Comment submitted by Pete Mathis, Vice President and General Manager, Hill PHOENIX

December 1, 2005 Ms. Suzanne Kocchi Air and Radiation Docket US EPA -- West 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW Room B108, Mail Code 6102T Washington, DC 20460 Via Federal Express and Facsimile: 202-566-1741 RE: Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0507 Ending Use of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b/Foam Sector Dear Ms. Kocchi: We write for three reasons to address this critically important rulemaking proposal: 1. While we support US EPA?s rulemaking proposals to end use of HCFC- 22 and HCFC-142b, the current transition plan severely discriminates against companies that have already converted to non-ozone depleting substances. 2. We object to US EPA?s proposal to grandfather existing users until January 1, 2010. The grandfather provision should be eliminated, the date advanced to July 1, 2006, or all manufacturers allowed to use HCFC-22 until the grandfather date. 3. We urge US EPA to obtain and evaluate the demonstrations called for by section 612 of the Clean Air Act from those still utilizing HCFC-22 and HCFC- 142b. Appropriate enforcement action should be taken against those companies that have not complied with these requirements. We explain each position in more detail below: 1. We support US EPA?s rulemaking proposals to find HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b unacceptable as substitutes for HCFC-141b in the foam end uses of commercial refrigeration, sandwich panels, slabstock and ?other? foams, and unacceptable as substitutes for CFCs in all foam end uses (Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 213/Friday, November 4, 2005/Proposed Rules). Beginning in 2003, Hill PHOENIX National Cooler division began the conversion from HCFC-141b to HFC-245fa, a non-ozone depleting foam blowing agent. After months of testing, we completed the conversion in July 2004 after changing suppliers from BASF to Dow Chemical. We have found the HFC-245fa to be available and technically feasible. This continues to be our experience. However, citing the US EPA data on the technical viability of non-ozone depleting alternatives (p. 67124; OAR-2004-0507-0010), the US EPA?s July 2002 decision to list these substances as acceptable with narrow use limits, rather than unacceptable, has created a meaningful pricing differential in the marketplace. The net effect of that decision has been real discrimination against those companies that made the conversion to non-ozone depleting substances and in favor of those that chose to continue to use ozone depleting substances. In effect, US EPA?s action has had precisely the opposite of the intended effect ? it has moved the market toward use of the substances known to have the greatest negative environmental impact. 2. As a result, we strenuously disagree with US EPA?s proposal to ?grandfather? existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b until January 1, 2010. This decision appears to rest on US EPA?s belief that ?it can take up to four years to complete a blowing agent transition? (p. 67125). Our experience is that the conversion can be completed much more quickly ? Hill PHOENIX National Cooler made it in eight months. We, and many others in the industry, made the conversion in response to US EPA?s July 2000 rulemaking proposal to end use of these ozone depleting substances effective January 1, 2005. In doing so, we opted to do the right thing environmentally, even though the cost of using these alternatives is higher, because the alternatives are available and technically feasible. When US EPA withdrew that proposal in July 2002, those companies that had in good faith made the conversion to non-ozone depleting substances were put at a meaningful competitive disadvantage as the material cost for non-ozone depleting agents is substantially above the cost for the HCFC-22 alternative. We have lost customers who moved, solely on the basis of price, to lower cost products available from manufacturers who continue to use HCFC-22. We are aware of others in the industry that have made the conversion and have faced similar loss of business as a result of the competitive disadvantage. In effect, US EPA?s decision to grandfather some manufacturers? rights to continue to use the significantly less expensive HCFC-22 alternative is causing a shift in the market toward the more damaging alternative. Therefore, we urge US EPA to either a) eliminate the ?grandfather? provision entirely; b) change the date from January 1, 2010 to July 1, 2006 to reflect the relatively short amount of time actually required to complete the conversion; or c) allow all manufacturers the right to use HCFC-22 until the grandfather date so we can compete effectively in the market. The time to end the discrimination is now, not four years from now. 3. Finally, we note that section 612 of the Clean Air Act requires that ?users intending to adopt a substitute acceptable with narrowed use limits must first ascertain that other acceptable alternatives are not technically feasible. Companies must document the results of their evaluation, and retain the results on file for the purpose of demonstrating compliance? (p. 67122). In light of our experience, and our understanding of the successful conversions made by others in the industry, we urge US EPA to take this regulatory requirement seriously. US EPA should demand the required demonstrations from those still using those substances, and take appropriate enforcement action against those that have not complied. We expect that you will find many of the required demonstrations either have not been performed or do not satisfy the requirements of section 612. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. I welcome any feedback or questions that you may have. Please feel free to contact me at 909 592-8830. I may also be reached via email at pete.mathis@hillphoenix.com. I look forward to your feedback. Sincerely, Pete Mathis Vice President & General Manager National Cooler Division of Hill PHOENIX