Vol. 57 No. 135 Tuesday, July 14, 1992 p 31242 (Rule)
1/3393
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-4150-7]
RIN 2060-AD50
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule establishes standards and requirements
for servicing of motor vehicle air conditioners, and restricts
the sale of small containers of ozone-depleting substances,
under section 609 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (Act).
Specifically,
the regulations require persons who repair or service motor
vehicle air-conditioning units for consideration to be certified
in refrigerant recovery and recycling and to properly use approved
equipment when performing service involving the refrigerant.
Finally, effective November 15, 1992, the regulations prohibit
the sale of containers of ozone depleting substances under 20
pounds except to certified technicians.
DATES: This final regulation is effective August 13, 1992.
Note: Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, EPA hereby
finds that these regulations are of national applicability.
Accordingly, judicial review of this action is available only
by the filing of a petition for review in the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
within 60 days of publication. Under Section 307(b)(2) of the
Act, the requirements that are the subject of today's notice
may not be challenged later in judicial proceedings brought
by EPA to enforce these requirements.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials supporting this rulemaking
are contained in Public Docket No. A-91-41 in room M-1500,
Waterside
Mall (Ground Floor), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. Dockets may be inspected
from 8:30 a.m. until 12 noon, and from 1:30 p.m. until 3 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying
docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lena Nirk, Stratospheric Ozone
Protection Branch, Global Change Division, Office of Atmospheric
and Indoor Air Programs, Office of Air and Radiation (6202-J),
401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. (202) 233-9147. The
Stratospheric Ozone Information Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 can
also be contacted for further information.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of today's preamble
are listed in the following outline:
I. Background
A. Statutory Authority
B. Ozone Depletion
C. Montreal Protocol
D. Excise Tax
E. London Amendments
F. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
G. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
H. September 4, 1991 Proposed Rule and April 22, 1992 Supplemental
Proposal
II. Summary of Public Participation
III. Response to Major Public Comments
A. Definitions
B. Equipment Certification
C. Independent Standards Testing Organizations
D. Technician Training and Certification
E. Small Container Restrictions
F. Equipment Certification and Small Entity Certification
G. Relationship to State Regulations
H. Recordkeeping Requirements
IV. Summary of Today's Final Rule
V. Effective Date
VI. Summary of Supporting Analyses
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Background
A. Statutory Authority
Section 609 of the Act requires the Administrator to promulgate
regulations establishing standards and requirements regarding
the servicing of motor vehicle air conditioners. This section
also prohibits the sale of small containers of ozone depleting
substances, except to certified technicians. Title VI of the
Act is designed to protect the stratospheric ozone layer.
B. Ozone Depletion
The stratospheric ozone layer protects the earth from the
penetration of ultraviolot (UV-B) radiation. A national and
international consensus exists that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),
halons, carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform must be
restricted
because of the risk of depletion of the stratospheric ozone
layer through the release of chlorine and bromine. To the extent
depletion occurs, penetration of UV-B radiation increases,
resulting
in potential health and environmental harm including increased
incidence of certain skin cancers and cataracts, suppression
of the immune system, damage to plants including crops and aquatic
organisms, increased formation of ground-level ozone and increased
weathering of outdoor plastics. (See 53 FR 30566, August 12,
1988 for more information on the effects of ozone depletion.)
The original theory linking CFCs to ozone depletion was first
proposed in 1974. Since then, the scientific community has made
remarkable advances in understanding atmospheric processes
affecting
stratospheric ozone science. Model predictions in the late 1980s
suggested that continued use of CFCs would lead to substantial
ozone depletion in the middle of the next century. Despite the
sophistication of these models, scientists were unable to predict
the extent of the decrease in stratospheric ozone over Antarctica
that was first reported in 1985. This seasonal loss of ozone
over the south pole became known as the "Antarctic ozone hole".
In 1988, the results of an international assessment of ozone
trends were published in the Executive Summary of the Ozone
Trends Panel Report. In addition to the ozone hole, this report
stated that analysis of total-column ozone data showed measurable
downward trends from 1969 to 1988 of 3 to 5 percent in the northern
hemisphere in the winter. In early 1991, new scientific evidence
indicated an annual loss of stratospheric ozone over the northern
mid-latitudes during the past decade of 3 to 5 percent. This
amount is 2 times greater than past studies suggested and
illustrated
the concern that ozone depletion appears to be occurring faster
than theoretical models had predicted. The latest scientific
assessment showed for the first time stratospheric ozone depletion
in summertime over the continental United States.
C. Montreal Protocol
In September 1987, the United States and 22 other countries
signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer. As originally drafted, the Protocol called for
production and consumption of CFCs (CFC-11, 12, 113, 114, 115)
and Halon-1211, -1301 and -2402 to be frozen at 1986 levels
beginning July 1, 1989 and January 1, 1992 respectively, and
for the CFCs to be reduced to 50 percent of 1986 levels by 1998.
To date, 75 nations representing well over 90% of the world's
production capacity have signed the Montreal Protocol. EPA
promulgated
regulations implementing the requirements of the 1987 Protocol
through a system of tradable allowances (53 FR 30566, August
12, 1988). EPA apportioned the allowances to producers and
importers
of ozone depleting substances (controlled substances) based
on their 1986 level of production and importation. It then reduced
the allowances for the controlled substances according to the
schedule specified in the Protocol.
D. Excise Tax
As part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989,
the U.S. Congress levied an excise tax on the sale of CFCs and
other chemicals that deplete the ozone layer, with specific
exemptions for exports and recycling. The tax has operated as
a complement to EPA's regulations limiting production and
consumption
by increasing the costs of using virgin controlled substances.
As a result of the tax, there is an added incentive for industry
to shift out of controlled substances and to increase recycling
activities. The tax has also stimulated the market for alternative
chemicals and processes. The original excise tax was amended
in 1991 to include methyl chloroform, carbon tetrachloride and
other CFCs regulated by the amended Montreal Protocol and title
VI of the Clean Air Act.
E. London Amendments
Since the signing of the Protocol in 1987, additional scientific
evidence became available indicating that depletion of the
stratospheric
ozone layer was occurring more quickly than had been anticipated.
In response to this evidence (i.e. the 1988 Ozone Trends Panel
Report), the Parties to the Protocol at their meeting in London
in June 1990 amended the Protocol schedule for CFCs and halons
to require a complete phaseout by January 1, 2000. Methyl
chloroform
and carbon tetrachloride were added to the list of ozone depleting
substances, with carbon tetrachloride phased out by January
1, 2000 and methyl chloroform phased out by January 1, 2005.
The parties also passed a non-binding resolution regarding
the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFCs). HCFCs have been
identified as interim substitutes for CFCs because they add
much less chlorine to the stratosphere than fully halogenated
CFCs. The Parties were concerned, however, that rapid growth
in the amount of use of these chemicals over time would still
pose a threat to the ozone layer. As a result, the resolution
calls for the phaseout of HCFCs by 2020 if feasible and no later
than 2040 in any case.
F. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On May 1, 1990, EPA published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM, 55 FR 18256) addressing issues related to
the development of a national recycling program. This notice
emphasized that in addition to delaying or reducing the release
of ozone depleting substances, recycling is important for avoiding
the cost of early retirement or retrofit of equipment requiring
CFCs for service past the year in which production is eliminated.
Although the Agency continues to investigate destruction of
these chemicals, at this time it believes that continuing to
use these substances through recycling in existing equipment
can serve as a useful bridge to alternative products while
minimizing
disruption in the utilization of the current capital stock of
equipment, preventing costly early retirement of equipment.
The ANPRM asked for comment on the feasibility of recycling
in various CFC end uses and also asked for comment on methods,
such as a deposit/refund system, that could be employed to further
enhance recycling. The Agency received 110 public comments in
response to the ANPRM. In general, most commenters recognized
the need for recycling to help efforts to protect the ozone
layer and to provide a source of supply to service existing
capital equipment past the end of production.
The ANPRM also described the cooperative project undertaken
between EPA, the Mobile Air Conditioning Society, the Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA), the Automotive Importers
of America, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), the American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers,
Inc. (ASHRAE), manufacturers of recover/recycling equipment,
automotive industry representatives, and environmental groups
to develop recycling of motor vehicle air conditioning refrigerant.
This group participated in projects that led to the development
of a purity standard for recycled refrigerant for motor vehicles
(SAE J1991), a service procedure standard (SAE J1989), and a
standard for the recycling equipment (SAE J1990). For a more
detailed discussion of the voluntary program, see the NPRM
published
September 4, 1991 (56 FR 43842).
G. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, signed November 15,
1990, include requirements for controlling ozone-depleting
substances
which are generally consistent with, but in some cases more
stringent than those contained in the revised Montreal Protocol.
For the substances covered by the revised Protocol's control
measures ("class I" substances including fully halogenated CFCs,
Halons, methyl chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride), title
VI of the Act calls for a phase-out by January 1, 2000 with
deeper interim reductions and, in the case of methyl chloroform,
an earlier phaseout date (2002 instead of 2005). For the HCFCs
("class II" substances), title VI requires use restrictions,
a production freeze in 2015 and a phaseout in 2030. EPA issued
a temporary final rule on March 6, 1991 implementing the production
and consumption limits contained in the Act for calendar year
1991. (See 56 FR 9518.) The Agency published proposed regulations
for 1992 and beyond on September 30, 1991 (See 56 FR 49548).
In addition to the phaseout of ozone depleting substances,
title VI includes provisions to reduce emissions of all ozone-
depleting substances. Section 608 contains requirements for
EPA to promulgate a regulation to achieve a "lowest achievable
level" of emissions of controlled substances during use and
disposal of appliances and industrial process refrigeration
and bans intentional venting at service and disposal. Section
609, which today's notice implements, requires standards for
certification of technicians and for equipment used in the
servicing
of motor vehicle air conditioners and restricts the sale of
small containers of CFCs. A nonessential products ban and mandatory
labeling are required in sections 610 and 611, respectively,
and a program to review the safety of alternatives to controlled
substances is required under section 612.
H. September 4, 1991 Proposed Rule and April 22, 1992 Supplemental
Proposal
In a notice of proposed rulemaking published on September
4, 1991 (56 FR 43842), EPA discussed many of the important issues
surrounding implementation of Section 609 of the Act. The proposal
discussed various requirements, all designed to limit the release
of refrigerant during the service of motor vehicle air
conditioners.
The following is a short description of the major components
of the September 4 Notice.
EPA proposed definitions for the terms "motor vehicle," "motor
vehicle air conditioner," "service for consideration," "service
involving refrigerant," "approved refrigerant recycling equipment,"
and "properly using." These proposed definitions would apply
only to regulations under section 609. In describing these
definitions,
EPA discussed the legal and policy aspects of the various options
considered.
With respect to approved refrigerant recycling equipment,
EPA proposed approval of two kinds of equipment-equipment that
recovered and recycled the refrigerant, and equipment that only
recovered the refrigerant. Standards for approval of
recovery/recycle
equipment were proposed in appendix A of the proposal. These
standards consisted of the two SAE standards specifically mentioned
in the Act (SAE J1990, SAE J1989). They contain appropriate
service procedures for recycling refrigerant in motor vehicles,
and equipment specifications for recover/recycle machines. Appendix
A also contained the SAE standard of purity for refrigerant
recycled on-site at a service establishment (SAE J1991).
Appendix B was reserved for the technical standard for recover
only equipment. Proposed appendix B was published in a supplemental
notice dated April 22, 1992 (57 FR 14763). This proposed standard
closely resembles another SAE standard (SAE J2209) written
specifically
for equipment that removes refrigerant from motor vehicle air
conditioners but does not purify it. That standard will be
finalized,
upon completion of the public comment period, in a separate
rulemaking.
Under the proposal, an EPA approved "independent standards
testing organization" would certify that equipment met the
applicable
standards. Upon such certification, the equipment would meet
EPA's definition of approved refrigerant recycling equipment.
The September proposal outlined the procedures for EPA approval
of independent standards testing organizations. These approved
organizations would test equipment and certify that equipment
met the applicable standards. EPA proposed standards for the
proper use of approved equipment, as well as a procedure for
EPA determination of whether equipment was "substantially
identical"
to approved equipment.{1}
³{1} Substantially identical equipment purchased on or
³before the date of EPA's proposal would be deemed to
³be approved equipment.
In addition to using approved equipment, service or repair
technicians would have to be trained and certified by an approved
technician training and certification program. The proposal
described the standards for approval of such programs, as well
as application procedures.
The January 1, 1992 effective date would be delayed for one
year for small volume shops-entities that serviced less than
100 motor vehicle air conditioners during 1990. This one year
delay would apply only for those small entities that filed a
small entity certification with EPA on or before January 1,
1992. In addition, as of November 15, 1992, the sale or
distribution
of class I or class II substances suitable for use in motor
vehicle air conditioners was restricted in containers of less
than 20 pounds of such substances to persons who were properly
trained and certified under the regulation, or who purchased
them for resale only.
The Agency proposed certification and recordkeeping requirements
needed for compliance monitoring. In addition to the statutorily
required certification to the Administrator of small entity
status and equipment ownership, the Agency proposed that service
establishments retain records of service events and amounts
of refrigerant purchased. The amount of refrigerant sent to
reclamation facilities would have to be recorded and sellers
of refrigerant would be required to record technician certification
numbers and amounts sold.
In developing the proposed rule, the Agency received guidance
from the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Advisory Council (STOPAC)
subcommittee for Servicing of Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning.
This subcommittee was made up of members of the original STOPAC
that advised the Agency on the development of the production
phase-out requirements and the international negotiations, as
well as additional representatives from the automobile industry,
environmental groups, and State and local government. Several
members of the voluntary program described in section I.F. also
participated. The Agency wishes to acknowledge their valuable
assistance in the development of the proposal.
II. Summary of Public Participation
A public hearing on the proposed rule was held on September
13, 1991. Six groups presented oral comments on the proposed
requirements and submitted written testimony to the Agency.
A transcript of the hearing is contained in the public docket.
The agency received a total of 68 letters on the proposed
rule. The technician certification standards were frequently
addressed. Commenters requested clarification of the term
"independent
testing authority". Many commenters addressed the effectiveness
and validity of a minimum standard that allowed unproctored
testing. Several commenters requested the option of developing
their own training and certification programs. Commenters also
frequently addressed the definition and use of approved equipment.
In general, there was significant support for the Agency's option
of allowing both recover only and recover/recycle equipment,
although several comments expressed serious concern over misuse
of equipment and refrigerant contamination.
Several commenters requested clarification of the recordkeeping
requirements for their specific circumstances. Commenters also
addressed the relationship between state and federal regulatory
requirements. Many expressed concern about the continued sale
of small containers of class I and class II substances and possible
adverse consequences if alternative refrigerants are used in
equipment. Other issues addressed in the comments included the
substantially identical equipment determination and equipment
testing and labeling.
III. Responses to Major Public Comments
A document summarizing the public comments to this rulemaking
is available in the public docket for this final rule. The major
issues raised by the commenters and the Agency's responses to
them are described below. Other comments are addressed in the
comment response document also found in the public docket.
A. Definitions
1. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners
Several commenters addressed EPA's proposed definitions of
"motor vehicle" and "motor vehicle air conditioner." As proposed,
motor vehicle would be defined as "any vehicle which is self-
propelled and designed for transporting persons or property,
including but not limited to passenger cars, light duty vehicles,
heavy duty vehicles, farm vehicles and construction equipment."
The definition of motor vehicle air conditioner was proposed
as a "mechanical compression refrigeration equipment used to
cool the driver's or passenger's compartment of any motor vehicle.
This definition is not intended to encompass the hermetically
sealed refrigeration systems used on vehicles for refrigerated
cargo." While the hermetically sealed refrigeration system that
cools the storage container of a refrigerated transport truck
would be excluded, the unit that cools the driver or passenger
compartment of such a truck would be included.
As proposed a broad array of vehicles would be defined as
a motor vehicle for purposes of regulation under section 609
of the Act. Coverage would extend beyond the definition of motor
vehicle used for purposes of title II, part A of the Act, and
should include a wide variety of off-road equipment, trains,
and mining equipment. In the notice of proposed rulemaking,
EPA noted that the passenger air conditioner units for these
vehicles use CFC-12 as the refrigerant, with the possibility
that future refrigerants such as HFC-134a would be used. EPA
was concerned about the breadth of coverage in the proposed
definition of motor vehicle, and therefore specifically requested
comment on inclusion of off-road vehicles in the definition
of motor vehicle.
Several commenters discussed this issue, and in general
counseled
caution in extending the section 609 regulations beyond the
scope of vehicles defined as a motor vehicle for the purposes
of title II of the Act. They argued that the proposed definition
of motor vehicle was too broad, and should not include farm
and construction equipment. They viewed the definition of motor
vehicle in title II as controlling. In the alternative, they
suggested EPA conduct a study of the contribution of CFC's from
air conditioner servicing for such off-road vehicles, and the
potential regulatory burdens of extending section 609 to them,
before including such vehicles in the section 609 program. The
commenters argued that the flexibility was needed, given the
unique circumstances of off-road equipment dealers, the fact
that repair and maintenance of off-road vehicles is often performed
in the field, and the seasonal and sporadic demand for air
conditioner
repairs for these vehicles. At the same time, other commenters
argued that EPA should include off-road equipment, aircraft,
and marine vessels in its definition of motor vehicle, to provide
broad coverage under section 609 regulations.
EPA has decided to limit the definition of motor vehicle
for purposes of section 609 to include only those vehicles that
meet the definition of motor vehicle under section 216(2) of
the Act. While EPA does not believe that section 609 precludes
a broader definition,{2} the Agency believes the best exercise
of its discretion is to exclude off-road vehicles from the
definition
of motor vehicle at this time, given the significantly different
circumstances presented by off-road vehicles.
³{2} EPA is not persuaded by commenters' arguments that
³Section 609 is limited by law to motor vehicles as
defined
³in section 216(2). First, the definition of motor
vehicle
³found in Section 216(2) of the Act is explicitly
limited
³in application to part A of title II. In addition,
neither
³the statute nor the legislative history for Section 609
³indicates that motor vehicle as used in that section
³is limited by law to those vehicles included in the
title
³II part A definition.
EPA expects that implementation of the section 609 regulations
adopted today will occur in a smooth and straightforward manner
for on-road vehicles; the industry has been involved in a voluntary
recycling effort for several years, and there is a general
uniformity
in the type of vehicle and air conditioner covered by the
definition,
as well as uniformity in service and repair circumstances. Off-
road vehicles, however, present a different picture. These vehicles
differ widely in nature, reflecting the broad array of industries
in which they are used. Some are mobile but many are not,
potentially
leading to a wide variety of service and repair circumstances.
Certain of these industries have been involved with the voluntary
recycling program, but as a whole they have not been closely
involved as the traditional motor vehicle sector.
As noted by the commenters, these differences pose a wide
variety of potential problems, ranging from access to reclamation
centers to difficulties in air conditioner servicing. EPA therefore
believes it is appropriate at this time to confine the definition
of motor vehicle for purposes of section 609 to on-road
vehicles.{3}
These vehicles encompass the overwhelming majority of vehicle
air conditioners, and constitute the core group Congress meant
to cover under section 609.
³{3} To avoid confusion, vehicles that otherwise meet
³the definition of motor vehicle are covered by these
³regulations notwithstanding their use, for example, on
³farms or construction sites.
At the same time, EPA is aware that voluntary recycling is
expanding in certain segments of the off-road sector, and supports
such efforts. EPA will consider these off-road vehicles under
the section 608 program, which extends to all uses of class
I and II substances as refrigerants. For all of these reasons,
EPA therefore believes that the definition of motor vehicle
being promulgated as part of these regulations should have no
adverse environmental effects.
The Agency would also like to clarify that the HCFC-22 air
conditioner systems typically found in buses are not included
in the definition of motor vehicle air conditioner at this time,
because these systems are more akin to stationary units in their
functioning and the type of refrigerant they use. In addition,
the SAE standards referenced in the Act and the certified recycling
equipment developed under those standards is not appropriate
for use with HCFC-22 systems. EPA expects that such HCFC-22
air conditioning systems will be subject to the venting prohibition
in section 608 of the Act and that the servicing of these systems
will be covered by the regulations implementing section 608.
Finally, the Agency wishes to respond to comments from the
Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Association (MVMA), Navistar, and
the John Deere Company that questioned whether the charging
and/or repair of motor vehicle air conditioners, prior to
completion
of final assembly of the vehicle, should be covered by this
regulation. In additional comments received after the close
of the comment period, MVMA highlighted that the type of equipment
currently used in the manufacturing facility to recover refrigerant
during repairs is "specialized production equipment singularly
intended for high volume operation in delivering clean refrigerant
to every unit, every time. Such large volume equipment is designed
to be a permanent, stationary fixture in the plant * * *". The
comments state further that "[i]ndustry equipment used during
the manufacturing process clearly meets the substantive
requirements
of the proposed regulation even though, because of its in-line
nature, Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) or other certification
does not exist and is not appropriate." This type of equipment
was contrasted to the small, low volume, moveable equipment
found in the service sector. EPA believes the repair of newly
manufactured units is not likely to be a common occurrence and
when it does occur, the manufacturing facilities clearly use
equipment to recover and recycle the refrigerant so that it
may be reintroduced once the motor vehicle air conditioner is
repaired. The equipment is significantly different from the
kind of equipment covered by EPA's definition of approved
equipment,
yet serves the purpose of such equipment equally well. In addition,
the technicians performing this operation are typically
manufacturing
employees, not service technicians. For all these reasons, the
Agency believes it is not necessary at this time to extend the
requirements of this servicing regulation into the assembly
operation.
MVMA did note that the manufacturer's garages perform air
conditioner service and repair activities on company-owned fleet
vehicles that is akin to the service and repair performed by
dealerships. EPA agrees with MVMA that such repair and service
activities should be and are fully covered by today's regulation.
EPA wants to be clear that this exclusion is limited to final
assembly activities conducted by the vehicle's original
manufacturer,
and does not include service or repair activities conducted,
for example, by a dealer.
2. Refrigerant
This term is defined to mean any class I or class II substance
used in a motor vehicle air conditioner and, effective November
15, 1995 (five years after enactment of the Act), any substitute
substance, such as HFC-134a. For clarity, this additional provision
of section 609(b)(1) was added to the definition.
The Agency emphasizes that any blend of substance that includes
a class I or class II substances, such as R-176 (a blend of
CFC-12, HCFC-142b and HCFC-22), is included under today's
requirements
and must be recovered or recycled at service. EPA also is
evaluating
the impact of alternative refrigerants, including R-176, on
the effectiveness of its recycling efforts.
3. Service Involving Refrigerant
The Agency stated in the proposal that the intent of the
Act is to require recycling of refrigerant in motor vehicle
air conditioners whenever service is being performed that may
release refrigerant to the atmosphere. This includes service
of motor vehicle air conditioners and service of other motor
vehicle components that may require some dismantling of the
motor vehicle air conditioning system. Servicing of motor vehicle
air conditioners, therefore, includes repairs, leak testing,
and "topping off" of air conditioning systems low on refrigerant,
as well as any other repair which requires some dismantling
of the air conditioner. Each of these operations involves a
reasonable risk of releasing refrigerant to the atmosphere.
Four commenters stated that if recovery of refrigerant at
disposal is not required under section 609, it should be covered
by the safe disposal program under section 608. As stated in
the proposal, EPA would like to encourage recovery of refrigerant
at disposal. The specific requirements for recovery at disposal,
it any, may be addressed in the regulations implementing the
safe disposal program under section 608 of the Act. The Agency
will consider the commenters' suggestions on this issue when
addressing the safe disposal requirements under section 608.
4. Service For Consideration
In the proposed rule, the Agency interpreted "service for
consideration" to include persons who are paid to perform service
on motor vehicle air conditioners, thus subjecting to regulation
all service except that done for free. Several commenters
questioned
whether fleets are included. The Agency would like to clarify
that fleets of vehicles, whether private, or federal, state
or local government owned, are covered because the technicians
doing the service are being paid. Other examples of establishments
doing service covered by the regulations include, not are not
limited to, independent repair shops, service stations, fleet
shops, body shops, chain or franchised repair shops, new or
used car and truck dealers, rental establishments, radiator
repair shops, mobile repair operations, vocational technical
schools (because instructors are paid), farm equipment dealerships,
and fleets of vehicles at airports.
Two commenters suggested adding the recover, recycle, reclaim
definitions to the rule language with the definition of service.
The Agency did not propose this and will not be incorporating
the definitions formally into rule language now. The meaning
of these words may evolve over time with continued technological
innovation. The Agency does not wish to impede this progress
through inclusion of a definition of these terms in the
regulations.
Comments from MVMA, Navistar, and the John Deere Company
questioned whether the charging and/or repair prior to the
completion
of final assembly is covered under the "service for consideration"
definition. As previously discussed in section III.A.1., a motor
vehicle air conditioner is not subject to these regulations
prior to the completion of final assembly of the vehicle by
the original equipment manufacturer. While repair or service
work on air conditioners in unfinished vehicles may well fit
the definition of "service for consideration," the equipment
and technician certification requirements of these rules do
not apply as the motor vehicle air conditioner is not subject
to these rules prior to completion of the final assembly process
by the vehicle's manufacturer.
5. Properly Using
The Act requires that the Administrator establish standards
for using equipment that shall be at least as stringent as the
applicable standards of the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) in effect as of the date of enactment (November 15, 1990).
The standard referred to, J1989, provides recommended service
procedures for the containment of CFC-12. In the September 4,
1991 notice, the Agency proposed that the standard for "properly
using" include J1989 and an additional requirement that if recover
only equipment is used, the refrigerant must be sent off-site
for reclamation or recycled on-site. The Agency also proposed
that, as prescribed in the SAE J Standards, refrigerant received
from an off-site reclamation facility that is intended for recharge
of automobiles must been the Air-conditioning and Refrigeration
Institute standard of purity (ARI Standard 700-88) for CFC-12.
The proposed definition of properly using was intended to
apply to facilities that own an on-site recycle machine or an
on-site recycle machine and several recover only machines (such
as large establishments with many service bays) as well as small
facilities that purchase one piece of recover only equipment.
The Agency believes that the requirement that such equipment
be properly used will ensure that recovered refrigerant is not
vented to the atmosphere. The Agency wishes to highlight that
under the properly using definition, refrigerant introduced
into the system for the purpose of leak detection must be recovered
and not vented.
Three commenters supported EPA's proposed properly using
standard, stating that if EPA allowed recover only equipment
to be used, the Agency should require that recovered refrigerant
be either recycled on-site or sent off-site for reclamation
as a means of minimizing prospects of contamination of motor
vehicle air conditioners. These commenters suggested that the
Agency consider methods to assure that the reclamation facilities
have the capability to reclaim refrigerant to the ARI 700-88
standard. EPA does intend to consider requirements for reclamation
facilities in the section 608 regulation under the Act.
Several commenters questioned whether several service
establishments
owned by a single owner may recover refrigerant and send the
refrigerant to a central location for recycling to the SAE J1991
standard for CFC-12. The Agency believes that this practice
may be a cost effective option in some situations. To minimize
the risk of contamination (whether intentional or unintentional),
this option will only be available when the owner of the recover
only equipment is also the owner of the recover/recycle equipment
and is therefore able to assure direct recycling of refrigerant
from motor vehicles for use in motor vehicles serviced at his
facilities. The equipment used to recycle the refrigerant must
meet the standards for CFC-12 recycle machines adopted in appendix
A.{4} Franchised or chain service establishments (i.e. those
service establishments that share a common name but are separately
owned) may not use this option.
³{4} The equipment standards in Appendix A are designed
³for equipment that recovers and recycles CFC-12
refrigerant.
³As necessary, EPA will adopt additional standards that
³will govern the approval of equipment designed to
recover/recycle
³other refrigerants.
This is the only exception to the on-site requirement for
recycling. In all other cases, if refrigerant leaves the service
establishment then it must be reclaimed to the ARI 700-88 standard
to assure purity. The on-site requirement is important because
equipment certified to meet the SAE standards is only capable
of cleaning CFC-12 to the SAE J1991 standard if that refrigerant
has been removed from a motor vehicle; refrigerant from another
type of air conditioning or refrigeration system may contain
contaminants, such as acid formed in a compressor burn-out,
that such equipment is not designed to remove. Introduction
of this contaminated CFC-12 could result in severe damage to
the motor vehicle air conditioner. This type of damage would
destroy consumer confidence in recycled refrigerant and jeopardize
the success of the recycling program.
B. Equipment Certification
1. Approved Equipment
In the September 4, 1991 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the
Agency proposed defining the statutory term "approved refrigerant
recycling equipment" to include two types of equipment. One
type, recover/recycle equipment, both extracts refrigerant from
the motor vehicle air conditioner and cleans the refrigerant
on-site. The other type of equipment, recover only, extracts
the refrigerant from the motor vehicle but does not clean the
refrigerant. The refrigerant from these recover machines must
be sent off-site for reclamation or recycled on-site. The Agency
proposed this definition to provide flexibility to the regulated
community and to maximize environmental protection while protecting
air conditioning units from damage. The September 4, 1991 notice
proposed Appendix A as the standards to which recover/recycle
equipment would have to be certified. The supplemental notice
published on April 22, 1992 proposed the standard for recover
equipment as Appendix B.
The terms "extraction", "reclamation" and "recycle" are terms
of art currently used by the industry, and refer to the removal
of refrigerant (extraction), processing of the refrigerant off-
site to a near virgin condition of purity (reclamation), or
processing of the refrigerant on-site to a condition acceptable
for reuse as a refrigerant in the same vehicle, without the
need to send it off-site for reclamation (recycle).{5} The ANPRM
published May 1, 1990 and the NPRM published September 4, 1991
defined these terms.
³{5} Industry has adopted separate voluntary standards
³for the purity of refrigerant, depending whether it is
³sent off-site for reclamation (ARI 700-88) or is
recycled
³on-site (SAE J1991).
Seen against this background, the section 609 definition
of "approved refrigerant recycling equipment"{6} is an ambiguous
term, leaving EPA with the obligation to establish its meaning
in a way that best effectuates the goals of this section. First,
the statutory definition of "refrigerant recycling equipment"
refers to equipment that "extracts and reclaims". The recycle
equipment normally used in this context however is equipment
that cleans the refrigerant on-site, but does not reclaim it.
The latter term is reserved for refrigerant that is sent off-
site for distillation to a higher standard of purity. At the
same time, section 609(b)(2) references SAE J1990, which states
that its purpose is to "provide equipment specifications for
* * * recycling and/or recovery, and recharging systems."{7}
³{6} Section 609 defines the term as "equipment
certified
³by the Administrator * * * to meet the standards
established
³by the Administrator and applicable to equipment for
³the extraction and reclamation of [motor vehicle air
³conditioner] refrigerant * * *". The standards that EPA
³sets are to be as stringent as one set by the Society
³of Automotive Engineers, SAE J1990.
³{7} See section 1. "Scope", SAE Standard J1990.
The legislative history fails to resolve this ambiguity in
the statute. However, it does appear clear from the terms and
structure of section 609 that Congress focused on activities
conducted at the service establishment, whether recovery or
recovery/recycle, and was not legislating specification for
off-site equipment used to reprocess refrigerant to near virgin
purity.
EPA, therefore, attempted to define "approved refrigerant
recycling equipment" with the view of providing environmental
protection, and providing the affected industry flexibility
to meet the changing nature of refrigerants. For all the reasons
described in the September 4, 1991 Notice, EPA proposed a
definition
including both types of equipment.
The comments submitted on this issue focused primarily on
the feasibility and practicality of the proposed definition,
and not on EPA's authority to include recover only equipment.
One commenter, however, argued that SAE standard J1990 set the
minimum requirements for "approved refrigerant recycling
equipment."
Since section 3.1 of this SAE standard established that the
equipment must be able to extract and process refrigerant, recover
only equipment could not meet the minimum requirements as stringent
as J1990, and, therefore, could not be approved. Congress, by
incorporating SAE J1990 in section 609, intended that EPA adopt
the then existing automotive recycle program, which did not
extend to recover only equipment. The commenter did seem to
accept that EPA could approve recover only equipment in the
future if such equipment was found to be necessary, for example
with respect to future refrigerant blends.
The commenter's arguments do not persuade EPA that it lacks
authority to interpret refrigerant recycling equipment as including
recover only equipment. First, the portion of SAE J1990 noted
above and quoted in the comments does no more than highlight
an apparent inconsistency in that document. It does not remove
the ambiguity present in this statutory term, and does not indicate
a clear Congressional intent to exclude recover only equipment
from approval under Section 609. In addition, the Agency's
restrictions
on the use of recover only equipment{8} tie it closely to the
extraction, recycling or reclamation process. Finally, for the
reasons discussed below, EPA believes that it is reasonable
to interpret "approved refrigerant recycling equipment" to include
recover only equipment.
³{8} For example, any recovered refrigerant must be
recycled
³on-site or sent off-site for reclamation except for the
³limited situations described in III.A.5.
As noted earlier, the majority of commenters focused not
on the legal issue of statutory interpretation, but on the proper
policy for EPA to follow; in effect, not whether it could approve
such equipment, but whether it should do so. Seventeen commenters
supported allowing both certified recover/recycle equipment
and recover only equipment to meet the definition of approved
equipment. The commenters cited the importance of allowing service
establishments the flexibility to chose equipment that suits
their individual circumstances. Commenters believed that this
would increase compliance with the requirements. Many commenters
noted that recover only equipment has a lower initial cost than
recover/recycle equipment and that many service establishments
are already using this type of equipment. This equipment is
also used in conjunction with recover/recycle equipment, for
example in service establishments with several service bays.
Commenters stated that the lower initial cost will become
increasingly
important in the future when different refrigerants (e.g. HFC-
134a, blends) enter the motor vehicle servicing market. Commenters
mentioned the importance of recover equipment for the salvaging
of refrigerant from disposed automobiles (requirements that
will be covered under section 608 of the Act) and that refrigerant
sent off site for reclamation is actually purified to a higher
standard than refrigerant recycled on-site. Commeters disputed
claims that the use of recover only equipment would lead to
an increased risk of venting refrigerant or contamination through
the reuse of unrecycled refrigerant.
The Agency received five comments opposed to recover only
equipment in the motor vehicle servicing sector. MVMA opposed
recover equipment for several reasons. MVMA stated that approval
of recover only equipment does not reflect Congressional intent
or the intent of the automobile industry when they developed
the voluntary program for CFC recycling. The Association suggested
that recover only equipment would lead to venting of refrigerant.
It would jeopardize the purity of refrigerant in the motor vehicle
sector because of the economic incentives derived from the greater
economic value of refrigerant ready for use in a car as compared
to refrigerant sold for reclamation. MVMA also stated that the
use of recover only equipment is not cost effective, whereas
recover/recycle equipment is cost effective and more easily
implemented. MVMA argued that the potential need for recovery
of other refrigerant in the motor vehicle sector did not justify
the use of recover only machines. Other commenters emphasized
the need to require off-site reclamation if recover only equipment
were allowed, and mentioned that the limited number of reclamation
centers across the country could render the recover only option
unworkable.
The Agency understands that the voluntary recycling program,
which it supported, and the SAE standards were intended to
establish
and promote on-site recycling, and agrees that on-site recycling
may well be an efficient option for most service entities because
of the efficiency of the procedure. However, the Agency believes
that approving two separate standards for equipment provides
both environmental protection and needed flexibility to the
regulated community. As stated in the proposal, the cost
effectiveness
of equipment is dependent on the number of service jobs performed
and the price of virgin refrigerant. Some service establishments
may find it more cost effective to comply with the regulations
by purchasing recover only equipment.
As stated in the September 4, 1991 notice and the April 22,
1992 supplemental notice, the Agency examined the relative
environmental
consequences of using the two types of equipment. For example,
the efficiency of removal of refrigerant is equivalent between
the two types of equipment and both types of equipment separate
the lubricant from refrigerant to indicate the amount of lubricant
that must be returned to the system. Unlike recycling equipment,
recover only equipment does not purge non-condensable gases
during operation. Such purging in recover/recycle equipment
may result in the loss of 5 percent of refrigerant in a purge.
Recover only equipment therefore provides at least as much
protection
from the release of refrigerant as recover/recycle equipment.
Flexibility is also an important consideration for the potential
need to recover other refrigerants in the motor vehicle sector
in the future. Several automobile manufacturers have announced
that HFC-134a is the designated replacement for motor vehicle
air conditioners in new cars beginning as early as 1992 in some
models. This substitute must be recycled under the Act, effective
November 15, 1995. For retrofit of existing CFC-12 systems,
research is currently underway to determine an appropriate
substance
and both HFC-134a and HCFC blends are being considered. Under
the Act, blends containing HCFCs are subject to this regulation
if they are used in motor vehicle air conditioners and recover
only equipment approved for use with blends may be an attractive
option in this case. The Agency does not wish, as a result of
delays associated with the regulatory process, to impede the
progress of the sector as it addresses the challenges of
alternative
refrigerants in the future.
The Agency is very concerned about the issue of contamination
of refrigerant raised by MVMA's comments but believes that the
option of two types of equipment will not increase the risk
of contamination or venting. On the issue of contamination,
the Agency notes that regardless of how the refrigerant is
extracted,
today's rule requires that it be purified to standards that
allow its safe use in motor vehicle air conditioners before
it is so used. Refrigerant recycled on-site must be cleaned
to the SAE J1991 standard of purity for recycled refrigerant.
Any refrigerant that leaves the site must be reclaimed to the
ARI-700 standard of purity, a standard developed by the Air-
conditioning and Refrigeration Institute that defines the level
of quality for reclaimed refrigerants. The only exception to
this is described in section III.A.5. under the definition of
"properly using." Moreover, recharging motor vehicle air
conditioners
with used refrigerant that has not been purified in accordance
with the applicable standard is prohibited.
The proposed standard for recover only equipment would make
it highly unlikely that refrigerant extracted using recover
only equipment would be reused in recharging motor vehicle air
conditioners before being purified. That standard would require
that "[t]he equipment discharge or transfer fitting shall be
unique to prevent the unintentional use of extracted CFC-12
to be used for recharging auto air conditioners." In other words,
recover only equipment would have to be designed so that it
can be connected, for example, to a recover/recycle machine
for recycling of extracted refrigerant, but could only be directly
connected to the recharging equipment under circumstances of
intentional tampering. It would therefore be extremely difficult
for recover only machines to be misused in the way MVMA fears.
In addition, it is unlikely that persons in the business to
service motor vehicle air conditioners would knowingly use
contaminated
refrigerant since they have an interest in satisfying customers
and not injuring the customer's air conditioner.
As for venting, EPA believes that there is little chance
that use of recover only machines would lead to venting. First,
such venting is prohibited by these regulations for both recover
only and recover/recycle equipment. Second, recover only equipment
users would have an economic incentive not to vent but to either
recycle or reclaim the extracted refrigerant. Since unpurified
extracted refrigerant may not be used to recharge motor vehicle
air conditioners, recover only equipment users can be expected
to either recycle the extracted refrigerant before recharging
the air conditioner, or to sell it to reclaimers. Finally, any
risk of venting or contamination from the use of recover only
equipment should be minimized by the required technician training
and certification, which will alert technicians to the proper
procedures to be followed.
Several commenters questioned whether one owner with several
service establishments using recover only equipment could ship
refrigerant to a central location for recycling, as opposed
to reclamation where the same owner owns the recover only equipment
and the recycling equipment. As discussed under the definition
of "properly using" (section III.A.5), the Agency believes that
this practice may be a cost effective option in some situations.
The Agency wishes to clarify that because of the importance
of protecting refrigerant and the inability to assure the source
of the refrigerant once it leaves the service site, this is
the only exception that can be made from the on-site recycling
requirement. A company may also wish to set up a central
reclamation
facility if it wishes to assure the purity of refrigerant.
EPA shares the concern of commenters regarding the limited
number of reclamation facilities in the country. Any service
establishment considering the purchase of recover only equipment
should first determine if refrigerant reclamation opportunities
exist in their area and the cost of using such service. The
Agency would like to encourage the development of reclamation
operations with the capability to clean refrigerant to the ARI-
700 standard. It is of utmost importance to the proper functioning
of air conditioning equipment that all refrigerant sold by
reclaimers
meets the ARI-700 standard of purity. Therefore, the Agency
will consider a reclaimer certification program under its section
608 requirements. In developing the requirements, the Agency
will consider the commenters' concern for periodic inspections
of refrigerant quality and any possible measures to facilitate
the development of the reclamation network around the country.
SAE commented that the 1989 version of SAE standard J1990
has been revised by SAE to add clarity and specification. Changes
include the following:
(1) Section 1 of J1990 was revised to clarify that the scope
of the standard applies to recover/recycle equipment, and not
to recover only equipment (this is consistent with the SAE draft
standard J2209 which applies to recover only equipment);
(2) Section 3 of J1990 added a labeling requirement, referring
to the standard;
(3) Section 4 of J1990 is more specific regarding purge devices
required for non-condensable gases (NCG). The equipment must
either have an automatic purge device to expel NCG, or have
a device that warns the operator if the limit for NCG has been
received. In addition, a limit was placed on the refrigerant
loss from the purging of NCG; the limit was set at 5% by weight
of the total refrigerant recovered;
(4) Section 7 of J1990 clarified the requirement in the 1989
version that the equipment reduce the system to a vacuum. Revised
J1990 requires that the equipment reduce system pressure to
a minimum mercury level (4 in./102 mm) below atmospheric pressure;
and
(5) Section 7 of J1990 also clarified the section regarding
the extraction of used lubricants, for example discussing the
need to only use new lubricant to replace the amount removed.
The equipment must take into account the amount of refrigerant
dissolved in the lubricant to avoid indicating the recovery
of more lubricant than actually removed.
EPA agrees that the final standard for recover/recycle equipment
should include these revisions to J1990 because the Agency believes
these changes are minor in nature, and are not a significant
change to the 1989 version of J1990 that EPA proposed in the
NPRM. For example, section 4 of J1990 (1989) required a device
to alert the operator that the NCG level had been exceeded,
if the equipment had a self-contained recovery tank. The 1991
version expands on this concept. With respect to the amount
of refrigerant loss attributable to purge of NCG, EPA noted
in the NPRM that UL estimated that CFC-12 releases were well
under 5% in machines certified prior to that date. With respect
to the specification of a vacuum level, the change clarifies
an ambiguous term in the old standard but does not change the
level of extraction efficiency. The same can be said for the
changes regarding lubricant extraction.
While including the changes to J1990 in the standard for
recover/recycle equipment, EPA will only apply this revised
J1990 standard to recover/recycle equipment certified after
February 1, 1992. The standard for equipment certified prior
to that date shall be J1990 (1989), the version proposed in
the NPRM. EPA is taking this action for several reasons. First,
a large number of recover/recycle machines have already been
purchased, with the overwhelming majority of them certified
to J1990 (1989). It would impose a significant economic burden
to require equipment owners to either recertify their equipment
or purchase new equipment. Second, as discussed above, the changes
made to the 1989 version of J1990 are minor in nature and do
not reflect any significant increase in environmental protection.
Third, the 1989 version of J1990 clearly meets the statutory
requirement of Section 609(b)(2)(A)-that section of the Act
refer, in fact, to the 1989 version of J1990 as the minimum
standard for equipment. Fourth, February 1, 1992 is a reasonable
date to use as Underwriters Laboratory started using revised
J1990 for all equipment submitted for certification after that
date.
Three commenters objected to the statement in the September
4, 1991 notice regarding the appropriate method to handle the
lubricant removed from refrigerant by either recover/recycle
or recover only equipment. In the proposal, the Agency stated
that the lubricant should be handled in the same manner that
the service establishment handles used oil. Since the publication
of the September 4 notice, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
on used oil characterization and management standards (56 FR
48000, September 23, 1991). The Agency would like to clarify
that the presence of CFCs in used lubricant may have implications
for how the used lubricant should be handled. The Agency refers
persons to that rulemaking for further information on this issue.
2. Substantially Identical Equipment
The Act states that equipment purchased before the proposal
of regulations under this section shall be considered certified
if it is "substantially identical" to approved equipment. In
the NPRM, the Agency proposed a process for review of uncertified
equipment that would rely primarily on the manufacturer submitting
information, such as process flowsheets, lists of component,
or laboratory tests, to the Agency for review. Owners of equipment
may also submit information to the Agency if they are unable
to establish the status of equipment through the manufacturer.
The Agency stated that it would narrowly interpret the
substantially
identical clause in order to protect the air-conditioning units
and the integrity of the recycling program.
Several commenters agreed that EPA should maintain a strict
interpretation of the substantially identical clause while others
stated that EPA should recognize industry efforts by not declaring
equipment purchased and used in good faith to be obsolete. In
response to the latter group of comments, EPA points out that
Congress' clear intent in providing an exception for substantially
identical equipment was to credit industry efforts undertaken
before the development of regulations to the greatest extent
possible without endangering the environment and air conditioning
equipment.
The Agency would like to clarify that recover/recycle equipment
that has been design certified by Underwriters Laboratory{9}
as meeting the SAE standards in appendix A is considered approved
equipment for the purposes of this regulation. The first
recover/recycle
equipment was certified in September, 1989. Such equipment should
be labeled with UL's "design certified to meet SAE Standards"
sticker. This should not be confused with other UL listing stickers
that indicate satisfactory performance in safety testing only.
The Agency understands that the vast majority of recover/recycle
equipment sold has been design certified by UL, and EPA maintains
a list of the certified models. The list is available to the
public upon request to the address that appears in section 82.36.
³{9} EPA discusses its approval of Underwriters
Laboratory
³(UL) under 40 CFR 82.36 as an "independent standards
³testing organization" in section III.C.
The Agency would also like to clarify that it can only review
equipment to determine if it is substantially identical to
certified
equipment once applications for review have been received. One
commenter's suggestion that the Agency inventory and review
every model of equipment ever sold is resource intensive and
impractical. The Agency encourages equipment manufacturers that
have models that do not have UL certification to submit
applications
for equipment they believe to be substantially identical to
certified models. This includes retrofit packages that the
manufacturer
believes will result in equipment performance to certified levels.
The Agency's review will concentrate on the aspects of equipment
that vary from certified models. As stated in the proposal,
an essential element of such review is that recover/recycle
equipment purify refrigerant to the SAE J1991 standard of purity.
For recover only equipment, essential elements of review are
that equipment remove refrigerant as efficiently as approved
equipment under the SAE J2209 standard and also that equipment
separate lubricant.
The Agency realizes that the statutory deadlines require
quick review of the information submitted. As soon as
determinations
are made, equipment determined to be substantially identical
will be placed on the approved equipment list as "approved if
purchased before September 4, 1991" for recover/recycle equipment
and "approved if purchased before April 22, 1992 for recover
only equipment. While equipment that EPA has not reviewed may
in fact be substantially identical, an EPA determination on
this point is important so a regulated party may verify their
compliance in advance.
C. Independent Standards Testing Organizations
1. Summary and Response to Comments
In the proposal, EPA stated that organizations interested
in obtaining approval as independent standards testing
organizations
must apply to the Agency and demonstrate that they are capable
of performing equipment testing to the applicable standards.
One commenter stressed the importance of highly trained, qualified
staff. In addition, commenters argued that the standards testing
organization should not be owned or controlled by manufacturers
or vendors of the product being tested, to promote objectivity
and preclude conflicts of interest. In general, various commenters
considered the criteria proposed in section 82.38(b)(1)-(5) lacking
in detail and substance.
EPA agrees that staff expertise is very important, as are
objectivity and lack of conflicts of interest. However EPA believes
these factors are fully addressed in the proposed regulations.
For example, the proposal required that the applicant must
demonstrate
"[e]xpertise in equipment testing and the technical experience
of the organization's personnel." In addition, the organization
could have no conflict of interest and receive no financial
benefit from the outcome of certification testing."{10} These
criteria provide adequate detail and substance for an applicant
to prepare its submission and guide the agency in its
determinations.
Evidence supporting this are the detailed and substantive
applications
that have already been submitted. Accordingly, the Agency is
adopting the criteria as proposed, excepting changes for purposes
of clarification.
³{10} In response to a comment seeking clarification,
³this condition clearly allows an independent standards
³testing organization to generate a reasonable profit
³margin. However, it would preclude, for example,
charging
³a fee based on the results of a test, as well as
ownership
³of the testing organization by a manufacturer or vendor
³of the equipment being certified.
One commenter urged EPA to make clear that UL 1963 and the
SAE standards apply only to motor vehicle air conditioning
equipment.
This commenter correctly points out that there are separate
industry standards (ARI Standard 740-91) that apply for equipment
used for recovery and recycling in the other air conditioning
and refrigeration sectors.
Equipment that recovers and recycles refrigerant must be
certified to meet the SAE standards in appendix A. While EPA
is not promulgating a specific test procedure that each independent
standards testing organizations must follow, EPA does want to
emphasize that EPA's review of an application of an organization
for approval under section 82.38 will include a review of the
test procedure the organization intends to employ. The application
for approval will need to include information on the proposed
test procedure and an explanation of its adequacy. Any approval
of an organization will be contingent on use of such test
procedure.
While EPA considers this implicit in the criteria proposed in
the NPRM, EPA is clarifying the final regulation to reflect
the above.
EPA notes that the approval of UL, discussed herein, is based
in part on the testing protocol developed by UL known as UL1963.
EPA expects that a UL testing protocol will also be developed
for testing the ability of recover only equipment to comply
with applicable SAE standards. The Agency anticipates that a
UL testing procedure will also be developed for this equipment.
2. Approved Independent Standards Testing Organizations
The Agency received an application for approval for UL on
October 21, 1991, and from ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc on
November 27, 1991. The Agency has reviewed their applications
in detail and has formally approved UL and ETL Testing
Laboratories,
Inc. as independent standards testing organizations. This approval
will be effective as of August 13, 1992. EPA encourages
applications
from other facilities that are capable of testing equipment
to the necessary standards. The Agency recognizes that since
a large amount of equipment has already been certified, additional
laboratories may not find it cost effective to enter the
certification
market for equipment certified under this section of the Act.
The EPA will maintain a list of approved independent standards
testing organizations available upon request at the address
in section 82.38. As stated in the proposed notice, the Agency
reserves
the right to revoke approval if the testing organization violates
any of the requirements contained in section 82.38.
D. Technician Training and Certification
In the September 4, 1991 notice, EPA proposed standards for
training and certification in the proper use of approved
refrigerant
recycling equipment during service of motor vehicle air
conditioners.
The standards were designed to assure that all aspects of the
use of approved equipment are covered by certification programs
while preserving flexibility in testing mechanisms. The Agency
believes flexibility in testing mechanisms is important in
technician
certification because of the large number of technicians that
must be certified in a very short period of time. In addition,
service technicians are employed in a wide variety of circumstances
and businesses, such that no one program may be adequate for
all the situations involved.
Several commenters suggested that EPA had exceeded the intent
of the statute by proposing a training, test administration
and certification process, and that uniform Federal certification
standards are excessive and unworkable. The language and the
intent of the statute, however, explicitly requires EPA to
establish
standards for certification and training. In specified
circumstances,
section 609 of the Act prohibits the service and repair of motor
vehicle air conditioners except by properly trained and certified
personnel.{11} Under Section 609(b)(4), EPA is to establish
the standards for such training and certification, subject to
a minimum stringency level set by statute. EPA proposed to
accomplish
this goal by establishing a process to approve technician training
and certification programs. The proposed criteria for approval
of such programs balances flexibility of program design with
an assurance that adequate training would be provided.
³{11} The effective date of this prohibition depends on
³the size of establishment and the filing of a proper
³small volume certificate. See the discussion in section
³I.H herein.
Several commenters raised the issue of self-certification,
especially employer self-certification of employees as in the
DOT certification for fleet mechanics and drivers. The commenters
appeared concerned that only a limited number of national training
and certification programs could seek approval under the proposed
regulations. In addition, they were concerned that these national
organizations could not train and certify a large number of
technicians in a short time.
The Agency would like to clarify that the two programs mentioned
in the statute, the Mobile Air Conditioning Society (MACS) or
the National Institute of Automotive Service Excellence (ASE),
are not the only training and certification programs that can
seek EPA approval. The Agency did consider these programs, in
addition to other certification programs and consultation with
industry, government officials, and environmentalists, in
developing
the minimum criteria as they appeared in the proposal. Companies
do have the option of developing their own certification program
for their technicians; however, the Agency must review these
programs to assure that they conform to the minimum criteria.
The intent of the criteria is to establish a framework for
certification
under which a variety of entities, including testing organizations,
individual companies, fleets and vocational schools, may design
certification programs.
The commenters did not provide details on the DOT program
mentioned. EPA understands it to involve training at the service
establishment, with the service establishment then maintaining
records of training. DOT does not review and approve the individual
service establishments' training programs. EPA has serious
questions
whether such a program meets the minimum requirements set forth
in section 609(b)(4). In addition, as described above, the review
and approval process under section 82.40 should provide the
needed flexibility for a wide variety of organizations, from
the national, state and local levels, to obtain approval as
technician training and certification programs.
The Agency is aware that many technicians may find independent
testing organizations a simple and cost effective mechanism
to achieve certification. Also, many companies who train their
technicians may choose to use an independent testing organization's
program to test or certify their technicians after training.
The Agency does not wish to discourage any company from developing
its own training and certification program and will assure parity
across programs through a review of how each program meets the
criteria. Agency review is important to assure veracity of
information
and fairness in testing. For a discussion of the review status
of the programs developed in advance of this final rule, see
section D.7.
The Agency received several specific comments on the various
criteria proposed for technician certification programs.
1. Training
EPA proposed that each approved program must provide adequate
training, using one or more of various formats: On-the-job
training,
training through self-study of instructional material, or on-
site training involving instructors, videos or a hands-on
demonstration.
Three commenters suggested that hands-on demonstrations should
be required in each technician certification program. In developing
the proposal, EPA reviewed the actual operation of recover/recycle
and recover only equipment and determined that proper operation
could be adequately described and demonstrated in self-study
instructional material as well as other kinds of instructional
material. This is because the skills needed to properly use
such equipment do not differ substantially from the skills
technicians
already possess for servicing the motor vehicle air conditioner.
There is no evidence to suggest that this determination is
inaccurate
and therefore the Agency will not require hands-on demonstrations
as a minimum standard. The Agency recognizes that demonstrations
are valuable and would like to encourage their use whenever
possible, including manufacturer demonstrations of equipment
upon purchase. The Agency is aware that some technician
certification
programs already incorporate demonstrations. The Agency does
have the authority to revoke a certificate if a technician fails
to demonstrate for an authorized representative of the
Administrator
his or her ability to properly use the equipment.
2. Test Subject Material
EPA proposed that certification tests adequately address
the relevant SAE J standards established for the service and
repair of motor vehicle air conditioners, anticipated future
technological developments (such as the introduction of HFC-
134a), environmental consequences of refrigerant release and
the adverse effects of stratospheric ozone layer depletion.
In addition, the certification tests were to cover the general
regulatory requirements under section 609 to assure that
technicians
are familiar with the legal requirements regarding service.
EPA received comments requesting that EPA "grandfather"
technicians
that were trained and certified before the promulgation of this
rule. The Agency is aware that thousands of technicians have
been certified in advance of the effective date of this final
rule in anticipation of the final requirements and also as part
of the voluntary program developed several years ago. These
technicians would not have had the opportunity to receive training
on the specifics of either section 609 of the Act or of these
implementing regulations.
EPA believes it is important that training address the
requirements
imposed by the Administrator under section 609 of the Act, and
will require that all training conducted by approved programs
include such subject material for training conducted after the
effective date of these regulations. However, training conducted
before the effective date of these regulations need not include
the specifics of the final rule. EPA is taking this action for
several reasons. First, EPA believes that training on the
requirements
imposed by the Administrator under section 609 of the Act is
quite valuable, but is not necessary to meet the legal standards
required under section 609(b)(4). This is shown by the Act's
reference to the then existing MACs and ASE training programs,
which could not have included the then future regulatory
requirements
imposed by EPA in implementing section 609. Second, large numbers
of technicians have already been trained and certified, and
it would be a great burden and perhaps impossible to quickly
retrain and recertify all of these technicians. Third, EPA believes
that many technician training and certification programs did
include training material on the requirements of section 609
and EPA's proposed regulations as soon as such information was
available.
As stated in the proposal, the technician certification program
is not intended to test the technical skills of technicians
regarding the diagnosis and repair of motor vehicle air
conditioners.
The basic goal of the technician training and certification
program is to teach technicians how to properly recover and/or
recycle refrigerant, and why it must be done to protect the
stratospheric ozone layer.
The supplemental notice published April 22, 1992, proposed
an additional equipment standard for motor vehicle air conditioner
service. Once the standard for recover only equipment is finalized,
technician training and certification programs will have to
include training and testing on the proper use of such equipment.
For a further discussion, see section III.D.7.
3. Test Administration
In the proposed criteria, the Agency did not specify details
of certification tests such as the number of questions, the
passing scores required, the format of questions or the number
of versions of tests. EPA's goal was to stimulate the development
of a number of certification programs designed to meet the diverse
needs of the technician community. For example, the Agency is
aware that several open-book, unproctored tests and closed-book,
proctored programs have been developed. Some programs use video
training, while others stress written material or hands-on
demonstration.
As stated in the proposal, the number and format of test questions
may vary depending on the testing scheme employed. At the same
time, the questions must be adequate to cover the subject material
in sufficient depth and detail. Individual companies interested
in providing a certification opportunity for their employees
may develop a program that reflects their existing training
structure and seek EPA approval under section 82.40. EPA's goal in
reviewing programs will be to assess whether each program meets
the minimum standards in section 82.40. The Agency encourages
programs
to surpass the minimum standards and develop superior programs,
but this is not a requirement.
EPA specifically requested comment on the validity of open-
book testing for technician certification. Most commenters
supported
open-book testing as a valid minimum testing procedure; however,
many commenters stated that proctors should be required whether
the tests are open-book or closed-book. Commenters questioned
the validity and quality of unproctored testing.
In developing standards for the certification of technicians
under section 609, the Agency examined existing industry
certification
programs such as ASE and MACS, as well as other types of testing
formats, including correspondence courses. One program referred
to in Section 609(b)(4), MACS, employs non-proctored exams.
Given the large number of technicians dispersed through a multitude
of cities and towns in the country, and the Act's short statutory
timeframes, the Agency believes that requiring proctored exams
would require technicians to travel to a limited number of testing
locations and would be infeasible for many technicians.
The proposed test administration criteria would require that
programs establish sufficient measures to assure that tests
are completed honestly by technicians and that there are methods
for assuring technician identity. Examples include requiring
signatures of technicians on test forms, requesting social security
numbers, using multiple versions of tests and use of proctors
in testing situations. Proctored exams are one, but not the
only available method and certification programs are free to
develop their combination of methods to assure valid testing.
The Agency commends the procedures of many of the programs that
have already been submitted to the Agency as effective yet not
burdensome.
In the September 4, 1991 notice, the Agency described how
open-book testing, if structured properly, could result in
technicians
having the necessary knowledge to properly perform refrigerant
recovery and recycling, a subset of the knowledge needed to
perform effective service on motor vehicle air conditioners.
Several certification programs that have been developed incorporate
proctors and the Agency commends this action. As a minimum
standard,
however, the Agency will allow technicians access to unproctored
testing such as mail-in programs, assuming the test program
meets all the criteria in section 82.40.
The Agency received several comments on the proposed requirement
that completed tests be sent to an independent testing authority
for grading. Commenters questioned whether any real benefit
was obtained from such a requirement, since open-book, unproctored
tests would be allowed. The requirement was also considered
costly and unnecessary. Commenters sought clarification on various
points, such as whether a non-profit entity associated with
the sponsoring certification program would be an independent
testing authority for grading.
EPA originally proposed this requirement, on the advice of
motor vehicle air conditioning industry representatives, to
avoid certification programs that did not actually test learning
of material presented but merely provided a "certificate of
attendance". The Agency also sought to minimize the potential
conflicts of interest that might arise, such as in certification
programs that wish to guarantee certification or individual
companies that have a vested interest in assuring all employees
pass the test. The concept of an independent testing authority
was based on both programs mentioned in section 609 of the statute,
which incorporate grading services or computerized grading of
their existing exams. The goal was to incorporate neutrality
into the grading process.
The Agency continues to believe that neutrality in the grading
process is an important goal. To clarify the regulatory language,
section 82.40 will be changed to state "Completed tests must be
graded
by an entity or individual who receives no benefit from the
outcome of testing; a fee may be charged for grading". Programs
submitted for EPA approval must demonstrate that the grading
entity is neutral. Examples of independent grading include a
scoring establishment which is a separate non-profit association
associated with the sponsoring certification program, a contracted
grading company or individual and computerized grading services.
The Agency wishes to clarify that although it supports
certification
programs making provisions for non-English speaking technicians
(indeed there is a great need for these provisions in certain
areas of the country), this is not a requirement. The Agency
does commend the efforts of the programs that have already made
progress in this area.
4. Technical Revisions
Two commenters stated that the proposed requirement to review
certification programs periodically and submit a written summary
of the review and any changes to the Administrator every two
years was excessive. They recommended that review of program
content should only be triggered by the introduction of new
equipment or refrigerants. The Agency believes the nature of
the motor vehicle air conditioning market is rapidly changing,
as evidenced by the development of the SAE J2209 standard for
recovery only equipment. In this context, EPA has determined
to keep the review provision as proposed. The Agency fully
anticipates
that certification programs will review and revise their program
content more often than every two years (for example, each time
they order reprints of instructional material or tests) in order
to stay current in the field. Requiring these updates to be
reported to the Administrator assures accuracy of information
and maintains parity among programs.
5. Recertification
Two commenters favored EPA's proposal that it would reserve
the right to require recertification of technicians in the future,
if necessary. Three commenters maintained that periodic
recertification
would be unnecessary, burdensome and beyond the intent of the
Act.
EPA believes the need to retest and recertify technicians
in the future should be limited because certification programs
are required to address the anticipated changes in motor vehicle
air conditioning and to periodically review their programs.
However, the Agency believes it is important to reserve the
right to require recertification if environmentally significant
changes in equipment for motor vehicle air conditioning occur.
6. Proof of Certification
No commenters disagreed with the proposed requirement that
each training and certification program offer individual proof
of certification upon successful completion of the test. Proof
of certification is essential for the purchase of small containers
of class I or class II substances. Several commenters disagreed
with or questioned the related proposal that unique numbers
be provided for each certified technician by certification
programs.
Several programs already use the technician's social security
number as a unique number, while other programs number tests
distributed for their own recordkeeping purposes and then assign
that number to the technician when he or she successfully completes
the exam. Agency inspectors may need access to technician
certification
numbers to verify compliance with the regulation. In addition,
the Agency may need these numbers to prove non-compliance with
the regulations in an enforcement action. Unique numbers will
aid in meeting these compliance and enforcement activities.
In addition, it presents little if any burden on these programs
to provide such unique numbers. Unique numbers within programs
are also needed to distinguish between technicians with the
same name. Programs must only assure that the numbers assigned
within their own programs are unique. EPA will not provide these
numbers, and will not require that the numbers be reported to
EPA by technician certification programs because of the
administrative
burden associated with this activity on a national basis, and
the need to coordinate between several programs.
7. Approval of Programs
The Agency is aware of three technician certification programs
that have already certified several thousand technicians. One
program, given by the Mobile Air Conditioning Society, was
developed
as part of the voluntary program established before the 1990
amendments to the Act. Two programs, given by the International
Mobile Air Conditioning Association and the National Institute
of Automotive Service Exellence, were developed in advance of
the proposed rule. Several programs, including these three,
applied for approval under section 82.40. EPA has completed its
review
of these three applications, and based on this review, EPA has
formally approved them as technician training and certification
programs. This approval will be effective as of August 13, 1992.
Two aspects of this approval should be noted. First, in light
of the fact that these programs have already trained and certified
numerous technicians, training and certification conducted by
these programs prior to the effective date of the approval will
be considered valid for purposes of these regulations as long
as the training and certification was conducted in conformity
with the training and certification program approved by EPA.
The earliest date for which the Agency will accept training
under these requirements will be September, 1990, which the
Agency understands to be the date that the first technicians
were certified under the MACS program. Second, all training
and certification conducted after the effective date of any
standards adopted for recover only equipment (Appendix B) must
cover such standards in the training and testing. Since the
procedures for extraction of refrigerant are very similar for
both recover/recycle equipment and recover only equipment, EPA
expects that technicians trained and certified by these programs
prior to the final adoption of recover only standards would
not need to be retrained and recertified with respect to the
appendix B standards. That issue, however, will be addressed
when EPA promulgates the final appendix B standards At this
time, the Agency believes that programs should incorporate the
specifics of the labeling of containers of recovered refrigerant
into certification programs as soon as possible. The Agency
encourages recover only equipment salespersons to reiterate
to technicians that equipment meeting the SAE J2209 standard
does not clean refrigerant and thus refrigerant captured with
these machines must be recycled or sent to a reclamation facility,
as specified in EPA's definition for the proper use of such
equipment.
Several commenters questioned whether programs approved by
states or localities were automatically approved by the EPA.
Commenters also suggested that EPA accept state approved programs
where the state standards are either substantially equivalent
or more stringent than the Federal requirements.
Certification by a state program is not a substitute for
training and certification by a Federally approved program.
The Federal requirements established by section 609 of the Act
and these regulations are separate and distinct from any valid
state laws or regulations that may apply. Compliance with one
does not automatically guarantee compliance with the other.
At the same time, state-approved programs may apply to EPA for
approval under EPA's regulations. Approval by EPA of such a
program will be based on compliance with the requirements of
section 82.40, which may be more or less stringent than applicable
state requirements.
The Agency is aware of three state or local technician
certification
regulations (Florida, Wisconsin, and the South Coast Air Quality
Management District in California). EPA will work with the relevant
entities to review the requirements of their regulations and
the approval process of any technician certification programs
not already reviewed by the Agency to assure that no program
falls below the minimum Federal standards.
The Agency is aware that some states may have approved
technician
certification programs in advance of promulgation of the EPA
requirements using criteria different than the proposed Federal
criteria. EPA also believes these differences are limited to
the Test Administration criteria contained in section 82.40. With
this
problem in mind, EPA believes it is reasonable to modify section
82.40
to authorize approval of a training and certification program
that meets all but the Test Administration criteria of that
section. This would be allowed, however, only if the program,
when viewed as a whole, is as or more effective than a program
that does meet all of those criteria.{12}
³{12} To avoid confusion, it is important to note that
³although this provision is made in response to comments
³concerning state approved programs, the revision to the
³Test Administration criteria is not limited to such
programs.
EPA is taking this action for several reasons. First, EPA
is aware that the statute and these regulations require the
training and certification of a large number of technicians
in a short period of time. These state-approved programs, as
well as a variety of other programs, have already started this
process to meet Federal and/or state or local requirements.
This provision should allow additional flexibility in meeting
these training and certification requirements, and will avoid
penalizing activities conducted prior to the promulgation of
these regulations. Second, programs approved under this provision
can be expected to provide the same or better quality of training
and exhibit the same or better level of validity in the
certification
process, since the program will have to show EPA that when viewed
as a whole it is as good or better than programs which meet
all of the criteria.
EPA has decided to limit this provision, however, to training
and certification provided prior to the effective date of these
regulations. After that date, all programs will have had adequate
notice of the Federal requirements. This is especially so given
that little change is being made from the September proposal.
Programs will also have received adequate time to conform their
program to these requirements. Limitation of this provision
to such earlier training will also help to ensure that all approved
programs meet common requirements, increasing the consistency
of test administration in approved programs. For more discussion
of the relationship between state and Federal requirements,
see section III.G.
Since the publication of the proposed rule, the Agency has
received other technician certification program applications
and these will be reviewed as quickly as possible upon receipt
of complete application materials. To facilitate EPA review,
each program requesting review should supply information
illustrating
how each element of the certification criteria in section 82.40 is
met. This includes test questions, test administration and training
information such as videos or self-study booklets. The Agency
encourages submission of applications for approval from training
certification programs and will make every effort to review
programs quickly. EPA will maintain a list of all approved programs
including both national testing programs and any individual
company programs that are approved.
E. Small Container Restrictions
The Act makes it unlawful, effective November 15, 1992, for
any person to sell or distribute, or offer for sale or
distribution,
any class I or class II substance suitable for use as a refrigerant
in motor vehicle air conditioning systems in a container with
less than 20 pounds of refrigerant except to certified technicians
servicing motor vehicles for consideration. The Agency proposed
an implementation approach distinguishing between purchasing
refrigerant in small containers for use and purchasing refrigerant
in small containers for the purpose of resale only. For resale,
the Agency proposed that sellers obtain a signed statement from
purchasers stating that the small containers are for resale
only. At retail sales outlets, the Agency proposed that sellers
review the technician certification and keep a record of the
technician's name, technician certification number and program
name, date of sale and the quantity (number and size) of containers
purchased. The proposal also stated that outlets selling small
containers must display a sign stating that it is unlawful to
sell small containers to an individual who is not a properly
trained and certified technician.
Six commenters believed the continued existence of small
containers allowed too great a potential for "do-it-yourselfer"
access to refrigerant and that therefore the containers should
be eliminated. Three commenters stated that the availability
of small containers of CFC-12 increases the likelihood that
the refrigerant supply will be contaminated because HCFC-22
and HFC-134a are also available in small containers. One commenter
mentioned that if sales to retail outlets were eliminated, the
effectiveness of recycling efforts would be increased. Five
commenters believed the sales restriction should be expanded
to all size containers.
EPA does not have authority under section 609 of the Act
to ban or otherwise eliminate all small containers. The regulatory
language in subpart B is designed to implement a specific statutory
provision concerning small containers. That provision does not
ban, but only limits the sale of such small containers. The
Agency, however, is concerned about the potential problems that
the continued availability of small containers of refrigerants
could cause, as suggested in the comments. Mixing refrigerants
may lead to air conditioning systems failures and may also
subsequently
contaminate recycle and recover equipment. The Agency is also
aware that do-it-yourselfers may lawfully purchase containers
with over 20 pounds of refrigerant. EPA will review this situation
after gaining some experience with the operation of today's
rule. It is important to note that several states have completely
banned the sale of small containers.
The Agency received one comment supporting the requirement
that a sign be posted at the point of refrigerant sale for its
educational and deterrence value. One comment stated that the
requirement was redundant because the small containers would
not be available to the general public, and one comment suggested
that a label on the container was more appropriate than a sign.
The Agency wishes to clarify that the intent of the retail sign
is to alert the public to the sales restriction under section
609 of the Act. Labeling requirements alerting consumers to
products containing or made with class I and class II substances
are being developed under section 611 of the Act and will not
be redundant with the section 609 sales restrictions. For these
reasons, EPA has determined to keep the requirement for a retail
sign. EPA has clarified the regulation to state that the sign
must be located where the sales occur.
Several commenters addressed the proposed recordkeeping
requirements.
The Automative Refrigerant Products Institute (ARPI) suggested
that, at the wholesale level, purchasers be permitted to offer
a one-time signed statement stating that cans are intended for
retail sale in situations where sellers and purchasers have
several transactions over time. The seller would keep the statement
on file. The Agency agrees that this would be an efficient
implementation
method. No changes have been made to the regulations, however,
because such actions would be allowed under the regulations
as written.
ARPI also suggested that equipment registration certifications,
instead of technician certifications, be used in recordkeeping
for small container purchases. Although service establishments
must submit information to the Agency concerning the type of
equipment they have purchased, the Agency will not send back
a verified proof of equipment purchase. As a result, there is
no equipment registration certification that could be used for
recordkeeping as ARPI suggested. Proof of certification will
be provided by the technician certification programs and therefore,
other than the purchase for resale, certified technicians are
the only individuals permitted to purchase small containers.
Two commenters stated that retail purchasers should be required
to simply present valid proof of certification at the time of
purchase, with no additional recordkeeping required at the retail
level. Upon further consideration, the Agency agrees that the
recordkeeping requirements are not essential to determine
compliance
and develop effective enforcement actions. For example, if
necessary,
EPA may review the normal records maintained by a business when
circumstances lead EPA to believe a violation may have occurred.
EPA has therefore deleted the recordkeeping for retail purchase
from the final requirements published today.
The Agency received several comments on the residual amount
of CFC-12 remaining in cans after use, the standard of purity
used by small container manufacturers, and the dispensing mechanism
of the containers themselves. The Agency continues to be concerned
about this aspect of the use of small containers and will further
consider these comments when developing lowest achievable emission
levels under section 608 of the Act.
F. Equipment Certification and Small Entity Certification
1. Certification Dates
As noted earlier, the statute requires that, after January
1, 1992, no person repairing or servicing a motor vehicle for
consideration may perform any service on a motor vehicle air
conditioner involving the refrigerant unless they properly use
approved equipment. In addition, the repair or service personnel
must have been properly trained and certified for such work.
The statute grants a one year extension to small service
establishments-
establishments that performed less than 100 service jobs involving
refrigerant in the year 1990. This one year extension is only
available if the small service establishment certifies to the
Administrator on or before January 1, 1992 that they meet the
requirements for this extension.
All persons performing service on motor vehicle air conditioners
for consideration, notwithstanding the size of the establishment,
must certify to the Administrator on or before January 1, 1993
that they have purchased approved equipment and that authorized
service personnel have been properly trained and certified.
One commenter expressed concern that the one year delay between
the requirement to use approved equipment for servicing (except
small shops) and the requirement to certify the purchase and
use of such equipment could result in reduced compliance. The
commenter recognized that the difference in dates stems from
section 609(c) and 609(d), and suggested that EPA increase
compliance
through education and enforcement.
EPA would like to encourage establishments to certify that
they own equipment before January 1, 1993. The Agency applauds
the efforts of the hundreds of service entities that have already
submitted their equipment registrations to the Agency. The Agency
has also received hundreds of the small establishment
certifications.
Once the certifications are filed with the Agency, the small
establishments have until January 1, 1993 to purchase equipment.
As discussed in section V. on effective dates, EPA enforcement
actions may be taken as of the effective date of this regulation.
Several commenters were concerned that the small entity
extension
is too easy to obtain. Two commenters suggested that the small
establishments be required to submit substantially more information
than proposed on the motor vehicle air conditioner service jobs
they performed in 1990, such as vehicle make, model, engine
size and CFC charge remaining, before they are granted an
extension.
The Agency believes that the intent of Congress in including
this specific small establishment extension was to reduce the
regulatory burden on small entities. Requiring small entities
to supply substantially more information could significantly
reduce the relief Congress sought to provide. Moreover, the
additional information that commenters suggested EPA collect
would not provide significantly greater assurance that the numbers
of service jobs reported by small entities was accurate. The
Agency will therefore not require the suggested service record
submittal for small entities. However, the Agency may examine
an establishment's records supporting its certification that
it performed less than 100 service jobs in 1990. If warranted,
appropriate enforcement action may be taken.
In additional comments received after the end of the comment
period, the State of Oregon requested that EPA consider exempting
very small service establishments from all requirements. They
classify the very small establishments as those performing under
20 jobs involving refrigerant per year. Oregon is considering
establishing this exemption in its own program based on several
factors; the state's belief that small service establishments
will not voluntarily undertake recycling because of the high
cost of the equipment and the fact that the small number of
service jobs the shop performs will make it difficult for them
to make a return on their investment. The amount of refrigerant
released by these shops would be small and Oregon suggests that
the compliance rates for these shops will be low if an exclusion
is not granted.
Congress clearly recognized that small service establishments
merited special consideration and included the one year extension
for the equipment requirements. By implication, Congress also
considered that no further relief was necessary or appropriate.
The Agency, moreover, does not believe the establishment of
any "de minimis" number of service jobs is warranted. The Agency
recognizes that small service establishments may determine that
the small number of jobs involving refrigerant that they perform
do not justify continuing to perform service and purchasing
the equipment. They may choose to decline this type of work
or arrange to have the refrigerant removed from the motor vehicle
air conditioner at a service location that does have the
appropriate
equipment before they perform service. The small establishment
may also consider the purchase of recover only equipment, which
is typically less expensive than recover/recycle equipment.
The sale of any recovered refrigerant to a reclamation facility
will also help the entity recoup the cost of the investment.
The Agency also wishes to highlight the fact that a significant
amount of recover/recycle equipment was sold before enactment
of the Act on the basis of the industry voluntary program. Although
most of the equipment was purchased by larger service
establishments
such as dealerships, the estimates of the equipment sold indicate
that some smaller service establishments also purchased equipment
voluntarily. The Agency believes the flexible nature of this
final regulation and the inclusion of the one year extension
for small service establishments provide for appropriate relief
for these entities and no further measures are necessary.
2. Example Form
In the proposed rule, EPA included an example form to illustrate
the type of information necessary to certify equipment to the
Agency. Equipment owners are not required to use the form to
certify; it is provided as an example only. One commenter
questioned
whether the proposed example form can be used to certify recover
only equipment to the Agency. To clarify that the example form
may be used for either type of equipment, the form has been
revised to include the words "or recover" wherever the form
states recover/recycle equipment. It should be noted, however,
that EPA has not yet finalized the standards for approval of
recover only equipment. Until that time, the only equipment
officially approved by EPA is recover/recycle equipment certified
to meet the standards of appendix A. The only other change to
the example form provided in the proposal is the replacement
of the acronym "MACs" with the more accurate "MVAC" for motor
vehicle air conditioner. One commenter mentioned that MACs could
be confused with the name of the Mobile Air Conditioning Society
(MACS). The revised form appears as Example A in today's notice.
Any certifications received using the proposed form are acceptable
because, as stated in the proposal, the form is intended for
guidance and the Agency does not require establishments to report
in this format. The data elements for reporting remain the same
as the proposal: the serial number of each unit of equipment,
the name of the purchaser of equipment and the address of the
establishment where the equipment will be located, the manufacturer
name, model number, date of manufacture, and a signed statement
that each individual authorized to perform service using the
equipment is properly trained and certified and that the equipment
will be properly used in servicing motor vehicle air conditioners.
Small establishments may also use the example form to certify
that they performed less than 100 service jobs involving
refrigerant
in 1990. All certifications, both equipment and small entity,
should be sent to the following address: MVACs Recycling Program
Manager, Stratospheric Ozone Protection Branch (6202-J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20460.
G. Relationship to State Regulations
In the proposed notice, the Agency stated that the Act does
not provide for Federal preemption of state requirements. The
rule published here today represents the Federal requirements
applicable to the servicing of motor vehicle air conditioners,
and states or localities may establish programs with different
requirements to the extent otherwise consistent with the United
States Constitution. EPA is aware of several states with their
own programs, e.g. Florida and Oregon, and in most cases the
programs contain requirements that mirror the Federal program.
The Agency would like to clarify that compliance with a state
or local program may not in and of itself constitute compliance
with the Federal standards. For example, regardless of state
registration or permitting requirements, the service establishments
must certify their equipment with EPA (see section III.F.).
Conversely, service entities and technicians in states or
localities
with regulations that are effective in advance of the Federal
program must comply with these earlier requirements in their
state and locality.
Regarding technician certification, as stated in section
III.D., in cases where the state or locality has approved programs,
the Agency will work with the state or locality to minimize
the burden of obtaining approval for these programs. The Agency
encourages any programs that have been approved by a state or
locality to submit those program for Federal approval. The Agency
is aware that in many cases the programs approved at the Federal
level may also be approved by the state or locality and, therefore,
no conflict would exist.
The Agency is aware that some states have also performed
"substantially identical equipment" reviews for equipment.
Equipment
in those states also must be reviewed for applicability with
the Federal requirements and EPA will work with the states to
determine if their review criteria were appropriate.
Eight commenters highlighted the importance of coordinated
state and Federal activity and the Agency will work with states
to coordinate and streamline the enforcement activities in states
where programs exist.
One commenter asked whether the State of Oregon's inclusion
of wrecking yards in their recycling program would be superseded
by the Federal requirements. Although the regulations published
today do not include removal of CFCs from automobiles at disposal,
the Agency intends to include requirements under the Safe Disposal
Program within section 608 of the Act. The Federal regulations
promulgated today do not preempt Oregon's requirements and,
in fact, supports the state's efforts to develop a program.
Leak detection efforts by the states of Wisconsin and Florida
are other examples of requirements that EPA's program do not
preempt.
H. Recordkeeping Requirements
1. Certification
The proposed certification requirements were intended to
establish records to assist EPA in its compliance and enforcement
activities. Section 609(d) of the Act requires that persons
performing service on motor vehicle air conditioners certify
to the Agency that they have acquired and are properly using
approved equipment. The Agency proposed that this certification
include name and address of the establishment, the name of the
manufacturer, the equipment model number, manufacturer date,
and serial number. The proposed certificate also included a
statement concerning the proper use of the equipment, and that
authorized service personnel were properly trained and certified.
Small service establishments must certify to the Agency that
they did under 100 service jobs involving refrigerant in 1990
if they wish to qualify for the one year extension described
in section III.F.
The Agency would like to clarify that the Agency will not
issue permits or licenses to service establishments upon receipt
of the equipment certification. Several commenters mistakenly
suggested that permits or EPA certifications be used for the
small container sales restrictions discussed in section III.E.
As required in the Act, the small container sales restriction
is based on the technician certification requirements. Service
establishments that wish to verify EPA's receipt of their
certification
may send the certification by certified mail. They may also
wish to retain a copy.
2. Recordkeeping
In the proposal, EPA attempted to develop requirements similar,
in most cases, to the typical invoice or purchasing records
maintained by a service entity. The Agency proposed that invoices
kept upon service of motor vehicle air conditioners include
the fact that service was performed, the name, address, and
phone number of the vehicle owners, and the year, make, model
and license plate numbers of the vehicles serviced, date of
service, and the odometer reading of the vehicle. Owners of
approved equipment would retain records of the amount of
refrigerant
purchased and consumed each month and they retain records
demonstrating
that all persons authorized to use the approved equipment are
properly certified. The Agency also proposed that owners of
approved recover only equipment maintain records of the refrigerant
sent to off-site reclaimers or recycled on-site.
For the small container sales restriction, the Agency proposed
that purchasers attest in writing that they are properly trained
and certified. This writing would include the name of the
purchaser,
their technician certification number, the date of sale, and
the quantity of cans purchased. Under the proposal, the only
exception to the requirement that purchasers of small containers
be trained and certified is if the purchaser is purchasing the
small containers for resale only and signs a statement to that
effect.
Several industry commenters noted that the proposed
recordkeeping
requirements were written for the consumer vehicle repair industry
and do not consider several specific circumstances. Examples
include service on fleet vehicles and farm or construction
equipment
where license plates, vehicle owner, or routine invoice procedures
do not exist. As stated above, the Agency intended the proposed
requirements to be as similar as possible to the types of
recordkeeping
already being maintained for accounting purposes to minimize
the burden of this regulation. The Agency acknowledges that
the proposed requirements do not reflect all the servicing
situations
that may occur nationally.
Two commenters believed that the recordkeeping requirements
were unnecessarily burdensome on small businesses that do not
have the resources to create or complete new forms. One commenter
specifically questioned whether the reconciliation of purchases
and estimation of the volumes of recycled refrigerant was possible
considering the various amounts of refrigerant that motor vehicle
air conditioners may contain when they are serviced. The Agency's
proposal included a provision requiring the maintenance of records
on the amount of refrigerant purchased and consumed each month
in order to allow the Agency to make a determination if refrigerant
was actually being recycled. The Agency agrees with the commenter
that this recordkeeping requirement will not necessarily aid
in determining whether recycling actually occurred. This
determination
would be difficult to make because the Agency could only compare
the records to statistics for the average amount of refrigerant
remaining in motor vehicle air conditioners at service. The
amount of refrigerant actually found in a particular system,
however, is dependent upon the type of repair that must be made,
for example automobiles involved in front-end accidents may
well have lost their entire charge, while the amount of refrigerant
lost during normal use will vary between manufacturers and models
of motor vehicles. The requirement that service establishments
keep invoices of service performed and record their purchases
and consumption of refrigerant, therefore, has been deleted
in today's final rule.
Several commenters addressed the tracking of off-site shipments
to reclamation facilities, with some commenters suggesting more
detailed tracking and others suggesting that all records of
off-site shipments or on-site recycling were unnecessary. The
Agency has determined that service establishments using recover
only equipment should be required to keep records of where
refrigerant
is sent for reclamation. Shops using recover only equipment
that will have the refrigerant recycled by the owner must keep
the name and address of the owner on-site. The Agency has decided
it would not require in this regulation that service entities
keep records of amounts of refrigerant sent and dates the shipments
have been made. The Agency would like to clarify that service
establishments using recover equipment need not retain records
of the amount of refrigerant recycled on-site, only the address
of the off-site reclamation facility they are currently doing
business with. Additional recordkeeping requirements proposed
by EPA have been deleted as unnecessary. The records required
by these regulations must be maintained on-site for three years
for spot checks upon inspection. The records should not be
submitted
to the Agency.
As discussed in section III.E, the small container recordkeeping
requirements will not remain the same as proposed. Sellers of
small containers of refrigerant must review the technician
certification
of anyone purchasing small containers, however they are not
required to maintain records of the technician name, technician
certification program, technician certification number, the
date of sale and the number of containers purchased. The only
exception to this is if the purchaser is purchasing the cans
for resale, then he must so certify to the seller in writing.
IV. Summary of Today's Final Rule
This section briefly describes the provisions of today's
final rule. Any changes made to the rule language as a result
of the public comments are described. Various changes to the
final rule that have been made for purposes of clarification
are not described herein.
A. Authority
The authority citation has been revised to reflect the most
recent authority citation adopted by EPA for part 82.
B. Purpose and Scope (Section 82.30)
This section states that these rules implement section 609
of the Act and apply to persons performing service for
consideration
on motor vehicle air conditioners. There were no changes to
this section based on public comment. Minor editing changes
were made for clarification.
C. Definitions (Section 82.32)
This section contains the definition of the terms "approved
independent standards testing organization", "approved refrigerant
recycling equipment", "motor vehicle", "motor vehicle air
conditioners",
"properly using", "refrigerant", "service for consideration",
and "service involving refrigerant".
The definitions for approved equipment and standards testing
organization reference the sections of the rule (section 82.36 and
section 82.38) described below. The motor vehicle definition was
limited
to this subpart and the definition was changed to include those
vehicles meeting the definition of motor vehicle used for purposes
of title II of the Act. Also, the definition was clarified to
specify motor vehicles where final assembly has been completed
by the original equipment manufacturer. Motor vehicle air
conditioner
defines the type of systems covered by this regulation and this
definition was clarified to exclude buses using HCFC-22
refrigerant.
The definition of refrigerant was clarified by including the
language in the Act that states that effective November 15,
1995, refrigerant shall include any substitutes for class I
or class II substance. Service involving refrigerant defines
the activities regulated. The service for consideration definition
is intended to exclude "do-it-yourselfers" from the requirements
of the regulation.
The term "properly using" sets out the requirements for use
of approved equipment. It states that technicians must follow
the SAE J standard J1989 when operating equipment, as found
in appendix A. For recover/recycle equipment, properly using
includes recycling the refrigerant before reuse. For recover
only equipment, properly using includes sending the refrigerant
recovered to a reclamation facility or recycling it on-site
if recycle equipment is available. Any refrigerant from reclamation
facilities used for the purpose of recharging motor vehicle
air conditioners must be at or above the ARI 700-88 standard
of purity. The definition also states that intentional venting
of refrigerant is an improper use of equipment.
The only change to the properly using definition is the addition
of a provision allowing the owner of a piece of recover only
equipment to transfer the refrigerant off-site and recycle it
using a piece of recover/recycle equipment owned by the same
person.
D. Prohibitions (Section 82.34)
There are three prohibitions in this final rule. The first
requires that by January 1, 1992, persons performing service
for consideration on motor vehicle air conditioners must properly
use approved equipment. These persons must be trained and
certified.
The requirements of this prohibition do not apply until January
1, 1993, for service establishments that performed under 100
service jobs involving refrigerant in 1990, and so certify to
EPA.
The second prohibition states that effective November 15,
1992, no person may sell or distribute any class I or class
II substance in a container with less than 20 pounds of refrigerant
that is suitable for use as a refrigerant in a motor vehicle
air conditioner to any person unless that person is properly
trained and certified, or certifies to the seller that the
containers
are intended for resale only.
The final prohibition states that no technician training
program may issue certificates unless that program complies
with all the standards in section 82.40. The three prohibitions
remain
as originally proposed, except for clarifying language changes.
E. Approved Refrigerant Recycling Equipment (Section 82.36)
This section describes the two types of equipment that meet
the definition of approved equipment for use in servicing motor
vehicle air conditioners. The first type of equipment recovers
CFC-12 and recycles it on-site to the SAE standard J1991. The
standards for certification of this type of equipment appear
in appendix A.
The second type of equipment only recovers refrigerant. As
stated in the properly using definition, the recovered refrigerant
must be sent to a reclamation facility or recycled on-site.
The standard for this equipment was proposed as Appendix B on
April 22, 1992. The appendix will be finalized upon completion
of the analysis of the public comments. In finalizing the standards
for recover only equipment, appendix B, the Agency intends to
also amend section 82.36 (a) and (b) to include references to
appendix
B.
This section also contains provisions allowing the Agency
to determine if equipment is substantially identical to certified
equipment. Equipment manufacturers or owners may submit
applications
for approval which contain information on the equipment that
indicates its capability to meet the standards in appendix A.
EPA anticipates that a substantially identical determination
will apply to appendix B. That issue, however, will be addressed
when EPA promulgates the final appendix B standards. The Agency
will maintain a list of approved equipment. This list is available
to the public.
F. Approved Independent Standards Testing Organizations (Section
82.38)
This section establishes the criteria for approval of testing
laboratories or organizations for equipment. Organizations must
demonstrate that they have the experience and the appropriate
equipment to perform testing. Various changes to this section
between the proposed notice and today's final regulation were
made for purposes of clarification. In finalizing the standards
for recover only equipment, appendix B, the Agency intends to
also amend section 82.38 (a) and (b) to include references to
appendix
B.
G. Technician Training and Certification (Section 82.40)
This section establishes the standards for programs approved
to train and certify technicians. The standards cover training,
the subject material that must be covered by each program, and
minimum test administration procedures. Summaries of reviews
of programs must be submitted every two years and programs must
offer technicians proof of certification upon successful completion
of the test. Recertification of technicians is not required
at this time.
One change to this section is clarification of the term
independent
testing authority to state "Completed tests must be graded by
an entity or individual who receives no benefit from the outcome
of testing; a fee may be charged for grading." This is not a
substantive change in the requirements. Another change involves
approval of organizations that meet all criteria except for
the Test Administration criteria, if the program, when viewed
as a whole, is as effective as a program that does meet all
of these criteria. In finalizing the standards for recover only
equipment, appendix B, the Agency intends to also amend section
82.40(a)
to include references to appendix B.
The Administrator reserves the right to revoke approval if
a program violates any of the requirements and inspectors may
revoke a technician's certification if the technician is unable
to properly use equipment upon inspection.
H. Certification and Recordkeeping Requirements
This section states that no later than January 1, 1993,
establishments
repairing or servicing motor vehicle air conditioners for
consideration
must certify to the Agency that they have acquired and are properly
using approved equipment. The data elements required for
certification
include the name of the purchaser of the equipment, the address
of the service establishment, the name of the manufacturer,
the model number of equipment, the date of manufacture and serial
number. The owner of the equipment or another responsible officer
must sign the certification stating that equipment will be properly
used by certified technicians. The certification must be sent
to: MVACs Recycling Program Manager, Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Branch (6202-J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Ss)treet, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
The address is the same as proposed except the MACs acronym
has been replaced with the more accurate MVAC acronym for motor
vehicle air conditioners. Other clarifications have also been
made. These are not substantive changes.
Service establishments that performed fewer than 100 service
jobs involving refrigerant in 1990 may qualify for a one year
extension by submitting a small establishment certification
by January 1, 1992. This submittal must contain the name and
address of the service establishment and a signed statement
that the establishment performed under 100 service jobs in 1990.
The statement must be sent to the address shown above.
Establishments
must retain records to verify this, however those records should
not be submitted to the Agency. The example form provided in
the preamble may be used for both the equipment and small
establishment
certification, although use of the form is not required.
Recordkeeping requirements at the service establishment have
been changed. The establishment need not retain invoices of
motor vehicle air conditioner service. The requirement in the
proposed rule to record the amount of refrigerant recycled on-
site (if recover only equipment is used and the refrigerant
is not sent to a reclamation facility) has been deleted. The
proposed requirement that service establishments retain records
of the amount of refrigerant purchased and consumed each month
has also been deleted in today's final rule. The service
establishments
must retain records demonstrating that technicians authorized
to use the equipment are certified and must maintain records
identifying the reclamation facility that refrigerant is sent
to.
The recordkeeping requirements for sales of containers of
less than 20 pounds of refrigerant have been deleted. The only
exception to this requirement is if the purchaser is purchasing
the small containers for resale. In that case, the seller must
receive a written statement from the purchaser that the cans
are for resale only. In all other cases, the seller must verify
that the purchaser is properly trained and certified, and must
have a reasonable basis to believe the information presented
by the purchaser is accurate. Finally, a sign must be displayed
at the point of sale of small containers stating that it is
a violation of federal law to sell containers of class I and
class II refrigerant in containers of less than 20 pounds to
anyone who is not properly trained and certified.
All records under this section must be retained for three
years. EPA authorized representatives must be allowed access
to records upon inspection.
I. Appendix A and Appendix B
Appendix A contains the three SAE standards used to certify
recover/recycle equipment. The SAE standard J1990 (Extraction
and Recycle Equipment for Mobile Automotive Air Conditioning
Systems) has been revised by SAE and the revised version is
incorporated into today's final rule. As discussed in section
III.B.1, SAE J1990 (1991) includes minor changes from SAE J1990
(1989).
Appendix B was proposed on April 22, 1992. The appendix will
be finalized after the completion of the public comment period.
V. Effective Date
The effective date for today's rule is August 13, 1992. Section
82.34 of these regulations requires that after this date, no
person repairing or servicing a motor vehicle for consideration
may perform any service on a motor vehicle air conditioner
involving
the refrigerant unless they properly use equipment approved
pursuant to section 82.36 of these regulations. Any such repair or
service personnel must have been properly trained and certified
under section 82.40 of the regulations.
The effective date of these rules does not, however, limit
the lawful effect of various statutory prohibitions in section
609 of the Act. These statutory prohibitions are not dependent
on EPA rulemaking. For example, section 609(c) states that
"[e]ffective
January 1, 1992, no person repairing or servicing motor vehicles
for consideration may perform any service on a motor vehicle
air conditioner involving the refrigerant for such air conditioner
without properly using approved refrigerant recycling equipment
and no such person may perform such service unless such person
has been properly trained and certified." Section 609(c) also
conditions the one year extension for small volume establishments
on the filing of a certificate with the Administrator on or
before January 1, 1992.
The Agency received several comments requesting a "grace
period" to allow enough time to purchase equipment and certify
technicians. EPA is aware that it may have been impossible in
practice for persons to fully comply with the section 690(c)
requirements, given that this final rule was not promulgated
until after January 1, 1992. The Agency is also aware that numerous
establishments purchased refrigerant recycling equipment in
anticipation of these regulations, and had their technicians
trained and certified. EPA has already received many equipment
certificates as well as small volume establishment certificates.
This program was developed in the context of a pre-existing
voluntary recycling program that involved several industries,
trade associations, and numerous business entities across the
nation. In addition, Congress apparently envisioned a maximum
of 45 days between promulgation of the regulation (November
15, 1991) and the effective date of the statutory prohibition
(January 1, 1992). The Agency will consider all of these factors
when deciding whether to commence an enforcement action for
violations of section 690(c) that occurred after January 1,
1992, but before the effective date of this rule.
VI. Summary of Supporting Analyses
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Executive Order No. 12291 requires the preparation of a
regulatory
impact analysis for major rules, defined by the order as those
likely to result in:
(1) An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
(2) A major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual
industries, Federal, state or local government agencies, or
geographic industries; or
(3) Significant adverse effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of the
United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises in domestic or export markets.
The Agency has determined that this regulation does not meet
the definition of a major rule under E.O. 12291. However, the
Agency has prepared an analysis to assess the impact of the
regulation (see Costs and Benefits of MACs Recycling, May 24,
1991) which is available for review in the public docket for
this rulemaking.
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to promulgate regulations
to phase out the production of ozone depleting substances by
the year 2000 (2002 for methyl chloroform). EPA prepared a
Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) under the requirements of E.O. 12291 to
analyze the costs and benefits of the phaseout (see Regulatory
Impact Analysis: Compliance with the Clean Air Act Provisions
for the Protection of Stratospheric Ozone, December 21, 1990).
A key result of this analysis is that with the imposition of
the phase out of production coupled with an excise tax of CFCs
(see Omnibus Trade Reconciliation Act, 1989), CFC-12 recycling
would be fully implemented by service establishments by the
year 1992 even without a specific regulatory requirement to
do so. As a result, the overwhelming majority of costs of this
regulation on CFC-12 recycling at service of motor vehicle air
conditioners (e.g. capital cost of recycling equipment and annual
operating costs) have already been attributed to the CFC phaseout
and have been included in the Phaseout RIA. The Phaseout RIA
does not, however, include the costs of motor vehicle air
conditioner
service technician certification as required under the Act.
The total cost of this requirement is determined to be
approximately
$14.9 million, well under the $100 million cost threshold for
a major rule. The Costs and Benefits of MAC Recycling provides
some general costs and benefits that could be attributed to
motor vehicle air conditioner recycling, however, these costs
are not incremental to the costs of the phaseout.
One commenter asserted that the regulatory requirements will
result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more. The Agency reiterates that the $100 million figure is
intended to address incremental costs as a result of regulation,
and as stated above the majority of the costs for this rulemaking
have already been determined as part of the phase-out of ozone
depleting substances. Attributing the cost of equipment purchase
to this regulation would result in double counting of costs.
The State of Oregon questioned the assumption within the
phase-out RIA that service establishments would implement recycling
absent a specific requirement to do so. At the time the phase-
out RIA was developed, the Agency believed that service
establishments
would undertake recycling for both economic and non-economic
reasons. Non-economic reasons could include customers'
environmental
concerns or development of industry service norms that include
recycling (a result of the voluntary program). These assumptions
have been verified to some extent by the fact that over 50,000
pieces of recover/recycle equipment were sold prior to the end
of 1990.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. Purpose
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, 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).
The Agency has performed an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis and determined that while this regulation affects a
substantial number of small businesses, it does not impact a
substantial number significantly. The analysis is found in appendix
A in the Costs and Benefits of MAC Recycling and is available
for review in the docket. The methodology and results of the
analysis are presented below.
2. Methodology and Results
To examine the impacts on small businesses, EPA first
characterized
the regulated community by identifying the SIC codes that would
be involved in the servicing and repair of motor vehicle air
conditioners. After determining the number of these entities
that are classified as small by the Small Business Act (SBA),
the Agency performed impact tests using sales, profits and cash
flow measures. The analysis included least expensive and most
expensive private cost scenarios for compliance that were developed
for the Costs and Benefits of MAC Recycling. The least expensive
cost scenario assumed recover only equipment is purchased at
a price of $1000 while the more expensive option assumes $3000
recycle equipment is acquired. The analysis also takes the cost
of filter changes, sending refrigerant out for reclamation,
labor, and cost savings from using recycled refrigerant into
account.
The State of Oregon questioned the Agency's determination
that 90 percent of establishments that perform service are small
businesses and suggested that 50 percent is a more reasonable
figure. Oregon offered no justification for the 50 percent figure,
however and the Agency maintains that the original analysis,
which closely followed the Small Business Administration guidelines
for determination of small business when performing regulatory
flexibility analysis, is accurate.
The analysis indicates that the number of small establishments
impacted by the regulation ranges from 18 percent if the least
expensive compliance option, purchasing equipment that recovers
refrigerant for off-site reclamation, is chosen to 32 percent
if the most expensive compliance option is chosen. The Agency
believes that most small establishments will choose the least
cost option. This analysis did not reflect the fact that over
50,000 machines have already been sold based on the voluntary
program developed by industry. The establishments that have
purchased these machines will only have the incremental regulatory
burden of technician certification. In addition, Congress has
already established some flexibility for small establishments,
defined as those entities that performed under 100 motor vehicle
service jobs in 1990, by providing a one year extension on the
requirement to purchase equipment.
The Agency believes that the one year extension, the fact
that some entities have already purchased equipment, and the
existence of the lease cost option of purchasing recover only
equipment will result in less than 18 percent of small
establishments
being significantly impacted by this regulation. The Agency
frequently defines a "significant number" of small entities
as approximately 20 percent or more of small establishments.
As a result, the Agency certifies that this regulation will
not have an impact on a significant number of small entities,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this final rule
have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. An Informational Collection Request document has
been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1432.07) and a copy may be obtained
by writing to the Information Policy Branch (PM-223y), U.S.EPA,
401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-
2740.
Send comments on the information collection requirements
to Chief, Information Policy Branch, PM-223, U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 and to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Paperwork Reduction Project [2060-0170],
Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked
"Attention: Desk Officer for EPA."
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Chlorofluorocarbons, Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Motor
vehicle air conditioning, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Reporting and certification requirements, Stratospheric ozone
layer.
Dated: June 29, 1992.
William K. Reilly,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, EPA is hereby amending
40 CFR part 82 as follows:
PART 82-PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
1. Authority: The authority citation for part 82 is revised
to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
2. Part 82 is amended by designating the existing sections
and appendices as subpart A and by adding a new subpart B to
read as follows:
Subpart A-Production and Consumption Controls
* * * * *
Subpart B-Servicing of Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners
Sec.
82.30 Purpose and Scope.
82.32 Definitions.
82.34 Prohibitions.
82.36 Approved Refrigerant Recycling Equipment.
82.38 Approved Independent Standards Testing Organizations.
82.40 Technician Training and Certification.
82.42 Certification, Recordkeeping and Public Notification
Requirements.
Appendix A to Part 82 Subpart B-Standard for Recycle/Recover
Equipment
Appendix B to Part 82 Subpart B-Standard for Recover Equipment
[Reserved]
section 82.30 Purpose and scope.
(a) The purpose of these regulations is to implement section
609 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (Act) regarding the servicing
of motor vehicle air conditioners.
(b) These regulations apply to any person performing service
on a motor vehicle for consideration when this service involves
the refrigerant in the motor vehicle air conditioner.
82.32 Definitions.
(a) Approved Independent Standards Testing Organization means
any organization which has applied for and received approval
from the Administrator pursuant to section 82.38.
(b) Approved Refrigerant Recycling Equipment means equipment
certified by the Administrator or an organization approved under
section 82.38 as meeting either one of the standards in section
82.36. Such
equipment extracts and recycles refrigerant or extracts refrigerant
for recycling on-site or reclamation off-site.
(c) Motor vehicle as used in this subpart means any vehicle
which is self-propelled and designed for transporting persons
or property on a street or highway, including but not limited
to passenger cars, light duty vehicles, and heavy duty vehicles.
This definition does not include a vehicle where final assembly
of the vehicle has not been completed by the original equipment
manufacturer.
(d) Motor vehicle air conditioners means mechanical vapor
compression refrigeration equipment used to cool the driver's
or passenger's compartment of any motor vehicle. This definition
is not intended to encompass the hermetically sealed refrigeration
systems used on motor vehicles for refrigerated cargo and the
air conditioning systems on passenger buses using HCFC-22
refrigerant.
(e) Properly using means using equipment in conformity with
Recommended Service Procedure for the Containment of R-12 (CFC-
12) set forth in appendix A to this subpart. In addition, this
term includes operating the equipment in accordance with the
manufacturer's guide to operation and maintenance and using
the equipment only for the controlled substance for which the
machine is designed. For equipment that extracts and recycles
refrigerant, properly using also means to recycle refrigerant
before it is returned to a motor vehicle air conditioner. For
equipment that only recovers refrigerant, properly using includes
the requirement to recycle the refrigerant on-site or send the
refrigerant off-site for reclamation. Refrigerant from reclamation
facilities that is used for the purpose of recharging motor
vehicle air conditioners must be at or above the standard of
purity developed by the Air-conditioning and Refrigeration
Institute
(ARI 700-88) (available at 4301 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 425,
Arlington, Virginia 22203) in effect as of November 15, 1990.
Refrigerant may be recycled off-site only if the refrigerant
is extracted using recover only equipment, and is subsequently
recycled off-site by equipment owned by the person that owns
both the recover only equipment and owns or operates the
establishment
at which the refrigerant was extracted. In any event, approved
equipment must be used to extract refrigerant prior to performing
any service during which discharge of refrigerant from the motor
vehicle air conditioner can reasonably be expected. Intentionally
venting or disposing of refrigerant to the atmosphere is an
improper use of equipment.
(f) Refrigerant means any class I or class II substance used
in a motor vehicle air conditioner. Class I and class II substances
are listed in part 82, subpart A, appendix A. Effective November
15, 1995, refrigerant shall also include any substitute substance.
(g) Service for consideration means being paid to perform
service, whether it is in cash, credit, goods, or services.
This includes all service except that done for free.
(h) Service involving refrigerant means any service during
which discharge or release of refrigerant from the motor vehicle
air conditioner to the atmosphere can reasonably be expected
to occur.
section 82.34 Prohibitions.
(a) Effective August 13, 1992, no person repairing or servicing
motor vehicles for consideration may perform any service on
a motor vehicle air conditioner involving the refrigerant for
such air conditioner
(1) Without properly using equipment approved pursuant to
section 82.36; and
(2) Unless such person has been properly trained and certified
by a technician certification program approved by the Administrator
pursuant to section 82.40.
The requirements of this paragraph do not apply until January
1, 1993 for small entities who certify to the Administrator
in accordance with section 82.42(a)(2).
(b) Effective November 15, 1992, no person may sell or
distribute,
or offer for sale or distribution, any class I or class II
substance
that is suitable for use as a refrigerant in motor vehicle air-
conditioner and that is in a container which contains less than
20 pounds of such refrigerant to any person unless that person
is properly trained and certified under section 82.40 or intended
the
containers for resale only, and so certifies to the seller under
section 82.42(b)(4).
(c) No technician training programs may issue certificates
unless the program complies with all of the standards in section
82.40(a).
section 82.36 Approved refrigerant recycling equipment.
(a)(1) Refrigerant recycling equipment must be certified
by the Administrator or an independent standards testing
organization
approved by the Administrator under section 82.38 to meet the
following
standard:
(2) Equipment that recovers and recycles refrigerant must
meet the standards set forth in appendix A to this subpart
(Recommended
Service Procedure for the Containment of R-12, Extraction and
Recycle Equipment for Mobile Automotive Air-Conditioning Systems,
and Standard of Purity for Use in Mobile Air Conditioning Systems).
(b) Refrigerant recycling equipment purchased before September
4, 1991 that has not been certified under paragraph (a) of this
section shall be considered approved if the equipment is
substantially
identical to equipment certified under paragraph (a) of this
section. Equipment manufacturers or owners may request a
determination
by the Administrator by submitting an application and supporting
documents which indicate that the equipment is substantially
identical to approved equipment to: MVACs Recycling Program
Manager, Stratospheric Ozone Protection Branch (6202-J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20460, Attn. Substantially Identical Equipment Review.
Supporting documents must include process flow sheets, lists
of components and any other information which would indicate
that the equipment is capable of cleaning the refrigerant to
the standards in appendix A. Authorized representatives of the
Administrator may inspect equipment for which approval is being
sought and request samples of refrigerant that has been extracted
and/or recycled using the equipment. Equipment which fails to
meet appropriate standards will not be considered approved.
(c) The Administrator will maintain a list of approved equipment
by manufacturer and model. Persons interested in obtaining a
copy of the list should send written inquiries to the address
in paragraph (b) of this section.
section 82.38 Approved independent standards testing
organizations.
(a) Any independent standards testing organization may apply
for approval by the Administrator to certify equipment as meeting
the standards in appendix A to this subpart. The application
shall be sent to: MVACs Recycling Program Manager, Stratospheric
Ozone Protection Branch (6202-J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
(b) Applications for approval must document the following:
(1) That the organization has the capacity to accurately
test whether refrigerant recycling equipment complies with the
applicable standards. In particular, applications must document:
(i) The equipment present at the organization that will be
used for equipment testing;
(ii) The expertise in equipment testing and the technical
experience of the organization's personnel;
(iii) Thorough knowledge of the standards as they appear
in appendix A of this subpart; and
(iv) The test procedures to be used to test equipment for
compliance with applicable standards, and why such test procedures
are appropriate for that purpose.
(2) That the organization has no conflict of interest and
will receive no financial benefit based on the outcome of
certification
testing; and
(3) That the organization agrees to allow the Administrator
access to verify the information contained in the application.
(c) If approval is denied under this section, the Administrator
shall give written notice to the organization setting forth
the basis for his or her determination.
(d) If at any time an approved independent standards testing
organization is found to be conducting certification tests for
the purposes of this subpart in a manner not consistent with
the representations made in its application for approval under
this section, the Administrator reserves the right to revoke
approval.
section 82.40 Technician training and certification.
(a) Any technician training and certification program may
apply for approval, in accordance with the provisions of this
paragraph, by submitting to the Administrator at the address
in section 82.38 (a) verification that the program meets all of the
following standards:
(1) Training. Each program must provide adequate training,
through one or more of the following means: on-the-job training,
training through self-study of instructional material, or on-
site training involving instructors, videos or a hands-on
demonstration.
(2) Test Subject Material. The certification tests must
adequately
and sufficiently cover the following:
(i) The standards established for the service and repair
of motor vehicle air conditioners as set forth in Appendix A
to this subpart. These standards relate to the recommended service
procedures for the containment of refrigerant, extraction and
recycle equipment, and the standard of purity for refrigerant
in motor vehicle air conditioners.
(ii) Anticipated future technological developments, such
as the introduction of HFC-134a in new motor vehicle air
conditioners.
(iii) The environmental consequences of refrigerant release
and the adverse effects of stratospheric ozone layer depletion.
(iv) As of August 13, 1992, the requirements imposed by the
Administrator under section 609 of the Act.
(3) Test Administration. Completed tests must be graded by
an entity or individual who receives no benefit based on the
outcome of testing; a fee may be charged for grading. Sufficient
measures must be taken at the test site to ensure that tests
are completed honestly by each technician. Each test must provide
a means of verifying the identification of the individual taking
the test. Programs are encouraged to make provisions for non-
English speaking technicians by providing tests in other languages
or allowing the use of a translator when taking the test. If
a translator is used, the certificate received must indicate
that translator assistance was required.
(4) Proof of Certification. Each certification program must
offer individual proof of certification, such as a certificate,
wallet-sized card, or display card, upon successful completion
of the test. Each certification program must provide a unique
number for each certified technician.
(b) In deciding whether to approve an application, the
Administrator
will consider the extent to which the applicant has documented
that its program meets the standards set forth in this section.
The Administrator reserves the right to consider other factors
deemed relevant to ensure the effectiveness of certification
programs. The Administrator may approve a program which meets
all of the standards in paragraph (a) of this section except
test administration if the program, when viewed as a whole,
is at least as effective as a program that does meet all the
standards. Such approval shall be limited to training and
certification
conducted before August 13, 1992. If approval is denied under
this section, the Administrator shall give written notice to
the program setting forth the basis for his determination.
(c) Technical Revisions. Directors of approved certification
programs must conduct periodic reviews of test subject material
and update the material based upon the latest technological
developments in motor vehicle air conditioner service and repair.
A written summary of the review and any changes made must be
submitted to the Administrator every two years.
(d) Recertification. The Administrator reserves the right
to specify the need for technician recertification at some future
date, if necessary.
(e) If at any time an approved program is conducted in a
manner not consistent with the representations made in the
application
for approval of the program under this section, the Administrator
reserves the right to revoke approval.
(f) Authorized representatives of the Administrator may require
technicians to demonstrate on the business entity's premises
their ability to perform proper procedures for recovering and/or
recycling refrigerant. Failure to demonstrate or failure to
properly use the equipment may result in revocation of the
technician's
certificate by the Administrator. Technicians whose certification
is revoked must be recertified before servicing or repairing
any motor vehicle air conditioners.
section 82.42 Certification, recordkeeping and public
notification
requirements.
(a) Certification requirements. (1) No later than January
1, 1993, any person repairing or servicing motor vehicle air
conditioners for consideration shall certify to the Administrator
that such person has acquired, and is properly using, approved
equipment and that each individual authorized to use the equipment
is properly trained and certified. Certification shall take
the form of a statement signed by the owner of the equipment
or another responsible officer and setting forth:
(i) The name of the purchaser of the equipment;
(ii) The address of the establishment where the equipment
will be located; and
(iii) The manufacturer name and equipment model number, the
date of manufacture, and the serial number of the equipment.
The certification must also include a statement that the equipment
will be properly used in servicing motor vehicle air conditioners,
that each individual authorized by the purchaser to perform
service is properly trained and certified in accordance with
section 82.40, and that the information given is true and correct.
The certification should be sent to: MVACs Recycling Program
Manager, Stratospheric Ozone Protection Branch (6202-J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20460.
(2) The prohibitions in section 82.34(a) shall be effective as
of
January 1, 1993 for persons repairing or servicing motor vehicle
air conditioners for consideration at an entity which performed
service on fewer than 100 motor vehicle air conditioners in
calendar year 1990, but only if such person so certifies to
the Administrator no later than August 13, 1992. Persons must
retain adequate records to demonstrate that the number of vehicles
serviced was fewer than 100.
(3) Certificates of compliance are not transferable. In the
event of a change of ownership of an entity which services motor
vehicle air conditioners for consideration, the new owner of
the entity shall certify within thirty days of the change of
ownership pursuant to section 82.42(a)(1).
(b) Recordkeeping requirements. (1) Any person who owns approved
refrigerant recycling equipment certified under section 82.36(a)(2)
must maintain records of the name and address of any facility
to which refrigerant is sent.
(2) Any person who owns approved refrigerant recycling equipment
must retain records demonstrating that all persons authorized
to operate the equipment are currently certified under section
82.40.
(3) Any person who sells or distributes any class I or class
II substance that is suitable for use as a refrigerant in a
motor vehicle air conditioner and that is in a container of
less than 20 pounds of such refrigerant must verify that the
purchaser is properly trained and certified under section 82.40.
The
seller must have a reasonable basis for believing that the
information
presented by the purchaser is accurate. The only exception to
these requirements is if the purchaser is purchasing the small
containers for resale only. In this case, the seller must obtain
a written statement from the purchaser that the containers are
for resale only and indicate the purchasers name and business
address. Records required under this paragraph must be retained
for a period of three years.
(4) All records required to be maintained pursuant to this
section must be kept for a minimum of three years unless otherwise
indicated. Entities which service motor vehicle air conditioners
for consideration must keep these records on-site.
(5) All entities which service motor vehicle air conditioners
for consideration must allow an authorized representative of
the Administrator entry onto their premises (upon presentation
of his or her credentials) and give the authorized representative
access to all records required to be maintained pursuant to
this section.
(c) Public Notification. Any person who conducts any retail
sales of a class I or class II substance that is suitable for
use as a refrigerant in a motor vehicle air conditioner, and
that is in a container of less than 20 pounds of refrigerant,
must prominently display a sign where sales of such containers
occur which states:
"It is a violation of federal law to sell containers of Class
I and Class II refrigerant of less than 20 pounds of such
refrigerant
to anyone who is not properly trained and certified to operate
approved refrigerant recycling equipment."
Appendix A to Subpart B-Standard for Recycle/Recover Equipment
Standard of Purity for Use in Mobile Air-Conditioning Systems
Foreword
Due to the CFC's damaging effect on the ozone layer, recycle
of CFC-12 (R-12) used in mobile air-conditioning systems is
required to reduce system venting during normal service operations.
Establishing recycle specifications for R-12 will assure that
system operation with recycled R-12 will provide the same level
of performance as new refrigerant.
Extensive field testing with the EPA and the auto industry
indicate that reuse of R-12 removed from mobile air-conditioning
systems can be considered, if the refrigerant is cleaned to
a specific standard. The purpose of this standard is to establish
the specific minimum levels of R-12 purity required for recycled
R-12 removed from mobile automotive air-conditioning systems.
1. Scope
This information applies to refrigerant used to service
automobiles,
light trucks, and other vehicles with similar CFC-12 systems.
Systems used on mobile vehicles for refrigerated cargo that
have hermetically sealed, rigid pipe are not covered in this
document.
2. References
SAE J1989, Recommended Service Procedure for the Containment
of R-12
SAE J1990, Extraction and Recycle Equipment for Mobile Automotive
Air-Conditioning Systems
ARI Standard 700-88
3. Purity Specification
The refrigerant in this document shall have been directly
removed from, and intended to be returned to, a mobile
air-conditioning
system. The contaminants in this recycled refrigerant 12 shall
be limited to moisture, refrigerant oil, and noncondensable
gases, which shall not exceed the following level:
3.1 Moisture: 15 ppm by weight.
3.2 Refrigerant Oil: 4000 ppm by weight.
3.3 Noncondensable Gases (air): 330 ppm by wright.
4. Refrigeration Recycle Equipment Used in Direct Mobile Air-
Conditioning Service Operations Requirement
4.1 The equipment shall meet SAE J1990, which covers additional
moisture, acid, and filter requirements.
4.2 The equipment shall have a label indicating that it is
certified to meet this document.
5. Purity Specification of Recycled R-12 Refrigerant Supplied
in Containers From Other Recycle Sources
Purity specification of recycled R-12 refrigerant supplied
in containers from other recycle sources, for service of mobile
air-conditioning systems, shall meet ARI Standard 700-88 (Air
Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute).
6. Operation of the Recycle Equipment
This shall be done in accordance with SAE J1989.
Rationale
Not applicable.
Relationship of SAE Standard to ISO Standard
Not applicable.
Reference Section
SAE J1989, Recommended Service Procedure for the Containment
of R-12
SAE J1990, Extraction and Recycle Equipment for Mobile Automotive
Air-Conditioning Systems
ARI Standard 700-88
Application
This information applies to refrigerant used to service
automobiles,
light trucks, and other vehicles with similar CFC-12 systems.
Systems used on mobile vehicles for refrigerated cargo that
have hermetically sealed, rigid pipe are not covered in this
document.
Committee Composition
Developed by the SAE Defrost and Interior Climate Controls
Standards
Committee
W.J. Atkinson, Sun Test Engineering, Paradise Valley, AZ-Chairman
J.J. Amin, Union Lake, MI
H.S. Andersson, Saab Scania, Sweden
P.E. Anglin, ITT Higbie Mfg. Co., Rochester, MI
R.W. Bishop, GMC, Lockport, NY
D. Hawks, General Motors Corporation, Pontiac, MI
J.J. Hernandez, NAVISTAR, Ft. Wayne, IN
H. Kaltner, Volkswagen AG, Germany, Federal Republic
D.F. Last, GMC, Troy, MI
D.E. Linn, Volkswagen of America, Warren, MI
J.H. McCorkel, Freightliner Corp., Charlotte, NC
C.J. McLachlan, Livonia, MI
H.L. Miner, Climate Control Inc., Decatur, IL
R.J. Niemiec, General Motors Corp., Pontiac, MI
N. Novak, Chrysler Corp., Detroit, MI
S. Oulouhojian, Mobile Air Conditioning Society, Upper Darby,
PA
J. Phillips, Air International, Australia
R.H. Proctor, Murray Corp., Cockeysville, MD
G. Rolling, Behr America Inc., Ft. Worth, TX
C.D. Sweet, Signet Systems Inc., Harrodsburg, KY
J.P. Telesz, General Motors Corp., Lockport, NY
Extraction and Recycle Equipment for Mobile Automotive Air
Conditioning
Systems
SAE Recommended Practice, SAE J1990 (1991){1}
0. Foreword
Due to the CFC's damaging effect on the ozone layer, recycle
of CFC-12 (R-12) used in mobile air-conditioning systems is
required to replace system venting during normal service
operations.
Establishing recycle specifications for R-12 will provide the
same level of performance as new refrigerant.
³{1} This standard is appropriate for equipment
certified
³after February 1, 1992. This equipment may be marked
³design certified for compliance with SAE J1990 (1991).
³The standard for approval for equipment certified on
³or before February 1, 1992 is SAE J1990 (1989). This
³equipment may be marked design certified for compliance
³with SAE J1990 (1989). Both types of equipment are
considered
³approved under the requirements of this regulation.
Extensive field testing with the EPA and the auto industry
indicates that R-12 can be reused, provided that it is cleaned
to specifications in SAE J1991. The purpose of this document
is to establish the specific minimum equipment specification
required for recycle of R-12 that has been directly removed
from mobile systems for reuse in mobile automotive air-conditioning
systems.
1. Scope
The purpose of this document is to provide equipment
specifications
for CFC-12 (R-12) recycling equipment. This information applies
to equipment used to service automobiles, light trucks, and
other vehicles with similar CFC-12 air-conditioning systems.
Systems used on mobile vehicles for refrigerated cargo that
have hermetically sealed systems are not covered in this document.
The equipment in this document is intended for use with refrigerant
that has been directly removed from, and intended to be returned
to, a mobile air-conditioning system. Should other revisions
due to operational or technical requirements occur, this document
may be amended.
2. References
2.1 Applicable Documents:
2.1.1 SAE Publications-Available from SAE, 400 Commonwealth
Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001.
SAE J1991-Standard of Purity for Use in Mobile Air-Conditioning
Systems
SAE J2196-Service Hose for Automotive Air-Conditioning
2.1.2 CGA Publications-Available from CGA, Crystal Gateway
#1, Ste. 501, 1235 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202
CGA Pamphlet S-1.1-Pressure Relief Device Standard Part 1-Cylinders
for Compressed Gases
3. Specification and General Description
3.1 The equipment must be able to extract and process CFC-
12 from mobile air-conditioning systems. The equipment shall
process the contaminated R-12 samples as defined in 8.4 and
shall clean the refrigerant to the level as defined in SAE J1991.
3.2 The equipment shall be suitable for use in an automotive
service environment and be capable of continuous operation in
ambients from 10 to 49 øC.
3.3 The equipment must be certified by Underwriters Laboratories
or an equivalent certifying laboratory.
3.4 The equipment shall have a label "Design Certified by
(Company Name) to Meet SAE J1991". The minimum letter size shall
be bold type 3 mm in height.
4. Refrigeration Recycle Equipment Requirements
4.1 Moisture and Acid-The equipment shall incorporate a
desiccant
package that must be replaced before saturated with moisture
and whose mineral acid capacity is at least 5% by weight of
total system dry desiccant.
4.1.1 The equipment shall be provided with a moisture detection
device that will reliably indicate when moisture in the CFC-
12 exceeds the allowable level and requires the filter/dryer
replacement.
4.2 Filter-The equipment shall incorporate an in-line filter
that will trap particulates of 15 æm or greater.
4.3 Noncondensable Gas.
4.3.1 The equipment shall either automatically purge
noncondensables
(NCGs) if the acceptable level is exceeded or incorporate a
device to alert the operator that NCG level has been exceeded.
NCG removal must be part of normal operation of the equipment
and instructions must be provided to enable the task to be
accomplished
within 30 minutes.
4.3.2 Refrigerant loss from noncondensable gas purging during
testing described in Section 8 shall not exceed five percent
(5%) by weight of the total contaminated refrigerant removed
from the test system.
4.3.3 Transfer of Recycled Refrigerant-Recycled refrigerant
for recharging and transfer shall be taken from the liquid phase
only.
5. Safety Requirements
5.1 The equipment must comply with applicable federal, state
and local requirements on equipment related to the handling
of R-12 material. Safety precautions or notices related to the
safe operation of the equipment shall be prominently displayed
on the equipment and should also state "Caution-Should Be Operated
By Qualified Personnel".
6. Operating Instructions
6.1 The equipment manufacturer must provide operating
instructions,
necessary maintenance procedures, and source information for
replacement parts and repair.
6.2 The equipment must prominently display the manufacturer's
name, address and any items that require maintenance or replacement
that affect the proper operation of the equipment. Operation
manuals must cover information for complete maintenance of the
equipment to assure proper operation.
7. Functional Description
7.1 The equipment must be capable of ensuring recovery of
the R-12 from the system being service, by reducing the system
pressure below atmospheric to a minimum of 102 mm of mercury.
7.2 To prevent overcharge, the equipment must be equipped
to protect the tank used to store the recycled refrigerant with
a shutoff device and a mechanical pressure relief valve.
7.3 Portable refillable tanks or containers used in conjunction
with this equipment must meet applicable Department of
Transportation
(DOT) or Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standards and be adaptable
to existing refrigerant service and charging equipment.
7.4 During operation, the equipment shall provide overfill
protection to assure the storage container, internal or external,
liquid fill does not exceed 80% of the tank's rated volume at
21.1 øC (70 øF) per DOT standards, CFR title 49, section
173.304 and
American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
7.4.1 Additional Storage Tank Requirements.
7.4.1.1 The cylinder valve shall comply with the standard
for cylinder valves, UL 1769.
7.4.1.2 The pressure relief device shall comply with the
Pressure Relief Device Standard Part 1-Cylinders for Compressed
Gases, CGA Pamphlet S-1.1.
7.4.1.3 The tank assembly shall be marked to indicate the
first retest date, which shall be 5 years after date of
manufacture.
The marking shall indicate that retest must be performed every
subsequent 5 years. The marking shall be in letters at least
1/4 in high.
7.5 All flexible hoses must meet SAE J2196 hose specification
effective January 1, 1992.
7.6 Service hoses must have shutoff devices located within
30 cm (12 in) of the connection point to the system being serviced
to minimize introduction of noncondensable gases into the recovery
equipment and the release of the refrigerant when being
disconnected.
7.7 The equipment must be able to separate the lubricant
from the recovered refrigerant and accurately indicate the amount
removed during the process, in 30 ml units. Refrigerant dissolves
in lubricant sample. This creates the illusion that more lubricant
has been recovered than actually has been. The equipment lubricant
measuring system must take in account such dissolved refrigerant
to prevent overcharging the vehicle system with lubricant. Note:
Use only new lubricant to replace the amount removed during
the recycle process. Used lubricant should be discarded per
applicable federal, state, and local requirements.
7.8 The equipment must be capable of continuous operation
in ambient of 10 to 49 øC (50 to 120 øF).
7.9 The equipment should be compatible with leak detection
material that may be present in the mobile AC system.
8. Testing
This test procedure and the requirement are used for evaluation
of the equipment for its ability to clean the contaminated R-
12 refrigerant.
8.1 The equipment shall clean the contaminated R-12 refrigerant
to the minimum purity level as defined in SAE J1991, when tested
in accordance with the following conditions:
8.2 For test validation, the equipment is to be operated
according to the manufacturer's instructions.
8.3 The equipment must be preconditioned with 13.6 kg (30
lb) of the standard contaminated R-12 at an ambient of 21 øC
(70 øF) before starting the test cycle. Sample amounts are not
to exceed 1.13 kg (2.5 lb) with sample amounts to be repeated
every 5 min. The sample method fixture, defined in Fig. 1, shall
be operated at 24 øC (75 øF).
8.4 Contaminated R-12 Samples.
8.4.1 Standard contaminated R-12 refrigerant shall consist
of liquid R-12 with 100 ppm (by weight) moisture at 21 øC (70
øF) and 45,000 ppm (by weight) mineral oil 525 suspension
nominal
and 770 ppm by weight of noncondensable gases (air).
8.4.2 High moisture contaminated sample shall consist of
R-12 vapor with 1,000 ppm (by weight) moisture.
8.4.3 High oil contaminated sample shall consist of R-12
with 200,000 ppm (by weight) mineral oil 525 suspension viscosity
nominal.
8.5 Test Cycle.
8.5.1 After preconditioning as stated in 8.3, the test cycle
is started, processing the following contaminated samples through
the equipment:
8.5.1.1 3013.6 kg (30 lb) of standard contaminated R-12.
8.5.1.2 1 kg (2.2 lb) of high oil contaminated R-12.
8.5.1.3 4.5 kg (10 lb) of standard contaminated R-12.
8.5.1.4 1 kg (2.2 lb) of high moisture contaminated R-12.
8.6 Equipment Operating Ambient.
8.6.1 The R-12 is to be cleaned to the minimum purity level,
as defined in SAE J1991, with the equipment operating in a stable
ambient of 10, 21, and 49 øC (50, 70, and 120 øF) and
processing
the samples as defined in 8.5.
8.7 Sample Analysis.
8.7.1 The processed contaminated sample shall be analyzed
according to the following procedure.
8.8 Quantitative Determination of Moisture.
8.8.1 The recycled liquid phase sample of CFC-12 shall be
analyzed for moisture content via Karl Fischer coulometer titration
or an equivalent method. The Karl Fischer apparatus is an
instrument
for precise determination of small amounts of water dissolved
in liquid and/or gas samples.
8.8.2 In conducting the test, a weighed sample of 30 to 130
grams is vaporized directly into the Karl Fischer analyte. A
coulometer titration is conducted and the results are calculated
and displayed as parts per million moisture (weight).
8.9 Determination of Percent Lubricant.
8.9.1 The amount of oil in the recycled sample of CFC-12
is to be determined by gravimetric analysis.
8.9.2 Following venting of noncondensable, in accordance
with the manufacturer's operating instructions, the refrigerant
container shall be shaken for 5 minutes prior to extracting
samples for test.
8.9.3 A weighted sample of 175 to 225 grams of liquid CFC-
12 is allowed to evaporate at room temperature. The percent
oil is to be calculated from the weight of the original sample
and the residue remaining after the evaporation.
8.10 Noncondensable Gas.
8.10.1 The amount of noncondensable gas is to be determined
by gas chromatography. A sample of vaporized refrigerant liquid
shall be separated and analyzed by gas chromatography. A Porapak
Q column at 130 øC and a hot wire detector may be used for
analysis.
8.10.2 This test shall be conducted on recycled refrigerant
(taken from the liquid phase) within 30 minutes after the proper
venting of noncondensable.
8.10.3 Samples shall be shaken for 8 hours prior to retesting
while at a temperature of 24 ñ 2.8 øC (75 ñ 5
øF). Known volumes
of refrigerant vapor are to be injected for separation and analysis
by means of gas chromatography. A Porapak Q column at 130 øC
(266 øF) and a hot wire detector are to be used for the
analysis.
8.10.4 This test shall be conducted at 21 and 49 øC and may
be performed in conjunction with the testing defined in Section
8.6. The equipment shall process at least 13.6 kg of standard
contaminated refrigerant for this test.
8.11 Sample Requirements.
8.11.1 The sample shall be tested as defined in 8.7, 8.8,
8.9, and 8.10 at ambient temperatures of 10, 21, and 49 øC
(50,
70, and 120 øF) as defined in 8.6.1.
>>>> See the accompanying hardcopy volume for
non-machine-readable
data that appears at this point. (FIGURE 1) <<<<
Recommended Service Procedure for the Containment of R-12
1. Scope
During service of mobile air-conditioning systems, containment
of the refrigerant is important. This procedure provides service
guidelines for technicians when repairing vehicles and operating
equipment defined in SAE J1990.
2. References
SAE J1990, Extraction and Recycle Equipment for Mobile Automotive
Air-Conditioning Systems
3. Refrigerant Recovery Procedure
3. 1 Connect the recovery unit service hoses, which shall
have shutoff valves within 12 in (30 cm) of the service ends,
to the vehicle air-conditioning system service ports.
3.2 Operate the recovery equipment as covered by the equipment
manufacturers recommended procedure.
3.2.1 Start the recovery process and remove the refrigerant
from the vehicle AC system. Operate the recovery unit until
the vehicle system has been reduced from a pressure to a vacuum.
With the recovery unit shut off for at least 5 min, determine
that there is no refrigerant remaining in the vehicle AC system.
If the vehicle system has pressure, additional recovery operation
is required to remove the remaining refrigerant. Repeat the
operation until the vehicle AC system vacuum level remains stable
for 2 min.
3.3 Close the valves in the service lines and then remove
the service lines from the vehicle system. Proceed with the
repair/service. If the recovery equipment has automatic closing
valves, be sure they are properly operating.
4. Service With Manifold Gage Set
4.1 Service hoses must have shutoff valves in the high, low,
and center service hoses within 12 in (30 cm) of the service
ends. Valves must be closed prior to hose removal from the air-
conditioning system. This will reduce the volume of refrigerant
contained in the service hose that would otherwise be vented
to atmosphere.
4.2 During all service operations, the valves should be closed
until connected to the vehicle air-conditioning system or the
charging source to avoid introduction of air and to contain
the refrigerant rather than vent open to atmosphere.
4.3 When the manifold gage set is disconnected from the air-
conditioning system or when the center hose is moved to another
device which cannot accept refrigerant pressure, the gage set
hoses should first be attached to the reclaim equipment to recover
the refrigerant from the hoses.
5. Recycled Refrigerant Checking Procedure for Stored Portable
Auxiliary Container
5.1 To determine if the recycled refrigerant container has
excess noncondensable gases (air), the container must be stored
at a temperature of 65øF (18.3øC) or above for a period
of time,
12 h, protected from direct sun.
5.2 Install a calibrated pressure gage, with 1 psig divisions
(0.07 kg), to the container and determine the container pressure.
5.3 With a calibrated thermometer, measure the air temperature
within 4 in (10 cm) of the container surface.
5.4 Compare the observed container pressure and air temperature
to determine if the container exceeds the pressure limits found
on Table 1, e.g., air temperature 70øF (21øC) pressure
must
not exceed 80 psig (5.62 kg/cm2 ).
Table 1
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Temp øF ³ Psig ³ Temp øF ³
Psig ³ Temp øF ³ Psig ³ Temp øF
³ Psig ³ Temp øF ³ Psig
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
65 ³ 74 ³ 75 ³ 87
³ 85 ³ 102 ³ 95 ³ 118
³ 105 ³ 136
66 ³ 75 ³ 76 ³ 88
³ 86 ³ 103 ³ 96 ³ 120
³ 106 ³ 138
67 ³ 76 ³ 77 ³ 90
³ 87 ³ 105 ³ 97 ³ 122
³ 107 ³ 140
68 ³ 78 ³ 78 ³ 92
³ 88 ³ 107 ³ 98 ³ 124
³ 108 ³ 142
69 ³ 79 ³ 79 ³ 94
³ 89 ³ 108 ³ 99 ³ 125
³ 109 ³ 144
70 ³ 80 ³ 80 ³ 96
³ 90 ³ 110 ³ 100 ³ 127
³ 110 ³ 146
71 ³ 82 ³ 81 ³ 98
³ 91 ³ 111 ³ 101 ³ 129
³ 111 ³ 148
72 ³ 83 ³ 82 ³ 99
³ 92 ³ 113 ³ 102 ³ 130
³ 112 ³ 150
73 ³ 84 ³ 83 ³ 100
³ 93 ³ 115 ³ 103 ³ 132
³ 113 ³ 152
74 ³ 86 ³ 84 ³ 101
³ 94 ³ 116 ³ 104 ³ 134
³ 114 ³ 154
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Table 1
(Metric)
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Tempø C ³ Pres ³ Tempø C ³
Pres ³ Tempø C ³ Pres ³ Tempø C
³ Pres ³ Tempø C ³ PRres
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
18.3 ³ 5.20 ³ 23.9 ³ 6.11
³ 29.4 ³ 7.17 ³ 35.0 ³ 8.29
³ 40.5 ³ 9.56
18.8 ³ 5.27 ³ 24.4 ³ 6.18
³ 30.0 ³ 7.24 ³ 35.5 ³ 8.43
³ 41.1 ³ 9.70
19.4 ³ 5.34 ³ 25.0 ³ 6.32
³ 30.5 ³ 7.38 ³ 36.1 ³ 8.57
³ 41.6 ³ 9.84
20.0 ³ 5.48 ³ 25.5 ³ 6.46
³ 31.1 ³ 7.52 ³ 36.6 ³ 8.71
³ 42.2 ³ 9.98
20.5 ³ 5.55 ³ 26.1 ³ 6.60
³ 31.6 ³ 7.59 ³ 37.2 ³ 8.78
³ 42.7 ³ 10.12
21.1 ³ 5.62 ³ 26.6 ³ 6.74
³ 32.2 ³ 7.73 ³ 37.7 ³ 8.92
³ 43.3 ³ 10.26
21.6 ³ 5.76 ³ 27.2 ³ 6.88
³ 32.7 ³ 7.80 ³ 38.3 ³ 9.06
³ 43.9 ³ 10.40
22.2 ³ 5.83 ³ 27.7 ³ 6.95
³ 33.3 ³ 7.94 ³ 38.8 ³ 9.13
³ 44.4 ³ 10.54
22.7 ³ 5.90 ³ 28.3 ³ 7.03
³ 33.9 ³ 8.08 ³ 39.4 ³ 9.27
³ 45.0 ³ 10.68
23.3 ³ 6.04 ³ 28.9 ³ 7.10
³ 34.4 ³ 8.15 ³ 40.0 ³ 9.42
³ 45.5 ³ 10.82
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Pres kg/sq cm.
5.5 If the container pressure is less than the Table 1 values
and has been recycled, limits of noncondensable gases (air)
have not been exceeded and the refrigerant may be used.
5.6 If the pressure is greater than the range and the container
contains recycled material, slowly vent from the top of the
container a small amount of vapor into the recycle equipment
until the pressure is less than the pressure shown on Table
1.
5.7 If the container still exceeds the pressure shown on
Table 1, the entire contents of the container shall be recycled.
6. Containers for Storage of Recycled Refrigerant
6.1 Recycled refrigerant should not be salvaged or stored
in disposable refrigerant containers. This is the type of container
in which virgin refrigerant is sold. Use only DOT CFR title
49 or UL approved storage containers for recycled refrigerant.
6.2 Any container of recycled refrigerant that has been stored
or transferred must be checked prior to use as defined in section
5.
7. Transfer of Recycled Refrigerant
7.1 When external portable containers are used for transfer,
the container must be evacuated at least 27 in of vacuum (75
mm Hg absolute pressure) prior to transfer of the recycled
refrigerant.
External portable containers must meet DOT and UL standards.
7.2 To prevent on-site overfilling when transferring to external
containers, the safe filling level must be controlled by weight
and must not exceed 60% of container gross weight rating.
8. Disposal of Empty/Near Empty Containers
8.1 Since all the refrigerant may not be removed from disposable
refrigerant containers during normal system charging procedures,
empty/near empty container contents should be reclaimed prior
to disposal of the container.
8.2 Attach the container to the recovery unit and remove
the remaining refrigerant. When the container has been reduced
from a pressure to a vacuum, the container valve can be closed.
The container should be marked empty and is ready for disposal.
Rationale
Not applicable.
Relationship of SAE Standard to ISO Standard.
Not applicable.
Reference Section
SAE J1990, Extraction and Recycle Equipment for Mobile Automotive
Air-Conditioning Systems
Application
During service of mobile air-conditioning systems, containment
of the refrigerant is important. This procedure provides service
guidelines for technicians when repairing vehicles and operating
equipment defined in SAE J1990.
Committee Composition
Developed by the SAE Defrost and Interior Climate Control Standards
Committee
W.J. Atkinson, Sun Test Engineering, Paradise Valley, AZ-Chairman
J.J. Amin, Union Lake, MI
H.S. Andersson, Saab Scania, Sweden
P.E. Anglin, ITT Higbie Mfg. Co., Rochester, MI
R.W. Bishop, GMC, Lockport, NY
D.Hawks, General Motors Corporation, Pontiac, MI
J.J. Hernandez, NAVISTAR, Ft. Wayne, IN
H. Kaltner, Volkswagen AG, Germany, Federal Republic
D.F. Last, GMC, Troy, MI
D.E. Linn, Volkswagen of America, Warren, MI
J.H. McCorkel, Freightliner Corp., Charlotte, NC
C.J. McLachlan, Livonia, MI
H.L. Miner, Climate Control Inc., Decatur, IL
R.J. Niemiec, General Motors Corp., Pontiac, MI
N. Novak, Chrysler Corp., Detroit, MI
S. Oulouhojian, Mobile Air Conditioning Society, Upper Darby,
PA
J. Phillips, Air International, Australia
R.H. Proctor, Murray Corp., Cockeysville, MD
G. Rolling, Behr America Inc., Ft. Worth, TX
C.D. Sweet, Signet Systems Inc., Harrodsburg, KY
J.P. Telesz, General Motors Corp., Lockport, NY
Note: This form will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
>>>> See the accompanying hardcopy volume for
non-machine-readable
forms that appear at this point. <<<<
Appendix B to Subpart B-Standard for Recover Equipment [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 92-15861 Filed 7-13-92; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Ozone Layer Depletion - Regulatory Programs
- You are here: EPA Home
- Ozone Layer Depletion
- Regulatory Programs
- 57 FR 31242