[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 142 (Thursday, July 24, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43786-43821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-18150]



[[Page 43785]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 82



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 142 / Thursday, July 24, 2003 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 43786]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-7530-4]
RIN 2060-AF36


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Through this action, EPA is amending the Refrigerant Recycling 
Regulations promulgated under section 608 of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990. On February 29, 1996, EPA published a proposed rule 
regarding a recycling standard under section 608 of the Clean Air Act. 
Today's action finalizes portions of the February 29, 1996, proposed 
rule and provides information concerning EPA's intention to continue 
consideration of the other aspects of the proposal that are not 
addressed in this final rule. Today's action amends the recordkeeping 
aspects of the section 608 technician certification program; refines 
aspects of the refrigerant sales restriction; adopts updated versions 
of ARI Standard 700 and ARI Standard 740, both of which are industry 
standards previously adopted by EPA; clarifies the distinction between 
major and minor service, maintenance, and repair of appliances; amends 
several definitions; and sets forth procedures for the revocation and/
or suspension of approval to certify technicians and refrigerant 
recycling and/or recycling equipment and revocation and/or suspension 
procedures for certification as a refrigerant reclaimer.
    Today's action also provides readers with notice that three of the 
items discussed in the February 29, 1996, proposal will not be 
completed as part of today's action (i.e., the potential adoption of a 
more flexible method for cleaning refrigerants where the refrigerants 
will be transferred between appliances with different ownership; the 
potential adoption of a third-party certification program for 
reclaimers; and the potential adoption of a third-party certification 
program for laboratories that verify refrigerant purity or level of 
contaminants).
    The regulatory changes promulgated through today's action will 
streamline and clarify portions of the existing refrigerant recycling 
regulations without compromising the goals of protecting public health 
and the environment or compliance with the requirements of the Clean 
Air Act Amendments of 1990.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date for this action is September 22, 
2003, except for certification of refrigerant recycling only equipment 
for which this rule becomes effective October 22, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments and supporting materials for this final rule are 
contained in Public Docket No. A-92-01; Environmental Protection 
Agency; 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 in room B-
108. The docket may be inspected from 8 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket 
materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julius Banks; 202-564-9870; 
Stratospheric Protection Implementation Branch, Global Programs 
Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation 
(6205-J); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.; Washington, DC 20460. The 
Stratospheric Ozone Information Hotline can also be contacted for 
further information at 800-296-1996.

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

I. Regulated Entities
II. Refrigerant Recycling Regulations
III. Proposed Revisions to the Refrigerant Recycling Regulations
IV. Summary of Comments Received on the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking
V. Final Rule
    A. Contractor Reclamation and Third-Party Certification Programs
    B. Definition of Reclaim and Adoption of the ARI Standard 700 
Specifications for Fluorocarbon and Other Refrigerants
    C. Revocation and Suspension Procedures
    D. Technician Certification and the Sales Restriction
    1. Recordkeeping
    2. Sales Restriction on Refrigerants Approved for Use With Motor 
Vehicle Air Conditioners (MVACs)
    3. Transfers Between Subsidiaries
    4. Transfers Between Federal Facilities
    5. Other Comments and Amendments to the Refrigerant Sales 
Restriction
    E. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioner (MVAC)-Like Appliances
    F. Changes to the ARI Standard 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. Durability Testing
    6. Clarification of Labeling Requirements for Recovery/Recycling 
Equipment
    7. Effective Date of New Standards and Grandfathering of 
Equipment
    8. Requirements for Equipment Advertised as ``Recycling 
Equipment''
    9. Procedure for Updating Approval of Certification 
Organizations
    10. Other Issues Raised by Commenters
    G. Major and Minor Maintenance, Service, or Repair
    H. Definition of Small Appliances
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks''
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action are those that wish 
to recover, recycle, reclaim, sell, or distribute in interstate 
commerce refrigerants that contain chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and/or 
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and those that service, maintain, 
repair, or dispose of appliances containing CFC or HCFC-refrigerants. 
In addition, the owners or operators of appliances containing CFC or 
HCFC-refrigerants may be potentially regulated. Regulated categories 
and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Category                  Example of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...........................  Refrigerant reclaimers
                                     Refrigerant recovery/recycling
                                      equipment manufacturers
                                     Air-conditioning and refrigeration
                                      contractors and technicians
                                     Owners and operators of air-
                                      conditioning and refrigeration
                                      equipment
                                     Certifying programs for technicians
                                     Refrigerant recovery/recycling
                                      equipment testing organizations
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that could potentially 
be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the 
table could also be affected. To determine whether your company is 
regulated by this action, you should

[[Page 43787]]

carefully examine the applicability criteria contained in section 608 
of the Clean Air Amendments of 1990 and 40 CFR part 82, subpart F, 
published on May 14, 1993 (59 FR 28660). If you have questions 
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, 
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section.

II. 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), and published on May 14, 1993 (58 FR 28660), established a 
recycling program for ozone-depleting refrigerants recovered during the 
maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of air-conditioning and 
refrigeration equipment. The ozone-depleting refrigerants recycling 
regulations are codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F. Section 608 of 
the Clean Air Act prohibits the knowing venting, release, or disposal 
into the environment of any class I or class II substance used as a 
refrigerant during the maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of 
appliances or industrial process refrigeration equipment. Together with 
this statutory prohibition, the refrigerant recycling regulations are 
intended to substantially reduce the emissions of ozone-depleting 
refrigerants. The refrigerant recycling regulations were amended in 
final regulations published on November 9, 1994 (59 FR 55912); March 
17, 1995 (60 FR 14607); and August 8, 1995 (60 FR 40419).
    As promulgated, the refrigerant recycling regulations established 
recovery/recycling equipment and reclamation certification 
requirements, developed a technician certification requirement, and 
established that persons servicing air-conditioning and refrigeration 
equipment observe certain service practices to reduce emissions. 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 to facilitate 
recovery of refrigerant. In addition, the regulations restrict the sale 
of ozone-depleting refrigerants and establish a leak repair requirement 
for appliances that normally hold a refrigerant charge of more than 50 
pounds. Also, the refrigerant recycling regulations require that 
refrigerant recovered from an appliance but not returned to that 
appliance or another appliance with the same ownership, be reclaimed by 
an EPA certified reclaimer.
    As promulgated at 58 FR 28712, 40 CFR 82.154(g) and (h) prohibit 
the sale or offer for sale of any class I or class II substance 
consisting of used refrigerant, unless it has been (1) reclaimed as 
defined at Sec.  82.152(q) and (2) reclaimed by a person certified as a 
reclaimer in accordance with Sec.  82.164. These prohibitions were 
effective until May 15, 1995. On March 17, 1995, EPA promulgated a 
final rule extending the effective date of Sec.  82.154(g) and (h) 
until March 18, 1996, or until EPA could promulgate a rule to adopt new 
specifications for reclaimed refrigerants based on industry guidelines 
(60 FR 14610). On February 29, 1996, EPA promulgated a final rule 
extending the effective date of these recycling prohibitions until 
December 31, 1996, or until EPA completes a rulemaking to adopt revised 
specifications for reclaimed refrigerants based on industry guidelines 
(61 FR 7724). On December 27, 1996, EPA indefinitely extended the 
effective date of the reclaimed refrigerant specifications of Sec.  
82.154(g) and (h) until EPA could complete a rulemaking to adopt the 
revised specifications (61 FR 68508).

III. Proposed Revisions to the Refrigerant Recycling Regulations

    On February 29, 1996, EPA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) that proposed amendments to several aspects of the recycling 
program (61 FR 7858). The NPRM proposed to allow additional flexibility 
in situations where refrigerants are transferred between appliances 
with different ownership; to adopt a third-party certification program 
for reclaimers and laboratories; to amend the recordkeeping aspects of 
the technician certification program; and to clarify aspects of the 
sales restriction. In addition, EPA proposed changes for the testing of 
recovery/recycling equipment and proposed to adopt the 1995 version of 
the industry standard ARI Standard 740 (an earlier version of which had 
been previously adopted by EPA). Also, the proposal included 
clarifications regarding the distinction between major and minor 
repairs.

IV. Summary of Comments Received on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    EPA received comments from 39 respondents on the refrigerant 
recycling NPRM. In addition, EPA also received two non-adverse comments 
on the direct final rulemaking to extend the reclamation requirements 
that were published in that same issue of the Federal Register (61 FR 
7724). EPA has addressed the comments and questions submitted by these 
respondents with the exception of comments related to the three 
proposed items that the Agency will not address in today's final rule, 
namely the potential adoption of a more flexible method for cleaning 
refrigerants where the refrigerants will be transferred between 
appliances with different ownership; the potential adoption of a third-
party certification program for reclaimers; and the potential adoption 
of a third-party certification program for laboratories.
    The majority of commenters offered support for EPA's efforts, while 
expressing concern on a number of specific issues. One commenter 
expressed support for EPA's focus on the consumer by providing greater 
flexibility for technicians. Four commenters stated their approval for 
EPA's efforts to use the Industry Recycling Guide-2 (IRG-2) as the 
basis for the proposal; however, these commenters noted that certain 
elements of IRG-2 were omitted from the proposal and expressed concern 
for the potential of increased contamination in the refrigerant supply 
that could ultimately damage the environment. Several commenters did 
not believe that EPA had fully considered the impact of the proposal on 
industrial process refrigeration equipment or on large manufacturing 
facilities. A commenter representing the scrap metal recycling 
industry, specifically noted approval for EPA's efforts to reduce costs 
and burdens for the industry and believes that this action will 
encourage compliance with EPA refrigerant regulations. Commenters 
supported EPA's recognition of industry advances, equipment 
improvements, and continued advances in the options available to meet 
customers' needs, and specifically expressed support for EPA's efforts 
to update the refrigerant recovery/recycling equipment standards by 
adopting ARI Standard 740-1995. One commenter, who generally expressed 
approval for the proposed new certification programs for laboratories 
and refrigerant recovery/recycling equipment, expressed concern that 
some elements of the proposal may cause hardships for the refrigeration 
and air-conditioning industry.
    Several commenters did not support portions of the NPRM. One 
commenter stated that EPA should not be in the business of consumer 
protection and believed that the Agency's proposed actions run counter 
to the goals of environmental protection. A couple of commenters were 
concerned that the comment period was too short and stated concerns 
regarding their ability to fully consider and address all the issues 
related to the proposed rulemaking during a thirty-day comment period.

[[Page 43788]]

EPA received two requests to extend the comment period for the NPRM.
    EPA contacted the commenters after receiving the request for 
additional time. EPA informed them that while the official comment 
period would remain 30 days, EPA would accept and respond to comments 
received after the close of the comment period as long as those 
comments were received within a reasonable time frame. In today's 
action, EPA has included consideration and discussion of all comments, 
including those that were received after the close of the official 
comment period.
    EPA received comment indicating that the refrigerant purity 
requirements and the sales restriction are basically consumer 
protection requirements, and that EPA should turn the issue over to the 
Consumer Products Safety Commission. The commenter believes that EPA 
may be going beyond its enabling legislation by establishing rules that 
are aimed at protecting consumers, rather than the environment. 
Specifically, the commenter believes that the purity of resold 
recovered refrigerants should not be the interest of EPA since EPA is 
chartered to protect the ``purity of our environment.'' The commenter 
further stated that EPA's actions could result in ``promoting rather 
than eliminating refrigerant dumping into the atmosphere,'' since 
according to this commenter, ``most refrigerant being recovered from 
air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment is being vented, and the 
lack of refrigerant reclamation is a result of the lack of financial 
incentives for reclamation.'' The commenter believes that this 
situation is encouraged by manufacturers' associations that are 
sabotaging efforts to reuse refrigerants. The commenter also questioned 
the timing of the NPRM and the lack of an Agency requirement for sound 
service practices such as proper evacuation before charging appliances, 
installation of filter-dryers, and other proper service techniques.
    EPA does not believe that the proposed requirements go beyond the 
Agency's statutory authority. Under section 608(a) of the Act, as 
amended in 1990, EPA is required (by no later than January 1, 1992) to 
promulgate regulations establishing standards and requirements that 
will maximize the recapture and recycling of refrigerants during the 
service, repair, or disposal of appliances and industrial process 
refrigeration equipment. EPA believes that the standards promulgated in 
the initial final rulemaking (58 FR 28660; May 14, 1993) properly 
implemented this statutory mandate. The NPRM was based on new 
developments between 1993-1996 and recognizes that today there are more 
options available that still maximize the recapture and recycling of 
refrigerants without compromising the goals of protecting human health 
and the environment, including the adoption of updated versions of 
industry specifications for refrigerants and recovery equipment 
certification (i.e., ARI Standard 700-1995 and ARI Standard 740-1995, 
respectively). Furthermore, in the May 14, 1993 final rule and the 
February 29, 1996, direct final rule, EPA noted that the reclamation 
requirement encourages careful handling of refrigerant and prevents 
irretrievably contaminated (for instance through mixture with other 
refrigerants) refrigerant from being introduced into the marketplace, 
where it could lead to damage to equipment and eventual venting of 
refrigerant (58 FR 28679; May 14, 1993 and 61 FR 7725; February 29, 
1996).
    While some of the options discussed in the NPRM (61 FR 7859) 
clearly would help protect the owners and operators of the appliances 
(those that EPA believes the commenter has characterized as consumers), 
the essence of these requirements is not consumer protection, but 
remains protection of human health and the environment, consistent with 
EPA's mission. Today's final rule does not change the refrigeration 
sales restriction requiring that used refrigerant be reclaimed by a 
certified reclaimer prior to sale to a new owner; therefore, consumers 
will be afforded a level of protection since this rule restricts the 
transfer of used refrigerant. While this constitutes an ancillary 
consumer benefit worth noting, the primary goal of today's action is to 
minimize the release of ozone-depleting substances to the lowest 
achievable level by preventing equipment damage and subsequent 
refrigerant release. Without monitoring the quality of used 
refrigerant, substandard refrigerant may be charged into an appliance, 
and the consequent damage to the appliance may result in release of the 
ozone-depleting refrigerant.
    EPA does not share the commenter's belief that today's action will 
result in the promotion rather than the elimination of illegal 
refrigerant venting. The phaseout of class I refrigerants has made 
these refrigerants a commodity worth recovering, and the Agency 
believes that the marketplace will dictate similar results as class II 
refrigerants are phased out. A requirement that used refrigerant meets 
a standard set of specifications, prior to resale, will insure that 
less venting occurs as a result of equipment failure caused by 
contaminated refrigerant that would otherwise have been transferred to 
a new owner without being reclaimed.
    In addition, reports provided to EPA do not lead the Agency to 
believe that there is a lack of reclamation or economic incentives for 
reclamation. There are more than 50 EPA-certified reclaimers in the 
United States, who reported that approximately 2.0 and 6.1 million 
pounds of R-12 and R-22, respectively, were reclaimed during 1999. 
Similar reports reveal that approximately 1.7 and 7.1 million pounds of 
R-12 and R-22, respectively, were reclaimed during 2000. Reclamation 
trends lead the Agency to believe that while reclamation of class I 
refrigerants will decrease as stocks decrease, that future reclamation 
of all refrigerants will continue in the foreseeable future.
    EPA agrees that sound and responsible service practices are 
important. EPA has a section of the regulations devoted to required 
practices (i.e., Sec.  82.156) and requires that technicians follow 
practices that are designed to reduce the emissions of ozone-depleting 
substances. EPA hopes that all technicians and contractors comply with 
reasonable service standards established and adopted by the industry, 
as well as standards established by EPA to ensure that the highest 
degree of responsible service is provided. For these reasons, EPA 
believes that today's action is consistent with the Agency's mandate 
under the Act.
    EPA received comments that supported EPA's efforts while noting 
that EPA must consider the impact of the NPRM on the industrial process 
refrigeration industry as well as on other segments of the entire air-
conditioning and refrigeration industry. Commenters stated that EPA may 
have proposed a rulemaking that addressed the concerns and needs of the 
commercial and residential refrigeration sectors without full 
consideration of the impacts and potential application of the proposed 
requirements to other segments of the industry and will do little to 
assist in the goals of introducing greater flexibility for the 
industrial process refrigeration industry.
    EPA understands these concerns and has been careful to consider the 
impacts of today's action on the owners and operators of industrial 
process refrigeration equipment. For example, this rule allows greater 
flexibility by allowing the transfers of refrigerants between parent 
companies and their subsidiaries. The community affected by regulations 
promulgated under section

[[Page 43789]]

608 is diverse. Since promulgating the initial final rulemaking in 
1993, EPA has amended the regulations several times to address the 
various needs of specific sectors. For example, in recognition that 
industrial process refrigeration equipment is custom-built, the August 
8, 1995, amendments, to the leak repair requirements (60 FR 40420), 
provided additional time for owners and operators of industrial process 
refrigeration equipment to repair, retrofit, or retire equipment when 
replacement parts are not readily available. EPA believes that the 
Agency has recognized the diversity of the affected community, and, 
where appropriate, has tailored specific regulatory actions to address 
the uniqueness of the affected community.
    EPA received a number of comments on the NPRM. EPA addresses many 
of the issues raised in comments in the preamble of this final rule. 
EPA also addresses comments in the corresponding Industrial Recycling 
Guide-2 Comment Summary document. This document may be found in EPA 
Docket Number A-92-01 VIII.

V. Final Rule

A. Contractor Reclamation and Third-Party Certification Programs

    EPA proposed more flexible requirements, based on industry 
guidelines, for recycling refrigerants in the February 29, 1996 NPRM 
(61 FR 7858). EPA proposed to permit contractors to recycle 
refrigerants, draw a representative sample of the refrigerants, send 
the sample to a laboratory that would be certified by an EPA-approved 
certifying entity, and where the refrigerant sample met the criteria 
established by ARI Standard 700, to sell the refrigerant and charge the 
refrigerant into an appliance owned by someone other than the owner of 
the appliance from which the refrigerant was initially recovered. EPA 
stated in the NPRM that this approach, based on IRG-2, would provide 
greater flexibility for contractors and technicians while maintaining 
the integrity of the refrigerant supply. The proposed protocol relied 
on recordkeeping and reporting requirements concerning the custody and 
control of the refrigerant. This proposed protocol would have provided 
an alternative to the current requirements to send recovered 
refrigerant to a reclamation facility prior to selling and installing 
that refrigerant into an appliance with different ownership. Central to 
this approach was the proposed adoption of third-party certification 
programs for both laboratories and reclaimers. As proposed, EPA would 
rely on the technical knowledge of approved third parties to ensure the 
capabilities of the certified laboratories and reclaimers.
    EPA received several detailed comments regarding the proposed 
structure of and likely participation in these third-party programs. 
EPA received comments both favoring and opposing contractor recycling 
and the two third-party certification programs for laboratories and 
reclaimers. Many commenters suggested changes in the proposed structure 
for the program and various ways to modify programmatic requirements 
while still ensuring that refrigerant purity is maintained. Several 
commenters identified specific concerns regarding the appropriateness 
of delegating various functions to private-sector third-parties and 
whether EPA may unintentionally establish a monopoly in a case where 
only one entity has shown interest in becoming a third party certifying 
organization. A few commenters opposed the proposed rulemaking, because 
they believed that the proposal would establish two different 
reclamation standards: one for contractors and another for refrigerant 
reclaimers, thus hurting contractors and wholesalers as well as 
penalizing companies that attempt to comply with the goals of the Act.
    These comments have prompted EPA to more broadly explore variations 
on the proposed program that could meet the needs of both the regulated 
community and the Agency without compromising the goals of 
environmental protection, (as noted above, all comments submitted in 
response to the February 29, 1996, NPRM are contained in Air Docket A-
92-01). Therefore, at this time, EPA is not prepared to promulgate 
final requirements for the following three provisions: (1) The 
potential adoption of a more flexible method for cleaning refrigerants 
where the refrigerants will be transferred between appliances with 
different owners; (2) the potential adoption of a third-party 
certification program for reclaimers; and (3) the potential adoption of 
a third-party certification program for laboratories. EPA has decided 
to separate these three issues from the rest of the NPRM and to 
complete action on these three provisions in either a separate final 
rule or possibly by re-proposing some or all of these three items.
    This decision to separate these three items is not a signal of the 
Agency's agreement or disagreement with any of the comments received. 
EPA is merely indicating a need to further consider these comments 
prior to taking final action on any of these three proposed provisions. 
EPA believes a flexible approach to reclamation can be developed that 
avoids any perceived inappropriate delegations of authority and also 
does not preclude competition. To ensure that the public has adequate 
opportunity to comment, if EPA pursues a structure that varies 
significantly from what was discussed in the February 29, 1996, NPRM, 
EPA will issue a revised proposal and provide additional opportunity 
for comments.
    Since EPA is not finalizing action on contractor reclamation or the 
related provisions for third-party certification of reclaimers and 
laboratories through today's action, EPA is not responding at this time 
to the comments the Agency received regarding these three items. When 
EPA takes additional action with regard to these provisions, EPA will 
respond to the comments in the accompanying notice.
    While EPA clearly believes it is appropriate and necessary to delay 
action on these three items, it has taken steps to avoid a lapse in the 
current reclamation requirements. Such a lapse could result in 
widespread contamination of the stock of CFC and HCFC refrigerants. 
Such contamination could cause extensive damage to air-conditioning and 
refrigeration equipment, release of refrigerants, and refrigerant 
shortages with consequent price increases. Release of CFC and HCFC 
refrigerants has been found to deplete stratospheric ozone, resulting 
in increased human and environmental exposure to ultraviolet radiation. 
Increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation in turn can lead to serious 
health and environmental effects. Therefore, in a separate rulemaking 
published in the Federal Register on December 27, 1996 (61 FR 68506), 
EPA extended the effectiveness of the current refrigerant 
specifications indefinitely.

B. Definition of Reclaim and Adoption of the ARI Standard 700 
Specifications for Fluorocarbon and Other Refrigerants

    In the NPRM, EPA included a change to the definition of 
``reclaim,'' at Sec.  82.152, that included a reference to the updated 
ARI Standard 700-1995. EPA proposed, in the subsequent ``substitutes'' 
proposed rule (63 FR 32058; June 11, 1998), to amend the definition of 
``reclaim'' to reflect the update of the refrigerant specifications 
standards at appendix A from standards based on ARI Standard 700-1993 
to standards based on ARI Standard 700-1995, and to clarify that to 
``reclaim'' refrigerant means to reprocess the refrigerant to all of 
the specifications of the appendix. The Agency did not receive any 
comments specifically

[[Page 43790]]

addressing the proposed amendment to the definition of ``reclaim'' in 
either of the proposed rulemakings.
    EPA believes that it is pertinent to take final action to clarify 
the definition of ``reclaim'' in this final rule, since the Agency has 
found that many in the regulated community believe that purity and/or 
reclamation equates to characterization of the used refrigerant with 
the use of a gas chromatograph, while ignoring the presence or failing 
to test for the presence of various contaminants as required by today's 
action and delineated in appendix A (i.e., water, chloride, acidity, 
high boiling residue, particulates/solids, non-condensables, and other 
impurities including other refrigerants). Therefore, EPA has chosen to 
amend the definition in the rule being promulgated today, due to the 
definition's close association with IRG-2 and the importance of the 
clarification as it applies to refrigerant reclamation and the transfer 
of used refrigerant.
    EPA is adopting the ARI Standard 700-1995, with modification, into 
regulation as appendix A of 40 CFR part 82, subpart F. At this time, 
EPA is not adopting the ARI Standard 700-1995 requirements for 
refrigerant blends that were not included as a part of the initial May 
14, 1993, final rule. The adoption of refrigerant blends into appendix 
A of 40 CFR part 82, subpart F was proposed in the NPRM for the 
``substitutes'' rule (63 FR 32064; June 11, 1998) and will be discussed 
in a subsequent rulemaking.
    EPA has always interpreted 40 CFR 82.154(g) and 82.164 to require 
persons who ``reclaim'' refrigerant to reprocess the refrigerant to all 
of the specifications of appendix A (based upon the ARI Standard 700-
1993 and now the 1995 version of the Standard) that are applicable to 
that refrigerant and to verify that the refrigerant meets those 
specifications using the analytical methodology prescribed in section 5 
of appendix A (i.e., Appendix-93 to ARI Standard 700-1993 and now 
Appendix-C to the 1995 version of the Standard) or alternate test 
methods that produce equivalent results. Therefore, EPA has amended the 
definition of ``reclaim'' by removing the reference to a ``purity'' 
standard and thereby making the definition more consistent with the 
full range of requirements provided in appendix A. Failure to abide by 
these protocols to assure that used refrigerant meets the requirements 
of appendix A, based upon the ARI Standard 700-1995, and may violate 
the prohibition against the sale of used refrigerant that has not been 
``reclaimed'' (established under Sec.  82.154(g)). This amendment to 
the definition of reclaim does not add additional requirements upon 
reclaimers, but ensures that the regulations explicitly reflect EPA's 
long standing interpretation of what constitutes ``reclaimed'' 
refrigerant.

C. Revocation and Suspension Procedures

    Under 40 CFR part 82, subpart F, failure to abide by any of the 
provisions of subpart F may result in the revocation or suspension of 
EPA approval for technician certifying programs, recovery/recycling 
equipment testing organizations, as well as self certifications by 
refrigerant reclaimers. The NPRM contained specific revocation and 
suspension procedures for both the existing recovery and recycling 
equipment and the technician certification programs, as well as for the 
proposed third party laboratory and reclaimers programs.
    In cases of revocation or suspension, EPA proposed that the Agency 
notify the certification program in writing regarding the action. The 
NPRM also specifies procedures concerning the proposed methods for a 
previously approved certification program to challenge a decision of 
revocation or suspension. In such cases, the NPRM stated that the 
program could request a hearing within 30 days; however, the program 
would have to submit in writing the program's objections and supporting 
data. If, after review of the request, the Agency agreed that the 
program had raised a substantial and factual issue, EPA would provide a 
hearing and assign a Presiding Officer. The Agency could 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 could direct that the decision 
of the Presiding Officer would be final. EPA proposed that the decision 
of the Presiding Officer would be final without further proceedings, 
unless there was an appeal or motion for review by the Administrator 
within 20 days of the decision. On appeal, EPA proposed 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 
requested comments on these procedures.
    EPA proposed that these procedures would apply to section 608 
technician certifying programs, equipment testing organizations, the 
proposed laboratory certification program, and the certification of 
reclaimers. However, since EPA is not promulgating third-party 
certification programs for either laboratories or reclaimers at this 
time, EPA is not establishing revocation procedures for these programs 
through today's action.
    EPA received comment indicating that the revocation procedures 
should provide for the consideration of legal as well as factual 
issues. The final procedures state that EPA will give notice of the 
basis for the revocation or suspension in advance, and that the program 
will have an opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance with the 
provisions of subpart F. The program may raise legal issues in 
responding to EPA's notice.
    EPA received comment indicating that the provisions should specify 
minimum qualifications for, and impartiality of, presiding officers. 
The commenter states that the presiding officer should be an attorney, 
preferably an administrative law judge, and should be independent of 
EPA's enforcement branch or the Department of Justice.
    EPA understands this commenter's concerns; however, EPA disagrees 
with the need to include these criteria. EPA does not believe that it 
is necessary to specify prerequisites that the Administrator should use 
for determining who is an appropriate presiding officer. EPA believes 
that the Administrator will use her best judgement to ensure that a 
presiding officer is someone who can effectively act in an impartial 
manner and possesses appropriate knowledge to carry out all necessary 
duties.
    The same commenter also indicated that the procedures for appealing 
adverse decisions are evidence that the regulations are too detailed. 
The commenter believes the regulations should be scaled back to impose 
only those requirements that the commenter believes protect the 
environment. However, the commenter further noted that the procedures 
seem fair and appropriate. The commenter states that this is the only 
program, established under the Clean Air Act, that specifies revocation 
procedures.
    EPA first notes that there are other programs established under 
authority of the Clean Air Act that specify revocation procedures 
(e.g., the mobile source regulations at 40 CFR 86.094-30(c)(1)-(5), 
referencing the hearing procedures at 40 CFR 86.078-6). When drafting 
the procedures applicable to subpart F of part 82, EPA reviewed where 
and how similar procedures have been used. Moreover, EPA believes that 
these regulations, taken in their entirety, serve to protect human 
health and the

[[Page 43791]]

environment, and that providing regulatory text consistent with current 
practices does not alter that degree of protection. The Agency's 
ability to suspend or revoke programs based upon their noncompliance 
with EPA regulations further safeguards the environment.
    Through today's action, EPA is promulgating procedures to revoke 
approval, of third-party certification programs for technician 
certifying programs and equipment testing organizations and self-
certification by refrigerant reclaimers, based on failure to comply 
with the provisions of 40 CFR part 82 subpart F. Revocation procedures 
are established for approved equipment testing organizations, 
technician certifying programs, and reclaimer self certifications by 
amending 40 CFR 82.160(d), 82.161(e), and 82.164(g). In developing this 
final rule, EPA decided to apply the procedures to the revocation or 
suspension of self-certification of reclaimers, as well as the existing 
third-party certification programs for technician certifying programs 
and testing organizations for refrigerant recovery/recycling equipment. 
Accordingly, today's action includes procedures for the revocation and/
or suspension of programs approved to certify technicians, programs 
approved to certify recovery and/or recycling equipment, and self-
certification of refrigerant reclaimers. EPA believes that this broader 
approach will safeguard the environment by establishing greater 
oversight of reclaimers and third-party certifying programs.

D. Technician Certification and the Sales Restriction

    EPA received comments concerning technician certification and the 
sales restriction that were beyond the issues presented in the NPRM. 
Comments concerning exemption of the technician certification 
requirements and the applicability of refrigerants under the 
Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) will not be addressed in 
this final rule, but are addressed in the accompanying Industrial 
Recycling Guide-2 Comment Summary contained in EPA Docket Number A-92-
01 VIII. All comments that address aspects of the proposed regulatory 
changes are discussed below.
1. Recordkeeping
    EPA stated in the NPRM that the Agency is concerned with the 
maintenance of records \1\ by approved certifying programs for 
technicians that no longer administer the section 608 certification 
test. Currently, there are more than 90 EPA-approved technician 
certification programs that provide testing in accordance with Sec.  
82.161 and appendix D to subpart F. These programs administer and grade 
tests, maintain records, issue certification credentials, and submit 
reports to EPA twice per calendar year. It has come to the Agency's 
attention that since the bulk of existing technicians has 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. EPA believes that the 
likelihood of programs withdrawing will increase over time. EPA stated 
in the NPRM 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 or 
to legally perform aspects of his or her job.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Certifying programs must maintain records that 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, programs that have been approved to administer the test 
must maintain records for at least three years (40 CFR part 82, subpart 
F, appendix D; 58 FR 28734). However, EPA does not believe that a 
mechanism exists that would effectively ensure that these records are 
maintained and are made available to EPA if a program goes out of 
business. Furthermore, even if the program does continue to maintain 
the records, access to the records may be difficult if the program 
itself no longer exists. Therefore, EPA proposed options aimed at 
ensuring that technicians can receive replacement credentials in 
instances where their certifying program is no longer in business or in 
instances where the request for the records exceeds the three-year 
minimum recordkeeping provision.
    EPA discussed several options in the NPRM and requested comment. 
The first two proposed options would require maintenance of records by 
EPA. First, EPA could require programs leaving the certification 
business to forward their records to EPA, and thus the Agency would be 
responsible for maintaining those records. In the NPRM, EPA noted that 
the Agency may 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 the Agency choose a suitable existing 
certification program to maintain the records and forward the records 
to that program. EPA stated in the NPRM that the Agency is uncertain as 
to what criteria should be used for choosing the appropriate program. 
With more than 90 existing programs, all approved based on the same 
criteria, EPA would have difficulty in selecting a single program.
    A third option would be to have the program that intends to cease 
operation identify an active program that is willing to accept the 
records and notify EPA. 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 
discontinuing certification activities would notify EPA of the identity 
of the certification program that it had identified as the new 
repository of its records, and the recipient of the records would 
notify EPA upon receipt of the records. EPA stated in the NPRM that the 
third option represented the most equitable approach. Therefore, EPA 
proposed to promulgate the third option. In addition, EPA requested 
comments regarding whether EPA should extend the minimum length of time 
that records must be maintained beyond the three-year minimum 
requirement.
    The Agency received several comments supporting option one, but 
none specifically addressing whether or not EPA should select an 
appropriate program for the transfer of the records, as detailed in the 
second proposed option. In response to the first proposed option, one 
commenter stated that EPA's unwillingness to store certification 
records is evidence that third party certification of technicians 
should not be required.
    EPA certainly supports the maintenance of records stating which 
certifying programs have certified which technicians, but EPA is 
reluctant to have information regarding each individual technician and 
their test scores maintained by the Agency. In addition, EPA does not 
believe the Federal government should develop a central registry or 
database for certified technicians. EPA's reluctance to maintain such a 
database is based in part on a discussion held during a meeting on 
April 3, 1995. That meeting was a forum for the EPA-approved section 
608 technician certification programs to discuss concerns with EPA 
regarding the section 608 technician certification program. At that 
meeting, several representatives of approved technician certification 
programs expressed their desire to have the programs maintain 
information rather

[[Page 43792]]

than EPA. The concept of a national database was discussed and rejected 
by those directly involved in the certification process. Many of the 
programs were in operation prior to the 1993 EPA mandate for technician 
certification; hence, they had maintained such records and 
representatives felt that the continuing maintenance of such records 
should remain in the hands of certifying programs. Memoranda concerning 
the meeting can be found in Air Docket A-92-01.
    In response to the third proposed option, one commenter stated that 
EPA should not impose a recordkeeping burden it is not willing to 
assume itself. EPA believes that the maintenance of technician 
certification records would be more efficiently managed by an existing 
technician certifying program. EPA's decision to propose the third 
option was consistent with the belief that those that already maintain 
such records may have data storage and retrieval mechanisms in place 
that would allow them to efficiently manage record maintenance, as well 
as the personnel required to handle the volume of inquiries and 
production of duplicate certification credentials.
    Another commenter stated that if EPA would not keep the records, 
then they have relatively little value. The commenter suggested instead 
that the technician or their employers make a photocopy of the 
documents and put it in a file. The commenter believes that EPA should 
rely on the technicians and their employers to maintain whatever 
records are necessary.
    As to the value of the records, EPA uses the aggregate data 
submitted by each approved program to monitor the effectiveness of the 
certification program and to compile information for subsequent changes 
to the section 608 technician certification test bank. The test bank is 
maintained by the Agency and is provided to testing organizations in 
order for the programs to formulate and test technicians in accordance 
with appendix D of 40 CFR part 82, subpart F.
    EPA would like to clarify that the NPRM addressed possible changes 
to the maintenance of records by certifying programs that no longer 
offer section 608 certification testing not to the technician's 
requirement to maintain technician certification cards at the 
technician's place of business, as required by Sec.  82.166(l). EPA 
agrees that the technician and, where appropriate, the employer should 
maintain copies of the credentials themselves to prevent difficulties 
resulting from lost or misplaced cards. The Agency recognizes that the 
potential exists for documentation to be lost; however, the 
recordkeeping requirement at Sec.  82.166(l) does not offer a mechanism 
to replace lost credentials. EPA believes that it is prudent to have a 
mechanism to replace the cards so that the technician does not incur 
the burden of repeating the certification test. EPA also believes that 
requiring the entity that issues the credentials to also maintain 
supporting records on technicians that they certify will provide such a 
mechanism.
    EPA also received several comments supporting the third proposed 
option to allow the records transfer and the subsequent maintenance of 
records by other EPA-approved certification programs rather than by EPA 
directly. Two commenters supporting this procedure raised concerns 
about notification of how to access transferred records. The first 
stated that the proposed requirement was necessary to ensure the 
reasonable availability of backup records for technicians requiring 
duplicate credentials by putting the onus on the discontinued program 
to see that the records are maintained. The commenter also stated that 
a mechanism to notify technicians would be necessary. Another commenter 
raised concerns regarding notification. The commenter stated that it is 
critical that programs no longer in operation notify EPA and 
technicians who they have certified.
    EPA agrees that programs no longer in operation must notify EPA and 
is adding this requirement to appendix D in subpart F under the 
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements. This notification requirement 
will make it easier for the community and regulators to obtain this 
information directly from the Agency instead of trying to locate each 
individual technician. EPA hopes that both programs that no longer 
offer certification and those that voluntarily receive records choose 
to contact technicians certified under their programs. However, EPA 
questions the effectiveness of requiring those that are exiting the 
business to notify technicians. For example, if a previously approved 
program declares bankruptcy, it would be difficult to enforce such a 
requirement. Therefore, through today's action, EPA is encouraging 
programs exiting the certification business to inform technicians about 
where and how to receive duplicate credentials. In addition, EPA will 
continue to provide information on defunct programs on its factsheets 
and websites.
    One commenter asked what would happen if no other program wished to 
accept the records of a program that no longer offered the 
certification test. EPA communications with the section 608 technician 
certification programs and comments received on this action indicate 
that several of the approved programs are willing to accept the 
responsibility for maintaining this information, but if such a scenario 
arose, the program would be required to submit the records to EPA where 
they would be maintained by the Agency until such a time that the 
Agency could identify a program that would be willing to accept the 
responsibility and maintenance of such records.
    EPA received a few comments regarding extension of the 
recordkeeping provision beyond three years for technician certification 
programs. One commenter requested that the Agency require maintenance 
of the records for at least seven years or preferably indefinitely. 
Another commenter stated that the Agency should not require a longer 
retention than the current three-year requirement, especially if the 
Agency is not willing to retain the records on behalf of programs no 
longer offering technician certification.
    It should be noted that prior to today's final rule, the 
recordkeeping requirement of appendix D of 40 CFR part 82, subpart F 
calls for a minimum record retention time frame of three years. In the 
Agency's day-to-day dealings with the technician certifying 
organizations, EPA has yet to find a testing organization that does not 
maintain records on a permanent basis, which for most programs well 
exceeds the minimum three year period. In response to voluminous 
requests for programs to assist technicians who have lost their 
credentials, the Agency has found that operating programs, and 
especially the more senior programs that existed prior to EPA 
regulation in 1993, have been able to produce records that date back to 
their inception. Since the permanent maintenance of certification 
records appears to be standard operating procedure for section 608 
certifying programs, EPA does not believe that an additional 
significant burden would be placed on certifying programs for 
technicians by requiring that records be maintained for longer than 
three years minimum.
    Through today's action, EPA is requiring that organizations no 
longer offering the section 608 technician certification exam notify 
EPA of their intent to cease operation. The Agency is also establishing 
a process for the transfer of records for programs exiting the section 
608 technician certification business. Such programs will be required 
to forward records to another

[[Page 43793]]

approved program and notify EPA as to which program the records have 
been given. Programs receiving records from a defunct program will also 
notify EPA. If no other program is willing to take those records on 
behalf of the defunct program, the program must forward the records to 
EPA. In these instances EPA will maintain this information and make it 
available to technicians as appropriate, until such a time when EPA can 
locate a program that is willing to accept responsibility and 
maintenance of the records. EPA is also extending the recordkeeping 
requirement of appendix D for certifying programs beyond the current 
three year period by requiring these programs to maintain records for 
as long as they are in business.
2. Sales Restriction on Refrigerants Approved for Use With Motor 
Vehicle Air Conditioners (MVACs)
    In the NPRM, EPA stated that the Agency was concerned with the 
ability of technicians certified under a section 609 technician 
certification program, in accordance with Sec.  82.40, to purchase any 
ozone-depleting refrigerant in any size container. EPA is concerned 
with reports that technicians with section 609 certifications are 
purchasing refrigerants that are not acceptable for use in MVACs, and 
that such refrigerants are either being improperly installed in MVACs 
or used by those technicians to service other appliances in violation 
of the regulations promulgated under Section 608. At the time that the 
sales restriction was drafted and promulgated in 1993 (58 FR 28714; May 
14, 1993), EPA was aware that potential substitutes for R-12 for use in 
MVACs could include HCFC refrigerants or a refrigerant blend with an 
HCFC component. Therefore, EPA did not restrict the types of 
refrigerants that could be purchased by those with section 609 
certification. Since that time, EPA has promulgated regulations--the 
Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP)--regarding acceptable and 
unacceptable alternatives to class I and class II refrigerants in 
specific refrigeration and air-conditioning end uses, under section 612 
of the Act. Since SNAP now clearly delineates which refrigerants are 
acceptable for use as substitutes to R-12 in MVACs, EPA proposed that 
the sales restriction should employ a similar provision.
    EPA received one comment asking that the Agency review the 
statutory provision (section 609(e)) barring the sale of small 
containers of R-12 (and other class I and class II substances suitable 
for use in MVACs) to anyone other than a technician who has been 
properly trained and certified under section 609. The commenter 
requested that EPA lift the restriction on sales of small containers.
    EPA has no authority to promulgate regulations that are 
inconsistent with the statutory language. Therefore, the sales of small 
containers of class I and/or class II refrigerants must remain 
restricted pursuant to Section 609(e) of the Act.
    EPA received one comment requesting that EPA clarify that SNAP 
acceptability is not the criterion to decide which substitute 
refrigerants may be purchased by technicians certified under section 
609. The commenter stated that EPA had proposed to specify that MVAC 
technicians may purchase only those substitute refrigerants that are 
used in MVACs whether or not the refrigerants have been approved under 
SNAP.
    The Agency proposed to amend the sales restriction to specify that 
section 609 certified technicians may only purchase CFC-12 (R-12) or 
SNAP-approved substitutes containing ozone-depleting refrigerants that 
have been found suitable for use in MVACs. EPA proposed (61 FR 7873) to 
modify the sales restriction, found at Sec.  82.154(m)(3), to restrict 
the sale or distribution or the offer for sale or distribution of class 
I and class II refrigerants to technicians certified by a program 
approved under Sec.  82.40 and certified in accordance with Sec.  82.34 
(i.e., 609 technicians). The modification limits refrigerant purchases, 
by section 609 technicians, to R-12 and substitute refrigerants, 
containing a class I or class II substance, that are listed as 
acceptable for use in MVACs in accordance with all regulations 
promulgated under section 612 of the Act.
    EPA received several comments supporting the proposed change to the 
sales restriction. Commenters stated that it was appropriate to 
distinguish between refrigerants used by technicians certified by a 
section 609 certification program and those certified in accordance 
with the requirements promulgated under section 608. One commenter 
stated that the result of EPA's proposed modification would be that the 
sales restriction would not apply to any refrigerant listed as 
acceptable under SNAP that did not consist in whole or in part of a 
class I or class II substance, such as the HFC refrigerant R-134a.
    EPA would like to clarify that the sales of refrigerants (including 
HFC refrigerants such as R-134a) are not currently regulated under the 
sales restriction unless the refrigerant consists in whole or in part 
of a class I or class II substance (such as the case with several SNAP-
acceptable refrigerant blends). EPA proposed a sales restriction on 
substitute refrigerants on June 11, 1998 (63 FR 32044), and the sales 
restriction for substitute refrigerants will be addressed in the final 
version of that proposed rule.
    Therefore, through today's action EPA is amending the refrigerant 
sales restriction by amending Sec.  82.154(m). EPA is further 
restricting the sale or distribution or the offer for sale or 
distribution of class I and class II refrigerants, that are suitable 
for use in MVACs, to technicians certified by a program approved under 
Sec.  82.40 and certified in accordance with Sec.  82.34 (i.e., section 
609 certified technicians). In accordance with 40 CFR 82.34(b), this 
modification limits refrigerant purchases, by such section 609 
technicians, to CFC-12 (i.e., R-12) and substitute refrigerants, 
containing a class I or class II substance, that are listed as 
acceptable for use in MVACs in accordance with all regulations 
promulgated under section 612 of the Act. Furthermore, only technicians 
certified under section 609 are allowed to purchase such ozone-
depleting refrigerants in containers containing less than 20 pounds of 
such refrigerant, in accordance with Sec.  82.34(b).
3. Transfers Between Subsidiaries
    EPA proposed to permit transfers of used refrigerant between 
wholly-owned subsidiaries, without requiring refrigerant reclamation 
prior to such a transfer. As discussed in the NPRM, this proposal arose 
from specific requests for such relief that EPA had received from 
several entities that are organized as holding companies with wholly-
owned subsidiaries. After considering such requests, EPA stated that 
the relationship between two subsidiaries should provide sufficient 
means to ensure that transfers between the subsidiaries would be ``akin 
to transfers within one company.'' Therefore, EPA proposed to provide 
an exception to the sales restriction for the transfers of refrigerant 
between two wholly-owned subsidiaries of the same holding company.
    EPA also received requests to permit the transfer of unreclaimed 
used refrigerant between subsidiaries that are not wholly-owned by the 
same holding company. As discussed in the NPRM, given that these types 
of subsidiaries would involve other investors who might have less of a 
commitment to each of the subsidiaries involved in the transactions, 
EPA did not believe that transfers between these types of

[[Page 43794]]

subsidiaries would be ``akin to those within one organization.'' 
Therefore, EPA limited the proposed exception to wholly-owned 
subsidiaries.
    EPA received comments regarding the proposal to allow the transfer 
of unreclaimed used refrigerant between two wholly-owned subsidiaries 
of the same holding company. One commenter noted that a holding company 
is a company that exists solely to control a partial or complete 
interest in other companies. The commenter delineated the type of 
company classified as a holding company from those considered to be a 
parent company by noting that by comparison, ``a parent company 
generally has a business purpose beyond merely holding a partial or 
complete controlling interest in other companies.'' The commenter did 
not believe that there is any environmental benefit that could occur by 
limiting the exception exclusively to holding companies or their 
subsidiaries. Another commenter distinguished between holding companies 
and chemical manufacturers making a similar point with regard to their 
business interests.
    EPA received several comments questioning why EPA believes it is 
necessary to limit transfers to wholly-owned subsidiaries. One 
commenter, stated that EPA's concerns regarding the transfers of 
refrigerant are inapplicable in the case of subsidiaries that are 
majority-owned and/or controlled by a parent corporation. For the 
purposes of refrigerant transfers, the commenter stated that the 
ownership dynamic in the case of two majority-owned and/or majority-
controlled subsidiaries is no different from that of two wholly-owned 
subsidiaries. The commenter suggested that EPA revise the regulatory 
text to permit the transfers of unreclaimed refrigerant between 
majority-owned and/or controlled entities.
    Another commenter, provided a lengthy discussion and several 
examples of transfers that would not be permitted if the provisions 
were adopted as proposed. Some of these scenarios included transfers 
involving the parent company, transfers involving a combined batch of 
refrigerant that mixes refrigerant drawn from equipment with various 
ownership within the corporate family, and transfers amongst various 
majority-owned subsidiaries.\2\ The commenter noted that even though it 
owns less than 100% of some of its subsidiaries, the company has a 
strong interest in not damaging the refrigeration appliances, 
particularly those that are located at the parent facility and operated 
by the parent company personnel. The commenter stated that in order to 
use its supply of R-12 efficiently, it would like to store the 
recovered refrigerant together, regardless of whether it comes from an 
appliance owned by the parent or owned by a subsidiary. The parent 
would then be able to transfer the refrigerant to another plant owned 
either by the parent or by a subsidiary. The commenter indicated that 
what is important is that the knowledge of the refrigerant quality is 
transferred with the refrigerant, and therefore EPA should draft 
language that states that transfers between and amongst parent 
companies, wholly-owned subsidiaries and majority-owned subsidiaries, 
should be permitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA has responded fully to the scenarios identified in these 
comments. However, due to the length of the comments, EPA does not 
believe it is practical to provide a detailed summary of each 
scenario described by the commenter in this preamble. A complete 
copy of the comments identified by docket number VIII-I-13 as well 
as the accompanying ``Response to Comments Document'' is located in 
the EPA Air Docket: A-92-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The intended effect of EPA's proposal was to create an exception 
from the sales restriction for transfers that were ``akin to those 
within one organization.'' EPA agrees with the commenters that 
transfers between a parent company \3\ and its subsidiaries and amongst 
the subsidiaries of the same parent company should be permitted 
regardless of whether the parent company is a holding company. EPA 
believes that transfers between subsidiaries having the same ownership 
as well as transfers between a subsidiary and the parent company are 
indeed akin to those within one organization. The owner, being the 
parent company, has a financial investment and incentive to protect the 
well being of their air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment, 
regardless of which subsidiary holds and operates the equipment. 
Therefore, through this action, EPA has modified the regulatory 
language at Sec.  82.154(g) to permit transfers between a parent 
company and one of its subsidiaries or between subsidiaries having the 
same parent company. Similarly, EPA has added a definition of the term 
``parent company'' at Sec.  82.152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For purposes of the refrigerant sales restriction at Sec.  
82.154(g), the following definition apply: a ``parent company'' 
means an individual, corporation, partnership, association, joint-
stock company, or an unincorporated organization that can direct or 
cause the direction of management and policies of another entity, 
through the ownership of shares or otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the points made, the Agency has decided that it would 
be more consistent with the Agency's intent, to broaden the exception 
to the sales restriction for the transfers of refrigerant. In doing so, 
majority-owned and majority-controlled subsidiaries will be treated the 
same as wholly-owned subsidiaries. EPA's rationale for this decision is 
based on common financial interests of majority owned and majority 
controlled subsidiaries. EPA agrees with the commenters and believes 
that transfers among these subsidiaries are ``akin to transfers within 
one company.'' These subsidiaries have a strong economic interest in 
not damaging the appliances owned by another subsidiary. EPA agrees 
with the commenters that majority-owned and majority-controlled 
subsidiaries should be treated the same as wholly-owned subsidiaries 
for the purposes of refrigerant transfers. Therefore, through today's 
action, EPA is making the necessary changes to the regulatory text at 
Sec.  82.154(g) and Sec.  82.152 to ensure that such transfers can 
legally occur without prior reclamation of the refrigerant.
4. Transfers Between Federal Facilities
    While EPA proposed to permit the transfer of unreclaimed 
refrigerant between subsidiaries, the Agency did not address the 
transfer of refrigerants between different Federal facilities owned by 
the same Federal agency. EPA received comment from the Department of 
Energy (DOE) requesting that the sales restriction exemption for the 
transfer of refrigerant between subsidiaries be extended to transfers 
between government-owned facilities including government-owned 
contractor-operated facilities. DOE stated that the majority of their 
facilities are operated by contractors, and the transfers between these 
entities are akin to transfers between subsidiaries of a parent 
company.
    EPA believes that it is reasonable to consider the transfer of 
refrigerant between federally-owned facilities as akin to transfers 
between subsidiaries of a parent company. Therefore EPA has added an 
exemption to the prohibition at Sec.  82.154(h)(4) to allow for the 
transfer of refrigerant between facilities owned by the same Federal 
agency or department. This exemption will hold as long as the 
facilities involved in the transfer of used refrigerant are owned by 
the same Federal agency or department. The facilities need not be 
operated by employees of the Federal facility or department, as long as 
such facilities are ultimately under the control of the same Federal 
agency or department.

[[Page 43795]]

5. Other Comments and Amendments to the Refrigerant Sales Restriction
    EPA requested comments on the appropriateness of modifying the 
sales restriction to limit the types of refrigerants available to 
technicians certified to service and maintain MVACs under section 609. 
EPA received one comment regarding Sec.  82.154(m)(2) and (8). The 
commenter stated that EPA intended to reference Sec.  82.154(n) not (m) 
and that the two provisions would expire prior to promulgation and 
should therefore not be promulgated.
    EPA would like to clarify that the Agency was correct in 
referencing Sec.  82.154(m). In the May 14, 1993, final rulemaking, EPA 
promulgated the prohibition against the sale and distribution of class 
I or class II substances for use as a refrigerant at Sec.  82.154(n). 
Subsequent amendments to the regulations resulted in the removal of the 
prohibition against the sale and distribution of class I or class II 
substances for use as a refrigerant from Sec. Sec.  82.154(n) through 
82.154(m)(2) and (8) (see regulatory text amendments at 59 FR 55912; 
November 9, 1994).
    In today's action, EPA is amending the sales restriction regulatory 
text at Sec.  82.154(m), by deleting the two expired subparagraphs 
((m)(2) and (m)(8)) and by adding two subparagraphs at (m)(2) and 
(m)(4). Former subparagraphs (m)(2) and (m)(8) permitted 
``grandfathered'' technicians to purchase refrigerant until May 15, 
1995. Since these subparagraphs have expired, this deletion makes no 
substantive change to the regulations. The subparagraphs that EPA is 
adding contain exceptions to the sales restriction for persons who 
employ certified technicians and who comply with the recordkeeping 
requirement at Sec.  82.166(b). Such persons may purchase refrigerants 
or have designated representatives purchase refrigerants. As proposed, 
EPA is providing an exemption to the refrigerant sales restriction for 
persons who employ at least one section 609 certified technician, 
provided that the refrigerant is either R-12 or a SNAP-approved 
substitute for MVACs.
    EPA received comments indicating that the prohibitions, at Sec.  
82.154(g) and (h), on the sale of used refrigerant that has not been 
reclaimed by an EPA-certified reclaimer are nearly identical and should 
be combined. EPA also received one comment requesting that the Agency 
clarify that refrigerant distributed from salvage facilities be subject 
to the reclamation requirements for the sale of used refrigerants at 
Sec.  82.154(g) and (h).
    EPA believes that the revised definition of reclaim warrants the 
combination of paragraphs (g) and (h). Therefore, EPA has combined 
Sec.  82.154(g) and (h) accordingly. In addition, EPA has always 
intended the sales restriction on used refrigerant to apply to the sale 
or distribution or the offer for sale or distribution as specified at 
Sec.  82.154(m). Therefore, as a point of clarification, EPA has 
amended Sec.  82.154(g) to specifically include the prohibition to the 
distribution or offer to distribute used refrigerant. EPA believes that 
this amendment of Sec.  82.154 simplifies the prohibition.
    EPA is also amending Sec.  82.154(m) to include a reference to the 
Sec.  82.166(b) exception for persons who employ at least one section 
608 certified technician. Although the NPRM did not include the 
reference to Sec.  82.166(b) in proposed Sec.  82.154(m), EPA has 
included it here in order to enhance the utility of the regulations and 
make them easier to use by the regulated community. This amendment only 
references currently existing regulatory language, and does not alter 
in any way the rights or obligations of any regulated party; therefore, 
it constitutes a minor technical change.

E. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioner (MVAC)-Like Appliances

    MVAC-like appliances are essentially identical to motor vehicle air 
conditioners (MVACs), which are subject to regulations promulgated 
under section 609 of the Act. However, because MVAC-like appliances are 
contained in off-road vehicles, they are not regulated under section 
609. Rather, they are subject to regulations promulgated under section 
608 of the Act. EPA believes that if the appliance is similar to an 
MVAC in all relevant respects, it should be treated similarly to an 
MVAC. Hence, EPA proposed to modify the definition of MVAC-like 
appliance. Currently, 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 off-road 
motor vehicle. This includes the air-conditioning equipment found on 
agricultural or construction vehicles. This definition is not intended 
to cover appliances using R-22 refrigerant. (58 FR 28713).
    Commenters sought clarification on what types of appliances the 
Agency considers as ``MVAC-like.'' The Agency received comments 
questioning whether Sec.  82.152 can be interpreted to include air-
conditioners on mowing, quarrying, and heavy-duty off-road vehicles; 
planes; boats; and trolleys. Currently the definition of ``MVAC-like 
appliance'' specifically includes agricultural or construction 
equipment that does not use HCFC-22 refrigerant. EPA believes that 
mowing and quarrying appliances, planes, boats, and trolleys, that 
operate with open-drive compressors that are used to cool the driver's 
or passenger's compartments, and do not use HCFC-22 refrigerant, are 
similar to MVACs in all relevant respects and should be treated 
similarly to an MVAC appliance.
    EPA believes, however, 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 definition could be construed to 
include appliances that are not similar to an MVAC in all relevant 
respects. For example, a chiller located on a marine vessel could be 
mistakenly considered MVAC-like. EPA believes that 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 must be consistent with the largest amount of 
refrigerant contained in most MVACs. EPA discussed in the NPRM that EPA 
believes that all MVACs contain less than 20 pounds of refrigerant. 
Therefore, the adoption of a 20-pound limit for MVAC-like appliances 
should not exclude any appliance that reasonably should be considered 
MVAC-like. EPA further stated that placing a charge limit into the 
definition would provide clarity to those who are 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 proposed to add a 20-pound ceiling to the definition of MVAC-like 
appliance.
    EPA requested comment on amending the definition of MVAC-like 
appliances and whether a ceiling of 20 pounds represents an appropriate 
cutoff. EPA did not receive any comments or concerns indicating that 
the 20-pound limit was inappropriate based on the existence of 
appliances that should meet this definition and contain a larger 
refrigerant charge. Therefore, through this action, EPA is adding a 20-
pound limit to the definition of MVAC-like appliances.

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

    As proposed, EPA is adopting several changes to the current test 
procedure for refrigerant recycling equipment found

[[Page 43796]]

in 40 CFR part 82, subpart F appendix B, which was based on the Air-
Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute's 1993 standard for 
refrigerant recycling and recovery equipment (i.e., ARI Standard 740-
1993) and will now be based upon ARI Standard 740-1995. These changes, 
all of which have already been adopted by industry into the ARI 
Standard 740-1995, include: Adoption of a new and more representative 
method for measuring the equipment's refrigerant recovery rate; 
measurements of the equipment's recovery rate and final vacuum at high 
temperatures; a limit on the total quantity of refrigerant that may be 
released from equipment during non-condensable purging, oil draining, 
and equipment clearing; a measurement of the quantity of refrigerant 
left in the condenser of equipment after clearing has occurred; 
standards for external hose permeability; and a requirement that 
equipment be tested with recovery cylinders that are representative of 
those used with the equipment in the field.
    In addition, EPA is requiring that equipment that is advertised as 
``recycling equipment'' be capable of recycling refrigerants to the 
contamination levels (except that for ``Other Refrigerants'') set forth 
in the IRG-2 table of Maximum Contaminant Levels of Recycled 
Refrigerants in Same Owner's Equipment. As discussed in more detail 
below, EPA is adopting these changes to help ensure that recycling of 
refrigerant is maximized and that emissions of refrigerant from 
refrigerant recovery and recycling equipment are minimized.
    EPA received many supportive comments on its proposed adoption of 
the above requirements. Comments recommending changes to the proposed 
requirements or requesting more information on their implementation are 
discussed in more detail below.
1. Measurement of Vapor Recovery Rates
    As proposed, EPA is requiring a more representative measurement of 
recovery equipment's vapor recovery rate. As discussed in the proposal, 
the ARI Standard 740-1993 was adopted by EPA in the May 14, 1993 final 
rulemaking as appendix A. Appendix A required measurement of 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 that best suits their needs. EPA also 
believes that technicians with adequate recovery equipment are less 
likely than technicians with slow equipment to interrupt the recovery 
procedure before it is complete. Thus, EPA is adopting the more recent 
version of the ARI Standard 740 (i.e., ARI Standard 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]F) to the lower 
of atmospheric pressure or 10% of the initial pressure. EPA 
specifically requested comment on adopting ARI Standard 740-1995 as the 
method of measuring the average recovery rate of recycling and recovery 
appliances, and on whether there was any reason to retain ARI Standard 
740-1993 as the basis for appendix B of 40 CFR part 82, subpart F. EPA 
received no comments opposing or recommending changes to the more 
representative method of measuring the vapor recovery rate of 
equipment.
2. High-Temperature Testing
    EPA is adopting the proposed 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 discussed in the NPRM, recovery and recycling 
equipment used in the field are likely to have to function at 
temperatures considerably higher than 75[deg]F (61 FR 7866). The 
performance of recovery and recycling equipment is likely to be 
affected by such high temperatures. High temperatures raise the 
saturation pressure of the refrigerant in the recovery tank, thus 
raising the compression ratio against which the compressor in the 
recovery device must work to evacuate the refrigerant from an 
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 (UL) reported that more than 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 (Air Docket A-92-01, Category: VI-B7-14; 
2/22/96 letter to Deborah Ottinger/USEPA, from Glenn Woo and Steve 
Leva/UL regarding Equipment Construction features affecting 
certification testing).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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 Standard 740 provide useful information on equipment's 
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]F test, this vapor is then 
recovered until the final recovery vacuum is reached. Also as in the 
75[deg]F 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 the highest saturation pressure for which it is rated. If 
the equipment is not rated for refrigerants with boiling points in the 
range of -50[deg] to 10[deg]C, the high-temperature test is not 
performed.
    EPA received two comments concerning the proposed adoption of the 
high-temperature testing requirement (as part of ARI Standard 740-
1995), one in opposition and the other expressing concern that it would 
be the first of many requirements to test equipment at a variety of 
temperatures. The commenter, while stating that EPA had set forth a 
``convincing explanation why additional testing [at higher 
temperatures] was necessary,'' expressed concern that EPA ``will have 
to issue more, and more, and more specifications [regarding testing at

[[Page 43797]]

different temperatures] as time passes.'' This commenter stated that 
EPA might now attempt to issue requirements for testing at colder 
temperatures and could ultimately require testing at ``two-degree 
increments over a range of 200 degrees.'' The commenter further stated 
that before the regulations ever required certification, that the 
commenter was capable of successfully manufacturing its own recycling/
recovery equipment. Finally, the commenter concluded that ``EPA is 
being trapped into specifying ever-greater detail, where no detail is 
really needed.''
    EPA disagrees with this conclusion. First, both the physics of 
refrigerant recovery and the results of UL's testing show that useful 
new information about equipment performance is gained through high-
temperature testing. While some manufacturers may have caught and 
corrected performance problems at high temperatures without testing by 
third parties, others clearly have not. Thus, this ``detail'' is indeed 
``needed.'' Second, EPA does not believe that it has been ``trapped 
into specifying ever-greater detail'' in its equipment certification 
program. In general, EPA considers both the costs and the benefits of 
potential changes to its equipment certification standards. In some 
cases, the additional information that could be gained justifies the 
cost of additional testing; in others, it does not. For instance, the 
Agency believes that the additional information that could be gained 
through requiring a more representative measure of the vapor recovery 
rate justifies its cost; however, as discussed below, EPA has concluded 
that the additional information that could be gained through durability 
testing does not justify the additional cost. Thus, while certification 
requirements will clearly need to be amended as the industry changes 
and acquires more experience with recovery technologies, EPA does not 
anticipate that these amendments will be overly burdensome or unwieldy.
    In this case, the high-temperature testing requirement is part of 
the only set of amendments to the test procedure for recycling and 
recovery equipment made so far, and reflects a change to this procedure 
that has already been made by industry. At one time, EPA had 
contemplated a requirement for low-temperature testing, but the Agency 
decided not to propose this because (1) performance problems at low 
temperatures were not as serious as those at high temperatures, and (2) 
recovery at low temperatures takes place less frequently than recovery 
at high temperatures, and hence venting of refrigerants is more likely 
to occur at higher temperatures. Of course, if new information arose 
indicating widespread equipment failure at low temperatures and 
subsequent venting of refrigerants, EPA might reconsider imposing a 
requirement for low-temperature testing. However, since equipment 
performance can be interpolated reasonably well between measurements at 
temperature means and extremes, it is very unlikely that EPA would 
require measurements of equipment performance at two-degree intervals.
3. Use of Representative Recovery Cylinders
    As proposed, EPA is adopting the ARI Standard 740-1995 into 
appendix B2. To further ensure that equipment testing is representative 
of likely performance in the field, appendix B2 specifies that recovery 
cylinders used in testing (1) be the same size as those sold with the 
equipment and (2) be held 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 by both of the EPA-approved equipment 
testing organizations.
    One commenter expressed concern that this requirement would be 
inappropriately applied to equipment that is not sold with recovery 
cylinders, such as equipment that is designed to recover large charges 
into rail cars or tank trucks. According to ARI and UL, the two 
approved equipment testing organizations, most manufacturers whose 
equipment they have certified offer recovery cylinders with their 
equipment. UL actually requires manufacturers to provide recovery 
cylinders with the equipment. When equipment is not offered with 
recovery cylinders, ARI tests the equipment with the size cylinder 
specified in the manufacturer's instructions. EPA considers the latter 
approach as reasonable and is modifying appendix B2 (based on ARI 
Standard 740-1995) to add the phrase ``or specified in the 
instructions'' to the relevant requirement in section 7.4.1 to clarify 
that it is permissible. The modified requirement reads, ``Recovery 
cylinder shall be the same size as normally furnished or specified in 
the instructions by the equipment manufacturer.''
    The same commenter argued that EPA should not object to the use of 
oversize recovery cylinders in testing, but only to the use of 
undersize cylinders, because oversized cylinders do not affect the 
results of certification testing. As described both in the proposal and 
above, oversize recovery cylinders can distort the results of 
certification testing. Therefore, EPA is promulgating the requirement 
that cylinders used in testing be the same size as those sold or 
specified for use with the equipment.
4. Limiting Emissions from Condenser Clearing, Oil Draining, Purging, 
and External Hoses
    ARI Standard 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 discussed 
in the NPRM 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 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 Standard 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 the purging of 
noncondensables and oil draining (see below); this total cannot exceed 
3% 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.
    To help ensure that the clearing procedure is not excessively 
complicated or time-consuming, the ARI Standard 740-1995 also requires 
that

[[Page 43798]]

the manufacturer provide methods 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 requiring 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 Standard 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 3% of the mass of refrigerant processed by the equipment.
    One commenter stated that while the 3% limit was appropriate for 
recycling equipment, it was too loose a standard for recovery only 
equipment, which does not purge noncondensables and therefore does not 
lose any refrigerant during this process. The commenter requested a 1% 
limit instead of 3%. EPA does not conclude that establishment of a 1% 
limit is warranted at this time; therefore, EPA is today establishing 
in appendix B2 a 3% limit for both recovery equipment and recycling 
equipment. In the future, however, EPA may consider lowering this limit 
for recovery equipment.
    The third source of emissions addressed by ARI Standard 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 Standard 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. EPA received no comments opposing this limit and is 
therefore incorporating it into appendix B2.
5. Durability Testing
    As discussed in the NPRM, EPA does not believe that it would be 
useful to require long-term durability testing of recovery and 
recycling equipment. Factors militating against such a requirement 
include: (1) EPA does not believe that equipment durability has any 
effect on refrigerant emissions; (2) durability issues likely will be 
adequately addressed by free market forces; (3) equipment durability is 
not likely to be a concern due to technological advances in recovery 
technology; (4) notwithstanding factor (3), recovery equipment that is 
likely to experience durability problems is likely to be identified by 
ARI 740-1995; and (5) requiring durability testing would not be cost-
effective, when compared to the relative benefits versus the 
substantial increased testing costs that would result. EPA received two 
comments opposing durability testing (61 FR 7869). One commenter 
``vigorously oppose[d]'' durability testing. No commenters supported 
it. For the reasons discussed in the proposal, EPA is not requiring 
durability testing of recovery and recycling equipment.
6. Clarification of Labeling Requirements for Recovery/Recycling 
Equipment
    EPA is clarifying that manufacturers of refrigerant recovery and 
recycling equipment must label their equipment in accordance with Sec.  
82.158(h) in addition to the labeling requirements established under 
section 11 of both Appendices B1 and B2 (based upon section 11 of the 
ARI Standard 740-1993 and 1995, respectively).
    The EPA labeling requirement was promulgated as a part of the May 
14, 1993, final rule, (58 FR 28682). The labeling requirement states 
that manufacturers and importers of recovery and recycling equipment 
certified under 40 CFR 82.158(b) and (d) must place a label on each 
piece of equipment stating the following: This Equipment Has Been 
Certified by [Approved Equipment Testing Organization] to Meet EPA's 
Minimum Requirements For Recycling or Recovery Equipment Intended For 
Use With [Appropriate Category of Appliance].\5\ The label shall also 
show the date of manufacture and the serial number (if applicable) of 
the equipment. The label shall be affixed in a readily visible or 
accessible location, be made of a material expected to last the 
lifetime of the equipment, present required information in a manner so 
that it is likely to remain legible for the lifetime of the equipment, 
and be affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed from the 
equipment without damage to the label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Appropriate category of appliance is considered as low-, 
high-, and/or very high-pressure appliances as defined at Sec.  
82.152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 1993, EPA has adopted into appendix B, and now Appendices B1 
and B2, the requirements of ARI Standard 740 (58 FR 28686). Section 11 
of the standard, ``Marking and Nameplate Data,'' specifies that the 
nameplate shall display the manufacturer's name, model designation, 
type of equipment, designated refrigerants, capacities and electrical 
characteristics where applicable. Section 11.2 -Data for Designated 
Refrigerants, states that for each refrigerant designated, the 
manufacturer shall include liquid recovery rate, vapor recovery rate, 
high temperature vapor recovery rate, final recovery vacuum, recycle 
flow rate, residual trapped refrigerant, and the quantity of 
refrigerant recycled as applicable.
    EPA is clarifying that since the Agency has adopted the ARI 
Standard 740-1995 into appendix B2 and the ARI Standard 740-1993 into 
appendix B1, that the nameplate data of section 11 of Appendices B1 and 
B2 are also required. EPA reiterates that this is not a new 
requirement, and places emphasis on the labeling requirement by editing 
section 11 of both Appendices B1 and B2 to reference the labeling 
requirement at Sec.  82.158(h). Adherence to only the nameplate data 
requirements of the ARI Standard 740 does not satisfy the labeling 
requirement of Sec.  82.158(h) or section 11 of Appendices B1 and B2. 
Furthermore, the Agency is clarifying that the nameplate data and the 
labeling requirements established at Sec.  82.158(h) are both the 
responsibilities of the importer or manufacturer of the equipment and 
not that of the equipment testing organization. Failure of the 
manufacturer to abide by these requirements is considered a violation 
of the prohibitions established at 40 CFR 82.154(c).
7. Effective Date of New Standards and Grandfathering of Equipment
    EPA did not propose an effective date for the new equipment 
certification standard. However, several commenters pointed out that 
equipment testing organizations will require a significant amount of 
time to finish testing equipment to the new standard.

[[Page 43799]]

Commenters requested that EPA clarify whether equipment manufactured 
and certified under the old standards before the effective date of the 
new standard will be grandfathered.
    ARI and UL indicated in their comments that it will take 
approximately one year for the equipment certification organizations to 
complete the recertification process. However, those comments were 
written and received in 1996. Since that time, the two equipment 
testing organizations (i.e., UL and ARI) have independently begun to 
test to the ARI Standard 740-1995, while continuing to test to the 1993 
version of the standard in order to satisfy the certification 
requirement of Sec.  82.158. Therefore, EPA will not provide a one year 
period for the transition as proposed, but will ease the financial 
burden on equipment manufacturers by making the requirement to certify 
to the 1995 version of the standard effective 60 days after this final 
rule is published in the Federal Register.
    However, EPA is ``grandfathering'' existing equipment by 
maintaining the reference to the 1993 version of the standard as it 
applies to equipment previously certified to the ARI Standard 740-1993. 
This is being accomplished by amending Sec.  82.158(b)(1) to reference 
new appendix B1 (based on ARI Standard 740-1993), such that equipment 
manufactured on or after November 15, 1993 and before September 22, 
2003, must be certified to appendix B1 based on the 1993 edition of the 
standard. In addition, EPA is maintaining the certification of 
equipment manufactured before November 15, 1993, that meets the 
applicable performance standards as set forth at Sec.  82.158(c). 
Therefore, ``grandfathered equipment'' will include both (1) equipment 
manufactured on or after November 15, 1993 but before September 22, 
2003, that was certified to ARI Standard 740-1993 by an EPA-approved 
equipment testing organization and (2) equipment manufactured before 
November 15, 1993 that meets the applicable performance standards as 
set forth at Sec.  82.158(c). Equipment manufactured on or after 
September 22, 2003, must be certified to the new standard set forth at 
Sec.  82.158(b)(2) and appendix B2 (based upon ARI Standard 740-1995).
    While EPA is not requiring recertification of equipment previously 
certified under the conditions of the ARI Standard 740-1993, EPA is 
requiring that the three-year retest of certified equipment and 
inspections of equipment at manufacturing facilities conducted in 
accordance with Sec.  82.158(j) subparagraphs (1) and (2) be done to 
the standard by which the equipment was originally certified in 
accordance with Sec.  82.158(a).
8. Requirements for Equipment Advertised as ``Recycling Equipment''
    As proposed, EPA is requiring that equipment that is marketed as 
``recycling'' equipment be able to recycle the sample of dirty 
refrigerant to the maximum contaminant levels (except for ``Other 
Refrigerants'') listed in the table in IRG-2 when tested under the 
conditions of ARI 740. As noted in the proposal, EPA believes that 
technicians and contractors should have some assurance that equipment 
that is marketed as ``recycling equipment'' is capable of recycling 
used refrigerant to some minimum level. This assurance would be 
especially useful to contractors who recycle refrigerant for reuse into 
their customers' equipment. IRG-2 states that recycling equipment that 
is certified to ARI Standard 740 and capable of consistently recycling 
refrigerant to the contaminant levels (as detailed in the maximum 
contaminant level table) should be used. The refrigerant sample used in 
ARI Standard 740 is representative of a contaminated system, so 
equipment that can recycle the refrigerant in this test to the 
contaminant levels of IRG-2 is considered to have acceptable recycling 
capabilities.
    In the proposal, EPA reprinted the IRG-2 table entitled ``Maximum 
Contaminant Levels of Recycled Refrigerants in Same Owner's 
Equipment.'' EPA received two comments on this table and its use as a 
standard for equipment advertised as ``recycling'' equipment. One of 
the comments noted that it was not appropriate to list maximum 
contamination by other refrigerants in a standard for recycling 
equipment, because recycling equipment is not capable of removing 
contamination by other refrigerants.
    EPA agrees and has edited the table accordingly by removing the 
last row from the chart. The chart in IRG-2 included maximum levels for 
other refrigerants because its original purpose was to establish a 
general standard for the level of impurities, including other 
refrigerants, for refrigerant that is intended to be reused in the same 
owner's equipment. Thus, it included maximum levels for all the common 
contaminants of refrigerant, including other refrigerants. EPA has also 
edited the column labeled Low-pressure systems to reference the 
refrigerants used by low-pressure appliances for which the recycling 
equipment is intended.
    One commenter asked why the limit for moisture in Table 1 was set 
at 20 ppm, while the limit for moisture in the ARI 700 standard is set 
at 10 ppm. The ARI 700 standard establishes a moisture limit of 10 ppm 
for high-pressure refrigerants and a limit of 20 ppm for low-pressure 
refrigerants. Table 1 sets a moisture limit of 10 ppm for R-12, and a 
limit of 20 ppm for other refrigerants.
    The moisture limits are set in consideration of both the technical 
limits of recycling equipment and the tolerance of different types of 
refrigerants for moisture. The moisture limits in the IRG-2 standard 
(from which Table 1 is drawn) for most high-pressure refrigerants are 
slightly higher than those in the ARI Standard 700 in recognition of 
the fact that even high-quality recycling equipment may not be able to 
lower moisture levels to those in the Standard. A lower limit was 
established for R-12 in the IRG-2 Standard from which Table 1 is drawn 
because water is significantly less soluble in R-12 at its typical 
operating temperatures than in other refrigerants at their typical 
operating temperatures. For instance, at 20 degrees F (well within the 
range of typical evaporator temperatures for both R-12 and R-22 
systems), the solubility of water in R-12 is just 16.6 ppm, while the 
solubility of water in R-22 is 472 ppm. This means that free 
(undissolved) water forms at much lower moisture levels in systems 
using R-12 than in systems using other types of refrigerants, and free 
water can damage or interfere with the functioning of air-conditioning 
and refrigeration systems by corroding system components or by 
restricting or even stopping the flow of refrigerant through the 
system. Thus, it is critical to keep moisture levels well below those 
where free water can form.
    As proposed, EPA is making this change for certification of 
recycling only equipment effective 90 days after publication of this 
final rule, in order to give manufacturers the opportunity to change 
their advertising and marketing materials. Recycling only equipment 
that is manufactured on or after October 22, 2003, must be certified to 
appendix B2 (based on ARI Standard 740-1995) and must be able to 
recycle the dirty refrigerant sample under the conditions of appendix 
B2 to the levels stated in the following table.

[[Page 43800]]



       Maximum Levels of Contaminants Permissible in Refrigerant Processed Through Equipment Advertised as
                                             ``Recycling'' Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Low-pressure  (R-11,
             Contaminants              R-123, R-113) systems       R-12 systems           All other systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acid Content (by wt.)................  1.0 PPM..............  1.0 PPM..............  1.0 PPM.
Moisture (by wt.)....................  20 PPM...............  10 PPM...............  20 PPM.
Noncondensable 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Procedure for Updating Approval of Certification Organizations
    EPA will continue to recognize the approval of the two existing 
testing organizations (i.e., UL and ARI) to certify recovery/recycling 
equipment to the old standards at Sec.  82.158(b)(1) and appendix B1 
(based on ARI Standard 740-1993) until September 22, 2003.
    The two equipment testing organizations that have been approved by 
EPA to certify equipment under the old standard at Sec.  82.158(b)(1) 
are required to submit their intentions to certify equipment under the 
new standard at Sec.  82.158(b)(2) in writing no later than 60 days 
after this final rule is published in the Federal Register. However, 
these organizations need not resubmit the information on their test 
facilities, equipment testing expertise, long-term performance 
verification programs, knowledge of the standards, and objectivity that 
they submitted to become approved to certify under Sec.  82.158(b)(1). 
Instead, they only need state their intention to test equipment under 
the new conditions of Sec.  82.158 and submit information in those 
areas where their original application to certify equipment under Sec.  
82.158(b)(1) and appendix B1 (based on ARI Standard 740-1993) differs 
from the requirements at Sec.  82.158(b)(2) and appendix B2 (based on 
ARI Standard 740-1995).
    Upon receipt of the written notification, EPA will continue to 
recognize the approval of the two existing testing organizations to 
certify to the new standard at Sec.  82.158(b)(2) and appendix B2 
(based on ARI Standard 740-1995) without interruption.
    EPA has also amended Sec.  82.160 ``Approved equipment testing 
organizations,'' by deleting the paragraph that essentially 
grandfathered recovery/recycling equipment tested by UL and ARI prior 
to their approval as equipment testing organizations. The paragraph has 
become obsolete since UL and ARI are the only two programs that were 
approved by EPA to certify equipment under the conditions of Sec.  
82.158.
10. Other Issues Raised by Commenters
    One commenter argued that EPA should require that recovery 
cylinders sold with recycling equipment be supplied with fill-limiting 
devices to prevent overfilling of cylinders and the injury that can 
result. EPA decided not to require fill-limiting devices in the final 
rule published in May 1993, citing several technical problems then 
involved with their use. However, EPA recognizes that some of these 
problems may have been resolved; therefore, EPA may consider requesting 
comment on this issue in a future notice.
    The same commenter suggested that the rule include test procedures 
for evaluating recovery and recycling equipment for use with the new 
blends entering the marketplace. EPA agrees that this is an important 
consideration in equipment certification, and the Agency therefore 
plans to address this issue in the section 608 rulemaking covering 
recycling of substitutes for CFC and HCFCs.
    EPA received a comment stating that paragraph 12 of appendix B 
inappropriately indicates that the refrigerant recovery/recycling 
equipment standard is voluntary. Paragraph 12 inadvertently includes 
the paragraph on voluntary conformance from the ARI Standard 740; 
therefore, EPA has deleted this paragraph in Appendices B1 and B2, and 
wishes to clarify that the ARI standards referenced in 40 CFR part 82, 
subpart F are included into regulation by their adoption into the 
appendices of subpart F. The ARI standards are not Federal regulations, 
but the Agency has used them as the basis for Appendices A, B1, and B2. 
Therefore, the regulated community is required to adhere to the 
regulations contained in 40 CFR part 82, subpart F (including all 
applicable appendices), not the ARI standards themselves. This 
distinction is extremely pertinent for issues such as the previously 
discussed labeling requirements for certified recovery and recycling 
equipment, where voluntary conformance to the marking and nameplate 
data of the ARI Standard 740-1995 does not satisfy the required 
labeling requirements of 40 CFR 82.158(h).

G. Major and Minor Maintenance, Service, or Repair

    Effective July 13, 1993, technicians were required to evacuate air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment to established vacuum levels 
as stated in Table 1 of Sec.  82.156. EPA also granted an exception to 
these evacuation requirements for non-major maintenance, service, or 
repair that did not include the removal of any major components and was 
not followed by the evacuation of the appliance to the environment, 
Sec.  82.156(a)(1)(i). EPA believed that such repairs would result in 
very little release of refrigerant to the environment. EPA did not 
explicitly define ``non-major'' maintenance, service, or repair; 
instead EPA defined ``major'' maintenance, service, or repair as 
involving removal of the compressor, condenser, evaporator, or 
auxiliary heat exchanger coil. EPA specified removal of major equipment 
components, because at that time, EPA intended non-major maintenance, 
service, or repairs to include procedures that involve uncovering only 
a small opening in the appliance and that take place in a matter of 
minutes. After promulgation of the final rule, EPA received several 
requests for the Agency to expand and clarify the definition of ``major 
maintenance, service, or repair'' and explicitly define ``non-major 
maintenance, service, or repair.'' The requesters believed that the 
definition of major maintenance, service, or repair was too narrow, 
excluding some types of repairs that result in considerable refrigerant 
release.
    EPA agreed with the requesters that major maintenance, service, or 
repair had been defined too narrowly; therefore, EPA proposed in the 
NPRM to add definitions for ``major repairs of

[[Page 43801]]

low-pressure chillers'' and ``non-major repair of low pressure 
chillers.'' EPA requested comments on the proposed definitions; on 
whether the definitions were specific enough; whether other types of 
repairs should be considered; and whether the definitions were 
consistent with industry practices and/or terminology.
    EPA received comments that questioned whether the proposed 
definitions of ``major repairs of low-pressure chillers'' and ``non-
major repair of low pressure chillers'' were intended to apply to high-
pressure and very high-pressure appliances. The commenters stated that 
emphasis should be placed on opening of the appliance during 
maintenance, service, or repair and not just repair of chillers. EPA 
also received several comments stating that, as proposed, the 
definitions would only affect repairs while ignoring maintenance and 
service of appliances. The commenters noted concern over the continued 
use of the word ``repair'' in the NPRM as it pertains to chillers 
instead of low-pressure appliances.
    In the May 14, 1993, rulemaking, EPA made no distinctions between 
low-pressure, high-pressure, or very high-pressure appliances in 
defining major maintenance, service, or repair. The intent of the 
proposed definition of ``major'' and ``non-major repairs of low-
pressure chillers'' was to provide clarity to the definition of major 
maintenance, service, or repair (at Sec.  82.152) as it pertains to 
low-pressure chillers. EPA believes that while the intent of the NPRM 
was met by proposing two definitions, that this approach causes 
potential confusion by defining ``major'' and ``non-major repairs of 
low-pressure chillers,'' while only referencing major in the evacuation 
exemption of Sec.  82.156(a)(1)(i); therefore, EPA is revising the 
definition of major maintenance, service, and repair without adding new 
definitions for non-major maintenance, service, and repair of different 
appliance pressure groups nor is the Agency singling out low-pressure 
chillers in defining major maintenance, service, or repair.
    While EPA proposed changes that specifically addressed low-pressure 
chillers, the Agency received several comments requesting clarification 
of the definition of major and non-major repairs of high-pressure and 
very high-pressure appliances as they relate to the evacuation 
exemption as described in Sec.  82.156(a)(1) and (a)(2). Several 
commenters noted that non-major maintenance, service, or repair of 
high-pressure and very high-pressure appliances currently can be 
performed at atmospheric pressure without having to draw a deep vacuum 
and urged EPA to continue to allow this practice. EPA also received 
requests for clarification on whether or not the proposed changes 
affect the exceptions to the evacuation requirements for minor repairs 
that are not followed by evacuation of the appliance to the atmosphere. 
The commenters stated that the Agency's proposal to add a definition 
for major repair of low-pressure chillers invalidates the exceptions 
for high- and very high-pressure appliances and has also prohibited oil 
changes on high-or very high-pressure appliances without first 
evacuating the appliance to the levels established in Table 1 of Sec.  
82.156.
    The revisions to the proposed definition of ``major'' and the 
deletion of the proposed definition of ``non-major repair of low-
pressure chillers'' reflect the initial intent of the NPRM to provide 
clarity as to what the Agency considers ``major'' and do not affect the 
evacuation exceptions for persons opening appliances (except for small 
appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances) established under the 
subparagraphs of Sec.  82.156(a)(1) and (a)(2). The required practices 
established at Sec.  82.156 require that refrigerant be evacuated (to 
the levels of Table 1) from the appliance prior to opening the 
appliance, by properly using EPA-certified recovery and/or recycling 
equipment, except for instances where evacuation of the appliance to 
the atmosphere is not to be performed after completion of the 
maintenance, service, or repair and such action is not considered 
``major'' (Sec.  82.156(a)(1)(i)). The required vacuum levels vary 
depending on the type of appliance and the date of manufacture of the 
certified recovery/recycling equipment, as stated in Sec.  82.156 Table 
1. These evacuation requirements still hold true for all types of 
appliances, including HCFC-22, other high-pressure, and very high-
pressure appliances.
    Five commenters stated that the proposal to limit the opening 
requirement to a two-inch diameter for non-major repairs of low-
pressure chillers is too restrictive. Several other commenters claimed 
that some openings in fact may be oval, rectangular, some other shape, 
or three or more inches wide. Additionally, there can be a difference 
between the nominal diameter and the actual diameter depending on what 
``schedule'' of pipe is used thus determining the thickness of pipe 
walls.
    EPA agrees with these commenters that a two-inch diameter is too 
restrictive. In response, the Agency has determined that opening 
requirements should be expressed in square inches of ``flow area'' 
instead of an external circular diameter. Due to the fact that not all 
openings are circular, pipes are often fitted with gaskets with a 
variety of opening shapes. Therefore, the opening requirement for non-
major maintenance, service, or repair of low-pressure appliances is not 
to exceed a ``flow area'' of four (4) square inches. The ``flow area'' 
should be interpreted to mean the most restricted opening through which 
refrigerant passes, therefore eliminating any confusion as to whether 
the definition applies to the nominal or actual pipe diameter or 
measurements. EPA is using the 4 in 2 as a criterion for designating a 
repair as ``major maintenance, service, or repair'' while not 
explicitly defining non-major or restricting the definition to low-
pressure chillers as proposed.
    One commenter stated that the language requiring technicians to cap 
or isolate openings during ``non-major'' repairs (of low-pressure 
chillers) should be revised. The commenter stated that a gas-tight cap 
may pose a safety risk in the case of pressure build-ups and that 
technicians should not be required to cap when it may be better to use 
a cover or plug. Additionally, this commenter believed that technicians 
should not be restricted to ``isolation valves'' when it may be better 
to use a blank for cases where openings cannot be covered at all times 
or instances when the appliance is not in use.
    The Agency agrees that the proposed regulations were too 
prescriptive. The intent of the proposed provisions was to prevent 
unintentional refrigerant loss during maintenance, service, and repair 
procedures. However, EPA agrees that technicians must have discretion 
to select the safest alternative during any service procedure when no 
isolation valves are present. Since the regulations already allow for 
the isolation of appliance parts that are to be serviced, EPA has 
rescinded the proposed definition of non-major repair of low pressure 
chillers. This allows greater flexibility to technicians who service, 
maintain, and repair appliances, while maintaining the intent of the 
NPRM to reduce emissions during such service, maintenance, and repair.
    EPA received comments concerning the proposed 15 minute time frame 
for defining non-major repair. One commenter stated that 15 minutes is 
too long, since a significant refrigerant loss can occur even when a 
technician is attempting to maintain atmospheric pressure. The 
commenter noted that a shorter time period would result in only ``de 
minimis'' releases of refrigerant. Another commenter requested

[[Page 43802]]

clarification of whether repairs are still considered non-major if they 
take more than 15 minutes and the opening is less than two inches and 
can be capped or isolated.
    EPA is setting the 15 minute maximum in its revised definition of 
``major maintenance, service, or repair'' as a means of differentiating 
between major and non-major activities, while not explicitly defining 
``non-major'' or limiting the definition to low-pressure chillers. The 
designation of the maintenance, service, or repair as ``major'' 
establishes whether or not an exemption to the evacuation required 
practice is allowed under Sec.  82.156(a). EPA is not establishing or 
suggesting a time limit for any particular maintenance, service, or 
repair activity on an appliance. However, maintenance, service, or 
repair involving the uncovering of a small opening of more than four 
square inches of flow area for more than 15 minutes will be considered 
``major,'' and the exemption to the evacuation required practice will 
not be allowed. This designation should not be interpreted as an EPA 
mandate on how much time is required to perform any specific 
maintenance, service, or repair. In addition, EPA is reiterating that 
the venting prohibition of the Act exempts ``de minimis'' releases 
associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely 
dispose of class I and class II refrigerants. The circumstances under 
which releases may be considered de minimis are set forth at 40 CFR 
82.154(a).
    Two commenters stated that technicians should be allowed to hold 
low-pressure appliances at or below 0 psig, not exactly at 0 psig as 
the proposal requires. Two other commenters stated that EPA should not 
require non-major repairs to be performed at 0 psig for the entire 
appliance if isolation of the portion of the appliance requiring 
service, maintenance, or repair is possible.
    The intent of the proposed rule was to minimize the risk of 
emission due to diffusion of refrigerant into the atmosphere and air 
into the system. EPA did not propose to lower the evacuation level for 
low-pressure appliances when evacuation of the appliance to the 
atmosphere is not to be performed as required by Sec.  
82.156(a)(2)(i)(B). Since the regulatory structure already allows for 
the evacuation of high- or very high-pressure appliances to no higher 
than 0 psig and at 0 psig before a low-pressure appliance is opened 
(Sec.  82.156(a)(2)(i)(A) and (B) respectively), EPA is rescinding the 
proposed definition of non-major repair for low-pressure chillers and 
has revised the proposed definition of major repairs of low-pressure 
chillers without the condition that such repairs be performed at 0 psig 
for the entire appliance or the isolated portion of the appliance.
    One commenter urged EPA to clarify that the chart of examples of 
major and non-major repairs contained in the preamble to the February 
29, 1996, NPRM is not part of the rule and may not necessarily be 
correct.
    EPA is clarifying that this chart was submitted by a commenter and 
was included in the proposal only to present a hypothetical 
classification of certain service procedures and repairs. The chart was 
included in the NPRM to provide a non-comprehensive list of examples of 
common repair functions that technicians routinely encounter. It was 
not intended to represent a definitive compilation and should not be 
relied upon for categorizing repairs as major or non-major.
    One commenter claimed that EPA has no justification to impose 
stringent new restrictions on non-major repairs in the absence of a 
cost/benefit analysis and that the Agency's action seems to go against 
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 review by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB). Executive Order 12866 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 affect in a material way the economy, 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 was determined by OMB and EPA that the proposal to amend the 
final rule was not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms 
of Executive Order 12866. EPA submitted this final rule to OMB. OMB 
determined that this rule is acceptable and did not recommend any 
changes.
    In response to commenters' issues discussed above, EPA is 
rescinding the proposed definitions of ``major'' and ``non-major repair 
of low-pressure chillers,'' while revising the definition of ``major 
maintenance, service, or repair'' based on the comments received in 
response to the NPRM. Major maintenance, service, or repair means any 
maintenance, service, or repair that involves the removal of any or all 
of the following appliance components: compressor, condenser, 
evaporator, or auxiliary heat exchange coil or any maintenance, 
service; or repair that involves uncovering an opening of more than 
four (4) square inches of ``flow area'' for more than 15 minutes. Non-
major maintenance, service, or repair is considered, but not defined at 
Sec.  82.152, as any such action that does not fall within the 
definition of major maintenance, service, or repair.

H. Definition of Small Appliances

    As discussed in the NPRM, EPA proposed a definition for small 
appliances prior to the May 14, 1993, rulemaking that included air-
conditioning or refrigeration equipment containing less than one pound 
of refrigerant charge during normal operation. EPA received a number of 
comments on that proposal stating that the definition was too 
restrictive. In response, in the May 14, 1993, rule EPA expanded the 
definition to a more extensive list of products that were fully 
manufactured, charged, and hermetically sealed in a factory with five 
pounds or less of refrigerant. After the promulgation of the final 
rule, EPA received requests that the Agency expand the definition of 
small appliance to include units that met the criteria for small 
appliance but were not specifically listed in the definition. In 
response to these requests, EPA proposed in the NPRM to add appliances 
such as refrigerators and freezers that are built for medical or 
industrial research, as well as those used for commercial purposes, and 
are hermetically sealed at the factory and contain less than five (5) 
pounds of charge, to the definition of small appliance. In addition, 
EPA proposed to make the revised list of small appliances illustrative 
rather than restrictive in order to include in the definition 
appliances that meet the criteria but are not specifically listed.
    EPA received comments that the proposed definition of ``small 
appliance'' would make the evacuation requirements more restrictive for 
some medical small appliances that consist of cascade refrigeration 
systems utilizing very high-pressure refrigerants. The commenters 
believed that the more stringent requirements would lead to increased 
operational costs.

[[Page 43803]]

    EPA did not propose to change the evacuation requirements for small 
appliances. As proposed, EPA is amending the definition of ``small 
appliance'' at Sec.  82.152, but this change merely clarifies that the 
list of small appliances used in the definition is illustrative rather 
than restrictive. Furthermore, the evacuation requirements for small 
appliances as established at Sec.  82.156(a)(4) have not changed. EPA 
requires persons opening small appliances for maintenance, service, or 
repair to: (1) Recover 80% of the refrigerant in the small appliance 
when using recycling and recovery equipment manufactured before 
November 15, 1993; or (2) recover 90% of the refrigerant in the 
appliance when the compressor in the appliance is operating, or 80% of 
the refrigerant in the appliance when the compressor in the appliance 
is not operating, when using recycling or recovery equipment 
manufactured on or after November 15, 1993; or (3) evacuate the small 
appliance to four inches of mercury vacuum.
    As an additional point of clarification, appliances that use any 
class I or class II refrigerant and meet the definition of ``small 
appliance'' must follow the evacuation requirements described above. 
For example, if an appliance meets the definition of small appliance 
and uses a refrigerant typically associated with a very high-pressure 
appliance, such as R-13, the technician opening that small appliance 
would have to adhere to the evacuation requirements for small 
appliances established at Sec.  82.156(a)(4) not the evacuation 
requirements established for very high-pressure appliances (i.e., 0'' 
Hg vacuum).
    One commenter requested that the Agency further expand the proposed 
definition of small appliances and include a list of all known 
appliances that meet the current definition. This commenter believes 
that the inclusion of a list of these items will remove any confusion 
regarding which appliances meet the definition but are not included in 
the proposed revised definition.
    EPA believes that an illustrative list provides the most inclusive 
option for the definition of small appliances and that a restrictive 
list may further omit several appliances that meet both the spirit and 
the criteria of the definition. EPA does not want to make the 
definition excessively long or overly difficult to read. Therefore, EPA 
has decided not to include an exhaustive list of appliances that meet 
the definition for small appliances.
    Additionally, the commenter stated that a list of appliances would 
enable technician certification programs, employers, technicians, sales 
and service companies and other business owners to better determine the 
type of technician certification that is necessary to properly service 
these appliances. Other commenters also expressed concern that the 
proposed definition of small appliance may require technicians to 
obtain both Type I and Type II certification in order to maintain small 
appliances.
    EPA has not changed the technician certification requirements for 
persons servicing, maintaining, or repairing small appliances. Under 
Sec.  82.161(a)(1), technicians who maintain, service, or repair 
``small appliances'' as defined in Sec.  82.152 must have a Type I 
certification. Technicians do not need Type II certification in order 
to maintain, service, or repair small appliances. In fact, Sec.  
82.161(a)(2) specifically states that Type II certification is not 
required to service, maintain, or repair small appliances.
    One commenter noted an irregularity in Sec.  82.161. The Agency is 
making an editorial correction to Sec.  82.161(a)(2) so that it will 
refer to Sec.  82.152 rather than Sec.  82.152(x). Section 82.152 is 
the Definitions section and does not contain paragraphs designated by 
letters.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether this proposed 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 result in a rule that may: 
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, 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.
    EPA submitted this final rule to OMB. OMB determined that this rule 
is acceptable and did not recommend any changes.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule were submitted 
for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information 
Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 
1626.07, and OMB Control number: 2060-0256) and a copy may be obtained 
from Sandy Farmer by mail at OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., SW.; Washington, DC 
20460; by email at [email protected]; or by calling (202) 260-2740. 
A copy may also be downloaded off the Internet at www.epa.gov/icr.
    OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained 
in this rule under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0256.
    EPA is concerned with the maintenance of records for approved 
certifying programs for technicians that no longer administer the 
section 608 technician certification test. These programs administer 
and grade tests, maintain records, issue certification credentials, and 
submit reports to EPA twice a year. EPA expects that programs 
withdrawing will increase over time and there is a concern that if a 
technician's certification credentials are lost and the program no 
longer exists, it may not be possible to receive duplicate credentials.
    This rule is an amendment to the recycling standards under section 
608 of the Clean Air Act. It amends the recordkeeping provisions by 
requiring programs that no longer offer section 608 technician 
certification programs to notify the agency. EPA does not expect cost 
associated with the withdrawal procedures to be a significant burden, 
since programs were previously required to maintain records for a 
minimum of three years, especially since this provision will only 
involve a notification of withdrawal and transfer of these records. 
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by 
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide 
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed 
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and

[[Page 43804]]

disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. EPA does not expect 
this rule to be a burden on time or financial resources.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also 
determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of assessing 
the impact of today's rule on small entities, small entities are 
defined as: (1) A small business that has fewer than 500 employees for 
most manufacturing and mining industries or 100 employees for all 
wholesale trade industries; assets of less than $5 million for most 
retail and service industries, $27.5 million for most general and heavy 
construction industries, $11.5 million for all special trade 
contractors, or $0.75 million for most agricultural industries; (2) a 
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, 
town, school district or special district with a population of less 
than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant 
in its field.
    This rule affects those entities that recover, recycle, reclaim, 
and sell CFC and HCFC refrigerants. This rule also affects entities 
that maintain, service, repair, or dispose of appliances containing CFC 
or HCFC refrigerants. Entities affected by this action are 
refrigeration and air-conditioning contractors, refrigerated transport 
service dealers, scrap metal recyclers, and automobile dismantlers and 
recyclers. Additional entities affected include EPA-authorized Section 
608 Technician Certification Programs and equipment testing 
organizations, refrigerant wholesalers and purchasers, refrigerant 
reclaimers, and other establishments that maintain, service, repair, or 
dispose of appliances containing ozone-depleting refrigerants.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, EPA certifies that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
EPA has determined that today's rulemaking could potentially affect 
approximately 71,150 small entities. These small entities may 
experience compliance costs ranging from 0.001 percent to 0.13 percent 
based on their estimated annual sales and revenues.
    EPA performed a detailed screening analysis in 1992 of the impact 
of the section 608 refrigerant recycling regulations on small entities. 
The methodology of this analysis is discussed at length in the May 14, 
1993, regulation (58 FR 28710), and its associated Information 
Collection Request (ICR) No. 1626.07/OMB No. 2060-0256.
    In support of today's rule, EPA has prepared a Small Business 
Screening Analysis. This analysis assesses the economic impacts on 
small entities that are anticipated to result from this amendment to 
the section 608 refrigerant regulations. The screening analysis is not 
meant to estimate the total burden for compliance with the section 608 
refrigerant regulations, but rather any additional burden that might 
result from today's action amending the section 608 regulations. The 
table below summarizes the number of small entities potentially 
affected by today's rule, according to North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) code, and shows the estimated economic 
impact due to the rule on an average firm within each NAICS code.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Estimated
                                                                                  average annual
                                                                                     sales and
                                                                     Number of       revenues         Average
     NAICS sector         Industry description       Number of      potentially      (based on       economic
                                                  small entities  affected small   average value      impact
                                                                     entities      of shipments      (percent)
                                                                                   per affected
                                                                                  small entitiy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
81131................  Commercial Industrial....          16,890          16,890        $681,264            0.10
811412...............  Appliance Repair and                5,075           5,075         488,399            0.13
                        Maintenance.
42193................  Recyclable Material                 2,338             503       4,149,229            0.02
                        Wholesalers (Metal scrap
                        and waste).
541380...............  Environmental Test                     NA            <100              NA              NA
                        Laboratories/Services.
443111...............  Household Appliance                10,484           8,842         713,426            0.09
                        Stores.
23511................  Plumbing, Heating, Air             84,876          24,767       1,041,843            0.06
                        Conditioning Contractors.
42111................  Automobile and Other                  737             362     109,314,837           0.001
                        Motor Vehicle
                        Wholesalers.
42114................  Motor Vehicle Suppliers             2,393           2,148         763,965            0.09
                        and New Parts
                        Wholesalers.
44131................  Automotive Parts and               14,320          12,560         896,028            0.07
                        Accessories Stores.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table illustrates that while there is additional impact on the 
regulated community, there is no significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. EPA has estimated the number of 
small entities according to their NAICS, and projected the number of 
those entities that might be affected by today's action. The additional 
burden of today's action was then estimated for an average firm within 
each industrial sector, from which the economic impact to the average 
firm in the given sector could be determined as a ratio of the 
additional burden and the estimated average annual sales and revenues.
    Although this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has attempted to 
reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. This rule grants 
greater flexibility to small businesses working with refrigerants. For 
instance, this rule permits persons servicing small appliances and 
owners of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment to transfer 
refrigerant on a wider basis than previously allowed. Today's final 
rule allows the transfer of refrigerant to different equipment as long 
as the equipment is owned by the same parent company. Prior to today's 
action, such refrigerant transfer was limited to equipment owned by one 
entity unless the refrigerant was first

[[Page 43805]]

reclaimed by an EPA-certified reclaimer. In essence today's final rule 
allows transfer of used refrigerant anywhere in the country, where the 
two pieces of equipment, have the same parent company (i.e., they are 
subsidiaries of the parent company) without the additional cost of 
refrigerant reclamation.
    This rule also eases the economic impact on refrigerant recovery 
equipment manufacturers by reducing the number of performance standards 
from two to one. Prior to this rulemaking refrigerant recovery/
recycling equipment manufacturers were mandated to certify their 
equipment to the 1993 version of the ARI Standard 740, but many also 
certified to the 1995 version of the standard to maintain the 
marketability of their products. This rulemaking will reduce the extra 
burden on this segment of the regulated community by eliminating the 
requirement to comply with the outmoded 1993 ARI Standard 740, and 
mandating the use of the 1995 version of the standard for newly 
manufactured refrigerant recovery/recycling equipment.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government Agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. This rule amends the section 608 refrigerant 
recycling standards to ensure that certain service practices are 
conducted, that reduce emissions, establish equipment and reclamation 
certification requirements. These standards are amendments to the 
recycling standards under section 608 of the Clean Air Act. Many of 
these standards involve reporting requirements and are not expected to 
be a high cost issue. In some situations, this rule provides greater 
flexibility and cost savings, such as the transfer of refrigerants 
between a parent company and its subsidiaries, the new definition of 
small appliances, and the establishment of a non-major maintenance, 
service, or repair of appliances. Thus, today's rule is not subject to 
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    For the reasons outlined above, EPA has also determined that this 
rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. Thus, today's rule is not subject to 
the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255; August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The regulations promulgated 
under today's action are done so under title VI of the Act which does 
not grant delegation rights to the States. Thus, Executive Order 13132 
does not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.''
    This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this rule.
    The requirements in this final rule are directed to economic 
entities that either recover, recycle, reclaim, sell, or distribute in 
interstate commerce refrigerants that contain CFCs and/or HCFCs, and 
those that service, maintain, repair, or dispose of appliances 
containing CFC or HCFC-refrigerants.

G. Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks''

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under EO 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the 
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the 
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
``economically significant'' regulatory actions that are based on 
health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under Section 
5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it is not 
based on health or safety risks. The purpose of this rule is to protect 
human health and the environment from increased amounts of UV radiation 
by amending the recycling standards for CFC and HCFC

[[Page 43806]]

refrigerants. While the proposed version of today's rule was not 
determined to be ``economically significant,'' EPA has submitted 
today's final rule to OMB for review. OMB classified this final rule as 
``consistent without change.''

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have 
concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy 
effects, since it addresses the means by which CFC and HCFC 
refrigerants are recovered, recycled, reclaimed, sold, or distributed 
in interstate commerce.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA), section 12(d), Public Law 104-113, requires Federal agencies 
and departments to use technical standards that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical 
standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities 
determined by the agencies and departments. If use of such technical 
standards is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical, 
a Federal agency or department may elect to use technical standards 
that are not developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards 
bodies if the head of the Agency or department transmits to the Office 
of Management and Budget an explanation of the reasons for using such 
standards.
    This rule is rule is an amendment to the recycling standards under 
section 608 of the Clean Air Act. This rule adopts an updated version 
of the industry standard for refrigerant recovery/recycling equipment 
(i.e., ARI Standard 740-1995) into regulation as appendix B2 of 40 CFR 
part 82, subpart F. This standard, as well as the 1993 version of the 
standard that was adopted into regulation, was developed by the Air 
Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI). ARI is the national 
trade association representing manufacturers of more than 90 percent of 
U.S. produced central air-conditioning and commercial refrigeration 
equipment.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
    A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published 
in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined 
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective September 22, 2003.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Chlorofluorocarbons, Exports, 
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons, Imports, Interstate commerce, Nonessential 
products.

    Dated: June 20, 2003.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

0
Part 82, chapter I, title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations, is 
amended as follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

0
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Section 82.152 is amended by revising the definition for ``Certified 
refrigerant recovery or recycling equipment,'' ``Major maintenance, 
service or repair,'' ``MVAC-like appliance,'' ``Reclaim,'' and ``Small 
appliance,'' and by adding a new definition for ``Parent company'' in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  82.152  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Certified refrigerant recovery or recycling equipment means 
equipment manufactured before November 15, 1993, that meets the 
standards in Sec.  82.158(c), (e), or (g); equipment certified by an 
approved equipment testing organization to meet the standards in Sec.  
82.158(b), (d), or (f); or equipment certified pursuant to Sec.  
82.36(a).
* * * * *
    Major maintenance, service, or repair means any maintenance, 
service, or repair that involves the removal of any or all of the 
following appliance components: compressor, condenser, evaporator, or 
auxiliary heat exchange coil; or any maintenance, service, or repair 
that involves uncovering an opening of more than four (4) square inches 
of ``flow area'' for more than 15 minutes.
* * * * *
    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 an 
off-road motor vehicle. This includes the air-conditioning equipment 
found on agricultural or construction vehicles. This definition is not 
intended to cover appliances using R-22 refrigerant.
* * * * *
    Parent company means an individual, corporation, partnership, 
association, joint-stock company, or an unincorporated organization 
that can direct or cause the direction of management and policies of 
another entity, through the ownership of shares or otherwise.
* * * * *
    Reclaim refrigerant means to reprocess refrigerant to all of the 
specifications in appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart F (based on ARI 
Standard 700-1995, Specification for Fluorocarbons and Other 
Refrigerants) that are applicable to that refrigerant and to verify 
that the refrigerant meets these specifications using the analytical 
methodology prescribed in section 5 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 82, 
subpart F.
* * * * *
    Small appliance means any appliance that is fully manufactured, 
charged, and hermetically sealed in a factory with five (5) pounds or 
less of a class I or class II substance used as a refrigerant, 
including, but not limited to, refrigerators and freezers (designed for 
home, commercial, or consumer use), medical or industrial research 
refrigeration equipment, 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.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 82.154 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (g);

[[Page 43807]]

0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (h);
0
c. Revising introductory text of paragraph (m);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (m)(2) through (m)(8); and
0
e. Designating paragraph (m)(9) as new paragraph
    (o) To read as follows:


Sec.  82.154  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (g) No person may sell, distribute, or offer for sale or 
distribution 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 by a person who has been certified as a reclaimer 
pursuant to Sec.  82.164;
    (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 Sec.  82.34(d);
    (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;
    (4) The class I or class II substance is being transferred between 
or among a parent company and one or more of its subsidiaries, or 
between or among subsidiaries having the same parent company; or
    (5) The class I or class II substance is being transferred between 
or among a Federal agency or department and a facility or facilities 
owned by the same Federal agency or department.
    (h) [reserved]
* * * * *
    (m) No person may sell or distribute, or offer for sale or 
distribution, any substance that consists in whole or in part of a 
class I or class II substance for use as a refrigerant to any person 
unless:
* * * * *
    (2) The buyer complies with Sec.  82.166(b) and employs at least 
one technician who is certified as a Type I, Type II, Type III, or 
Universal technician in accordance with Sec.  82.161;
    (3) The buyer has been certified in accordance with 40 CFR part 82, 
subpart B and the refrigerant is either R-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 in accordance with 40 CFR part 82, 
subpart G;
    (4) The buyer complies with Sec.  82.166 (b) and employs at least 
one technician who is certified in accordance with 40 CFR part 82, 
subpart B, and the refrigerant is either R-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. Nothing in this provision shall be construed to relieve persons of 
the requirements of Sec.  82.34(b) or Sec.  82.42 (b);
    (5) 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);
    (6) The refrigerant is sold to an appliance manufacturer;
    (7) The refrigerant is contained in an appliance with a fully 
assembled refrigerant circuit; or
    (8) The refrigerant is charged into an appliance by a certified 
technician or an apprentice during maintenance, service, or repair of 
the appliance.
* * * * *
    (o) Rules stayed for consideration. Not withstanding 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.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 82.156 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), 
introductory text of (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(i)(B) to read as follows:


Sec.  82.156  Required practices.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Evacuation of the appliance to the atmosphere is not to be 
performed after completion of the maintenance, service, or repair, and 
the maintenance, service, or repair is not major as defined at Sec.  
82.152; or
* * * * *
    (2)(i) If evacuation of the appliance to the atmosphere is not to 
be performed after completion of the maintenance, service, or repair, 
and if the maintenance, service, or repair is not major as defined at 
Sec.  82.152, the appliance must:
* * * * *
    (B) Be pressurized to a pressure no higher than 0 psig before it is 
opened if it is a low-pressure appliance. Persons must cover openings 
when isolation is not possible. 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. R-11 and R-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., R-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
* * * * *

0
5. Section 82.158 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising introductory text of paragraphs (b) and (b)(1) introductory 
text;
0
c. Designating paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(6) as (b)(3) through 
(b)(7);
0
d. Revising the introductory text of newly designated paragraph (b)(3);
0
e. Revising newly designated paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5), and (b)(7);
0
f. Adding new paragraph (b)(2);
0
g. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (d);
0
h. Revising paragraph (d)(2);
0
i. Adding paragraph (d)(3); and
0
j. Revising paragraph (j)(1); and
0
k. Adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:


Sec.  82.158  Standards for recycling and recovery equipment.

    (a) Effective September 22, 2003, all manufacturers and importers 
of recycling and recovery equipment intended for use during the 
maintenance, service, or repair of appliances except MVACs and MVAC-
like appliances or during the disposal of appliances except small 
appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances, shall have had such 
equipment certified by an approved equipment testing organization to 
meet the applicable requirements in paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or (d) of 
this section. All manufacturers and importers of recycling and recovery 
equipment intended for use during the maintenance, service, or repair 
of MVAC-like appliances shall have had such equipment certified 
pursuant to Sec.  82.36(a).
* * * * *
    (b) Equipment manufactured or imported on or after November 15, 
1993 and before September 22, 2003, for use during the maintenance, 
service, or repair of appliances except small appliances, MVACs, and 
MVAC-like appliances or during the disposal of appliances except small 
appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances must be certified by an 
approved equipment testing organization to meet the requirements of 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section and the following requirements below. 
Equipment

[[Page 43808]]

manufactured or imported on or after September 22, 2003, for use during 
the maintenance, service, or repair of appliances except small 
appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances or during the disposal of 
appliances except small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances 
must be certified by an approved equipment testing organization to meet 
the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section and the following 
requirements.
    (1) In order to be certified, the equipment must be capable of 
achieving the level of evacuation specified in Table 2 of this section 
under the conditions of appendix B1 of this subpart (based upon the ARI 
Standard 740-1993, Performance of Refrigerant Recovery, Recycling and/
or Reclaim Equipment ):
* * * * *
    (2) In order to be certified, the equipment must be capable of 
achieving the level of evacuation specified in Table 2 of paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section under the conditions of appendix B2 of this 
subpart (based upon the ARI Standard 740-1995, Performance of 
Refrigerant Recovery, Recycling and/or Reclaim Equipment).
    (3) Recovery or recycling equipment whose recovery efficiency 
cannot be tested according to the procedures in appendix B1 or B2 of 
this subpart as applicable may be certified if an approved third-party 
testing organization adopts and performs a test that demonstrates, to 
the satisfaction of the Administrator, that the recovery efficiency of 
that equipment is equal to or better than that of equipment that:
* * * * *
    (4) The equipment must meet the minimum requirements for 
certification under appendix B1 or B2 of this subpart as applicable.
    (5) If the equipment is equipped with a noncondensables purge 
device, the equipment must not release more than three (3) percent of 
the quantity of refrigerant being recycled through noncondensables 
purging under the conditions of appendix B1 and B2 of this subpart as 
applicable.
* * * * *
    (7) The equipment must have its liquid recovery rate and its vapor 
recovery rate measured under the conditions of appendix B1 or B2 as 
applicable, unless the equipment has no inherent liquid or vapor 
recovery rate.
* * * * *
    (d) Equipment manufactured or imported on or after November 15, 
1993 and before September 22, 2003, for use during the maintenance, 
service, or repair of small appliances must be certified by an approved 
equipment testing organization to be capable of achieving the 
requirements described in either paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this 
section. Equipment manufactured or imported on or after September 22, 
2003, for use during the maintenance, service, or repair of small 
appliances must be certified by an approved equipment testing 
organization to be capable of either paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(3) of this 
section:
* * * * *
    (2) Achieving a four-inch vacuum under the conditions of appendix 
B1 of this subpart, based upon ARI Standard 740-1993; or
    (3) Achieving a four-inch vacuum under the conditions of appendix 
B2 of this subpart, based upon ARI Standard 740-1995.
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (1) Retests of certified recycling or recovery equipment in 
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section or
* * * * *
    (n) Effective October 22, 2003, equipment that is advertised or 
marketed as ``recycling equipment'' must be capable of recycling the 
standard contaminated refrigerant sample of appendix B2 of this subpart 
(based upon ARI Standard 740-1995), section 5, to the levels in the 
following table when tested under the conditions of appendix B2 of this 
subpart:

       Maximum Levels of Contaminants Permissible in Refrigerant Processed Through Equipment Advertised as
                                             ``Recycling'' Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Low-pressure (R-11, R-
            Contaminants               123, R-113) systems        R-12 systems            All other systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acid Content (by wt.)..............  1.0 PPM...............  1.0 PPM...............  1.0 PPM.
Moisture (by wt.)..................  20 PPM................  10 PPM................  20 PPM.
Noncondensable 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
6. Section Sec.  82.160 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and 
(b)(3), revising paragraph (d), and removing paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  82.160  Approved equipment testing organizations.

    (a) Any equipment testing organization may apply for approval by 
the Administrator to certify equipment pursuant to the standards in 
Sec.  82.158 and appendices B2 or C of this subpart. The application 
shall be mailed to: Section 608 Recycling Program Manager; Global 
Programs Division; Mail Code: 6205J; U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.; Washington, DC 20460.
    (b) * * *
    (3) Thorough knowledge of the standards and recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements as they appear in Sec. Sec.  82.158 and 82.166 
and Appendices B2 and/or C (as applicable) of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (d) If at any time an approved testing organization is found to be 
conducting certification tests for the purposes of this subpart in a 
manner not consistent with the representations made in its application 
for approval under this section, the Administrator reserves the right 
to revoke approval in accordance with Sec.  82.169. 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.

0
7. Section 82.161 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (e) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  82.161  Technician certification.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Technicians, as defined in Sec.  82.152, who maintain, service, 
or repair small appliances must be properly certified as Type I 
technicians.
* * * * *
    (e) If at any time an approved program violates any of the above 
requirements, the Administrator reserves the right to revoke approval 
in accordance with Sec.  82.169. In such cases, the

[[Page 43809]]

Administrator or her or his designated representative shall give notice 
to the organization setting forth the basis for her or his 
determination.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 82.164 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  82.164  Reclaimer certification.

* * * * *
    (g) Failure to abide by any of the provisions of this subpart may 
result in revocation or suspension of the certification of the 
reclaimer in accordance with Sec.  82.169. 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.

0
9. 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 (under Sec.  82.161), approval to act as a recovery/
recycling equipment testing organization (under Sec.  82.160), or 
reclaimer certification (under Sec.  82.164), hereafter referred to as 
the ``organization.'' In such cases, the Administrator or her or his 
designated representative shall give notice of an impending suspension 
to the person or organization setting forth the facts or conduct that 
provide the basis for the revocation or suspension.
    (b) Any organization that has received notice of an impending 
suspension or revocation may choose to request a hearing and must file 
that request in writing within 30 days of the date of the Agency's 
notice at the address listed in Sec.  82.160 and shall set forth their 
objections to the revocation or suspension and data to support the 
objections.
    (c) If the Agency does not receive a written request for a hearing 
within 30 days of the date of the Agency's notice, the revocation will 
become effective upon the date specified in the notice of an impending 
suspension.
    (d) If after review of the request and supporting data, the 
Administrator or her or his designated representative finds that the 
request raises a substantial factual issue, she or he shall provide the 
organization with a hearing.
    (e) After granting a request for a hearing the Administrator or her 
or his designated representative shall designate a Presiding Officer 
for the hearing.
    (f) The hearing shall be held as soon as practicable at a time and 
place determined by the Administrator, the designated representative, 
or the Presiding Officer.
    (g) 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 applicant. To expedite proceedings, the 
Administrator or her or his designated representative may direct that 
the decision of the Presiding Officer (who need not be the 
Administrator) shall be the final EPA decision.
    (h) Upon appointment pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, the 
Presiding Officer will establish a hearing file. The file shall consist 
of the following:
    (1) The notice issued by the Administrator under Sec.  82.169(a);
    (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.
    (i) The hearing file will be available for inspection by the 
petitioner at the office of the Presiding Officer.
    (j) An applicant may appear in person or may be represented by 
counsel or by any other duly authorized representative.
    (k) 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 or she specifies. Such pre-hearing conferences 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.
    (l) The results of the conference shall be reduced to writing by 
the Presiding Officer and made part of the record.
    (m) 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.
    (n) 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 department or agency of the United States.
    (o) Any witness may be examined or cross-examined by the Presiding 
Officer, the parties, or their representatives.
    (p) Hearings shall be reported verbatim. Copies of transcripts of 
proceedings may be purchased by the petitioner from the reporter.
    (q) 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.
    (r) 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.
    (s) The Presiding Officer shall make an initial decision that 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.
    (t) 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 a remand to the Presiding Officer for 
additional proceedings. The decision by the Administrator or her or his 
designated representative 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.

0
10. Appendix A to subpart F is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 43810]]

Appendix A to Subpart F of Part 82--Specifications for Fluorocarbon 
Refrigerants

    This appendix is based on Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration 
Institute Standard 700-1995:

Section 1. Purpose

    1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to evaluate and 
accept/reject refrigerants regardless of source (i.e., new, 
reclaimed and/or repackaged) for use in new and existing 
refrigeration and air-conditioning products as required under 40 CFR 
part 82, subpart F.
    1.1.1 Intent. This standard is intended for the guidance of the 
industry including manufacturers, refrigerant reclaimers, 
repackagers, distributors, installers, servicemen, contractors and 
for consumers.
    1.1.2 Review and Amendment. This standard is subject to review 
and amendment as the technology advances.

Section 2. Scope

    2.1 Scope. This standard specifies acceptable levels of 
contaminants (purity requirements) for various fluorocarbon and 
other refrigerants regardless of source and lists acceptable test 
methods. These refrigerants are R-11; R-12; R-13; R-22; R-113; R-
114; R-123; R-124; R-500; R-502; and R-503; as referenced in the 
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-1992. (American Society of Heating, 
Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers, Inc., Standard 34-
1992). Copies may be obtained from ASHRAE Publications Sales, 1791 
Tullie Circle, NE, Atlanta, GA 30329. Copies may also be inspected 
at Public Docket No. A-92-01, Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC in room B-108.

Section 3. Definitions

    3.1 Shall, Should, Recommended, or It Is Recommended. ``Shall,'' 
``should,'' ``recommended,'' or ``it is recommended'' shall be 
interpreted as follows:
    3.1.1 Shall. Where ``shall'' or ``shall not'' is used for a 
provision specified, that provision is mandatory if compliance with 
the standard is claimed.
    3.1.2 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.

Section 4. Characterization of Refrigerants and Contaminants

    4.1 Characterization. Characterization of refrigerants and 
contaminants addressed are listed in the following general 
classifications:

4.1.1 Characterization
    a. Gas Chromatography
    b. Boiling point and boiling point range
4.1.2 Contaminants
    a. Water
    b. Chloride
    c. Acidity
    d. High boiling residue
    e. Particulates/solids
    f. Non-condensables
    g. Impurities including other refrigerants

Section 5. Sampling, Summary of Test Methods and Maximum Permissible 
Contaminant Levels

    5.1 Referee Test. The referee test methods for the various 
contaminants are summarized in the following paragraphs. Detailed 
test procedures are included in Appendix--C to ARI Standard 700-
1995: Analytical Procedures for ARI Standard 700-1995, 1995, Air-
Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute. Appendix C to ARI Standard 
700-1995 is incorporated by reference. [This incorporation by 
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. Copies may be 
obtained from the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, 4301 
North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Copies may also be 
inspected at Public Docket No. A-92-01, Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, in room B-108 
or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, 
NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC]. If alternative test methods are 
employed, the user must be able to demonstrate that they produce 
results equivalent to the specified referee method.
    5.2 Refrigerant Sampling.
    5.2.1 Sampling Precautions. Special precautions should be taken 
to assure that representative samples are obtained for analysis. 
Sampling shall be done by trained laboratory personnel following 
accepted sampling and safety procedures.
    5.2.2 Gas Phase Sample. A gas phase sample shall be obtained for 
determining the non-condensables. Since non-condensable gases, if 
present, will concentrate in the vapor phase of the refrigerant, 
care must be exercised to eliminate introduction of air during the 
sample transfer. Purging is not an acceptable procedure for a gas 
phase sample since it may introduce a foreign product. Since R-11, 
R-113, and R-123 have normal boiling points at or above room 
temperature, non-condensable determination is not required for these 
refrigerants.
    5.2.2.1 Connection. The sample cylinder shall be connected to an 
evacuated gas sampling bulb by means of a manifold. The manifold 
should have a valve arrangement that facilitates evacuation of all 
connecting tubing leading to the sampling bulb.
    5.2.2.2 Equalizing Pressures. After the manifold has been 
evacuated, close the valve to the pump and open the valve on the 
system. Allow the pressure to equilibrate and close valves.
    5.2.3 Liquid Phase Sample. A liquid phase sample is required for 
all tests listed in this standard except the test for non-
condensables.
    5.2.3.1 Preparation. Place a clean, empty sample cylinder with 
the valve open in an oven at 110[deg]C (230[deg]F) for one hour. 
Remove it from the oven while hot, immediately connect to an 
evacuation system and evacuate to less than 1 mm mercury (1000 
microns). Close the valve and allow it to cool. Weigh the empty 
cylinder.
    5.2.3.2 Manifolding. The valve and lines from the unit to be 
sampled shall be clean and dry. The cylinder shall be connected to 
an evacuated gas sampling cylinder by means of a manifold. The 
manifold should have a valve arrangement that facilitates evacuation 
of all connecting tubing leading to the sampling cylinder.
    5.2.3.3 Liquid Sampling. After the manifold has been evacuated, 
close the valve to the pump and open the valve on the system. Take 
the sample as a liquid by chilling the sample cylinder slightly. 
Accurate analysis requires that the sample container be filled to at 
least 60% by volume, however under no circumstances should the 
cylinder be filled to more than 80% by volume. This can be 
accomplished by weighing the empty cylinder and then the cylinder 
with refrigerant. When the desired amount of refrigerant has been 
collected, close the valve(s) and disconnect the sample cylinder 
immediately.
    5.2.3.4 Record Weight. Check the sample cylinder for leaks and 
record the gross weight.
    5.3 Refrigerant Characterization.
    5.3.1 Primary Method. The primary method shall be gas 
chromatography (GC) as described in Appendix-C to ARI Standard 700-
1995. The chromatogram of the sample shall be compared to known 
standards.
    5.3.2 Alternative Method. Determination of the boiling point and 
boiling point range is an acceptable alternative test method which 
can be used to characterize refrigerants. The test method shall be 
that described in the Federal Specification for ``Fluorocarbon 
Refrigerants,'' BB-F-1421 B, dated March 5, 1982, section 4.4.3.
    5.3.3 Required Values. The required values for boiling point and 
boiling point range are given in Table 1A, Physical Properties of 
Single Component Refrigerants; Table 1B, Physical Properties of 
Zeotropic Blends (400 Series Refrigerants); and Table 1C, Physical 
Properties of Azeotropic Blends (500 Series Refrigerants).
    5.4 Water Content.
    5.4.1 Method. The Coulometric Karl Fischer Titration shall be 
the primary test method for determining the water content of 
refrigerants. This method is described in Appendix-C to ARI Standard 
700-1995. This method can be used for refrigerants that are either a 
liquid or a gas at room temperature, including refrigerants 11, 113, 
and 123. For all refrigerants, the sample for water analysis shall 
be taken from the liquid phase of the container to be tested. Proper 
operation of the analytical method requires special equipment and an 
experienced operator. The precision of the results is excellent if 
proper sampling and handling procedures are followed. Refrigerants 
containing a colored dye can be successfully analyzed for water 
using this method.
    5.4.2 Limits. The value for water content shall be expressed as 
parts per million by weight and shall not exceed the maximum 
specified (see Tables 1A, 1B, and 1C).
    5.5 Chloride. The refrigerant shall be tested for chloride as an 
indication of the presence of hydrochloric acid and/or metal 
chlorides. The recommended procedure is intended for use with new or 
reclaimed refrigerants. Significant amounts of oil may interfere 
with the results by indicating a failure in the absence of chloride.
    5.5.1 Method. The test method shall be that described in 
Appendix-C to ARI

[[Page 43811]]

Standard 700-1995. The test will show noticeable turbidity at 
chloride levels of about 3 ppm by weight or higher.
    5.5.2 Turbidity. The results of the test shall not exhibit any 
sign of turbidity. Report the results as ``pass'' or ``fail.''
    5.6 Acidity.
    5.6.1 Method. The acidity test uses the titration principle to 
detect any compound that is highly soluble in water and ionizes as 
an acid. The test method shall be that described in Appendix--C to 
ARI Standard 700-1995. This test may not be suitable for 
determination of high molecular weight organic acids; however, these 
acids will be found in the high boiling residue test outlined in 
5.7. The test requires a 100 to 120 gram sample and has a detection 
limit of 0.1 ppm by weight calculated as HCl.
    5.6.2 Limits. The maximum permissible acidity is 1 ppm by weight 
as HCl.
    5.7 High Boiling Residue.
    5.7.1 Method. High boiling residue shall be determined by 
measuring the residue of a standard volume of refrigerant after 
evaporation. The refrigerant sample shall be evaporated at room 
temperature or at a temperature 45[deg]C (115[deg]F) for all 
refrigerants, except R-113 which shall be evaporated at 60[deg]C 
(140[deg]F), using a Goetz bulb as specified in Appendix--C to ARI 
Standard 700-1995. Oils and/or organic acids will be captured by 
this method.
    5.7.2 Limits. The value for high boiling residue shall be 
expressed as a percentage by volume and shall not exceed the maximum 
percent specified (see Tables 1A, 1B, and 1C). An alternative 
gravimetric method is described in Appendix--C to ARI Standard 700-
1995.
    5.8 Method of Tests for Particulates and Solids.
    5.8.1 Method. A measured amount of sample is evaporated from a 
Goetz bulb under controlled temperature conditions. The 
particulates/solids shall be determined by visual examination of the 
Goetz bulb prior to the evaporation of refrigerant. Presence of 
dirt, rust or other particulate contamination is reported as 
``fail.'' For details of this test method, refer to Part 3 of 
Appendix--C to ARI Standard 700-1995.
    5.9 Non-Condensables.
    5.9.1 Sample. A vapor phase sample shall be used for 
determination of non-condensables. Non-condensable gases consist 
primarily of air accumulated in the vapor phase of refrigerants. The 
solubility of air in the refrigerant's liquid phase is extremely low 
and air is not significant as a liquid phase contaminant. The 
presence of non-condensable gases may reflect poor quality control 
in transferring refrigerants to storage tanks and cylinders.
    5.9.2 Method. The test method shall be gas chromatography with a 
thermal conductivity detector as described in Appendix--C to ARI 
Standard 700-1995.
    5.9.3 Limit. The maximum level of non-condensables in the vapor 
phase of a refrigerant in a container shall not exceed 1.5% by 
volume (see Tables 1A, 1B, and 1C).
    5.10 Impurities, including Other Refrigerants.
    5.10.1 Method. The amount of other impurities including other 
refrigerants in the subject refrigerant shall be determined by gas 
chromatography as described in Appendix--C to ARI Standard 700-1995.
    5.10.2 Limit. The subject refrigerant shall not contain more 
than 0.5% by weight of impurities including other refrigerants (see 
Tables 1A, 1B, and 1C).

Section 6. Reporting Procedure

    6.1 Reporting Procedure. The source (manufacturer, reclaimer or 
repackager) of the packaged refrigerant shall be identified. The 
refrigerant shall be identified by its accepted refrigerant number 
and/or its chemical name. Maximum permissible levels of contaminants 
are shown in Tables 1A, 1B, and 1C. Test results shall be tabulated 
in a like manner.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 43812]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24JY03.004


[[Page 43813]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24JY03.005


[[Page 43814]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24JY03.006

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 43815]]

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.
    ASHRAE Terminology of Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning and 
Refrigeration, American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, 1992, 1791 Tullie Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 
30329-2305; U.S.A.
    ASHRAE Standard 34-1992, Number Designation and Safety 
Classification of Refrigerants, American Society of Heating 
Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 1992, 1791 Tullie 
Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 30329-2305; U.S.A.
    Appendix C to ARI Standard 700-1995: Analytical Procedures to 
ARI Standard 700-1995, Specifications for Fluorocarbon and Other 
Refrigerants, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, 1995, 
4301 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 425, Arlington, VA 22203; U.S.A.
    Federal Specification for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants, BB-F-1421-
B, dated March 5, 1992, Office of the Federal Register, National 
Archives and Records Administration, 1992, 800 North Capitol Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20402; U.S.A.

0
11. Appendix B to subpart F is amended by:
0
a. Designating appendix B as appendix B1;
0
b. Revising the introductory text of appendix B and sections 3.2 
through 3.4;
0
c. Adding paragraph 11.3;
0
d. Removing section 12; and
0
e. Adding appendix B2 to read as follows:

Appendix B1 to Subpart F of Part 82--Performance of Refrigerant 
Recovery, Recycling, and/or Reclaim Equipment

    This appendix is based on the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration 
Institute Standard 740-1993.
* * * * *

Section 3. Definitions

* * * * *
    3.2 Recover. Reference 40 CFR 82.152.
    3.3 Recycle. Reference 40 CFR 82.152.
    3.4 Reclaim. Reference 40 CFR 82.152.
* * * * *
    11.3 The nameplate shall also conform to the labeling 
requirements established for certified recycling and recovery 
equipment established at 40 CFR 82.158(h).
* * * * *

Appendix B2 to Subpart F of Part 82--Performance of Refrigerant 
Recovery, Recycling, and/or Reclaim Equipment

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

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'').

Section 3. Definitions

    3.1 Definitions. All terms in this appendix will follow the 
definitions in Sec.  82.152 unless otherwise defined in this 
appendix.
    3.2 Clearing Refrigerant. Procedures used to remove trapped 
refrigerant from equipment before switching from one refrigerant to 
another.
    3.3 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.
    3.4 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.
    3.5 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.
    3.6 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 solely on the higher of the liquid or vapor recovery 
rate, by which the contaminant levels were measured.
    3.7 Residual Trapped Refrigerant. Refrigerant remaining in 
equipment after clearing.
    3.8 Shall, Should, Recommended or It Is Recommended shall be 
interpreted as follows:
    3.8.1 Shall. Where ``shall'' or ``shall not'' is used for a 
provision specified, that provision is mandatory if compliance with 
this appendix is claimed.
    3.8.2 Should, Recommended or It Is Recommended is used to 
indicate provisions which are not mandatory but which are desirable 
as good practice.
    3.9 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.
    3.10 Trapped Refrigerant. The amount of refrigerant remaining in 
the equipment after the recovery or recovery/recycling operation but 
before clearing.
    3.11 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] nominal and smaller shall not exceed a permeation rate of 3.9 g/
cm\2\/yr (internal surface) at a temperature of 48.8[deg]C. Hose 
assemblies that 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 saturated pressure conditions at 
ambient temperature.

[[Page 43816]]

    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]C +/-2K.
    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.

                                                   Table 1.--Standard Contaminated Refrigerant Samples
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         R11      R12      R13      R22      R113     R114     R123    R134a     R500     R502     R503
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moisture Content: ppm by Weight of Pure refrigerant..      100       80       30      200      100       85      200      200      200      200       30
Particulate Content: ppm by Weight of Pure                  80       80       NA       80       80       80       80       80       80       80       NA
 Refrigerant Characterized by \1\....................
Acid Content: ppm by Weight of Pure Refrigerant--(mg       500      100       NA      500      400      200      500      100      100      100       NA
 KOH per kg Refrigerant) Characterized by \2\........
Mineral Oil Content:
    % by Weight of Pure Refrigerant..................       20        5       NA        5       20       20       20        5        5        5       NA
    Viscosity (SUS)..................................      300      150  .......      300      300      300      300  150 \3\      150      150  .......
Non-Condensable Gases (Air Content): % by Volume.....       NA        3        3        3       NA        3       NA        3        3        3       3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Particulate content shall consist of inert materials and shall comply with particulate requirements in appendix B.
\2\ Acid consists of 60% oleic acid and 40% hydrochloric acid on a total number basis.
\3\ Synthetic ester-based oil.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 43817]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24JY03.007

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
    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

[[Page 43818]]

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 24[deg]C +/-1K except high temperature vapor recovery 
shall be at 40[deg]C +/-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 or specified in the instructions 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 43819]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24JY03.008

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 43820]]

    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 24[deg]C 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 -50[deg]C and +10[deg]C. 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 40[deg]C 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 700-95 and Appendix C 
to ARI Standard 700-95.
    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-condensables and lost 
refrigerant. Weigh the cylinder after the recycling is complete. 
Equivalent means are permissible.

[[Page 43821]]

    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 
+/-0.02 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 +/-1%.
    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. The nameplate shall also conform to the labeling 
requirements established for certified recycling and recovery 
equipment established at 40 CFR 82.158(h).
    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

                                              Table 2.--Performance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        System
                 Parameter/Type of equipment                    Recovery    Recovery/     Recycle     dependent
                                                                             Recycle                  equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid Refrigerant Recovery Rate............................        (\1\)        (\1\)          N/A          N/A
Vapor Refrigerant Recovery Rate.............................        (\1\)        (\1\)          N/A          N/A
High Temp. Vapor Recovery Rate..............................        (\1\)        (\1\)          N/A          N/A
Final Recovery Vacuum.......................................          (X)          (X)          N/A          (X)
Recycle Flow Rate...........................................          N/A          (X)          (X)          N/A
Refrigerant Loss............................................        (\3\)          (X)          (X)        (\3\)
Residual Trapped Refrigerant................................        (\2\)        (\2\)        (\2\)        (\2\)
Quantity Recycled...........................................          N/A          (X)          (X)         N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X Mandatory rating.
\1\ For a recovery or recovery/recycle unit, one must rate either liquid refrigerant recovery rate or vapor
  refrigerant recovery rate or one can rate for both. If rating only the one, the other shall be indicated by N/
  A, ``not applicable.''
\2\ Mandatory rating for equipment tested for multiple refrigerants.
\3\ Mandatory rating if multiple refrigerants, oil separation or non-condensable purge are rated.
 
 Note: For recovery equipment, these parameters are optional. If not rated use N/A, ``not applicable.''


                                             Table 3.--Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       System
               Contaminant/Type of equipment                   Recovery    Recovery/     Recycle      dependent
                                                                            Recycle                   equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moisture Content...........................................          (*)          (X)          (X)          N/A
Chloride Ions..............................................          (*)          (X)          (X)          N/A
Acidity....................................................          (*)          (X)          (X)          N/A
High Boiling Residue.......................................          (*)          (X)          (X)          N/A
Particulates...............................................          (*)          (X)          (X)          N/A
Non-Condensables...........................................          (*)          (X)          (X)          N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For recovery equipment, these parameters are optional. If not rated, use N/A, ``not applicable.''
X Mandatory rating.

[FR Doc. 03-18150 Filed 7-23-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P