the
remainder HFO-1234ze(E) for use in XPS (hereafter referred to as ``HFC-
134a/HFO-1234ze(E) blends''); (2) blends of 40 to 52 percent HFC-134a
with 40 to 60 percent HFO-1234ze(E) and 10 to 20 percent each water and
CO2 by weight for use in XPS (hereafter referred to as
``CO2/water/HFC-134a/HFO-1234ze(E) blends''); and (3) blends
with maximum of 51 percent HFC-134a, 17 to 41 percent HFC-152a, up to
20 percent CO2 and 1 to 13 percent water (hereafter referred
to as ``HFC-134a/HFC-152a/CO2/water blends''). The
components of the blends are co-blown and component percentages are by
weight.
HFC-134a is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No.
811-97-2). HFC-152a, also known as 1,1, difluoroethane, has CAS Reg.
No. 75-37-6. HFO-1234ze is also known as HFC-1234ze, HFO-1234ze(E) or
trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 29118-24-9).
CO2 has CAS Reg. No. 124-38-9, and water has CAS Reg. No.
7732-18-5.
Redacted submissions and supporting documentation for these blends
are provided in the docket related to this supplemental proposal (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0698) at https://www.regulations.gov. EPA performed
assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of these
substitutes. These assessments are available in the docket related to
this supplemental proposal.22 23 24
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ICF, 2020a. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Extruded
Polystyrene Boardstock and Billet Foam; Substitute: Blends of 40 to
52 Percent HFC-134a by Weight and the Remainder HFO-1234ze(E) (HFC-
HFO Co-blowing Agents).
\23\ ICF, 2020b. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Extruded
Polystyrene Boardstock and Billet Foam; Substitute: Blends of 40 to
52 Percent HFC-134a with 40 to 60 Percent HFO-1234ze(E) and 10 to 20
Percent Each Water and CO2 by Weight (Co-blowing Blends).
\24\ ICF, 2020c. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Extruded
Polystyrene Boardstock and Billet Foam; Substitute: Blends with
Maximum of 51 Percent HFC-134a, 17 to 41 Percent HFC-152a, up to 20
Percent CO2 and One to 13 Percent Water (Blends for Foam
Blowing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental information: The substitutes have ODPs of zero. Their
components, HFC-134a, HFC-152a, HFO-1234ze(E), CO2, and
water have GWPs of 1,430,\25\ 124,\26\ one,\27\ one,\28\ and less than
one,\29\ respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage,
then the blends range in GWP from about 580 to 750.\30\ HFC-134a, HFC-
152a, HFO-1234ze(E), CO2, and water--components of the
blends--are excluded from EPA's regulatory definition of VOC under CAA
regulations that address the development of state implementation plans
to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. See
40 CFR 51.100(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon,
S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B.,
Tignor, M., and Miller, H.L. (eds.). Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Available online
at: www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html.
\26\ IPCC, 2007.
\27\ WMO (World Meteorological Organization), Scientific
Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018, Global Ozone Research and
Monitoring Project--Report No. 58, 588 pp., Geneva, Switzerland,
2018. Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/SAP-2018-Assessment-report.pdf. In this action, the 100-year GWP
values are used.
\28\ IPCC, 2007.
\29\ Sherwood et al 2018. This paper estimated that water vapor
emitted near Earth's surface due to anthropogenic sources (e.g.
irrigation) would have a GWP of -10-3 to 5 x
10-4. ``The global warming potential of near-surface
emitted water vapour,'' Steven C Sherwood, Vishal Dixit and
Chrys[eacute]is Salomez. Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018) 104006.
\30\ A GWP of 580 corresponds to formulations containing
approximately 40 percent HFC-134a and the remainder either HFO-
1234ze(E); HFO-1234ze(E), CO2, and water; or HFC-152a,
CO2, and water. A GWP of 750 corresponds to formulations
containing 52 percent HFC-134a and the remainder either HFO-
1234ze(E); HFO-1234ze(E), CO2, and water; or
alternatively containing 51 percent HFC-134a and the remainder HFC-
152a, CO2, and water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flammability information: The component HFC-152a is moderately
flammable. The other components of the blends are non-flammable at
standard temperature and pressure using the standard test method ASTM
E681. However, at higher temperatures, such as the temperatures typical
for extruding XPS, HFC-134a and HFO-1234ze(E) may be flammable,
particularly at higher humidity levels.\31\ The XPS manufacturer
submitting the blends has found that blends containing 50 percent or
more HFC-134a have acceptable flammable process stability under
conditions of use (i.e., XPS extrusion).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Bellair and Hood, 2019. Comprehensive evaluation of the
flammability and ignitability of HFO-1234ze, R.J. Bellair and L.
Hood, Process Safety and Environmental Protection 132 (2019) 273-
284. Available online at doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2019.09.033.
\32\ DuPont, 2019a. August 23, 2019. Letter from DuPont
Performance Building Solutions to EPA. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0698-0007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of these
substitutes at lower concentrations include headache, nausea,
drowsiness, and dizziness. The substitutes may also irritate the skin
or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, they
may cause central nervous system depression and affect respiration. The
substitutes could cause asphyxiation, if air is displaced by vapors in
a confined space. These health effects are common to many foam blowing
agents.
The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) has established
WEELs of 1,000 ppm as an eight-hour time-weighted average for HFC-134a
and HFC-152a and 800 ppm for HFO-1234ze(E). CO2 has an eight
hour/day, 40 hour/week permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5000 ppm in
the workplace required by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), and a 15-minute recommended short-term exposure
limit (STEL) of 30,000 ppm established by the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). EPA anticipates that users will
be able to meet the AIHA WEELs, OSHA PEL, and NIOSH STEL and address
potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in
the manufacturer's safety data sheets (SDSs) and other safety
precautions common to the foam blowing industry.
Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: HFC-134a/HFO-
1234ze(E)
[[Page 55557]]
blends, CO2/water/HFC-134a/HFO-1234ze(E) blends, and HFC-
134a/HFC-152a/CO2/water blends have ODPs of zero, comparable
to all other acceptable substitutes in this end-use, such as blends of
10 to 99 percent by weight HFO-1336mzz(Z) and the remainder HFC-152a
\33\ (hereafter called ``HFO-1336mzz(Z)/HFC-152a blends''), HFC-152a,
HFO-1234ze(E), methyl formate, and CO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ These blends range in composition from 10 percent HFO-
1336mzz(Z) and 90 percent HFC-152a to 99 percent HFO-1336mzz(Z) and
1 percent HFC-152a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GWPs of 580 to 750 for the HFC-134a/HFO-1234ze(E) blends, the
CO2/water/HFC-134a/HFO-1234ze(E) blends, and HFC-134a/HFC-
152a/CO2/water blends are higher than those for acceptable
alternatives such as HFC-152a, HFO-1234ze(E), HFO-1336mzz(Z)/HFC-152a
blends, light saturated hydrocarbons C3-C6 \34\ and methyl formate,
with respective GWPs of 124, less than one, \35\ three to 110,\36\ less
than one,\37\ and 11.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ That is, alkanes with three to six carbons such as butane,
n-pentane, isopentane, and cyclopentane.
\35\ WMO, 2018.
\36\ HFO-1336mzz(Z) and HFC-152a, have GWPs of about two (WMO,
2018) and 124 (IPCC, 2007), respectively. If these values are
weighted by mass percentage, then the blends range in GWP from about
three to about 110.
\37\ WMO, 2018.
\38\ WMO, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information regarding the flammability and toxicity of other
acceptable alternatives is provided in the listing decisions previously
made (see https://www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-polystyrene-extruded-boardstock-and-billet). Flammability and toxicity risks of the HFC-
134a/HFO-1234ze(E), the CO2/water/HFC-134a/HFO-1234ze(E)
blends, and HFC-134a/HFC-152a/CO2/water blends are
comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other
available substitutes in the same end-use. Toxicity risks can be
minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, OSHA PEL, NIOSH STEL,
recommendations in the manufacturer's SDSs, and other safety
precautions common in the foam-blowing industry.
C. Status of Specific HFC Blends
The existing SNAP listings in appendix U to 40 CFR subpart G
include an unacceptable listing for XPS for ``HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-
365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, Formacel B, and Formacel Z-6''
under which those alternatives are ``unacceptable as of January 1,
2021, except where allowed under a narrowed use limit.'' In the 2020
NPRM, EPA proposed to revise this listing of unacceptable substitutes
for XPS to add an exception to the unacceptability of blends of HFC-
134a, HFC-245fa, or HFC-365mfc for cases ``where blends are
specifically listed as acceptable.'' 85 FR 35889. That change was
proposed to allow for consistency between the proposed acceptable
listings for these blends for XPS in the 2020 NPRM and the existing
unacceptable listing for HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends
thereof; and Formacel TI, Formacel B, and Formacel Z-6. EPA notes that
if we finalize the proposed change of listing the three blends of HFC-
134a as ``acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits,'' no change would
be needed to appendix U for consistency, as the existing listing
already includes the text ``except where allowed under a narrowed use
limit.''
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0226. The approved Information Collection Request
includes five types of respondent reporting and recordkeeping
activities pursuant to SNAP regulations: Submission of a SNAP petition,
filing a Toxic Substances Control Act/SNAP Addendum, notification for
test marketing activity, recordkeeping for substitutes acceptable
subject to use restrictions, and recordkeeping for small volume uses.
This rule contains no new requirements for reporting or recordkeeping.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The
companies that may consider using the proposed blends, manufacturers of
XPS products, are not small businesses.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local, or tribal governments, or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action 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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action. EPA periodically updates tribal officials on air
regulations through the monthly meetings of the National Tribal Air
Association and will share information on this rulemaking through this
and other fora.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
The EPA has not conducted a separate analysis of risks to infants and
children associated with this rule. Any risks to children are not
different than the risks to the general population. This action's
health and risk assessments are contained in the comparisons of
toxicity for the various substitutes, as well as in the risk screens
for the substitutes that are proposed to be listed. The risk screens
are in the docket for this rulemaking.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to
[[Page 55558]]
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The blowing agents proposed in this action would enable the
continued manufacture of insulation foam that maintain current levels
of thermal efficiency.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population
A regulatory action may involve potential environmental justice
concerns if it could (1) create new disproportionate impacts on
minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous
peoples; (2) exacerbate existing disproportionate impacts on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples; or (3)
present opportunities to address existing disproportionate impacts on
minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples
through the action under development.
In EPA's 2009 and 2016 Endangerment Findings, the Administrator
considered climate change risks to minority populations and low-income
populations, finding that certain parts of the population may be
especially vulnerable based on their characteristics or circumstances,
including the poor, the elderly, the very young, those already in poor
health, the disabled, those living alone, and/or indigenous populations
dependent on one or limited resources due to factors including but not
limited to geography, access, and mobility. More recent assessment
reports by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National
Research Council of the National Academies (NRC) demonstrate that the
potential impacts of climate change raise environmental justice issues.
These reports concluded that poorer communities can be especially
vulnerable to climate change impacts because they tend to have more
limited adaptive capacities and are more dependent on climate-sensitive
resources such as local water and food supplies. In corollary, some
communities of color--specifically, populations defined jointly by both
ethnic/racial characteristics and geographic location--may be uniquely
vulnerable to climate change health impacts in the United States.
Native American tribal communities possess unique vulnerabilities to
climate change, particularly those impacted by degradation of natural
and cultural resources within established reservation boundaries and
threats to traditional subsistence lifestyles. Tribal communities whose
health, economic well-being, and cultural traditions that depend upon
the natural environment will likely be affected by the degradation of
ecosystem goods and services associated with climate change.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (February 16, 1994; 59 FR 7629). In
light of the controls on production and consumption of HFCs under the
American Innovation and Manufacturing Act (December 27, 2020; Pub.
L.116-260), if the proposed listings were finalized, they would not be
expected to change the overall amount of HFCs manufactured or imported
in the United States or to adversely impact the climate. Additionally,
this limited action does not present a meaningful opportunity to
address existing disproportionate impacts.
EPA's analysis indicates that other environmental impacts and human
health impacts of the proposed substitutes are comparable to or less
than those of other substitutes that are listed as acceptable for the
same end-use. For EPA's analysis of the human health and environmental
impacts of these substitutes, see the risk screens in the public docket
for this rulemaking (ICF, 2020a; ICF, 2020b; ICF, 2020c). The limited
period of time for the proposed listings in this supplemental proposal
would further reduce any impacts compared to the proposed listings for
XPS in the 2020 NPRM. Based on these considerations, EPA expects that,
if this supplemental proposal becomes final as proposed, the effects on
minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples
would not be disproportionately high and adverse.
VI. References
Unless specified otherwise, all documents are available
electronically through the Federal Docket Management System, Docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0698.
Bellair and Hood, 2019. Bellair, R.J. and Hood, L. Comprehensive
evaluation of the flammability and ignitability of HFO-1234ze.
Process Safety and Environmental Protection 132, 273-284. Available
online at doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2019.09.033.
DuPont, 2019a. August 23, 2019. Letter from DuPont Performance
Building Solutions to EPA. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0698-0007.
DuPont, 2019b. December 17, 2019 Letter from DuPont Performance
Building Solutions to EPA. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0698-0008.
DuPont, 2020a. August 23, 2020. DuPont Performance Building
Solutions. SNAP Rule 23 Discussion with EPA.
DuPont, 2020b. November 20, 2020 Letter from J. Hansbro, DuPont
Performance Building Solutions, to C. Grundler and C. Newberg, EPA.
FTOC, 2018. 2018 Report of the Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical
Options Committee. 2018 Assessment Report. Available online at
https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap.
ICF, 2020a. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Extruded Polystyrene
Boardstock and Billet Foam; Substitute: Blends of 40 to 52 Percent
HFC-134a by Weight and the Remainder HFO-1234ze(E) (HFC-HFO Co-
blowing Agents).
ICF, 2020b. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Extruded Polystyrene
Boardstock and Billet Foam; Substitute: Blends of 40 to 52 Percent
HFC-134a with 40 to 60 Percent HFO-1234ze(E) and 10 to 20 Percent
Each Water and CO2 by Weight (Co-blowing Blends).
ICF, 2020c. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Extruded Polystyrene
Boardstock and Billet Foam; Substitute: Blends with Maximum of 51
Percent HFC-134a, 17 to 41 Percent HFC-152a, up to 20 Percent
CO2 and One to 13 Percent Water (Blends for Foam
Blowing).
Industrial Science & Technology Network, Inc. 2016. Final Scientific
Report for DOE/EERE, A New Generation of Building Insulation by
Foaming Polymer Blend Materials with CO2. Industrial
Science & Technology Network, Inc. Available online at: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1244652.
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S., Qin, D.,
Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., and
Miller, H.L. (eds.). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Available online at: www.ipcc.ch/
publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html.
Sherwood et al. 2018. Sherwood, S.C., Vishal, D., and Salomez, C.
(2018) The global warming potential of near-surface emitted water
vapour. Environ. Res. Lett.,13 104006. Available online at https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae018/pdf.
WMO (World Meteorological Organization), Scientific Assessment of
Ozone Depletion: 2018, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring
Project--Report No. 58, 588 pp., Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
[[Page 55559]]
Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/SAP-2018-Assessment-report.pdf.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Stratospheric ozone layer.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 82 as follows:
PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
0
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
0
2. In appendix W to subpart G of part 82:
0
a. Revise the heading for appendix W to subpart G of part 82.
0
b. Add a table titled ``Foam Blowing Agents--Substitutes Acceptable
Subject to Narrowed Use Limits'' after the table titled
``Refrigerants--Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions''.
The addition and revision read as follows:
Appendix W to Subpart G of Part 82--Substitutes Listed in the May 6,
2021 Final Rule and the [Date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register] Final Rule--Effective June 7, 2021 and [Date 30 days
after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]
* * * * *
Foam Blowing Agents--Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Narrowed use limits Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extruded Polystyrene: Blends of 40 to Acceptable Acceptable from
Boardstock and Billet. 52 percent HFC- Subject to [insert date 30 days
134a by weight Narrowed Use after date of
and the Limits. publication of final
remainder HFO- rule] until January
1234ze(E). 1, 2023: only for
use where reasonable
efforts have been
made to ascertain
that other
alternatives are not
yet technically
feasible for reasons
of performance or
safety.
Users are required to
document and retain
the results of their
technical
investigation of
alternatives for the
purpose of
demonstrating
compliance.
Information shall
include descriptions
of:
Process or
product in which the
substitute is
needed;
Substitutes
examined and
rejected;
Reason for
rejection of other
alternatives, e.g.,
performance,
technical or safety
standards; and/or
Anticipated
date other
substitutes will be
available and
projected time for
switching.
Extruded Polystyrene: Blends of 40 to Acceptable Acceptable from
Boardstock and Billet. 52 percent HFC- Subject to [insert date 30 days
134a with 40 to Narrowed Use after date of
60 percent HFO- Limits. publication of final
1234ze(E) and rule] until January
10 to 20 1, 2023: Only for
percent each use where reasonable
water and CO2 efforts have been
by weight. made to ascertain
that other
alternatives are not
yet technically
feasible for reasons
of performance or
safety.
Users are required to
document and retain
the results of their
technical
investigation of
alternatives for the
purpose of
demonstrating
compliance.
Information shall
include descriptions
of:.
Process or
product in which the
substitute is
needed;
Substitutes
examined and
rejected;
Reason for
rejection of other
alternatives, e.g.,
performance,
technical or safety
standards; and/or
Anticipated
date other
substitutes will be
available and
projected time for
switching.
Extruded Polystyrene: Blends with Acceptable Acceptable from
Boardstock and Billet. maximum of 51 Subject to [insert date 30 days
percent HFC- Narrowed Use after date of
134a, 17 to 41 Limits. publication of final
percent HFC- rule] until January
152a, up to 20 1, 2023 only for use
percent CO2 and where reasonable
one to 13 efforts have been
percent water. made to ascertain
that other
alternatives are not
yet technically
feasible for reasons
of performance or
safety.
Users are required to
document and retain
the results of their
technical
investigation of
alternatives for the
purpose of
demonstrating
compliance.
Information shall
include descriptions
of:.
Process or
product in which the
substitute is
needed;
Substitutes
examined and
rejected;
[[Page 55560]]
Reason for
rejection of other
alternatives, e.g.,
performance,
technical or safety
standards; and/or
Anticipated
date other
substitutes will be
available and
projected time for
switching.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2021-21031 Filed 10-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
