Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 42653

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the

proposed action does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This proposed Federal

action acts on pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to today’s proposed action

because it does not require the public to

perform activities conducive to the use

of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Particulate matter.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: June 28, 2000.

Nora McGee,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–17492 Filed 7–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL–6729–5]

RIN 2060–AG12

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone;

Listing of Substitutes for OzoneDepleting Substances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This action proposes to

impose restrictions or prohibitions on

substitutes for ozone-depleting

substances (ODSs) under the

Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA) Significant New Alternatives

Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP

implements section 612 of the Clean Air

Act, as amended in 1990, which

requires EPA to evaluate substitutes for

ODSs to reduce overall risk to human

health and the environment. Through

these evaluations, SNAP generates lists

of acceptable and unacceptable

substitutes for each of the major

industrial use sectors. The intended

effect of the SNAP program is to

expedite movement away from ozonedepleting compounds while avoiding a

shift into substitutes posing other

environmental problems.

DATES: Written comments or data

provided in response to this document

must be submitted by September 11,

2000. A public hearing will be held if

requested in writing. If a public hearing

is requested, EPA will provide notice of

the date, time and location of the

hearing in a subsequent Federal

Register document.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and data

should be sent to Docket A–2000–18,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

OAR Docket and Information Center,

401 M Street, SW, Room M–1500, Mail

Code 6102, Washington, DC 20460. The

docket may be inspected between 8 a.m.

and 5:30 p.m. on weekdays. Telephone

(202) 260–7548; fax (202) 260–4400. As

provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable

fee may be charged for photocopying.

To expedite review, a second copy of

the comments should be sent to Anhar

Karimjee at the address listed below

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.

Information designated as Confidential

Business Information (CBI) under 40

CFR part 2, subpart 2, must be sent

directly to the contact person for this

notice. However, the Agency is

requesting that all respondents submit a

non-confidential version of their

comments to the docket as well.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anhar Karimjee at phone: (202) 564–

2683, fax: (202) 565–2095 or e-mail:

karimjee.anhar@epa.gov, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Mail Code

6205J, Washington, DC 20460.

Overnight or courier deliveries should

be sent to the office location at 501 3rd

Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20001. The

Stratospheric Protection Hotline can be

reached at (800) 296–1996 and

additional information can be found at

EPA’s Ozone Depletion World Wide

Web site at ‘‘http://www.epa.gov/ozone/

title6/snap/’’.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March

18, 1994, EPA promulgated a

rulemaking setting forth its plan for

administering the SNAP program (59 FR

13044), and has since issued decisions

on the acceptability and unacceptability

of a number of substitutes. Today’s

proposal presents EPA’s response to a

SNAP submission received in February

1999, requesting review of the following

foam blowing agents as substitutes for

HCFC–141b: HFC–134a; HCFC–22;

HCFC–142b; HCFC–124; and a HCFC–

22/142b blend. This proposal also

addresses use of HCFC–22 and HCFC–

142b as foam blowing agents. In this

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA is

proposing the following decisions on

the acceptability of substitutes in the

foams sector:

To list HCFC–141b and blends thereof

as unacceptable as substitutes in all

foam end-uses. Current HCFC–141b use

would be grandfathered (i.e., allowed to

continue) until January 1, 2005. To list

HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, and blends

thereof as unacceptable as substitutes in

all foam end-uses. Current HCFC–22/–

142b use would be grandfathered until

January 1, 2005.

To list HCFC–124 as unacceptable as

a substitute in all foam end-uses. EPA

is not proposing to grandfather the use

of HCFC–124 because it has not been

previously listed as an acceptable foam

blowing agent. No further action is

proposed on the SNAP submission

request for review of HFC–134a. EPA

previously listed HFC–134a as an

acceptable substitute for HCFC 141b (64

FR 63558).

42654 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Outline

I. Background

A. Significant New Alternatives Policy

(SNAP) Program

B. SNAP Submissions and Listing

Decisions

C. Hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) Phaseout

D. HCFC–141b Phase-out

E. Significant New Alternatives Policy

(SNAP) Foams Sector

F. Submission Addressed in Today’s

Proposal

II. Proposed Significant New Alternatives

Policy (SNAP) Listing Decisions

III. Q’s and A’s on Today’s Proposed Listing

Decisions

IV. Economic Impact

V. Administrative Requirements

I. Background

A. Significant New Alternatives Policy

(SNAP) Program

On March 18, 1994, EPA published a

rulemaking (59 FR 13044) that described

the process for administering the SNAP

program and issued EPA’s first lists of

acceptable and unacceptable substitutes

for end-uses that historically had been

dominated by ozone-depleting

substances (ODSs). The Agency defines

a ‘‘substitute’’ as any chemical, product

substitute, or alternative manufacturing

process, whether existing or new,

intended for use as a replacement for a

class I or class II substance (40 CFR

82.172). EPA’s SNAP regulations define

‘‘use’’ as any use of a substitute for a

class I or class II ozone-depleting

compound, including but not limited to

use in a manufacturing process or

product, in consumption by the enduser, or in intermediate uses, such as

formulation or packaging for other

subsequent uses (40 CFR 82.172). The

requirements of the SNAP program

include:

• Rulemaking—Section 612 of the

CAA requires EPA to promulgate rules

making it unlawful to replace any class

I (chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon

tetrachloride, methyl chloroform,

methyl bromide, and

hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II

(hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance

with any substitute that the

Administrator determines may present

adverse effects to human health or the

environment where the Administrator

has identified an alternative that (1)

Reduces the overall risk to human

health and the environment, and (2) is

currently or potentially available.

• Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable

Substitutes—EPA must publish a list of

the substitutes unacceptable for specific

uses and a corresponding list of

acceptable alternatives for specific uses.

• Petition Process—Any person has

the right to petition EPA to add a

substitute or delete a substitute from the

lists published under SNAP. The

Agency has 90 days to grant or deny a

petition. Where the Agency grants the

petition, EPA must publish the revised

lists within an additional six months.

• 90-day Notification—EPA requires

any person who produces a new

chemical substitute to notify the Agency

at least 90 days before new or existing

chemicals are introduced into interstate

commerce for significant new uses as

substitutes. The producer must also

provide the Agency with the producer’s

health and safety studies on such

substitutes.

• Outreach—EPA must seek to

maximize the use of federal research

facilities and resources to assist users of

class I and II substances in identifying

and developing alternatives to the use of

such substances in key commercial

applications.

• Clearinghouse—The Agency has set

up a public clearinghouse (Docket A–

91–42) of alternative chemicals, product

substitutes, and alternative

manufacturing processes that are

available for products and

manufacturing processes which use

class I and II substances. For more

information on how to contact this

clearinghouse, please contact the Air

Docket with the information in the

ADDRESSES section of this document.

SNAP sectors include: Refrigeration

and air conditioning; foam blowing;

solvents cleaning; fire suppression and

explosion protection; sterilants;

aerosols; adhesives, coatings, and inks;

and tobacco expansion. These sectors

comprise the principal industrial sectors

that historically consumed large

volumes of ozone-depleting substances.

Anyone who produces a new substitute

must provide the Agency with health

and safety studies on the substitute at

least 90 days before introducing it into

interstate commerce for significant new

use as an alternative. This requirement

applies to chemical manufacturers of

substitutes, but may also include

importers, formulators, or end-users

when they are responsible for

introducing a substitute into commerce.

Any individual who uses a substitute in

end-uses within any of the major

industrial sectors listed above is subject

to SNAP lists.

For copies of all of the current SNAP

lists or additional information on SNAP,

contact the Stratospheric Protection

Hotline at (800) 296–1996, Monday–

Friday, between the hours of 10 a.m.

and 4 p.m. (EST). You may also contact

the Air Docket and Information Center,

401 M Street, SW, Room M–1500, Mail

Code 6102, Washington, DC 20460. The

docket, which is the administrative

record for EPA’s SNAP regulations, may

be inspected between 8 a.m. and 5:30

p.m. on weekdays. Telephone (202)

260–7548; fax (202) 260–4400. As

provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable

fee may be charged for photocopying.

For more information on the Agency’s

process for administering the SNAP

program or criteria for evaluation of

substitutes, refer to the rulemaking

published in the Federal Register on

March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044). This, and

subsequent notices and rulemakings

under the SNAP program, as well as

EPA publications on protection of

stratospheric ozone, are available from

EPA’s Ozone Depletion World Wide

Web site at ‘‘http://www.epa.gov/ozone/

title6/snap/’’ and from the Stratospheric

Protection Hotline number listed above.

B. SNAP Submissions and Listing

Decisions

The SNAP program receives

submissions requesting EPA to review

alternatives to CFCs and HCFCs for use

in various applications. The 90-day

review period begins when EPA

receives a submission and determines

that it includes all of the necessary

information. As outlined in 40 CFR

82.180(a)(7), EPA considers the

following factors when reviewing a

submission:

(1) Atmospheric effects and related

health and environmental impacts;

(2) General population risks from

ambient exposure to compounds with

direct toxicity and to increased ground

level ozone;

(3) Ecosystem risks;

(4) Occupational risks;

(5) Consumer risks;

(6) Flammability; and

(7) Cost and availability of the

substitute.

At the conclusion of the 90-day

period, EPA makes a determination on

the acceptability of the alternative.

Under Section 612 of the CAA, the

Agency has considerable discretion in

the risk management decisions it can

make in SNAP. In the SNAP rule, the

Agency identified the following possible

decision categories (40 CFR 82.180(b);

see also 59 FR 13062 Decision-Making

Framework):

1. Acceptable: Fully acceptable

substitutes, i.e., those with no

restrictions, can be used for all

applications within the relevant sector

end-use;

2. Unacceptable: It is illegal to replace

an ozone depleting substance with a

substitute within an end-use for which

the substitute is listed by SNAP as

unacceptable;

3. Acceptable subject to use

conditions: To minimize risk to human

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 42655

health and/or the environment, the

Agency may make a determination that

a substitute is acceptable only if certain

conditions of use are met. Use of such

substitutes without meeting specified

use conditions renders these substitutes

unacceptable and subjects the user to

enforcement for violation of section 612

of the CAA;

4. Acceptable subject to narrowed use

limits: Applied when the Agency

determines a need to restrict the use of

a substitute based on the potential for

adverse effects, while permitting a

narrowed range of use because of the

lack of alternatives for specialized

applications. Users intending to adopt a

substitute that is acceptable with

narrowed use limits must ascertain that

other acceptable alternatives are not

technically feasible. Companies must

document the results of their evaluation,

and retain the results on file for the

purpose of demonstrating compliance.

This documentation 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. Use of such

substitutes without meeting specific

narrowed use limits subjects the user to

enforcement for violation of section 612

of the CAA;

5. Pending: Used for substitutes for

which the Agency has not received

complete data or has not completed its

review of the data.

As described in the final rule for the

SNAP program, EPA believes that

notice-and-comment rulemaking is

required to place any alternative on the

list of prohibited substitutes, to list a

substitute as acceptable only under

certain use conditions or narrowed use

limits, or to remove an alternative from

either the list of prohibited or

acceptable substitutes (50 FR 13044,

13047). EPA does not believe that

notice-and-comment rulemaking

procedures are required to list

alternatives as acceptable with no

restrictions. Such listings do not impose

any sanction, nor do they remove any

prior license to use a substitute.

Consequently, EPA adds substitutes to

the list of acceptable alternatives

without first requesting comment on

new listings. Updates to the acceptable

lists are published as separate Notices of

Acceptability in the Federal Register.

If EPA does not make a decision

within 90 days of receipt of a complete

submission, the substitute(s) can be

legally used in the end-use for which

they were submitted. EPA can

subsequently list the substitute(s) as

unacceptable making them illegal for

use in specific end-uses. If EPA

ultimately determines that the substitute

is unacceptable, any company that

switched to the alternative after the 90-

day period expired must stop using that

alternative at the time EPA’s

unacceptability decision takes effect.

C. Hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)

Phase-Out

The Montreal Protocol on Substances

that Deplete the Ozone Layer (‘‘the

Montreal Protocol’’ or ‘‘the Protocol’’) is

an international treaty established in

1987 which aims to reduce the harmful

effects of man-made ozone-depleting

substances. The Protocol has been

signed by more than 160 countries, all

of whom have agreed to limit or

eliminate their production and/or

consumption of ozone-depleting

substances in a stepwise fashion over

time, according to the terms of the treaty

and its amendments. The U.S. has

adopted the Montreal Protocol and must

at a minimum comply with its phaseout schedules and other requirements.

During their second meeting in

London in 1990, the countries that are

Parties to the Montreal Protocol

identified HCFCs as transitional

substitutes for chlorofluorocarbons

(CFCs) and other more destructive

ozone-depleting substances, but agreed

to phase out HCFCs because of their

significant potential to destroy

stratospheric ozone as well. Recognizing

the impact this phase-out would have

on manufacturers and users of HCFCs,

the Protocol provides for a gradual

reduction in the consumption of HCFCs

and eventual phase-out in developed

countries by 2030. (A more extended

schedule was agreed upon for

developing countries, with a complete

HCFC consumption phase-out by 2040.)

Beginning in 1996, production of HCFCs

in developed countries was capped at

the 1989 HCFC production level, plus

2.8% of the 1989 CFC production level.

Using the cap as a baseline, the U.S.

consumption of HCFCs must be reduced

by the following amounts and dates:

¥35% by 2004

¥65% by 2010

¥90% by 2015

¥99.5% by 2020

¥100% by 2030

The phase-out of HCFCs in the U.S. is

implemented through regulations

published under the authority of the

Clean Air Act (CAA) (40 CFR 82 Subpart

A). The CAA, as amended in 1990,

established a U.S. consumption phaseout schedule for HCFCs and required

EPA to promulgate regulations to

implement, and if necessary, accelerate

the phase-out to conform to the

Montreal Protocol requirements. The

phase-out schedule for HCFCs,

established in rulemaking promulgated

on December 16, 1993, is on a chemicalby-chemical basis, beginning with those

with the highest ozone depletion

potential (ODP), as outlined below. [Note:

Consumption means the amount of a

substance produced in the U.S., plus the

amount imported, minus the amount

exported (CAA, Title VI, § 601)].

(1) In light of the 35% reduction in

HCFC consumption required by the

Montreal Protocol by 2004, production

and import of HCFC–141b will be

banned in the U.S. as of January 1, 2003.

Under the U.S. consumption phase-out

schedule, HCFC–141b is being phased

out first because it has the highest ODP

of any commonly used HCFC. Petitions

received from a number of

environmental organizations and

industry groups prior to the EPA’s

December 10, 1993 rulemaking (58 FR

65018) supported the decision to make

ODP the key factor in establishing this

phase-out schedule. In addition, the

formula established by the Montreal

Protocol to determine the cap on HCFC

consumption weights HCFCs according

to their ODP. Phasing out the HCFCs

with the highest ODPs yields the

greatest environmental benefit, while

helping the U.S. meet the phase-out

schedule and still allowing the use of

other HCFCs in areas where suitable

ozone-safe alternatives are not yet

available.

(2) Effective January 1, 2010, in light

of the 65% reduction in HCFC

consumption required by the Montreal

Protocol that year, production and

import of HCFC–142b and HCFC–22

will be prohibited, except for use in

equipment manufactured prior to

January 1, 2010. HCFC–142b and

HCFC–22 are being phased out before

other HCFCs because they have high

ODPs relative to other HCFCs (other

than HCFC–141b). Together with

HCFC–141b, these are the HCFCs that

cause the most damage to the

stratospheric ozone layer.

(3) Beginning in 2015, in light of the

90% reduction in HCFC consumption

required by the Montreal Protocol that

year, production and import of the

remaining HCFCs will be prohibited

beginning January 1, 2015, except for

feedstocks or for use as a refrigerant in

equipment manufactured before January

1, 2020.

(4) Beginning in 2020, in light of the

99.5% reduction in HCFC consumption

required by the Montreal Protocol that

year, the exemption for use of HCFC–

42656 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules

142b and HCFC–22 in equipment

produced prior to 2010 will end, and all

production and consumption of these

two HCFCs will be phased out.

(5) All HCFCs will be completely

phased out by January 1, 2030. The

Montreal Protocol and CAA allow

limited production of HCFCs after the

January 1, 2030 phase-out for export to

developing countries to meet their basic

domestic needs.

In addition to a cap on HCFC

consumption, the Parties to the

Montreal Protocol agreed at their 1999

meeting in Beijing, China to require a

cap on HCFC production. According to

the formula established in the Beijing

amendment to the Protocol, the annual

cap on production in the U.S. will be

the average of: the sum of 2.8% of our

1989 CFC consumption plus 100% of

our 1989 HCFC consumption, and the

sum of 2.8% of our 1989 CFC

production plus 100% of our 1989

HCFC production. According to this

formula, annual production of HCFCs in

the U.S. will be capped at 15,537 metric

tons beginning in 2004. Pursuant to

Section 614 (b) of the CAA, on April 5,

1999, EPA published an Advance Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (64 FR 16373)

regarding a proposed system of

transferable allowances to produce and

consume HCFCs. This system would

supplement the chemical-specific

phase-out and ensure that the U.S. does

not exceed its consumption cap.

D. HCFC–141b Phase-Out

As noted above, production and

import of HCFC–141b will be banned in

the U.S. as of January 1, 2003. The

phase-out related restrictions on HCFC–

141b in the U.S. focus on consumption

and do not include use. The Montreal

Protocol does not restrict the use of

HCFCs. Section 605 of the CAA does

contain use restrictions on HCFCs, but

they are not effective until 2015.

Therefore, neither the international nor

domestic phase-out requirements would

limit the use of HCFC–141b stockpiles

between 2003 and 2015. Both

manufacturers and users can stockpile

for future use, to the extent use will be

permitted under the CAA and its

implementing regulations. It is

important to note, however, that EPA

previously determined that HCFC–141b

is not acceptable as a substitute cleaning

solvent for CFC–113 or methyl

chloroform. These determinations were

based on the availability of zero-ODP

alternatives in these applications. In

today’s action, EPA is proposing that the

use of HCFC–141b as a foam blowing

agent in any end-use would be illegal

after January 1, 2005. See below for

current information on HCFC–141b and

the limits or conditions on its use.

As stated above, the HCFC–141b

phase-out refers to consumption of

HCFC–141b only. The phase-out does

not affect imports of products

containing HCFC–141b. Under Section

610 of the CAA, EPA has the authority

to prevent interstate sale and

distribution of certain products

containing or manufactured with ozonedepleting substances. However,

insulating foams, as defined in 40 CFR

82 subpart C, are specifically exempt

from regulation under Section 610. Title

VI of the Act thus does not provide EPA

with the authority to prevent imports of

products containing these foams.

E. Significant New Alternatives Policy

(SNAP) Foams Sector

Class I substances, such as

chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) –11, –12,

–113, –114 and methyl chloroform, were

the substances most widely used in

foam sector end-uses at the time of the

CAA Amendments of 1990 and EPA’s

original SNAP rule in March 1994.

CFC–11 and –113, liquids at room

temperature, were historically used in

polyurethane and phenolic foams. CFC–

12 and –114, gases at room temperature,

were historically used in polyolefin and

polystyrene foams. Methyl chloroform

was used in some flexible polyurethane

foams.

A major goal of the SNAP program is

to facilitate the transition away from

ozone-depleting substances. To

encourage this transition, EPA has taken

a stepwise approach to approving CFC

and HCFC substitutes. In the original

SNAP ruling, EPA created a list of

acceptable substitutes for CFCs, which

were common foam blowing agents at

that time. The list of acceptable

substitutes for CFCs includes:

Hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) –123,

–141b,—142b, –22; formic acid;

saturated light hydrocarbons C3–C6;

hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) –134a,—152a,

–143a; 2–chloropropane; Electroset

Technology; carbon dioxide; vacuum

panels; methylene chloride; acetone; AB

Technology; and various blends.

EPA listed HCFCs as acceptable

replacements for CFCs because the

Agency felt that HCFCs provided a

bridge to ozone-friendly alternatives.

Since then, HCFC–141b, –22 and –142b

have become the most common foam

blowing agents and consequently, the

Agency has identified several new

alternatives as substitutes for HCFCs in

a second list. SNAP acceptable

alternatives to HCFCs include: water;

carbon dioxide; HFC–134a, –152a,

–245fa; saturated light hydrocarbons

C3–C6; formic acid; and acetone. All of

these alternatives have no ozone

depleting potential and are available

and several companies are using them

or plan to use them in the near future

(before 2003) in various end-uses such

as polyurethane boardstock and

appliance foam.

Because CFCs are no longer used as

foam blowing agents in the U.S., EPA

plans to evaluate the current list of

acceptable substitutes for CFC foam

blowing agents to determine if there are

alternatives on that list that are also

acceptable HCFC substitutes. This reevaluation would eventually result in

one list of acceptable substitutes in the

foam sector which all users would be

subject to. EPA believes that a unified

list would minimize confusion and

economic disparities among regulated

entities. Current users may switch from

one acceptable substitute to another

without notifying EPA. If, however, a

user would like to use something that is

not currently listed to replace an ODS,

even if this new substance is a nonODS, the manufacturer must notify EPA.

This allows EPA to evaluate the risks of

new substitutes and assists in our

responsibility to maintain a

clearinghouse of current information on

environmentally superior alternatives to

ozone-depleting compounds.

Lists of the substitutes along with

their approval dates and Federal

Register citations can be obtained

through the Air Docket (A–2000–18).

EPA has placed a complete list of

acceptable alternatives for specific enduses in the foams sector on the internet

at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/

snap.

F. Submission Addressed in Today’s

Proposal

The submission addressed in today’s

proposal was sent to EPA on February

17, 1999 and requests review of the

following foam blowing agents as

substitutes for HCFC–141b: (1) HFC–

134a; (2) HCFC–22; (3) HCFC–142b; (4)

HCFC–124; and (5) a HCFC–22/142b

blend. HFC–134a was approved as a

substitute for HCFC–141b in a Federal

Register Notice published on June 8,

1999 (64 FR 63558). Therefore, HFC–

134a is not discussed in this proposal.

The Agency is also proposing SNAP

listing decisions for HCFC–141b, –22,

and –142b as foam blowing agents.

These decisions are based on the

availability of zero-ODP alternatives.

EPA believes that including them in this

proposal would effect a balanced and

smooth transition across the entire

insulating foams sector. EPA previously

reviewed all of the chemicals in the

submission, either as CFC substitutes in

the foam sector or in other SNAP

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 42657

sectors. Therefore, the submitter was not

required to re-submit information on

these chemicals. Instead, they sent a

letter to EPA outlining their request

along with a Material Safety Data Sheet

for a 142b/22 blend and a technical data

sheet discussing flammability of the

blend. The submission provided EPA

with sufficient information to consider

the request. You can obtain a copy of

the submission (A–2000–18) from EPA’s

Air Docket located at 401 M Street, SW,

Room M–1500, Washington, DC 20460.

The docket may be inspected between 8

a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on weekdays.

Telephone (202) 260–7548; fax (202)

260–4400. A reasonable fee may be

charged for photocopying.

II. Proposed Significant New

Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Listing

Decisions

A. Unacceptable Substitutes

(1) HCFC–141b and Blends Thereof

HCFC–141b and blends thereof are

proposed as unacceptable as substitutes

in all foam end-uses. This listing would

be effective 30 days following

publication of a final action in the

Federal Register. However, EPA is

proposing that existing users would be

grandfathered (i.e., allowed to continue

their use) until January 1, 2005. In this

context, existing users are those using

HCFC–141b in foam applications on the

date of publication of a final action in

the Federal Register. EPA is proposing

to grandfather existing uses of HCFC–

141b from prohibition under the fourpart test established in Sierra Club v.

EPA (719 F.2d 436 (DC Cir. 1983)) and

discussed in Section VI.B. of EPA’s

original SNAP rule (59 FR 13044)

published on March 18, 1994. As

discussed in Section III, below, the

Agency reviewed the considerations

outlined in Sierra Club v. EPA and

believes that this grandfathering period

is appropriate.

The basis for EPA’s proposed

determination to list HCFC–141b as

unacceptable is that HCFC–141b, with

an atmospheric lifetime of

approximately 9 years, has a

comparatively high ozone depletion

potential (ODP) of 0.11. When HCFC–

141b was listed as an acceptable

substitute for chlorofluorocarbons

(CFCs), there were fewer alternatives

available than there are today. Since

1994, EPA has listed alternatives as

acceptable in more foam end-uses, and

they are being used in a greater number

of applications. Non-ozone-depleting

substitutes are now available for all

foam end-uses. The 1998 report of the

United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP) Foams Technical

Options Committee (TOC) concluded

that zero-ODP alternatives are the

substitutes of choice in many

applications, including certain rigid

thermal applications (UNEP, 1998).

Also, research and development has

improved the technical viability of some

alternatives that have been available for

years. The 1998 UNEP Foams TOC

report presents several zero-ODP foam

blowing agents that are viable

alternatives and states that ‘‘there are

several significant developments in

blowing agents, many of which are

applicable to more than one foam

sector’’; for example, the report states

that cost and technical performance of

hydrocarbons have been improved and

that certain hydrofluorocarbons, which

are acceptable under SNAP, are ‘‘near

drop-in replacements for HCFC–141b’’

(UNEP, 1998). The available

alternatives, including

hydrofluorocarbons, hydrocarbons, and

carbon dioxide, provide clear paths to

the transition away from ozonedepleting substances.

EPA is not proposing to allow for an

extension of the grandfathering period

beyond January 1, 2005 in today’s

action, because the Agency is unaware

of any situation where it would be

necessary. The Agency also believes that

the declining availability of HCFC–

141b, due to the HCFC–141b production

phaseout effective January 1, 2003,

makes it unlikely that users will want to

pursue an extension of the

grandfathering period. However, EPA is

interested in comments on whether

such extensions may be appropriate, on

a case-by-case basis, for those uses

where technically feasible alternatives

are not available. In order for EPA to

extend the grandfathering period, the

Agency would need to be convinced

that there are no technically feasible

alternatives available.

(2) HCFC–22, –142b and Blends Thereof

HCFC–22, –142b, and blends thereof

are proposed as unacceptable as

substitutes in all foam end-uses. This

listing would be effective 30 days

following publication of a final action in

the Federal Register. However, EPA is

proposing that existing users would be

grandfathered until January 1, 2005. In

this context, existing users are those

using HCFC–22, –142b, or blends

thereof in foam applications on the date

of publication of a final action in the

Federal Register. As discussed in

Section VI.B. of EPA’s original SNAP

rule (59 FR 13044) published on March

18, 1994, EPA is authorized to

grandfather existing uses from

prohibition where appropriate under the

four-part test established in Sierra Club

v. EPA (719 F.2d 436 (DC Cir. 1983)). As

discussed in Section III, below, the

Agency reviewed the considerations

outlined in Sierra Club v. EPA and

believes that this grandfathering period

is appropriate.

EPA believes that there are

technically feasible zero-ODP

substitutes available to replace HCFC–

22 and –142b and it is, therefore,

appropriate to list these substitutes as

unacceptable. The basis for EPA’s

proposed determination to list HCFC–22

and –142b as unacceptable is that these

substances have comparatively high

ODPs (0.055 for HCFC–22 and 0.065 for

HCFC–142b). The approximate

atmospheric lifetimes of HCFC–22 and

–142b are 12 years and 18 years,

respectively. When HCFC–22 and –142b

were listed as acceptable substitutes for

CFCs, there were fewer alternatives

available than there are today. Since

1994, EPA has listed alternatives as

acceptable in more foam end-uses, and

they are being used in a greater number

of applications. Non-ozone-depleting

substitutes are now available for all

foam end-uses. The 1998 report of the

United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP) Foams Technical

Options Committee (TOC) concluded

that zero-ODP alternatives are the

substitutes of choice in many

applications, including certain rigid

thermal applications (UNEP, 1998).

Also, research and development has

improved the technical viability of some

alternatives that have been available for

years. The 1998 UNEP Foams TOC

report presents several zero-ODP foam

blowing agents that are viable

alternatives and states that ‘‘there are

several significant developments in

blowing agents, many of which are

applicable to more than one foam

sector’’; for example, the report states

that cost and technical performance of

hydrocarbons have been improved and

that certain hydrofluorocarbons, which

are acceptable under SNAP, are ‘‘near

drop-in replacements for HCFC–141b’’

(UNEP, 1998). The available

alternatives, including

hydrofluorocarbons, hydrocarbons, and

carbon dioxide, provide clear paths to

the transition away from ozonedepleting substances.

EPA is not proposing to allow for an

extension of the grandfathering period

beyond January 1, 2005 in today’s

action, because the Agency is unaware

of any situation where it would be

necessary. However, EPA is seeking

comment on whether such extensions

may be appropriate, on a case-by-case

basis, for those uses where technically

feasible alternatives are not available. In

order for EPA to extend the

42658 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules

grandfathering period, the Agency

would need to be convinced that there

are no technically feasible alternatives

available.

(3) HCFC–124

HCFC–124 is proposed as

unacceptable as a substitute in all foam

end-uses. HCFC–124 is a low pressure

gas with an ODP of 0.02, an atmospheric

lifetime of approximately 6 years, and a

100-year global warming potential of

approximately 600. Other alternatives

exist with lower or no ODP. These

alternatives are identified above in

Section I.C.

EPA is not proposing to grandfather

the use of HCFC–124 because it has not

been previously listed as an acceptable

foam blowing agent.

III. Q’s and A’s on Today’s Proposed

Listing Decisions

Who Is Affected by Today’s Proposal?

This proposal would affect anyone

who uses HCFC–141b, HCFC–22,

HCFC–142b, or HCFC–124 as a foam

blowing agent. Affected parties include,

but are not limited to, manufacturers of

the following products: polyurethane

and polyisocyanurate boardstock,

appliance foam, spray foam, and

sandwich panels; polystyrene

boardstock; phenolic foams; and

polyolefin foams.

What Is EPA Proposing?

EPA believes that there are sufficient

alternatives with zero ozone depletion

potential (ODP) currently or potentially

available to make these listings. EPA

proposes the following:

(1) To list HCFC–141b and blends

thereof as unacceptable as substitutes in

all foam end-uses. Current HCFC–141b

use would be grandfathered until

January 1, 2005.

(2) To list HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, and

blends thereof as unacceptable as

substitutes in all foam end-uses. Current

HCFC–22/–142b use would be

grandfathered until January 1, 2005.

(3) To list HCFC–124 as unacceptable

as a substitute in all foam end-uses. EPA

proposes these listings after reviewing a

SNAP submission that requested review

of several HCFC foam blowing agents

(the submission is discussed below) and

conducting a comprehensive evaluation

of substitutes for both

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and

hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) in

the Significant New Alternatives Policy

(SNAP) foam sector.

What Did EPA Base This Proposed

Decision On?

EPA is basing this proposed listing

decision on the potential atmospheric

effects, including the ODP and

atmospheric lifetimes associated with

the various foam blowing substitutes.

According to the Scientific Assessment

of Ozone Depletion: 1998 (World

Meteorological Organization, 1999),

HCFC–141b has an ODP of 0.1, HCFC–

142 has an ODP of 0.065, HCFC–22 has

an ODP of 0.055, and HCFC–124 has an

ODP of 0.02. The atmospheric lifetimes

for these chemicals range from 6–18

years. Regarding the other health and

environmental factors typically

included in SNAP review (40 CFR

82.180(a)(7)), EPA finds no substantive

distinction between the HCFCs and

other available alternatives listed as

acceptable foam blowing agents.

Why Is EPA Proposing To List HCFC–

141b, –22, –142b, and –124 as

Unacceptable?

In 1994, under the SNAP program,

EPA approved the use of HCFCs as

transitional foam blowing agents,

despite their ozone depletion potential,

because technically feasible alternatives

were limited at that time. Manufacturers

of the class I CFC blowing agents had

worked in collaboration to develop

transitional substances—HCFCs—for the

use in all sectors, as a bridge to the time

when ozone-safe alternatives would be

technically feasible. Since then,

previously available zero-ODP

alternatives have been tested,

developed, and optimized for a broader

range of foam applications, and

additional zero-ODP alternatives have

become available (59 FR 13083). A

major objective of the SNAP program is

to promote the use of substitutes which

present a lower risk to human health

and the environment (40 CFR 82.170).

EPA believes that sufficient non-ozonedepleting foam blowing agents are

available. EPA is proposing to list

HCFC–141b, –22, –142b, and –124 as

unacceptable because zero-ODP

alternatives are available that will

reduce the overall risk to public health

and the environment.

EPA Listed HCFC–141b as an

Acceptable Replacement for CFCs. Why

Is EPA Revisiting the Acceptability of

HCFC–141b in Today’s Proposal?

As stated above, EPA believes that

zero-ODP alternatives are available as

substitutes for HCFC–141b in all foam

end-uses. EPA is addressing the use of

HCFC–141b in this proposal in order to

maintain a consistent policy on the use

of HCFCs in the foam sector and to

ensure that the use of HCFC–141b does

not continue in applications where zeroODP alternatives exist. This decision is

consistent with a previous EPA

determination, based on the availability

of alternatives with zero-ODP, that

HCFC–141b is not acceptable as a

substitute cleaning solvent for CFC–113

or methyl chloroform. Because EPA has

provided an effective means for HCFC–

141b users to transition to zero-ODP

alternatives, today’s proposal on HCFC–

141b would have little or no negative

effect on the foam industry.

Why Is EPA Proposing To List HCFC–22,

–142b, and –124 as Unacceptable

Replacements for HCFC–141b, Even

Though Their ODPs Are Lower

Compared to HCFC–141b?

EPA has concluded that listing these

substances as unacceptable substitutes

is consistent with the goals of the SNAP

program. A major goal of the SNAP

program is to facilitate the transition

away from ozone-depleting substances

(ODSs) by encouraging the use of

environmentally safe alternatives.

Congress intended to encourage and

support research and development of

non-ozone-depleting chemicals to

replace HCFCs by giving EPA the

authority to review potentially available

alternatives (see also Section 612(a), (b),

and (c) of the CAA). The use of HCFCs

was initially considered acceptable as a

bridge to zero-ODP foam blowing

agents. Many HCFC–141b users and

manufacturers have been researching

alternatives for several years and are

currently transitioning to zero-ODP

foam blowing agents. Today’s proposal

does not disrupt their transition. Even

though HCFC–22, –142b and –124 have

lower ODPs compared to HCFC–141b,

EPA does not believe that the new use

of these ODSs as substitutes for HCFC–

141b, even for a short period of time, is

necessary in light of available zero-ODP

foam blowing agents. Switching from

HCFC–141b to HCFC–22, –142b or –124

would result in continued damage to the

ozone layer and would delay the

transition to zero-ODP foam blowing

agents which are available.

Although HCFC–141b, –22 and –142b

Are Being Proposed as Unacceptable in

Today’s Action, EPA is Proposing To

Grandfather Existing Users of These

Substances Until 2005. What Is

Grandfathering?

In the original SNAP rulemaking, EPA

recognized that, where appropriate, EPA

can grandfather the use of a substitute

by setting the effective date of its

unacceptability listing for one or more

specific parties in the future (59 FR

13057–58). EPA is authorized to allow

the continuation of activities otherwise

restricted where the balance of equities

supports such grandfathering. Setting

future effective dates allows the Agency

to avoid penalizing those who in

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 42659

specific applications may have already

invested in good faith in alternatives

that the SNAP program now determines

to be unacceptable. Grandfathering also

allows EPA to balance the desire not to

penalize those who switched early in

good faith with the need to avoid

creating an incentive for continued

investment in alternatives the Agency

wishes to discourage.

What Criteria Are Used in Deciding

Whether To Grandfather Continued Use

of Unacceptable Substitutes?

In Sierra Club v. EPA (719 F.2d 436

(DC Cir. 1983)), the court established a

four-part test to judge the

appropriateness of Agency

grandfathering. EPA considers the

following when making a grandfathering

determination:

(1) if the new rule represents an

abrupt departure from previously

established practice;

(2) the extent to which a party relied

on the previous rule;

(3) the degree of burden which the

application of the new rule would

impose on the party; and

(4) The statutory interest in applying

the new rule immediately.

Why Does EPA Believe That HCFC–

141b, –22 and –142b Users Meet the

Grandfathering Criteria?

The Agency recognizes that some

foam manufacturers may have switched

to HCFC–141b, –22 or –142b in good

faith, expecting that these substitutes

would sufficiently lower the risk of

ozone depletion relative to other foam

blowing agents available at the time. To

avoid unfairly penalizing these existing

users, the Agency is proposing to extend

the effective date of the unacceptability

listing until January 1, 2005, based on

EPA’s belief that existing users of

HCFC–141b, –22 and –142b meet the

grandfathering criteria outlined in

Sierra Club v. EPA. EPA listed these

substances as acceptable substitutes for

class I substances in 1994. Prohibiting

the use of these chemicals immediately

represents an abrupt departure from that

established practice for the many foam

manufacturers that rely on HCFC–141b,

–22 and –142b. These HCFCs were

previously listed as acceptable

substitutes for CFC foam blowing agents

in various end-uses and were not

scheduled for phase-out until future

years. Additionally, if the proposal was

to become effective immediately, it

could create a burden on existing users

if they currently do not have the means

to make a sudden change to their

operations. These factors outweigh

EPA’s statutory interest in applying the

new rule immediately to existing users.

EPA believes its goal of encouraging the

transition away from ODSs is still

satisfied as new use of these substances

will not be permitted in the foam sector

and existing users will begin

transitioning to zero-ODP alternatives.

How Did EPA Determine the Length of

the Proposed Grandfathering Period?

EPA believes that it could take foam

manufacturers up to four years to

transition to alternatives. EPA

considered that companies might need

to conduct several activities during that

time period, including:

(1) Obtain permits or make

modifications to existing permits;

(2) Make changes to equipment in

order to optimize production and ensure

worker safety;

(3) Establish raw material suppliers;

(4) Develop formulations;

(5) Test final products; and

(6) Obtain final product review and

approval by relevant boards or agencies.

I Currently Use HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–

142b as a Foam Blowing Agent. How

Long Could I Continue To Use Them?

In today’s action, EPA proposes that

all current users of HCFC–22 or –142b

in foam applications must transition to

an acceptable substitute by January 1,

2005. EPA strongly encourages foam

end-users to transition away from these

substitutes as their existing stocks are

used and/or they recoup their

investment in equipment unique to

these substitutes.

Why Is EPA Not Proposing To

Grandfather the Use of HCFC–124 as

Well?

Grandfathering would not apply to

HCFC–124 as a foam blowing agent

since it has not been previously listed

as an acceptable foam blowing agent.

Grandfathering allows limited

continuation of previously acceptable

use which is subsequently determined

to be unacceptable.

Why Would I Have To Stop Using

HCFC–22 or –142b Before Its Production

Phase-Put in 2010?

The production phase-out, which is

described in more detail above, does not

govern use of HCFCs. As mentioned

above, the role of the SNAP program is

to promote the use of substitutes

believed to present a lower risk to

human health and the environment (40

CFR 82.170). EPA believes that

sufficient non-ozone-depleting foam

blowing agents are available to replace

HCFC–22 and –142b. The Agency has

listed other ozone-depleting chemicals

as unacceptable for specific uses before

the production phase-out date specified

in the Montreal Protocol and Clean Air

Act (e.g. HCFC–141b was listed

unacceptable as a cleaning solvent in

the original 1994 SNAP rulemaking (59

FR 13044)).

Does EPA Need To Be Petitioned in

Order To List a Substitute as

Unacceptable?

No. EPA has the authority to amend

its regulations to initiate changes to

SNAP determinations independent of

any petitions or notifications received.

What if Some Alternatives Are Not

Available in Time for Me To Meet the

2005 Deadline?

Some of the alternatives in the SNAP

foam sector were only recently listed as

acceptable (64 FR 65037). One

alternative, HFC–245fa, is not yet

commercially available in large

quantities. If some alternatives prove to

be technically infeasible or do not

become available on a large scale, EPA

has the ability to re-consider the

proposed deadline.

What if There Is a Technical Constraint

That Makes It Extremely Difficult for Me

To Meet the SNAP Requirements?

You may be able to continue using

HCFC–22 or –142b if you determine that

there are no alternatives that can replace

them in your specific application. In

situations where companies have no

technically feasible alternatives, EPA

may extend the grandfathering of

HCFC–22 or –142b for specific users or

end-uses. EPA is not considering

specific extensions at this time because

the Agency feels that the grandfathering

period provides everyone sufficient time

to further develop and transition to

alternatives. At some time prior to the

expiration of the proposed

grandfathering period, EPA will

consider extending the grandfathering

period for those applications where the

use of alternatives is infeasible.

What Criteria Would I Need To Meet in

Order for EPA To Extend the

Grandfathering Period?

In order for EPA to extend the

proposed grandfathering period, the

Agency would need to be convinced

that no technically feasible alternatives

would be available. Users who believed

they needed to use HCFC–22 or –142b

past January 1, 2005, might be subject to

the criteria laid out in 40 CFR 82.180

(b)(3). EPA might also require

descriptions of the following:

(1) The process or product in which

HCFC–22 or –142b is needed;

(2) Substitutes examined and rejected;

(3) Reason for rejection; and

42660 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(4) Anticipated date other substitutes

will be available and projected time for

switching to them.

Although the user is not required to

submit all of the documentation to EPA,

the Agency may request some of this

information in order to determine

whether continued use of HCFC–141b,

–22 or –142b is warranted.

Can I Comment on This Proposed Rule?

Yes. EPA is soliciting comments on

this proposal. The Agency welcomes

any feedback on this proposal and urges

commenters to provide data in support

of their views. EPA also requests that

commenters be as specific as possible.

For example, if you believe that in a

certain end-use there are no alternatives

to HCFC–22 or blends thereof, you

should provide information on that

particular application and why the

available alternatives are not technically

feasible. Information on where to send

comments is provided at the beginning

of this notice under ADDRESSES.

IV. Economic Impact

At the request of the Office of

Management and Budget, EPA evaluated

the potential cost impacts of today’s

proposal. EPA considered the

implications of appliance

manufacturers’ obligations to comply

with the Department of Energy’s (DOE)

1997 Refrigerator Efficiency Standards.

These standards require energy

consumption of refrigerators,

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers to be

reduced by 30% by July 2001.

Specifically, EPA examined the

potential costs associated with

complying with the DOE standards

while meeting EPA’s SNAP

requirements. EPA believes that today’s

proposal will not result in a significant

cost to appliance manufacturers or

consumers. In fact, when costs

associated with manufacturing

refrigerators that will meet DOE energy

efficiency requirements are considered,

EPA estimates that use of non-HCFC

foam blowing agents can result in cost

savings.

Based in part on confidential

information collected from chemical

and appliance manufacturers pertaining

to various foam blowing agents and

their thermal insulation value, price,

and equipment and material

requirements, EPA estimates that the

cost today to convert to zero-ODP

blowing agents would range from

approximately $3 to $10 for a mid-size

refrigerator (24 cubic feet with a retail

price of approximately $900).

Accounting for the fact that refrigerators

will have to be re-designed to meet the

DOE energy efficiency standards when

they become effective in July 2001 (e.g.,

reduced motor power in condenser and/

or evaporator motor, reduced gasket

heat leak rates, increased insulation,

etc.), and because different blowing

agents provide different thermal

insulation values, EPA estimated the

cost impacts associated with different

blowing agents after the DOE standards

become effective, assuming today’s

proposal becomes a final rule. For a

mid-size refrigerator (24 cubic feet,

approximately $900 retail), we estimate

the impacts of this proposal would be a

cost savings ranging between

approximately $2.30 and $3.40 per

refrigerator, which in aggregate, would

total between approximately $23

million and $34 million per year.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR

51735; October 4, 1993) the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more or adversely affect in a

material way the economy, a sector of

the economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities; (2) create

a serious inconsistency or otherwise

interfere with an action taken or

planned by another agency; (3)

materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel

legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in the Executive

Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, OMB notified EPA that it

considers this a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ within the meaning of the

Executive Order and EPA submitted this

action to OMB for review. Changes

made in response to OMB suggestions or

recommendations will be documented

in the public record.

B. Unfunded Mandates Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’) (signed

into law on March 22, 1995) requires

that the Agency prepare a budgetary

impact statement before promulgating a

rule that includes a Federal mandate

that may result in expenditure by state,

local, and tribal governments, in

aggregate, or by the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year.

Section 203 requires the Agency to

establish a plan for obtaining input from

and informing, educating, and advising

any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely affected by the

rule. Section 204 requires the Agency to

develop a process to allow elected state,

local, and tribal government officials to

provide input in the development of any

action containing a significant Federal

intergovernmental mandate. Under

section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates

Act, the Agency must identify and

consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives before

promulgating a rule for which a

budgetary impact statement is prepared.

The Agency must select from those

alternatives the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule, unless the Agency explains

why this alternative is not selected or

the selection of this alternative is

inconsistent with law.

Because EPA estimates that this

proposed rule will not result in the

expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments or the private sector of less

than $100 million in any one year, the

Agency has not prepared a budgetary

impact statement or specifically

addressed the selection of the least

costly, most cost-effective, or least

burdensome alternative. Because small

governments will not be significantly or

uniquely affected by this rule, the

Agency is not required to develop a plan

with regard to small governments.

Finally, because this NPRM does not

contain a significant intergovernmental

mandate, the Agency is not required to

develop a process to obtain input from

elected state, local, and tribal officials.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice-and-comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

rule would not have a significant impact

on a substantial number of small entities

because the costs of the SNAP

requirements as a whole are expected to

be minor. There are numerous

alternatives available and some users

have independently begun to transition

away from the substances listed as

unacceptable because of the HCFC

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 42661

production phase-out. The actions

herein may well provide benefits to

businesses who have transitioned to

HCFC alternatives. EPA has determined

that it is not necessary to prepare a

regulatory flexibility analysis in

connection with this proposal.

Therefore, I certify that this action will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

EPA has determined that this

proposed rule contains no information

requirements subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,

that are not already approved by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB). OMB has reviewed and

approved two Information Collection

Requests (ICRs) by EPA which are

described in the March 18, 1994

rulemaking (59 FR 13044, at 13121,

13146–13147) and in the October 16,

1996 rulemaking (61 FR 54030, at

54038–54039). These ICRs included five

types of respondent reporting and

record-keeping activities pursuant to

SNAP regulations: submission of a

SNAP petition, filing a SNAP/TSCA

Addendum, notification for test

marketing activity, record-keeping for

substitutes acceptable subject to

narrowed use limits, and record-keeping

for small volume uses. The OMB

Control Numbers are 2060–0226 and

2060–0350.

E. Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1) is determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This proposed rule is not subject to

the Executive Order because it is not

economically significant as defined in

Executive Order 12866, and because the

Agency does not have reason to believe

the environmental health or safety risks

addressed by this action present a

disproportionate risk to children, as the

exposure limits and acceptability

listings in this proposed rule primarily

apply to the workplace.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This NPRM will not have substantial

direct effects on the States, on the

relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to this

proposal.

G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

Today’s proposed rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments, because this regulation

applies directly to facilities that use

these substances and not to

governmental entities. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this proposal.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

The National Technology Transfer

and Advancement Act of 1995

(NTTAA), section 12(d), Public Law

104–113, requires federal agencies and

departments to use technical standards

that are developed or adopted by

voluntary consensus standards bodies,

using such technical standards as a

means to carry out policy objectives or

activities determined by the agencies

and departments. If use of such

technical standards is inconsistent with

applicable law or otherwise impractical,

a federal agency or department may

elect to use technical standards that are

not developed or adopted by voluntary

consensus standards bodies if the head

of the agency or department transmits to

the Office of Management and Budget

an explanation of the reasons for using

such standards. This proposed rule does

not mandate the use of any technical

standards; accordingly, the NTTAA

does not apply to this proposal.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 27, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is proposed to

be amended as follows:

42662 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules

PART 82—PROTECTION OF

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

1. The authority citation for Part 82

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7414, 7601,

7671–7671q.

Subpart G—Significant New

Alternatives Policy Program

2. Subpart G is amended by adding

the following Appendix J to read as

follows:

Appendix J to Subpart G—Substitutes

Subject to Use Restrictions and

Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in the

[FR publication date] of the final rule.

FOAM BLOWING UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Comments

All foam end-uses ................................. HCFC–141b and blends thereof .......... Unacceptable ........... Existing HCFC–141b users are grandfathered until January 1, 2005.

All foam end-uses ................................. HCFC–22, HCFC–142b and blends

thereof.

Unacceptable ........... Existing HCFC–22/–142b users are

grandfathered until January 1, 2005.

All foam end-uses ................................. HCFC–124 ........................................... Unacceptable ........... Alternatives exist with lower or zeroODP.

[FR Doc. 00–16966 Filed 7–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AF32

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reopening of Comment

Period and Notice of Availability of

Draft Economic Analysis for Proposed

Critical Habitat Determination for the

Coastal California Gnatcatcher

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of

comment period and notice of

availability of draft economic analysis;

correction.

SUMMARY: This document corrects the

electronic mail (e-mail) address listed in

a document published in the Federal

Register on June 29, 2000, regarding the

reopening of comment period and

notice of availability of draft economic

analysis for proposed critical habitat

determination for the coastal California

gnatcatcher. This clarification provides

the correct e-mail address for

submission of electronic comments on

the proposed critical habitat

determination of the coastal California

gnatcatcher and the draft economic

analysis for the proposed critical habitat

determination.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Douglas Krofta, 760–431–9440.

Correction

In the document announcing the

reopening of comment period and

notice of availability of draft economic

analysis for proposed critical habitat

determination for the coastal California

gnatcatcher, FR 00–16511, beginning on

page 40073 in the issue of June 29, 2000,

make the following correction in the

ADDRESSES section. On page 40074 in

the 1st column, correct the e-mail

address from ‘‘http://pacific.fws.gov/

crithab/cg’’ to ‘‘fw1cagn@fws.gov.’’

Dated: June 29, 2000.

Michael J. Spear,

Manager, California/Nevada Operations.

[FR Doc. 00–17566 Filed 7–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P