Protection of Stratospheric Ozone

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