24676 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL–5199–7]

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of partial stay and

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: This action promulgates a

partial stay of a provision of the

refrigerant recycling regulations

previously promulgated under section

608 of the Clean Air Act that restricts

the sale of class I or class II refrigerants

contained in appliances without fully

assembled refrigerant circuits. On

January 27, 1995, EPA partially stayed

the effectiveness of 40 CFR 82.154(m),

including the applicable compliance

date, only as it applies to refrigerant

contained in appliances without fully

assembled refrigerant circuits, for three

months. That stay was promulgated

pursuant to Clean Air Act section

307(d)(7)(B), which provides the

Administrator authority to stay for three

months the effectiveness of a rule

during reconsideration.

This document extends the partial

stay of the effectiveness of 40 CFR

82.154(m), including the applicable

compliance date, pursuant to Clean Air

Act section 301(a)(1). The partial stay

will be in effect until such time as EPA

takes final action on its reconsideration

(including any appropriate regulatory

action) of the rules in question.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials

supporting this rulemaking are

contained in Public Docket No. A–92–

01, Waterside Mall (Ground Floor)

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 in

room M–1500. Dockets may be

inspected from 8 a.m. until 5:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday. A reasonable

fee may be charged for copying docket

materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah Ottinger, Program

Implementation Branch, Stratospheric

Protection Division, Office of

Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air

and Radiation (6205–J), 401 M Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 233–

9200. The Stratospheric Ozone

Information Hotline at 1–800–296–1996

can also be contacted for further

information.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

contents of this preamble are listed in

the following outline:

I. Background

II. Rules to be Stayed and Reconsidered

III. Issuance of a Three-Month Stay

IV. Additional Temporary Stay

V. Comments Received

VI. Response to Comments

VII. Authority for Stay

VIII. Effective Date

IX. Supporting Analyses

I. Background

On December 16, 1994, Hamilton

Home Products, a distributor of precharged split air-conditioning systems,

petitioned the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

to reconsider the amendment to the

Refrigerant Recycling Rule promulgated

on October 28, 1994, (59 FR 55912,

November 9, 1994), particularly the

sales restriction provision under 40 CFR

82.154(m) as it applies to refrigerant

contained in appliances without fully

assembled refrigerant circuits. On

January 6, 1995, Hamilton Home

Products filed a petition in the United

States Court of Appeals for the District

of Columbia Circuit seeking review of

this Refrigerant Recycling Rule

(Hamilton Home Products v. U.S. Envtl.

Protection Agency, D.C. Cir. No 95–

1019) EPA has issued a temporary

administrative stay of § 82.154(m) as it

relates to appliances without fully

assembled refrigerant circuits, and has

initiated reconsideration of this

provision (60 FR 14608, March 17,

1995).

II. Rules to be Stayed and Reconsidered

Final regulations published on May

14, 1993 (58 FR 28660), established a

recycling program for ozone-depleting

refrigerants recovered during the

servicing and disposal of airconditioning and refrigeration

equipment. The regulations required

technicians to observe practices that

minimize release of refrigerant to the

environment and to be certified as

knowledgeable of these requirements

(40 CFR 82.154, 82.156, 82.161).

Moreover, to ensure that persons

handling refrigerant are certified

technicians, § 82.154(n) (now (m) by

amendment) prohibited the sale of

refrigerant unless the buyer was a

certified technician or another

exception applied. One exception was

for refrigerant contained in an

appliance. This exception was intended

to permit uncertified individuals to

purchase appliances, such as household

refrigerators, whose installation would

involve very little risk of refrigerant

release (58 FR 28697).

On August 15, 1994, EPA proposed an

amendment to the technician

certification provisions of the rule to

clarify the scope of the activities that

may only be performed by a certified

technician (59 FR 41968). During the

comment period on the proposed rule,

EPA became aware that it also needed

to clarify the exception for pre-charged

appliances from the sales restriction in

light of the other amendments. It was

not clear whether pre-charged split

systems should be considered

appliances, which are excepted, or

components, which are not. Although

sold as a package, a pre-charged split

system is not a fully assembled

appliance.

For the reasons given in the final rule

(59 FR 55921), EPA revised the relevant

paragraphs of § 82.154(n) to read

‘‘Effective November 14, 1994, no

person may sell or distribute, or offer for

sale or distribution, any class I or class

II substance for use as a refrigerant to

any person unless: * * * (6) The

refrigerant is contained in an appliance,

and after January 9, 1995, the refrigerant

is contained in an appliance with a fully

assembled refrigerant circuit * * *.’’

After promulgation of the October 28,

1994, rule and within the 60-day

judicial review period, Hamilton Home

Products (Hamilton) objected to the rule

and submitted information to EPA

regarding the effects of the sales

restriction on pre-charged split systems.

Hamilton claims that it was

impracticable to raise the objection

during the comment period due to lack

of notice. While EPA believes its final

rule is a logical outgrowth of the notice,

the notice itself did not specifically

address pre-charged split systems.

Hamilton’s petition for

reconsideration states that the Quick

Connect assembly used in Hamilton’s

products, which are sold to

homeowners, ‘‘enable[s] homeowners to

have the installation completed with no

refrigerant loss.’’ In addition, Hamilton

states that consumers who buy split

systems themselves, rather than through

a contractor, realize significant savings

even if the consumer hires a contractor

to assemble the refrigerant circuit.

Finally, Hamilton argues that loss of the

split-system market would represent an

extreme economic burden on the

company.

EPA has completed a preliminary

review of Hamilton’s information and is

now reconsidering the sales restriction

provisions in light of this new

information. Hamilton’s information

indicates that the risk of release of

refrigerant during the assembly of quickconnect split systems, and therefore the

benefit of restricting sale of split
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 24677

1EPA considers a ‘‘part’’ to be any component or

set of components that makes up less than an

appliance. For example, this includes line sets,

evaporators, or condensers that are not sold as part

of a set from which one can construct a complete

split system or other appliance. On the other hand,

EPA considers a ‘‘pre-charged split system’’ to be

a set of parts or components, at least one of which

is pre-charged, from which one can assemble a

complete split system. This may include a precharged condenser, pre-charged evaporator, and

pre-charged line set, or simply a pre-charged

condenser sold along with an evaporator and line

set containing only nitrogen.

systems, may be small. At the same

time, the cost to consumers and to

distributors such as Hamilton of

restricting sale of split systems may be

significant.

III. Issuance of Administrative Stay

On January 27, 1995, EPA issued an

immediately effective three-month

administrative stay of the effectiveness

of § 82.154(m), including all applicable

compliance dates, as this provision

applies to refrigerant contained in

appliances without fully assembled

refrigerant circuits (published in the

Federal Register on February 7, 1995 at

60 FR 7386). This stay did not affect

refrigerant contained in pre-charged

parts or bulk containers.1 EPA is

reconsidering this rule, as discussed

above and, following the notice and

comment procedures of section 307(d)

of the Clean Air Act, will take

appropriate action. If the

reconsideration results in restrictions on

the sale of class I and class II

refrigerants that are stricter than the

existing rule, EPA will propose an

adequate compliance period from the

date of final action on reconsideration.

EPA will seek to ensure that the affected

parties are not unduly prejudiced by the

Agency’s reconsideration.

IV. Additional Temporary Stay

EPA will not be able to complete the

reconsideration (including any

appropriate regulatory action) of the

rules stayed by the Administrator

within the three-month period expressly

provided in section 307(d)(7)(B). While

EPA is reconsidering the rules in

question as expeditiously as practicable,

EPA will not be able to issue a proposed

action, seek public comment, and take

final action before the temporary stay

expires on April 27, 1995. Therefore,

EPA believes it is appropriate to extend

temporarily the stay of the effectiveness

of the sales restriction as it applies to

refrigerant contained in appliances

without fully assembled refrigerant

circuits and the applicable compliance

date. EPA is extending the stay from

April 27, 1995, only until EPA

completes final rulemaking upon

reconsideration and that rule becomes

effective.

V. Comments Received

EPA received over 60 comments on

the proposed stay, both supporting and

opposing the stay. In general,

commenters who supported the stay

argued that the stay would allow EPA to

follow full notice and comment

procedures before taking further action

on the sales restriction as it applies to

pre-charged split systems, that the risk

of refrigerant release associated with

purchase of pre-charged split systems by

non-certified persons is small, that

distributors, manufacturers, and

retailers of pre-charged split systems

would be economically harmed by

failure to extend the stay, and that

consumers realize significant savings by

being able to buy pre-charged split

systems from home product centers

rather than through contractors.

Commenters who opposed the stay

argued that the stay would result in

significant refrigerant releases, that the

stay was unfair and inconsistent with

the rest of the section 608 refrigerant

recycling program, that the stay would

harm contractors’ income, and that the

cost to consumers of the sales restriction

was small.

Several commenters who supported

the stay cited EPA’s need to pursue

notice and comment rulemaking in

order to reconsider the sales restriction.

One commenter supported extending

the stay only until Hamilton was able to

clear its shelves of inventory

accumulated before the rule

promulgating the restriction on sale of

split systems was published on

November 9, 1994.

Many commenters who supported the

stay argued that it was not likely to lead

to refrigerant releases. Some stated that

purchasers of pre-charged split systems

would hire certified technicians to

perform the part of the installation that

involves violation of the refrigerant

circuit. These commenters noted that

hiring a certified technician for this task

is still required by law and is often

necessary to preserve the warranty on

the equipment. Commenters also

indicated that the risk of environmental

damage was small no matter who

performed the installation. Several

commenters characterized connection of

quick-connect fittings as being as

‘‘simple as connecting a garden hose’’

and described these connections as free

of leaks.

In addition, Hamilton argued that the

charge size of its split systems is small,

and that the refrigerant is R–22, which

is less harmful to the ozone layer than

some other refrigerants. Moreover,

Hamilton stated that split systems

eliminated emissions from hooking up

gauges and hoses, charging, soldering,

brazing, and transporting refrigerant

containers. Hamilton also stated that use

of its split systems eliminated the risk

of charging the wrong refrigerant into

the air conditioner.

Several commenters noted that their

businesses would be harmed by the

reimposition of the sales restriction.

These commenters included

distributors, parts manufacturers and

suppliers, and ‘‘home center’’ stores.

Hamilton Home Products stated that

reimposing the sales restriction any time

before Labor Day would place Hamilton

in an even worse economic situation

than was the case when the restriction

went into effect on January 9, because

Hamilton has invested heavily in split

systems in order to stay in business

during this air-conditioning season. If

the sales restriction were imposed on

April 27, Hamilton and the Home

Centers would be left with an inventory

in excess of $6 million that could not be

sold. Hamilton would also lose the

value of investments it has made in

sales training and advertising in the

event of reimposition of the sales

restriction. Although Hamilton sells

other products besides pre-charged split

systems (such as furnaces, humidifiers,

and air cleaners), Hamilton claims that

it would not be able to sell these other

products unless it can also sell precharged split systems, because

consumers like to be able to purchase

‘‘total’’ HVAC systems.

Commenters favoring the stay also

stated that consumers save money by

being able to buy air conditioners

through home products stores, rather

than through contractors. According to

Hamilton, contractors often ‘‘bundle’’

equipment and installation, increasing

the price of equipment in order to

increase their profit margins. Thus,

consumers who purchase their own

equipment pay less than consumers

who purchase their equipment through

a contractor, even if the former

subsequently hire a contractor to install

the equipment. Moreover, many

consumers choose to perform the nonrefrigerant part of the installation

themselves, saving more money.

Hamilton claimed that homeowners

purchasing Hamilton split systems save

hundreds and often more than a

thousand dollars. In support of these

statements, Hamilton cited examples of

customers who saved between $2,000

and $3,000 over the price quoted by

major national and regional contractors.

Hamilton argued that contractors

overstate the dangers of release from

split systems because they wish to
24678 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

eliminate competition from Hamilton.

Hamilton concluded that reinstating the

sales restriction would protect against a

non-existent and at worst de minimis

risk at great expense.

Commenters who opposed the stay

argued that the stay would result in

refrigerant release because uncertified

individuals would ultimately install

most pre-charged split systems

purchased directly by consumers, and

special skills and equipment are needed

to properly install these systems. These

commenters disputed the claim that

uncertified purchasers of split systems

would hire certified technicians to

perform the part of the installation that

involves violation of the refrigerant

circuit. First, according to the

commenters, many such purchasers

would buy equipment from home

products stores precisely in order to

avoid paying a third party for

installation. Second, it would be

relatively easy to violate the

requirement to hire a certified

technician without fear of detection.

Commenters also stated that certified

technicians would be reluctant to install

pre-charged split systems purchased by

homeowners because they could not

operate on the wages of an installer and

would not want to become involved in

warranty disputes between the

purchaser and the manufacturer.

Certified technicians therefore either

would refuse to do the work or would

charge high prices for it, discouraging

consumers from hiring them.

Several commenters opposing the stay

stated that both quick-connect and other

types of pre-charged split systems are

difficult to install properly, and that if

these systems are not installed properly,

they tend to leak. These commenters

noted that the quick-connect fittings

must be tightened to a pre-set value in

order to remain leak-free. If the fittings

are under-tightened (for instance

because the installer fails to properly oil

the threads) or over-tightened, they will

leak. According to the commenters,

other parts of the split system can also

release refrigerant if improperly

installed; for instance, tubing may be

kinked and parts of fittings or line sets

may be removed to fit into the available

space. If these parts are pre-charged or

are charged without being leak-checked

and repaired, they will release

refrigerant. One commenter stated that

mechanical fittings should be leak

tested after installation, and that

consumers do not have the equipment

to perform such leak tests.

Commenters noted that other types of

pre-charged split systems, in which only

the condenser is pre-charged with

refrigerant, are even more difficult to

install. In these systems, components

must be soldered or brazed together,

leak tested and, if necessary, repaired,

and evacuated. In addition, the charge

must be checked and, if necessary,

adjusted. These tasks require a range of

equipment that the consumer is not

likely to possess.

A number of contractors who opposed

the stay stated that they frequently

repaired split systems with quickconnect or other mechanical (as

opposed to brazed or soldered) fittings.

One commenter stated that in his

experience, 25% of mechanical fittings

fail within the first year of installation.

Another commenter noted that he

receives several calls in the summer to

service ‘‘do-it-yourselfer’’ units that

have leaked, sometimes releasing the

entire charge.

Some commenters stated that precharged split systems using quickconnect fittings are no longer

manufactured by many manufacturers of

air-conditioning and refrigeration

equipment because such systems tend to

leak even when installed properly, or

are difficult to service.

Two commenters stated that EPA

should consider the fate of the

refrigerant in the air conditioners being

replaced by pre-charged, split systems.

They stated that uncertified persons

probably would not know that this

refrigerant should be recovered, and if

they did, they would not know how to

remove it. As a result, this refrigerant

would be vented to the atmosphere.

Numerous commenters argued that it

was inconsistent and unfair to permit

uncertified consumers to purchase precharged split systems while requiring

technicians and contractors to become

certified and acquire recovery and

recycling equipment in order to remain

in business. These commenters noted

that technicians and contractors had

invested thousands of dollars and

considerable time to meet these

requirements. They also stated that

consumers who have little or no

experience installing air-conditioning

and refrigeration equipment are far more

likely to release refrigerant than

certified technicians. By perpetuating

the stay, the commenters argued, EPA

would be restricting its regulations to

the group of individuals who least need

to be regulated.

In addition, commenters noted that

continued suspension of the restriction

on sale of pre-charged split systems

would be inconsistent with the

restriction on sale of small cans of R–

12 and other bulk containers of

refrigerant, whose use involves

approximately the same risk of

refrigerant release.

Commenters also stated that the stay

would give uncertified contractors a

supply of equipment with which they

could continue operating and would

harm legitimate contractors’ income.

Other commenters expressed the

opinion that Hamilton would not be so

harmed by the restriction as it claims

because it markets other types of split

systems (besides quick-connects) to

technicians. Some commenters stated

the cost to consumers of the stay would

be small, because competition among

contractors restrains prices. Another

commenter stated that any initial

savings to the consumer would be

negated either by higher contractor

installation charges or by the need for

subsequent service and repairs.

Several commenters proposed options

that they believed would permit

consumers to continue purchasing split

systems while eliminating the risk of

refrigerant release. Two commenters

suggested that uncertified persons be

permitted to buy split systems charged

with nitrogen rather than refrigerant.

Another commenter recommended that

consumers be allowed to purchase split

systems, but that certified technicians

be required to accept delivery. EPA will

consider these options in its

reconsideration of the sales restriction.

VI. Response to Comments

EPA is concerned about the risks of

refrigerant release from split systems

identified by commenters who opposed

the stay, and EPA intends to fully

investigate these risks during its

reconsideration of the restriction on sale

of pre-charged split systems. However,

EPA is temporarily extending the stay

because (1) EPA has not yet had an

opportunity to reconsider whether the

adverse environmental impact of

permitting sale of pre-charged split

systems to uncertified technicians

justifies the economic impact of

restricting their sale; (2) the economic

impact of immediate reimposition of the

sales restriction on Hamilton Home

Products and other distributors would

potentially be severe and possibly

irrevocable; and (3) potential

environmental impacts are limited by

the temporary nature of the stay, by the

small size of the market affected, by the

small charge size of residential split

systems, and by the type of refrigerant

in residential split systems.

EPA agrees with Hamilton and other

commenters who supported the stay

that EPA should not reimpose the sales

restriction before EPA has had an

opportunity to conduct more research

and take further comment regarding

both the environmental and economic

impact of a restriction on sale of pre-
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 24679

2EPA recognizes that pre-charged split systems

are also sold for non residential refrigeration and

air-conditioning applications. However, based on

comments received to date, EPA believes that the

majority of split systems sold to uncertified persons

are residential split air-conditioning systems.

3Estimated total sales of residential air

conditioners drawn from ‘‘Execs Predict: 1995

Won’t Repeat 94’s Records,’’ The Air Conditioning,

Heating, and Refrigeration News, January 9, 1995.

charged split systems. The comments on

the stay have suggested a number of

avenues for research, but have not

definitively resolved any issues. EPA

considers it necessary to obtain more

extensive information before making its

decision.

During the next few months,

therefore, EPA plans to seek additional

information regarding several issues.

Specifically, EPA will be investigating

the extent to which warranty and legal

concerns are likely to encourage

purchasers of pre-charged split systems

to hire certified technicians to install

their systems, the percentage of ‘‘quickconnect’’ pre-charged split systems that

release refrigerant during or after

installation, and the percentage of precharged split systems that are sold as

replacements for existing air

conditioners (whose charge should be

removed by a certified technician). EPA

will also attempt to compare the risk of

refrigerant release from assembly of precharged split systems to the risk of

refrigerant release from other activities

for which technician certification is

required. In addition, EPA will be

investigating what fraction of

Hamilton’s air-conditioning and overall

sales are accounted for by quickconnect, pre-charged split systems, and

what prices consumers typically pay for

air conditioners purchased through

contractors as opposed to home centers.

EPA is considering using its authority

under section 114 of the Clean Air Act

to secure information needed to carry

out provisions of the Act in order to

obtain this information and/or related

information.

In addition to gathering more

information, EPA will be investigating

whether regulatory options that lie

between permitting unrestricted sale of

split systems to uncertified persons and

totally banning sale of split systems to

uncertified persons might address any

environmental risk at less cost to

consumers than a total ban on sale of

split systems to uncertified persons.

EPA agrees with Hamilton that the

economic consequences to Hamilton of

reimposing the sales restriction at this

time would be severe. Hamilton noted

that it had approximately $5 million

worth of equipment (including split

systems, furnaces, air cleaners, and

humidifiers) in inventory from last

season. In addition, Hamilton stated that

in order to stay in business during this

air-conditioning season, it has invested

in an additional $3 million in split

systems. Immediate reimposition of the

sales restriction would therefore leave

Hamilton and its ‘‘home center’’

customers with several million dollars

worth of inventory, much of which

could not be sold. (Hamilton states that

home centers are the only market for

Hamilton and its supplier.) In addition,

Hamilton would lose investments in

training and advertising, and would

have to pay freight costs for returned

split systems. EPA believes that these

losses, which would be virtually certain

were EPA to reimpose the sales

restriction immediately and which

could potentially put Hamilton out of

business permanently, are not justified

given that EPA has not had an

opportunity to finish its reconsideration

of the risk of refrigerant release from

split systems purchased by uncertified

individuals.

Moreover, although EPA has not

finished its reconsideration of this risk,

EPA has reason to believe that any

environmental impact from the stay will

be limited. First, the stay is temporary.

EPA expects to complete its

reconsideration and rulemaking

expeditiously, before the end of the

year. If EPA finds that the risk of

refrigerant release from split systems

purchased by uncertified individuals

justifies it, EPA will reimpose the

restriction on sale of split systems to

uncertified individuals at that time.

Second, the market for pre-charged

residential split systems 2 sold directly

to consumers is currently small, and is

not likely to change significantly during

the brief period when the stay will be

in effect. In its comments, Hamilton

stated that it is the only distributor of

pre-charged split systems to home

centers in the U.S., and information

submitted by Hamilton indicates that it

sells less than 10,000 pre-charged split

systems per year. This represents less

than 0.2 percent of the 4.8 million

residential air-conditioners and heat

pumps sold in the U.S. last year.3 Third,

residential split systems typically

contain between four and six pounds of

refrigerant, a relatively small quantity.

Fourth, this refrigerant is R–22, which is

less destructive to stratospheric ozone

than some other refrigerants. Taken

together, these considerations indicate

that the environmental impact from the

stay would be limited, and is not

sufficiently certain to outweigh the

known economic harms.

Therefore, through this action, EPA is

extending the stay of § 82.154(m) and

the applicable compliance date, for

appliances without fully assembled

refrigerant circuits only, until EPA

completes reconsideration of these

regulations. This stay will expire when

the final action regarding § 82.154(m)

and the compliance date, with respect to

refrigerant contained in appliances

without fully assembled refrigerant

circuits, are completed and effective.

VII. Authority for Stay

The stay of the rule and associated

compliance period announced by this

notice are being undertaken pursuant to

sections 608 and 307 of the Clean Air

Act.

VIII. Effective Date

This action will be effective starting

April 27, 1995, and will continue until

EPA takes final action on its

reconsideration of these provisions.

This expedited effective date is

necessary to prevent the restriction on

sale of pre-charged split systems from

being reimposed when the

administrative stay expires on April 27,

before EPA has an opportunity to

complete its reconsideration. Providing

for a 30-day delay in effectiveness after

publication would be impracticable and

contrary to the public interest. Because

the stay relieves a regulatory burden

through extension of the current stay,

there is no need to provide time for

education and compliance. Moreover,

allowing the stay to lapse for a period

of 30 days would briefly reinstate the

sales restriction in an economically

disruptive and harmful manner with

extremely small and uncertain

environmental benefit. Given the lack of

burden upon affected parties and the

need to make the stay effective April 27,

1995, EPA finds good cause for

expediting the effective date of this rule.

EPA believes that this is consistent with

5 U.S.C. 553 (d)(i) and (3).

IX. Summary of Supporting Analyses

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 601–602, requires that Federal

agencies examine the impacts of their

regulations on small entities. Under 5

U.S.C. 604(a), whenever an agency is

required to publish a general notice of

proposed rulemaking, it must prepare

and make available for public comment

an initial regulatory flexibility analysis

(RFA). Such an analysis is not required

if the head of an agency certifies that a

rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities, pursuant to 5

U.S.C. 605(b).
24680 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

This stay relieves a regulatory burden

through extension of the current stay.

Thus, the stay will not have an impact

on the regulated community. An

examination of the impacts of the

section 608 rule as a whole on small

entities was discussed in the final rule

(58 FR 28660). That final rule assessed

the impact the rule may have on small

entities. A separate regulatory impact

analysis accompanied the final rule and

is contained in Docket A–92–01. I

certify that this partial stay of the

refrigerant recycling rule will not have

any additional negative economic

impacts on any small entities.

B. Unfunded Mandate Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires

EPA to prepare a budgetary impact

statement before promulgating a rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditure by state,

local, and tribal governments, in

aggregate, or by the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year.

Section 203 requires the Agency to

establish a plan for obtaining input from

and informing any small governments

that may be significantly or uniquely

affected by the rule. Section 205

requires that regulatory alternatives be

considered before promulgating a rule

for which a budgetary impact statement

is prepared. The Agency must select the

least costly, most cost-effective, or least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the rule’s objectives, unless there is an

explanation why this alternative is not

selected or this alternative is

inconsistent with law.

This stay relieves a regulatory burden;

therefore, it is not expected to result in

the expenditure of any additional funds

by state, local, or tribal governments, or

by the private sector. Because this stay

is not estimated to result in the

expenditure of any additional funds by

state, local, and tribal governments, or

by the private sector, the Agency has

neither prepared a budgetary impact

statement nor addressed the selection of

the least costly, most cost-effective, or

least burdensome alternative. Small

governments will not be affected at all

by this rule; therefore, the Agency is not

required to develop a plan with regard

to small governments.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

Administrative practice and

procedure, Air pollution control,

Chemicals, Chlorofluorocarbons,

Exports, Hydrochlorofluorocarbons,

Imports, Interstate commerce,

Nonessential products, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Stratospheric ozone layer.

Dated: April 24, 1995.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

Part 82, chapter I, title 40, of the Code

of Federal Regulations, is amended to

read as follows:

PART 82—PROTECTION OF

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

1. The authority citation for part 82

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671–

7671q.

2. Section 82.154 is amended by

revising paragraph (m)(9) to read as

follows:

§ 82.154 Prohibitions.

* * * * *

(m) * * *

(9) Rules stayed for reconsideration.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of

this subpart, the effectiveness of 40 CFR

82.154(m), only as it applies to

refrigerant contained in appliances

without fully assembled refrigerant

circuits, is stayed from April 27, 1995,

until EPA takes final action on its

reconsideration of these provisions. EPA

will publish any such final action in the

Federal Register.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–10617 Filed 5–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P