December 22, 2006

Mr. Brian McLean, Director

US Environmental Protection Agency

501 Third St. NW 10th Floor

Washington DC 20001

RE:	Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Data Availability: New
Information Concerning SNAP Program Proposal on Ozone Depleting
Substances in Foam Blowing, 71 Federal Register 102, May 26, 2006. 

Dear Mr. McLean:

The National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) was recently
provided a copy of a May 26, 2006 EPA notice of data availability (NODA)
and request for comment regarding “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:
Notice of Data Availability: New Information Concerning SNAP Program
Proposal on Ozone Depleting Substitutes in Foam Blowing.” 71 Fed.Reg
102 5/26/06. This copy and a May 2, 2006 Stratus report was provided to
NMMA by the SBA Office of Advocacy. The purpose of this letter is to
raise our concerns with the EPA initiative to accelerate the phase out
of HCFCs use as a propellant in USCG required marine vessel floatation
foam applications. 

The NMMA is the nation’s leading recreational marine industry
association, representing over 1,500 boat builders, engine
manufacturers, and marine accessory manufacturers.  NMMA members
collectively produce more than 80 percent of all recreational marine
products made in the United States. With nearly 13 million registered
boats and almost 72 million boaters nationwide, the recreational boating
industry contributes $30 billion annually to the U.S. economy.

The NMMA agrees with the EPA assessment that ozone depleting substances
(ODS) alternatives have been developed. NMMA has serious concerns with
the EPA assumption that stated that “companies that chose to plan
ahead for the eventual phase out of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b could have
initiated this process in the period from 2002-2003, when the current
suite of alternatives became available.” Thus EPA is assuming that
there are many boat builders in the US who have switched over to
alternatives, and guided by the EPA 2000 SNAP proposal are already in
compliance. EPA also makes the assumption that those boat builders that
have already converted to ODS alternatives are bearing higher system
costs.

The EPA assumptions regarding boat builders are not only incorrect; NMMA
has found no data to support these assumptions in the Stratus report.
Stratus surveyed system houses and many end-users, but never surveyed
boat builders, including small business boat builders. It may come as a
surprise, but according the US Coast Guard statistics, there are
approximately 3000 registered boat builders in the U.S. NMMA has about
400+ boat builder members. While Foam Supplies Inc. and other system
houses have alternative products available, a final rule that is
published in March 2007 and goes into effect nine months later will
leave insufficient time to change over every boat builder. The average
boat builder, who is a boat builder who has not converted to non-ODS
ahead of schedule, will not be aware of the final rule until his
supplier notifies him and will definitely not consider making any
changes until that time. 

The accelerated ban that would go into effect on January 1, 2008
provides no provision for using up the existing material. Without a
sufficient time, such as that set out in the 2010 timeline, the average
boat builder will not be able to have their systems returned to the
system house, refitted for the new material, and retrain their staff to
properly apply the new material. This will incur a financial and
resource burden on the boat building industry and its suppliers that
physically cannot be met.      

NMMA conducted an informal survey of its small business boat builders
and found that not one of these small business boat builders has
switched to the alternative or has begun taking the EPA identified six
transitional steps. This is because small business boat builders
understand that they were granted an extension until 2010. Regarding
information that has been collected from several of the larger boat
builders, NMMA has learned that some have switched to the ODS
alternatives, but many have not. The larger boat builders would have the
ability to purchase the ODS alternatives in a larger volume which would
have a direct impact on the cost. NMMA is concerned that EPA may not
have considered the economic impact that an accelerated implementation
would have on the small volume end user boat builders.

Furthermore, NMMA would ask EPA what is the actual benefit of an
accelerated phase out of ODS vs. the cost. If NMMA was able to better
understand the environmental benefit that would be achieved by beginning
a phase out of ODS materials two years in advance of 2010, then we could
better understand the measurable benefit of this rule. EPA needs to
consider that US boat builders have already committed resources to take
the necessary steps to replace more harmful ODS materials with less
harmful ODS materials, all with the understanding that they were making
these investments on a predetermined timeline.  The proposed change is
drastic only in its affect on the boat builder. NMMA believes that the
environmental benefit of eliminating all the emissions from all the boat
builders in the US on the ozone layer would be immeasurable. 

NMMA has always supported the EPA efforts to phase out HCFC 22 and HCFC
142b by 2010. The system houses have been working hard to develop
alternatives and NMMA is confident that our small business US boat
builders will be able to complete the transitional steps to begin using
ODS alternatives by 2010.         

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on behalf of boat
builders and we appreciate the SBA Office of Advocacy for bring this
proposal to the attention of the small business US boat manufacturers.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 202-737-9757.

Sincerely,

John McKnight, Director

Environmental & Safety Compliance

 

Cc:	William Wehrum, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation

	Kevin Bromberg, Esq., SBA, Office of Advocacy

    	

