14432 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–5663 Filed 3–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0507, FRL–8291–3] 

RIN 2060–AN11 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Listing of Ozone Depleting Substitutes 

in Foam Blowing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Today the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final 

action to determine that HCFC–22 and 

HCFC–142b are unacceptable for use in 

the foam sector under the Significant 

New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) 

program under section 612 of the Clean 

Air Act. The SNAP program reviews 

alternatives to Class I and Class II ozone 

depleting substances and approves use 

of alternatives which do not present a 

substantially greater risk to public 

health and the environment than the 

substance they replace or than other 

available substitutes. In prior 

rulemakings, the Agency listed HCFC–

22 and HCFC–142b as unacceptable 

substitutes in several foam end uses; 

here, EPA is amending a determination 

for one category of end-uses and taking 

the following actions for remaining 

applications. First, EPA is finding 

HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b unacceptable 

as substitutes for HCFC–141b in 

commercial refrigeration, sandwich 

panels, and slabstock and ‘‘other’’ rigid 

polyurethane foams and removing 

narrowed use limits previously 

established in those applications. 

Second, EPA is finding HCFC–22 and 

HCFC–142b unacceptable as substitutes 

for CFCs in all foam end-uses. Third, the 

Agency is establishing a grandfathering 

period to allow existing users of HCFC–

22 and HCFC–142b in pour foam 

applications, including commercial 

refrigeration, sandwich panels, and 

slabstock and ‘‘other’’ rigid 

polyurethane foams other than foam for 

marine applications, until March 1, 

2008 to implement alternatives; existing 

users of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b foam 

blowing agents in the manufacture of 

foam for marine applications (e.g., 

flotation foam) will be allowed to 

continue use of these blowing agents 

until September 1, 2009. Fourth, the 

Agency is grandfathering existing users 

of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b in 

extruded polystyrene (XPS) foam and in 

all other foam end uses until January 1, 

2010 in order to allow time for those 

users to complete their transition to 

alternatives. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 29, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0507. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, 

EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Cohen, Stratospheric Protection 

Division, Office of Atmospheric 

Programs (6205J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: (202) 343–9005; fax 

number: (202) 343–2363; e-mail address: 

cohen.jeff@epa.gov. The published 

versions of notices and rulemakings 

under the SNAP program are available 

on EPA’s Stratospheric Ozone Web site 

at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

This action is divided into six sections: 

I. Regulated Entities 

II. Section 612 Program 

A. Statutory Requirements 

B. Regulatory History 

C. Listing Decisions 

III. Background 

IV. Listing Decisions on HCFC–22 and 

HCFC–142b in the Foam Sector 

V. Response to Comments 

VI. Summary 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and 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 & 

Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Congressional Review Act 

VIII. Additional Information 

IX. References 

I. Regulated Entities 

Today’s rule regulates the use of 

HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b as foam 

blowing agents used in the manufacture 

of rigid polyurethane/polyisocyanurate 

and extruded polystyrene foam 

products. Businesses that currently 

might be using HCFC–22 and HCFC–

142b, or might want to use it in the 

future, include: 

—Businesses that manufacture 

polyurethane/polyisocyanurate foam 

systems. 

—Businesses that use polyurethane/ 

polyisocyanurate systems to apply 

insulation to buildings, roofs, pipes, 

etc. 

—Businesses that manufacture extruded 

polystyrene foam insulation for 

buildings, roofs, pipes, etc. 

Table 1 lists potentially regulated 

entities: 

TABLE 1.—POTENTIALLY REGULATED ENTITIES, BY NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) 

CODE OR SUBSECTOR

Category NAICS code or subsector Description of regulated entities 

Industry ................... 326150 ................................................... Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing. 

Industry ................... 326140 ................................................... Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14433 

1Historically, CFC–11, CFC–12, CFC–113 and 

CFC–114 have all been used as blowing agents in 

the foam industry, with CFC–11 in polyurethane 

applications and CFC–12 in extruded polystyrene 

boardstock applications being the two most popular 

CFC blowing agents (March 18, 1994, 59 FR 13082). 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather a guide regarding 

entities likely to be regulated by this 

action. If you have any questions about 

whether this action applies to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding section, FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION. 

II. Section 612 Program 

A. Statutory Requirements 

Section 612 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requires EPA to develop a 

program for evaluating alternatives to 

ozone depleting substances (ODS). EPA 

refers to this program as the Significant 

New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) 

program. The major provisions of 

section 612 are: 

• Rulemaking—Section 612(c) 

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—Section 612(c) also 

requires EPA to publish a list of the 

substitutes unacceptable for specific 

uses. EPA must publish a corresponding 

list of acceptable alternatives for 

specific uses. 

• Petition Process—Section 612(d) 

grants the right to any person to petition 

EPA to add a substitute to or delete a 

substitute from the lists published in 

accordance with section 612(c). The 

Agency has 90 days to grant or deny a 

petition. When the Agency grants a 

petition, EPA must publish the revised 

lists within an additional six months. 

• 90-Day Notification—Section 612(e) 

directs EPA to require any person who 

produces a chemical substitute for a 

class I substance to notify EPA not less 

than 90 days before new or existing 

chemicals are introduced into interstate 

commerce for significant new uses as 

substitutes for a class I substance. The 

producer must also provide EPA with 

the producer’s health and safety studies 

on such substitutes. 

• Outreach—Section 612(b)(1) states 

that the Administrator shall 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—Section 612(b)(4) 

requires the Agency to set up a public 

clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, 

product substitutes, and alternative 

manufacturing processes that are 

available for products and 

manufacturing processes which use 

class I and II substances. 

B. Regulatory History 

On March 18, 1994, EPA published a 

rule (59 FR 13044) describing the 

process for administering the SNAP 

program and issued EPA’s first 

acceptability lists for substitutes in the 

major industrial use sectors. These 

sectors include: refrigeration and air 

conditioning, foam manufacturing, 

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 compounds. 

EPA defines a ‘‘substitute’’ as any 

chemical, product substitute, or 

alternative manufacturing process, 

whether existing or new, that could 

replace a class I or class II substance (40 

CFR 82.172). Anyone who produces a 

substitute must provide EPA with 

health and safety studies about the 

substitute at least 90 days before 

introducing it into interstate commerce 

for significant new use as an alternative 

(40 CFR 82.174(a)). This requirement 

applies to chemical manufacturers, but 

may include importers, formulators, or 

end users when they are responsible for 

introducing a substitute into commerce. 

C. Listing Decisions 

In the original 1994 SNAP rule, the 

Agency identified four possible decision 

categories: acceptable; acceptable 

subject to use conditions; acceptable 

subject to narrowed use limits; and 

unacceptable (40 CFR 82.180(b)). Fully 

acceptable substitutes, i.e., those with 

no restrictions, can be used for all 

applications within the relevant sector 

end use. 

After reviewing a substitute, EPA may 

make a determination that a substitute 

is acceptable only if certain conditions 

of use are met to minimize risk to 

human health and the environment. 

Such substitutes are described as 

‘‘acceptable subject to use conditions.’’

Even though EPA can restrict the use 

of a substitute based on the potential for 

adverse effects, it may be necessary to 

permit a narrowed range of use within 

a sector end use because of the lack of 

alternatives for specialized applications. 

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. This 

documentation must 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. The use of such 

substitutes in applications and end uses 

which are not specified as acceptable in 

the narrowed use limit is unacceptable 

and violates Section 612 of the CAA and 

the SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174). 

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 (59 FR 13044). 

Updates to the acceptable lists are 

published as separate Notices of 

Acceptability in the Federal Register. 

As described in the original March 18, 

1994 rule for the SNAP program (59 FR 

13044), EPA believes that notice-andcomment 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. 

III. Background 

A major goal of the SNAP program is 

to facilitate the transition away from 

ODS to alternatives that pose less risk to 

human health and the environment. In 

1994, EPA listed several HCFCs as 

acceptable replacements for CFCs 1

because the Agency believed that 

HCFCs provided a temporary bridge to 

alternatives that do not deplete 

stratospheric ozone. At that time, EPA 

believed that HCFCs were necessary 

transitional alternatives to CFC blowing 

agents in thermal insulating foam (59 FR 

13083). As a result, HCFC–141b, HCFC–

22 and HCFC–142b became common 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14434 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

2The phaseout schedule was established on 

December 10, 1993 (58 FR 65018) as authorized 

under section 606 of the Clean Air Act. 

3These listings are published in the following 

Federal Register notices: September 3, 1996 (61 FR 

47012), March 10, 1997 (62 FR 10700), June 3, 1997 

(62 FR 30275), February 24, 1998 (63 FR 9151), June 

8, 1998 (64 FR 30410), December 6, 1999 (64 FR 

68039), April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19327), June 19, 2000 

(65 FR 37900), December 18, 2000 (65 FR 78977), 

August 21, 2003 (68 FR 50533) and October 1, 2004 

(69 FR 58903). 

4At the time of the 2002 final rule, EPA 

concluded that viable alternatives to HCFC–141b 

had not been fully developed across all 

applications, particularly those with thermal 

performance requirements (67 FR 47707) and 

established Narrowed Use Limits for specific end 

uses to provide formulators and manufacturers who 

found that alternatives to HCFC–141b were not 

technically viable the flexibility to switch to the 

less harmful ozone depleting chemicals of HCFC–

22 and HCFC–142b. 

5After publication of the July 22, 2002 final rule, 

Honeywell International filed suit in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (the Court), challenging the Narrowed Use 

Limits that the Agency established for HCFC–22 

and HCFC–142b. Honeywell alleged that EPA 

improperly considered costs in establishing 

Narrowed Use Limits instead of finding HCFC–22 

and HCFC–142b unacceptable for certain end uses. 

EPA argued that the decision was based solely on 

technical feasibility and, though not precluded from 

considering costs, it had not done so as part of the 

decision. The Court upheld Honeywell’s challenge, 

explaining that various preamble statements 

indicated that EPA had considered costs, but that 

EPA had not explained the basis for doing so. In 

light of the Court’s decision, EPA was required to 

reassess its action with respect to the acceptability 

of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b as substitutes for 

HCFC–141b in commercial refrigeration, sandwich 

panels, and slabstock and ‘‘other’’ foam. After 

considering new information on alternatives, the 

Agency proposed finding HCFC–22 and HCFC–

142b unacceptable as substitutes for HCFC–141b in 

commercial refrigeration, sandwich panels, and 

slabstock and ‘‘other’’ foam applications based on 

the technical viability of alternatives. 

6 In this context, existing use is defined as current 

use of HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–142b to manufacture 

actual foam products that are sold into commercial 

markets. The decision to grandfather is based on the 

criteria established in Sierra Club v. EPA (719 F.2D 

436 (DC CIR. 1983)). The criteria EPA examines to 

judge the appropriateness of grandfathering 

include: (1) Is the new rule an abrupt departure 

from Agency practice, (2) what is the extent the 

interested parties relied on the previous rule, (3) 

what is the burden of the new rule on the interested 

parties and (4) what is the statutory interest in 

making the new rule effective immediately, as 

opposed to grandfathering interested parties (59 FR 

13057). 

foam blowing agents in place of CFCs. 

Pursuant to the CAA and the Montreal 

Protocol on Substances that Deplete the 

Ozone Layer, HCFC–141b was phased 

out of production and import in the 

United States on January 1, 2003, and 

HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b are 

scheduled to be phased out of 

production and import on January 1, 

2010.2 Since the time EPA initially 

listed HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b as 

acceptable in certain foam blowing uses, 

the Agency has listed several other nonODS alternative blowing agents, 

including hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), 

hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, and other 

compounds, as acceptable substitutes in 

foam blowing.3

In a final rule published on July 22, 

2002, EPA: (1) Found HCFC–22 and 

HCFC–142b acceptable substitutes for 

HCFC–141b with narrowed use limits in 

the foam end uses of commercial 

refrigeration, sandwich panels, and rigid 

polyurethane slabstock and ‘‘other’’

foams end uses; (2) deferred a final 

decision on our proposed decision to 

list HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b as 

unacceptable substitutes for CFCs for all 

foam end uses; (3) listed HCFC–22 and 

HCFC–142b as unacceptable substitutes 

for HCFC–141b in the foam end uses of 

rigid polyurethane/polyisocyanurate 

laminated boardstock, rigid 

polyurethane appliance foam and rigid 

polyurethane spray foam; and (4) listed 

HCFC–124 as an unacceptable substitute 

in all foam end uses.4

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) published on November 4, 2005 

(70 FR 67120) proposed again taking 

action with respect to two of the actions 

addressed in the July 2002 rule. First, in 

response to a court ruling vacating the 

Narrowed Use Limits established in the 

2002 final rule (Honeywell Int’l v. EPA, 

374 F.3d 1363 (D.C. Cir 2004), modified 

on rehearing 393 F.3d 1315 (DC Cir. 

2005)),5 EPA proposed to list HCFC–22 

and HCFC–142b as unacceptable 

substitutes for HCFC–141b in 

commercial refrigeration, sandwich 

panels, and slabstock and ‘‘other’’ foam, 

but proposed to grandfather existing 

users until January 1, 2010. Second, 

EPA proposed to list HCFC–22 and 

HCFC–142b as unacceptable substitutes 

for CFCs in all foam end uses, but to 

grandfather existing users until January 

1, 2010. 

The Agency published a Notice of 

Data Availability (NODA) on May 26, 

2006 to make available to the public 

additional information received 

subsequent to the public comment 

period for the November 4, 2005 NPRM. 

The NODA summarized two reports on 

the availability and technical viability of 

alternatives in the polyurethane ‘‘pour 

foam’’ and the extruded polystyrene 

(XPS) foam industries, and produced 

evidence that a shorter grandfathering 

period for existing users in pour foam 

applications was appropriate. Pour foam 

applications include commercial 

refrigeration foam, sandwich panels, 

and slabstock and ‘‘other’’ foam. 

Based on the information contained in 

the NPRM and the NODA, the 

information published in the 

corresponding docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–

2004–0507), and the comments to the 

NPRM and to the NODA, EPA is 

establishing a shorter grandfathering 

period than what we proposed in the 

2005 NPRM for pour foam applications, 

while finalizing the proposed 

grandfathering date for XPS and other 

foam applications. The section below 

presents a detailed discussion of the 

decisions being made today. 

IV. Listing Decisions on HCFC–22 and 

HCFC–142b in the Foam Sector 

(1) HCFC–22, HCFC–142b and Blends 

Thereof Are Unacceptable as 

Substitutes for HCFC–141b in the Foam 

End Uses of Commercial Refrigeration, 

Sandwich Panels, and Slabstock and 

‘‘Other’’ Foam 

Commercial refrigeration, sandwich 

panels, and slabstock and ‘‘other’’ foam 

end uses (also referred to as ‘‘pour 

foam’’) comprise a diverse set of 

products manufactured by pour foam 

processes with a wide range of 

applications including walk-in coolers, 

garage doors, water heaters, refrigerated 

transport, refrigerated vending machines 

and ice bins, insulated drink dispensers, 

residential architectural panels, tank 

and pipe insulation, marine flotation 

foams, floral foam and taxidermy foam. 

For these pour foam end uses and 

applications, the information received 

by the Agency since 2002 demonstrates 

that several SNAP-approved, non-ODS 

alternatives including hydrocarbons, 

HFC–245fa, HFC–134a, methyl formate 

and water, are widely available, 

technically viable, and are being sold in 

the market today. (Docket # EPA–HQ–

OAR–2004–0507, Documents 0002 

through 0042). 

This listing will be effective 60 days 

following publication in the Federal 

Register. However, EPA is allowing (i.e., 

grandfathering) existing users of HCFC–

22 and HCFC–142b, as of November 4, 

2005, in these end uses other than 

marine applications to continue use of 

those HCFCs until March 1, 2008; use of 

HCFC–22 and HCFC–142 in 

manufacture of foam for marine 

applications will be allowed to continue 

until September 1, 2009.6 The Agency 

believes this time is needed for existing 

users to transition to alternatives (see 

discussion below on grandfathering 

existing users in pour foam 

applications). 

This listing replaces the July 22, 2002 

rulemaking that listed HCFC–22 and 

HCFC–142b as unacceptable substitutes 

for HCFC–141b, subject to narrowed use 

limits, in commercial refrigeration, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14435 

7For simplicity, polystyrene used here refers to 

polystyrene extruded boardstock or billet (plank), 

rather than all polystyrene products—some of 

which never used HCFCs, such as thin polystyrene 

foam sheet used for plates and cups. 

8Similarly, at the time of the 2002 final rule, the 

Agency stated: ‘‘EPA is continuing to review the 

commercial refrigeration, sandwich panels, and 

slabstock and other foams end uses to determine the 

progress of non-ozone depleting alternatives. As 

non-ozone depleting alternatives become more 

widely available, the Agency will reevaluate the 

acceptability of HCFCs in these end uses. Therefore, 

foam manufacturers within these applications that 

are using HCFCs should begin using non-ozone 

depleting alternatives as soon as they are available 

in anticipation of future EPA action restricting the 

use of HCFCs’’ (67 FR 47704). 

9Pour foam manufacturers purchase formulations 

of blowing agents and other materials as part of 

pour foam systems from formulators or ‘‘systems 

houses.’’ There are approximately 20 systems 

houses in the U.S. that formulate pour foam systems 

and include both large and small businesses. The 

onus is typically on the systems houses to research, 

test and implement alternatives and develop 

systems that meet technical, safety, and 

performance requirements. Both the formulators 

and pour foam manufacturers are subject to SNAP 

regulations because both use the blowing agent—

formulators blend the blowing agent into a foam 

formulation, and manufacturers produce the foam 

with aid of the blowing agent. 

sandwich panels, and slabstock and 

other foams. 

(2) HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b and 

Blends Thereof Are Unacceptable as 

Substitutes for CFCs in All Foam End 

Uses 

EPA’s final determination that the use 

of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b as 

substitutes for CFCs in all foam end uses 

is unacceptable is based on the 

availability and potential availability of 

a number of viable alternatives, 

including HFC–134a, HFC–152a, CO2, 

hydrocarbons, ethanol, water, and 

formulations under development. 

This final action applies to all foam 

end uses although we are unaware of 

any current use of HCFC–22 and HCFC–

142b foam blowing agents other than in 

pour foam applications and XPS. As 

with existing users who substituted for 

HCFC–141b, EPA is grandfathering 

existing users of HCFC–22 and HCFC–

142b in pour foam applications. Existing 

users can continue their use of HCFC–

22 and HCFC–142b until March 1, 2008 

for pour foam applications other than 

marine, and September 1, 2009 for 

marine applications, because of the time 

needed to implement alternatives. 

Unlike pour foam applications, U.S. 

extruded polystyrene (XPS) 

manufacturers have not yet 

implemented alternatives to HCFC–22 

and HCFC–142b due to technical 

challenges. Accordingly, EPA is 

grandfathering existing users of HCFC–

22 and HCFC–142b, as of November 4, 

2005, in the (XPS) foam end-use 7 and 

all other foam applications besides pour 

foam until January 1, 2010. As 

discussed below, the Agency believes 

this time is needed for existing XPS 

users to complete a transition to 

alternatives while meeting technical and 

performance requirements related to 

building codes and insulation 

efficiency. 

This listing will be effective 60 days 

following publication in the Federal 

Register, with the grandfathering dates 

of March 1, 2008 for existing users in 

pour foam applications other than 

marine, September 1, 2009 for existing 

users in marine applications, and 

January 1, 2010 for existing users in XPS 

and all other foam applications. 

(3) Grandfathering Existing Users of 

HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b in Pour Foam 

Applications Other Than Marine, 

Including Commercial Refrigeration, 

Sandwich Panels, and Slabstock and 

‘‘Other’’ Foam 

Grandfathering allows those who 

made a good faith transition to a SNAPapproved alternative sufficient time to 

transition to a different alternative while 

prohibiting new users from investing in 

an alternative that no longer meets the 

test for being SNAP-approved (i.e., other 

alternatives that provide less risk to 

human health and the environment are 

available). In the November 4, 2005 

NPRM, EPA proposed to find HCFC–22 

and HCFC–142b unacceptable as 

substitutes for HCFC–141b in pour foam 

end uses, but proposed to grandfather 

existing users, as of November 4, 2005 

(the date of the proposal), until January 

1, 2010. Similarly, EPA proposed to find 

HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b unacceptable 

as substitutes for CFCs in all foam end 

uses, but proposed to grandfather 

existing users, as of November 4, 2005, 

until January 1, 2010. At the time of the 

2005 proposal, the Agency believed that 

existing users of HCFC–22 and HCFC–

142b in all foam applications could 

require up to four years (i.e., until 

January 1, 2010 based on the projected 

effective date of the final rule) for a safe 

transition to non-ODS alternatives. 

Nevertheless, the Agency strongly 

encouraged all existing users of HCFC–

22 and HCFC–142b to begin their 

transition to alternatives immediately 

and to complete the transition as soon 

as possible prior to January 1, 2010.8

The comments received on the 2005 

NPRM can be split into two major 

categories, those related to pour foam 

applications and those related to XPS 

foam applications. The majority of 

commenters that addressed pour foam 

applications disagreed with the 

proposed grandfathering date of January 

1, 2010 and argued for acceleration in 

the required transition, specifically, the 

elimination of any grandfathering 

provision whatsoever, or alternatively, a 

grandfathering date between 2006 and 

2008. These commenters noted that 

several SNAP-approved non-ozone 

depleting alternatives, including 

hydrocarbons, HFC–245fa, HFC–134a, 

HFC–152a, CO2, water, methyl formate, 

and others are readily available through 

multiple formulators or systems 

houses 9 and technically viable (Docket 

# EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0507, 

Documents 0004–0007, 0010, 0011, 

0015, 0017, 0020, 0021, 0025, 0026, 

0028, 0031, 0041, 0045). Based on these 

comments, the Agency commissioned 

Stratus Consulting Inc. to evaluate the 

transition to non-ODS blowing agents in 

the different pour foam applications. 

The study, made available to the public 

as part of the May 26, 2006 NODA (71 

FR 30353), was based on available 

information on the industry and 

alternative blowing agents, as well as on 

a series of interviews with 

representatives of systems houses and 

end use manufacturers (Docket # EPA–

HQ–OAR–2004–0507, Document 0038). 

Key conclusions from the 2006 

Stratus evaluation, summarized in the 

May 2006 NODA, were consistent with 

the majority of public comments to the 

2005 NPRM on pour foam, and are 

presented here (Docket # EPA–HQ–

OAR–2004–0507, Document 0038): 

• Non-ODS alternatives for pour foam 

applications are available, currently 

being formulated by systems houses, 

and technically viable across all pour 

foam applications. 

• No technical performance hurdles 

to using non-ODS alternatives in pour 

foam were identified that cannot be 

overcome either through design changes 

or with support from suppliers and 

systems houses. 

• EPA’s 2000 proposal on the use of 

HCFCs in foam manufacturing stated 

that it can take up to four years to 

complete blowing agent transitions. The 

transition requires six steps: (1) 

Obtaining new permits or modifying 

existing permits, (2) changing 

equipment to optimize production and 

ensure worker safety, (3) establishing 

raw material suppliers, (4) developing 

formulations, (5) testing final products, 

and (6) obtaining final product review 

and approval by relevant boards and 

agencies. Companies that chose to plan 

ahead for the eventual phase-out of 

HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b could have 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14436 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

10Other than pour foam applications, discussed 

above, and extruded polystyrene, the Agency is not 

aware of other foam end uses still dependent on 

HCFC–22 or HCFC–142b blowing agents; however, 

if there are users of HCFC–22 or HCFC–142b in 

other foam end uses, they will also be 

grandfathered. 

initiated this process in the period from 

2002 to 2003, when the current suite of 

alternatives became available, if not 

before, and could have completed the 

first four steps by the current date. 

Thus, these companies could anticipate 

completing their conversion by 2006 or 

2007 in pour foam applications. 

• Those companies that have not 

taken the initial steps to transition to 

non-ODS blowing agents in pour foam 

should be able to have market-ready 

products by January 2008. This is based 

on two findings. First, most if not all, 

systems houses have already developed 

non-ODS formulations; and second, 

several manufacturers of finished pour 

foam products (including walk-in 

storage coolers, reach-in storage coolers, 

metal panels, insulated beverage 

dispensers, picnic coolers, and entry 

and garage doors) were able to convert 

to non-ODS formulations within 18 

months, and in many cases, as rapidly 

as 6 to 8 months. 

• Pour foam formulators and 

manufacturers should be allowed 

sufficient time to complete the 

conversions, including testing final 

products, obtaining final review and 

approval from customers, code bodies, 

and agencies. Based on their findings, 

RJR Consulting and Stratus Consulting 

(2006a) concluded that ‘‘it is probable 

that end users will be able to complete 

the final steps for a successful 

conversion in 9–14 months.’’

The 2006 Stratus evaluation did not 

explicitly address the use of HCFC–22 

and HCFC–142b in marine applications 

which are discussed below. Comments 

to the May 2006 NODA, summarized 

below, supported the major conclusions 

of the Stratus evaluation and help form 

the basis for the Agency’s determination 

in this action. Based on the information 

provided to EPA since the publication 

of the final rule in July 2002, including 

the comments to the 2005 NPRM and 

the 2006 NODA, EPA believes today 

that alternatives are widely available, 

technically viable, and in use in pour 

foam applications (Docket # EPA–HQ–

OAR–2004–0507, Documents 0004–

0017 and Comments 0020, 0022, 0025, 

0026, 0028, 0031, 0041 and 0045). The 

Agency also concludes based on the 

available information that existing users 

of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b in pour 

foam, other than marine applications, 

will be able to transition to non-ODS 

alternatives by March 1, 2008. 

It is possible that a foam manufacturer 

may have unique technical constraints 

in making a transition to non-ODS 

alternatives by March 1, 2008. One 

possible scenario is that of a 

manufacturer that currently operates in 

only one facility that does not own (and 

leases), and is scheduled to transition to 

a non-ODS alternative to coincide with 

the move to a new facility and 

installation of new process equipment 

that cannot be completed by March 1, 

2008. In addition, for this situation, 

making an interim transition to a nonODS alternative at the current facility 

would not be possible because of the 

time needed to get fire safety and 

industry code approvals. In this specific 

situation, the Agency believes it is 

appropriate for that manufacturer’s use 

of HCFC–22 or HCFC–142b to be 

grandfathered until January 1, 2010. For 

this situation, the manufacturer should 

retain documentation for possible 

inspection that includes the following 

information: 

1—Description of the applications 

served by the use of HCFC–22 or HCFC–

142b; 

2—verifiable documentation showing 

that the manufacturer operates out of 

only one facility that the manufacturer 

does not own; 

3—verifiable documentation of land 

purchase or construction plans for a 

new facility that pre-dates publication 

of this rule; 

4—verifiable documentation showing 

that the manufacturer has contracted for 

purchase of new process equipment to 

use a non-ODS alternative; 

(4) Grandfathering Existing Users of 

HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b in Marine 

Applications 

Boats use foam for buoyancy and for 

structural integrity. Comments received 

subsequent to publication of the NODA 

raised concern that boat manufacturers 

would not be able to accelerate their 

conversion to non-ODS alternatives at 

the same pace as in other pour foam 

sectors (NMMA, 2006, Lewit, 2007). 

Unlike other pour foam applications, 

new blowing agent formulations used 

for marine flotation have to meet U.S. 

Coast Guard buoyancy tests. In addition, 

new formulations must be tested to 

ensure that the boat structure can 

withstand pressure under stressful 

conditions. For many boat 

manufacturers, these tests must be done 

with assistance from systems houses 

who will be also working with 

customers in other pour foam end-uses. 

EPA believes that non-ODS alternatives 

are available for marine applications, 

and that boat manufacturers working 

with systems houses can convert from 

HCFCs to non-ODS within the same 

time frame discussed previously for 

other pour foam applications. However, 

the Agency also believes that boat 

manufacturers need additional time 

compared to other pour foam 

applications to ensure that new 

formulations produce flotation foam 

that meets the safety and performance 

requirements for boats. Based on the 

available information pertaining to the 

projected workload of systems houses 

and of the technological feasibility in 

adopting new formulations, the Agency 

believes that existing users of HCFC–22 

and HCFC–42b for foam in marine 

applications will be able to transition to 

non-ODS alternatives by September 1, 

2009. 

(5) Grandfathering Existing Users of 

HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b in Extruded 

Polystyrene Foam (XPS) 

As stated above, in the 2005 NPRM, 

EPA proposed to find HCFC–22 and 

HCFC–142b unacceptable as substitutes 

for CFCs in all foam end uses, but 

proposed to grandfather existing users, 

as of November 4, 2005 (the date of the 

proposal) until January 1, 2010. For the 

XPS foam end use only, EPA is 

finalizing its proposal to allow existing 

users of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b, as of 

November 4, 2005, until January 1, 2010 

to transition to non-ODS alternatives 

based on our analysis under the fourpart test for grandfathering established 

in Sierra Club v. EPA.10 The Agency 

believes this transition period is needed 

based on continuing technical 

challenges in developing non-ODS 

alternatives for XPS that meet product 

performance specifications related to 

building codes and insulation 

efficiency. 

U.S. XPS manufacturers have invested 

in the research and development of 

alternatives and are in final stages of 

formulation to conform to the January 1, 

2010 production phase-out deadline for 

HCFC–142b and HCFC–22 (Docket # 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0507, Documents 

0002 and 0039). XPS manufacturers 

project that based on the January 1, 2010 

phase-out date, formulations of nonODS alternatives will need to be 

developed by mid-2007, with the 

remaining time used to install 

manufacturing line upgrades, which can 

take up to 18 months; perform plant 

qualification runs, which can take 6–9 

months; and obtain code body and 

agency product approvals, which can 

take 9–12 months. Accordingly, existing 

manufacturing lines need until January 

1, 2010, to complete equipment 

conversions, produce the new products 

at full scale, and get the products 

qualified by builders and other XPS 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14437 

customers, and code bodies (Docket # 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0507, Documents 

0002 and 0039). Based on the transition 

requirements described above, EPA 

believes it is appropriate that existing 

users of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b, as of 

November 4, 2005, in XPS applications 

be allowed to continue using these 

chemicals until January 1, 2010 in order 

to ensure a safe transition to non-ODP 

alternative blowing agents. 

Regarding EPA’s decision to allow 

grandfathering in both pour foam and 

XPS foam applications, the SNAP 

program is designed to encourage the 

transition away from ozone depleting 

chemicals. However, the balance of the 

factors specific to existing use of HCFC–

22 and HCFC–142b in pour foam and 

XPS foam applications outweigh EPA’s 

statutory interest in applying the 

unacceptability determination 

immediately to all users. EPA believes 

its goal of encouraging the transition 

away from ozone depleting chemicals is 

still satisfied as new use of these 

substances will not be permitted, and 

existing users will continue their 

transition to non-ODP alternatives as 

quickly as is feasible. EPA strongly 

encourages all existing users of HCFC–

22 and HCFC–142b to begin their 

transition to alternatives immediately 

and to complete the transition as soon 

as possible prior to the applicable 

grandfathering deadlines. 

V. Response to Comments 

Grandfathering Existing Users of HCFC–

22 and HCFC–142b in the Pour Foam 

End Use 

A number of comments from the 

different components of the 

polyurethane pour foam industry 

(chemical manufacturing, formulator/ 

systems house, end-product 

manufacturing) supported the Agency’s 

proposal to list HCFC–22 and HCFC–

142 as unacceptable substitutes for 

HCFC–141b in commercial refrigeration, 

sandwich panels, and slabstock and 

other foam; and the proposal to list 

HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b as 

unacceptable substitutes for CFCs (for 

pour foam applications). Many of these 

same comments, however, disagreed 

with the Agency’s proposal to 

grandfather existing use of HCFC–22 

and HCFC–142b in pour foam until 

2010. Some comments argued for 

elimination of the grandfathering period 

while others advocated a shorter period 

ranging from July 1, 2006 to January 1, 

2008. These comments were based on 

experiences in successfully converting 

to non-HCFC blowing agents either at 

the formulation stage or at the endproduct stage considerably faster (i.e., 

less than 1–2 years) than the four years 

the Agency originally projected to be 

needed. One of those commenting noted 

that a two-year grandfathering period to 

January 2008 would be ‘‘excessively 

generous’’ to those few systems houses 

which have not already transitioned to 

non-ODS alternatives given today’s 

wide availability of non-ODS, off-theshelf products (Docket # EPA–HQ–

OAR–2004–0507, Documents 0022, 

0022.1 and 0027). Several comments on 

this issue made in response to the May 

2006 NODA also advocated the 

elimination or shortening of the 

grandfathering period to either January 

1, 2007 or 2008. 

In contrast, one systems house agreed 

with the Agency’s proposal to allow 

users of HCFC–22 until January 1, 2010 

before transitioning to non-ODS 

alternatives, claiming the pour foam 

manufacturers originally switched to 

HCFC–22 with the understanding they 

would face no restrictions on the use of 

the chemical until it was phased out of 

production in 2010. This commenter 

stated the ‘‘final rulemaking has to be 

perfectly clear, free of any risk of further 

meddling, either by EPA or big business, 

and must fairly consider those who 

spent the money and time to change to 

22 (sic) ahead of schedule. Prematurely 

forcing users out of HCFC–22 is forcing 

them out of business.’’ (Docket # EPA–

HQ–OAR–2004–0507, Documents 0008 

and 0029). 

Another formulator provided similar 

comments on the May 2006 NODA, 

arguing that many of its customers who 

are small businesses have not begun 

new product trials and the conversion 

process. This commenter disagreed with 

a conclusion in the Stratus report that 

end users will be able to complete the 

final steps for a successful conversion in 

9–14 months because that was not 

enough time for a systems house to 

support each of its customer’s unique 

technical needs in completing a 

transition (Docket # EPA–HQ–OAR–

2004–0507, Documents 0044 and 

0044.1). 

Two comments representing boat 

builders indicated that unique safety 

and structural testing were required for 

marine flotation applications and that 

the numerous small businesses in that 

industry would be challenged to safely 

accelerate their conversions to non-ODS 

alternatives (Docket # EPA–HQ–OAR–

2004–0507, Documents 0046 and 0047). 

They claimed that the boat 

manufacturing industry was not aware 

of EPA’s May 2006 NODA. 

The Agency agrees with commenters 

who argued a shorter grandfathering 

period is appropriate as it applies to 

pour foam applications. Numerous nonODS alternatives are available proven to 

meet technical specifications and 

market needs, and the majority, if not all 

systems houses, have developed nonODS formulations. There are now 

numerous examples of systems houses 

and pour foam manufacturers, across 

multiple product sectors and end uses, 

who have successfully converted to 

non-ODS alternatives within 6–18 

months (Docket # EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–

0507, Documents 0010, 0015, 0038 and 

0041). 

Furthermore, since at least 1992, the 

foam industry has been aware of the 

2010 production phaseout of HCFC–22 

and HCFC–142b and all users should by 

now have made substantial progress in 

transitioning to alternatives. Since at 

least 2000, the Agency has consistently 

explained its intention of reviewing the 

availability and viability of alternatives 

in the context of a SNAP restriction on 

use of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b, and 

has consistently encouraged users of 

these chemicals to complete their 

transition as soon as possible (65 FR 

42653, 67 FR 47703, 70 FR 67120, and 

71 FR 30353). For these reasons, the 

Agency disagrees with the comments in 

support of the January 1, 2010 

grandfathering deadline for pour foam 

applications. 

The argument that small businesses 

will be severely affected if they cannot 

continue to use HCFC–22 after January 

1, 2008 is not consistent with the fact 

that many small businesses completed 

transitions to non-ODS alternatives 

within 12 months, and in several cases, 

as early as 6–8 months (Docket # EPA–

HQ–OAR–2004–0507, Documents 0010, 

0015, 0038 and 0041). Further, small 

and large businesses who manufacture 

doors, commercial refrigeration 

equipment, and other pour foam 

products typically rely on systems 

houses to develop and test formulations 

specific to their products. There are now 

a wide range of ‘‘off the shelf’’ non-ODS 

formulations available to these users 

(Docket # EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0507, 

Documents 0022, 0022.1, 0027 and 

0038), and the Agency sees no 

substantive obstacle for pour foam 

manufacturers to complete a transition 

to non-ODS alternatives by March 1, 

2008 for applications other than marine. 

For marine flotation foam and other 

marine foam applications, the Agency 

recognizes the need to ensure sufficient 

time for boat builders to complete their 

testing of new formulations to meet 

performance and safety standards (e.g., 

Coast Guard), especially considering the 

diverse nature of the boat industry and 

the number of boat manufacturers in the 

U.S. (approximately 3000 according to 

one commenter, see Docket # EPA–HQ–


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14438 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

OAR–2004–0507, Document 0047). 

Therefore, the Agency has concluded 

that an additional 18 months compared 

to other pour foam applications 

(September 1, 2009) is an appropriate 

deadline. 

Grandfathering Existing Users of HCFC–

22 and HCFC–142b in the Polystyrene 

(XPS) End Use 

Although pour foam applications and 

XPS applications both use HCFC–22 

and HCFC–142b, the two sets of 

applications use entirely different foam 

manufacturing processes and thus face 

different technical challenges when 

transitioning to non-ODS alternatives. In 

commenting on the 2005 NPRM and the 

2006 NODA, representatives of XPS 

manufacturers made the following 

points: 

• EPA should withdraw its proposal 

to list HCFC–142b and HCFC–22 as 

unacceptable in the foams sector; 

• The Agency has no authority to 

designate a substitute previously listed 

as acceptable as unacceptable without a 

specific SNAP petition; 

• If EPA promulgates this 

unacceptability determination the 

grandfathering deadline should be 

January 1, 2010. 

The Agency disagrees with comments 

that HCFC–142b and HCFC–22 should 

not be listed as unacceptable, but agrees 

that the grandfathering deadline should 

be January 1, 2010 for XPS foam 

applications. There are numerous nonODS alternatives across the foam sector, 

including for XPS, that are available or 

potentially available, but the XPS 

manufacturers have not yet completed 

implementation of them. While the XPS 

manufacturers have been working 

diligently to develop alternatives, the 

Agency recognizes that there are 

technical challenges involved in making 

the transition to the new formulations. 

Based on the comments from the XPS 

industry and other available information 

(Docket # EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0507, 

Documents 0002, 0018, 0018.1, 0019, 

0019.1, 0023, 0023.1, 0039), the Agency 

believes that U.S. XPS manufacturers 

will not be able to complete a transition 

to non-ODS products that meet 

technical product specifications related 

to building codes and insulation 

efficiency until January 1, 2010. 

The Agency disagrees with the 

comment that EPA does not have 

authority to list previously acceptable 

substitutes as unacceptable without a 

specific petition. Section 612 of the 

Clean Air Act requires the Agency to 

respond to petitions but places no 

restriction on the Agency’s ongoing 

review of SNAP determinations. In the 

preamble to the original SNAP 

rulemaking, the Agency stated its belief 

that ‘‘section 612 authorizes it to initiate 

changes to the SNAP determinations 

independent of any petitions or 

notifications received. These 

amendments can be based on new data 

on either additional substitutes or on 

characteristics of substitutes previously 

reviewed.’’ (59 FR 13047). The Agency 

has previously listed as unacceptable 

substitutes that previously were 

acceptable when new data on their 

environmental or health risks have 

become available, or when substitutes 

that pose less overall risk become 

available (e.g., HCFC–141b in foam 

blowing at 69 FR 58269, HBFC–22B1 in 

fire suppression at 67 FR 4185, and MT–

31 in refrigeration at 64 FR 3861). 

Definition of Use and Existing User 

Some of those commenting asked the 

Agency to clarify the terms ‘‘use’’ and 

‘‘existing user’’ of HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b, and how the Agency’s 

grandfathering provisions would apply 

to existing users who are developing 

expanded or new manufacturing 

individual facilities that would use 

HCFC–22 or HCFC–142b. One 

commenter asked that the Agency only 

allow operating facilities, or at least, 

fully permitted facilities, to be 

grandfathered. 

The 2005 NPRM defined existing use 

as ‘‘current use of HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b to manufacture actual foam 

products that are sold into commercial 

markets’’ (70 FR 67124). EPA explained 

in the preamble to the 2005 NPRM that 

grandfathering allows those who had 

made the good faith transition to a 

SNAP approved alternative sufficient 

time to transition to a different 

alternative while prohibiting new 

investment in an alternative that no 

longer meets the test for being SNAPapproved (i.e., other alternatives that 

provide less risk to human health and 

the environment are available)’’ (70 FR 

67124). Grandfathering allows existing 

users time to adjust their manufacturing 

processes for a safe transition to nonODP alternatives. (70 FR 67125). The 

Agency maintains these principles in 

establishing the grandfathering 

provisions in the final rule. 

In the case of an expanded or new 

facility where use of HCFC–22 or 

HCFC–142b has not actually begun, but 

is being developed by a manufacturer 

who has another facility where HCFC–

22 or HCFC–142b has been in use, the 

Agency believes that it is consistent 

with the grandfathering to consider the 

new facility as part of the existing use 

if those new or expanded facilities are 

for the primary purpose of supplying 

the market, without disruption, with 

product that meets all codes and 

standards (i.e., building, energy 

efficiency and fire) while they transition 

their existing facilities to alternatives. 

However, it would not be consistent 

with the grandfathering provisions if the 

primary purpose of a new facility or an 

expansion of an existing facility were to 

increase the manufacturer’s production 

of foam products. 

The SNAP program’s goal is to 

prevent unnecessary use of chemicals 

that pose a more significant risk to 

human health and the environment than 

other chemicals that the Agency has 

found acceptable. EPA proposed to 

grandfather existing users of HCFC–22 

and HCFC–142b for foam manufacturing 

in order to allow them time to transition 

safely to acceptable substitutes. If 

expansion of existing capacity is needed 

by manufacturers as an integral part of 

their transition timeline to non-ODS 

alternatives, it would be consistent with 

EPA’s rationale for grandfathering 

existing users of HCFC–22 and HCFC–

142b in some end uses. 

Another clarification in response to 

the comments with respect to the term 

‘‘use of HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–142b’’ is 

that end-users will be allowed to use 

‘‘systems’’ containing these blowing 

agents to manufacture foam-containing 

products after the applicable 

grandfathering date as long as the 

formulations were made prior to that 

grandfathering date. This is consistent 

with the original 1994 SNAP 

rulemaking which defines use as ‘‘any 

use of a substitute for Class I or Class 

II ozone-depleting compound, including 

but not limited to use in a 

manufacturing process or product, in 

consumption by the end-user, or in 

intermediate uses, such as formulation 

or packaging for other subsequent uses’’

(59 FR 13148). In this case, for example, 

boat manufacturers will be able to use 

their inventory of HCFC–22 

formulations after September 1, 2009 

but only if those formulations were 

manufactured prior to that date. 

Unique Applications Requiring 

Continued Use of HCFC–22 or HCFC–

142b 

In the 2005 proposal, as in past 

rulemakings, the Agency requested 

comment about any specific, unique 

applications that would require 

continued use of HCFC–22 or HCFC–

142b beyond the effective date of the 

unacceptability determination. For 

example, in the recent SNAP final rule 

published on September 30, 2004, EPA 

found the use of HCFC–141b 

unacceptable in all foam applications. 

However, based on technical 

information submitted to EPA during 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14439 

the comment period, the Agency 

exempted ‘‘the use of HCFC–141b for 

space vehicle, nuclear and defense foam 

applications from the unacceptability 

determination’’ (69 FR 58272). For this 

current rulemaking, EPA did not receive 

any comment about such unique 

applications and we are not aware of 

any specialized foam applications that 

would require continued use of HCFC–

22 or HCFC–142b beyond either March 

1, 2008 for pour foam applications other 

than marine applications; September 1, 

2009 for marine applications (e.g., 

flotation foam); or January 1, 2010 for 

XPS applications. Therefore, the Agency 

is not providing any exception to its 

decision today. 

VI. Summary 

The major objective of the SNAP 

program is to facilitate the transition 

from ozone-depleting chemicals by 

promoting the use of substitutes which 

present a lower risk to human health 

and the environment (40 CFR 82.170(a)). 

In this light, a key policy interest of the 

SNAP program is promoting the shift 

from ODSs to alternatives posing lower 

overall risk that are currently or 

potentially available (59 FR 13044). 

Non-ozone depleting alternatives are 

technically viable and commercially 

available for nearly all foam 

applications, including in the pour foam 

products found in the end uses of 

commercial refrigeration, sandwich 

panels, slabstock, and ‘‘other’’ foam. 

Continued use of HCFCs in those end 

uses would contribute to unnecessary 

depletion of the ozone layer, and will 

delay the transition to alternatives that 

pose lower overall risk to health and the 

environment. Accordingly, EPA is (1) 

Listing HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b as 

unacceptable substitutes for HCFC–141b 

in commercial refrigeration, sandwich 

panels, and slabstock and ‘‘other’’ foam; 

and (2) listing HCFC–22 and HCFC–

142b as unacceptable substitutes for 

CFCs in all foam end uses. These 

listings would be effective 60 days after 

the publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. Existing users of 

HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b, as of 

November 4, 2005, in pour foam 

applications including commercial 

refrigeration, sandwich panels, and 

slabstock and ‘‘other’’ foam end uses, 

other than foam for marine applications 

(e.g., flotation foam), will be 

grandfathered until March 1, 2008. 

Existing users of HCFC–22 and HCFC–

142b, as of November 4, 2005, to 

manufacture foam for marine 

applications, will be grandfathered until 

September 1, 2009. These listings for 

pour foam applications replace those 

established in the July 22, 2002 

rulemaking which established narrowed 

use limits for continued use of HCFC–

22 and HCFC–142b. Existing users of 

HCFC–22 or HCFC–142b, as of 

November 4, 2005, in the extruded 

polystyrene end use and other foam end 

uses will be grandfathered until January 

1, 2010. EPA is allowing existing users 

of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b to 

continue use for a limited time to ensure 

that they will be able to adjust their 

manufacturing processes to safely 

accommodate the use of non-ODS 

alternatives. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ because it raises novel legal or 

policy issues. Accordingly, EPA 

conducted a preliminary screening 

analysis of cost impacts (Stratus and RJR 

Consulting, 2006). Results of this 

analysis using the highest identified set 

of cost assumptions indicate the total 

annual national costs of a 2008 phaseout will be less than one-half of the 

$100 million threshold that defines a 

significant regulatory action in terms of 

economic impact. EPA submitted this 

action to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review under EO 

12866 and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. Today’s 

rule contains no new reporting 

requirements. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

existing regulations in subpart G of 40 

CFR part 82 under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB 

control number 2060–0226, EPA ICR 

number 1596.06. This Information 

Collection Request (ICR) included five 

types of respondent reporting and 

recordkeeping activities pursuant to 

SNAP regulations: Submission of a 

SNAP petition, filing a SNAP/Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA) 

Addendum, notification for test 

marketing activity, record-keeping for 

substitutes acceptable subject to use 

restrictions and recordkeeping for small 

volume uses. 

A copy of the ICR may be obtained 

from Susan Auby, by mail at the Office 

of Environmental Information, Office of 

Information Collection, Collection 

Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, by e-mail at 

auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 

566–1672. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An Agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 

15. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or 

any other statute 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 organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule, a small entity is defined 

as: 

(1) A small business that is primarily 

engaged in the operations described 

below with fewer than 500 employees 

(based on Small Business 

Administration size standards); 

(2) A small governmental jurisdiction 

that is a government of a city, county, 

town, school district or special district 

with a population of less than 50,000; 

and 

(3) A small organization that is any 

not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14440 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

The types of businesses subject to 

today’s final rule include businesses 

that manufacture polyurethane/ 

polyisocyanurate foam systems (NAICS 

326150), businesses that use 

polyurethane/polyisocyanurate systems 

to apply insulation to buildings, roofs, 

pipes, etc. (NAICS 326150), and 

manufacturers of extruded polystyrene 

(NAICS 326140). After considering the 

economic impacts of today’s final rule 

on small entities, I certify this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. EPA does not believe small 

businesses will be adversely impacted 

by this final rule. The majority of the 

small businesses in the foam industry 

operate in polyurethane foam end uses 

as opposed to extruded polystyrene 

(XPS) foam applications (this rule 

covers both). In the context of this rule, 

small businesses (if they are still using 

an HCFC at all) are likely using HCFC–

22 to manufacture pour foam in 

applications such as commercial 

refrigeration, sandwich panels, and 

slabstock and ‘‘other’’ foam. As 

explained below, polyurethane pour 

foam applications operate differently 

than other SNAP applications in that a 

small number of companies supply a 

much larger number of actual pour foam 

manufacturers. 

There are approximately 20 

formulators in the U.S. that supply pour 

foam manufacturers foam systems 

which consist of two drums of 

ingredients including the blowing agent 

(e.g, HCFC–22). Some of the formulators 

are large businesses, but many are small 

and their customers, the foam 

manufacturers, number in the 

thousands. The pour foam 

manufacturers use the foam system to 

produce the actual foam product (e.g., 

vending machine or metal panel). In this 

situation, the formulators are 

responsible for implementing 

alternatives to the ozone-depleting 

blowing agent and providing the pour 

foam manufacturers with systems that 

produce foam meeting the necessary 

requirements, technical or otherwise. 

However, both the formulators and pour 

foam manufacturers are subject to SNAP 

regulations because both use the 

blowing agent. 

Information in the docket EPA–HQ–

OAR–2004–0507 demonstrates that nonODP alternatives are technically viable 

and commercially available. In fact, 

small businesses at both the formulator 

and pour foam manufacturer levels are 

already supplying and using non-ODP 

alternatives in applications such as 

commercial refrigeration, sandwich 

panels and slabstock and ‘‘other’’ foam. 

Therefore, those small businesses will 

not be adversely affected by the rule to 

find HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b 

unacceptable for use because they have 

already implemented alternatives. 

Equally, those small businesses that 

are still using HCFC–22 in pour foam 

applications will not be significantly 

impacted by this rulemaking. It is 

estimated there are thousands of pour 

foam manufacturers, many of which are 

small businesses. However, these 

manufacturers will not be adversely 

impacted by this final rule because they 

buy their pour foam systems from the 

approximately 20 pour foam formulators 

discussed above. Those 20 formulators 

are responsible for implementing the 

alternatives to ozone depleting blowing 

agents (HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b) and 

providing a foam system to the pour 

foam manufacturers that meets all 

technical and performance 

requirements. 

In addition, manufacturers and users 

of HCFCs have had more than 10 years 

to prepare for the January 1, 2010 

deadline for phasing out production of 

HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b in the U.S. 

since the HCFC phaseout schedule was 

established by a separate EPA regulation 

in 1993 (58 FR 65018). Today’s final 

rule would allow continued use of these 

chemicals until March 1, 2008 for pour 

foam manufacturers other than those 

making foam for marine applications, 

and September 1, 2009 for those 

manufacturing foam for marine 

applications, (and until January 1, 2010 

for XPS applications). Furthermore, the 

costs of the HCFC phaseout and the 

transition to non-ozone depleting 

alternatives were accounted for in a 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that 

was performed in 1993 for the phaseout 

rule mentioned above. A memo in the 

docket at EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0507–

0012 details the impacts of this final 

rule, including a discussion of the 

related 1993 phaseout rule and RIA, on 

both the pour foam formulators and 

pour foam manufacturers and concludes 

there will not be significant impact on 

a substantial number of small 

businesses. In fact, most formulators 

that are still using HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b also have implemented 

alternatives and sell both types of 

systems to their customers, the 

manufacturers (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–

0507–0008). Based on this, it is clear 

that alternatives to ODS have been 

identified and there are no technical 

constraints to implementing those 

alternatives. 

EPA updated these analyses and 

developed a screening analysis of small 

business impacts stemming from the 

proposed acceleration of the phase-out 

schedules (Docket # OAR 2004–0507, 

Documents 0038 and 0039). Based on a 

current market assessment, it appears 

that most companies in the affected 

applications already have converted to 

alternatives. By our estimates, there are 

about 40 companies continuing to use 

HCFC–22 for pour-foam applications, of 

which 29 have fewer than 500 

employees. Using the highest identified 

set of cost assumptions, the annual costs 

of a 2008 phase-out exceed the impact 

screening threshold of one percent of 

sales in 10 companies. No firms have an 

impact exceeding the next threshold of 

three percent of sales. Under more likely 

mid-range assumptions, the impacts 

will be smaller. These results indicate 

there will not be a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Although this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless tried to further reduce 

the impact of this rule on small entities. 

Based on acceptability decisions in 

previous final rules, the Agency believes 

that some existing users of HCFC–22 

and HCFC–142b, including small 

businesses, invested in good faith in 

SNAP-approved alternatives that EPA 

now finds unacceptable. Accordingly, it 

is appropriate for EPA to balance their 

interest against our statutory obligation 

to facilitate the transition away from 

ozone depleting chemicals as required 

by the four part test established in Sierra 

Club v. EPA. Grandfathering existing 

users of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b, 

some of which are small businesses, 

allows those users approximately 1–2 

years to transition to non-ODS 

alternatives. (This is the time cited by 

small businesses when explaining their 

transition process in comments to the 

2005 NPRM and 2006 NODA.) 

Similarly, this final rule does not 

negatively impact XPS manufacturers 

because the rule grandfathers existing 

use of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b for 

XPS applications until January 1, 2010. 

While the XPS industry has been 

working to implement alternatives, EPA 

recognizes there are remaining technical 

challenges to completing the transition 

in XPS (Docket # OAR–2004–0507, 

Documents 0002 and 0039). 

Accordingly, the Agency agreed with 

the comments from the XPS 

manufacturers and grandfathered them 

until January 1, 2010 to allow the time 

necessary to develop non-ODS XPS 

foam products that meet all technical 

and building specifications. 

As discussed in the preamble and 

noted in the docket, there are numerous 

alternatives that are technically viable 

and available for all foam applications. 

In fact, some users have already 

transitioned away from HCFC–22 and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14441 

HCFC–142b, particularly in pour foam 

applications (Docket # EPA–HQ–OAR–

2004–0507, Documents 0004—0042). 

The actions in the final rule may well 

provide benefits to small businesses 

which have transitioned to alternatives 

and made good faith efforts and 

investments in the transition because 

they will be able to compete on a level 

playing field with those that are still 

using ODS blowing agents. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or to the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any one year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule. 

The provisions of section 205 do not 

apply when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other 

than the least costly, most cost-effective 

or least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

EPA has determined that this rule 

does not contain a Federal mandate that 

may result in expenditures of $100 

million or more for State, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

the private sector in any one year. 

Today’s final rule does not affect State, 

local, or tribal governments. The 

enforceable requirements of the rule for 

the private sector affect only a small 

number of foam manufacturers that 

could potentially have switched to use 

HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b in the United 

States and those currently using HCFC–

22 and HCFC–142b. With regard to 

potential new users, there are 

technically viable alternatives for those 

manufacturers. With regard to existing 

users, there are viable alternatives that 

will be feasible to use once the 

manufacturers have made the necessary 

adjustments to its facility and products. 

The impact of this rule on the private 

sector is less than $100 million per year. 

Thus, today’s rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. EPA has determined that 

this rule contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

regulation applies directly to facilities 

that use these substances and not to 

governmental entities. 

E. 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 having ‘‘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.’’

This final rule 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This rule 

applies directly to facilities that use 

these substances and not to 

governmental entities. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicited comment on this 

final rule from State and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249 (November 9, 2000)), requires 

EPA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. Today’s rule 

applies directly to facilities using these 

substances and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect the communities of 

Indian tribal governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health & 

Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health & 

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 final 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. The 

use of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b in 

foam manufacture occurs in the 

workplace where we expect adults are 

more likely to be present than children, 

and thus, the agents do not put children 

at risk disproportionately. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. This action 

would impact the manufacture of foam 

using HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b. 

Further, we have concluded that this 

rule is not likely to have any adverse 

energy effects. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14442 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

As noted in the proposed rule, 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. This 

action does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA did not 

consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A Major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective May 29, 2007. 

VIII. Additional Information 

For more information on EPA’s 

process for administering the SNAP 

program or criteria for evaluation of 

substitutes, refer to the SNAP final 

rulemaking published in the Federal 

Register on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 

13044). Notices and rulemakings under 

the SNAP program, as well as EPA 

publications on protection of 

stratospheric ozone, are available from 

EPA’s Ozone Depletion Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ and from the 

Stratospheric Protection Hotline number 

at (800) 296–1996. 

IX. References 

The documents below are referenced 

in the preamble. All documents are 

located in the Docket at the address 

listed in Section I at the beginning of 

this document. Unless specified 

otherwise, all documents are available 

in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–

0507 at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Beauchamp, B., 2005 Comments from Stepan 

Company. (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0507 

item –0011, –0017, –0021, and –0025) 

Begbie, R., 2005. Comment from Exxon Mobil 

Chemical Company. (EPA–HQ–OAR–

2004–0507 item –0007) 

Berglund, T., 2005. Comment from Dynaplast 

Products. (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0507 

item –0006) 

Bernhardt, S., 2005. Comments from 

Honeywell Chemicals. (EPA–HQ–OAR–

2004–0507 item –0009, –0016, –0016.1, 

and –0042) 

Boyer, K., 2005. Comment from Centria. 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0507 item –0005) 

Coyle, M., 2005. Comment from Bally 

Refrigerated Boxes, Inc. (EPA–HQ–OAR–

2004–0507 item –0004) 

Federal Register (FR), vol. 65, p.42653. 

Federal Register (FR), vol. 67, p.47703. 

Federal Register (FR), vol. 70, p.67120. 

Federal Register (FR), vol. 71, p.30353. 

Henderson, J., 2005. Comment from Jeanne 

Henderson. (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0507 

item –0032) 

Herrenbruck, S., 2005. Comments from 

Extruded Polystyrene Foam Association. 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0507 item –0023 

and –0023.1) 

Kalinowski, T., 2005. Comments from Foam 

Supplies, Inc. (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–

0507 item –0008 and –0029) 

Kasakevich, J. 2006. Comments from The 

Dow Chemical Company. (EPA–HQ–

OAR–2004–0507 item –0044 and 

–0044.1) 

Kraus, T., 2005, Comments from The 

Manitowoc Company Inc. (EPA–HQ–

OAR–2004–0507 item –0010 , –0015, 

and –0041) 

LaPlante, A. and M. Powers., 2005. 

Comments from Pacific Environmental 

Advocacy Center. (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–

0507 item –0024, –0024.1, and –0036) 

Lewandowski, P., 2005. Comments from 

Owens Corning. (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–

0507 item –0018 and –0018.1) 

Mathis, P., 2005. Comments from National 

Cooler Division of Hill Phoenix. (EPA–

HQ–OAR–2004–0507 item –0020, –0026, 

–0028, –0031, and –0045) 

Memo from Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Act. 2005. Potential 

Impacts on Small Businesses of a SNAP 

Proposed Rulemaking on the Use of 

HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b in Foam 

Applications. (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–

0507 item –0012) 

RJR Consulting, Inc., 2005. XPS (Extruded 

Polystyrene Foam) Technical SupportStatus of C Conversion from HCFC 

Blowing Agents. (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–

0507 item 0002) 

RJR Consulting, Inc. and Stratus Consulting, 

Inc., 2006a. Technical Viability of SNAP 

Approved Non-Ozone Depleting Blowing 

Agents Available for Pour Foam Blowing 

Applications. (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–

0507 item 0038) 

RJR Consulting, Inc. and Stratus Consulting, 

Inc., 2006b. Review of SNAP Approved 

Non-Ozone Depleting Blowing Agents 

Available to the Extruded Polystyrene 

Foam Industry. (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–

0507 item 0039) 

Stratus Consulting, Inc., and RJR Consulting, 

Inc., 2006. E.O. 12866, RFA, and 

SBREFA Screening Analyses. 

US EPA, 2005. E-mail to the Dow Chemical 

Company. (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0507 

item –0034) 

US EPA, 2005. Memo to File Regarding 

Conversation with Foam Supplies, Inc. 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0507 item –0013) 

US EPA, 2005. Memo to File Regarding 

Meeting with The Dow Chemical 

Company. (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0507 

item –0033) 

US EPA, 2006. Memo to File Regarding 

Meeting with Pacific Environmental 

Advocacy Center. (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–

0507 item –0035) 

US EPA, 2006. Memo to File Regarding 

Meeting with Congressman Petri and 

Manitowoc Company, Inc. (EPA–HQ–

OAR–2004–0507 item –0037) 

US EPA, 2005. Memo to File Regarding A 

Blowing Agent Transition. (EPA–HQ–

OAR–2004–0507 item –0014) 

USEPA, 2005. Protection of Stratospheric 

Ozone: Listing of Ozone Depleting 

Substitutes in Foam Blowing. (EPA–HQ–

OAR–2004–0507 item 0001) 

US EPA, 2006. Protection of Stratospheric 

Ozone: Notice of Data Availability; New 

Information Concerning SNAP Program 

Proposal on Ozone Depleting Substitutes 

in Foam Blowing (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–

0507 item 0040) 

Watson, S., 2005. Comments from Carpenter 

Co. (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0507 item 

–0022, –0022.1, and –0027) 

Weick, M., 2005. Comments from The Dow 

Chemical Company. (EPA–HQ–OAR–

2004–0507 item –0019, –0019.1, –0043, 

and–0043.1) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: March 19, 2007. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 82—PROTECTION OF 

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 

■ 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 

■ 2. Subpart G is amended by adding 

Appendix Q to read as follows: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14443 

Appendix Q to Subpart G of Part 82—

Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in the 

March 28, 2007 Final Rule, Effective 

May 29, 2007. 

FOAM BLOWING UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End use Substitute Decision Further information 

—Rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration ...............

—Rigid polyurethane sandwich panels. 

HCFC–22; HCFC–142b as 

substitutes for HCFC–

141b.

Unacceptable 1 .................. Alternatives exist with 

lower or zero-ODP. 

—Rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams. 

—Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated 

boardstock.

—Rigid polyurethane appliance. 

HCFC–22; HCFC–142b as 

substitutes for CFCs.

Unacceptable 2 .................. Alternatives exist with 

lower or zero-ODP. 

—Rigid polyurethane spray and commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels. 

—Rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams. 

—Polystyrene extruded insulation boardstock and billet. 

—Phenolic insulation board and bunstock. 

—Flexible polyurethane. 

—Polystyrene extruded sheet. 

1For existing users of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b as of November 4, 2005 other than in marine applications, the unacceptability determination 

is effective on March 1, 2008; for existing users of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b as of November 4, 2005 in marine applications, including marine 

flotation foam, the unacceptability determination is effective on September 1, 2009. For an existing user of HCFC–22 or HCFC–142b that currently operates in only one facility that it does not own, and is scheduled to transition to a non-ODS, flammable alternative to coincide with a 

move to a new facility and installation of new process equipment that cannot be completed by March 1, 2008, the unacceptability determination 

is effective January 1, 2010. 2For existing users of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b in polystyrene extruded insulation boardstock and billet and the other foam end uses, as of 

November 4, 2005, the unacceptability determination is effective on January 1, 2010. 

■ 3. In Appendix K to Subpart G, the 

second table (Foam Blowing—

Acceptable Substitutes) is removed. 

[FR Doc. E7–5491 Filed 3–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–481; FRL–8120–1] 

Fluopicolide; Pesticide Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of fluopicolide in 

or on imported grape at 2.0 parts per 

million (ppm), and grape, raisin at 6.0 

ppm with no U.S. registration. Bayer 

CropScience AG requested this 

tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended 

by the Food Quality Protection Act of 

1996 (FQPA). The tolerance petition and 

data was transferred to Valent U.S.A. 

Corporation on January 9, 2006. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

March 28, 2007. Objections and requests 

for hearings must be received on or 

before May 29, 2007, and must be filed 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–

OPP–2006–0481. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the index for the 

docket. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available in the electronic docket at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S–

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The Docket 

telephone number is (703) 305-5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janet Whitehurst, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305-6129; e-mail address: 

janet.whitehurst@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111), 

e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, 

nursery, and floriculture workers; 

farmers. 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, 

dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers. 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; 

greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture 

workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532), e.g., agricultural workers; 

commercial applicators; farmers; 

greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture 

workers; residential users. 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES