[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 4, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65339-65340]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26093]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0946]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Housatonic River, Stratford, CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Metro North (Devon) Bridge, across
the Housatonic River, mile 3.9, at Stratford, Connecticut. This
deviation is necessary to facilitate repairs to the miter plates and
headlocks at the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in

the closed position for 45 days to facilitate the repairs.

DATES: This deviation is effective from November 5, 2014 through
December 19, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2014-0946] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
deviation, call or email Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First
Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl
Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Metro North (Devon) Bridge across the
Housatonic River, mile 3.9, has a vertical clearance in the closed
position of 19 feet at mean high water and 25 feet at mean low water.
The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR
117.207(b).
    The Housatonic River is transited by commercial barges and seasonal
recreational vessel traffic.
    The bridge owner, Metro North, requested a bridge closure for 45
days to facilitate repairs to the miter plates and headlocks at the
bridge.
    Under this temporary deviation, the Metro North (Devon) Bridge may
remain in the closed position from 10 a.m. on November 5, 2014 through
2 p.m. on December 19, 2014; except that, the draw shall open on
Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays during the repair period, after at least
a 24 hour advance notice is given.
    There are no alternate routes for vessel traffic; however, vessels
that can pass under the closed draw during this closure may do so at
any time. The bridge may be opened in the event of an emergency.
    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our
Local and or Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridges so that vessels can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: October 24, 2014.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014-26093 Filed 11-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 59)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 14432-14443]
[DOCID:fr28mr07-13]

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

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
http://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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-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

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  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,

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  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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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
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

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 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  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

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 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  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 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
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-

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 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  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

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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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.

    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  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

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 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.

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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

 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:

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