[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 41 (Thursday, February 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7858-7887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4041]




[[Page 7857]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 82



Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Supplemental Rule Regarding a 
Recycling Standard Under Section 608 (Proposed) of the Clean Air Act; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 41 / Tuesday, February 29, 1996 / 
Proposed Rules   

[[Page 7858]]


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-5428-1]
RIN 2060-AF36


Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Supplemental Rule Regarding a 
Recycling Standard Under Section 608 (Proposed) of the Clean Air Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Through this action EPA is proposing to amend the Refrigerant 
Recycling Regulations promulgated under section 608 of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990. This proposal is being undertaken to provide 
more flexibility where refrigerants are transferred between appliances 
with different ownership; to adopt a third-party certification program 
for reclaimers and laboratories; to propose amendments to the 
recordkeeping aspects of the technician certification program; and to 
clarify aspects of the sales restriction. In addition, EPA is proposing 
changes for the testing of recovery/recycling equipment; and proposes 
to adopt changes to ARI Standard 740, an industry standard previously 
adopted by EPA. Also, this action clarifies the distinction between 
major and minor repairs. In most instances, this action proposes to 
provide greater flexibility to technicians servicing equipment and it 
streamlines several existing provisions without compromising the goals 
of protecting public health and the environment or compliance with the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments.

DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received by April 1, 1996 at 
the address below. A public hearing, if requested, will be held in 
Washington, DC. If such a hearing is requested, it will be held on 
March 18, 1996 at 9 am, and the comment period would then be extended 
to April 17, 1996. Anyone who wishes to request a hearing should call 
Cindy Newberg at 202/233-9729 by March 7, 1996. Interested persons may 
contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 to learn 
if a hearing will be held and to obtain the date and location of any 
hearing. Any hearing will be strictly limited to the subject matter of 
this proposal, the scope of which is discussed below.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal must be submitted to the Air 
Docket Office, Public Docket No. A-92-01 VIII.I, Waterside Mall (Ground 
Floor) Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, 
DC 20460 in room M-1500. Additional comments and materials supporting 
this rulemaking are contained in Public Docket No. A-92-01. Dockets may 
be inspected from 8 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. A 
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials. The public 
hearing will be held at the EPA Auditorium, 401 M Street, SW., 
Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Newberg, Program Implementation 
Branch, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric 
Programs, Office of Air and Radiation (6205-J), 401 M Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 233-9729. The Stratospheric Ozone 
Information Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 can also be contacted for further 
information.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of this preamble are listed in 
the following outline:

I. Refrigerant Recycling Regulations

II. Proposed Revisions to the Refrigerant Recycling Regulations

A. Contractor reclamation
B. Laboratory certification
    1. Requirements For Laboratory Certification Programs
    2. Requirements for laboratories
C. Revocation and Suspension
D. Adoption of third party approval of reclaimers
E. Technician Certification and the Sales Restriction
    1. Recordkeeping
    2. Technicians certified to work on motor vehicle air 
conditioners
    3. Transfers between wholly-owned subsidiaries
F. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioner-like appliances
G. Changes to the ARI 740 Test Procedure for Refrigerant Recycling 
and Recovery Equipment
    1. Measurement of Vapor Recovery Rates
    2. High-Temperature Testing
    3. Use of Representative Recovery Cylinders
    4. Limiting Emissions from Condenser Clearing, Oil Draining, 
Purging, and External Hoses
    5. Requirements for Equipment Advertised as ``Recycling 
Equipment''
    6. Durability Testing
H. Major and Minor Repairs
    1. Comments received since the final rule
    2. Proposed definitions

I. Change in the Definition of Small Appliance

1. Background

    2. Additional Comments
    3. Today's proposal

III. Summary of Supporting Analysis

A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

I. Refrigerant Recycling Regulations

    Final regulations promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) under section 608 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 
(the Act), published on May 14, 1993 (58 FR 28660), establish a 
recycling program for ozone-depleting refrigerants recovered during the 
servicing and disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment. 
Together with the prohibition on venting during the maintenance, 
service, repair, and disposal of class I and class II substances (see 
the listing notice January 22, 1991; 56 FR 2420) that took effect on 
July 1, 1992, these regulations are intended to substantially reduce 
the emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. These regulations were 
subsequently revised in the final regulations published on August 19, 
1994 (59 FR 42950), November 9, 1994 (59 FR 55912), March 17, 1995 (60 
FR 14607) and August 8, 1995 (60 FR 40419).
    The current regulations require that persons servicing air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment observe certain service 
practices to reduce emissions, establish equipment and reclamation 
certification requirements, and comply with a technician certification 
requirement. The regulations also require that ozone-depleting 
compounds contained in appliances be removed prior to disposal of the 
appliances, and that all air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment, 
except for small appliances, be provided with a servicing aperture that 
will facilitate recovery of refrigerant. In addition, the regulations 
restrict the sale of refrigerant and establish a leak repair 
requirement for appliances that normally hold a refrigerant charge of 
more than fifty pounds. Also, the current regulations require that 
refrigerant recovered from an appliance but not returned to that 
appliance or another appliance with the same ownership, must be 
reclaimed by an EPA certified reclaimer. This last provision is 
scheduled to sunset in March 1996. Today EPA is issuing a direct final 
rulemaking and a corresponding proposal to extend the effectiveness of 
these requirements until December 31, 1996 or until EPA completes this 
rulemaking, whichever occurs first. EPA suggests that the reader review 
those notices as well.

[[Page 7859]]


II. Proposed Revisions to the Refrigerant Recycling Regulations

A. Contractor Reclamation

    In this action EPA is proposing to revise the requirements to have 
refrigerant reclaimed by a certified reclaimer where the level of 
purity can be ensured through the testing of representative samples. 
EPA currently prohibits the sale or offer for sale for use as a 
refrigerant any class I or class II substance consisting wholly or in 
part of used refrigerant, unless the refrigerant has been reclaimed by 
a person who has been certified as a reclaimer pursuant to Sec. 82.164. 
Thus, where refrigerant is moved between appliances with different 
owners, the refrigerant must be reclaimed by a certified reclaimer. The 
only exceptions to this current prohibition, such as where refrigerant 
is transferred between motor vehicle air conditioners (MVACs) that have 
different ownership, is indicated in Sec. 82.154(g) and (h).
    The definition of reclaim promulgated on August 19, 1994 (59 FR 
42956), is as follows:

    [To] reclaim refrigerant means to reprocess refrigerant to at 
least the purity specified in appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart 
F (based on ARI Standard 700-1993, Specifications for Fluorocarbon 
and Other Refrigerants) and to verify this purity using the 
analytical methodology prescribed in appendix A. In general, 
reclamation involves the use of processes or procedures available 
only at a reprocessing or manufacturing facility.

EPA promulgated this reclamation requirement to address concerns with 
the quality of refrigerants, the potential for inadvertent mixing of 
refrigerants, and the potential costs to the owners of appliances 
damaged by the use of used refrigerants that do not meet any purity 
standard. A purity standard helps protect consumers who lack the 
technical knowledge to evaluate the risks of using refrigerant obtained 
from an outside source that may be excessively contaminated. EPA stated 
that ``limited off-site recycling that is supported by a standard of 
purity and a testing method for recycled refrigerant may be the most 
cost-effective means of carrying out Section 608 while protecting air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment'' (May 14, 1993,(58 FR 
28679)). To protect consumers, EPA permitted off-site recycling only 
when the ownership of the refrigerant did not change. In instances 
where ownership of the refrigerant did change, EPA required 
reprocessing by a certified reclaimer and chemical analysis to ensure 
conformance with ARI Standard 700. However, the Agency noted that it 
would conduct a further rulemaking to address whether a standard for 
used refrigerant could be developed that would protect air-conditioning 
and refrigeration equipment, but would permit technicians to clean 
refrigerant themselves by recycling, rather than sending the 
refrigerant to a reclaimer.
    Since the implementation of these regulations, EPA believes that 
there is consensus concerning the need to continue to depend on ARI 
Standard 700 as the appropriate standard for purity of used 
refrigerants. Therefore, EPA considered extending the current 
reclamation requirement indefinitely. EPA strongly believes this 
requirement has provided an effective means for ensuring refrigerant 
purity and, therefore, protecting consumers. However, the industry 
standard that is the basis for today's proposal maintains the important 
aspects of the current requirement while providing greater flexibility. 
Where an alternative to sending the entire refrigerant charge to a 
certified reclaimer is advocated, a protocol for analyzing the 
refrigerant has been maintained. Since chemical analysis is the crux of 
the reclamation program EPA believes it is possible to provide this 
flexibility while maintaining an effective program. As stated above, 
the Agency's goal has been to develop a more flexible procedure that 
would ensure compliance with the standard without disrupting the 
marketplace.
    While EPA has required that refrigerant transferred between 
different owners be reclaimed, EPA has encouraged the development of a 
procedure for ensuring the purity of used refrigerants. This procedure 
is referred to as ``off-site recycling.'' Since May 1993, EPA has 
monitored the industry's development of new standards. EPA has 
participated and observed several industry forums and has met with 
various stakeholders. As development of a potential standard for off-
site recycling progressed, it became apparent that such a standard 
could not be developed by industry and adopted by EPA prior to the 
expiration of the promulgated reclamation requirement on May 14, 1995. 
Therefore, EPA extended the reclamation requirement until March 17, 
1996 (60 FR 14607) and more recently published an action to further 
extend the effectiveness of these requirements. These actions ensured 
that a purity standard remained in effect during consideration of the 
newly developed industry standard discussed below. If EPA adopts the 
standard proposed today, EPA will simultaneously sunset the current 
reclamation requirement.
    ``Handling and Reuse of Refrigerants in the United States,'' 
commonly known as Industry Recycling Guide (IRG-2), was published in 
December 1994. IRG-2 was developed and endorsed by the following 
organizations:

--Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI);
--Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA);
--Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM);
--Food Marketing Institute (FMI);
--Mechanical Service Contractors of America (MSCA);
--Mechanical Contractors Association of America (MCAA);
--National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors 
(NAPHCC);
--Refrigeration Service Engineers Society (RSES);
--Sheet Metal and Air-Conditioning Contractors National--Association, 
Inc. (SMACNA);
--Spauschus Association, Inc.; and

developed in cooperation with the General Services Administration of 
the U.S. Government.
    This group represents refrigerant reclaimers, manufacturers of air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment, manufacturers of recovery and 
recycling equipment, compressor manufacturers, contractors, engineers, 
food stores, building owners and managers, and the federal government.
    IRG-2 provides guidelines for determining how to handle refrigerant 
that has been recovered from an air-conditioning or refrigeration 
appliance. IRG-2 describes four potential options:
    (1) Putting the refrigerant back into the system without recycling 
it;
    (2) Recycling the refrigerant and putting it back into the system 
from which it was removed or back into a system with the same owner;
    (3) Recycling the refrigerant, testing to verify conformance with 
ARI Standard 700 prior to reuse in a different owner's equipment, 
provided that the refrigerant remains in the contractor's custody and 
control at all times from recovery through recycling to reuse; and
    (4) Sending the refrigerant to a certified reclaimer.

The current regulations allows options 1, 2, and 4. Through this 
action, EPA is proposing also to permit option 3.
    While not part of today's proposal, EPA notes that a technician 
should consider many factors when servicing an appliance and deciding 
how to handle the refrigerant that has been recovered. Technicians 
should consider 

[[Page 7860]]
why the system is being serviced. Compressor failures, particularly 
motor burnouts, will affect the service person's decision concerning 
how to clean the refrigerant. The service history and age of the 
appliance can be important. Appliances that have not been cleaned or 
evacuated properly from a previous service problem may have higher 
levels of contamination in the refrigerant and in the oil. If the 
service history is unavailable the technician may, at a minimum, wish 
to recycle the refrigerant. If the appliance had a previous burnout, 
the technician should be concerned with the purity of the refrigerant. 
Technicians should consider the equipment manufacturer's policies and 
recommendations concerning the use of recycled refrigerant. Finally, 
the technician should consider the cleaning capacity of the recycling 
equipment.
    If the refrigerant needs to be recycled it should be cleaned to 
acceptable contaminant levels. Equipment certified to meet ARI Standard 
740, ``Performance of Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment,'' 
should be able to clean refrigerants, although it should be noted ARI 
Standard 740-1993 does not specify minimum contaminant levels and 
equipment designed for recycling cannot separate mixed refrigerants. 
Technicians may need to consider the cleaning capabilities of their 
recycling equipment over time to ensure that its cleaning performance 
has not significantly diminished. In addition, filter systems in 
recycling equipment need to be changed or cleaned regularly to ensure 
maximum performance.
    These factors are part of the complex decisionmaking system the 
technicians use when determining the appropriate actions for safe 
refrigerant management. If EPA adopts today's proposed contractor 
reclamation standard, in many cases the technicians may still choose to 
recover and have the refrigerant reclaimed by a certified reclaimer.
    EPA would like to clarify that what has formerly been referred to 
as an ``off-site recycling standard'' is essentially reclamation by the 
technician or contractor, instead of reclamation by the certified 
reclaimer. EPA and industry have distinguished between recycling and 
reclamation. To recycle refrigerant means to extract refrigerant from 
an appliance and to clean the refrigerant for reuse without meeting the 
requirements for reclamation. Recycled refrigerant is cleaned using oil 
separation and one or more passes through recycling devices. Recycling 
procedures are usually performed at the job site. As discussed above, 
reclamation means that the refrigerant has been cleaned and chemically 
analyzed for conformity with the ARI Standard 700-1993 purity levels. 
EPA believes the pertinent part of the definition of reclamation is 
conformance with the ARI Standard 700-1993 purity levels. Hence, 
refrigerant that has been cycled through recycling equipment and tested 
to ensure that ARI Standard 700-1993 has been achieved is actually 
reclaimed refrigerant. Therefore, henceforth in this notice, EPA will 
refer to this procedure as contractor reclamation, or contractor 
reclaiming rather than off-site recycling. Accordingly, EPA is 
proposing to revise the definition of reclamation to eliminate 
references to the physical location where reclamation can occur.
    EPA is proposing that when the refrigerant remains in the custody 
of a single technician or contractor and a representative sample of 
that refrigerant has been chemically analyzed to determine conformance 
with the ARI Standard 700-1993, the refrigerant will be considered 
reclaimed and may be charged into a new owner's appliance. A 
representative sample may be defined as a sample taken from each 
container of refrigerant to be chemically analyzed and tested to ARI 
Standard 700-1993 prior to packaging for resale or reuse. Such samples 
will be at least 500 ml and shipped in stainless steel test cylinders 
that include \1/4\'' valve assembly and pressure relief rupture disc. 
Cylinders should be rated by the Department of Transportation. EPA 
believes that as long as representative samples of the refrigerant are 
chemically analyzed by certified laboratories to meet the contaminant 
levels in ARI Standard 700-1993, and as long as refrigerant remains in 
the contractor's custody and control, the quality and purity of the 
reclaimed refrigerant can be ensured.
    EPA believes it is essential that the contractor-reclaimed 
refrigerant remain in the custody and control of the contractor prior 
to resale. EPA believes that the contractors and technicians understand 
the importance of maintaining refrigerant purity, particularly in light 
of the phaseout of ozone-depleting substances. EPA's technician 
certification program, other relevant educational venues, and work 
experience, provides contractors and technicians with a level expertise 
in their chosen endeavor. Their training has made the contractors and 
technicians aware of the need to avoid releases and refrigerant 
contamination as well as the dangers that could result from such 
actions. These factors lead EPA to believe that contractors and 
technicians can protect the integrity of refrigerant in their charge. 
There is no practical method for tracking and verifying the purity of 
refrigerant charges where the custody and control of the refrigerant 
charges have not been maintained. EPA believes it is necessary to 
ensure that such mechanisms exist because of the need to ultimately 
ensure the protection of the equipment that will be charged with the 
refrigerant. Through this action, EPA is proposing that the contractor 
or technician maintain records consisting of the date and location of 
where the refrigerant was recovered, the date(s) and location(s) of 
where the refrigerant is stored, the date(s) and location(s) of where 
representative samples are drawn, and the date(s) and location(s) of 
where the refrigerant is sold after a certified laboratory has verified 
the quality of the refrigerant. EPA believes this recordkeeping is 
necessary to ensure that only suitable refrigerant is charged into 
equipment with different ownership.
    Under this proposal, each representative sample of the refrigerant 
must be chemically analyzed for conformity with ARI Standard 700-1993 
by a laboratory that participates in an EPA-approved laboratory 
certification program. The requirements for laboratory certification 
are discussed in a later section of today's notice. If the laboratory 
report shows that the representative sample meets ARI Standard 700-1993 
purity levels, then the refrigerant would be considered reclaimed and 
can be charged into a different owner's appliance.
    EPA believes that this contractor reclamation option creates 
flexibility for the contractors and technicians while continuing to 
protect the owners or operators of the affected appliances and to meet 
the statutory requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments. EPA 
believes that permitting contractor reclamation of refrigerants will 
provide savings to the contractors that may be passed on to the 
appliance owners. Shipping refrigerants to certified reclaimers often 
may constitute a large capital outlay for the contractor, whereas 
shipping only representative samples to laboratories may limit the 
expenses for the contractors. EPA also believes that this flexibility 
will not compromise compliance with the requirements of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments. Section 608(a) of the Clean Air Act Amendments requires 
that regulations include requirements that (A) reduce the use and 
emission of such substances to the lowest achievable level, and (B) 
maximize the recapture and recycling of such 

[[Page 7861]]
substances. EPA believes that as long as the chain of custody and 
control of the refrigerant is not compromised, as discussed in IRG-2, 
and the purity of the refrigerant is chemically analyzed to ensure 
conformance with ARI Standard 700-1993, the purity of the refrigerant 
can be assured. In addition, this added flexibility will not increase 
emissions or lessen the recapture of ozone-depleting refrigerants. 
Technicians already recover these refrigerants and, where ownership of 
the refrigerant will change, the technicians already transfer the 
refrigerants to certified reclaimers. In accordance with the proposed 
contractor reclamation option, technicians would still recover the 
refrigerant. The only significant change is the ability to submit a 
representative sample for testing rather than shipping the entire 
refrigerant charge. Since the same required practices for handling 
refrigerants apply in both cases there is no additional risk of release 
of refrigerant stemming from this proposed change in the regulations.
    EPA believes this approach provides economic benefits for the 
contractors and the appliance owners while maintaining the integrity of 
the refrigerant supply.
    EPA believes that refrigerant will continue to be reclaimed 
properly even where someone other than a certified reclaimer is 
responsible for the refrigerant. EPA requests comment regarding 
contractor reclamation.
    EPA also requests comments on the definition of a representative 
sample. EPA believes a more detailed definition is not necessary. A 
sample for chemical analysis is only as good as the method used to 
extract that sample. If samples that are not truly representational of 
the refrigerant charge are used for analysis, the results could be 
inaccurate. However, EPA understands that there are trade 
organizations, such as ARI, that can provide guidance on the correct 
procedures for sampling refrigerant. EPA also understands that 
laboratories can provide information to technicians concerning these 
methods for sampling and may not accept samples that have not been 
correctly extracted. Therefore, EPA does not believe it is necessary 
for the Agency to include such information in a definition.
    EPA is also interested in how much savings the adoption of 
contractor reclamation may represent for contractors and technicians. 
EPA believes that shipping samples rather than the entire refrigerant 
charge should lessen costs. There may be other economic benefits 
derived from the adoption of contractor reclamation as well. EPA is 
interested in both anecdotal and analytical information concerning the 
reduction of costs.

B. Laboratory Certification

    The proposed adoption of contractor reclamation is directly linked 
to a means of ensuring that laboratories analyzing representative 
samples of the refrigerant charges are qualified to perform such 
services. Therefore, EPA believes it is appropriate to ensure that a 
means of oversight for the laboratories exists. Through this action, 
EPA will propose the adoption of a third-party certification program 
for laboratories. EPA is aware of a voluntary program developed by ARI 
to certify laboratories. Key elements of the program include qualifying 
tests, ongoing testing, and site visits. EPA believes that many of 
these elements are consistent with the elements that EPA is proposing 
for any person seeking to become a third-party laboratory certifier.
    EPA considered other alternatives to third-party certification, 
including a direct certification program. However, the agency believes 
a third-party program would be more appropriate because industry 
organizations have the expertise and resources to establish and 
maintain an effective program. Moreover, EPA has learned from 
experience with other certification programs administered under subpart 
F that third-party certification can be highly effective, particularly 
where the third-party has already operated similar voluntary programs 
that can be used to help fine-tune the administration of a required 
certification program.
    A third-party certification program would require EPA approval of 
the certifying programs and the development of standards for both the 
certifying programs and standards for the laboratories. This approach 
is similar to the several other certification programs successfully 
administered under the section 608 program.
1. Requirements for Laboratory Certification Programs
    EPA believes that a laboratory certification program should develop 
a set of minimum performance requirements for initial and continuing 
certification. EPA has reviewed a draft program to be established by 
ARI. Many of the key elements included in this notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) are analogous to ARI's draft requirements.
    EPA believes a signed agreement between the laboratory and the 
laboratory certification program will be necessary to ensure an 
understanding of the responsibilities of both the laboratory and the 
certifying program. Such an agreement should include information 
concerning a laboratory's ability to test representative samples of 
refrigerant to the purity levels acceptable under the ARI Standard 700-
1993 standard and a willingness to comply with the standards 
established by the EPA-approved laboratory certification program.
    To become certified, EPA believes that a laboratory applying for 
certification should test and verify the composition of at least three 
refrigerants submitted by the EPA-approved laboratory program. Only 
laboratories that accurately determine, within an acceptable range, 
each contaminant in any of the qualifying samples should be certified. 
EPA believes the following list of values constitute acceptable ranges 
for reporting contaminants:

Purity: +/- 0.10%;
Water: +/- the greater of 3ppm or 10% of the actual value;
High Boiling Residue: +/- the greater of 0.01% (absolute) or 20% of the 
actual value; and
Non-condensibles: +/- the greater of 0.2% (absolute) or 10% of the 
actual value.

These values were developed by ARI and reviewed by EPA staff. EPA has 
determined that these values should ensure that a laboratory is able to 
provide accurate results within an acceptable range.
    The laboratory certification program should perform a site visit 
prior to certifying the laboratory to ensure that the laboratory is 
capable of performing correct refrigerant analysis and performed its 
own analysis of the samples submitted for verification. Site visits 
should include a visual inspection of the laboratory's equipment and 
ascertain whether each item necessary for routine refrigerant analysis 
is present and is functional. In addition, the site visit should 
include a procedural review of the laboratory's methods and procedures 
for refrigerant analysis. EPA anticipates that a schedule of continued 
site visits will be necessary to ensure the continued qualifications of 
the laboratory. EPA believes these visits should occur on at least a 
semiannual basis.
    To provide contractors and technicians with information concerning 
the status of the laboratory, EPA believes it is necessary for the 
laboratory certification program to provide the laboratory with 
evidence that the laboratory is certified. EPA is proposing to require 
that this evidence be displayed conspicuously; therefore, EPA 
anticipates that a seal or logo will be necessary. In addition, EPA 
believes 

[[Page 7862]]
that the seal or logo should contain standardized language. EPA is 
proposing that the seal or logo include the following statement: 
``________ has been certified as a laboratory to analyze refrigerant, 
as required by 40 CFR part 82, subpart F.'' This evidence demonstrates 
to those unfamiliar with the status of every laboratory, that a 
particular facility is properly certified. The requirement to display 
evidence is consistent with the requirements for other third-party 
certification programs promulgated under subpart F. This notification 
could be particularly important if a technician or contractor is aware 
of which laboratory certification programs are approved by EPA, but 
does not have a list of every laboratory that has been certified. EPA 
anticipates that there will be a limited number of laboratory 
certification programs; however, the potential list of laboratories 
certified to test and verify refrigerant samples could be extensive.
    Laboratories that are unable to substantiate their ability to 
comply with the criteria established through this rulemaking, or with 
any relevant additional criteria established by the EPA-approved 
laboratory certifier, should be disqualified from the review process. 
The laboratory should be permitted to reapply at a later date. A 
certified laboratory no longer able to meet the continuing criteria 
should be decertified. EPA believes that laboratories that misrepresent 
their status, do not comply with the payment of any reasonable fees to 
the certifying program, and laboratories that do not submit required 
data, are examples of laboratories that should be disqualified. If a 
laboratory is decertified, the laboratory certification program should 
inform EPA within 30 days.
    Laboratory certification programs that cannot or do not decertify 
laboratories that do not comply with the standards set forth in this 
proposal could have their EPA approval revoked. If such a case arises, 
laboratories certified by that laboratory certification program would 
be required to be certified by another approved program within 6 
months.
    EPA proposes to approve laboratory certification programs that 
demonstrate to EPA their ability to establish and maintain a program 
that includes the elements discussed in this proposal and that provide 
the necessary level of continued oversight for the certified 
laboratories. At a minimum, those seeking EPA-approval for a laboratory 
certification program would need to submit information to EPA 
demonstrating the program's ability to meet the criteria established by 
this proposal. Furthermore, EPA anticipates that there may be a need 
for a site visit by EPA to the potential laboratory certification 
program to ensure the ability of the potential program to perform 
verification of representative samples. If the laboratory certification 
program uses an independent laboratory to analyze samples, information 
concerning that laboratory and/or inspection of that laboratory may be 
necessary.
2. Requirements for Laboratories
    Through this action, EPA is proposing a process for third-party 
certification of laboratories that would analyze samples of refrigerant 
submitted by contractors in accordance with the proposed scheme for 
contractor reclamation. Those seeking to become laboratory 
certification programs would submit information demonstrating their 
ability to meet the requirements specified in this proposal.
    EPA requests comments on the proposed certification of 
laboratories. EPA particularly is interested in comments concerning the 
criteria for the laboratories that would be certified under this 
proposed scheme. EPA has not set forth a protocol for handling 
representative samples in this NPRM. EPA is interested in whether it is 
necessary to require a protocol, and if so, what such a protocol should 
encompass. In addition, EPA requests comments on the requirement that 
laboratory certification programs receive and maintain EPA approval. 
EPA is also interested in comments concerning decertification and 
revocation.

C. Revocation and Suspension

    Failure to abide by any of the provisions of Subpart F may result 
in the revocation or suspension of the approval of the laboratory 
certification program. In addition, EPA is proposing that these same 
procedures be applicable to other third-party certification programs 
promulgated under Subpart F. Those certification programs include: 
technician certification, equipment certification, recovery and 
recycling equipment certification and reclaimer certification as 
discussed later in this notice. In such cases, EPA will notify the 
certification program in writing. Today's action specifies the proposed 
procedures for suspension and revocation as well as providing 
information concerning the ability of an approved certification program 
to challenge a decision of revocation or suspension. In such cases the 
program may request a hearing within 30 days; however, the program must 
submit in writing the program's objections and supporting data. If, 
after review of the request the Agency agrees that the program raises a 
substantial and factual issue the Agency would provide a hearing and 
assign a Presiding Officer. The Agency may direct that all arguments 
and presentation of evidence be concluded within a specified time of no 
less than 30 days from the date that the first written offer of a 
hearing was made and may direct that the decision of the Presiding 
Officer will be final. EPA is proposing that the decision of the 
Presiding Officer will be final without further proceedings, unless 
there is an appeal or motion for review by the Administrator within 20 
days of the decision. On appeal, EPA is proposing to provide the 
Administrator with all the powers that he or she would have in making 
the initial decision, including the discretion to require or permit 
briefs, oral arguments, the taking of additional evidence, or the 
remanding to the Presiding Officer for additional proceedings. EPA 
requests comments on these proposed procedures.

D. Adoption of Third Party Approval of Reclaimers

    In order to ensure the quality of reclaimed refrigerant on the 
market, EPA requires the certification of reclaimers. Currently, 
reclaimers certify to EPA that they return refrigerant to at least the 
ARI Standard 700-1993, verify the purity using the methods set forth in 
ARI Standard 700-1993, and dispose of wastes from the reclamation 
process in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. During 
initial rulemaking under section 608, EPA considered an option whereby 
EPA would approve third parties that would certify reclaimers, and 
could administer site inspections and/or sampling of refrigerant. EPA 
stated that a third-party certification would be more reliable than 
self-certification. Inspections and sampling would provide independent 
evidence that the ARI Standard 700-1993 was being achieved at the 
reclamation facility. At the time the rule was drafted, one party 
demonstrated interest in seeking approval to be a third-party 
certifier. EPA indicated in the preamble discussion (58 FR 28699) that 
at a future date, it may consider replacing the self-certification 
program with third-party certification.
    Through this notice, EPA is proposing to take such action. EPA 
believes that ARI and perhaps other industry entities will be 
interested in applying to become an EPA laboratory certification 
program. These organizations could provide site inspections and test 
refrigerant samples. EPA understands that to ensure compliance with a 
voluntary program 

[[Page 7863]]
currently administered by ARI, ARI audits refrigerant to verify the 
ability of the ARI-certified reclaimers to comply with the program's 
criteria. EPA believes this type of oversight provides a stronger 
mechanism for ensuring the purity of refrigerants than the self-
certification program currently administered by EPA.
    EPA believes that since its inception, ARI's voluntary program has 
been highly successful. The program ensures the quality of the 
refrigerant, thus protecting the appliances and the consumer. 
Therefore, EPA believes it is appropriate to replace its self-
certification program with a third-party certification that includes 
certain aspects of the ARI program.
    EPA believes reclamation certification programs should perform 
oversight and refrigerant analysis to ensure conformance. In addition, 
programs would be required to process and maintain reports concerning 
the amount of reclaimed refrigerant that each certified reclaimer 
processes. The reclamation certification program would be required to 
verify the information reported by the reclaimers. Verification could 
be part of the inspection and testing process. Aggregate annual 
reporting to EPA would be required.
    At a minimum the reclamation certification program would be 
required to ensure that at least four samples of reclaimed refrigerant 
from each certified reclaimer's facilities are tested by a laboratory 
and verified by the program each year. The particular samples to be 
tested are to be selected from an inventory of refrigerant that has 
been reclaimed by the reclaimer. If the reclaimer processes many types 
of refrigerants, each refrigerant listed by the reclaimer should be 
tested at least once a year. These tests must be performed on a random 
basis. Certified reclaimers should be required to display a logo, seal, 
or other like notification, indicating which EPA-approved reclamation 
certification program has certified the reclaimer. This notification 
ensures that the refrigerant purchaser is suitably informed about the 
certified reclaimer's affiliations. EPA believes that the seal or logo 
should contain standardized language. EPA is proposing that the seal or 
logo include the following statement: ``________ has been certified as 
a refrigerant reclaimer, as required by 40 CFR part 82, subpart F.'' 
This seal or logo should be displayed in a manner that permits a 
technician or contractor to know that the reclaimer is certified by an 
EPA-approved program. This information could be particularly important 
if a person knows the names of all EPA-approved reclamation 
certification programs but does not know the names of all the certified 
reclaimers. EPA anticipates that there will be a limited number of 
approved reclamation certification programs; however, the potential 
list of certified reclaimers is far more extensive.
    Reclaimers that are unable to substantiate their ability to comply 
with the criteria established through this rulemaking, or with other 
relevant state, local or federal requirements, should not be certified. 
In addition, a certified reclaimer no longer able to meet the 
continuing criteria should be decertified. For example, reclaimers that 
submit incomplete or inaccurate reports, refuse to permit site 
inspections, or fail to perform sufficient refrigerant analysis should 
be decertified. The reclaimer should be permitted to reapply at a later 
date. The reclaimer certification program would be required to inform 
EPA that a reclaimer has been decertified within 30 days.
    Reclamation certification programs that cannot or do not decertify 
reclaimers that do not comply with the standards set forth in this 
proposal, or do not comply with other provisions, could have their EPA 
approval revoked. If such a case arises, reclaimers certified by the 
certifying program would be required to be certified by another 
approved program within six months. Such a requirement is necessary to 
ensure that the reclaimer continues to be certified by an EPA-approved 
program, not a program that has had its approval revoked. Moreover, 
such a requirement is necessary because if EPA has taken action to 
revoke approval, such action may be based on improper certification 
procedures used by the program. As discussed above, EPA is proposing 
specific procedures for suspension and revocation, as well as providing 
information concerning the ability of a reclaimer certification program 
to challenge a decision of revocation or suspension. These procedures 
would be the same for all third-party certification programs 
established under Subpart F.
    EPA is concerned with transferring one aspect of its current 
reclaimer certification program to third parties. Certified reclaimers 
currently certify to EPA compliance with requirements for waste 
disposal. EPA is not convinced that approved reclamation certification 
programs would be capable of ensuring full compliance with federal, 
state, or local requirements outside of those promulgated under section 
608, such as hazardous waste disposal. However, it is necessary that 
any potentially certified reclaimer either indicate to EPA or to an 
approved reclamation certification program that such compliance is 
occurring. Therefore, EPA is proposing that the reclaimers certify that 
they dispose of wastes from the reclamation process in accordance with 
applicable laws and regulations. However, if the certification program 
suspects that these laws and regulations are not being met, such 
information would be forwarded to EPA for further investigation.
    EPA believes that at a minimum, one organization that already has a 
voluntary reclamation certification program may apply. EPA believes 
that other organizations will also consider applying to become an 
approved reclamation certification program. EPA believes that third-
party certification will better meet EPA's goals. Moreover, the success 
of the third-party recycle/recovery equipment certification, and the 
third-party technician certification, demonstrates the effectiveness of 
this approach. Therefore, EPA is proposing to modify the reclamation 
requirements to state that reclaimers must instead be certified by an 
EPA-approved reclaimer certification program. EPA plans to approve 
certifiers based on the criteria discussed above as soon as the 
criteria is promulgated. Those reclaimers already certified by EPA will 
need to be certified by an EPA-approved reclaimer certification 
program.
    Those interested in becoming approved reclamation certification 
programs would be required to submit information to EPA indicating the 
ability to conform with all regulatory requirements for certifying and 
monitoring reclaimers. EPA would review this information and if 
appropriate, issue a letter of approval.
    EPA realizes that provisions must be made for the changeover. 
Therefore, EPA proposes to continue to permit the reclamation of 
refrigerant by EPA-approved reclaimers until six months from the date 
EPA approves of at least one reclamation certification program. During 
the six months after EPA has approved at least one reclamation 
certification program, reclaimers not certified by EPA but instead 
certified by the EPA-approved program would also be permitted to 
reclaim refrigerant. Those certified by EPA will be required to become 
certified by an EPA-approved program prior to the end of that six-month 
period. After that date, reclaimers previously certified by EPA that 
have not been recertified by an approved third-party, will no longer be 
considered certified.
    EPA requests comment on the adoption of a third-party certification 
program for reclaimers. EPA is particularly interested in the increased 


[[Page 7864]]
benefits that may derive from this regulatory scheme rather than the 
current self-certification program run directly by the Agency. EPA also 
requests comments on the proposed procedure for converting to third-
party certification, including provisions to include reclaimers that 
are currently certified by a program submitting an application. EPA 
also requests that any program that intends to apply to become a third-
party certifier submit a draft application. EPA believes that reviewing 
draft applications during the comment period will permit EPA to include 
information on the timeframe for approving applications in the final 
rule.

E. Technician Certification and the Sales Restriction

1. Recordkeeping
    EPA is concerned with the maintenance of records for certified 
technicians by approved programs that no longer provide test 
administration. Currently there are more than 90 EPA-approved 
technician certification programs that provide testing in accordance 
with Sec. 82.161 and Appendix D. These programs administer and grade 
tests, maintain records, issue certification credentials, and submit 
reports to EPA twice each calendar year. EPA believes that technician 
certification has been very effective. Within 24 months, more than 
600,000 technicians were certified. However, it has come to the 
Agency's attention that since the bulk of existing technicians have 
become certified, and the certification market now focuses on those 
first entering this field, some EPA-approved certification programs may 
choose to discontinue providing this service. To date, three programs, 
two of which did not actually ever administer tests, have withdrawn.
    EPA is concerned with the maintenance of records for technicians 
who were tested by a program that no longer exists or no longer 
provides technician certification. EPA believes that the likelihood of 
this occurring will increase in the future. EPA is concerned that if a 
technician's certification credentials are lost and the program no 
longer exists, it may not be possible for the technician to receive 
duplicate credentials, thus denying the technician the ability to 
purchase class I or class II refrigerants.
    Currently, programs that have been approved to administer the test 
must maintain records for three years (58 FR 28734). However, EPA does 
not believe an enforcement mechanism exists that would effectively 
ensure that this occurs if the program declares bankruptcy. 
Furthermore, even if the program does continue to maintain the records, 
access to the records may be difficult if the program itself is no 
longer in business. Therefore, EPA is considering several potential 
options.
    EPA could require programs to forward their records to EPA. EPA 
would therefore be responsible for maintaining those records. However, 
EPA is concerned that the Agency does not have adequate resources for 
maintaining these records effectively. A second option would be to have 
the programs send the records to EPA and have EPA choose a suitable 
existing certification program to maintain the records and forward the 
records to that program. EPA is uncertain as to adequate criteria that 
would be used for choosing the appropriate program. With more than 90 
existing programs, all approved based on the same criteria, EPA would 
not be in a position to select a single program without acting in an 
arbitrary manner. A third option would be to have the program that 
intends to cease operation determine which active program, willing to 
accept the records, to submit its records to, and to notify EPA of its 
decision. In this scenario, all pertinent information, including the 
records relating to the technicians and the testing information would 
be forwarded to another program. The program pulling out would notify 
EPA of its decision, and the recipient of the records would notify EPA 
upon receipt of the records.
    EPA believes the third option represents the most equitable 
approach. EPA believes that having an existing company maintain records 
is most appropriate. Therefore, EPA is proposing to promulgate this 
option.
    EPA requests comments on requiring programs that no longer offer 
technician certification to locate a suitable program for continuation 
of the maintenance of the relevant records. EPA also requests comment 
on the two alternative methods for ensuring that recordkeeping is 
adequately provided.
    In addition, EPA is also concerned with whether certification 
records should be maintained beyond the current three-year requirement. 
EPA believes that if a technician loses his/her identification card 
after the three years has passed, it should be possible for a 
replacement card to be issued. However, without a requirement that 
records are maintained indefinitely, it is unclear that the approved 
certification organizations will retain sufficient information to issue 
new credentials. Therefore, through this action, EPA requests comments 
on whether or not there are more appropriate timeframes.
2. Technicians Certified to Work on Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners
    EPA is concerned about an inconsistency that exists in the sales 
restriction. Currently, technicians who are certified by either an EPA-
approved section 608 or section 609 program, in accordance with 
Sec. 82.40 and Sec. 82.161, may purchase ozone-depleting 
refrigerants.\1\ At the time the sales restriction was drafted and 
promulgated in May 1993 (58 FR 28714, May 14, 1995), EPA was aware that 
potential substitutes for CFC-12 for use in motor vehicle air 
conditioners (MVACs) could include an HCFC or a blend with an HCFC 
component. Therefore, EPA did not restrict the types of refrigerants 
that could be purchased by those with section 609 certification.

    \1\ 1. The sale of small cans of CFC-12 is further restricted to 
those certified by an EPA-approved Sec. 609 program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, EPA was also drafting and later promulgated 
regulations regarding acceptable and unacceptable alternatives to class 
I substances. Those regulations, promulgated under section 612, 
identify acceptable alternatives in various sectors, including 
refrigeration. These regulations, known as the Significant New 
Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program were not yet promulgated when the 
sales restriction was promulgated. Therefore, EPA did not know to what 
extent the refrigeration sector would be subdivided. Subsequently, the 
SNAP refrigerant sector has been subdivided to indicate which 
refrigerants are acceptable for various types of appliances. Therefore, 
since SNAP now clearly delineates which refrigerants are acceptable for 
use in MVACs, EPA believes it is appropriate for the sales restriction 
under Sec. 608 to employ a similar provision.
    Furthermore, EPA is concerned with reports that those certified to 
work on MVACs are purchasing refrigerants that are not acceptable for 
use in MVACs. In all likelihood, this refrigerant is either being 
improperly installed in MVACs or those technicians may be servicing 
other appliances in violation of the regulations promulgated under 
Section 608. The sales restriction is intended to decrease emissions of 
ozone-depleting substances. If refrigerant not suitable for use in 
MVACs is improperly installed it may be vented. A technician certified 
to service MVACs with recovery equipment for use with suitable 
refrigerants may vent the unsuitable refrigerant rather than risk 
contaminating the recovery equipment. A person who is not certified to 
service 

[[Page 7865]]
appliances other than MVACs and purchases refrigerant with the intent 
of servicing non-MVACs or non-MVAC-like appliances, may not be familiar 
with the required service practices established by EPA under 
Sec. 82.156 and intended to ensure the lowest achievable emissions 
level. Improper service by that technician could lead to the release of 
the class I or class II refrigerant as well as damage to the appliance.
    Therefore, through this action, EPA is proposing to modify the 
sales restriction. The proposed changes would restrict the sale of 
refrigerants to those certified in accordance with Sec. 82.34, by a 
program approved under Sec. 82.40, to purchasing CFC-12 in small cans 
and refrigerants listed as acceptable for use in MVACs in accordance 
with all regulations promulgated under Section 612. EPA requests 
comment on the appropriateness of modifying the sales restriction to 
limit the types of refrigerant that can be purchased by those certified 
to service and maintain MVACs under Sec. 609.
3. Transfers Between Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries
    EPA has received comments from several organizations where one 
wholly-owned subsidiary of a holding company would like to transfer 
refrigerant to another wholly-owned subsidiary of the same holding 
company. The requirement to reclaim refrigerant before the refrigerant 
changes ownership applies to these transfers. Therefore, without first 
reclaiming the refrigerant, these transfers are not permitted. EPA is 
aware of one company that wanted to make such transfers and had the 
capability to reclaim refrigerant. This company decided to become 
certified rather than have a third party involved.
    As discussed in other sections of this proposal, EPA's reclamation 
provisions are designed to protect the refrigerant consumer and the 
appliances into which used refrigerant is charged. In the example 
described above, EPA believes the relationship between these two 
subsidiaries should provide a sufficient means to ensure that transfers 
between the subsidiaries would be akin to transfers within one company. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to provide an exception to the sales for 
the transfers of refrigerant between two wholly-owned subsidiaries of 
the same company.
    EPA also received comment requesting that EPA permit the transfer 
of unreclaimed refrigerant between subsidiaries that are not wholly-
owned. Since these types of subsidiaries would involve other investors 
that may have less of a commitment to each of the subsidiaries involved 
in the transactions, EPA does not believe transfers between these types 
of subsidiaries are akin to those within one organization. Therefore, 
EPA is limiting today's proposal to wholly-owned subsidiaries. EPA 
requests comment on this proposal.

F. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioner-Like Appliances

    Through this action, EPA would like to modify the definition of 
Motor Vehicle Air Conditioner (MVAC)-like appliances. Sec. 82.152 
states that:

    MVAC-like appliance means mechanical vapor compression, open-
drive compressor appliances used to cool the driver's or passenger's 
compartment of an non-road motor vehicle. This includes the air-
conditioning equipment found on agricultural or construction 
vehicles. This definition is not intended to cover appliances using 
HCFC-22 refrigerant. (58 FR 28713)

Since the promulgation of this definition in May 1993, EPA has received 
requests to clarify whether various types of appliances are in fact 
MVAC-like appliances. These appliances include air conditioners on 
small private planes, boats and trolleys. In these examples EPA has 
agreed that the appliances are MVAC-like. EPA believes that if the 
appliance is similar to an MVAC in all substantive manners, it should 
be treated as an MVAC. However, EPA has become concerned that the 
definition of MVAC-like should include an upper limit on the amount of 
refrigerant contained in the appliance. Without an upper limit, the 
current definition could be construed to include appliances that are 
not similar to an MVAC in all substantive manners. For example, a 
chiller located on a marine vessel could be mistakenly considered MVAC-
like. Therefore, an upper limit would prevent any possible confusion. 
To ensure consistency between what is an MVAC and what is MVAC-like, 
the refrigerant limit for MVAC-like appliances should be similar to the 
largest amount of refrigerant contained in most MVACs. EPA believes 
that bus air conditioners using CFC-12 may represent the type of MVAC 
with the largest average charge size. Moreover, EPA believes that all 
MVACs contain less than 20 pounds of refrigerant. EPA does not believe 
that the adoption of a 20-pound limit for MVACs would exclude any 
appliance that reasonably should be considered MVAC-like.
    EPA believes that a limit will provide clarity to those unsure 
about whether a particular appliance qualifies as MVAC-like, 
specifically where the charge is larger than that of the average 
automobile air conditioner, yet smaller than that of the average bus 
air conditioner. Therefore, EPA is proposing to add a 20-pound ceiling 
to the definition of MVAC-like appliances.
    EPA requests comment on amending the definition of MVAC-like 
appliances and whether a ceiling of 20 pounds represents an appropriate 
cutoff.

G. Changes to the ARI 740 Test Procedure for Refrigerant Recycling and 
Recovery Equipment

    The final rule published on May 14, 1993 requires that refrigerant 
recycling and recovery equipment manufactured after November 15, 1993, 
be tested by an EPA-approved laboratory. The laboratory must verify 
that the equipment is capable of achieving applicable required 
evacuation levels and that the equipment releases no more than 3% 
(previously 5%) of the quantity of refrigerant being recycled through 
purging of noncondensables. In addition, the laboratory must measure 
the vapor and liquid recovery rates of the equipment. To perform all of 
these measurements, the laboratory must use the test procedure set 
forth in ARI 740-93, an industry test protocol for recycling and 
recovery equipment that was included in the final rule as appendix B.
    During the comment period on the proposed rule, some commenters 
raised concerns regarding the ARI 740 test protocol. After 
investigating these concerns, EPA concluded that some were unwarranted, 
but that others required further investigation and, in some cases, 
action as discussed in that rule (58 FR 28687). Among the issues 
requiring more investigation were concerns that (1) the current method 
for measuring the vapor recovery rate of equipment yields a maximum, 
rather than an average, recovery rate; (2) the test only tests 
equipment at one temperature, 75 deg. F, although the performance of 
recycling and recovery equipment varies significantly depending upon 
ambient temperature, (3) the test does not include measurement of the 
quantity of refrigerant that remains in the equipment (e.g., condenser) 
at the conclusion of the recovery procedure, potentially allowing 
contamination of subsequent recovery or recycling jobs or release of 
refrigerant during condenser clearing, and (4) the test does not test 
equipment for durability, raising the possibility of widespread 
equipment failure after only a few months of use (58 FR 28682, 28687-
88).
    Testing experience and international developments have raised other 
issues 

[[Page 7866]]
since the rule was promulgated. Underwriters Laboratories (UL), one of 
the equipment testing organizations approved by EPA, has pointed out 
the need to adopt standards for external hose permeability and to 
ensure that recovery and recycling equipment is tested with recovery 
cylinders no larger than those with which the equipment is used in the 
field. The standard for recycling and recovery equipment being 
developed by the International Standards Organization (ISO) addresses 
refrigerant emissions from oil draining in addition to emissions from 
air purging and equipment (condenser) clearing, limiting the total that 
can be released during these procedures to 3% of the total refrigerant 
processed. Finally, the Industry Recycling Guideline 2 (IRG-2) 
established a recommended ``clean-up'' standard for recycled 
refrigerant that is used in the same owner's equipment (Maximum 
Contaminant Levels of Recycled Refrigerants in Same Owner's Equipment).
    EPA has worked closely with the two EPA-approved equipment testing 
organizations, the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) 
and Underwriter's Laboratories (UL), to resolve these concerns. EPA has 
also worked with members of the International Standards Organization 
(ISO) Committee for Recycling and Recovery Equipment to ensure that the 
issues are addressed in international standards. With the exception of 
durability testing, all of the issues are being addressed by voluntary 
changes to both the ISO draft standard and the ARI 740 standard. EPA 
participated in the drafting of the revised ARI 740 Standard, and EPA 
is planning to adopt the latest version of it, ARI Standard 740-1995. 
In addition, EPA is planning to require that equipment that is 
advertised as recycling equipment be able to meet the IRG-2 ``clean-
up'' standard. EPA is not planning to require additional durability 
testing for recycling and recovery equipment.
1. Measurement of Vapor Recovery Rates
    Before the final rule was published on May 14, 1993, ARI had 
already indicated that it was willing to adopt a more representative 
measure of vapor recovery rates (58 FR 28667). (EPA could not adopt 
this methodology in the May 14, 1993, rule because it had not been 
proposed.) As discussed in the final rule, the current standard 
requires measuring the maximum vapor recovery rate, but two pieces of 
equipment with identical maximum recovery rates can have very different 
average recovery rates. This is because equipment characteristics that 
are not important to vapor recovery rates at the beginning of recovery, 
such as compressor clearance, become increasingly important as recovery 
progresses. Although EPA has not established minimum vapor or liquid 
recovery rates, the Agency believes that the best possible information 
on these rates should be available to technicians to ensure that they 
purchase recycling and recovery equipment adequate to their needs. 
Technicians with adequate recovery equipment are less likely than 
technicians with slow equipment to interrupt the recovery procedure 
before it is complete. As noted in the final rule, measurement of the 
vapor recovery rate would require timing the recovery procedure that is 
already included in the standard. EPA is proposing to adopt the most 
recent version of ARI 740, 740-1995, which includes a measure of the 
average recovery rate. The new test measures the change in mass and 
time elapsed as the pressure of the test chamber is lowered from the 
saturation pressure of the refrigerant at 24 deg. C (75 deg. F) (or 
from atmospheric pressure, if the refrigerant boils at a temperature 
above 75 deg.) to the lower of atmospheric pressure or 10% of the 
initial pressure. (As discussed below, the test is repeated with R-22 
at 40 deg. C (104 deg. F).) This provision is similar to a provision in 
the draft ISO standard, which measures the change in mass and time 
elapsed as the pressure of the test chamber is lowered from the 
saturation pressure of the refrigerant to 15% of that pressure.
    For R-12, 10% of the saturation pressure at 75 deg. F is 9.2 psia, 
or 11 inches of mercury vacuum, which is slightly lower than the final 
recovery vacuum required for recovery equipment used with R-12 
appliances containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant (10 inches of 
vacuum), but is higher than the final recovery vacuum required for 
recovery equipment used with larger R-12 appliances (15 inches of 
vacuum). For R-22, 10% of the saturation pressure is 14.7 psia, which 
means that atmospheric pressure (14.7 psia) would be the final 
pressure. Atmospheric pressure is also the final recovery vacuum 
required for recovery equipment used with R-22 appliances containing 
less than 200 pounds of refrigerant, but again, is higher than the 
final recovery vacuum required for larger R-22 appliances (10 inches of 
vacuum). Finally, for R-11, 10% of the saturation pressure is 1.47 psia 
(27 inches of vacuum), which again is slightly higher than the final 
recovery vacuum required for recovery equipment used with R-11 
appliances (29 inches of vacuum).
    EPA requests comment on adopting this method of measuring the 
average recovery rate of recycling and recovery appliances. EPA 
specifically requests comment on whether the final pressure of 10% of 
the saturation pressure is close enough to the required vacuum to 
ensure that the test is representative of recovery rates in the field. 
EPA also requests comment on whether the current measure of maximum 
vapor recovery rates yields any useful information that the new test 
would not, and on whether it should therefore be retained.
2. High-Temperature Testing
    One of the most important additions to the ARI 740 standard is a 
requirement that the vapor recovery rate and final recovery vacuum of 
recovery and recycling equipment be measured at 40 deg. C (104 deg. F), 
in addition to 24 deg. C (75 deg. F), for recovery and recycling 
equipment intended for use with high-pressure refrigerants. As noted in 
the final rule published on May 14, 1994, recovery and recycling 
equipment in the field is likely to have to function at temperatures 
considerably higher than 75 deg. F (58 FR 28683). For instance, 
recovery often takes place on rooftops in the summer, where 
temperatures frequently exceed 100 deg. F. The performance of recovery 
and recycling equipment is likely to be affected by such high 
temperatures (58 FR 28688). This is because high temperatures raise the 
saturation pressure of the refrigerant in the recovery tank, raising 
the compression ratio against which the compressor in the recovery 
device must work to evacuate the appliance. This can both slow recovery 
and prevent the equipment from achieving vacuums that it can achieve at 
75 deg. F. In some cases, equipment can actually stop running at high 
temperatures, because pressures rise too high or because the motor 
overheats or draws too much current in its attempt to recover the 
refrigerant, tripping safety switches. Underwriters Laboratories 
reported that over 50 percent of refrigerant recovery and recycling 
units initially failed to operate continuously during high temperature 
testing that is required as part of UL's safety testing (letter from 
Glenn Woo and Larry Kettwich to Debbie Ottinger) 2.

    \2\  The equipment was redesigned to operate at elevated 
temperatures before it was UL listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that the high-temperature tests included in the 
revised ARI 740 standard would provide useful information on 
equipment's 

[[Page 7867]]
ability and quickness to draw vacuums at high temperatures. At the same 
time, these tests are likely to reveal many of the problems that might 
occur in equipment operated at high temperatures in the field (as has 
UL's safety test at 104 deg. F), such as thermal or electrical 
overloading of motors. The test requires that the mixing chamber, a 
container with a minimum volume of three cubic feet, be filled with 
refrigerant vapor (but no liquid) at the refrigerant's saturation 
pressure at 104 deg. F. As in the 75 deg. test, this vapor is then 
recovered until the final recovery vacuum is reached. Also as in the 
75 deg. test, the vapor recovery rate is measured while the pressure in 
the mixing chamber is reduced to 10% of the initial pressure. Because 
repeating the test with all of the refrigerants for which the equipment 
is rated would considerably raise the costs of certification, the high-
temperature test is performed with one refrigerant, R-22. (If the 
recycling or recovery equipment is not rated for R-22, then equipment 
is tested with the refrigerant with the lowest boiling point, and 
therefore highest saturation pressure, for which it is rated.)
    R-22 is used because it has the second highest saturation pressure 
of the common high-pressure refrigerants and because it has a high 
discharge temperature, putting more stress on both the compressor and 
motor of recovery equipment than other high pressure refrigerants. 
Thus, if a recovery device passes high-temperature testing with R-22, 
it is likely to be able to perform at high temperatures with all high-
pressure refrigerants. This expectation is supported by experience; 
according to UL personnel, most recycling and recovery equipment 
(except that intended for use exclusively with motor vehicle air 
conditioners) that failed high-temperature testing failed during tests 
involving R-22. In addition, R-22 is the most common high-pressure 
refrigerant used outside of the motor vehicle air conditioner sector.
    Because the 104 deg. vapor recovery rate measurement begins at a 
higher pressure than the 75 deg. vapor recovery rate measurement, it 
also ends at a higher pressure, atmospheric pressure. (Ten percent of 
the initial saturation pressure is actually 22.3 psia, which is higher 
than atmospheric pressure, 14.7 psia, but the test requires recovery at 
least to atmospheric pressure.) Atmospheric pressure is the level to 
which appliances containing less than 200 pounds of R-22 must be 
evacuated; however, it is higher than 10 inches of vacuum, which is the 
level to which appliances containing more than 200 pounds of R-22 must 
be evacuated. EPA requests comment on whether the final pressure of 10% 
of the saturation pressure is close enough to the required vacuums to 
ensure that the test is representative of high-temperature recovery 
rates in the field.
    The test procedure mimics what is often the most stressful portion 
of the recovery process at high temperatures, the recovery of vapor 
that remains in recycling and recovery equipment after all liquid has 
been recovered. Many recovery devices recover liquid from appliances, 
evaporating it to separate it from contaminants and then recondensing 
it to store it in the recovery tank. As long as liquid is available to 
evaporate, the evaporator can be used to absorb heat from the 
condenser. However, when no liquid remains in the appliance (or the 
mixing chamber that represents it in the ARI 740-1995 test procedure), 
the evaporator can no longer absorb any heat. Thus, the condenser, 
along with the compressor, begins to heat up. At the same time, the 
vapor pressure inside the appliance (or mixing chamber) begins to fall 
as vapor is pumped out. This has two consequences. First, it raises the 
compression ratio between the inlet and discharge sides of the 
compressor, raising the discharge temperature of the refrigerant. 
Second, it decreases the flow of refrigerant over the motor that 
hermetic compressors rely upon to cool the motor. By the time a ten-
inch vacuum is reached, this flow is less than five percent of the flow 
that the motor started out with. Both of these effects accelerate the 
heating of the motor and compressor.
    EPA believes that, in general, the high-temperature vapor recovery 
procedure in the revised standard is more likely to identify inadequate 
recycling and recovery equipment than the vapor recovery procedure in 
the current standard. However, the current standard duplicates one type 
of stress on recovery equipment that the revised standard does not. 
This stress is that experienced by recovery equipment that is capable 
of recovering only vapor when liquid is present in the appliance.
    When liquid is present in the appliance or test chamber, the mass 
flow through the recovery or recycling equipment is at its maximum. 
This yields a high estimate of the vapor recovery rate; however, it 
also imposes a high power demand on the recovery equipment's compressor 
as the compressor attempts to move the refrigerant, and it burdens the 
recovery equipment's condenser with a relatively large amount of heat 
to reject (because this heat is related not only to the temperature but 
also to the mass of the refrigerant flowing through the condenser).
    A laboratory that participated in the development of ARI 740-1995 
expressed concern that equipment that had failed (through tripping of 
safety switches) the vapor recovery test of ARI 740-1993 might pass the 
vapor recovery test in ARI 740-1995. To investigate this concern, the 
laboratory tested the equipment first using the vapor recovery test in 
ARI 740-1993, and then the high-temperature vapor recovery test in ARI 
740-1995. The laboratory found that equipment that cut out after 18 
minutes of operation under ARI 740-1993 cut out after less than 10 
minutes of operation under ARI 740-1995. (It should be noted that ARI 
740-1993 does not expressly require lengthy, continuous vapor recovery 
at the saturation pressure of the refrigerant.) In view of this result 
and the fact that most recovery equipment is capable of recovering 
liquid, EPA believes that ARI 740-1995 will detect faulty equipment.
    EPA requests comment on the usefulness of high-temperature testing, 
and on the choice of R-22 as a representative refrigerant.
3. Use of Representative Recovery Cylinders
    To further ensure that equipment testing is representative of 
likely performance in the field, ARI 740-1995 specifies that recovery 
cylinders used in testing must be the same size as those sold with the 
equipment, and must be at the saturation pressure of the refrigerant 
when testing begins. Use of oversize or evacuated cylinders can yield 
artificially high recovery rates and artificially deep recovery 
vacuums, because the recovery compressor does not have to work as hard 
to move refrigerant into oversize or evacuated cylinders as it does to 
move refrigerant into normal size cylinders at the saturation pressure 
of the refrigerant. Both of these requirements codify procedures that 
are being followed voluntarily at both of the EPA-approved equipment 
testing laboratories.
4. Limiting Emissions from Condenser Clearing, Oil Draining, Purging, 
and External Hoses
    ARI 740-1995 addresses three potential sources of refrigerant 
emissions that ARI 740-1993 did not address: condenser clearing, oil 
draining, and emissions from external hoses. As noted in the May 14, 
1994 final rule, substantial quantities of refrigerant may remain in 
the condensers of recycling and recovery equipment after refrigerant 
has been transferred to a recovery tank or back 

[[Page 7868]]
into an appliance. Unless this refrigerant is properly removed, it will 
either contaminate subsequent batches of refrigerant, a serious concern 
when switching refrigerants (e.g., from R-12 to R-22), or be released 
to the atmosphere. There are a number of methods to remove this 
refrigerant properly; however, some of these methods are more 
complicated and time-consuming than others. One of the most important 
factors in the speed and effectiveness of the refrigerant clearing 
process is the design of the recovery or recycling equipment itself.
    To help ensure that the design of recovery equipment minimizes the 
amount of residual refrigerant that either escapes to the atmosphere or 
contaminates subsequent batches, ARI 740-1995 includes measurements 
both of the mass of refrigerant that is released during clearing and of 
the mass of refrigerant that remains in the equipment after clearing is 
complete. The mass of refrigerant released during clearing is added to 
the masses released during non-condensables purging and oil draining 
(see below); this total cannot exceed three percent of the total mass 
of refrigerant processed through the equipment. The mass of refrigerant 
that remains in the equipment is not limited, but is reported in the 
equipment ratings so that prospective buyers can use the information in 
their purchasing decisions.
    In these measurements and limits, ARI 740-1995 is similar to the 
draft ISO standard for recycling and recovery equipment. The one 
significant difference is that the draft ISO standard, in addition to 
weighing the residual refrigerant that remains trapped in the 
equipment, measures cross-contamination directly by processing a batch 
of a different refrigerant through the equipment after clearing is 
complete. This batch is then analyzed to determine the concentration of 
the first refrigerant using gas chromatography. The drafters of the ARI 
740-1995 standard decided not to include this cross-contamination test 
because they believed that it would yield little additional 
information, while adding considerable expense to the test procedure. 
(Gas chromatography is one of the more costly components of 
certification testing.) Based on information gathered to date, EPA 
concurs; however, the Agency requests comment on whether the mass of 
residual refrigerant is likely to be a good predictor of cross-
contamination or whether a more extensive test of cross-contamination 
is required.
    To help ensure that the clearing procedure is not excessively 
complicated or time-consuming, ARI 740-1995 also requires that the 
manufacturer provide a method and instructions that accomplish 
connections and clearing within 15 minutes. Any special equipment 
required for clearing, other than a vacuum pump or manifold gauge, must 
be provided by the manufacturer along with the recovery or recycling 
equipment, and the clearing procedure cannot rely upon a storage 
cylinder below the saturated pressure of the refrigerant. In setting up 
these constraints, ARI recognized that procedures that require exotic 
equipment or excessive time are less likely to be followed than 
procedures that are simple and fast.
    Another source of potential emissions is oil draining. Refrigerant 
oils are designed to mix well with refrigerants so that they flow 
easily within the refrigeration system. A drawback to this 
characteristic is that significant quantities of refrigerant can remain 
entrained in oil that is withdrawn from appliances. Because several 
system contaminants tend to concentrate in the oil, many recycling and 
recovery machines include an oil separator that must be periodically 
emptied. To ensure that oil draining does not result in excessive 
refrigerant emissions, the ARI 740-1995 procedure measures the mass of 
refrigerant that is released from oil after its removal from the 
recovery or recycling equipment. As noted above, the sum of the masses 
of this refrigerant, the refrigerant emitted during condenser clearing, 
and the refrigerant emitted during noncondensables purging cannot 
exceed three percent of the mass of refrigerant processed by the 
equipment.
    The third source of emissions addressed by ARI 740-1995 is external 
hose assemblies. Although ARI 740-1993 includes a permeability limit 
for internal hoses (of 5.8 g/cm2/yr), it does not include such a 
limit for external hoses. ARI 740-1995 establishes a limit of 3.9 g/
cm2/yr at 48.8 deg. C (120 deg. F) for all hose assemblies, to be 
tested under the conditions of UL 1963. (Hoses that are already UL 
recognized as having passed UL 1963 need not be retested).
    EPA believes that these emissions limits will ensure that recycling 
and recovery equipment achieves the lowest achievable level of 
emissions. EPA requests comment on adopting these emissions limits from 
the ARI 740-1995 standard.
5. Requirements for Equipment Advertised as ``Recycling Equipment''
    Because EPA is proposing to require that representative samples of 
used refrigerants be chemically analyzed to verify their purity before 
they are used in another owner's equipment, EPA does not believe that 
it is necessary to require that refrigerant be processed or recycled in 
any particular way. The analysis itself guarantees that refrigerant 
meets the required purity standard. For this reason, EPA is not 
requiring that contractors use recycling as opposed to recovery 
equipment to handle refrigerants. (Recovery equipment is designed 
simply to recover the refrigerant without cleaning it; recycling 
equipment is designed to clean the refrigerant to some extent.) 
However, EPA believes that technicians and contractors should have some 
assurance that equipment that is marketed as ``recycling equipment'' is 
capable of cleaning up used refrigerant to some minimum level. This 
assurance would be especially useful to contractors who use recycling 
equipment to purify refrigerant for use in the same owner's equipment 
because these contractors may not use any other means to assure 
refrigerant purity.
    Although ARI 740-1995 includes a test of the ability of recycling 
equipment to clean up a standard sample of dirty refrigerant and 
requires that the final contaminant levels of the recycled refrigerant 
be presented for each make and model, it does not establish any maximum 
allowable levels for these contaminants. However, IRG-2 contains 
recommended maximum contaminant levels for refrigerant that is returned 
to its original equipment or to equipment with the same owner. IRG-2 
further states:

    Recycling equipment that is certified to ARI Standard 740, 
``Performance of Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment,'' and 
capable of consistently cleaning refrigerant to the contaminant 
levels in this Table should be used. The refrigerant sample used in 
ARI Standard 740 is representative of a highly contaminated system, 
so recycling equipment that can clean the refrigerant in this test 
to the contaminant levels in the Table has acceptable cleaning 
capabilities.

Thus, the ``clean-up'' test in the ARI 740 Standard and the maximum 
contaminant levels in IRG-2 can be combined to establish a test and 
standard for recycling equipment. EPA is proposing that equipment that 
is marketed as ``recycling'' equipment would have to be able to clean 
up the ARI 740 sample of dirty refrigerant to the maximum contaminant 
levels listed in IRG-2 when tested under the conditions of ARI 740. 
Below is a reprint of the Maximum Contaminant Levels of Recycled 
Refrigerants included in the IRG-2 standard. EPA is proposing to make 
the change effective 90 days after publication of the final 

[[Page 7869]]
rule to give manufacturers the opportunity to change their advertising 
and marketing materials, if necessary. EPA requests comment on this 
proposal and the proposed effective date.

                  Maximum Contaminant Levels of Recycled Refrigerants in Same Owner's Equipment                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Low pressure                       All other   
                         Contaminants                              systems        R-12 systems       systems    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acid Content (by wt.)........................................  1.0 PPM........  1.0 PPM........  1.0 PPM        
Moisture (by wt.)............................................  20 PPM.........  10 PPM.........  20 PPM         
Non Condensable Gas (by vol.)................................  N/A............  2.0%...........  2.0%           
High Boiling Residues (by vol.)..............................  1.0%...........  0.02%..........  0.02%          
Chlorides by Silver Nitrate Test.............................  No turbidity...  No turbidity...  No turbidity   
Particulates.................................................  Visually clean.  Visually clean.  Visually clean.
Other Refrigerants...........................................  2.0%...........  2.0%...........  2.0%           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Durability Testing
    One suggested addition to ARI 740-1993 that was not included in ARI 
740-1993 is mandatory, long-term durability testing of recovery and 
recycling equipment. Equipment durability is of concern because if 
equipment repeatedly fails prematurely, technicians may eventually 
elect not to spend the money to repair or replace it, resulting in 
refrigerant emissions. As noted in the final rule published on May 14, 
1994, recovery and recycling equipment may be constructed using 
components very similar to those in air-conditioning and refrigeration 
equipment, but recovery and recycling equipment is regularly subject to 
more stressful conditions than most air-conditioning and refrigeration 
equipment. For instance, recovery and recycling equipment will often 
operate at higher than ideal temperatures as it pulls vacuums on 
appliances.
    To investigate the need for mandatory third-party equipment 
durability testing, EPA has met with the commenters who supported such 
testing and with ARI and manufacturers of recovery and recycling 
equipment. EPA has also used its information collection authority under 
section 114 of the Act to survey manufacturers of recovery and 
recycling equipment regarding causes and rates of recovery equipment 
failure. Finally, EPA has considered the extent to which the goals of 
mandatory durability testing may already be met by manufacturers' in-
house durability testing, market forces, and the revisions to the ARI 
740 Standard discussed above.
    Based on this investigation, EPA does not believe that mandatory, 
third-party durability testing is necessary to ensure adequate 
equipment performance. First, equipment durability has a much less 
direct relationship to refrigerant emissions than do refrigerant 
recovery levels or rates. In fact, unless recovery equipment is so 
short-lived that technicians repeatedly wear it out and grow tired of 
repairing it or replacing it, durability has no effect on refrigerant 
emissions. Detailed statistics obtained from manufacturers indicate 
that recovery equipment does not wear out this quickly; failure rates 
generally fall below five percent per year.
    Second, to the extent that durability has been a problem, the 
market itself appears to have acted to address it. According to 
manufacturers, models that experienced relatively high failure rates 
have either been taken off the market or have had their designs 
corrected to address the problem. An article from the Air Conditioning, 
Heating, and Refrigeration News supports this view 3. Contractors 
noted either that their recovery units were holding up well, or that 
they had changed their purchasing criteria to emphasize durability over 
price. The contractors who had changed their criteria observed that job 
interruptions caused by recovery equipment breakdowns had cost them 
business. Similarly, recovery equipment manufacturers stated that 
excessive repairs under warranty were expensive to bear, giving them a 
clear incentive to increase equipment longevity and reliability.

    \3\  ``Hot Customers Don't Sweat Over Extra Recovery Costs,'' B. 
Checket-Hanks, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration News, 
August 21, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, manufacturers observed that recovery technology in general, 
including features to enhance equipment durability, has advanced 
markedly since refrigerant recovery was first required in 1992. Many 
problems emerged during the first year of manufacture and use of 
recovery equipment, which involved adapting existing refrigeration 
technology to new demands. These problems have been detected and 
addressed.
    Fourth, EPA believes that any new equipment that is likely to fail 
under stress is likely to be identified by the enhanced ARI 740 
Standard, which, as discussed above, includes new, more strenuous 
testing at high temperatures. Testing laboratories have indicated that 
equipment that passed the old test ``marginally'' have not passed the 
new one.
    Finally, ARI and manufacturers have noted that durability testing, 
because it is necessarily lengthy, would add considerable cost to the 
equipment certification procedure. One test that was submitted by a 
commenter who supported durability testing would require the continuous 
operation of the equipment for 30 hours. This would double or triple 
the cost of equipment certification. At the same time, the information 
gathered from such a test may not be applicable to the field, since 
recovery equipment is seldom required to function continuously for 30 
hours. Given the improvements in recovery equipment that have resulted 
from the market and the enhanced ARI 740 standard, EPA does not believe 
that any further environmental benefits gained from durability testing 
would justify its costs. Therefore, today's action does not propose 
mandatory durability testing of recycling and recovery equipment.

H. Major and Minor Repairs

    Effective July 13, 1993, technicians were required to evacuate air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment to established vacuum levels. 
However, EPA granted an exception to the evacuation requirements for 
non-major repairs that are not followed by an evacuation of the 
appliance to the environment, and for appliances with leaks that make 
the required evacuation levels impossible to attain. EPA intended non-
major repairs to include procedures that involve uncovering only a 
small opening in the appliance, that take place in only a few minutes, 
and that are not followed by an evacuation of the appliance to the 
environment (high-level evacuation). EPA believed that such repairs 
would 

[[Page 7870]]
result in the release of very little refrigerant to the environment.
    However, EPA did not explicitly define ``non-major'' repairs; 
instead, EPA defined ``major'' repairs as maintenance, service, or 
repair that involves removal of the compressor, condenser, evaporator, 
or auxiliary heat exchanger coil. These procedures are relatively time-
consuming and/or leave large openings in the system through which 
refrigerant can escape (and air and moisture can enter). After such 
procedures, evacuation of the system to the environment is customarily 
performed, expelling any residual refrigerant into the atmosphere.
1. Comments Received Since the Final Rule
    Since the final rule was published, EPA has received several 
comments that request that EPA expand and clarify the current 
definition of ``major'' and explicitly define ``non-major'' repairs.
    Commenters believed that the current definition of major repairs 
was too narrow, excluding some types of repair that result in 
considerable refrigerant release. They recommended that the definition 
be modified to reflect the following: major repairs or service 
procedures that (1) involve the removal of the compressor, condenser, 
evaporator or auxiliary heat exchanger, or (2) require the appliance to 
be open to the atmosphere for an extended period of time, or (3) 
require the uncovering of large openings that cannot be isolated or 
capped. The commenters also recommended that before major repairs were 
undertaken, appliances should be required to be evacuated to 25 mm Hg 
absolute (per EPA standards).
    Several commenters maintained that non-major repairs should be 
explicitly defined as repairs or service procedures that involve 
uncovering only a small opening in the appliance and take place in only 
a few minutes, or that involve openings that may be capped or isolated 
using isolation valves, thereby limiting the quantity of refrigerant 
lost to the atmosphere. Additionally, commenters recommended that 
technicians be required to meet the following standards for minor 
repairs: 1) technicians must be able to hold the unit at 0 PSIG; (2) 
the unit may not be open for more than 15 minutes.
    One commenter submitted the following list, which classifies 
several common service procedures or repairs as either major or minor.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Maintenance/service task                Minor         Major   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Shaft Seal Replace (OCV).................  ............          XXX 
2. Oil Change (oil temp @ 135 deg.).........          XXX   ............
3. Oil Filter Change........................          XXX   ............
4. Vent Line Solenoid Valve Repair..........          XXX   ............
5. Vent Line Solenoid Replace...............  ............          XXX 
6. Oil Pump and/or Motor....................  ............          XXX 
7. Oil Pressure Regulator...................          XXX   ............
8. 3rd Stage Vane Bellows Repair/Replace....  ............  ............
9. 1st Stage Vane Oper. Repair/Replace......          XXX   ............
10. Oil Eductor.............................          XXX   ............
11. Motor Cooling Orifice...................          XXX   ............
12. Thrust Bearing (ball bearing) Replace...  ............          XXX 
13. Thrust Bearing Cover Gasket Replace.....          XXX   ............
14. Pressure Control/Transducer/Gage Replace          XXX   ............
15. Suction Elbow Gasket Replace............  ............          XXX 
16. Terminal Board Gasket Replace...........  ............          XXX 
17. Terminal Stud ``O'' Ring Replace........  ............          XXX 
18. Purifier Purge Drier Core Replace.......          XXX   ............
19. Old Style Purge Service and Repair (all)          XXX   ............
20. Economizer Gasket Replace (upper).......          XXX   ............
21. Economizer Gasket Replace (lower).......  ............          XXX 
22. Hot Gas Bypass/Free Cool. Val. Stem                                 
 Repair.....................................          XXX   ............
23. Hot Gas Bypass/Free Cool. Val. Gasket                               
 Replace....................................  ............          XXX 
24. Oil Cooler replace with Isolation Valves          XXX   ............
25. Oil Cooler replace without Isolation                                
 Valves.....................................  ............          XXX 
26. Oil Heater (direct immersion) Replace...          XXX   ............
27. Orifice Check/Clean ``Upper'' 15 Minutes                            
 Max........................................          XXX   ............
28. Orifice Work Upper/Lower Over 15 Minutes  ............          XXX 
29. Rupture Disk Replace....................          XXX   ............
30. Purge Solenoid Valve Replace............          XXX   ............
31. Discharge Spool Gasket Replace..........  ............          XXX 
32. Oil Sump Gasket Replace.................  ............          XXX 
33. Sight Glass Replace (Evap. glass or any                             
 solder type)...............................  ............          XXX 
34. Sight Glass Replace (oil system, non-                               
 solder)....................................          XXX   ............
35. Valves, Service, Liquid.................          XXX   ............
36. Valves, Service, Vapor..................          XXX   ............
37. Flare Fitting Repair....................          XXX   ............
38. Solder or Braze Joint Repair, Vapor                                 
 Section....................................          XXX   ............
39. Solder or Braze Joint Repair, Liquid                                
 Section....................................  ............          XXX 
40. Oil Cooler Repair/Replace...............  ............          XXX 
41. Float Chamber Gasket Replace or Float                               
 Repair.....................................  ............          XXX 
42. Motor Temp. Sensor Place O'Ring Replace.          XXX   ............
43. Rupture Guard Installation..............          XXX   ............
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 7871]]

2. Proposed Definitions
    EPA agrees with the commenters that major repairs of low-pressure 
chillers have been defined too narrowly and should be expanded. EPA is 
therefore proposing to revise the definitions of major repairs and to 
define non-major repairs as follows:
    (a) Non-Major Repairs of Low-Pressure Chillers. To be classified as 
non-major repairs or service procedures, the procedure or repair must 
(1) involve uncovering only a small opening (less than 2 inches in 
diameter) in the appliance, or involve openings that may be capped or 
isolated using isolation valves, (2) require the appliance to be open 
for no more than 15 minutes, and (3) permit the technician to hold the 
appliance at 0 psig.
    (b) Major Repairs for Low-Pressure Chillers. Major repairs for low-
pressure chillers: (1) involve removal of the compressor, condenser, 
evaporator or auxiliary heat exchanger, (2) require the appliance to be 
open to the atmosphere for more than 15 minutes, or (3) involve a large 
opening.
    EPA requests comments on these definitions. EPA is particularly 
interested in whether these definitions are specific enough, whether 
other types of repairs should be considered and whether this definition 
is consistent with industry practices and/or terminology.

I. Change in the Definition of Small Appliance

1. Background
    On May 14, 1993, EPA published final regulations expanding its 
proposed definition of ``small appliance.'' EPA had previously proposed 
a definition for small appliances that included air-conditioning or 
refrigeration equipment containing less than one pound of charge during 
normal operation.
    EPA received a number of comments that the one-pound limit used in 
the proposed definition was too restrictive. Commenters also stated 
that room air conditioners, packaged terminal air conditioners, and 
packaged terminal heat pumps are sufficiently similar to household 
refrigerators and freezers to justify inclusion in the definition of 
``small appliances.''
    EPA agreed with these comments and expanded the definition of small 
appliances to the following:

    Small appliance means any of the following products that are 
fully manufactured, charged, and hermetically sealed in a factory 
with five (5) pounds or less of refrigerant: Refrigerators and 
freezers designed for home use, room air conditioners (including 
window air conditioners and packaged terminal air conditioners), 
packaged terminal heat pumps, dehumidifiers, under-the-counter ice 
makers, vending machines, and drinking water coolers.
2. Additional Comments
    Since the promulgation of the final rule, EPA has received 
additional comments requesting further expansion of the definition of 
small appliances to include units that meet the criteria for small 
appliances described in the beginning of the definition, but that are 
not specifically listed at the end of the definition. EPA could 
accomplish this by making the list of appliances in the definition 
illustrative rather than restrictive, by removing the list of 
appliances from the definition (leaving only the criteria), or by 
explicitly adding refrigerators and freezers built for medical 
research, industrial research and processes, and as components in other 
equipment, to the definition.
    These comments stated that these refrigerators and freezers used 
for medical research, industrial research and processes and as 
components in other equipment (such as purge units in chillers) are 
extremely similar to the products designed for home use but are 
excluded from language of the current definition of small appliances. 
Commenters stated that these units meet the spirit of the definition of 
small appliances in that they are hermetically sealed in the factory 
with five (5) pounds of refrigerant or less, rarely require entry into 
the system and rarely develop refrigerant leaks. Thus, the definition 
should be expanded to treat them the same way in the rule as household 
refrigerators and freezers.
3. Today's Proposal
    EPA agrees with the commenters that refrigerators and freezers that 
are built for medical research, industrial research, or processes, or 
that used as components in other equipment, and that are hermetically 
sealed at the factory and contain less than five (5) pounds of charge, 
should be added to the definition of small appliances. EPA is therefore 
proposing to revise the final definition of ``small appliances'' to:

    Small appliance means any product that is fully manufactured, 
charged and hermetically sealed in a factory with five (5) pounds or 
less of refrigerant, including, but not limited to, refrigerators 
and freezers designed for home use, as components in other 
equipment, medical research, or industrial research, room air 
conditioners (including window air conditioners and packaged 
terminal heat pumps), dehumidifiers, under-the-counter ice makers, 
vending machines, and drinking water coolers,

    Note that the list of appliances in this revised definition is 
illustrative rather then restrictive. EPA requests comments on this 
proposed definition of small appliances. EPA is particularly interested 
in whether it would be helpful to list additional examples of 
appliances that would be considered ``small appliances'' under the 
criteria of the definition.

III. Summary of Supporting Analysis

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant'' regulatory action as 
one that is likely to lead to a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely and materially affect a sector of the economy, 
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or 
safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined by OMB and EPA that this proposed action to 
amendment to the final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject 
to OMB review under the Executive Order.

B. Unfunded Mandates Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded 
Mandates Act'') requires that the Agency prepare a budgetary impact 
statement before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate 
that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, 
in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Section 203 requires the Agency to establish a plan for 
obtaining input from and informing, educating, and advising any small 
governments that may be significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
    Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must 
identify and consider a reasonable number of 

[[Page 7872]]
regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule for which a 
budgetary impact statement must be prepared. The Agency must select 
from those alternatives the least costly, most cost-effective, or least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule, unless 
the Agency explains why this alternative is not selected or the 
selection of this alternative is inconsistent with law.
    Because this NPRM is estimated to result in the expenditure by 
State, local, and tribal governments or private sector of less than 
$100 million in any one year, the Agency has not prepared a budgetary 
impact statement or specifically addressed the selection of the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative. Because 
small governments will not be significantly or uniquely affected by 
this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a plan with regard to 
small governments. As discussed in this preamble, many aspects of this 
NPRM proposes to provide increased flexibility that may have the net 
effect of reducing the burden of part 82 subpart F of the Stratospheric 
Protection regulations on regulated entities, including State, local, 
and tribal governments or private sector entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule will be 
submitted to by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and will be assigned a 
control number. OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.
    Since there are additional informational collection requirements 
required by this proposed amendment, EPA has determined that the 
Paperwork Reduction Act does apply to this proposed rulemaking and a 
revised Information Collection Request document is being prepared.
    Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of 
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 
burden to Director, Regulatory Information Division; EPA; 401 M Street 
SW. (Mail Code 2136); Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.''

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-602, requires that 
Federal agencies examine the impacts of their regulations on small 
entities. Under 5 U.S.C. 604(a), whenever an agency is required to 
publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, it must prepare and 
make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis (RFA). Such an analysis is not required if the head of an 
agency certifies that a rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
605(b).
    EPA believes that any impact that this amendment will have on the 
regulated community will either serve to provide relief from otherwise 
more burdensome requirements, or will not have a negative economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. An examination of the 
impacts on small entities was discussed in the initial final rule 
promulgated under Sec. 608 (58 FR 28660). That final rule assessed the 
impact the rule may have on small entities. A separate regulatory 
impact analysis was developed. That impact analysis accompanied the 
final rule and is contained in Docket A-92-01.
    I certify that this amendment to the refrigerant recycling rule 
will not have any additional negative economic impacts on any small 
entities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Contractors, 
Laboratories, Major repairs, Minor repairs, Reclaimers, Reclamation, 
Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Technician.

    Dated: February 14, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    Part 82, chapter I, title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
part 82, is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

    1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

    2. Section 82.152 is amended by removing the definition for ``Major 
repair,'' by revising the definition for ``MVAC-like appliance,'' 
``reclaim,'' and ``small appliance:'' and by adding new definitions in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec. 82.152  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Contractor-reclaimed refrigerant means refrigerant that has 
remained in custody of a single technician or contractor and a 
representative sample of that refrigerant as defined in this section 
has been chemically analyzed by a certified laboratory to determine 
that it has been reprocessed to at least the purity specified in the 
ARI Standard 700-1993, Specifications for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants 
(appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart F). Refrigerant reprocessed in 
this manner will be considered reclaimed refrigerant consistent with 
the definition of reclaim contained in this section.
* * * * *
    Major repairs of low-pressure chillers means repair involving 
removal of the compressor, condenser, evaporator or auxiliary heat 
exchanger, or any repair that requires the appliance to open to the 
atmosphere for more than 15 minutes or that requires large openings to 
be uncovered.
* * * * *
    MVAC-like appliance means mechanical vapor compression, open-drive 
compressor appliances with a normal charge of 20 pounds or less of 
refrigerant used to cool the driver's or passenger's compartment of a 
non-road motor vehicle. This includes the air-conditioning equipment 
found on agricultural or construction vehicles. This definition is not 
intended to cover appliances using HCFC-22 refrigerant.
* * * * *
    Non-major repair of low pressure chillers means any service 
procedures or repairs that: (1) involve uncovering only a small opening 
(less than 2 inches in diameter) in the appliance for no more than 15 
minutes, or (2) involve openings that may be capped or isolated using 
isolation valves, and (3) permit the technician to hold the appliance 
at 0 psig.
* * * * *
    Reclaim refrigerant means to reprocess refrigerant to at least the 
purity specified in the ARI Standard 700-1995, Specifications for 
Fluorocarbon Refrigerants (appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart F), 
and to verify this purity using the analytical methodology prescribed 
in the ARI Standard 700-1995. Contractor-reclaimed refrigerant as 
defined in this section is included in this definition.
* * * * *
    Representative sample means for the purposes of 40 CFR Part 82, 
subpart F, a sample taken from each container of refrigerant to be 
chemically analyzed and tested to ARI Standard 700-1995 prior to 
packaging for resale or reuse. Such samples will be at least 500 ml and 
shipped in stainless steel test cylinders that include \1/4\'' valve 
assembly and pressure relief rupture 

[[Page 7873]]
disc. Cylinders shall be rated by the Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
    Small appliance means any product that is fully manufactured, 
charged, and hermetically sealed in a factory with five (5) pounds or 
less of refrigerant, including, but not limited to, refrigerators and 
freezers designed for home use or for medical or industrial research, 
room air conditioners (including window air conditioners and packaged 
terminal air heat pumps), dehumidifiers, under-the-counter ice makers, 
vending machines, and drinking water coolers.
* * * * *
    3. Section 82.154 is amended by revising paragraphs (g), (h), and 
(m) to read as follows:


Sec. 82.154  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
(g) No person may sell or offer for sale for use as a refrigerant any 
class I or class II substance consisting wholly or in part of used 
refrigerant unless:
    (1) The class I or class II substance has been reclaimed as defined 
in Sec. 82.152;
    (2) The class I or class II substance was used only in an MVAC or 
MVAC-like appliance and is to be used only in an MVAC or MVAC-like 
appliance and recycled in accordance with 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart B;
    (3) The class I or class II substance is contained in an appliance 
that is sold or offered for sale together with the class I or class II 
substance; or
    (4) The class I or class II substance is being transferred between 
two wholly-owned subsidiaries of the same holding company.
    (h) No person may sell or offer for sale for use as a refrigerant 
any class I or class II substance consisting wholly or in part of used 
refrigerant unless:
    (1) The class I or class II substance has been reclaimed by a 
person who has been certified as a reclaimer pursuant to Sec. 82.165 or 
the substance has undergone contractor reclamation;
    (2) The class I or class II substance was used only in an MVAC or 
MVAC-like appliance and is to be used only in an MVAC or MVAC-like 
appliance and recycled in accordance with 40 CFR 82 part Subpart B;
    (3) The class I or class II substance is contained in an appliance 
that is sold or offered for sale together with the class I or class II 
substance; or
    (4) The class I or class II substance is being transferred between 
two wholly-owned subsidiaries of the same holding company.
* * * * *
    (m) No person may sell or distribute, or offer for sale or 
distribution, any class I or class II substance for use as a 
refrigerant to any person unless:
    (1) The buyer has been certified as a Type I, Type II, Type III, or 
Universal technician pursuant to Sec. 82.161;
    (2) The buyer has completed a voluntary certification program 
requesting approval under Sec. 82.161(g) by December 9, 1994. This 
paragraph expires on May 15, 1995.
    (3) The buyer has been certified pursuant to 40 CFR part 82, 
subpart B and the refrigerant is either CFC-12 or an approved 
substitute consisting wholly or in part of a class I or class II 
substance for use in motor vehicle air conditioners pursuant to 40 CFR 
part 82, subpart G;
    (4) The refrigerant is sold only for eventual resale to certified 
technicians or to appliance manufacturers (e.g., sold by a manufacturer 
to a wholesaler, sold by a technician to a reclaimer);
    (5) The refrigerant is sold to an appliance manufacturer;
    (6) The refrigerant is contained in an appliance, and after January 
9, 1995, the refrigerant is contained in an appliance with a fully 
assembled refrigerant circuit;
    (7) The refrigerant is charged into an appliance by a certified 
technician or an apprentice during maintenance, service, or repair; or
    (8) The refrigerant is charged into an appliance by a technician 
who successfully completed a voluntary certification program requesting 
approval under Sec. 82.161(g) by December 9, 1994. This paragraph 
(m)(8) expires on May 15, 1995.
    (9) Rules stayed for reconsideration. Notwithstanding any other 
provisions of this subpart, the effectiveness of 40 CFR 82.154(m), only 
as it applies to refrigerant contained in appliances without fully 
assembled refrigerant circuits, is stayed from April 27, 1995

[until EPA takes final action on its reconsideration of these 
provisions. EPA will publish any such final action in the Federal 
Register].
* * * * *
    4. Section 82.156 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 82.156  Required practices.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) Be pressurized to 0 psig before it is opened if it is a low-
pressure appliance and cover openings when isolation valves are present 
or when the openings can be capped during the service. Persons 
pressurizing low-pressure appliances that use refrigerants with boiling 
points at or below 85 degrees Fahrenheit at 29.9 inches of mercury 
(standard atmospheric pressure), (e.g., CFC-11 and HCFC-123), must not 
use methods such as nitrogen, that require subsequent purging. Persons 
pressurizing low-pressure appliances that use refrigerants with boiling 
points above 85 degrees Fahrenheit at 29.9 inches of mercury, e.g., 
CFC-113, must use heat to raise the internal pressure of the appliance 
as much as possible, but may use nitrogen to raise the internal 
pressure of the appliance from the level attainable through use of heat 
to atmospheric pressure; or
* * * * *
    5. Section 82.158(b)(1) is amended by removing the phrase ``ARI 
Standard 740-1993, Performance of Refrigerant Recovery, Recycling and/
or Reclaim Equipment (ARI 740-1993) (appendix B)'' and adding in its 
place ``appendix B'', by revising paragraph (b)(3), by removing 
paragraph (b)(4), by redesignating paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) as 
paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5), and by adding paragraph (b)(6) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 82.158  Standards for recycling and recovery equipment.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) The equipment must meet the ``General Equipment Requirements'' 
in Section 4 of appendix B.
* * * * *
    (6) Effective [90 days after publication of the final rule], 
equipment that is advertised or marketed as ``recycling equipment'' 
must be capable of cleaning the standard contaminated refrigerant 
sample of appendix B, Section 5, to the levels in the following table 
when tested under the conditions of appendix B.

                  Maximum Contaminant Levels of Recycled Refrigerants in Same Owner's Equipment                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Contaminants                Low pressure systems         R-12 systems          All other systems   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acid Content (by wt.)................  1.0 PPM................  1.0 PPM................  1.0 PPM                

[[Page 7874]]
                                                                                                                
Moisture (by wt.)....................  20 PPM.................  10 PPM.................  20 PPM                 
Non Condensable Gas (by vol.)........  N/A....................  2.0%...................  2.0%                   
High Boiling Residues (by vol.)......  1.0%...................  0.02%..................  0.02%                  
Chlorides by Silver Nitrate Test.....  No turbidity...........  No turbidity...........  No turbidity.          
Particulates.........................  Visually clean.........  Visually clean.........  Visually clean.        
Other Refrigerants...................  2.0%...................  2.0%...................  2.0%                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    6. Section 82.164 is amended by revising the heading and paragraphs 
(a), (b), and by removing paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 82.164  Reclaimer certification programs.

* * * * *
    (a) Effective persons reclaiming used refrigerant for sale to a new 
owner must either:
    (1) Be a reclaimer certified by an EPA-approved reclaimer 
certification program in accordance with this section and the 
requirements specified in Sec. 82.165;
    (2) In cases where the custody and control of the refrigerant 
charge is maintained, have a representative sample of that refrigerant 
from each container tested by a laboratory certified by an EPA-approved 
laboratory certification program in accordance with Sec. 82.167 to 
ensure that the refrigerant has been reclaimed to at least ARI Standard 
700-1995; or
    (3) As permitted in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Reclaimers certified by EPA prior to [30 Days From the Date of 
Publication of the final rule] may continue to reclaim used refrigerant 
for sale to a new owner until six months from the date EPA approves at 
least one reclaimer certification program.
    (2) Reclaimers certified by EPA prior to [30 Days From the Date of 
Publication of the final rule] may not reclaim used refrigeration for 
sale to a new owner six months after the date EPA approves at least one 
reclaimer certification program, unless the reclaimer has been 
certified by an EPA-approved reclaimer certification program, approved 
in accordance with this section.
    (b) Any person seeking approval as a reclaimer certification 
program may apply for approval by the Administrator. The application 
must be sent to: Section 608 Recycling Program Manager, Reclaimer 
Certification, Stratospheric Protection Division, 6205J, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20460. Applications for approval must include written information 
verifying the ability of the reclaimer certification program to ensure 
that reclaimers it certifies meet the criteria listed in this section 
and in Sec. 82.165.
    (1) Reclaimer certification programs must demonstrate to EPA the 
ability to perform oversight and verification to provide reasonable 
assurance that the certified reclaimers will reclaim used refrigerant 
for sale to a new owner to at least ARI Standard 700-1995 in accordance 
with this section.
    (2) Reclaimer certification programs must demonstrate to EPA the 
ability to perform all recordkeeping and reporting requirements listed 
in Sec. 82.166(g), (h) and (s) and verify that all persons seeking to 
become and remain certified reclaimers meet the criteria set forth in 
Sec. 82.165.
    (3) Reclaimer certification programs must maintain and effectively 
distribute a list of names and addresses of all reclaimers certified by 
the reclaimer certification program.
    (4) Reclaimer certification programs must create, distribute, and 
control the use of a seal, logo, or other like notification, indicating 
that an approved reclaimer certification program has certified the 
reclaimer. The seal, logo, or other like notification must contain the 
following standardized language: ``________ has been certified as a 
refrigerant reclaimer required by 40 CFR part 82, subpart F.'' The 
certified reclaimer must display this notification conspicuously.
    (5) Reclaimer certification programs must decertify a program where 
a pattern of violations occurs. The method of revoking certification of 
the particular reclaimer must be reasonable (such as including a 
provision for appeal) and conducted in a timely manner.
    (6) Reclaimer certification programs must submit to EPA, in 
accordance with Sec. 82.166(h), information concerning the quantity of 
material sent for reclamation, the mass of refrigerant reclaimed, and 
the mass of waste products.
    (7) Reclaimer certification programs must demonstrate that 
certificates or other information indicating the certification of a 
reclaimer will not be transferable. In the event of a change in 
ownership of a certified reclaimer the new owner of the entity shall 
notify the reclaimer certification program within 30 days of the change 
of ownership.
    (8) Failure to abide by any of the provisions of this subpart may 
result in the revocation or suspension of the approval of the reclaimer 
certification program. In such cases, the Administrator or her or his 
designated representative shall give notice to the organization setting 
forth the basis for her or his determination and comply with the 
procedures contained in Sec. 82.169.
    6a. Section 82.165 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 82.165  Reclaimer certification criteria.

    (a) Persons seeking to become certified reclaimers must be 
certified by an EPA-approved reclaimer certification program in 
accordance with Sec. 82.164. Persons seeking to become certified 
reclaimers will be required to demonstrate the ability to meet the 
criteria set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section.
    (b) Certified reclaimers must submit monthly processing reports to 
the approved certification program. These processing reports must 
include, but are not limited to, the amount of reclaimed refrigerant 
each certified reclaimer has processed during the preceding month. The 
reclaimer certification program will examine the data received by the 
reclaimers to ensure completeness.
    (c) Reclaimers seeking to become certified must submit to the 
reclaimer certification programs at least three samples of reclaimed 
refrigerant. The reclamation certification program or a designated 
laboratory must chemically analyze three samples of refrigerant 
processed by each of the reclaimer's facilities prior to certifying the 
reclaimer. Each calendar year the reclaimer certification program must 
receive and chemically analyze at least four representative samples of 
refrigerant processed by each of the reclaimer's facilities. These 
tests must be performed on a random basis.
    (d) Reclaimers must submit and update an accurate list of all 
equipment used to reprocess and analyze used refrigerant to the 
reclamation certification program. Reclaimer 

[[Page 7875]]
certification programs must maintain a list of equipment used to 
reprocess and to analyze the used refrigerant by each reclaimer 
certified by that reclaimer certification program.
    (e) Reclaimers certified by a reclaimer certification program that 
has its certification revoked in accordance with Sec. 82.164(b)(7) must 
be recertified by another EPA-approved certification program within six 
months of receiving notification of the revocation.
    (f) Reclaimers certified by a reclaimer certification program must 
release no more than 1.5 percent of the refrigerant during the 
reclamation process and dispose of wastes from the reclamation process 
in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
    7. Section 82.166 is amended by revising paragraph (g) and adding 
paragraphs (r), (s), and (t) to read as follows:


Sec. 82.166  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (g) Reclaimer certification programs must maintain records of the 
quantity of material sent to them for reclamation, the mass of 
refrigerant reclaimed, and the mass of waste products. Reclaimer 
certification programs must report this information to the 
Administrator annually within 30 days of the end of the calendar year.
* * * * *
    (r) Laboratory certification programs must maintain records of the 
quantity of material sent to them for purity testing, the mass of 
refrigerant tested, mass of waste products and information indicating 
the amount of the total charge of used refrigerant that the 
representative sample received and analyzed by the certified 
laboratories was drawn from. Laboratory certification programs must 
report this information to the Administrator annually within 30 days of 
the end of the calendar year.
    (s) Reclaimer certification programs must maintain a list of 
equipment used to reprocess and to analyze the refrigerant used by each 
reclaimer certified by the reclaimer certification program. Reclaimer 
certification programs must maintain a list of names and addresses of 
all reclaimers certified by the reclaimer certification program.
    (t) Any contractor or technician reclaiming refrigerant consistent 
with the definition of contractor reclamation must keep records 
indicating that the custody and control of the refrigerant has been 
maintained. Records must include the quantity of refrigerant, the date 
and location of where the refrigerant was recovered, the date(s) and 
location(s) of where the refrigerant is stored, the date(s) and 
location(s) of where representative samples are drawn, and the date(s) 
and location(s) of where the refrigerant is sold after a certified 
laboratory has verified the quality of the refrigerant.
    8. Section 82.167 is added to subpart F to read as follows:


Sec. 82.167  Laboratory certification.

    (a) Any laboratory certification program may apply for approval by 
the Administrator to certify laboratories. The application must be sent 
to: Section 608 Recycling Program Manager, Laboratory Certification, 
Stratospheric Protection Division, 6205J, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. Applications for 
approval must include written information verifying the ability of the 
laboratory certification program to ensure that laboratories it 
certifies meet the criteria listed in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), 
(f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l) of this section and Sec. 82.168.
    (b) Laboratory certification programs must demonstrate to EPA the 
ability to perform oversight and analysis to ensure that the certified 
laboratories will test representative samples of used refrigerant for 
sale to a new owner to at least ARI Standard 700-1995 in accordance 
with this section.
    (c) Laboratory certification programs must demonstrate to EPA the 
ability to perform all recordkeeping and reporting requirements listed 
in Sec. 82.166(r) and (t) and to verify that all persons seeking to 
become and remain certified laboratories meet the criteria set forth in 
Sec. 82.168.
    (d) Laboratory certification programs must maintain information 
concerning a certified laboratory's ability to test refrigerant purity 
levels acceptable under the ARI 700-1995 standard and a commitment to 
comply with the standards established by the EPA-approved certifier.
    (e) Laboratory certification programs must test verify at least 
three refrigerants submitted by a potentially certified laboratory 
prior to the issuance of certification. Only laboratories that 
accurately determine within an acceptable range each contaminant in any 
of the qualifying samples will be certified. The following list of 
values constitutes acceptable ranges for reporting contaminants:
    (1) Refrigerant purity: +/-0.01%;
    (2) Water: +/-the greater of 3ppm or 10% of the actual value;
    (3) High Boiling Residue: +/-the greater of 0.01% (absolute) or 20% 
of the actual value; and
    (4) Non-condensibles: +/-the greater of 0.2% (absolute) or 10% of 
the actual value.
    (f) Laboratory certification programs must perform a site visit 
prior to certifying the laboratory to ensure that the laboratory has 
the capability of performing correct refrigerant analysis and that the 
laboratory did analyze samples submitted for verification. Site visits 
must include a visual inspection of the laboratory's equipment and 
ascertain whether each item necessary for routine refrigerant analysis 
exists and is functional. In addition, the site visit must include a 
procedural review of the laboratory's methods and procedures for 
refrigerant analysis.
    (g) Laboratory certification programs must develop and perform a 
schedule of continued site visits to ensure the continued 
qualifications of the laboratory. These visits will be consistent with 
the requirements in Sec. 82.168(c). Site visits must occur on at least 
a quarterly basis.
    (h) Laboratory certification programs must require, receive, and 
consolidate monthly processing reports submitted from the certified 
laboratories. These processing reports must include, but are not 
limited to, the amount of used refrigerant tested during the preceding 
month and the total amount of used refrigerant the tested amount 
represents. The laboratory certification program will examine the data 
received by the laboratories for completeness and accuracy.
    (i) Laboratory certification programs must submit to EPA in 
accordance with Sec. 82.166(r) information concerning the quantity of 
material sent for testing, the mass of refrigerant tested, the mass of 
waste products, and the total amount of used refrigerant that has had 
its purity verified in this manner.
    (j) Laboratory certification programs must create, distribute, and 
control the use of a seal, logo, or other like notification, indicating 
that an approved laboratory certification program has certified the 
laboratory. EPA anticipates that a seal or logo will be necessary. The 
seal, logo, or like notification must contain the following statement: 
``________ has been certified as a certified laboratory to analyze 
refrigerant as required by 40 CFR part 82, subpart F.'' The laboratory 
certification program must require the display of this notification 
conspicuously.
    (k) Only laboratories that are able to substantiate their ability 
to comply with the criteria established in this subsection may be 
certified. A certified laboratory no longer able to meet the continuing 
criteria must be decertified. 

[[Page 7876]]
If such a case occurs, EPA must be notified within 30 days.
    (l) Failure to abide by any of the provisions of this subpart may 
result in the revocation or suspension of the approval of the 
laboratory certification program. In such cases, the Administrator or 
her or his designated representative shall give notice to the 
organization setting forth the basis for her or his determination and 
identifying the procedures contained in Sec. 82.169.
    9. Section 82.168 is added to subpart F to reads as follows:


Sec. 82.168  Laboratory certification criteria.

    (a) Persons seeking to have their laboratories certified must be 
certified by a laboratory certification program approved in accordance 
with Sec. 82.167. Persons seeking to have their laboratories certified 
will be required to demonstrate to the laboratory certification program 
the ability to meet the criteria set forth in this section.
    (b) Persons seeking to have their laboratories certified must 
submit to a laboratory certification program for the purposes of test 
verification at least three refrigerants prior to the issuance of 
certification. Only laboratories that accurately determine, within an 
acceptable range, each contaminant in any of the qualifying samples 
will be certified. The following lists of values constitute acceptable 
ranges for reporting contaminants:
    (1) Refrigerant purity: +/-0.01%;
    (2) Water: +/-the greater of 3ppm or 10% of the actual value;
    (3) High Boiling Residue: +/-the greater of 0.01% (absolute) or 20% 
of the actual value; and
    (4) Non-condensibles: +/-the greater of 0.2% (absolute) or 10% of 
the actual value.
    (c) Persons seeking to have their laboratories certified must 
permit a site visit by a laboratory certification program prior to 
becoming certified for the purposes of ensuring that the laboratory has 
the capability of performing correct refrigerant analysis and that the 
laboratory did analyze samples submitted for verification. Site visits 
must include a visual inspection of the laboratory's equipment tod 
ascertain whether each item necessary for compliance exists and is 
functional for routine refrigerant analysis. In addition, the site 
visit must include a procedural review of the laboratory's methods and 
procedures for refrigerant analysis.
    (d) Certified laboratories must permit a schedule of continued site 
visits to ensure the continued qualifications of the laboratory. These 
visits will be consistent with the requirements in paragraph (c) of 
this section. Site visits must occur on at least a quarterly basis.
    (e) Certified laboratories must submit monthly processing reports 
to the laboratory certification program. These processing reports must 
include, but are not limited to, the amount of used refrigerant tested 
during the preceding month and the total amount of used refrigerant the 
tested amount represents. The laboratory certification program will 
examine the data received by the laboratories to ensure completeness 
and accuracy.
    (f) Laboratories certified by a laboratory certification program 
for which certification has been revoked in accordance with 
Sec. 82.167(l) must be recertified by another EPA-approved 
certification program within six months of receiving notification of 
the revocation.
    10. Section 82.169 is added to subpart F to read as follows:


Sec. 82.169  Suspension and revocation procedures.

    (a) Failure to abide by any of the provisions of this subpart may 
result in the revocation or suspension of the approval to certify 
technicians, laboratories, reclaimers and/or recycling and recovery 
equipment. In such cases, the Administrator or her or his designated 
representative shall give notice to the organization setting forth the 
basis for her or his determination.
    (b) The revoked or suspended certification program that chooses to 
request a hearing must file that request in writing within 30 days of 
the date of the Agency's decision at the address listed in Sec. 82.160 
and shall set forth the certification program's objections to the 
Agency's decision and data to support the objections.
    (c) If, after review of the request and supporting data, the 
Administrator or her or his designated representative finds that the 
request raises a substantial and factual issue, she or he shall provide 
the certification program with a hearing.
    (d) After granting a request for a hearing the Administrator or her 
or his designated representative shall designate a Presiding Officer 
for the hearing.
    (e) The hearing shall be held as soon as practicable at a time and 
place determined by the Administrator, the designated representative, 
or by the Presiding Officer.
    (f) The Administrator or her or his designated representative may, 
at his or her discretion, direct that all argument and presentation of 
evidence be concluded within a specified period established by the 
Administrator or her or his designated representative. Said period may 
be no less than 30 days from the date that the first written offer of a 
hearing is made to the laboratory certification program. To expedite 
proceedings, the Administrator or her or his designated representative 
may direct that the decision of the Presiding Officer (who may, but 
need not, be the Administrator) shall be the final EPA decision.
    (g) Upon appointment pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, the 
Presiding Officer will establish a hearing file. The file shall consist 
of the following:
    (1) The determination issued by the Administrator under 
Sec. 82.165;
    (2) The request for a hearing and the supporting data submitted 
therewith;
    (3) All documents relating to the request for certification and all 
documents submitted therewith; and
    (4) Correspondence and other data material to the hearing.
    (h) The hearing file will be available for inspection by the 
applicant at the office of the Presiding Officer.
    (i) An applicant may appear in person or may be represented by 
counsel or by any other duly authorized representative.
    (j) The Presiding Officer, upon the request of any party or at his 
or her discretion, may arrange for a pre-hearing conference at a time 
and place he/she specifies. Such pre-hearing conference will consider 
the following:
    (1) Simplification of the issues;
    (2) Stipulations, admissions of fact, and the introduction of 
documents;
    (3) Limitation of the number of expert witnesses;
    (4) Possibility of agreement disposing of any or all of the issues 
in dispute; and
    (5) Such other matters as may aid in the disposition of the 
hearing, including such additional tests as may be agreed upon by the 
parties.
    (k) The results of the conference shall be reduced to writing by 
the Presiding Officer and made part of the record.
    (l) Hearings shall be conducted by the Presiding Officer in an 
informal but orderly and expeditious manner. The parties may offer oral 
or written evidence, subject to the exclusion by the Presiding Officer 
of irrelevant, immaterial, and repetitious evidence.
    (m) Witnesses will not be required to testify under oath. However, 
the Presiding Officer shall call to the attention of witnesses that 
their statements may be subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1001 
which imposes penalties for knowingly making false statements or 
representations or using false documents in any matter within the 
jurisdiction of any 

[[Page 7877]]
department or agency of the United States.
    (n) Any witness may be examined or cross-examined by the Presiding 
Officer, the parties, or their representatives.
    (o) Hearings shall be reported verbatim. Copies of transcripts of 
proceedings may be purchased by the applicant from the reporter.
    (p) All written statements, charts, tabulations, and similar data 
offered in evidence at the hearings shall, upon a showing satisfactory 
to the Presiding Officer of their authenticity, relevancy, and 
materiality, be received in evidence and shall constitute a part of the 
record.
    (q) Oral argument may be permitted at the discretion of the 
Presiding Officer and shall be reported as part of the record unless 
otherwise ordered by the Presiding Officer.
    (r) The Presiding Officer shall make an initial decision which 
shall include written findings and conclusions and the reasons or basis 
regarding all the material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented 
on the record. The findings, conclusions, and written decision shall be 
provided to the parties and made a part of the record. The initial 
decision shall become the decision of the Administrator without further 
proceedings, unless there is an appeal to the Administrator or motion 
for review by the Administrator within 20 days of the date the initial 
decision was filed.
    (s) On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the 
Administrator or her or his designated representative shall have all 
the powers which he or she would have in making the initial decision, 
including the discretion to require or allow briefs, oral argument, the 
taking of additional evidence, or the remanding to the Presiding 
Officer for additional proceedings. The decision by the Administrator 
or her or his representative designate shall include written findings 
and conclusions and the reasons or basis therefore on all the material 
issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the appeal or 
considered in the review.
    11. Appendix B to subpart F is revised to read as follows:

Appendix B to Subpart F--Performance of Refrigerant Recovery, 
Recycling, and/or Reclaim Equipment

    This appendix is based on Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration 
Institute Standard 740-1995.

Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment

Section 1. Purpose

    1.1  Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to establish 
methods of testing for rating and evaluating the performance of 
refrigerant recovery, and/or recycling equipment and general 
equipment requirements (herein referred to as ``equipment'') for 
contaminant or purity levels, capacity, speed and purge loss to 
minimize emission into the atmosphere of designated refrigerants.

Section 2. Scope

    2.1  Scope. This standard applies to equipment for recovering 
and/or recycling single refrigerants, azeotropics, zeotropic blends, 
and their normal contaminants from refrigerant systems. This 
standard defines the test apparatus, test gas mixtures, sampling 
procedures and analytical techniques that will be used to determine 
the performance of refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment 
(hereinafter, ``equipment'').
    2.1.2  Refrigerants used to evaluate equipment shall be pure 
halogenated hydrocarbons, azeotropes and blends containing 
halogenated hydrocarbons.

Section 3. Definitions

    Definitions. All terms in this Appendix will follow the 
definitions in Sec. 82.152 unless otherwise defined in this 
Appendix.
    Clearing Refrigerant. Procedures used to remove trapped 
refrigerant from equipment before switching from one refrigerant to 
another.
    High Temperature Vapor Recovery Rate. For equipment having at 
least one designated refrigerant (see 11.2) with a boiling point in 
the range of -50 to +10 deg.C, the rate will be measured for R-22, 
or the lowest boiling point refrigerant if R-22 is not a designated 
refrigerant.
    Published Ratings. A statement of the assigned values of those 
performance characteristics, under stated rating conditions, by 
which a unit may be chosen to fit its application. These values 
apply to all units of like nominal size and type (identification) 
produced by the same manufacturer. As used herein, the term 
``published rating'' includes the rating of all performance 
characteristics shown on the unit or published in specifications, 
advertising or other literature controlled by the manufacturer, at 
stated rating conditions.
    Push/Pull Method. The push/pull refrigerant recovery method is 
defined as the process of transferring liquid refrigerant from a 
refrigeration system to a receiving vessel by lowering the pressure 
in the vessel and raising the pressure in the system, and by 
connecting a separate line between the system liquid port and the 
receiving vessel.
    Recycle Flow Rate. The amount of refrigerant processed divided 
by the time elapsed in the recycling mode. For equipment which uses 
a separate recycling sequence, the recycle rate does not include the 
recovery rate (or elapsed time). For equipment which does not use a 
separate recycling sequence, the recycle rate is a rate based soley 
on the higher of the liquid or vapor recovery rate, by which the 
contaminant levels were measured.
    Residual Trapped Refrigerant. Refrigerant remaining in equipment 
after clearing.
    ``Shall,'' ``Should,'' ``Recommended'' or ``It is Recommended.'' 
``Shall,'' ``should,'' ``recommended'' or ``it is recommended'' 
shall be interpreted as follows:
    Shall. Where ``shall'' or ``shall not'' is used for a provision 
specified, that provision is mandatory if compliance with the 
standard is claimed.
    Should, Recommended or It is Recommended. ``Should,'' 
``recommended'' or ``it is recommended'' is used to indicate 
provisions which are not mandatory but which are desirable as good 
practice.
    Standard Contaminated Refrigerant Sample. A mixture of new or 
reclaimed refrigerant and specified quantities of identified 
contaminants which constitute the mixture to be processed by the 
equipment under test. These contaminant levels are expected only 
from severe service conditions.
    Trapped Refrigerant. The amount of refrigerant remaining in the 
equipment after the recovery or recovery/recycling operation but 
before clearing.
    Vapor Recovery Rate. The average rate that refrigerant is 
withdrawn from the mixing chamber between two pressures as vapor 
recovery rate is changing pressure and temperature starting at 
saturated conditions either 24  deg.C or at the boiling point 100 
kPa (abs), whichever is higher. The final pressure condition is 10% 
of the initial pressure, but not lower than the equipment final 
recovery vacuum and not higher than 100 kPa (abs).

Section 4. General Equipment Requirements

    4.1  Equipment Information. The equipment manufacturer shall 
provide operating instructions, necessary maintenance procedures and 
source information for replacement parts and repair.
    4.2  Filter Replacement. The equipment shall indicate when any 
filter/drier(s) needs replacement. This requirement can be met by 
use of a moisture transducer and indicator light, by use of a sight 
glass/moisture indicator or by some measurement of the amount of 
refrigerant processed such as a flow meter or hour meter. Written 
instructions such as ``to change the filter every 181 kg, or every 
30 days'' shall not be acceptable except for equipment in large 
systems where the liquid recovery rate is greater than 11.3 kg/min 
where the filter/drier(s) would be changed for every job.
    4.3  Purge of Non-Condensable. If non-condensables are purged, 
the equipment shall either automatically purge non-condensables or 
provide indicating means to guide the purge process.
    4.4  Purge Loss. The total refrigerant loss due to purging non-
condensables, draining oil and clearing refrigerant (see 9.5) shall 
be less than 3% (by weight) of total processed refrigerant.
    4.5  Permeation Rate. High pressure hose assemblies 5/8 in. [16 
mm] nomimal and smaller shall not exceed a permeation rate of 3.9 g/
cm2/yr (internal surface) at a temperature of 48.8  deg.C. Hose 
assemblies UL recognized as having passed ANSI/UL 1963 requirements 
shall be accepted without testing. See 7.1.4.
    4.6  Clearing Trapped Refrigerant. For equipment rated for more 
than one refrigerant, the manufacturer shall provide a method and 
instructions which will accomplish connections and clearing within 
15 minutes. Special equipment, other than a vacuum pump or manifold 
gauge set shall be furnished. The clearing procedure shall not rely 
upon the storage cylinder below 

[[Page 7878]]
saturated pressure conditions at ambient temperature.
    4.7  Temperature. The equipment shall be evaluated at 24  deg.C 
with additional limited evaluation at 40  deg.C. Normal operating 
conditions range from 10  deg.C to 40  deg.C.
    4.8  Exemptions. Equipment intended for recovery only shall be 
exempt from 4.2 and 4.3.

Section 5. Contaminated Refrigerants

    5.1  Sample Characteristics. The standard contaminated 
refrigerant sample shall have the characteristics specified in Table 
1, except as provided in 5.2.
    5.2  Recovery-Only Testing. Recovery equipment not rated for any 
specific contaminant shall be tested with new or reclaimed 
refrigerant.

Section 6. Test Apparatus

    6.1  General Recommendations. The recommended test apparatus is 
described in the following paragraphs. If alternate test apparatus 
are employed, the user shall be able to demonstrate that they 
produce results equivalent to the specified referee apparatus.
    6.2  Self-Contained Equipment Test Apparatus. The apparatus, 
shown in Figure 1, shall consist of:
    6.2.1  Mixing Chamber. A mixing chamber consisting of a tank 
with a conical-shaped bottom, a bottom port and piping for 
delivering refrigerant to the equipment, various ports and valves 
for adding refrigerant to the chamber and stirring means for mixing.
    6.2.2  Filling Storage Cylinder. The storage cylinder to be 
filled by the refrigerant transferred shall be cleaned and at the 
pressure of the recovered refrigerant at the beginning of the test. 
It will not be filled over 80%, by volume.
    6.2.3  Vapor Feed. Vapor refrigerant feed consisting of 
evaporator, control valves and piping to create a 3.0  deg.C 
superheat condition at an evaporating temperature of 21 
deg.C2K.
    6.2.4  Alternative Vapor Feed. An alternative method for vapor 
feed shall be to pass the refrigerant through a boiler and then 
through an automatic pressure regulating valve set at different 
saturation pressures, moving from saturated pressure at 24  deg.C to 
final pressure of recovery.
    6.2.5  Liquid Feed. Liquid refrigerant feed consisting of 
control valves, sampling port and piping.
    6.2.6  Instrumentation. Instrumentation capable of measuring 
weight, temperature, pressure and refrigerant loss, as required.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 7879]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29FE96.000



[[Page 7880]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29FE96.001



BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 7881]]

    6.3  Size. The size of the mixing chamber shall be a minimum of 
.09 m\3\. The bottom port and the refrigerant feed shall depend on 
the size of the equipment. Typically, the mixing valves and piping 
shall be 9.5 mm. For large equipment to be used on chillers, the 
minimum inside diameter of ports, valves and pipings shall be the 
smaller of the manufacturer's recommendation or 37 mm.
    6.4  System Dependent Equipment Test Apparatus. This test 
apparatus is to be used for final recovery vacuum rating of all 
system dependent equipment.
    6.4.1  Test Setup. The test apparatus shown in Figure 2 consists 
of a complete refrigeration system. The manufacturer shall identify 
the refrigerants to be tested. The test apparatus can be modified to 
facilitate operation or testing of the system dependent equipment if 
the modifications to the apparatus are specifically described within 
the manufacturer's literature. (See Figure 2.) A 6.3 mm balance line 
shall be connected across the test apparatus between the high and 
low pressure sides, with an isolation valve located at the 
connection to the compressor high side. A 6.3 mm access port with a 
valve core shall be located in the balance line for the purpose of 
measuring final recovery vacuum at the conclusion of the test.

Section 7. Performance Testing

    7.1  General Testing.
    7.1.1  Temperatures. Testing shall be conducted at an ambient 
temperature of 24EC 1K except high temperature vapor 
recovery shall be at 40EC 1K. The evaporator conditions 
of 6.2.3 shall be maintained as long as liquid refrigerant remains 
in the mixing chamber.
    7.1.2  Refrigerants. The equipment shall be tested for all 
designated refrigerants (see 11.2). All tests in Section 7 shall be 
completed for each refrigerant before starting tests with the next 
refrigerant.
    7.1.3  Selected Tests. Tests shall be as appropriate for the 
equipment type and ratings parameters selected (see 9.9, 11.1 and 
11.2).
    7.1.4  Hose Assemblies. For the purpose of limiting refrigerant 
emissions to the atmosphere, hose assemblies shall be tested for 
permeation according to ANSI/UL Standard 1963, Section 40.10.
    7.2  Equipment Preparation and Operation. The equipment shall be 
prepared and operated per the operating instructions.
    7.3  Test Batch. The test batch consisting of refrigerant sample 
(see Section 5) of the test refrigerant shall be prepared and 
thoroughly mixed. Continued mixing or stirring shall be required 
during the test while liquid refrigerant remains in the mixing 
chamber. The mixing chamber shall be filled to 80% level by volume.
    7.3.1  Control Test Batch. Prior to starting the test for the 
first batch for each refrigerant, a liquid sample will be drawn from 
the mixing chamber and analyzed per Section 8 to assure that 
contaminant levels match Table 1 within 10 ppm for 
moisture, 20 ppm for particulate, 20 ppm for 
oleic acid and 0.5% for oil.
    7.4  Recovery Tests (Recovery and Recovery/Recycle Equipment).
    7.4.1  Determining Recovery Rates. The liquid and vapor 
refrigerant recovery rates shall be measured during the first test 
batch for each refrigerant (see 9.1, 9.2 and 9.4). Equipment 
preparation and recovery cylinder changeover shall not be included 
in elapsed time measurements for determining vapor recovery rate and 
liquid refrigerant recovery rate. Operations such as subcooling the 
recovery cylinder shall be included. Recovery cylinder shall be the 
same size as normally furnished by the equipment manufacturer. 
Oversized tanks shall not be permitted.
    7.4.1.1  Liquid Refrigerant Recovery Rate. If elected, the 
recovery rate using the liquid refrigerant feed means (see 6.2.5) 
shall be determined. After the equipment reaches stabilized 
conditions of condensing temperature and/or recovery cylinder 
pressure, the recovery process shall be stopped and an initial 
weight shall be taken of the mixing chamber (see 9.2). The recovery 
process shall be continued for a period of time sufficient to 
achieve the accuracy in 9.4. The recovery process shall be stopped 
and a final weight shall be taken of the mixing chamber.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 7882]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29FE96.002



BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 7883]]

    7.4.1.2  Vapor Refrigerant Recovery Rate. If elected, the 
average vapor flow rate shall be measured to accuracy requirements 
in clause 9.4 under conditions with no liquid refrigerant in the 
mixing chamber. The liquid recovery feed means shall be used. At 
initial conditions of saturated vapor at the higher of 24EC or the 
boiling temperature (100 kPa absolute pressure), the weight of the 
mixing chamber and the pressure shall be recorded. At final 
conditions representing pressure in the mixing chamber of 10% of the 
initial condition, but not less than the final recovery vacuum (see 
9.6) nor more than 100 kPa, measure the weight of the mixing chamber 
and the elapsed time.
    7.4.1.3  High Temperature Vapor Recovery Rate. Applicable for 
equipment having at least one designated refrigerant (see 11.2) with 
a boiling point between -50EC and +10EC. Measure the rate for R-22, 
or the refrigerant with the lowest boiling point if R-22 is not a 
designated refrigerant. Repeat the test in 7.4.1.2 at saturated 
conditions at 40EC and continue to operate equipment to assure it 
will achieve the final recovery vacuum (see 7.4.3).
    7.4.2  Recovery Operation. This test is for determining the 
final recovery vacuum and the ability to remove contaminants as 
appropriate. If equipment is rated for liquid recovery (see 
7.4.1.3), liquid recovery feed means described in 6.2.5 shall be 
used. If not, vapor recovery means described in 6.2.3 or 6.2.4 shall 
be used. Continue recovery operation until all liquid is removed 
from the test apparatus and vapor is removed to the point where 
equipment shuts down by automatic means or is manually shut off per 
operating instructions.
    7.4.2.1  Oil Draining. Capture oil from the equipment at 
intervals as required in the instructions. Record the weight of the 
container. Completely remove refrigerant from oil by evacuation or 
other appropriate means. The weight difference shall be used in 
9.5.2.
    7.4.3  Final Recovery Vacuum. At the end of the first test batch 
for each refrigerant, the liquid valve and vapor valve of the 
apparatus shall be closed. After waiting 1 minute, the mixing 
chamber pressure shall be recorded (see 9.6).
    7.4.4  Residual Refrigerant. This test will measure the mass of 
remaining refrigerant in the equipment after clearing and therefore 
the potential for mixing refrigerants (see 4.6).
    7.4.4.1  Initial Conditions. At the end of the last test for 
each batch for each refrigerant, the equipment shall be disconnected 
from the test apparatus (Figure 1). Recycle per 7.5, if appropriate. 
Perform refrigerant clearing operations as called for in the 
instruction manual. Capture and record the weight of any refrigerant 
which would have been emitted to the atmosphere during the clearing 
process for use in 9.5. If two loops are used for recycling, trapped 
refrigerant shall be measured for both.
    7.4.4.2  Residual Trapped Refrigerant. Evacuate an empty test 
cylinder to 1.0 kPa absolute. Record the empty weight of the test 
cylinder. Open all valves to the equipment so as to provide access 
to all trapped refrigerant. Connect the equipment to the test 
cylinder and operate valves to recover the residual refrigerant. 
Record the weight of the test cylinder using a recovery cylinder 
pressure no less than specified in 6.2.2. Place the test cylinder in 
liquid nitrogen for a period of 30 minutes or until a vacuum of 1000 
microns is reached, whichever occurs first.
    7.5  Recycling Tests (Recovery/Recycle Equipment).
    7.5.1  Recycling Operation. As each recovery cylinder is filled 
in 7.4.2, recycle according to operating instructions. There will 
not necessarily be a separate recycling sequence. Note non-
condensable purge measurement in 9.5.
    7.5.1.1  Recycle Flow Rate. While recycling the first recovery 
cylinder for each refrigerant, determine the recycling flow rate by 
appropriate means (see 9.3) to achieve the accuracy required in 9.4.
    7.5.2  Non-Condensable Sample. After completing 7.4.3, prepare a 
second test batch (7.3). Recover per 7.4.2 until the current 
recovery cylinder is filled to 80% level by volume. Recycle per 
7.5.1. Mark this cylinder and set aside for taking the vapor sample. 
For equipment having both an internal tank of at least 3 kg 
refrigerant capacity and an external recovery cylinder, two recovery 
cylinders shall be marked and set aside. The first is the cylinder 
described above. The second cylinder is the final recovery cylinder 
after filling it to 80% level by volume and recycling.
    7.5.3  Liquid Sample for Analysis. Repeat steps 7.3, 7.4.2 and 
7.5.1 with further test batches until indication means in 4.2 show 
the filter/drier(s) need replacing.
    7.5.3.1  Multiple Pass. For equipment with a separate recycling 
circuit (multiple pass), set aside the current cylinder and draw the 
liquid sample (see 7.4) from the previous cylinder.
    7.5.3.2  Single Pass. For equipment with the single pass 
recycling circuit, draw the liquid sample (see 7.4) from the current 
cylinder.
    7.6  Measuring Refrigerant Loss. Refrigerant loss due to non-
condensables shall be determined by appropriate means (see 9.5.1). 
The loss could occur in 7.4.1, 7.4.2 and 7.5.1.

Section 8. Sampling and Chemical Analysis Methods

    8.1  Chemical Analysis. Chemical analysis methods shall be 
specified in appropriate standards such as ARI 700-93 and Appendix-
93 to ARI Standard 700. If alternate test methods are employed, the 
laboratory must be able to demonstrate that they produce results 
equivalent to the specified referee method.
    8.2  Refrigerant Sampling.
    8.2.1  Water Content. The water content in refrigerant shall be 
measured by the Karl Fischer Analytical Method or by the Karl 
Fischer Coulometric techniques. Report the moisture level in parts 
per million by weight.
    8.2.2  Chloride Ions. Chloride ions shall be measured by 
turbidity tests. At this time, quantitative results have not been 
defined. Report chloride content as ``pass'' or ``fail.'' In the 
future, when quantitative results are possible, report chloride 
content as parts per million by weight.
    8.2.3  Acidity. The acidity test uses the titration principle. 
Report the acidity in parts per million by weight (mg KOH/kg) of 
sample.
    8.2.4  High Boiling Residue. High boiling residues shall use 
measurement of the volume of residue after evaporating a standard 
volume of refrigerant. Using weight measurement and converting to 
volumetric units is acceptable. Report high boiling residues as 
percent by volume.
    8.2.5  Particulates/Solids. The particulates/solids measurement 
employs visual examination. Report results as ``pass'' or ``fail.''
    8.2.6  Non-condensables. The level of contamination by non-
condensable gases in the base refrigerant being recycled shall be 
determined by gas chromatography. Report results as percent by 
volume.

Section 9. Performance Calculation and Rating

    9.1  Vapor Refrigerant Recovery Rate. This rate shall be 
measured by weight change of the mixing chamber divided by elapsed 
time (see 7.4.1.2). The units shall be kg/min and the accuracy shall 
be per 9.4.
    9.1.1  High Temperature Vapor Recovery Rate.
    9.2  Liquid Refrigerant Recovery Rate. This rate shall be 
measured by weight change of the mixing chamber divided by elapsed 
time (see 7.4.1.3). The units shall be kg/min and the accuracy shall 
be per 9.4.
    9.3  Recycle Flow Rate. The recycle flow rate shall be as 
defined in 3.10, expressed in kg/min, and the accuracy shall be per 
9.4.
    9.3.1  For equipment using multi-pass recycling or a separate 
sequence, the recycle rate shall be determined by dividing the net 
weight W of the refrigerant to be recycled by the actual time T 
required to recycle. Any set-up or operator interruptions shall not 
be included in the time T.
    9.3.2  If no separate recycling sequence is used, the recycle 
rate shall be the higher of the vapor refrigerant recovery rate or 
the liquid refrigerant recovery rate. The recycle rate shall match a 
process which leads to contaminant levels in 9.9. Specifically, a 
recovery rate determined from bypassing a contaminant removal device 
cannot be used as a recycle rate when the contaminant levels in 9.9 
are determined by passing the refrigerant through the contaminant 
removal device.
    9.4  Accuracy of Flow Rates. The accuracy of test measurements 
in 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 shall be .008 kg/min or flow rates 
up to .42 kg/min and 2.0% for flow rates larger than .42 
kg/min. Ratings shall be expressed to the nearest .02 kg/min.
    9.5  Refrigerant Loss. This calculation will be based upon the 
net loss of refrigerant which would have been eliminated in the non-
condensable purge process (see 7.5.1), the oil draining process (see 
7.4.2.1) and the refrigerant clearing process (see 7.4.4.1), all 
divided by the net refrigerant content of the test batches. The 
refrigerant loss shall not exceed 3% by weight.
    9.5.1  Non-Condensable Purge. Evacuate an empty container to 2 
kPa absolute. Record the empty weight of the container. Place the 
container in a dry ice bath. Connect the equipment purge connection 
to the container and operate purge according to operating 
instructions so as to capture the non-

[[Page 7884]]
condensables and lost refrigerant. Weigh the cylinder after the 
recycling is complete. Equivalent means are permissible.
    9.5.2  Oil Draining. Refrigerant removed from the oil after 
draining shall be collected and measured in accordance with 7.4.2.1.
    9.5.3  Clearing Unit. Refrigerant captured during the clearing 
process shall be measured in accordance with 7.4.4.1.
    9.6  Final Recovery Vacuum. The final recovery vacuum shall be 
the mixing chamber pressure in 7.4.3 expressed in kPa. The accuracy 
of the measurement shall be within 0.33 kPa.
    9.7  Residual Trapped Refrigerant. The amount of residual 
trapped refrigerant shall be the final weight minus the initial 
weight of the test cylinder in 7.4.4.2, expressed in kg. The 
accuracy shall be plus-minus0.02 kg and reported to the nearest 
0.05 kg.
    9.8  Quantity Recycled. The amount of refrigerant processed 
before changing filters (see 7.5.3) shall be expressed in kg to an 
accuracy of plus-minus1%.
    9.9  Contaminant Levels. The contaminant levels remaining after 
testing shall be published as follows:

Moisture content, ppm by weight Chloride ions, pass/fail Acidity, 
ppm by weight High boiling residue, % (by volume) Particulates-
solid, pass/fail (visual examination) Non-condensables, % (by 
volume)

    9.10  Minimum Data Requirements for Published Ratings. Published 
ratings shall include all of the parameters as shown in Tables 2 and 
3 for each refrigerant designated by the manufacturer.

Section 10. Tolerances

    10.1  Tolerances. Performance related parameters shall not be 
less favorable than the published ratings.

Section 11. Marking and Nameplate Data

    11.1  Marking and Nameplate Data. The nameplate shall display 
the manufacturer's name, model designation, type of equipment, 
designated refrigerants, capacities and electrical characteristics 
where applicable.
    Recommended nameplate voltages for 60 Hertz systems shall 
include one or more of the utilization voltages shown in Table 1 of 
ARI Standard 110-90. Recommended nameplate voltages for 50 Hertz 
systems shall include one or more of the utilization voltages shown 
in Table 1 of IEC Standard Publication 38, IEC Standard Voltages.
    11.2  Data for Designated Refrigerants. For each refrigerant 
designated, the manufacturer shall include all the following that 
are applicable per Table 2:

a. Liquid Recovery Rate
b. Vapor Recovery Rate
c. High Temperature Vapor Recovery Rate
d. Final Recovery Vacuum
e. Recycle Flow Rate
f. Residual Trapped Refrigerant
g. Quantity Recycled

Section 12. Voluntary Conformance

    12.1  Conformance. While conformance with this standard is 
voluntary, conformance shall not be claimed or implied for products 
or equipment within its Purpose (Section 1) and Scope (Section 2) 
unless such claims meet all of the requirements of the standards.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 7885]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29FE96.003



[[Page 7886]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29FE96.004



BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 7887]]


Attachment 1 to Appendix B References

    Listed here are all Standards, handbooks, and other publications 
essential to the formation and implementation of the standard. All 
references in this appendix are considered as part of this standard.
     ANSI/ULStandard 1963, Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling 
Equipment, First Edition, 1989, American National Standards Institute/
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
     ARI Standard 110-90, Air-Conditioning and Refrigerating 
Equipment Nameplate Voltages, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration 
Institute
     ARI Standard 700-93, Specifications for Fluorocarbon and 
Other Refrigerants, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute
     ASHRAE Terminology of Heating, Ventilation, Air 
Conditioning, Refrigeration, & Refrigeration, American Society of 
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 1991
     IEC Standard Publication 38, IEC Standard Voltages, 
International Electrotechnical Commission, 1983

Attachment 2 to Appendix B. Particulate Used in Standard Contaminated 
Refrigerant Sample

    B1  Particulate Specification.
    B1.1  The particulate material (pm) will be a blend of 50% coarse 
air cleaner dust as received, and 50% retained on a 200-mesh screen. 
The coarse air cleaner dust is available from: AC Spark Plug Division, 
General Motors Corporation, Flint, Michigan.
    B1.2  Preparation of Particulate Materials. To prepare the blend of 
contaminant, first wet screen a quantity of coarse air cleaner dust on 
a 200-mesh screen (particle retention 74 pm).
    This is done by placing a portion of the dust on a 200-mesh screen 
and running water through the screen while stirring the dust with the 
fingers. The fine contaminant particles passing through the screen are 
discarded. The +200-mesh particles collected on the screen are removed 
and dried for one hour at 110EC. The blend of standard contaminant is 
prepared by mixing 50% by weight of coarse air cleaner dust as received 
(after drying for one hour at 110EC) with 50% by weight of the +200-
mesh screened dust.
    B1.3   Particle Size Analysis. The coarse air cleaner dust as 
received and the blend used as the standard contaminant have the 
following approximate particle size analysis:

                    Wt. % in Various Size Ranges, pm                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      As                
                   Size range                      received      Blend  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-5.............................................          12           6
5-10............................................          12           6
10-20...........................................          14           7
20-40...........................................          23          11
40-80...........................................          30          32
80-200..........................................           9          38
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Appendix D to Subpart F is amended by revising section g to 
read as follows:

Appendix D to Subpart F--Standards for Becoming a Certifying Program 
for Technician

* * * * *
    g. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
    Certifying programs must maintain records for at least three 
years which include, but are not limited to, the names and addresses 
of all individuals taking the tests, the scores of all certification 
tests administered, and the dates and locations of all testing 
administered.
    EPA must receive an activity report from all approved certifying 
programs by every January 30 and June 30, the first to be submitted 
following the first full six-month period for which the program has 
been approved by EPA. This report will include the pass/fail rate 
and testing schedules, This will allow the Agency to determine the 
relative progress and success of these programs. If the certifying 
program believes a test bank question needs to be modified, 
information about that question should also be included.
    Approved certifying programs will receive a letter of approval 
from EPA. Each testing center must display a copy of that letter.
    Approved technician certification programs that intend to stop 
providing the certification test must forward all records required 
by this Appendix, Sec. 82.161 and Sec. 82.166 to a program currently 
approved by EPA in accordance with this Appendix and with 
Sec. 82.161.
    Approved Technician Certification Programs that receive records 
of certified technicians from a program that no longer offers the 
certification test must inform EPA in writing at the address listed 
in Sec. 82.160 within 30 of receiving these records.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-4041 Filed 2-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P