[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24676-24680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10617]




[[Page 24675]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 82



Stratospheric Ozone Protection; Final Rule

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

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 pre-
charged 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 Sec. 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 air-conditioning 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, Sec. 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 Sec. 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 quick-connect split 
systems, and therefore the benefit of restricting sale of split 
[[Page 24677]] 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 Sec. 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.

    \1\EPA 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 pre-charged 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 pre-charged 
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 non-refrigerant 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 [[Page 24678]] 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 quick-connect 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 pre-charged split systems using quick-
connect 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 pre-charged 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- [[Page 24679]] 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 
``quick-connect'' pre-charged split systems that release refrigerant 
during or after installation, and the percentage of pre-charged 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 pre-charged 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 quick-connect, 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 systems2 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.

    \2\EPA 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.
    \3\Estimated 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, through this action, EPA is extending the stay of 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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). [[Page 24680]] 
    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:


Sec. 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