[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 28, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14432-14443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5491]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bfdcd0d7dad191d5dad9d9ffdacfde91d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4d2e222528236327282b2b0d283d2c632a223b">[email protected]</span></a>. 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  NAICS code or        Description of
           Category                 subsector        regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................  326150...........  Urethane and Other
                                                    Foam Product (except
                                                    Polystyrene)
                                                    Manufacturing.
Industry......................  326140...........  Polystyrene Foam
                                                    Product
                                                    Manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 14433]]

    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:
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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-and-comment rulemaking 
is required to place any alternative on the list of prohibited 
substitutes, to list a substitute as acceptable only under certain use 
conditions or narrowed use limits, or to remove an alternative from 
either the list of prohibited or acceptable substitutes.

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

[[Page 14434]]

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 non-ODS alternative 
blowing agents, including hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrocarbons, 
carbon dioxide, and other compounds, as acceptable substitutes in foam 
blowing.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Historically, 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).
    \2\ The phaseout schedule was established on December 10, 1993 
(58 FR 65018) as authorized under section 606 of the Clean Air Act.
    \3\ These 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ At 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ After 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 <greek-i> 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,

[[Page 14435]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
SNAP-approved 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Similarly, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 <greek-i> 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 <greek-i> EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-
0507, Document 0038).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Pour 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 <greek-i> 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0507, Document 0038):
    <bullet> Non-ODS alternatives for pour foam applications are 
available, currently being formulated by systems houses, and 
technically viable across all pour foam applications.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 14436]]

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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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 <greek-i> 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 non-ODS 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 
four-part 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Other 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 <greek-i> EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0507, Documents 0002 
and 0039). XPS manufacturers project that based on the January 1, 2010 
phase-out date, formulations of non-ODS 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

[[Page 14437]]

customers, and code bodies (Docket <greek-i> 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 end-product 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-the-
shelf products (Docket <greek-i> 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 <greek-i> 
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 <greek-i> 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 <greek-i> 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 non-ODS alternatives are available proven to 
meet technical specifications and market needs, and the majority, if 
not all systems houses, have developed non-ODS 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 <greek-i> 
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 <greek-i> 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 <greek-i> 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 <greek-i> EPA-HQ-

[[Page 14438]]

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:
    <bullet> EPA should withdraw its proposal to list HCFC-142b and 
HCFC-22 as unacceptable in the foams sector;
    <bullet> The Agency has no authority to designate a substitute 
previously listed as acceptable as unacceptable without a specific SNAP 
petition;
    <bullet> 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 non-ODS 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 <greek-i> 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 SNAP-approved 
(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 non-ODP 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

[[Page 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 phase-
out 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#39584c5b40174a4c4a5857795c4958175e564f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="630216011a4d101610020d230613024d040c15">[email protected]</span></a>, 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.

[[Page 14440]]

    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 
non-ODP 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 <greek-i> 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 <greek-i> 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

[[Page 14441]]

HCFC-142b, particularly in pour foam applications (Docket <greek-i> 
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 cost-effective 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.

[[Page 14442]]

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 Support-Status 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.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended as 
follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

0
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671--7671q.

Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

0
2. Subpart G is amended by adding Appendix Q to read as follows:

[[Page 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        HCFC-22; HCFC-142b as    Unacceptable \1\.......  Alternatives exist with
 refrigeration.                         substitutes for HCFC-                             lower or zero-ODP.
--Rigid polyurethane sandwich panels.   141b.
--Rigid polyurethane slabstock and
 other foams.
--Rigid polyurethane and               HCFC-22; HCFC-142b as    Unacceptable \2\.......  Alternatives exist with
 polyisocyanurate laminated             substitutes for CFCs.                             lower or zero-ODP.
 boardstock.
--Rigid polyurethane appliance.......
--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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For 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.
\2\ For 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.


0
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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>