[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
