Stationary Air Conditioning 

Recent Additions | Contact Us | Print Version Search: 

EPA Home > Ozone Depletion > Rule & Regulations > Stationary AC > Final Rule 

Vol. 58 No. 92 Friday, May 14, 1993 p 28660 (Rule) 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[FRL-4625-3] 

RIN 2060-AC80 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Refrigerant Recycling 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA promulgates regulations under Section 

608 of the Clean Air Act (the Act) that establish a recycling 

program for ozone-depleting refrigerants recovered during the 

servicing and disposal of air-conditioning or refrigeration 

equipment. Together with the prohibition on venting during servicing, 

repair, and disposal of class I and class II substances that 

took effect on July 1, 1992, these regulations should substantially 

reduce emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. The regulations 

require persons servicing air-conditioning and refrigeration 

equipment to observe certain service practices that reduce refrigerant 

emissions and establish equipment and off-site reclaimer certification 

programs, as well as a technician certification program. A sales 

restriction on refrigerant is included, whereby only certified 

technicians will legally be authorized to purchase such refrigerant. 

EPA's regulations also require repair of significant leaks, 

based on annual leak rates of equipment. In addition, these 

regulations require that ozone-depleting compounds contained 

"in bulk" in appliances be removed prior to disposal of the 

appliances, and that all air-conditioning and refrigeration 

equipment, except for small appliances, be provided with a servicing 

aperture that would facilitate recovery of the refrigerant. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 14, 1993. 

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to the rulemaking are contained 

in Air Docket No. A-92-01 at: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. The Public Docket 

is located in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (Ground Floor), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, 

DC. Dockets may be inspected from 8 a.m. until 12 noon, and 

from 1:30 p.m. until 3 p.m., Monday through Friday. A reasonable 

fee may be charged for copying docket materials. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Stratospheric Ozone Information 

Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 can be contacted for further information 

on weekdays from 10 to 4, Eastern Time. Debbie Ottinger, Program 

Implementation Branch, Global Programs Branch, Office 

of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation, can also 

be contacted at Mail Code: 6205-J, 401 M Street SW., Washington, 

DC 20460, (202) 233-9200. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of today's preamble 

are listed in the following outline: 

I. Background 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 1 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 A. Ozone Depletion

 B. Montreal Protocol 

 C. London Amendments to the Protocol

 D. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Recycling 

 E. Excise Tax 

 F. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

 G. Accelerated Phaseout 

 H. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Recycling 

II. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act 

III. This Final Rule

 A. Equipment and Refrigerants Affected

 B. Overview of Requirements 

 C. Factors Considered in the Development of This Rule 

 D. Public Participation

 E. Definitions and Interpretations

 F. Required Practices

 1. Evacuation of Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment 

 a. Evacuation Requirements for Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration 

 Equipment Besides Small Appliances 

 b. Evacuation of Leaky Equipment 

 c. Removal of Entrained Refrigerant From Oil 

 d. Evacuation Requirements for Small Appliances 

 2. Disposition of Recovered Refrigerant 

 3. Leak Repair 

 4. Handling Multiple Refrigerants in Recycling and Recovery 

 Equipment 

 G. Certification of Recycling and Recovery Equipment 

 1. Standards for Recovery and Recycling Machines Intended 

 for Use with Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment 

 Except Small Appliances, MVACs and MVAC-like Appliances 

 a. Recovery Efficiency 

 b. Passive or System-dependent Recovery Equipment 

 c. Refrigerant Recovery Rates 

 d. Low-loss Fittings 

 e. Purge Loss 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 2 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 f. Volume-sensitive Shutoff 

 2. Standards for Recovery Machines Intended for Use with Small 

 Appliances 

 3. Standards for Recycling and Recovery Machines Used with 

 Equipment Identical to MVACs 

 4. Testing of Recovery and Recycling Equipment Intended for 

 Use with Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment Except 

 Small Appliances 

 5. Testing of Recovery Machines Intended for Use with Small 

 Appliances 

 6. Effective Dates and Grandfathering Provisions 

 H. Certification of Technicians 

 1. Description of Proposed Voluntary Technician Training and 

 Certification 

 2. Decision to Establish a Mandatory Program 

 a. Overwhelming Technician Response 

 b. Lessened Burden to EPA and Technicians 

 c. Better Environmental Protection 

 d. Improved Productivity 

 3. Program Elements 

 a. A Mandatory Program 

 b. A National Program 

 c. Personnel to be Certified 

 d. Types of Certification 

 e. Test Content 

 f. Test Bank 

 g. Test Conditions 

 h. Proof of Certification 

 i. Additional Requirements 

 j. Approval Process 

 k. Grandfathering 

 I. Restriction on Sales of Refrigerants to Certified Technicians 

 1. Description of Proposal And Final Requirement 

 2. Response to Major Comments 

 J. Certification by Owners of Recycling or Recovery Equipment 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 3 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 1. Description of Proposal and Final Rule 

 2. Response to Major Comments 

 K. Certification of Reclaimers 

 1. Description of Proposed and Final Requirement 

 2. Response to Major Commenters 

 L. Recordkeeping Requirements 

 M. The Safe Disposal Program 

 N. Servicing Apertures 

 O. Exemption from Regulatory Requirements for Refrigerant 

 Uses for Which No High-Efficiency Recovery Technology Exists 

IV. Summary of Changes to Proposed Rule 

V. Summary of Supporting Analyses 

 A. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

 B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

 C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

I. Background 

A. Ozone Depletion 

 The stratospheric ozone layer protects the Earth from the 

penetration of harmful ultraviolet (UV-B) radiation. On the 

basis of substantial scientific evidence, a national and international 

consensus exists that certain man-made halocarbons, including 

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, and 

methyl chloroform, must be restricted because of the risk of 

depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer through the release 

of chlorine and bromine (WMO/UNEP Science Assessment). To the 

extent depletion occurs, penetration of UV-B radiation increases, 

resulting in potential health and environmental harm including 

increased incidence of certain skin cancers and cataracts, suppression 

of the immune system, damage to plants including crops and aquatic 

organisms, increased formation of ground-level ozone and increased 

weathering of outdoor plastics. (See 53 FR 30566 for more information 

on the effects of ozone depletion.) 

 The original theory linking CFCs to ozone depletion was first 

proposed in 1974. Since then, the scientific community has made 

considerable advances in measuring and understanding the atmospheric 

processes affecting stratospheric ozone science. Repeatedly, 

these scientific advances have indicated that the impact of 

man-made ozone-depleting substances on the stratosphere was 

more severe than previously thought. As discussed below, the 

U.S. and the international community have adopted increasingly 

stringent policies regarding the manufacture and use of ozonedepleting substances in response to this evolving scientific 

understanding. 

B. Montreal Protocol 

 In response to the discovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica 

and to growing evidence that chlorine and bromine could destroy 

stratospheric ozone on a global basis, many members of the international 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 4 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
community came to the conclusion that an international agreement 

to reduce global production of ozone-depleting substances was 

needed. Because releases of CFCs from all areas mix in the atmosphere 

to affect stratospheric ozone globally, efforts to reduce emissions 

from specific products by only a few nations could quickly be 

offset by increases in emissions from other nations, leaving 

the risks to the ozone layer unchanged. EPA evaluated the risks 

of ozone depletion in Assessing the Risks of Trace Gases That 

Can Modify the Stratosphere (1987) and concluded that an international 

approach was necessary to effectively safeguard the ozone layer. 

 In September 1987, the United States and 22 other countries 

signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the 

Ozone Layer (the Protocol). As originally drafted, the Protocol 

called for production and consumption of certain CFCs (CFC-11, 

12, 113, 114, 115) and halons (Halon-1211, -1301 and -2402) 

to be frozen at 1986 levels beginning July 1, 1989, and January 

1, 1992, respectively, and for the CFCs to be reduced to 50 

percent of 1986 levels by 1998. To date, over 90 nations representing 

approximately 95% of the world's production capacity for CFCs 

and halons have signed the Montreal Protocol. EPA promulgated 

regulations implementing the requirements of the 1987 Protocol 

through a system of tradeable allowances. EPA apportioned the 

allowances to producers and importers of ozone-depleting substances 

(controlled substances) based on their 1986 level of production 

and importation. It then reduced the allowances for the controlled 

substances according to the schedule specified in the Protocol. 

(See 56 FR 49548 (September 30, 1991)) for a more detailed discussion 

of the Protocol and EPA's regulations to implement the phaseout 

of ozone-depleting substances.) 

C. London Amendments to the Protocol 

 Under Article 6 of the Montreal Protocol, the Parties are 

required to assess the science, economics and alternative technologies 

related to protection of the ozone layer every two years. In 

response to this requirement, the Parties issued their first 

scientific assessment in 1989 (Scientific Assessment of Ozone 

Depletion). During this assessment, scientists examined the 

data from land-based monitoring stations and the total ozone 

mapping spectrometer (TOMS) satellite instrument and found that 

there had been global ozone depletion over the northern hemisphere 

as well as over the southern hemisphere. The scientific assessment 

also reported that a three to five percent decrease in stratospheric 

ozone levels had occurred between 1969-1986 in the northern 

hemisphere in the winter months that could not be attributed 

to known natural processes. 

 At the Second Meeting of the Protocol Parties, held in London 

on June 29, 1990, the Parties responded to this new evidence 

by tightening the restrictions placed on these chemicals. The 

Parties to the Protocol passed amendments and adjustments which 

called for a full phaseout of the already regulated CFCs and 

halons by 2000, a phaseout of carbon tetrachloride and "other 

CFCs" by 2000 and a phaseout of methyl chloroform by 2004. The 

parties also passed a non-binding resolution regarding the use 

of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). HCFCs have been identified 

as interim substitutes for CFCs because they add much less chlorine 

to the stratosphere than fully halogenated CFCs. The Parties 

were concerned, however, that rapid growth in the amount of 

use of these chemicals over time would still pose a threat to 

the ozone layer. As a result, the resolution called for the 

phaseout of HCFCs by 2020 if feasible and no later than 2040 

in any case. 

D. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Recycling 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 5 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 On May 1, 1990, EPA published an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM, 55 FR 18256) addressing issues related to 

the development of a national CFC recycling program. This notice 

emphasized that recycling is important because it would allow 

the continued use of equipment requiring CFCs for service past 

the year in which CFC production is phased out, thereby eliminating 

or deferring the cost of early retirement or retrofit of such 

equipment. The Agency continues to believe that the continued 

use of these substances in existing equipment that recycling 

would allow can serve as a useful bridge to alternative products 

while minimizing disruption of the current capital stock of 

equipment. 

 The ANPRM asked for comment on the feasibility of recycling 

in various CFC end uses and also asked for comment on methods, 

such as a deposit/refund system, that could be employed to encourage 

recycling. The Agency received 110 public comment letters in 

response to the ANPRM. In general, most commenters recognized 

the need for recycling to help protect the ozone layer and to 

provide a source of refrigerant to service existing capital 

equipment after the phaseout of CFC production is complete. 

E. Excise Tax 

 As part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, 

the U.S. Congress levied an excise tax on the sale of CFCs and 

other chemicals that deplete the ozone layer, with specific 

exemptions for exports and recycling. The tax has operated as 

a complement to EPA's regulations limiting production and consumption 

by increasing the costs of using virgin controlled substances. 

The original excise tax was amended in 1991 to include methyl 

chloroform, carbon tetrachloride and other CFCs regulated by 

the amended Montreal Protocol and Title VI of the Clean Air 

Act. The Energy Policy Act of 1992, section 1931 of Public Law 

102-486, revised and further increased the excise tax, effective 

January 1, 1993. By raising the cost of virgin controlled substances, 

the tax has created an additional incentive for industry to 

shift out of these substances and increase recycling activities, 

and it has encouraged the development of a market for alternative 

chemicals and processes. 

F. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

 The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, signed November 15, 

1990, include requirements for controlling ozone-depleting substances 

that are generally consistent with, but in some cases more stringent 

than those contained in the Montreal Protocol as revised in 

1990. For the substances covered by the revised Protocol's control 

measures, Title VI of the Act calls for a phaseout of CFCs by 

January 1, 2000 with deeper interim reductions and, in the case 

of methyl chloroform, an earlier phaseout date (2002 instead 

of 2005). For the HCFCs, Title VI requires use restrictions, 

a production freeze in 2015 and a phaseout in 2030. EPA issued 

a temporary final rule on March 6, 1991 implementing the production 

and consumption limits contained in the Act for calendar year 

1991. (See 56 FR 9518.) The Agency published proposed regulations 

for 1992 and beyond on September 30, 1991 (See 56 FR 49548). 

As discussed below, on January 19, 1993, EPA proposed regulations 

to implement an accelerated phaseout of class I substances and 

some class II substances. 

 In addition to the phaseout of ozone-depleting substances, 

title VI includes a variety of other provisions intended to 

reduce emissions of ozone-depleting substances. Section 608, 

the foundation for the regulations promulgated today, provides 

for EPA to promulgate regulations to achieve the "lowest achievable 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 6 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
level" of emissions of ozone-depleting substances and to maximize 

recycling of such substances. Section 608 also bans the knowing 

venting of ozone-depleting substances during the maintenance, 

service, repair, or disposal of appliances and industrial process 

refrigeration. Section 609 establishes a specific program requiring 

the recovery and recycling of refrigerant used in motor vehicle 

air conditioners, specifically requires training and certification 

of technicians, and restricts the sale of small containers of 

CFCs. Other Title VI sections call for mandatory labeling, a 

ban on nonessential products, a program to review the safety 

of alternatives to class I and class II substances, and requirements 

of federal entities to conform to Title VI regulations and to 

maximize the use of safe alternatives. 

G. Accelerated Phaseout 

 Based on new scientific evidence developed since the passage 

of the Clean Air Act Amendments and the issuance of implementing 

regulations, the international community, led by the United 

States, has agreed to further accelerate the phaseout of already 

regulated ozone-depleting substances. Virtually all class I 

substances will be phased out in less than three (3) years (by 

January 1, 1996) and halons will be phased out by January 1, 

1994. The following section describes the most recent scientific 

and international developments regarding ozone depletion. 

1. New Scientific Data Regarding Ozone Depletion 

 Significant scientific advances have occurred since the initial 

Protocol assessments in 1989. Several subsequent reports since 

that time have indicated a more rapid rate of ozone depletion 

than previously believed. The most recent Montreal Protocol 

Scientific Assessment, issued December 17, 1991, contains information 

from ground-based monitoring instruments, as well as from satellite 

instruments, from the years 1979-1991. The data indicate significant 

decreases in total-column ozone have occurred in winter, and 

for the first time, also show decreases in spring and summer, 

in both the northern and southern hemispheres at middle and 

high latitudes. The data further show no significant depletion 

has occurred in the tropics. TOMS data indicate that for the 

period 1979 to 1991, decreases in total ozone at 45 degrees 

south latitude ranged between 4.4 percent in the fall to as 

much as 6.2 percent in the summer, while depletion at 45 degrees 

north latitude ranged between 1.7 percent in the fall to 5.6 

percent in the winter. Data from the ground-based Dobson network 

confirm these losses in total column ozone during the thirteenyear period. These findings show almost twice as much depletion 

as the average rate measured by the ground-based network over 

a twenty-year period. Based on this new data, scientists have 

concluded that the ozone in the stratosphere during the 1980s 

disappeared at a much faster rate than experienced in the previous 

decade. 

 The recent UNEP Science Assessment also includes new data 

on the estimated ozone depletion potentials (ODPs) of ozonedepleting substances. The assessment placed the ODP of methyl 

bromide, a chemical previously thought to have an insignificant 

effect on stratospheric ozone, at 0.6, with a range of uncertainty 

between 0.44-0.69. On November 25, 1992, the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol agreed to assign methyl bromide an ODP of 

0.7 (based on an update of the science assessment). 

 On February 3, 1992, NASA released preliminary data acquired 

by the ongoing Arctic Airborne Stratospheric Experiment-II (AASEII), a series of high-altitude instrument-laden plane flights 

over the northern hemisphere (see Interim Findings: Second Airborne 

Arctic Stratospheric Expedition). Additional data were also 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 7 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
obtained from the initial observations by NASA's Upper Atmosphere 

Research Satellite (UARS), launched in September 1991. The measurements 

show higher levels of chlorine monoxide (ClO) (the key agent 

responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion) over Canada and 

New England than were observed during any previous series of 

aircraft flights. In fact, the ClO levels over the United States 

and Canada and as far south as the Caribbean were many times 

greater than gas phase models had predicted. These levels are 

only partially explainable by enhanced aerosol surface reactions 

due to emissions from the volcanic eruptions of Mount Pinatubo. 

The expedition also found that the levels of hydrogen chloride 

(Hcl), a chemical species that stores atmospheric chlorine in 

a less reactive state, to be low, providing new evidence for 

the existence of chemical processes that convert stable forms 

of chlorine into ozone-destroying species. 

 In addition, the levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx) were also 

observed to be low, providing evidence of reactions that take 

place on the surface of aerosols that diminish the ability of 

the atmosphere to control the buildup of chlorine radicals. 

New observations of Hcl and nitrogen oxide (NO) imply that chlorine 

and bromine are more effective in destroying ozone than previously 

believed. 

 The NASA findings indicate that in late January of 1992, 

the Arctic air was chemically "primed" for the potential formation 

of a springtime ozone "hole" similar to that formed each spring 

over Antarctica. These findings also are consistent with theories 

that ozone depletion may occur at an accelerated rate on aerosol 

surfaces in the stratosphere anywhere around the globe, and 

not only on polar stratospheric clouds as was previously believed. 

 After collecting more data, NASA released an April 30, 1992 

"End of Mission Statement," which indicated that while a rise 

in stratospheric temperatures in late January prevented severe 

ozone depletion from occurring in the Arctic this year, observed 

ozone levels were nonetheless lower than had previously been 

recorded for this time of year. This information has further 

increased the Agency's concern that significant ozone loss may 

occur over populated regions of the earth, thus exposing humans, 

plants and animals to harmful levels of UV-B radiation, and 

adds support to the need for further efforts to limit emissions 

of anthropogenic chlorine and bromine. 

 In response to the preliminary findings, President Bush announced 

on February 11, 1992, that the United States would unilaterally 

accelerate the phaseout schedule for ozone-depleting substances, 

and he called upon other nations to agree to an accelerated 

phaseout schedule as well. The President also asked U.S. producers 

to reduce voluntarily 1992 output of class I substances to half 

of the 1986 baseline levels. In addition, the President directed 

EPA to re-evaluate the phaseout schedule for HCFCs, and to consider 

the phaseout of methyl bromide. 

2. Copenhagen Revisions to the Montreal Protocol 

 On November 25, 1992, the Fourth Meeting of the Montreal 

Protocol was convened. In this meeting, the Parties took a number 

of actions, including accelerating the phaseout schedule of 

CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform and 

added HCFCs and methyl bromide to the list of chemicals to be 

controlled under the Montreal Protocol. 

 The following adjustments to the phaseout schedules of previouslycontrolled substances were adopted at the Copenhagen meeting: 

 (a) Accelerating the phaseout schedule for the originallycontrolled CFCs (class I, group I substances) to require a 75% 

reduction in production and consumption (production plus imports 

minus exports) from 1986 baseline levels for 1994 and 1995, 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 8 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
and a complete phaseout by 1996; 

 (b) Accelerating the phaseout schedule for halons (class 

I, group II substances) to require a complete phaseout in production 

and consumption by 1994: 

 (c) Accelerating the phaseout schedule for other fully halogenated 

CFCs (class I, group III substances) to require a reduction 

from 1989 levels, 75% in 1994 and 1995, and a complete phaseout 

of production and consumption by 1996; 

 (d) Accelerating the reduction schedules for carbon tetrachloride 

(class I, group IV) by requiring a reduction from 1989 levels 

of 85% in 1995, and a complete phaseout in 1996; 

 (e) Accelerating the phaseout schedule for methyl chloroform 

(class I, group V) by reducing production and consumption to 

50% of 1989 levels in 1994, and phasing out completely by 1996.

 (f) Establishing criteria for identifying essential uses 

and a process for excepting limited production and consumption 

of the above chemicals following their phaseout (see below). 

 These adjustments go into effect in approximately six months. 

 In addition, the Parties adopted the following amendments 

to the Protocol: 

 (a) Freezing consumption of HCFCs (class II substances) beginning 

in 1996 to a baseline ceiling of: 100% of 1989 the ozone depletion 

potential (ODP) weighted level of HCFC consumption, plus 3.1% 

of the ODP-weighted 1989 CFC consumption, followed by reductions 

in the baseline to 65% by 2010, 90% by 2015, and 99.5% by 2020; 

and completely phasing out consumption by 2030; 

 (b) Adding hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs) to the list of 

controlled substances, specifying their ozone depletion potential, 

and phasing their production and consumption out completely 

by 1996; 

 (c) Listing methyl bromide as a controlled substance with 

an ozone depletion potential of 0.7, and freezing production 

and consumption beginning in 1995 at 1991 consumption levels; 

(not including amounts used for quarantine and preshipment uses); 

 (d) Establishing a procedure for the approval by the Parties 

for continued production and consumption after phaseout to meet 

essential use requirements; essential uses are defined as those 

necessary for health or safety, or critical to the functioning 

of society, and where there are no available alternatives or 

existing stocks of banked or recycled material; 

 (e) Establishing reporting requirements for HCFCs, HBFCs, 

and methyl bromide; 

 (f) Establishing reporting requirements for imports and exports 

of controlled substances to and from non-parties to the Protocol; 

and 

 (g) Extending the prohibitions on trade with respect to foreign 

states not party-specified, which include banning imports from 

foreign states not a party of Annex C, Group II ozone-depleting 

substances (HBFCs) and banning exports to foreign states not 

a party of HBFCs, commencing 1 year of the Copenhagen Amendments 

entry into force. 

 The Amendments will enter into force under the Protocol following 

their ratification by at least twenty Parties. This is projected 

to be accomplished by January 1, 1994. 

 The Parties also made a number of procedural and definitional 

changes that affect implementation of the Protocol and that 

are included in the proposed accelerated phaseout regulation. 

The changes include: 

 (a) The approval of destruction technologies and the requirement 

that Parties that plan to operate destruction facilities do 

so in accordance with Good Housekeeping Procedures developed 

by the Parties or with their equivalent;

 (b) Clarification of the definition of controlled substances 

to exclude insignificant quantities under defined circumstances, 

and to encourage Parties to minimize emissions of such excluded 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 9 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
substances; 

 (c) Clarification of the reporting requirements and treatment 

of international transshipments; 

 (d) Clarification of the definition of controlled substance 

to exclude the import and export of recycled and used controlled 

substances from the calculation of consumption, but to require 

reporting of data concerning these imports and exports. 

3. The Proposed Accelerated Phaseout Regulation 

 In July 1992, EPA issued its final rule and regulatory program 

implementing section 604 of the Clean Air Act Amendments. Section 

604 limits the production and consumption of ozone-depleting 

chemicals. EPA controls production and consumption by issuing 

allowances or permits that are expended in the production or 

importation of these chemicals. Trading of these allowances 

is permitted. 

 The regulation requires producers of class I substances to 

gradually reduce their production of these chemicals and to 

phase them out completely as of January 1, 2000 (2002 for methyl 

chloroform). In addition to the production limits, the rule 

requires a similar reduction in consumption. 

 In February 1992, the President requested that U.S. producers 

voluntarily reduce their production of CFCs by half of the baseline 

year levels and phase out CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, methyl 

chloroform and halons by January 1, 1996. He also announced 

that the U.S. would revisit the phaseout schedule for HCFCs. 

 Several months earlier, EPA had received a petition from 

the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Environmental 

Defense Fund (EDF) and Friends of the Earth (FOE), requesting 

earlier phaseouts of ozone-depleting substances and that EPA 

add methyl bromide to the list of class I substances and also 

phase out its production. Another petition was submitted by 

the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy that also supported 

earlier phaseouts of CFCs and certain HCFCs. 

 Based on these national and international developments, EPA 

proposed on January 19, 1993, to accelerate the phaseout of 

CFCs, methyl chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, halons, HCFC141b, HCFC-142b, and HCFC-22. The Agency is also proposing to 

add methyl bromide and HBFCs to the list of major class I substances 

and phase them out by 2000 and 1996, respectively. In addition, 

the proposal addresses various trade provisions required by 

the Montreal Protocol. 

H. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Recycling 

 On December 10, 1992, EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM, 57 FR 238). In that notice, EPA proposed regulations 

under section 608 of the Clean Air Act (the Act) that would 

have established a recycling program for ozone-depleting refrigerants 

recovered during the servicing and disposal of air-conditioning 

or refrigeration equipment. The proposed regulations would have 

required persons servicing air-conditioning and refrigeration 

equipment to observe certain service practices that reduce refrigerant 

emissions and would have established equipment and off-site 

reclaimer certification programs. The proposal did not include 

a mandatory program for certifying technicians; however, comments 

were solicited on the need and prudence of such a mandatory 

program. In addition, EPA would have required that ozone-depleting 

compounds contained "in bulk" in appliances be removed prior 

to disposal of the appliances, and that all air-conditioning 

and refrigeration equipment, except for small appliances and 

room air conditioners, be provided with a servicing aperture 

that would facilitate recovery of the refrigerant. 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 10 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
II. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act 

 Section 608 of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, provides 

the legal basis for this rulemaking. It requires EPA to establish 

a comprehensive program to limit emissions of ozone-depleting 

substances during their use and disposal. 

 Section 608 is divided into three subsections. In brief, 

the first requires regulations to reduce the use and emission 

of class I substances (CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and 

methyl chloroform) and class II substances (HCFCs) to the lowest 

achievable level, and to maximize the recycling of such substances. 

The second subsection requires that the regulations promulgated 

pursuant to subsection (a) contain requirements concerning the 

safe disposal of class I and class II substances. Finally, the 

third subsection establishes self-effectuating prohibitions 

on the venting into the environment of class I or class II substances, 

and eventually their substitutes, during servicing and disposal 

of air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment. 

 In particular, subsection (a) of section 608 requires EPA 

to promulgate regulations "establishing standards and requirements 

regarding the use and disposal" of both class I and class II 

substances. The regulations required are to "reduce the use 

and emission of such substances to the lowest achievable level" 

and are to "maximize the recapture and recycling of such substances." 

Subsection (a) calls for EPA to promulgate such regulations 

with respect to "the use and disposal of class I substances 

during the service, repair, or disposal of appliances and industrial 

process refrigeration" by January 1, 1992. (Appliance is defined 

by section 601(1) as "any device which contains and uses a class 

I or class II substance as a refrigerant and which is used for 

household or commercial purposes, including any air conditioner, 

refrigerator, chiller, or freezer." EPA believes that motor 

vehicle air conditioners (MVACs) are included within the scope 

of the term "appliance" but that the servicing regulations promulgated 

pursuant to section 609 of the Act eliminate the need to promulgate 

servicing regulations for MVACs under section 608. MVACs, however, 

are subject to disposal regulations promulgated today under 

section 608.) These regulations were to become effective by 

July 1, 1992. 

 Paragraph (2) of subsection (a) expands the scope of the 

recycling and emission reduction regulations by requiring EPA 

to promulgate additional regulations by November 15, 1994, that 

establish standards and requirements regarding the use and disposal 

of both class I and class II substances not covered by the initial 

set of regulations, i.e., all other uses of class I and class 

II substances. These regulations are to go into effect not later 

than 12 months after their promulgation. Subsection (a) further 

provides that the regulations promulgated pursuant to it may 

include requirements to use alternative substances, to minimize 

the use of class I or class II substances, or to promote the 

use of safe alternatives to class I and class II substances. 

 Subsection (b) of section 608 requires that the regulations 

under section 608(a) establish standards and requirements for 

the safe disposal of class I and class II substances. These 

are to include (1) requirements that such substances contained 

"in bulk in appliances, machines or other goods" be removed 

prior to the disposal of such items or their delivery for recycling; 

(2) requirements that "any appliance, machine or other good 

containing a class I or class II substances in bulk" be "equipped 

with a servicing aperture or an equally effective design feature 

which will facilitate the recapture of such substance;" and 

(3) requirements that products in which a class I or class II 

substance is an "inherent element" be disposed of "in a manner 

that reduces, to the maximum extent practicable, the release 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 11 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
of such substance into the environment." 

 The provisions of subsections (a) and (b) ultimately (by 

November, 1994) apply to all uses of class I and class II substances, 

including air-conditioning and refrigeration, solvents, foam 

blowing, and fire control. However, these subsections focus 

first on the use and disposal of refrigerants during the service, 

repair, or disposal of air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment. 

 Refrigerants also receive special emphasis in subsection 

(c) of section 608, which provides in paragraph (1) that, effective 

July 1, 1992, it is "unlawful for any person, in the course 

of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance 

or industrial process refrigeration, to knowingly vent or otherwise 

knowingly release or dispose of" class I or class II refrigerants 

in a manner that "permits such substances to enter the environment." 

Certain de minimis releases are exempted from this self-effectuating 

prohibition. As discussed below in Section III. D, EPA will 

consider releases to be de minimis when they occur while the 

recycling and recovery requirements of this regulation are followed. 

Section 608(c)(2) extends the prohibition on venting to substances 

that are substitutes for class I and class II refrigerants effective 

November 15, 1995, unless the Administrator determines that 

such venting or releases do not pose a threat to the environment. 

The Agency notes that since MVACs are covered by the term "appliance," 

the servicing and disposal of MVACs are subject to the prohibition 

on venting. 

 The refrigerant recycling and safe disposal requirements 

promulgated today are a major step in the implementation of 

section 608. EPA research indicates that in all air-conditioning 

or refrigeration sectors, emissions during servicing and disposal 

of equipment account for between 50 and 94 percent of total 

emissions during the life cycle of the equipment (Regulatory 

Impact Analysis: the National Recycling and Emission Reduction 

Program, (RIA)). The recovery and recycling requirements published 

today should significantly reduce emissions during servicing 

and disposal. In those sectors where leakage during use accounts 

for a significant percentage of total emissions, EPA is establishing 

a program for requiring the repair of such leaks. EPA will consider 

in the future the regulation of non-refrigerant applications 

of class I and class II compounds under section 608. These regulations 

may include requirements for emission-reducing engineering controls 

and work practices and/or requirements to use alternative substances 

in those uses for which substitutes exist. In determining what 

further actions to take under section 608, EPA will consider 

the accelerated phaseout dates for class I substances, the expected 

costs, and environmental benefits of further regulation. 

III. This Rule 

A. Equipment and Refrigerants Affected 

1. Equipment Affected 

 Today's final rule applies to the servicing and disposal 

of most air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment, including 

household air conditioners and refrigerators, commercial air 

conditioners and chillers, commercial refrigeration, industrial 

process refrigeration, refrigerated transport, and air-conditioning 

in vehicles not covered by EPA's regulations under section 609 

of the Clean Air Act (which apply to the service of motor vehicle 

air conditioners, or MVACS). As mentioned above, the rule also 

applies to the disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration 

equipment, including MVACs. Following is a description of the 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 12 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
major categories of equipment that will be affected by the rule: 

 Household Refrigeration. This category consists of refrigerators 

and freezers intended primarily for household use, though they 

may be used outside the home (e.g., in an office). In terms 

of the number of units currently in operation, this is the largest 

sector affected by this rule, with an estimated 159 million 

units. The amount of refrigerant (charge) in each of these units, 

however, is quite small relative to the charge in equipment 

in other sectors, ranging from six ounces to approximately one 

pound of CFC-12. The quantity of refrigerant in this sector 

that is available for recycling at servicing and disposal is 

estimated to be approximately 6,000 metric tons per year when 

weighted by the ozone-depletion potential of the refrigerant. 

(This and other estimates in this section are based on figures 

from 1990.) This makes up approximately 19% of the total available 

from the sectors affected by this rule when these quantities 

are weighted by the ozone depletion potentials (or ODPs) of 

the refrigerants. Because servicing is relatively rare in this 

sector, approximately 90% of this 17% would be recovered at 

disposal. 

 Other Refrigerated Appliances. Other refrigerated appliances 

include dehumidifiers, vending machines, ice makers, and water 

coolers. These equipment types have charge sizes and service 

characteristics similar to those in the Household Refrigeration 

sector. The total number of units of these types in current 

operation is approximately 23 million units. The quantity of 

refrigerant in this sector that is estimated to be available 

for recycling at servicing and disposal is 700 metric tons per 

year (ODP-weighted), which makes up approximately two percent 

of the total available from the sectors affected by this rule. 

 Residential Air-conditioning. This sector includes window 

units, packaged terminal air conditioners, central air conditioners, 

light commercial air conditioners, and heat pumps. There are 

approximately 85 million units in this sector, making it the 

second largest. The residential air-conditioning sector is similar 

to the household refrigeration and other appliances sectors 

because the equipment stock is large, the equipment is infrequently 

serviced, and charge sizes are small (4-7 pounds). The quantity 

of refrigerant in this sector that is available for recycling 

at servicing and disposal is estimated to be 1800 metric tons 

per year (when weighted by the ozone-depletion potential of 

the refrigerant), which makes up approximately six percent of 

the total available from the sectors affected by this rule. 

This figure is lower than that for household refrigeration because 

residential and light commercial air-conditioning relies exclusively 

upon HCFC-22, which has approximately five percent of the ozonedepletion potential of CFC-12. 

 Transport Refrigeration. The Transport Refrigeration sector 

consists of refrigerated ship holds, truck trailers, railway 

freight cars, and other shipping containers. With less than 

one million transport refrigeration units currently in use, 

this sector is relatively small. Trailers, railway cars, and 

shipping containers are commonly charged with CFC-12. Ship holds, 

on the other hand, rely on HCFC-22 and ammonia. The average 

charge size in this sector is approximately 18 pounds, which 

is relatively small compared to all but household sectors. The 

quantity of refrigerant in this sector that is estimated to 

be available for recycling at servicing and disposal is 1900 

metric tons per year (ODP-weighted), which makes up approximately 

six percent of the total available from the sectors affected 

by this rule. Unlike equipment in the household sectors, equipment 

in the transport refrigeration sector is usually serviced every 

year. Thus, refrigerant recovered and recycled at servicing 

would account for approximately 25% of the total recovered and 

recycled in this sector. 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 13 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 Retail Food. The retail food sector includes refrigerated 

equipment found in supermarkets, convenience stores, restaurants, 

and other food service establishments. The equipment includes 

small reach-in refrigerators and freezers, refrigerated display 

cases, walk-in coolers and freezers, as well as large parallel 

systems. Convenience stores and restaurants typically use standalone refrigerators, freezers, and walk-in coolers. In contrast, 

supermarkets usually employ large parallel systems, which connect 

many display cases to a central condensing unit by means of 

extensive refrigerant piping. Because the piping required to 

connect all of the cases may be miles long, these systems can 

contain charges of over 500 pounds. Charges are typically CFC12, CFC-502, or HCFC-22. The estimated total stock of retail 

food equipment is approximately 1.6 million units. The quantity 

of refrigerant in this sector that is estimated to be available 

for recycling at servicing and disposal is 9,000 metric tons 

per year (ODP-weighted), which makes up approximately 28% of 

the total available from the sectors affected by this rule. 

 Cold Storage Warehouses. Cold storage warehouses are used 

to store meat, produce, dairy products, and other perishable 

goods. There are approximately 665 million cubic feet of refrigerated 

space in cold storage warehouses throughout the United States. 

This sector is similar to the retail food sector, but its equipment 

is serviced even more frequently (up to four times each year) 

and can be charged with even greater quantities of refrigerant. 

The quantity of refrigerant in this sector that is estimated 

to be available for recycling at servicing and disposal is 83 

metric tons per year (ODP-weighted), which makes up less than 

one percent of the total available from the sectors affected 

by this rule. 

 Commercial Comfort Air-conditioning. Chillers are used to 

regulate the temperature and humidity in offices, hotels, shopping 

centers, and other large buildings. There are approximately 

170,000 units currently installed, making this sector one of 

the smallest affected by the recycling rule in terms of stock 

size. 

 There are three major types of chillers: centrifugal, reciprocating, 

and screw. Each of these is named for the type of compressor 

employed. Centrifugal chillers, used to cool areas ranging from 

30,000 to 600,000 square feet, are generally the largest and 

can be charged with up to 900 kg (about 2000 pounds) of refrigerant. 

These chillers may use CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-500, or HCFC-22. 

(Recently, centrifugal chillers utilizing HCFC-123 have been 

introduced to the market; however, these new chillers currently 

have a very small fraction of the market and are therefore not 

included in this analysis.) Reciprocating chillers, used to 

cool areas of less than 30,000 feet, are generally the smallest 

and typically contain charges of about 160 pounds of CFC-12 

or HCFC-22. Screw chillers are used to cool areas from 30,000 

to 100,000 square feet and are charged with about 500 pounds 

of HCFC-22. All of the systems are serviced frequently. The 

quantity of refrigerant in this sector that is available for 

recycling at servicing and disposal is estimated to be 5200 

metric tons per year (ODP-weighted), which makes up approximately 

16% of the total available from the sectors affected by this 

rule. 

 Chillers are long-lasting relative to most air-conditioning 

and refrigeration equipment. Most will last over 20 years and 

some will last 30 years or more. EPA believes that recovery 

and recycling is already common in the chiller sector due to 

the large charges of refrigerant involved. 

 Industrial Process Refrigeration. The industrial process 

refrigeration sector includes industrial ice machines and ice 

rinks, as well as many complex, customized systems used in the 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 14 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
chemical, pharmaceutical, petrochemical, and manufacturing industries. 

Equipment in this sector is often critical to the continuous 

production of valuable materials. As a result, industrial process 

equipment is usually designed, manufactured, and installed with 

special care to minimize down-time for servicing and repair. 

 This sector uses a variety of refrigerants, including CFC11, CFC-12, CFC-500, CFC-502, and HCFC-22. Charge sizes can 

be very large, ranging from 750-3000 lbs for ice rinks, and 

rising as high as 20,000 lbs for built-up centrifugal units. 

The quantity of refrigerant in this sector that is available 

for recycling at servicing and disposal is estimated to be 2000 

metric tons per year (ODP-weighted), which makes up approximately 

six percent of the total available from the sectors affected 

by this rule. Due to the high reliability of industrial process 

equipment, servicing is uncommon, and most recovery will occur 

at disposal. EPA believes that recycling is already common in 

this sector. 

 Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners (MVACs). Motor vehicle air 

conditioners (MVACs) include air conditioners in automobiles 

and trucks. These recycling regulations only affect the disposal 

of MVACs, because the servicing of MVACs is covered by regulations 

implementing section 609 of the Clean Air Act Amendments. Nevertheless, 

with between 120 and 140 million MVACs currently on the road, 

this sector is one of the largest sectors affected by the recycling 

rule. Most MVACs use CFC-12, but some now use HFC-134a. 

 MVACs have the highest leakage rates of refrigerant charges 

of any equipment type affected by the recycling rule. Limited 

studies suggest that only 40 percent of all MVACs still contain 

a refrigerant charge at disposal. The original charge, moreover, 

is small (two to four pounds). However, the quantity of refrigerant 

in this sector that is available for recycling at disposal is 

estimated to be 5000 metric tons per year, which makes up approximately 

17% of the total available from the sectors affected by this 

rule. 

 Comfort Cooling in Vehicles Other Than Trucks and Automobiles. 

Although the servicing of MVACs is covered by regulations implementing 

section 609 of the Act, the servicing (and disposal) of air 

conditioners in other vehicles, such as trains, airplanes, ships, 

buses, construction equipment, and farm vehicles would be covered 

by these recycling regulations. Due to the lack of data available 

on releases from the cooling systems used in these applications, 

these uses were not analyzed. However, the quantity of refrigerant 

available for recycling from this sector is expected to comprise 

only a small fraction of the total available from the sectors 

affected by this rule. 

 2. Refrigerants Affected 

 Although EPA is not expressly required to include class II 

substances in the recycling regulations to become effective 

on July 1, 1992, EPA proposed to include class II substances 

in today's rule for a number of reasons. First, the prohibition 

on venting that became effective on July 1 covers both class 

I and class II substances, and EPA considered it desirable to 

provide a clear, consistent framework for fully implementing 

the prohibition on venting for all refrigerants. The Agency 

believed that this framework would minimize confusion and maximize 

compliance with the prohibition. Second, the goals of this regulation, 

to minimize refrigerant emissions and to help ensure that a 

supply of high-quality refrigerant is available to service equipment 

in the future, apply to both class I and class II refrigerants. 

Without specific requirements, recycling could proceed improperly, 

leading to excessive HCFC emissions, contamination of refrigerant, 

and damage to equipment. Third, most technicians routinely work 

with both types of refrigerants and therefore would need the 

equipment to handle refrigerants in accordance with the rule 

even if class II substances were not included. Industry representatives 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 15 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
on the STOPAC Subcommittee for Recycling agreed with this rationale 

and with the inclusion of class II substances in the regulation. 

 A number of commenters also supported the inclusion of class 

II substances in the regulation, citing the reasons above. Several 

of these stated that including class II substances would result 

in a more consistent and less confusing regulatory structure 

for the industry, especially since the prohibition on venting 

affects both class I and class II substances. Commenters believed 

that compliance with the prohibition on venting and with the 

regulations would be diminished if only class I substances were 

covered by the rule. Commenters also noted that most recycling 

and recovery equipment handles both class I and class II substances, 

implying that the cost of purchasing certified equipment to 

process class II substances would be negligible. One commenter 

noted that inclusion of class II substances in the regulation 

would provide additional protection to human health and the 

environment. 

 Commenters who opposed including class II substances in the 

regulation argued that efforts to comply with Section 608 for 

class I substances would consume significant industry resources 

and that users of both class I and class II substances would 

probably recycle class II substances if they were complying 

with regulations for class I substances. Commenters also stated 

that a delay in regulating class II substances could encourage 

borderline uses to convert from class I to class II based on 

the savings realized from avoiding the cost of complying with 

the regulation. However, one commenter believed that EPA should 

examine other possibilities for making the conversion from class 

I to class II substances economically attractive, for instance 

by easing equipment certification and recordkeeping standards. 

 After reviewing the comments, EPA continues to believe that 

the inclusion of class II substances in this regulation is warranted. 

The positive consequences of regulating class II substances 

at this time far outweigh the possible negative consequences. 

As a number of commenters observed, the prohibition on venting 

requires persons servicing and disposing of appliances containing 

class II substances to recover or recycle the refrigerant in 

any event, and the cost of the recycling and recovery procedure 

itself is by far the most important component of the costs of 

this rule. By extending this rule to class II substances, EPA 

expects to facilitate compliance with the venting prohibition 

by providing: (1) Clear guidance to technicians recovering class 

II substances on what releases do and do not constitute violations 

of the prohibition, (2) information on the performance of recycling 

and recovery equipment intended for use with class II substances 

through the equipment certification program, and (3) information 

on how to recycle effectively and efficiently through the technician 

certification program. EPA believes that this will both reduce 

emissions and increase the quality of recycled refrigerant. 

At the same time, the rule will provide incentives for moving 

from class I to class II substances because it establishes somewhat 

less stringent requirements for HCFCs (such as HCFC-22) than 

for CFCs. EPA further notes that section 608(a)(2) requires 

EPA to promulgate regulations concerning the recovery and recycling 

of class II substances by November 15, 1994, approximately 18 

months after the promulgation of this rule. This relatively 

short period before regulations are mandated minimizes any possible 

benefits of delaying the regulations. 

B. Overview of Requirements 

 EPA's final rule has five main elements, which, taken together, 

satisfy the criteria of section 608 concerning recycling, emissions 

reduction, and disposal. First, the Agency requires technicians 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 16 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
servicing and disposing of air-conditioning and refrigeration 

equipment to observe certain service practices that reduce refrigerant 

emissions. Second, EPA requires technicians servicing air-conditioning 

and refrigeration equipment to obtain certification through 

an EPA-approved testing organization and restricts sales of 

refrigerant to these certified technicians. Third, EPA establishes 

equipment and reclaimer certification programs. These would 

have the goals of verifying: (1) That all recycling or recovery 

equipment sold was capable of minimizing emissions and (2) that 

reclaimed refrigerant on the market was of known and acceptable 

quality to avoid equipment failures from contaminated refrigerant. 

Fourth, EPA requires repair of substantial leaks, based on annual 

leak rates which vary according to two categories of refrigeration 

equipment. Fifth, to implement the safe disposal requirements 

of section 608, EPA requires that ozone-depleting refrigerants 

in appliances, machines, and other goods be removed from those 

items prior to their disposal, and that all air-conditioning 

and refrigeration equipment except for small appliances and 

room air conditioners be provided with a servicing aperture 

that would facilitate recovery of the refrigerant. Small appliances 

will require a process stub for easy access. 

 In order to allow the regulated community sufficient time 

to come into compliance with the requirements, EPA will phase 

them in over a period of one to eighteen months. In addition, 

the Agency will "grandfather in" equipment meeting certain minimum 

requirements set forth in Section III, as well as "grandfather" 

technicians who have fulfilled certain requirements. These grandfathering 

provisions are intended to encourage the regulated community 

to begin recycling as soon as possible using available equipment 

rather than delaying action until certified equipment is available. 

C. Factors Considered in the Development of this Rule 

 Section 608 of the Clean Air Act provides the statutory basis 

for the standards and requirements contained in these regulations. 

The statutory standards against which the regulations concerning 

the use and disposal of ozone-depleting substances are to be 

measured is whether they "reduce the use and emission of such 

substances to the lowest achievable level" and "maximize the 

recapture and recycling of such substances." EPA believes that, 

in the context of recycling, these standards are complementary, 

i.e., that maximizing recycling will also mean reducing the 

use and emission of these substances to the lowest achievable 

level. EPA also believes that these standards bear a relationship 

to the de minimis releases permitted, notwithstanding the general 

prohibition on venting or other releases contained in section 

608(c). In other words, emissions that occur while complying 

with EPA's recovery and recycling requirements, which achieve 

the lowest achievable level of emissions, will only be de minimis 

releases. 

 In applying the statutory standards concerning use, emissions, 

and recycling, EPA is taking into account both technological 

and economic factors. The phrases "lowest achievable level" 

and "maximize recycling" are not defined in the Act. EPA does 

not believe that these standards are solely technological in 

nature, but rather contemplate a role for economic factors in 

determining the lowest achievable level of emissions and maximum 

amount of recycling. As discussed in the proposed rule, EPA's 

program takes into account in an appropriate manner the technology 

available, costs, benefits, and leadtimes involved. EPA believes 

that the language of the Clean Air Act and the legislative history 

of section 608 both support its approach. 

 In jointly-submitted comments, two environmental organizations 

(Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Friends of the 

Earth (FOE)) contended that EPA's consideration of costs and 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 17 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
benefits in this rulemaking was unlawful. The organizations 

stated that they "do not assert that the statutory language 

totally precludes any economic considerations. But we do insist 

that the legally permissible scope for such considerations is 

far more limited than the broad cost-benefit test EPA has asserted." 

The commenters then assert that the "term `lowest achievable 

emission level' clearly reflects the term `lowest achievable 

emission rate,' or `LAER,' used since 1977 in part D of title 

I" and proceed to argue that a variant of this standard, described 

as "the most stringent test for technology-based standards under 

the Act" controls EPA's standard-setting authority under section 

608 of the Act. According to NRDC/FOE, "standards under section 

608 should be set at levels reflecting the best controlled sources 

in each relevant sector of the air-conditioning and refrigeration 

industry. As long as those levels have been achieved by some 

members of a given sector, they must be considered achievable 

across the sector. The only basis for lessening the stringency 

of such requirements would be if they are so costly that typical 

firms in that sector could not bear them." 

 Other commenters, however, supported the method used by EPA 

to analyze costs and benefits in determining what standards 

to propose. 

 EPA has carefully considered the comments of NRDC and FOE 

on this issue, as well as those of other parties, and continues 

to believe that its approach to the analysis of costs and benefits 

is appropriate and permissible under section 608. EPA first 

notes that, in determining the appropriate standards, EPA has 

not applied a strict cost-benefit test. Rather, EPA has focussed 

primarily on the state of recovery technology and only secondarily 

considered costs and benefits, along with the varied applications 

of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment and the structure 

of the equipment service and disposal industry. The Agency is 

allowing use of less than the most efficient technology available 

only when the costs of using this technology in the field far 

outweigh the benefits. 

 The Agency believes that it has fulfilled its statutory obligation 

to establish "the lowest achievable level of emissions" and 

that in many cases its standards represent the best that can 

be technologically achieved. The standards proposed by EPA generally 

reflect the performance of the "best controlled source" in each 

sector under commonly encountered conditions in the field. The 

variability of these conditions is considerably greater in each 

air-conditioning and refrigeration industry sector than it is 

in most other industry sectors, particularly those affected 

by LAER. Thus, for instance, the fact that a recovery device 

removing R-12 from an appliance at 70 degrees F can achieve 

a twenty-inch vacuum does not imply that EPA should set its 

evacuation requirements at this level, because the same recovery 

device would scarcely be able to reach a ten-inch vacuum on 

R-502 at 90 degrees F. 

 Where the performance of the best controlled sources is not 

the standard, EPA has found that the costs of implementing the 

controls far outweigh the benefits. For instance, according 

to appliance manufacturers, between 80 and 90 percent of firms 

in the small appliance sector make fewer than 10 repairs a year 

that require recovery of refrigerant. The most efficient recovery 

devices intended for use in this sector may recover between 

5 and 10 percent more refrigerant from a small appliance than 

the least efficient, but they also cost approximately four times 

as much ($900 vs. $215). For a firm performing 10 recovery jobs 

per year on refrigerators charged with 6 ounces of refrigerant, 

this difference results in the recovery of no more than 6 additional 

ounces of refrigerant per year. At the same time, the cost of 

the more efficient equipment could have an appreciable impact 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 18 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
on firms in this sector, approximately 37 percent of which EPA 

estimates are in poor financial condition prior to imposition 

of the regulation (RIA). Thus, EPA is permitting the use of 

the less efficient recovery equipment. This is in accord with 

the comments of NRDC and FOE, which acknowledge that if controls 

are "so costly that typical firms in that sector could not bear 

them," then less stringent controls are warranted. 

 Nevertheless, as discussed further in the response to the 

comments document, to the extent that there is a difference 

between EPA's approach and the approach suggested by NRDC and 

FOE, EPA does not believe that it is legally compelled to adopt 

the approach to economic considerations suggested by NRDC/FOE. 

In sum, the Agency believes that its approach of focusing primarily 

on the technological feasibility and only secondarily on economic 

issues is authorized by section 608. 

 The stringency of the regulations promulgated to implement 

these standards are affected by the amount of leadtime between 

their date of promulgation and their effective date. The longer 

the leadtime, the more time there would have been for technological 

innovations and development to occur, thereby permitting the 

establishment of more stringent standards. Conversely, shorter 

leadtimes necessitate standards based more on the degree of 

emission control and performance achievable by equipment already 

available or equipment that will be available in the near future. 

With respect to the present set of regulations, the leadtime 

is necessarily short as section 608(a)(1) provides for an effective 

date of July 1, 1992, for the regulations covering the use and 

disposal of class I substances used in appliances and industrial 

process refrigeration. Because the effective date has passed, 

these regulations as they pertain to recovery/recycling of class 

I and class II substances will go into effect thirty days following 

publication of this rule (unless stated otherwise). For regulations 

authorized by section 608(a)(2), the initial effective date 

must be within 12 months of promulgation. 

 EPA has considered these factors in developing these regulations, 

and the Agency believes that it has designed a program that 

will achieve the lowest achievable level of emissions and maximize 

recycling, taking into account in an appropriate manner the 

technology available, costs, benefits, and the leadtimes involved. 

Through extensive discussions with industry representatives 

and environmental organizations, EPA has attempted to identify 

significant emissions and methods for controlling them during 

the repair, service, and disposal of air-conditioning or refrigeration 

equipment. In many cases, the requirements will mandate activity 

already being undertaken by standard-setting and equipment certification 

organizations in the heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, 

and refrigeration (HVAC/R) sector. They are also very similar 

to the steps being taken to recycle refrigerant in MVACs, an 

area where recycling has been successfully implemented. 

 EPA also took into consideration the over 15,000 comments 

requesting that a mandatory technician certification be included 

in the final rule. EPA views a mandatory technician certification 

program as instrumental in facilitating a workable recovery 

and recycling program. Commenters expressed the need of technicians 

for a level playing field, as well as for consistent knowledge 

with which to perform recovery and recycling properly. 

 EPA has attempted to develop a regulatory program that accommodates 

the wide variety of sizes and types of equipment subject to 

this regulation. In setting its efficiency standards for recycling 

and recovery equipment, EPA has considered among other factors 

both the charge size and frequency of servicing for different 

types of equipment. In general, as charge size and frequency 

of servicing increase, potential emissions increase, and higher 

recovery efficiencies are justified. For instance, the household 

refrigeration and other refrigerated appliances categories that 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 19 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
combine to make up the "small appliances" category in today's 

rule have small charges and are serviced infrequently. Under 

today's final rule, recovery equipment in this category would 

be subject to a standard that requires recovery of between 80 

and 90% of the refrigerant (depending upon whether or not the 

compressor of the small appliance is operational). On the other 

hand, equipment containing more than 200 lbs of charge would 

be subject to a standard that requires recovery of over 99% 

of the refrigerant. Equipment standards are discussed in detail 

in section III.G. 

 EPA additionally considered average leak rates of averagemaintained equipment in setting the three levels of annual leak 

rates that would trigger mandatory repair of such leaks. EPA 

also considered the numerous comments that requested EPA to 

include a mandatory provision in this rulemaking for repairing 

substantial leaks. 

 EPA has also considered typical methods of disposal in developing 

these regulations. Under this proposal, equipment that is typically 

dismantled on-site before disposal (retail food refrigeration, 

cold storage warehouse refrigeration, chillers, and industrial 

process refrigeration) must have the refrigerant removed and 

recovered in accordance with EPA's proposed requirements for 

servicing. For these types of equipment, the persons who perform 

servicing usually also perform disposal. This is generally not 

the case, however, for smaller items such as household refrigerators 

and freezers, room air conditioners, and motor vehicle air conditioners. 

This equipment is disposed of by consumers and generally enters 

the waste stream with the charge intact. EPA is proposing distinct 

safe disposal requirements for this equipment, which would make 

the final person in the disposal chain (e.g., a scrap metal 

recycler) responsible for ensuring that refrigerant has been 

recovered from equipment before the final disposal of the equipment. 

Equipment covered by these requirements also includes dehumidifiers, 

water coolers, and other relatively portable equipment in addition 

to household refrigerators and freezers and MVACs. EPA's safe 

disposal program is discussed in detail in section III.M. 

D. Public Participation 

 EPA has worked extensively with outside groups in developing 

this proposal. In particular, the Agency established and met 

repeatedly with the Subcommittee for Recycling and Emissions 

Reduction of EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Protection Advisory Committee 

(STOPAC). The STOPAC is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered 

in 1989 under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 

section 9(c), to provide independent counsel to EPA on specific 

issues affecting the international negotiations and domestic 

implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Since the enactment 

of the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990, the STOPAC has also 

provided advice on the implementation of Title VI of this legislation. 

The Subcommittee for Recycling has over 50 members representing 

air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment manufacturers, 

wholesalers, servicers, and users, manufacturers of recycling 

and recovery equipment, refrigerant manufacturers and reclaimers, 

educational organizations, state and local governments, and 

environmental groups. To date, EPA has met with members of the 

Subcommittee six times: The Subcommittee as a whole met twice, 

and smaller groups met to discuss equipment certification, technician 

certification, reclaimer certification and safe disposal. Summaries 

of these meetings are available in the public docket for this 

rulemaking. 

 EPA also worked with the air-conditioning and refrigeration 

industry's primary standards-setting organizations, the Airconditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) and the American 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 20 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 

Inc. (ASHRAE), in developing its rule. Wherever appropriate, 

EPA has incorporated standards and guidelines from these organizations 

into the proposed rule. Examples of incorporated standards include 

the ARI Standard 700-1988, Specifications for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants, 

and the ARI Standard 740-1993 (an update of 700-1991), Performance 

of Refrigerant Recovery, Recycling, and/or Reclaim Equipment. 

EPA also considered the ASHRAE Guideline 3, Reducing Emission 

of Fully Halogenated Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) Refrigerants in 

Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Equipment and Applications, 

in developing its rule. 

 In addition to convening the Subcommittee for Recycling, 

EPA met with various industry representatives to gather data 

on refrigerant emissions, to better understand current industry 

practices, and to discuss a range of technical issues. The data 

on refrigerant emissions were used to update EPA's vintaging 

analysis, which analyzes emissions by equipment type and life 

cycle stage (e.g., manufacturing, use, servicing, or disposal). 

This analysis has been used to calculate the potential costs 

and benefits of this rule and to identify opportunities for 

further emissions reductions. The data used in the analysis 

is presented in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this 

proposal, also available in the public docket. Industry groups 

that have provided or commented on data include appliance manufacturers, 

chiller manufacturers and servicers, industrial process refrigeration 

manufacturers and users, commercial refrigeration manufacturers 

and users, refrigerated transport manufacturers, servicers and 

users, and manufacturers and users of comfort air cooling systems 

for commercial vehicles. 

 Following proposal of the rule, EPA held a public hearing 

on December 23, 1992. During the comment period, over 20,000 

comments were submitted to EPA. All of these comments were considered 

in the development of the final rule. Major comments are addressed 

in the preamble to this rulemaking. All other comments are addressed 

in the "Response to Comments Document" that can be found in 

Air Docket A-92-01. 

E. Definitions and Interpretations 

Appliance 

 As was proposed, EPA is adopting the Act's definition of 

"appliance". The Act defines "appliance" as "any device which 

contains and uses a class I or class II substance as a refrigerant 

and which is used for household or commercial purposes, including 

any air conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or freezer." EPA 

interprets this definition to include all air-conditioning and 

refrigeration equipment except that designed and used exclusively 

for military applications. Thus, the term "appliance" includes 

all the sectors of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment 

described under Section III.A. above, including household refrigerators 

and freezers (which may be used outside the home), other refrigerated 

appliances, residential and light commercial air-conditioning, 

transport refrigeration, retail food refrigeration, cold storage 

warehouses, commercial comfort air-conditioning, motor vehicle 

air conditioners, comfort cooling in vehicles not covered under 

section 609, and industrial process refrigeration. (In sections 

608(a) and 608(c), the Act refers specifically to "industrial 

process refrigeration," a term that is not defined. EPA believes 

that all refrigeration equipment categorized as industrial process 

refrigeration in Section III.A. above also falls within the 

broad statutory definition of "appliance.") 

 In the proposal, the Agency requested comment on using its 

authority under section 608(a)(2) to adopt a broader definition 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 21 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
of appliance that would include equipment designed and used 

exclusively for military applications. EPA received comments 

both favoring and opposing the inclusion of military equipment 

in the term "appliance." Commenters favoring inclusion noted 

that the military is a large user of CFCs and argued that military 

equipment should be exempt from the regulation only in time 

of war or when compliance with the regulations would lessen 

the military effectiveness of the equipment. Commenters opposing 

inclusion (the Department of Defense, or DOD) argued that regulation 

of equipment designed and used exclusively for military applications 

was not necessary, because DOD was committed to meeting recovery 

and recycling standards at least as stringent as those in the 

commercial sector, "except where the unique design and use of 

the equipment or other mission critical operations preclude 

this." In cases in which commercial standards could not be met, 

DOD stated that it would set its own standards to minimize environmental 

hazards while ensuring mission accomplishment. DOD also stated 

that "equipment designed and used exclusively for military applications" 

comprised a relatively small percentage of their equipment, 

further reducing environmental concerns. 

 EPA agrees that there may be situations in which the unique 

design and use of military equipment makes it impossible to 

recover or recycle refrigerant during the servicing, maintenance, 

repair, or disposal of the equipment. However, the Agency reemphasizes 

that if the air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment used 

in a military application is identical to equipment used in 

a commercial application, then it is covered by the Act's definition 

(and hence by these regulations). For example, a room air conditioner 

used on a military base is still considered an appliance even 

though the use of that particular piece of equipment may not 

be for commercial or household purposes. Similarly, although 

a refrigerator in some other government facility is not used 

for household or commercial purposes, that refrigerator is still 

considered an appliance because that identical kind of equipment 

is used for household or commercial purposes in other contexts. 

For purposes of enforcing these regulations, EPA will consider 

"identical equipment" to include air-conditioning and refrigeration 

equipment whose system of working parts (e.g., compressor, motor, 

evaporator, and condenser) is identical to that in equipment 

used for a household or commercial purpose. Equipment that has 

been modified only externally for a military application (e.g., 

painted or encased in a new cabinet) will still be considered 

"identical" to equipment used for household or commercial purposes 

and will therefore be subject to these regulations. 

Approved Equipment Testing Organization 

 EPA defines Approved Equipment Testing Organization as any 

organization which has applied for and received approval from 

EPA to test recycling and recovery equipment. 

Certified Refrigerant Recycling Equipment 

 EPA defines Certified Refrigerant Recycling Equipment as 

equipment certified by an approved testing organization to meet 

EPA's final standards on equipment purchased before November 

15, 1993, that meets EPA's standards for grandfathered equipment. 

Commercial Refrigeration 

 As is discussed in more detail in section III.F.3, EPA is 

establishing a maximum allowable leak rate of 35% per year for 

industrial process and commercial refrigeration. EPA is defining 

commercial refrigerant as the refrigeration appliances utilized 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 22 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
in the retail food and cold storage warehouse sectors. Retail 

food includes the refrigeration equipment found in supermarkets, 

convenience stores, restaurants and other food service establishments. 

Cold storage includes the equipment used to store meat, produce, 

dairy products, and other perishable goods. All of the equipment 

contains large refrigerant charges, typically over 75 pounds. 

Disposal 

 EPA is defining "disposal" as the process leading to and 

including: 

 (1) The discharge, deposit, dumping or placing of any discarded 

appliance into or on any land or water, 

 (2) The disassembly of any appliance for discharge, deposit, 

dumping or placing of its discarded component parts into or 

on any land or water, or 

 (3) The disassembly of any appliance for reuse of its component 

parts. 

High-Pressure Appliance 

 Because the physical properties of high, very high, and lowpressure refrigerants differ, EPA is establishing somewhat different 

requirements for technicians and equipment servicing high, very 

high, and low-pressure appliances. EPA defines high-pressure 

appliances as appliances that use a refrigerant with a boiling 

point between -50 and 10 degrees Centigrade at atmospheric pressure 

(29.9 inches Hg). This definition would include equipment using 

CFCs -12, -114, -500, and -502, and HCFC-22. EPA has changed 

this definition since the proposal to include CFC-114 in response 

to comments stating that the physical differences between CFC114 and the other high-pressure refrigerants did not warrant 

a special category for the latter. The proposed intermediatepressure appliance category has consequently been eliminated. 

Industrial Process Refrigeration 

 As is discussed in more detail in section III.F.3, EPA is 

establishing a maximum allowable leak rate of 35% per year for 

industrial process and commercial refrigeration. EPA is defining 

industrial process refrigeration as complex customized appliances 

used in the chemical, pharmaceutical, petrochemical and manufacturing 

industries. The sector is also defined to include industrial 

ice machines and ice rinks. 

Low-Loss Fitting 

 EPA is requiring that recovery or recycling machines manufactured 

after November 15, 1993, possess low-loss fittings. EPA had 

proposed that the term "low-loss" fitting include only automatically 

closing fittings. A number of commenters disagreed with this 

definition, noting that automatically closing fittings can restrict 

refrigerant flow in some cases, slowing the recovery process, 

and that automatic fittings sometimes open or close unexpectedly, 

releasing refrigerant. These commenters recommended that EPA 

expand its definition of low-loss fitting to include fittings 

that can be closed manually, such as manual ball valve fittings. 

The commenters noted that "manual ball valves are in wide use 

in the refrigeration industry and have proven themselves to 

be safe and reliable." In response to these comments, EPA is 

defining a low-loss fitting as any device that is intended to 

establish a connection between hoses, air-conditioning and refrigeration 

equipment, or recovery or recycling machines and that is designed 

to close automatically or manually when disconnected, minimizing 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 23 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
the release of refrigerant from hoses, air-conditioning or refrigeration 

equipment, and recovery or recycling machines. 

Low-Pressure Appliance 

 EPA defines low-pressure appliances as appliances that use 

a refrigerant with a boiling point above 10 degrees Centigrade 

at atmospheric pressure (29.9 inches Hg). This definition includes 

appliances using CFCs -11 and -113, and HCFC-123. 

Major Maintenance, Service, or Repair 

 EPA is permitting persons servicing appliances to evacuate 

(or, in the case of low-pressure appliances, to pressurize) 

appliances to atmospheric pressure when the maintenance, service, 

or repair is not major and when an evacuation of the appliance 

to the environment is not performed after the servicing or repair 

is completed. As is discussed in section III.F.1.b, many nonmajor repairs involve uncovering only a small opening in the 

appliance and take place in only a few minutes, limiting both 

the quantity of refrigerant that escapes and the quantity of 

air and moisture that enter the system. However, major repairs 

involve uncovering larger openings in the system and are more 

time consuming, allowing refrigerant to escape and air to enter. 

This in turn necessitates an evacuation of the appliance to 

the environment at the conclusion of service. EPA is defining 

"major maintenance, service, or repair" as maintenance, service, 

or repair that involves removal of the appliance compressor, 

condenser, evaporator, or auxiliary heat exchanger coil. 

Motor Vehicle Air Conditioner (MVAC) 

 Although the servicing of motor vehicle air conditioners 

(MVACs) is covered by the MVAC refrigerant recycling rule, 40 

CFR part 82 subpart B, the disposal of motor vehicle air conditioners 

is covered by this rule. EPA is adopting the definition of MVAC 

in the MVAC refrigerant recycling rule as the definition of 

MVAC in this rule. In the MVAC rule, MVAC is defined as mechanical 

vapor compression refrigeration equipment used to cool the driver's 

or passenger's compartment of any motor vehicle. Motor vehicle 

is in turn defined as "any vehicle which is self-propelled and 

designed for transporting persons or property on a street or 

highway, including but not limited to passenger cars, light 

duty vehicles, and heavy duty vehicles." Transport refrigeration 

and air conditioning systems using HCFC-22 are excluded from 

the definition of MVAC. 

MVAC-like Appliance 

 Some of the air conditioners that are covered by this rule 

are identical to MVACs, but they are not covered by the MVACs 

refrigerant recycling rule (40 CFR part 82 subpart B, 57 FR 

31241) because they are used in vehicles that are not defined 

as "motor vehicles." These air conditioners include many systems 

used in construction equipment and farm vehicles. Like MVACs 

in cars and trucks, these air conditioners typically contain 

two to three pounds of CFC-12 and use open-drive compressors 

to cool the passenger compartments of vehicles. As is discussed 

in section III.G.3, EPA is adopting the requirements regarding 

the certification and use of recycling and recovery equipment 

in the MVACs rule for MVAC-like appliances covered by this rule. 

EPA is also allowing technicians who service MVAC-like appliances 

to be certified by a certification program approved under the 

MVAC rule, if they wish. EPA is defining MVAC-like appliance 

as mechanical vapor compression, open-drive compressor appliances 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 24 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
used to cool the driver's or passenger's compartment of a nonroad vehicle, including agricultural and construction vehicles. 

The definition excludes appliances using HCFC-22. 

Normally Containing 

 EPA is establishing stricter evacuation requirements for 

high pressure appliances or appliance components "normally containing" 

more than 200 pounds of refrigerant. As is discussed in section 

III.G, EPA considered the environmental impact of the refrigerant 

that remains in the large appliance or appliance component after 

recovery is complete in setting the more stringent standards. 

(During disposal and during many service procedures, this remaining 

refrigerant is ultimately released to the environment). The 

quantity of refrigerant that remains in an appliance or appliance 

component is related to two variables: (1) The internal pressure 

of the appliance or appliance component, and (2) the internal 

volume of the appliance or appliance component. The internal 

volume is in turn related to the mass of refrigerant that is 

inside the appliance or appliance component when the appliance 

is operating with a full charge of refrigerant. Thus, EPA is 

defining "normally containing" as containing the quantity of 

refrigerant within the appliance or appliance component when 

the appliance is operating with a full charge of refrigerant. 

It is important to note that although the mass of refrigerant 

in an appliance or appliance component can be changed through 

leakage or system pump-down, only the quantity of refrigerant 

normally contained by the appliance or appliance component can 

be considered in determining whether or not the stricter requirements 

apply. 

Opening 

 EPA is requiring that technicians recover refrigerant from 

appliances before "opening" them for maintenance, service or 

repair. EPA defines "opening" an appliance as any service, maintenance, 

or repair on an appliance that could be reasonably expected 

to release refrigerant from the appliance to the atmosphere 

unless the refrigerant were previously recovered from the appliance. 

Person 

 EPA is requiring that refrigerant transferred between airconditioning or refrigeration equipment owned by different persons 

must be fully reclaimed. EPA defines person as any individual 

or legal entity, including an individual, corporation, partnership, 

association, state, municipality, political subdivision of a 

state, Indian tribe, and any agency, department, or instrumentality 

of the United States, and any officer, agent, or employee thereof. 

This is identical to the definition used in the regulations 

concerning the production and consumption of ozone-depleting 

substances (40 CFR 82.3(r)). 

Process Stub 

 EPA is requiring that small appliances and room air conditioners 

sold after November 15, 1993 be provided with a process stub 

to facilitate removal of the refrigerant at servicing. The Agency 

defines process stub as a length of tubing that provides access 

to the refrigerant inside a small appliance or room air conditioner 

and that can be resealed at the conclusion of repair or service. 

Reclaim 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 25 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 EPA is adopting a slightly modified form of ASHRAE's definition 

of "reclaim." According to ASHRAE, to reclaim refrigerant is 

to:

 Reprocess refrigerant to new product specifications by means 

which may include distillation. Will require chemical analysis 

of the refrigerant to determine that appropriate product specifications 

are met. This term usually implies the use of processes or procedures 

available only at a reprocessing or manufacturing facility.

EPA is refining this definition to refer specifically to the 

ARI Standard 700-1988, Specifications for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants 

(included as Appendix A to the proposed rule) for the "new product 

specifications" and also for the appropriate type of chemical 

analysis to ensure that these specifications are met. For the 

Agency's purposes, the most important part of the definition 

of reclaim is the requirement to chemically analyze the final 

product to verify purity. Without such analysis and verification, 

the Agency will not consider refrigerant to have been reclaimed. 

Recover 

 EPA also is adopting ASHRAE's definition of "recover:" to 

remove refrigerant in any condition from a system without necessarily 

testing or processing it in any way. 

Recycle 

 Although the Act's usage of the term "recycle" is very broad, 

encompassing, for instance, the term "reclaim" as defined above, 

EPA defines the term more narrowly in its regulations. Once 

again, EPA is adopting ASHRAE's definition, with minor changes. 

ASHRAE states that to recycle is to: 

 Clean refrigerant for reuse by oil separation and single 

or multiple passes through devices, such as replaceable core 

filter-driers, which reduce moisture, acidity and particulate 

matter. This term usually applies to procedures implemented 

at the field job site or at a local service shop.

The key difference between "recycle" and "reclaim" is that the 

former does not involve chemical analysis of the product. Recycling 

essentially encompasses all types of treatment of refrigerant 

that do not involve such chemical analysis. As explained in 

a later section of this notice, EPA is requiring for two years 

that all refrigerant changing hands must be fully reclaimed, 

implying that the vast majority of recycling will take place 

on site as opposed to at a local service shop. 

Self-contained Recovery Equipment 

 Recovery equipment can be divided into two main types: Selfcontained and system-dependent. EPA referred to these two types 

of equipment as "active" and "passive" respectively in the proposal, 

but has changed the terminology in response to comments indicating 

that "self-contained" and "system-dependent" are the more common 

terms used in the industry. While self-contained equipment has 

its own means to draw refrigerant out of the refrigerator system, 

system-dependent equipment relies solely upon the compressor 

in the appliance and/or the pressure of the refrigerant in the 

appliance to recover the refrigerant. EPA defines these two 

types of equipment accordingly. 

Small Appliance 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 26 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 EPA proposed to define as a "small appliance" air-conditioning 

or refrigeration equipment containing less than one pound of 

charge during normal operation. This classification was intended 

to include household refrigerators, household freezers, dehumidifiers, 

vending machines, and water coolers, for which EPA proposed 

to establish special servicing and safe disposal requirements. 

 The rule establishes separate requirements for small appliances 

in three areas. First, small appliances, unlike other appliances, 

can be evacuated using equipment certified under Appendix C. 

Second, technicians servicing small appliances can be certified 

by taking an unproctored rather than proctored test. Third, 

small appliances can be manufactured with a process stub rather 

than a servicing aperture. The rationale for establishing somewhat 

less stringent requirements for the servicing and disposal of 

small appliances is that they contain smaller quantities of 

refrigerant and are serviced less often than other appliances.

 EPA received a number of comments stating that the use of 

the one-pound limit to define "small appliances" was inappropriate. 

These comments stated that the one-pound limit excluded some 

household refrigerators and freezers, and also excluded equipment, 

such as room air conditioners, that had the same technical attributes 

and was serviced by the same work force as household refrigerators 

and freezers. The commenters suggested that EPA adopt a definition 

that would include room air conditioners, packaged terminal 

air conditioners, and packaged terminal heat pumps in addition 

to household refrigerators and freezers, dehumidifiers, vending 

machines, and drinking water coolers. The commenters argued 

that the former types of equipment, like the latter, are charged 

and sealed at the factory, contain relatively small quantities 

of refrigerant (particularly when that quantity is weighted 

by the relatively low ozone-depletion potential of HCFC-22), 

and are serviced infrequently by the same technicians who service 

household refrigerators and freezers. Thus, they should be treated 

the same way in the rule as household refrigerators and freezers. 

 EPA believes that the commenters are correct that room air 

conditioners, packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs), and 

packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs) are sufficiently similar 

in these respects to household refrigerators and freezers to 

justify inclusion in the definition of "small appliance." EPA 

is therefore revising its proposed definition of "small appliance" 

to:

 Small appliance means any of the following products that 

are fully manufactured, charged, and hermetically sealed in 

a factory with five (5) pounds or less of refrigerant: Refrigerators 

and freezers designed for home use, room air conditioners (including 

window air conditioners and packaged terminal air conditioners), 

packaged terminal heat pumps, dehumidifiers, under-the-counter 

ice makers, vending machines, and drinking water coolers. 

System-dependent Recovery Equipment 

 As discussed above in the explanation of the term "self-contained 

equipment," EPA defines a system-dependent recovery device as 

a device that relies upon the compressor in an appliance to 

remove the refrigerant into an external container. 

Technician

 EPA is establishing in today's rule a number of requirements 

that apply to technicians. EPA defines technician as any person 

who performs maintenance, service, or repair to air-conditioning 

or refrigeration equipment that could reasonably be expected 

to release CFCs or HCFCs into the atmosphere, e.g., installer, 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 27 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
contractor employee, in-house service personnel, and in some 

cases, owner. Technician also means any person disposing of 

air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment except for small 

appliances and MVACs. 

Very High-Pressure Equipment

 EPA defines very high-pressure equipment as air-conditioning 

and refrigeration equipment that uses a refrigerant with a boiling 

point below -50 degrees Centigrade at atmospheric pressure. 

This definition includes equipment using refrigerants 13 and 

503. 

F. Required Practices

 EPA is requiring persons servicing or disposing of air-conditioning 

and refrigeration equipment to observe certain service practices 

that minimize emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. The 

most fundamental of these practices is the requirement to recover 

refrigerant rather than vent it to the atmosphere. As noted 

above, the knowing venting of class I or class II refrigerant 

during servicing or disposal (except for de minimis releases 

associated with a good faith attempt to recapture, recycle, 

or safely dispose of the refrigerant) has been expressly prohibited 

by section 608(c) of the Act since July 1, 1992.

 Knowing venting is any release that permits a class I or 

class II substance to enter the environment and that takes place 

with the knowledge of the technician during the maintenance, 

servicing, repairing, or disposal of air-conditioning or refrigeration 

equipment. Two commenters argued that EPA was interpreting "knowing 

release" too narrowly. These commenters asserted that a technician 

who fills a leaking system is knowingly venting refrigerant. 

As discussed below in Section III.F.3, this rule requires repair 

of leaks above a certain size in equipment normally containing 

more than 50 pounds of refrigerant. However, the venting prohibition 

itself, which applies to the maintenance, service, repair, and 

disposal of equipment, does not prohibit "topping off" systems, 

which leads to emissions of refrigerant during the use of equipment. 

The provision on knowing releases does, however, include the 

situation in which a technician is practically certain that 

his or her conduct will cause a release of refrigerant during 

the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of equipment. 

Knowing releases also include situations in which a technician 

closes his or her eyes to obvious facts or fails to investigate 

them when aware of facts that demand investigation. 

 Section 608(c)(1) of the CAA exempts "de minimis" releases 

associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle 

or safely dispose of these substances from the prohibition. 

In their statement prior to the passage of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990, the Senate managers explained that, "The 

exception is included to account for the fact that in the course 

of properly using recapture and recycling equipment, it may 

not be possible to prevent some small amount of leakage." (Congressional 

Record S16948, October 26, 1990). From this statement and the 

statutory text, EPA considers it appropriate to conclude that 

emissions accompanying the proper use of recapture and recycling 

equipment would generally be considered "de minimis." EPA is 

therefore interpreting as "de minimis" those emissions that 

take place at servicing and disposal when:

 (i) The required practices set forth in 82.158 of this 

proposed regulation are observed and recovery or recycling machines 

that meet the requirements set forth in 82.158 of this proposed 

regulation are used, or

 (ii) The requirements of the MVAC regulation (40 CFR part 

82, subpart B) are observed. 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 28 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 Such emissions represent the lowest achievable level of emissions, 

but because the requirements for recovery and recycling machines 

would vary somewhat from sector to sector and because the charge 

sizes involved vary considerably from sector to sector, the 

quantities considered de minimis would also vary from sector 

to sector.

 1. Evacuation of Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment. 

EPA is requiring that before air-conditioning and refrigeration 

equipment is opened for maintenance, service, or repair, the 

refrigerant in either the entire system or the part to be serviced 

(if the latter can be isolated) must be transferred to a system 

receiver (a component of the system that is designed to hold 

excess refrigerant charge and that can be used to hold the charge 

during servicing or repair) or to a certified recycling or recovery 

machine. The same requirements apply to equipment that is to 

be disposed of, except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAClike appliances, whose disposal is covered by Section III.M. 

below. In order to ensure that the maximum amount of refrigerant 

possible is captured rather than released, EPA is requiring 

that air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment be evacuated 

to or below specified levels of vacuum. As discussed in the 

proposal, the Agency has considered a number of factors in developing 

these levels, including the technical capabilities, ease of 

use, and costs of recycling and recovery equipment, the possible 

impact of evacuation on the air-conditioning and refrigeration 

equipment, the servicing times that would be necessary to achieve 

different vacuums, and the amounts of refrigerant that would 

be released under different evacuation requirements and their 

predicted impact on the ozone layer (and indirectly, on human 

health and the environment). Since the rule was proposed, the 

Agency has reviewed numerous public comments regarding the proposed 

evacuation levels and has refined its analysis. As a result, 

some of the proposed requirements have been changed. These changes 

are discussed below.

 As was proposed, the required levels of evacuation vary depending 

upon the type of equipment to be serviced or disposed of and 

the date of manufacture of the recovery or recycling machine 

(i.e., whether it met certification requirements for new equipment 

or had been grandfathered). However, some of the distinctions 

between different types of equipment have been changed since 

the rule was proposed. For small appliances, the requirements 

also vary depending on the capacities of the recovery system 

used under the circumstances (e.g., with an operating vs. a 

nonoperating refrigerator compressor).

 Technicians repairing MVAC-like appliances are not subject 

to the evacuation requirements below, but are subject to a requirement 

to "properly use" (as defined at 40 CFR 82.32(e)) recycling 

and recovery equipment approved pursuant to 82.36(a). As is 

discussed in more detail in section III.G.3, EPA is adopting 

the equipment certification and use requirements of the MVACs 

refrigerant recycling rule (40 CFR part 82, subpart B) for MVAClike appliances.

 The required evacuation levels and equipment standards (for 

"grandfathered" equipment) become effective 60 days after publication 

of this rule. Although EPA had proposed that these requirements 

become effective 30 days after publication of the rule, some 

commenters believed that 30 days would not constitute sufficient 

time for technicians to become aware of EPA's requirements and 

to acquire equipment that met EPA's grandfathering standards. 

Upon reconsideration of the issue, EPA agreed. The Agency again 

notes, however, that the prohibition on venting refrigerants 

during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances 

has been in effect since July 1, 1992.

 a. Evacuation requirements for air-conditioning and refrigeration 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 29 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
equipment besides small appliances. When recovery and recycling 

machines manufactured or imported after November 15, 1993, are 

employed for recovery, EPA is requiring evacuation to 0 inches 

of vacuum, 10 inches of vacuum, 15 inches of vacuum, or 29 inches 

of vacuum, depending on the size and type of air-conditioning 

or refrigeration equipment being serviced. If grandfathered 

recovery or recycling devices are used, EPA proposes to require 

evacuation to 0 inches of vacuum in very high-pressure systems 

and in small systems using HCFC-22, 4 inches of vacuum in highpressure systems, and 25 inches of vacuum in low-pressure systems, 

because the grandfathered equipment may not be capable of achieving 

higher levels (see Section III.G.). The table below lists requirements 

for evacuation (pressure readings) for each type of air-conditioning 

and refrigeration equipment and for certified and grandfathered 

recovery and recycling machines.

 Table 1.-Required Levels of Evacuation for Air-Conditioning or 

 Refrigeration Equipment 

 [Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like equipment] 

 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 Inches of vacuum (relative to 

 3 standard atmospheric pressure 

 3 of 29.9 inches Hg) {1} 

 ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3 Using recovery 3 Using recovery 

Type of air-conditioning or refrigeration 3 or recycling 3 or recycling 

 equipment 3 equipment 3 equipment 

 3 manufactured 3 manufactured 

 3 before 3 on or after 

 3 November 15, 3 November 15, 

 3 1993 3 1993 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 3 

HCFC-22 equipment, or isolated component 3 0 3 0 

 of such equipment, normally containing 3 3 

less than 200 pounds of refrigerant. 3 3 

HCFC-22 equipment, or isolated component 3 4 3 10 

 of such equipment, normally containing 3 3 

200 pounds or more of refrigerant. 3 3 

Other high-pressure equipment, or 3 4 3 10 

 isolated component of such equipment, 3 3 

normally containing less than 200 pounds 3 3 

of refrigerant. 3 3 

Other high-pressure equipment, or 3 4 3 15 

 isolated component of such equipment, 3 3 

normally containing 200 pounds or more 3 3 

of refrigerant. 3 3 

Very high-pressure equipment ............ 3 0 3 0 

Low-pressure equipment .................. 3 25 3 29 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 {1} EPA is explicitly defining the required evacuation levels in relation 

 to standard, as opposed to local, atmospheric pressure. A number of 

 commenters noted that because local atmospheric pressure drops with 

 elevation, it is difficult (and sometimes physically impossible) for 

 persons working at high elevations to attain the required vacuums if they 

 are measured relative to local atmospheric pressure. Because the quantity 

 of refrigerant remaining in a piece of air-conditioning or refrigeration 

 equipment is related to its absolute rather than relative pressure, 

 pulling a shallower gauge vacuum at a higher elevation has the same impact 

 on the environment as pulling a deeper vacuum at sea level. Persons 

 performing appliance repair, maintenance, service or disposal at high 

 elevations should make appropriate adjustments to the above chart to 

 account for the difference between standard and local atmospheric pressure. 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 30 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 i. High-pressure air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment. 

There are a number of differences between the above evacuation 

levels and those that were proposed. The most significant of 

these is the distinction now made between high-pressure airconditioning and refrigeration equipment utilizing HCFC-22 and 

other high-pressure equipment. In the proposal, EPA requested 

comment on establishing less stringent evacuation standards 

for equipment utilizing HCFC-22. The Agency noted that the high 

saturation pressure of HCFC-22 makes it difficult (and in some 

cases, impossible) to draw deep vacuums on this refrigerant 

but, at the same time, permits a high percentage of this refrigerant 

to be recovered at relatively shallow vacuums. EPA stated that 

the latter consideration, along with the relatively low ozonedepletion potential of HCFC-22 (compared to those of the CFCs) 

may make deeper vacuums unnecessary. A number of commenters 

concurred with this reasoning. Many commenters emphasized the 

difficulty of pulling deep vacuums on air-conditioning and refrigeration 

equipment using R-22 (HCFC-22), particularly in the high ambient 

temperatures typically found on rooftops during the summer months. 

Under these conditions, commenters noted, only recovery equipment 

with high-quality compressors would be able to attain the compression 

ratio necessary to draw a 10-inch vacuum, and even this equipment 

would not be able to achieve a 20-inch vacuum. Moreover, the 

discharge temperature of the refrigerant in these situations 

would often be high enough to burn the oil in the recovery device 

compressor, leading to its failure. 

 EPA has performed an analysis that attempts to determine 

appropriate evacuation levels for various types of refrigerants 

and equipment, considering the physical characteristics of the 

refrigerants (e.g., saturation pressure, which is related both 

to the compression ratio necessary to achieve a certain vacuum 

level and to the percentage of refrigerant that is recovered 

at that vacuum level), their ozone-depletion potentials, the 

costs of recycling and recovery equipment, and labor costs. 

This analysis indicates that recovery of HCFC-22 into a vacuum 

is justified only for large charge sizes (greater than 200 pounds). 

For smaller charges, the avoided damage to human health and 

the environment do not appear to justify the time and expense 

of drawing a vacuum even if a vacuum were attainable, which 

it often would not be. It should be noted that because HCFC22 has one of the highest saturation pressures of the high-pressure 

refrigerants, evacuating HCFC-22 systems to atmospheric pressure 

recovers approximately 98.5 percent of the refrigerant at 75 

degrees F (more at higher temperatures). Although temperature 

was not considered in the analysis, HCFC-22 equipment (or isolated 

components thereof) with charges of 200 pounds or more is generally 

found in equipment rooms, where ambient temperatures are low 

enough to make a ten-inch vacuum feasible. 

 Some commenters argued that EPA should not set less stringent 

standards for HCFC-22 because the ODP of HCFC-22 is not significantly 

different from that of the CFCs in the short term, when the 

most serious ozone depletion is expected to occur. As noted 

above, the physical characteristics of HCFC-22 and the conditions 

under which repair and disposal of appliances using HCFC-22 

are likely to occur (e.g., on hot rooftops) were the primary 

considerations in setting less stringent standards for HCFC22 than for the CFC refrigerants; however, EPA also considered 

the impact on human heath and the environment of the HCFC-22 

that would escape under the less stringent standards. In estimating 

this impact, EPA accounted for both the short- and long-term 

effects of HCFC-22 on stratospheric ozone, examining health 

and environmental effects over the next 150 years. As discussed 

above, the Agency found that these effects were not severe enough 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 31 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
to warrant setting more stringent standards for HCFC-22 recovery, 

which would be difficult (and, in some cases, impossible) to 

meet. The method that EPA used to calculate the impact of HCFC22 on human health and the environment and the relationship 

of this method to the ODP of HCFC-22 is discussed in more detail 

in the RIA. 

 Another significant change from the proposal is the provision 

that allows the charge in an isolated component of the system, 

rather than the charge of the system as a whole, to be used 

to determine appropriate levels of evacuation. Several commenters 

stated that large air-conditioning and refrigeration systems 

often contain isolation valves that allow individual system 

components to be repaired without requiring evacuation of the 

entire system. In many cases, the quantity of refrigerant left 

in the component is considerably less than 200 (or even 50) 

pounds, even if the system as a whole contains several hundred 

pounds. In these cases, EPA agrees that drawing a deep vacuum 

on the system component is not necessary. 

 The other significant changes from the proposal are the alteration 

of the maximum evacuation level for high-pressure refrigerants 

from 20 inches to 15 inches, and the raising of the cutoff for 

"small" high-pressure equipment to 200 pounds. A number of commenters 

criticized the 20-inch evacuation requirement, stating that 

achieving this level of evacuation would place a strain on recovery 

equipment, recover little additional refrigerant, be time-consuming, 

and in some cases (e.g., with equipment using R-502) be impossible. 

In its analysis of evacuation levels, the Agency found that 

evacuation levels between approximately 15 and 23 inches of 

vacuum (depending upon compressor clearance) were appropriate 

for large equipment using R-12 (CFC-12), while evacuation levels 

between 5 inches and 17 inches of vacuum (depending upon compressor 

clearance) were appropriate for large equipment using R-502. 

EPA's analysis confirmed that achievement of a 20-inch vacuum 

on equipment utilizing R-502 would be very difficult without 

substantial modification of existing recycling and recovery 

equipment. (See Section G.1. below.) Rather than set separate 

standards for each high-pressure refrigerant, which could lead 

to excessive confusion, the Agency has decided to establish 

a single standard based on both of the above ranges, 15 inches 

of vacuum. (R-12 and R-502 represent the commonly used CFC highpressure refrigerants with the lowest and highest saturation 

pressures, respectively. Therefore, an evacuation level that 

falls into the range of appropriate levels for both refrigerants 

should be appropriate for all high-pressure CFC refrigerants.) 

 Similarly, EPA found that evacuation levels between approximately 

10 and 22 inches of vacuum (again, depending upon compressor 

clearance) were appropriate for small equipment using R-12, 

while evacuation levels between atmospheric pressure and 14 

inches of vacuum were appropriate for small equipment using 

R-502. The Agency selected 10 inches as an appropriate evacuation 

level for all high-pressure CFC refrigerants. 

 Supermarkets and chemical manufacturers were concerned that 

the proposed levels of evacuation, particularly the 20-inch 

requirement for large, high-pressure equipment, would be too 

time-consuming, leading to food spoilage or costly shutdowns 

of industrial processes. As discussed above, EPA is now requiring 

that large, high-pressure systems be evacuated to 15 rather 

than 20 inches of vacuum. EPA believes that this change and 

the new provision that permits the charge of an isolated component 

to be used as the basis for determining evacuation requirements 

will address concerns about excessive time spent evacuating 

retail food and industrial process refrigeration systems. 

 One other change from the proposal is the elimination of 

the "intermediate-pressure refrigerants" category and the inclusion 

of CFC-114 in the "high-pressure refrigerants" category. Several 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 32 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
commenters stated that the physical differences between CFC114 and the high-pressure refrigerants did not warrant special 

treatment of the former. Other commenters noted that evacuating 

CFC-114 to 25 inches of vacuum, as was proposed, would be very 

time-consuming. The proposed requirement to evacuate CFC-114 

to 25 inches of vacuum was based on information from the Department 

of Defense (one of the largest users of CFC-114), which stated 

that 25 inches was the maximum depth of vacuum that its pumpout 

equipment could achieve. Other users of CFC-114, however, such 

as gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plants, have stated 

that their current (built-in) recovery equipment cannot evacuate 

their 114 systems to this level and that it would be very difficult 

and expensive to obtain recovery equipment that could. In consideration 

of these comments, the Agency has decided to classify CFC-114 

as a high-pressure refrigerant. 

 ii. Very high-pressure equipment. Commenters uniformly supported 

EPA's proposal to require evacuation of very high-pressure equipment 

(used with refrigerants -13 and -503) to atmospheric pressure. 

Several of these commenters noted that passive equipment could 

be used to evacuate very high-pressure systems, many of which 

contain only a few pounds of vapor easily captured by a 50-lb. 

recovery cylinder. (Note that ordinary refrigerant cylinders 

are not suited for use with very high-pressure refrigerants, 

but higher-pressure cylinders are available.) EPA's own analysis 

indicates that chilling a cylinder with dry ice would even permit 

the recovery of some of the very high-pressure refrigerant as 

a liquid ("Very High Pressure Refrigerant Recovery and Reclamation," 

September 28, 1992, memorandum from Gene Troy, Bernard Eydt, 

and John Wasson to David Lee and Debbie Ottinger). Some commenters 

stated that using compressor-bearing equipment to compress and 

liquefy very high-pressure refrigerants could pose a safety 

risk, because of the very high pressures required. Because of 

this concern and because compressor-bearing equipment currently 

available for use with very high-pressure refrigerants is extremely 

bulky and relatively expensive, EPA is permitting the use of 

system-dependent equipment on very high-pressure refrigeration 

equipment containing less than 15 pounds of refrigerant. 

 iii. Low-pressure air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment. 

As was proposed, EPA is requiring evacuation of low-pressure 

systems to 25 inches of vacuum using grandfathered equipment 

and to 29 inches using equipment manufactured after November 

15, 1993. A number of commenters supported the 29-inch requirement, 

noting that the technology to achieve this level in a timely 

fashion (vacuum pumps) is available and is, in fact, now being 

used on virtually all low-pressure recovery and recycling equipment. 

One commenter noted that evacuation to 29 inches of vacuum instead 

of 25 inches of vacuum would prevent release of 312,000 pounds 

of CFC-11 annually. 

 Some commenters supported evacuation to levels less stringent 

than 29 inches. Many of these commenters argued that evacuation 

to levels below 25 inches would be excessively time-consuming 

and would recover little additional refrigerant. 

 EPA has examined the feasibility and benefits of evacuating 

low-pressure systems to 29 inches of vacuum. As noted in the 

proposal and in several comments, the technology to achieve 

a 29-inch vacuum is available. The time and labor costs involved 

in drawing this vacuum depend upon (among other things) the 

recovery rate of the recycling or recovery equipment at low 

pressures. If a relatively slow recovery device is used to evacuate 

low-pressure equipment from 25 to 29 inches of vacuum, the labor 

costs involved in recovering that refrigerant can indeed be 

quite high, and may not be justified by the additional refrigerant 

recovered. However, EPA believes that use of available, competitively 

priced equipment permits evacuation to 29 inches within a reasonable 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 33 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
period and is justified by the additional refrigerant recovered 

(Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), March 25, 1993). 

 b. Exceptions to evacuation requirements. EPA is establishing 

exceptions to its evacuation requirements for two specific situations: 

non-major repairs that are not followed by an evacuation of 

the appliance to the environment and leaks that make the required 

evacuation levels impossible to attain. In both cases, commenters 

and EPA's research indicate that attempting to achieve the required 

vacuums could actually lead to higher emissions than achieving 

shallower (or no) vacuums. 

 i. Non-major repairs that are not followed by evacuation 

of the appliance to the environment. A number of commenters, 

including technicians, grocery store managers, contractor trade 

groups, and environmentalists, stated that EPA should permit 

evacuation of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment to 

atmospheric pressure under limited circumstances, such as when 

only minor repairs were performed or when an evacuation of the 

equipment to the environment was not planned subsequent to the 

repair. Following a major repair to an air-conditioning or refrigeration 

system, the contents of a system or component are typically 

evacuated to the environment with a vacuum pump to remove air 

and moisture that may have entered the system during the repair 

process. This evacuation to the environment is often known as 

a "complete" or "high-level" evacuation. (The contents are expelled 

to the environment rather than captured by a recovery device 

because recovery device compressors are not able to compress 

air, which may make up a significant percentage of the system 

contents in many cases.) However, from comments and discussions 

with technicians in the field, the Agency understands that many 

minor repairs, such as replacement of a filter drier, oil filter, 

or safety switch, involve uncovering only a small opening in 

the appliance (e.g., a threaded fitting) and take place in only 

a few minutes. In these cases, both the quantity of refrigerant 

that escapes and the quantity of air and moisture that enter 

the system will be limited if the system has been brought to 

atmospheric pressure prior to beginning the repair. After such 

repairs, the system is generally resealed with no evacuation 

to the environment, particularly if the system is a large one. 

 Commenters argued that release of refrigerant from a system 

at atmospheric pressure during a minor repair procedure can 

be minimal, and in fact will be smaller in many cases than the 

release that would result from drawing the system into a vacuum. 

Commenters noted that drawing a vacuum leads to the influx of 

either nitrogen or air and moisture, which in turn requires 

that a second, deeper vacuum be drawn using a vacuum pump, expelling 

any residual refrigerant to the atmosphere. One commenter estimated 

that approximately 6 pounds of refrigerant would be released 

from its equipment if that equipment were drawn to atmospheric 

pressure before servicing, while 50 pounds would be released 

if the equipment were drawn first to a 25-inch vacuum and then 

re-evacuated after servicing. (Commenters universally supported 

recovery into a vacuum at disposal.) 

 In response to these comments, EPA has decided to permit 

evacuation (or, in the case of low-pressure appliances, pressurization) 

of appliances to 0 psig (atmospheric pressure) when the maintenance, 

service, or repair is not major and when an evacuation of the 

appliance to the environment is not performed after the servicing 

or repair is completed. As discussed in the definitions section, 

EPA is defining as "major" maintenance, service, or repair that 

involves removal of the compressor, condenser, evaporator, or 

auxiliary heat exchanger coil. These procedures are relatively 

time-consuming and/or leave large openings in the system through 

which refrigerant can escape (and air and moisture can enter). 

After such procedures, evacuation of the system to the environment 

is customarily performed. However, EPA recognizes that a second, 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 34 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
"high-level" evacuation may be appropriate for some types of 

appliances even after minor repairs. The Agency emphasizes that 

if the system is to be re-evacuated to any level, then it must 

be drawn to the appropriate vacuum in Table 1 to recover the 

refrigerant before the repair begins, even if the repair would 

otherwise be considered "non-major." EPA believes that this 

approach will most effectively minimize emissions while lowering 

the costs of many repairs. 

 Low-pressure systems, because they operate below atmospheric 

pressure, must be pressurized to equalize the pressure of the 

system and the pressure of the air outside of it. EPA is requiring 

low pressure systems that undergo minor servicing, such as oil 

changes, to be pressurized to atmospheric pressure to minimize 

the intrusion and subsequent purging of air. Methods that do 

not require subsequent system purging, e.g., heat (not nitrogen), 

must be used. 

 Some commenters argued that EPA should never require evacuation 

of high-pressure equipment to levels below atmospheric pressure, 

or should allow the service technician to decide whether further 

evacuation was required. Many of these commenters were concerned 

that drawing a vacuum during recovery could result in an influx 

of air and moisture that would damage equipment. In the proposal, 

EPA requested comment on this problem, noting that technicians 

can avoid system contamination by either breaking the vacuum 

with nitrogen or by drawing a deep second vacuum on the system 

to remove any air and moisture that may have penetrated. (EPA 

also proposed special evacuation requirements for leaky systems; 

these are discussed below.) The Agency expressed a willingness 

to consider allowing small systems utilizing HCFC-22 to be evacuated 

to atmospheric pressure (as it has), but stated that the larger 

ODP of other refrigerants appeared to justify requiring that 

these be drawn into a vacuum, even if extra measures were required 

to prevent system contamination. 

 A few commenters stated that carrying a cylinder of dry nitrogen 

and/or a vacuum pump capable of drawing deep vacuums is not 

practical in many situations. These commenters claimed that 

space constraints in many equipment installations would often 

make it physically impossible to use nitrogen and a vacuum pump. 

However, other commenters stated that small, portable nitrogen 

cylinders are available and are necessary not only for breaking 

the vacuum, but for conducting leak testing after repairs are 

complete. Based on its research and review of comments, EPA 

believes that breaking vacuums with nitrogen (and, therefore, 

drawing vacuums during recovery) will be practical in most equipment 

service and maintenance situations. (At disposal, breaking the 

vacuum is not necessary because system contamination is no longer 

a concern.) 

 In addition, EPA continues to believe that establishing clear 

evacuation standards will minimize overall refrigerant emissions. 

Although the Agency is allowing technicians considerable discretion 

in determining whether a repair will require a high-level evacuation 

or whether a system is leaky (see Section b.ii. below), it is 

reluctant to leave evacuation requirements entirely to the discretion 

of technicians for a number of reasons. First, the technician's 

private incentives to recover refrigerant are not the same as 

society's incentives to ensure that it is recovered. Because 

they do not bear the full cost of refrigerant release, technicians 

would be expected to recover less refrigerant than should be 

recovered, from a social perspective. Although a regulatory 

requirement to "minimize emissions" might increase the level 

of recovery, it is not likely that this level will be the same 

as the socially desirable level. Second, clear evacuation requirements 

minimize uncertainty as to whether a given release of refrigerant 

is considered "de minimis" or not. Technicians achieving required 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 35 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
vacuums will know that they are complying with section 608 of 

the Clean Air Act. A number of commenters agreed with this reasoning 

and supported EPA's approach. Thus, the Agency is requiring 

that high-pressure equipment using CFC refrigerants be evacuated 

to specific vacuums, except in the specific situations described 

in the paragraphs above and in section ii. below. 

 ii. Evacuation of leaky equipment. The Agency proposed less 

stringent evacuation requirements for leaky equipment, proposing 

to allow high-pressure equipment to be evacuated to 0 psig (atmospheric 

pressure) if it had a leak large enough to have lowered the 

system pressure to two atmospheres. EPA proposed this provision 

in response to concerns that it may not be possible to draw 

deep vacuums on leaky equipment and that attempting to draw 

such vacuums may contaminate the refrigerant, the appliance, 

and the recycling or recovery equipment. 

 EPA received a number of comments supporting less stringent 

evacuation standards for equipment with large leaks. Most of 

the commenters stated that deep evacuation of leaky appliances 

would draw contaminants into the appliance and from there into 

the recycling or recovery equipment. The contaminants cited 

most often were air and moisture, but chemicals being cooled 

by industrial process refrigeration equipment were mentioned 

as well. Commenters argued that removal of these contaminants 

(particularly air) could result in greater emissions of refrigerant 

than would result from release of the refrigerant remaining 

in the system at atmospheric pressure. 

 Several commenters criticized the "two atmospheres" standard 

for determining whether a system had a large leak. Some commenters 

stated that system pressure was not necessarily an indication 

of the size of a leak; even small leaks, given enough time, 

could lower system pressure to two atmospheres or less. A number 

of commenters believed that EPA needed to develop standards 

and requirements for leaky low-pressure equipment as well as 

for leaky high-pressure equipment. 

 In response to these comments, EPA has decided to revise 

its evacuation provision for leaky equipment to allow consideration 

of factors other than initial system pressure in determining 

whether a leak is large enough to prevent evacuation to the 

levels in Table 1 above. The Agency is also expanding the provision 

to include low-pressure equipment. If the technician determines 

that the levels in Table 1 are not attainable, or would substantially 

contaminate the refrigerant being recovered, the technician 

must: (1) isolate leaking from non-leaking components wherever 

possible, (2) evacuate non-leaking components to be opened to 

the levels specified in Table 1, and (3) evacuate leaking components 

to be opened to the lowest level that can be attained without 

substantially contaminating the refrigerant. This level cannot 

exceed atmospheric pressure. 

 EPA is aware that both the symptoms of a leak and the lowest 

evacuation level that can be attained will vary from situation 

to situation. For instance, leaky high-pressure systems may 

activate refrigerant sensors in an equipment room or may simply 

have low internal pressure. Leaky low-pressure systems may purge 

noncondensables frequently or, if they are not operating, may 

be at atmospheric pressure. Occasionally, leaks may not become 

apparent until during the evacuation process itself, when the 

system pressure levels off unexpectedly or when the system fails 

to hold a vacuum. Based on review of comments and discussions 

with industry representatives, EPA believes that it will generally 

be appropriate to evacuate high-pressure systems with large 

leaks to atmospheric pressure. Low-pressure systems, depending 

upon the size and nature of the leak, can often be evacuated 

to lower levels. For example, low-pressure systems with leaking 

"O" rings or gaskets can usually be drawn to a 25-inch vacuum. 

However, low-pressure systems with leaks in condensers or evaporators 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 36 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
(where water can enter the system) may be difficult to evacuate 

to levels below atmospheric pressure. EPA will incorporate guidelines 

on diagnosing and evacuating leaky systems into both its technician 

certification program and its enforcement policy. 

 c. Removal of entrained refrigerant from oil. In the proposal, 

the Agency discussed the issue of CFCs dissolved in the oil 

left behind in a system after refrigerant has been evacuated. 

The Agency did not propose specific requirements but expressed 

the concern that in some cases a large amount of the refrigerant 

remains entrained in the oil and, as a result, the percentage 

of charge evacuated is significantly decreased. The oil could 

then slowly release refrigerant once exposed to the atmosphere. 

The Agency requested comment on whether procedures to extract 

refrigerant from oil prior to exposing the oil to the atmosphere 

or disposing of the oil should be required in this rule. 

 The majority of comments on this issue recommended that EPA 

not establish additional procedures for the removal of refrigerant 

entrained in oil. The commenters highlighted the fact that the 

amount of refrigerant remaining in oil varies by equipment types, 

the refrigerant in question and the recovery equipment used. 

Many suggested that the amount of CFC remaining in oil is minute 

as compared to the charge. They stated that the servicing practices 

require vacuums to be drawn when evacuating refrigerant from 

the systems and that the majority of the refrigerant will be 

removed at that time. Holding the vacuum for an extended amount 

of time or heating the crankcase are acceptable procedures in 

some cases, while for other equipment the amount of time required 

is not commensurate with the small amount of refrigerant recovered. 

Some commenters recognized that the ASHRAE Guideline 3 is helpful 

in some cases. Many commenters stated that even by using the 

guideline, the oil would maintain a CFC contamination rate above 

4000 ppm. (For additional information see RCRA Regulations Regarding 

the Management of CFCs and CFC contaminated wastes-40 CFR part 

279.) 

 Two commenters specifically mentioned that oil sampling, 

a procedure that withdraws a small amount of oil from a system 

for diagnostic purposes, should not be included in any refrigerant 

recovery procedures because the amount of refrigerant contained 

in the sample is so small. Several commenters suggested that 

guidance was the best way to provide information to technicians 

on this issue at this time and that mandatory procedures be 

considered if technology is developed to recover the refrigerant 

quickly and effectively. 

 The comments support EPA's proposal that additional procedures 

to recover entrained refrigerant from oil are not warranted 

at this time. Since the amount of refrigerant entrained in oil 

will vary based on the system, the refrigerant used, the temperature, 

the recovery equipment used and the length of time that the 

vacuum is applied, the Agency was unable to determine procedures 

that would result in an acceptable amount of refrigerant recovered 

from the oil in each case. The Agency encourages system and 

recovery equipment manufacturers to provide information to owners 

in order to assist them to recover as much refrigerant as possible 

at service. 

 d. Evacuation requirements for small appliances. Technicians 

opening small appliances for service, maintenance, or repair 

may use either equipment certified under Appendix B, ARI 740-

1993, or equipment certified under Appendix C, Method for Testing 

Recovery Devices for Use with Small Appliances, to recover the 

refrigerant. Because Appendix B and Appendix C measure refrigerant 

recovery efficiency differently, different evacuation requirements 

are appropriate for technicians using equipment certified under 

the two standards. 

 Appendix C measures the percentage (by mass) of the refrigerant 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 37 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
recovered from the small appliance by the recovery equipment. 

This percentage depends upon whether the compressor of the small 

appliance is operating or not, and therefore the required recovery 

efficiency for technicians using equipment certified under Appendix 

C also varies depending upon whether the compressor of the small 

appliance is operating or not. Technicians recovering refrigerant 

from small appliances with operating compressors are required 

to capture 90% of the refrigerant in the appliance, while technicians 

recovering refrigerant from small appliances with non-operating 

compressors are required to capture 80% of the refrigerant in 

the appliance. Because the percentage of refrigerant mass recovered 

is very difficult to measure on any given job, technicians must 

adhere to the servicing procedure certified for that recovery 

system under Appendix C to ensure that they achieve the required 

recovery efficiencies. 

 Technicians using recovery equipment certified under Appendix 

B, on the other hand, can measure the vacuum that has been achieved 

in the small appliance to determine whether they have achieved 

the required recovery efficiency. (As discussed above, Appendix 

B assesses the recovery efficiency of recycling and recovery 

equipment by measuring its final recovery vacuum.) EPA is setting 

the required evacuation level for equipment certified under 

Appendix B for use with small appliances at four inches of mercury 

vacuum. Technicians using this equipment must also achieve four 

inches of vacuum in the field. This level of evacuation is consistent 

with that required for larger high pressure systems evacuated 

using grandfathered recycling or recovery equipment, and EPA 

believes that most recycling and recovery equipment can meet 

this standard. Certification of recovery devices and procedures 

are discussed in more detail in section III.G.2. 

2. Disposition of Recovered Refrigerant

 EPA anticipates that the combination of the proposed January 

1, 1996 phaseout of CFCs, the prohibition on venting that became 

effective on July 1, 1992, and this rule will ultimately increase 

recovery and/or recycling of ozone-depleting compounds by 60,000 

metric tons annually. This large increase in the quantity of 

used refrigerant in circulation carries risks, even as it has 

the potential to reduce emissions of ozone-depleting compounds 

and to ease the transition to alternatives by prolonging the 

life of existing equipment. Recovered refrigerant may contain 

moisture, acids, oil, particulates, or other contaminants that 

can lead to serious damage to the equipment if it is reused 

without taking some action to remove these contaminants. In 

many cases, technicians will be recovering and reusing refrigerants 

for the first time. Thus, neither they nor their customers may 

be aware of the potential dangers involved in charging their 

air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment with used refrigerants. 

 EPA is concerned about damage to air-conditioning and refrigeration 

equipment for three reasons. First, damage to equipment would 

obviously increase costs to equipment owners. Second and more 

important from an environmental perspective, damaged equipment 

would often leak during operation and would require servicing 

or replacement more often than undamaged equipment, increasing 

refrigerant emissions. Third, damage to equipment would reduce 

consumer confidence in the quality of used refrigerant, leading 

to erosion of the market for used refrigerants and possibly 

to their release. A reduction of consumer confidence could also 

result in the premature retirement or retrofit of CFC or HCFC 

equipment. 

 To prevent contaminated refrigerant from entering the market, 

EPA proposed to require technicians servicing air-conditioning 

equipment to reclaim refrigerant before moving it between equipment 

owned by different persons. As discussed above in the Definitions 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 38 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
Section, "reclaimed" means that the refrigerant is cleaned to 

the ARI 700-1988 standard of purity (Appendix A) and is chemically 

analyzed to verify that it meets this standard. ARI 700 was 

specifically developed to ensure that refrigerant removed from 

one piece of air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment could 

be cleaned, analyzed, and put into any other piece of air-conditioning 

or refrigeration equipment, in any application (excluding household 

appliances, which do not fall under the purview of ARI), without 

fear of equipment damage. EPA focused on changes in equipment 

ownership because such transfers introduce uncertainties into 

the marketplace regarding the purity of the refrigerant. Transfers 

between equipment owned by the same person, on the other hand, 

are of less concern. First, owners are aware of the source and 

history of the refrigerant and are therefore better able to 

determine whether use of the refrigerant in a given piece of 

equipment is likely to damage that equipment. Second, owners 

themselves bear the costs of equipment damage when a refrigerant 

transfer is inappropriate. 

 EPA also requested comment on less stringent alternatives 

for ensuring refrigerant purity. One alternative would have 

permitted air-conditioning and refrigeration contractors to 

move refrigerant between similar pieces of equipment owned by 

different persons. This approach acknowledged that purity concerns 

are diminished when at least one party, the contractor, has 

knowledge of both the equipment from which the refrigerant is 

recovered and the equipment into which the refrigerant is charged, 

and when these pieces of equipment are similar. However, EPA 

was reluctant to adopt this approach before industry had an 

opportunity to develop a "clean-up" standard for refrigerant 

moved between similar pieces of equipment. Such a standard might 

be implemented through the certification program for recycling 

equipment, ensuring that the equipment could clean up a standard 

contaminated refrigerant "cocktail" to a certain level, or it 

might be implemented through simplified testing of recycled 

refrigerant at the contractor's shop. (The analytical protocol 

contained in ARI 700 requires expensive laboratory equipment 

and expertise, making it impractical as a methodology for testing 

at the contractor's shop.) 

 EPA received a number of comments both in favor and opposed 

to the proposed requirement to reclaim refrigerant moved between 

equipment owned by different persons. Those who favored the 

requirement reiterated many of the arguments EPA had made in 

the proposal. Many stated that a purity standard was necessary 

to protect consumers, who lacked the technical knowledge to 

enable them to evaluate the risks of using contaminated refrigerant. 

The fact that recycled refrigerant would often be less expensive 

than reclaimed refrigerant would exacerbate this problem. Many 

of the same commenters were concerned that manufacturers with 

equipment warranties would also be adversely affected if the 

sale of recycled refrigerant to a new owner were allowed. In 

addition to private costs, several commenters cited damage to 

the environment that could result from use of recycled, contaminated 

refrigerant as a justification for the reclamation requirement. 

These commenters echoed EPA's concerns that the sale of recycled, 

contaminated refrigerant could lead to increased refrigerant 

emissions and to loss of consumer confidence in the quality 

of used refrigerants. 

 One commenter noted that ARI 700 was the only available technical 

basis for refrigerant purity levels and should therefore be 

required to protect equipment. This commenter stated that technology 

existed to permit transportable recycling machines capable of 

producing refrigerant that meets ARI Standard 700. A few commenters 

stated that since reclamation services would be available to 

process recovered refrigerant at reasonable cost, there was 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 39 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
no need to relax EPA's proposed reclamation requirement. 

 Commenters who opposed the reclamation requirement focused 

primarily on two points. First, the application and service 

history of the refrigerant determine whether it can be safely 

moved to another piece of equipment; and second, responsible, 

educated contractors are capable of making this determination. 

These commenters favored the less stringent option described 

by EPA in the proposed rule, which would allow contractors to 

move refrigerant between similar pieces of equipment owned by 

different persons. According to the commenters, this restriction 

would greatly lessen contamination concerns while enabling contractors 

and consumers to save money. Many commenters noted that both 

the U.S. and international HVAC/R industries are making progress 

toward developing guidelines for use of recycled refrigerant, 

making the less stringent option more attractive. 

 One commenter suggested that EPA incorporate a "sunset clause" 

for the reclamation requirement into the regulation. This commenter 

cited a number of advantages to this approach, stating that 

it would: (1) Provide immediate protection to equipment manufacturers, 

(2) allow the fledgling refrigerant reclaiming market to develop, 

(3) encourage the development of recycling technology, (4) give 

the U.S. HVAC/R industry the incentive and the time it needs 

to develop its own recycling guideline, and (5) ultimately relieve 

the EPA and the taxpayer of the cost of enforcing a purity standard. 

 EPA has considered these comments and has performed its own 

analysis of the costs and benefits of requiring reclamation 

of refrigerant transferred between equipment owned by different 

persons. This analysis examined the costs and probabilities 

of equipment damage associated with four levels of refrigerant 

processing: (1) Recovery only, with no purification, (2) recycling, 

(3) recycling with on-site testing of refrigerant, and (4) reclamation. 

The analysis then compared these costs and risks to determine 

whether each successive level of processing was worthwhile. 

EPA found that reclamation appeared to be clearly worthwhile 

for refrigerant used in some types of equipment (small appliances) 

but was not as clearly worthwhile for refrigerant used in other 

types. For the latter, recycling followed by on-site testing 

may be a more cost-effective form of protection. 

 Together, the comments and the analysis indicate that limited 

off-site recycling that is supported by a standard of purity 

and testing method for recycled refrigerant may be the most 

cost-effective means of carrying out Section 608 while protecting 

air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment. As several commenters 

noted, both the European Community and the U.S. HVAC/R industry 

have taken steps toward developing such a standard. EPA believes 

that the contaminant levels and testing methods that would ultimately 

be contained in such a standard would be less stringent than 

those in the ARI Standard 700, because the latter was designed 

to permit transfers between any two or more types of air-conditioning 

and refrigeration equipment, whereas the former would be designed 

only to permit transfers between similar types of equipment.{1} 

 3{1} The nearly universal applicability of ARI 700 dictates 

 3a relatively low tolerance for contaminants. For instance, 

 3oils used with HCFC-22 in residential air conditioning 

 3applications have a different viscosity than oils used 

 3with HCFC-22 in supermarket refrigeration systems. If 

 3the former are accidentally added to supermarket systems, 

 3they tend to form sludge, damaging the system. Similarly, 

 3air conditioning systems generally have a higher tolerance 

 3for moisture contamination than systems that run at lower 

 3temperatures because in the latter, water can freeze 

 3and expand to damage tubing. Thus, contaminant levels 

 3in ARI 700 must be set low enough to ensure that the 

 3systems most sensitive to that contaminant will not be 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 40 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 3damaged, even if many systems would not be harmed by 

 3higher contaminant levels. 

 However, as another commenter pointed out, the ARI Standard 

700 is the only technical standard of purity and testing method 

currently available. Therefore, in order to ensure that airconditioning and refrigeration equipment is protected while 

encouraging the development of a standard for limited off-site 

recycling, EPA is requiring that refrigerant transferred between 

different owners be reclaimed for two years after publication 

of this rule. EPA believes that two years is an appropriate 

interim period to allow industry to develop a standard of purity 

for recycled refrigerant and to allow EPA to complete a rulemaking 

to adopt the standard. Moreover, the expiration of the full 

reclamation requirement follows the date by which technicians 

must be certified, ensuring that the judgment of technicians 

regarding the disposition of refrigerant will be relatively 

well-informed. If U.S. industry has not made significant progress 

in developing a standard for recycled refrigerant within eight 

months, EPA may begin rulemaking to adopt an alternative standard, 

for instance, the standard being developed by the European Community. 

 The reclamation requirement will become effective 90 days 

after this rule is published. EPA had proposed to make this 

requirement effective 30 days after publication, but the Agency 

became concerned that 30 days may not constitute sufficient 

time for technicians to learn the requirements of this rule, 

establish contacts with reclaimers, and begin using reclamation 

services. 

 The Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute requested 

at the public hearing and in written comments that EPA adopt 

the updated version of ARI 700, ARI 700-1993, in this rule. 

Among other changes and additions, ARI 700-1993 will establish 

purity requirements for HCFCs not covered by ARI 700-1988, including 

HCFC-123 and -124. However, ARI 700-1993 has not yet been finalized 

and therefore cannot be included in this rule. When ARI 700-

1993 is finalized, the Agency plans to undertake rulemaking 

to adopt it. 

3. Leak Repair 

 In the proposal, the Agency stated that it intended to develop 

comprehensive regulations to reduce refrigerant leakage during 

equipment use in the next phase of rulemaking under section 

608. The Agency requested comment on whether it should include 

a provision in this rule requiring the repair of substantial 

leaks as an emergency stop-gap measure to ensure that technicians 

do not repeatedly "top off" systems with substantial leaks. 

The Agency suggested a figure of 35 percent loss of charge per 

year as a leak that must be repaired within 30 days after discovery. 

The 35 percent number was chosen because research on emissions 

from equipment in different sectors obtained in developing recycling 

regulations indicates that this number is five percentage points 

above the annual leak rate in the most leak-prone sectors. The 

Agency also discussed establishing different levels for different 

sectors. EPA recognized that the 35 percent figure for all sectors 

fell short of establishing a lowest achievable level of emissions; 

however, it would reduce significant leaks until the additional 

analysis is performed. 

 EPA received a large volume of comments on this issue and 

the predominance of these commenters (over 800) requested that 

the Agency include a mandatory leak repair requirement. Only 

a small percentage of the letters offered any comment on the 

suggested 35 percent per year figure or the 30-day time allowance 

for repairing these leaks, however. Most of the commenters suggested 

that the recovery of refrigerant at-service requirements simply 

did not go far enough in reducing release of ozone-depleting 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 41 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
chemicals. Many of the commenters believed that by not repairing 

leaks that had been detected, the technician or the owner of 

the equipment was "intentionally venting" refrigerant to the 

atmosphere. Several commenters mentioned that advances in leak 

detection technology have made these procedures reliable, inexpensive 

and fast, and repair of leaks results in equipment that runs 

more efficiently, therefore saving energy. 

 Regarding the question of the appropriate definition of the 

size of substantial leaks that must be repaired, several commenters 

agreed that the 35 percent per year level was appropriate. Questions 

about the practicality of such a level were raised, however, 

and several commenters mentioned that the technician would need 

to remove the entire charge to determine if the percentage had 

been exceeded. Suggestions that the percentage be reduced over 

time and that different levels be set for each type, or category 

of equipment, were made. NRDC and FOE stated that the appropriate 

level be determined based not on 5 percent over "average" leak 

rate, but by the leak rate of equipment that is maintained the 

best (e.g., the 95th percentile lowest leak rate). They believe 

this level is feasible since it is derived from existing equipment, 

but is a higher standard than an average figure. 

 Approximately 25 commenters suggested that a mandatory requirement 

was premature, not needed, or inappropriate. These commenters 

believed that more analysis is necessary to determine realistic 

leak levels and one commenter suggested a voluntary leak repair 

program. Two commenters from the commercial refrigeration sector 

mentioned that their equipment has a range of leak rates and 

therefore the average figure would be an arbitrary designation. 

The figure could serve as a disincentive to repair leaks smaller 

than the average, while requiring repair within 30 days may 

interfere with decisions that may actually reduce overall emissions. 

An example of this would be in the situation where a company 

decides to replace a leaking system but the new equipment will 

not be delivered for 60 days. Requiring expensive repairs on 

the obsolete unit may result in the company deciding not to 

replace the equipment as quickly with new, leak-free equipment 

using a less ozone-depleting or non-ozone-depleting substitute. 

One commenter suggested a case-by-case waiver be granted from 

the 30-day time limit for repair of substantial leaks to avoid 

the type of situation just described. 

 EPA believes it should respond to the large number of comments 

requesting some action in this rule on repair of substantial 

leaks by promulgating a leak repair requirement. The Agency 

acknowledges that the 35 percent figure for all equipment is 

too general and therefore in today's final rule, two different 

levels have been established. The 35 percent figure will continue 

to be used for the industrial process and commercial refrigeration 

sectors. The second leak rate is the 15 percent of charge per 

year figure discussed in the proposal and in today's rule this 

rate would be applied to all equipment with more than 50 pounds 

of charge, other than the industrial process and commercial 

refrigeration sectors. The 50-pound cut-off is intended to exempt 

smaller equipment where the cost of repairing the leak is an 

order of magnitude higher than the environmental benefit of 

repairing the leak (RIA). The 50-pound cut-off is also consistent 

with guidance found in the ASHRAE Guideline 3-1990. 

 The two levels have been derived from information on average 

maintained equipment because the Agency believes that to be 

a fair level that can reasonably be expected to be achievable 

in practice by all equipment. Although best maintained equipment 

would have a lower leak rate, the Agency understands that older 

equipment and some equipment that is difficult to service because 

of its location (e.g., commercial refrigeration, which frequently 

has lines running under floors) cannot achieve a stricter standard. 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 42 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
Furthermore, EPA would need to inventory equipment and leak 

rates to determine emissions from the best maintained equipment. 

The Agency will consider lowering the accepted levels to the 

best maintained levels of leaks in future rulemaking. 

 ARI and Robinair commented that it is not necessary to define 

the size of the leaks that must be repaired. They commented 

that the standard should simply state that leak detection must 

be performed and any identifiable leaks be repaired in a timely 

fashion. The Agency considered this type of standard, which 

has the benefit of simplicity and clarity. Without any type 

of lower bound, however, this standard could result in huge 

amounts of money being spent to repair even pinhole leaks in 

equipment that may soon be obsolete. To be meaningful, lower 

bounds must reflect specific equipment and this requires that 

additional analysis be performed. The intent of the leak repair 

requirement in this rule is to assure that substantial leaks 

are repaired. The Agency maintains that the rising price and 

lower availability of the substances will also provide the incentive 

to repair equipment; however, commenters believed the market 

incentive alone was not sufficient. 

 Today's final rule will also require the 30-day time limit 

for repairing leaks suggested in the proposal. The Agency maintains 

that the 30-day time limit is feasible and a reasonable balance 

between commenters suggesting 15 days and those suggesting 60 

days. An exception to this requirement has been incorporated 

into the rule to address commenters' concerns that the Agency 

should preserve flexibility for equipment owners who may be 

able to reduce their use of ozone-depleting substances more 

effectively by replacing or retrofitting equipment. Leaks do 

not need to be repaired in the 30-day time limit if the owner 

develops a plan for his equipment within 30 days that details 

the activities planned to retire equipment and replace it with 

equipment that uses a non-ozone-depleting or a less ozone-depleting 

substance or to retrofit existing equipment within one year. 

The Agency believes the time limit with the exception provides 

the proper incentive to reduce the emission of ozone-depleting 

substances and alerts equipment owners to the types of choices 

they must make as the phaseout of production approaches. The 

plan would not need to be submitted to the Agency. Although 

it is the owner's discretion on where to keep the original of 

the plan, a copy must be kept at the same site as the leaking 

equipment. The original of the plan must be made available to 

EPA on request. 

 One commenter asked how technicians would be able to determine 

the size of the leak to be repaired. The Agency believes that 

records of the service calls and amounts of refrigerant added 

to machines will assist technicians in their determination of 

leak rates and would also assist owners of equipment in the 

determination of the need for leak repair. The Agency believes 

these records, primarily in the form of service invoices, are 

already kept by equipment owners and therefore this requirement 

is not an additional burden on them. These records must also 

include refrigerant purchased and added to equipment each month 

in cases where owners add their own refrigerant. The Agency 

understands that leak detection technology can also be used 

to identify leaks and in some cases technicians will need to 

estimate the leak size or refill the system before they can 

determine the amount of refrigerant that has leaked out. Many 

commenters raised the issue of degree of responsibility for 

leak detection. The Agency wishes to clarify that today's requirement 

is that leaks of a certain size be repaired, but it does not 

explicitly state that leak detection be performed at specific 

intervals. The Agency believes that technicians perform leak 

detection as part of the diagnosis for repair of equipment. 

At the time of the proposal, the Agency did not have sufficient 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 43 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
information to require specific leak detection technologies, 

although it believes this activity to be important. Today's 

rule requires that within 30 days the owner of the equipment 

either authorize the repair of substantial leaks or develop 

the equipment retirement/retrofit plan discussed above. Technicians 

should inform owners when leaks exist and when those leaks should 

be repaired. The owner has the legal obligation to ensure that 

repairs are made to equipment where the leak rate exceeds the 

standard. It is, therefore, in the owner's interest to provide 

sufficient information to a technician, so that a technician 

can make an accurate determination regarding whether the leak 

must be repaired. An owner may not intentionally shield himself 

from information which would have revealed a leak. 

4. Handling Multiple Refrigerants in Recycling and Recovery 

Equipment 

 In the proposal, EPA requested comment on whether it should 

require procedures to recover residual refrigerant from recycling 

and recovery equipment before that equipment was used with a 

different refrigerant. Depending upon the design of the recycling 

or recovery equipment, significant quantities of refrigerant 

may be left behind in the condenser of the equipment after the 

recovery or recycling process is complete. The Agency was concerned 

that without a requirement to remove this refrigerant, the residual 

refrigerant could mix with the new refrigerant, contaminating 

the latter. The proposal listed several possible procedures 

for recovering residual refrigerant, including using a second 

recovery device, heating the condenser of the recovery or recycling 

machine, and/or cooling the container (and/or tubing to it) 

to which the recovery or recycling machine was evacuated. The 

proposal also noted that the design of equipment (e.g., use 

of different condensers with each refrigerant) could help to 

avoid refrigerant mixture. 

 EPA received comments both favoring and opposing an evacuation 

requirement for recycling and recovery equipment switched between 

different refrigerants. Those favoring an evacuation requirement 

stated that without such a requirement, refrigerants could either 

be mixed or vented to the atmosphere to avoid such mixture. 

These commenters observed that the quantity of refrigerant remaining 

in the condenser of a recovery or recycling device may represent 

a significant percentage of the total charge of the appliance 

being serviced or disposed of (e.g., one pound out of five). 

Several commenters noted the importance of equipment design 

in minimizing the mixture or emission of residual refrigerant; 

while some models of equipment possess separate condensers for 

each refrigerant, many other models possess the ability to evacuate 

their condensers into either the appliance being serviced or 

a recovery cylinder at the conclusion of service. Thus, a number 

of commenters believed that an evacuation requirement would 

be most effectively implemented through the certification program 

for recycling and recovery equipment. Under this approach, the 

equipment certification program would require that equipment 

either possess instructions for equipment evacuation or be designed 

to ensure that residual refrigerant was neither mixed with new 

refrigerant nor released to the atmosphere. 

 Commenters who opposed an evacuation requirement for recycling 

and recovery equipment focused more on procedures than equipment 

design. Commenters argued that there were sufficient private 

incentives to ensure that technicians would take steps to avoid 

mixing refrigerants and that it would be difficult to specify 

appropriate procedures for all situations and types of equipment. 

Commenters also stated that the evacuation methods suggested 

in the proposal were either too unwieldy or too expensive to 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 44 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
implement. One commenter observed that the reclamation requirement 

for refrigerant moved between appliances owned by different 

persons would provide sufficient protection against refrigerant 

mixture. Another commenter believed that it would be difficult 

to enforce an evacuation requirement for recycling and recovery 

equipment. 

 EPA agrees with the commenters who oppose the evacuation 

requirement that it would be difficult to specify procedures 

appropriate for all types of equipment and that private incentives 

and the reclamation requirement will help to prevent mixture 

of refrigerants. However, EPA is concerned that without some 

regulation by EPA, considerable quantities of residual refrigerant 

could be vented to the atmosphere in order to avoid refrigerant 

mixture. This risk is particularly large with recycling and 

recovery equipment that does not possess either multiple condensers 

or the ability to evacuate the (probably liquid) contents of 

its condenser into either the appliance being serviced or a 

recovery cylinder at the conclusion of service or disposal. 

Therefore, although the Agency is not prescribing specific procedures 

to recover residual refrigerant from recycling and recovery 

equipment, the Agency will consider emissions of residual refrigerant 

to be violations of the prohibition on venting unless technicians 

take steps to minimize emissions of such refrigerants. 

 Probably the easiest way to minimize emissions of residual 

refrigerant is to use recycling and recovery equipment that 

possesses the ability to evacuate the contents of its condenser 

into either the appliance being serviced or a recovery cylinder 

at the conclusion of service. As noted by a number of commenters, 

several currently available models of recycling and recovery 

equipment possess this simple design feature. (Another feature 

of recycling and recovery equipment that would minimize both 

emissions and mixture of refrigerants is possession of multiple 

condensers; however, this feature appears to be less common 

than the self-evacuation feature.) Other steps to minimize emissions 

of residual refrigerant include those cited in the proposal, 

such as heating the condenser of the recovery or recycling machine 

and/or cooling the container (and/or tubing to it) to which 

the recovery or recycling machine is evacuated. 

 Because relatively simple design changes can be made (and, 

as pointed out by many commenters, have been made) to minimize 

the quantity of residual refrigerant that remains in the recycling 

or recovery equipment after recycling or recovery is complete, 

the most effective way of avoiding mixture or release of residual 

refrigerants may be to include a requirement that equipment 

be designed to avoid them in the certification program for recycling 

and recovery equipment. It was not possible to consider fully 

or to implement such a requirement before this rule was promulgated. 

However, the Agency will investigate this possibility in the 

future. 

G. Certification of Recycling and Recovery Equipment 

 In order to ensure that recycling and recovery equipment 

on the market is capable of limiting emissions of CFCs and HCFCs, 

EPA is requiring that recovery and recycling equipment manufactured 

or imported on or after November 15, 1993, be tested and certified 

by an EPA-approved laboratory or organization. The Agency requires 

verification of performance in two areas that affect total recovery 

efficiency: (1) Vapor recovery efficiency and (2) efficiency 

of noncondensable purge devices on recycling machines. In addition, 

EPA is requiring that equipment and hoses be fitted with lowloss fittings. 

 In addition to the initial testing, manufacturers must have 

their equipment models tested or inspected at least once every 

three years to ensure that the equipment is still capable of 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 45 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
meeting EPA requirements. Such "follow-up" programs are standard 

in equipment testing programs throughout industry. Manufacturers 

and importers also have to place a label on each piece of certified 

equipment indicating that it is certified and showing which 

organization tested and certified it. This label is intended 

to inform both consumers (technicians) and EPA enforcement personnel 

that the equipment meets EPA standards. 

1. Standards for Recovery and Recycling Machines Intended for 

Use With Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment Except 

Small Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like Appliances 

 a. Recovery Efficiency. In developing its evacuation requirements, 

EPA has considered the technical capabilities, ease of use, 

and costs of recycling and recovery equipment, the servicing 

times that would be necessary to achieve different vacuums, 

and the amounts of refrigerant that would be released under 

different evacuation requirements and their predicted impact 

on the ozone layer (and therefore, on human health and the environment). 

The Agency has attempted to evaluate these factors in both the 

short and the long-term, considering the capabilities of both 

existing and possible future equipment. 

 In particular, the Agency has focused on the recovery rates 

and maximum recovery efficiencies (vacuums) of equipment. Although 

EPA is not setting minimum standards for recovery rates, the 

recovery rate of equipment affects both the speed with which 

it can achieve a certain vacuum and its portability. This in 

turn affects the depth of vacuum that can be practically achieved 

with air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment in the field. 

For instance, if the air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment 

is located in a space that is small or difficult to approach, 

it may not be possible to connect it to recovery equipment with 

a high recovery rate, which tends to be relatively large. In 

such cases, smaller recovery equipment must be used, making 

the achievement of deep vacuums excessively time-consuming and 

impractical. In the proposal, EPA attempted to allow for portability 

concerns by setting less stringent standards for equipment containing 

less than 50 pounds of high-pressure refrigerants. However, 

the Agency received a number of comments indicating that the 

50-pound limit was too low; the commenters stated that equipment 

with more than 50 pounds is frequently located in areas that 

make the use of large recovery equipment impossible. Some of 

these commenters recommended that EPA adopt a 200-pound limit 

instead because equipment containing more than 200 pounds of 

refrigerant is likely to be located in relatively large and 

accessible equipment rooms. Based on its research and review 

of comments, EPA believes that a 200-pound limit is appropriate, 

and the Agency is adopting this limit in the rule. 

 The maximum recovery efficiency of recovery and recycling 

equipment is the percentage of refrigerant that the equipment 

is capable of recovering from an appliance and is directly related 

to the depth of vacuum that the equipment can achieve. Since 

the proposed rule was developed, ARI has published the results 

of its third-party testing program for recycling and recovery 

equipment, providing objective information on the range of performance 

of available equipment in the various pressure categories. ARI's 

results show that the brands and models tested that are intended 

for use with low-pressure refrigerants are capable of achieving 

a 29-inch vacuum in most instances. Most of the brands and models 

intended for use with high-pressure refrigerants are capable 

of achieving a vacuum deeper than 10 inches in the laboratory, 

and a number are capable of achieving a vacuum deeper than 15 

inches. However, contrary to preliminary information received 

by EPA from some equipment manufacturers, no recovery device 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 46 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
intended for use with high-pressure refrigerants was capable 

of reaching the 29-inch level. 

 According to comments and to EPA's own research, two limitations 

on existing recycling and recovery equipment make achievement 

of a 29-inch vacuum with high-pressure refrigerants unlikely: 

The compression ratio limit of the equipment's compressor, and 

the dependency of much of the equipment on the flow of refrigerant 

for cooling its motor. Of these two hurdles, the dependency 

of equipment on the flow of refrigerant for cooling appears 

to be the more easily overcome. Many of the small, portable 

recovery devices intended for use with small high-pressure equipment 

possess hermetic compressors, which rely upon the flow of refrigerant 

through the compressor to carry heat away from the motor. When 

such recovery devices operate in a vacuum, the flow of refrigerant 

is decreased and the motor is subject to overheating. Recovery 

devices with open compressors, which are not subject to this 

problem, have historically weighed more than equipment with 

hermetic compressors, making them less attractive in applications 

where portability is a major concern. However, at least one 

manufacturer of recovery equipment has developed a model that 

incorporates a light-weight open compressor. This recovery device 

neither weighs nor costs more than models possessing hermetic 

compressors, and is capable of achieving deeper vacuums than 

many of its competitors, according to the results of ARI's testing. 

(It should be noted, however, that even this equipment was not 

capable of achieving a 20-inch vacuum with all high-pressure 

refrigerants.) EPA recommends that purchasers of recycling and 

recovery equipment consider compressor configuration when they 

buy their equipment, particularly if they plan to use the equipment 

in heavy-duty applications where overheating could be a problem 

(e.g., with large charge sizes or in high temperatures). 

 The compression ratio limit of recovery and recycling equipment 

has proved a somewhat more challenging technical hurdle than 

motor cooling. A number of commenters noted that compressors 

used in recycling and recovery equipment typically have a compression 

ratio limit of between 15 and 30 to 1. For R-22, this physically 

limits the depth of vacuum that can be attained to between 10 

and 20 inches of vacuum at 75 degrees F (the temperature at 

which laboratory testing of recovery equipment occurs), and 

to between 2 and 16 inches of vacuum at 100 degrees F (a temperature 

at which recovery often occurs in the field). For R-12, the 

limits range between 17 and 23 inches of vacuum at 75 degrees 

F, and between 12 and 21 inches of vacuum at 100 degrees F. 

 Before these physical limits are reached, however, the pumping 

efficiency of the compressor drops significantly, greatly slowing 

the recovery process. For instance, on a 100-degree day, a recovery 

machine with a compression ratio limit of 30 to 1, which is 

a good limit, is pumping R-22 at less than five percent of its 

initial rate by the time the system pressure reaches atmospheric 

pressure. By the time the system pressure reaches ten inches 

of vacuum, the recovery machine is pumping at approximately 

one percent of its original rate. In practical terms, therefore, 

the vacuums achievable by currently available recovery equipment 

are not as deep as the numbers in the previous paragraph would 

indicate. 

 The compression ratio limit of recovery and recycling and 

equipment can be increased by adding another compressor to the 

recovery device in series with the first, by building a multistage compressor, or by switching to a different technology 

altogether, the vacuum pump. Because the compressor is one of 

the heavier components of recovery equipment, the first option 

is not practical for recovery equipment for which portability 

is a major concern. However, a manufacturer of recovery devices 

submitted comments indicating that a multi-stage compressor 

for high-pressure recycling and recovery equipment could be 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 47 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
available within the next year, and a manufacturer of vacuum 

pumps stated that a modified vacuum pump for high-pressure recycling 

and recovery equipment could be available within the same period. 

According to the commenters, recovery or recycling equipment 

built with either technology would be able to pull a 29-inch 

vacuum on high-pressure refrigerants. The second commenter estimated 

that recovery equipment incorporating the vacuum pump would 

weigh little more than current equipment and would cost approximately 

as much as current recovery equipment plus a vacuum pump for 

dehydrating the air-conditioning and refrigeration system. EPA 

plans to monitor development of this recovery equipment and 

will evaluate the possibility of setting stricter recovery efficiency 

standards for high-pressure recovery equipment in the future. 

 In the meantime, the Agency has decided to adopt the same 

evacuation standards for recycling and recovery equipment as 

it has for service and disposal practices. These standards appear 

in table 2 below: 

 Table 2.-Levels of Evacuation Which Must be Achieved by Recovery or Recycling 

 Machines Intended for Use With Air-Conditioning or Refrigeration Equipment 

 [Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like equipment-manufactured on or 

 after November 15, 1993] 

 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 Type of air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment with 3 Inches of Hg vacuum 

 which recovery or recycling machine is intended to be used 3 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 

HCFC-22 equipment, or isolated component of such equipment, 3 0. 

 normally containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant. 3 

HCFC-22 equipment, or isolated component of such equipment, 3 10. 

 normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant. 3 

Very high-pressure equipment ............................... 3 0. 

Other high-pressure equipment, or isolated component of such 3 10. 

 equipment, normally containing less than 200 pounds of 3 

refrigerant. 3 

Other high-pressure equipment, or isolated component of such 3 15. 

 equipment, normally containing 200 pounds or more of 3 

refrigerant. 3 

Low-pressure equipment ..................................... 3 25 mm Hg absolute. 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 Some commenters stated that EPA should establish more stringent 

evacuation standards for equipment in the laboratory (certification 

requirements) than for equipment in the field (service practice 

requirements). EPA recognizes that equipment in the field may 

not always perform as well as equipment in the laboratory, due 

to poor maintenance, wear, or extremes of temperature. However, 

this does not imply that laboratory standards must be more stringent 

than field standards, because much recovery and recycling equipment 

will be well-maintained and will not have to function at extreme 

high or low temperatures. Moreover, regardless of its laboratory 

performance, excessively worn or poorly maintained equipment 

will not perform well in the field. Rather than raise laboratory 

standards or lower field standards, therefore, EPA has decided 

to allow technicians and contractors to decide whether the particular 

application of their recovery equipment requires better than 

the minimum laboratory performance. Technicians and contractors 

are responsible for ensuring that required vacuums are achieved 

in the field. Thus, for instance, persons repairing equipment 

utilizing R-502 in high ambient temperatures would be wise to 

purchase recovery equipment that can draw a 15-inch vacuum on 

this refrigerant in the laboratory. In addition, any user of 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 48 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
recycling and recovery equipment would be well-advised to maintain 

it properly and to replace it when it has worn out. 

 b. Passive or system-dependent recovery equipment. In the 

proposed rule, EPA requested comment on whether it should permit 

the use of system-dependent recovery devices, which lack an 

on-board compressor, to recover refrigerant from high-pressure 

equipment besides small appliances. System-dependent recovery 

devices use the compressor of the air-conditioning or refrigeration 

system being evacuated to perform the evacuation. The proposal 

would have allowed the use of the system compressor to evacuate 

refrigerant from one component of the system to another (e.g., 

the receiver or pump-out unit), so long as evacuation requirements 

were met, but would not have allowed use of the system compressor 

to move the charge out of the system. The Agency also requested 

comment on what type of testing would be appropriate to ensure 

that system-dependent recovery devices minimized refrigerant 

emissions. ARI 740-91, the industry protocol for testing recycling 

and recovery equipment that was current when the proposed rule 

was published, did not address system-dependent recovery devices. 

 EPA has received comments both favoring and opposing the 

use of system-dependent recovery devices. Those favoring systemdependent recovery devices argued that they would not compromise 

overall recovery efficiency because: (1) System compressors 

are frequently in better condition than the compressors used 

in recycling and recovery equipment, which are frequently pressed 

beyond their design limits, and (2) when system compressors 

are not operating (in approximately one out of ten cases), technicians 

must travel back to the shop to pick up a new system compressor 

anyway, and can pick up a compressor-bearing recovery device 

at the same time to recover the refrigerant. In addition, these 

commenters stated that system-dependent equipment costs less 

than comparable compressor-bearing equipment and can recover 

refrigerant more quickly, because system compressors are generally 

larger and more powerful than those used in recovery equipment. 

Finally, commenters noted that the revision to ARI 740-1991, 

ARI 740-1993, had incorporated a test for passive equipment 

that demonstrated that this equipment was as effective as selfcontained equipment, when used with an appliance with a fully 

functioning compressor. 

 Commenters who opposed system-dependent recovery devices 

argued that they were likely to result in greater emissions 

than compressor-bearing equipment, because they rely on a system 

compressor that may not always be operational and because they 

tend to leave refrigerant on the "high side" of the system. 

These commenters also expressed concern that some system compressors, 

such as scroll designs, could be damaged by operating in a vacuum, 

particularly if oil migrated out of the compressor (which it 

tends to do as system pressure is lowered). 

 EPA has considered these comments and has analyzed the likely 

effectiveness of system-dependent recovery devices. The Agency 

has specifically investigated the possibilities that systemdependent equipment may leave refrigerant on the "high side" 

of the system and that the performance of the equipment may 

be hampered by worn or defective system compressors. After reviewing 

the test procedure for system-dependent equipment in ARI 740-

1993, EPA believes that this procedure ensures that system-dependent 

equipment certified under 740-1993 will not leave refrigerant 

on the "high side" of the system. At the same time, EPA understands 

that technicians typically return to their shops for a new compressor 

when the system compressor is not operable, at which time they 

can pick up a self-contained recovery device to recover the 

refrigerant before beginning the compressor changeout. When 

system compressors are operable but are not capable of achieving 

the required vacuums with a single recovery receptacle (a situation 

that EPA believes will be relatively rare), the required vacuums 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 49 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
can be achieved by using a second, evacuated cylinder. Thus, 

EPA is permitting use of system-dependent equipment that has 

been certified under ARI 740-1993 with appliances containing 

up to 15 pounds of refrigerant (a quantity suggested in comments 

from manufacturers of system-dependent equipment). However, 

because system-dependent equipment will not be able to achieve 

the required vacuums if the system compressor is not operating, 

EPA is requiring technicians who repair or dispose of appliances 

besides small appliances to have at least one self-contained 

recovery device available at the shop to recover the refrigerant 

from systems with non operating compressors. 

 c. Refrigerant recovery rates. EPA did not propose to require 

minimum refrigerant recovery rates for recycling and recovery 

equipment, believing that contractors and technicians had sufficient 

incentives to purchase equipment with rates adequate to their 

needs. However, EPA did request comment on the option of establishing 

minimum rates, because some members of the STOPAC Subcommittee 

for Recycling expressed concern that some contractors might 

purchase slower equipment (which is often less expensive than 

faster equipment) and might subsequently interrupt the recovery 

process before it was complete. 

 Most commenters agreed with EPA that minimum recovery rates 

need not be included in the Agency's equipment certification 

program because contractors and technicians wish to maximize 

the quantity of refrigerant recovered while minimizing labor 

costs. (In general, labor costs make up a much larger share 

of the costs of refrigerant recovery than equipment costs.) 

EPA performed an analysis that compares the recovery rate that 

maximizes private benefits (and that would therefore presumably 

be selected by a technician buying recovery or recycling equipment) 

to the recovery rate that maximizes public benefits (and that 

should be selected from society's perspective) for a number 

of different sizes of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment. 

In general, there was little difference between the two. Thus, 

EPA is not requiring minimum recovery rates for recycling or 

recovery equipment in today's rule. However, because technicians 

need objective information on recovery rates to purchase equipment 

adequate to their needs, EPA is including measurement of vapor 

and liquid recovery rates under the ARI 740-1993 procedure as 

a requirement for EPA certification of equipment. As discussed 

below, EPA is also working with ARI to add a measurement of 

the average vapor recovery rate to the current measurement of 

the maximum vapor recovery rate. 

 d. Low-loss fittings. Low-loss fittings prevent refrigerant 

from escaping from hoses and equipment during connection and 

disconnection of recovery and recycling machines. EPA proposed 

to require that hoses on recovery and recycling equipment be 

equipped with low-loss fittings, noting that they appeared to 

be cost-effective on both high and low-pressure equipment. Most 

commenters supported a requirement for low-loss fittings. However, 

as discussed above in the Definitions section, the Agency received 

a number of comments stating that automatic shutoff devices 

had a number of drawbacks, and that the definition of low-loss 

fitting should be expanded to include manual shut-off valves. 

Thus, in the final rule, EPA is requiring that recycling and 

recovery equipment be fitted with either automatic or manual 

shutoff valves. 

 A few commenters opposed the requirement for low-loss fittings. 

One commenter argued that low-loss fittings should not be required 

on equipment with the capability to empty the hoses of refrigerant 

before their disconnection. A few commenters stated that if 

refrigerant is sealed into hoses by low-loss fittings on a hot 

day, the hose can explode. 

 EPA understands that most recycling and recovery equipment 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 50 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
has the ability to empty hoses of liquid refrigerant before 

their disconnection, minimizing potential emissions. However, 

low-loss fittings are intended to prevent not only the release 

of refrigerant, but the influx of air that would later have 

to be purged. Thus, EPA is requiring them on equipment that 

can "deinventory" hoses. EPA believes that if hoses are properly 

emptied of liquid refrigerant before their disconnection, any 

risk of subsequent explosion is eliminated. 

 e. Purge loss. Most recycling machines (but not recovery 

machines) are equipped with air purge devices, which vent air 

and other noncondensable contaminants from refrigerant. Because 

some refrigerant tends to vaporize and mix with the air, some 

refrigerant also escapes during the purging process. EPA proposed 

to limit the quantity of refrigerant that could be allowed to 

escape during purging to 5% of the quantity being recycled (under 

the conditions of the ARI 740 test for recovery and recycling 

machines). EPA's analysis indicated that this was probably the 

most demanding standard that most existing recycling machines 

could meet (RIA). However, some industry representatives stated 

that competitively-priced machines were capable of meeting a 

higher standard, perhaps 3%. Because even 2% of a large charge 

can be a significant amount (2% of a thousand-pound charge is 

20 pounds), EPA requested comment on setting a limit of 3% (or 

still lower) or on lowering the limit from 5% to lower levels 

over time. 

 Most commenters supported an initial purge loss limit of 

5%. A number of commenters also supported establishing lower 

purge loss limits as technology developed, but differed in their 

willingness to establish a fixed schedule for lowering the limits. 

Some supported lowering the purge loss limit by one percent 

per year. 

 In view of the expectation of many commenters that a purge 

loss limit of 3% would be feasible within the next few years, 

EPA has decided to establish a 5% limit initially that will 

be lowered to 3% in two years. The Agency believes that this 

will encourage technological innovation without placing an undue 

burden on manufacturers of recycling and recovery equipment. 

 f. Volume-sensitive shutoff. In the proposal, EPA requested 

comment on including a requirement that storage cylinders on 

recycling and recovery equipment be equipped with a switch that 

would automatically stop the recovery operation when 80% of 

the available volume in the storage section contains liquid 

refrigerant at 70 degrees F. This would be a safety feature 

that would prevent overfilling of storage vessels; filling beyond 

the recommended maximum level of 80% can lead to explosion of 

the cylinder when its temperature rises to levels common in 

storage areas during the summer. 

 EPA received comments both favoring and opposing a requirement 

for a volume-sensitive shutoff switch. A number of commenters 

stated that they did not consider volume-sensitive switches 

necessary because technicians can weigh cylinders to ensure 

that they are not overfilled, and in fact, some recovery and 

recycling machines include built-in scales. Other commenters 

were concerned that volume-sensitive switches would often be 

ineffective. These commenters noted that the various volumesensitive devices currently included in cylinders are not compatible 

with all types and brands of recycling and recovery equipment. 

If the cylinder and recovery device are not compatible, the 

volume-sensitive switch will not function. Volume-sensitive 

switches can also be bypassed either deliberately by the technician 

or unintentionally through the use of certain recovery methods, 

according to commenters. For instance, one commenter noted that 

the "push-pull" recovery method could result in the overfilling 

of a cylinder while the recovery equipment itself was already 

turned off. Some of the commenters opposing a requirement for 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 51 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
volume-sensitive switches believed that concerns about overfilling 

cylinders were better addressed through technician training. 

 In consideration of the technical problems involved in establishing 

a requirement for a volume-sensitive shutoff switch, the Agency 

has decided not to include this requirement in the rule. Instead, 

EPA will include knowledge of proper cylinder filling in its 

requirements for technician certification. 

2. Standards for Recovery Machines Intended for Use With Small 

Appliances 

 In the proposal, the Agency required somewhat less stringent 

recovery efficiency standards for household refrigerators, household 

freezers, and other small appliances, as defined in section 

III.E. The Agency proposed that technicians servicing small 

appliances could use either active or passive equipment. The 

efficiency level required was 90 percent, except for the use 

of passive equipment on an appliance with a non-operating compressor 

where an 80 percent efficiency level was allowed. The Agency 

requested comment on the proposed levels and on the specific 

technologies analyzed. 

 As discussed in section III.E., in today's final rule, the 

Agency will use the terms "self-contained recovery equipment" 

and "system-dependent equipment" when referring to the active 

and passive equipment, respectively. Several commenters supported 

the Agency's proposal that both types of equipment be allowed 

for use in the small appliance servicing sector. The Association 

of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) stated that the efficiency 

of both types of equipment is tied closely to the functioning 

of the compressor. It also stated that the efficiency levels 

are very close for the two types of equipment when the manufacturer 

operating procedures for the equipment are properly followed 

(i.e. heating and tapping a system when using the Whirlpool 

bag). As a result, the technicians should be allowed the flexibility 

to choose the method most appropriate for them. Many commenters 

stated that the simple-to-use passive systems made compliance 

with the rules more likely. 

 Several commenters opposed the use of system-dependent recovery 

equipment. Many stated that the highest-efficiency equipment 

should be required for all air-conditioning and refrigeration 

units and that use of the passive equipment was impractical 

because of the longer time needed to wait for the refrigerant 

to move from the appliance into the device. The Agency had discussed 

in the proposal an option of allowing technicians who performed 

less than 20 jobs per year to use the system-dependent system. 

Commenters against the use of the equipment were also against 

a special exception for small servicers because of the difficulty 

in enforcing this provision. 

 The Agency believes that the small quantity of refrigerant 

involved in this sector and the goal of allowing flexibility 

of compliance methods for technicians justifies allowing the 

use of either system-dependent or self-contained recovery equipment 

for the servicing of small appliances. The Agency has modified 

the proposed requirements, however, to specify that it is the 

operability of the compressor in the equipment containing the 

refrigerant that determines the efficiency level for evacuation. 

Comments submitted by AHAM illustrated that both self-contained 

and system-dependent systems can achieve a 90 percent efficiency 

of evacuation if manufacturer procedures are followed. Both 

types of equipment, however, may have more difficulty reaching 

this standard when the compressor is not functioning and, as 

a result, an 80 percent efficiency standard will be required 

in those cases. EPA would like to clarify that equipment must 

be tested to meet these requirements and that the test situation 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 52 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
must reflect conditions that can be realistically implemented 

in the field. As a result, equipment that has passed the equipment 

certification requirements will meet the efficiency standards 

required in this rule when used properly in the field. For more 

information on the test methodology used to evaluate equipment, 

see section III.G.5. 

 The Agency specifically requested comment of the carbon adsorption 

technology used for recovering CFCs. The feasibility of recovering 

CFCs from the carbon was the Agency's primary concern. Information 

submitted by two commenters, Appliance Recycling Centers of 

America (ARCA) and Dow, indicates that the refrigerant can be 

removed from the carbon with high efficiency. The technology 

may be practical for use when servicing small appliances, although 

it must meet the same efficiency standard as all other equipment 

used on small appliances-90 percent efficiency with working 

compressors and 80 percent efficiency with non-operational compressors. 

3. Standards for Recycling and Recovery Machines Used with Equipment 

Identical to MVACs 

 Today's final rule covers all air-conditioning and refrigeration 

equipment (except equipment designed and used exclusively for 

a military application) not covered by the requirements of the 

section 609 final rule (57 FR 31241, July 14, 1992; 40 CFR part 

82, subpart B) for servicing motor vehicle air-conditioning 

equipment. This includes equipment that is identical in operation 

to motor vehicle air-conditioning equipment except that it is 

found in vehicles outside the section 609 definition of "onroad motor vehicles". Examples include agricultural and construction 

vehicles that do not operate "on-road" but contain CFC-12 open 

compressor mechanical vapor compression refrigeration equipment 

used to cool the driver's or passengers compartment. For the 

purposes of today's rule, this equipment is identified as "MVAClike appliances." In the proposal, the Agency discussed the 

option of using the equipment requirements established under 

the section 609 regulation for these MVAC-like appliances because 

the equipment is identical in operation to the equipment covered 

by the section 609 regulation except that it is contained in 

non-road vehicles. The Agency believes that the section 609 

regulations satisfy the statutory standards of section 608 regarding 

the maximization of recycling and reduction of emissions. As 

stated in the proposal, adopting the section 609 standards would 

allow equipment manufacturers to avoid double certification 

of equipment because recycling units certified for use under 

section 609 would not need to be certified under ARI Standard 

740 (as long as they are used with MVAC-like equipment). 

 Three commenters agreed that the MVAC-like appliances should 

be covered by the requirements of the section 609 regulation 

because those requirements are specifically designed for this 

type of equipment. The section 609 requirements contain specific 

procedures for the proper use of recycling equipment that reflect 

the needs of MVAC-like appliances more precisely than the required 

practices for small high-pressure equipment. The equipment certification 

procedure for section 609 equipment requires that machines meet 

the recycling standard of purity developed by the manufacturers 

of the air-conditioning systems, a standard for which ARI Standard 

740 does not specifically test. One commenter stated that the 

MVAC-like appliances should not be covered by the section 608 

requirements, but instead should be covered under section 609 

because the air-conditioning systems are not appliances. The 

Agency disagrees with the commenter's reasoning because, as 

stated in the proposal, MVAC systems are clearly covered by 

the definition of appliance. The MVAC systems in on-road motor 

vehicles are not covered by this rule's servicing provision 

because of their inclusion in the 40 CFR part 82, subpart B 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 53 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
regulations. 

 As a result, the Agency has decided to require that MVAClike appliances follow the equipment requirements of the section 

609 regulations, found in 57 FR 31241, July 14, 1992 (40 CFR 

part 82, subpart B) and incorporated in today's rule. 

4. Testing of Recovery and Recycling Equipment Intended for 

Use With Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment Except 

Small Appliances 

 a. Third-party certification. As was proposed, EPA is requiring 

testing of recovery and recycling equipment for the above performance 

characteristics by a third party approved by EPA. In the proposal, 

EPA described two major equipment testing programs underway: 

The ARI certification program under ARI Standard 740 (Appendix 

B to these regulations) and the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 

program under ARI Standard 740 and UL 1963 (not to be confused 

with UL's program for testing recycling and recovery equipment 

intended for use with MVACs under UL 1963). EPA proposed that 

approved recovery and recycling equipment testing organizations 

use a modified version of these programs. The ARI and UL programs 

use a laboratory test protocol to measure the performance of 

equipment in a number of different areas, including vapor recovery 

efficiency, purge loss, liquid recovery rate, vapor recovery 

rate, and ability to clean refrigerant (in recycling machines). 

Except in the area of purge loss, where refrigerant emissions 

are limited to 5% of the total charge, no maximum or minimum 

performance requirements need to be met for equipment to be 

certified under ARI's current program. Under the modified program 

proposed by EPA, equipment would have been certified only if 

it could achieve the vacuums specified, limited purge losses 

to 5%, and was equipped with low-loss fittings. 

 ARI and UL test one unit of each make and model to verify 

performance initially. Both programs also take measures to verify 

that equipment manufactured over the long-term continues to 

perform as rated. Each year, ARI tests one unit each of one 

third of the models certified under its program. This means 

that over a three-year period, ARI tests a sample of each make 

and model that it certifies. UL conducts periodic inspections 

of equipment at manufacturing facilities to ensure that models 

have not undergone design changes that may affect their performance. 

 Following these industry precedents, EPA proposed to require 

manufacturers to have equipment testing organizations test one 

unit of each make and model initially and then conduct periodic 

retests or inspections (at least once every three years) to 

ensure the continued performance of each model line. (Equipment 

certified under the ARI or UL programs prior to promulgation 

of the final rule would not have to be retested in order to 

be initially certified under the rule if the first set of tests 

demonstrated that the equipment met EPA requirements.) 

 EPA received a number of comments regarding the need for 

third party certification and the scope and methodology of the 

certification program proposed. Several comments supported requiring 

third-party certification of recycling and recovery equipment 

as the only reliable way to guarantee quality and consistency 

of performance in the equipment. Commenters argued that thirdparty certification was necessary because it would limit the 

number of ineffective or unsafe recycling and recovery machines 

in use, prevent misleading advertising and thereby protect purchasers 

of recycling and recovery equipment, and minimize emissions. 

Commenters who opposed third-party certification argued that 

it was too expensive, that it precluded the use of home-built 

and custom-built equipment that can perform as well as manufactured 

equipment, and that it was not necessary because faulty recycling 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 54 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
and recovery equipment would not be a source of emissions. 

 EPA has decided to require third-party certification of recycling 

and recovery equipment because it continues to believe that 

third-party certification is the most reliable method of obtaining 

an accurate and objective evaluation of equipment performance. 

While equipment certification alone does not guarantee that 

emissions are minimized, it does prevent leaky or ineffective 

equipment from entering the market. EPA believes that emissions 

from such equipment could be significant. Although EPA recognizes 

that some home-built recovery equipment may perform quite well, 

other home-built equipment may not. Several commenters favoring 

third-party certification noted that home-built equipment can 

be leaky and can lack critical components. Thus, although homebuilt equipment is eligible for grandfathering until November 

15, 1993, after that date, its manufacture will not be allowed 

unless it is certified in the same way as equipment manufactured 

for sale. 

 b. The ARI 740 test protocol. The Agency received comments 

both supporting and criticizing the ARI 740 test procedure for 

recycling and recovery equipment. Criticism was focussed on 

four major areas. First, commenters charged that the ARI 740 

method measures the vapor recovery efficiency of (or vacuum 

achievable by) equipment incorrectly, yielding results that 

are higher than could be theoretically achieved by the compressors 

used in most recycling and recovery equipment. Second, commenters 

stated that the ARI 740 method for measuring vapor recovery 

rates yields a maximum, rather than an average, recovery rate. 

Third, commenters noted that although the performance of recycling 

and recovery equipment varies significantly depending upon ambient 

temperature, the ARI 740 test procedure gages performance only 

at one temperature, 75 degrees, which will yield optimum performance 

measurements. Fourth, commenters stated that the ARI 740 test 

procedure should include a test for equipment durability. 

 The Agency has investigated each of these criticisms and 

believes that in some cases, alterations or additions to the 

740 test procedure may be warranted in the future, although 

it was not possible to consider them fully or implement them 

before this rule was promulgated. (Some of the possible alterations 

were not proposed and therefore cannot be incorporated into 

these regulations until EPA undertakes another rulemaking.) 

Responding to the criticisms one at a time, EPA believes that 

the method for measuring vapor recovery efficiency in the ARI 

740 test protocol is sound, based on engineering judgement. 

In addition, most of the published results of this test fall 

within expected ranges. In some cases, the published vapor recovery 

efficiency does exceed that which would be expected given the 

compression ratio limits of typical refrigeration compressors; 

however, in the cases that EPA has investigated to date, EPA 

has found that an innovative technology (such as a built-in 

subcooling feature) is responsible for the unusually good performance. 

EPA will continue to work with ARI (and other testing organizations 

using the ARI 740 standard) to ensure that vapor recovery efficiency 

measurements are methodologically sound and are in accord with 

the known limits of recovery technologies. If the Agency discovers 

a flaw in the ARI 740 method for measuring vapor recovery efficiency, 

the Agency will take steps to correct it and revise its regulations 

if necessary. 

 Several commenters, including a state environmental protection 

agency, an environmental group, and two manufacturers of recycling 

and recovery equipment, believed that the ARI 740 test protocol 

should be modified to include a test of the equipment's average 

vapor recovery rate in addition to its maximum vapor recovery 

rate. In general, as vapor recovery progresses, the density 

of the vapor in the appliance, and therefore the vapor recovery 

rate, declines. Toward the end of the recovery process, this 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 55 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
rate may be only a small fraction (usually less than five percent) 

of the original rate. Currently, the ARI 740 test procedure 

measures the vapor recovery rate of equipment only at the beginning 

of the recovery process, when liquid refrigerant is still present 

in the test apparatus. At that time, the vapor density in the 

test apparatus is at its maximum (the saturation density) and 

so is the vapor recovery rate. Although the maximum vapor recovery 

rate of a piece of recycling or recovery equipment is related 

to its average recovery rate in the field, other factors, such 

as compressor clearance (which is related to the depth of vacuum 

that recovery equipment can achieve), are also important in 

determining the average recovery rate. Thus, two pieces of equipment 

with identical maximum recovery rates can have very different 

recovery rates at the end of the recovery process. 

 While EPA is not regulating equipment recovery rates for 

the reasons discussed in section G.1.c, the Agency believes 

that the best possible information on these rates should be 

available to technicians to ensure that they purchase recycling 

and recovery equipment adequate to their needs. EPA is concerned 

that technicians who must rely solely on the maximum recovery 

rate as a measure of average recovery rate in the field may 

inadvertently purchase equipment that performs relatively poorly 

as recovery progresses. This will prove costly not only to the 

technician but also to the environment if the technician decides 

to cut recovery short. According to one of the commenters, who 

has been involved in ARI's testing program, modifying the current 

test to measure the average, rather than the maximum, vapor 

recovery rate would simply require timing the recovery procedure 

that is already included in the 740 protocol. EPA has discussed 

this possibility with ARI, and ARI has expressed interest in 

making the modification in the near future. Equipment entering 

the certification program after the modification was made would 

have its average recovery rate measured, and equipment that 

had been through the certification program already would have 

its average recovery rate measured when it came up for recertification 

on the three-year schedule. 

 One commenter argued that the ARI 740 method for measuring 

the maximum vapor recovery rate was itself flawed because the 

measurement takes place quickly in "transient" conditions. However, 

the ARI 740-93 procedure specifies that the measurement take 

place "after the equipment reaches stabilized conditions of 

condensing temperature and/or storage tank pressure" and the 

ARI 740-91 procedure, the predecessor to 740-93, required measurement 

"after the equipment reaches stabilized conditions." ARI representatives 

stated that, in practice, the recovery rate is measured after 

the system has been running for several minutes, and that three 

separate measurements are taken for two-minute periods. EPA 

believes that this methodology should yield an accurate measurement 

of the maximum recovery rate. 

 The other methodological concern raised by commenters was 

that the ARI 740 test takes place at only one temperature, 75 

degrees, but the performance of equipment varies significantly 

at lower and higher temperatures. At low temperatures, the saturation 

pressure of refrigerant can be very low, slowing recovery considerably 

if equipment is capable only of vapor recovery. (Even the pushpull method, which relies upon the vapor pressure in the recovery 

tank, is less effective at low temperatures.) At high temperatures, 

on the other hand, the saturation pressure of the refrigerant 

in the recovery tank is relatively high, raising the compression 

ratio against which the compressor in the recovery device must 

work to evacuate the appliance. Consequently, it is often impossible 

to achieve vacuums in high temperatures that can be achieved 

at 75 degrees. 

 EPA has discussed the possible need for equipment testing 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 56 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
at multiple temperatures with ARI, with equipment manufacturers, 

and with technicians in the field. The Agency is concerned that 

some equipment has evidently occasionally failed to function 

altogether in the past at high temperatures, although manufacturers 

have apparently corrected many early problems. The current version 

of the ARI 740 standard requires equipment to function at temperatures 

up to 104 degrees F. However, ARI states that performing full 

performance testing at high and/or low temperatures would double 

or triple the cost of the certification test. Moreover, according 

to ARI, equipment manufacturers often provide "application ratings" 

that contain information about expected equipment performance 

under conditions other than those of the 740 test. EPA will 

work with both ARI and contractor organizations to further examine 

the possible need for equipment testing at more than one temperature. 

Given that the 740 test currently costs approximately $3,300 

for each make and model,{2} a price similar to that of individual 

pieces of recycling and recovery equipment, doubling or tripling 

this cost may be justified if significant new information would 

be made available to purchasers of the equipment. 

 3{2} Price based on testing of recycling equipment with 

 3four refrigerants. 

 Finally, a number of commenters believed that the ARI 740 

test procedure should include a test of equipment durability. 

Durability is a concern because recycling and recovery equipment 

is constructed using components very similar to those in refrigeration 

and air-conditioning equipment, but recycling and recovery equipment 

is regularly subject to much more stressful conditions than 

most air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment. For instance, 

compressors in recycling and recovery equipment must repeatedly 

pull vacuums. This has two implications. First, the compressor 

in a piece of recycling and recovery equipment will operate 

at a higher compression ratio than most other compressors, raising 

the temperature of the discharge gas. Second, as the vacuum 

is drawn, the motor of a hermetic compressor will be starved 

of its cooling fluid, the refrigerant. Together, these considerations 

imply that recycling and recovery equipment will often operate 

at higher than ideal temperatures. In addition, recycling and 

recovery equipment will frequently be exposed to contaminated 

refrigerant, increasing opportunities for corrosion. 

 One of the commenters submitted a suggested durability test 

that he recommended be included in EPA's required testing regimen. 

This durability test has been placed in the docket for this 

rulemaking. The durability test involves continuous operation 

of the equipment for several hours. ARI representatives, however, 

have stated that a test lasting only for such a period would 

probably not constitute an adequate test of equipment durability. 

According to ARI, equipment manufacturers themselves usually 

perform durability tests lasting for much longer periods (months 

or years). ARI believes that it was not the role of a thirdparty performance certification program to test equipment for 

durability, and that such testing would greatly increase the 

cost of testing. 

 As it is investigating the need for performance testing at 

high and low temperatures, EPA will also investigate the need 

and proper procedure for durability testing. If EPA concludes 

that such testing is necessary, it may pursue voluntary programs 

with industry or further rulemaking as appropriate. Given the 

potential value of durability testing, such testing may be worthwhile 

even if it is relatively expensive. The Agency may also work 

with contractor groups to gather and disseminate information 

about equipment performance in the field. 

 EPA emphasizes that although it may be possible (and even 

necessary) to enhance the ARI 740-93 testing procedure, the 

procedure currently yields valuable, objective information regarding 

important performance characteristics of recycling and recovery 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 57 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
equipment. The Agency believes that thoughtful consideration 

of this information by well-trained technicians is likely to 

ensure that the recycling and recovery equipment purchased is 

adequate to their needs. EPA urges purchasers of recycling and 

recovery equipment to use good judgment in selecting and using 

this equipment. Purchasers should be aware that equipment using 

hermetic compressors may fail when used in high temperatures 

or with large charge sizes. They should also be aware of two 

rules of thumb regarding recovery rates: (1) The average recovery 

rate that they achieve in the field will probably range between 

1/3 and 1/2 the maximum rate currently being published by ARI 

and UL, and (2) the maximum depth of vacuum achievable by a 

piece of equipment is likely to be a good indicator of its recovery 

rate in the field. (That is, if two pieces of equipment have 

the same maximum recovery rate, but one piece can draw a deeper 

vacuum than the other, the piece that can draw the deeper vacuum 

probably recovers more quickly in the field than the other piece.) 

Finally, recovery techniques in the field can either greatly 

expedite or greatly slow the recovery process. Users of recycling 

and recovery equipment should obtain training to learn as much 

as possible about techniques to make refrigerant recovery and 

recycling as effective, safe, fast, and simple as possible. 

 Since the proposed rule was developed, ARI has expanded and 

altered the 740 test protocol to include a test for system-dependent 

equipment, to recognize the push/pull method of recovery, and 

to specify the final recovery vacuum instead of the vapor recovery 

efficiency of recycling and recovery equipment. ARI described 

these changes at the public hearing for the proposed rule and 

requested that EPA adopt the latest version of the 740 test 

protocol (ARI 740P-93) in the final rule. For the reasons described 

below, EPA is doing so. First, EPA believes that the changes 

will enhance the usefulness of the 740 test procedure. A test 

to measure the recovery vacuum of system-dependent equipment 

is needed, and EPA believes that the test procedure developed 

by ARI will yield an accurate measure of the performance of 

that equipment when used on appliances with fully functioning 

compressors. In addition, by publishing the final recovery vacuum 

rather than vapor recovery efficiency of equipment, the new 

procedure will make it easier for equipment purchasers to compare 

equipment performance to EPA's requirements. Second, the changes 

to ARI 740 have been adopted through a process that involves 

participation not only of ARI's wide industry membership, but 

of the general public, indicating that they are widely supported. 

All the comments that EPA received concerning the new test methodology 

favored the changes. Third, the methods for measuring the performance 

of self-contained equipment in the areas being regulated by 

EPA, the ability of equipment to capture refrigerant and the 

quantity of refrigerant released during purging, have not been 

changed, nor have the minimum requirements for ARI certification. 

(By publishing the final recovery vacuum rather than the vapor 

recovery efficiency, ARI is simply substituting a raw pressure 

measurement for a percentage that was calculated from this measurement 

and the saturation pressure of each refrigerant.) 

 A few commenters stated that EPA should build enough flexibility 

into its regulations to permit changes to be made to the ARI 

740 procedure without requiring EPA to undertake further rulemaking. 

Commenters were particularly concerned that the Agency might 

inadvertently prevent or delay the use of recovery technologies 

whose ability to recover refrigerant could not be tested by 

the current version of ARI 740. In the proposal EPA requested 

comment on this issue, noting that two recovery technologies 

that had come to its attention could not be tested by the thencurrent version of ARI 740, ARI 740-1991. These recovery technologies 

were the system-dependent equipment discussed in section G.1.b. 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 58 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
and a nitrogen-forcing technology. As noted above, ARI 740-1993 

includes a test for the former. Although the designer of the 

nitrogen-forcing technology believes that only minor modifications 

to ARI 740-1993 would permit testing of this technology, these 

modifications were not presented in time to be adopted before 

this rule was promulgated. 

 To permit certification of the nitrogen-forcing and other 

possible technologies without undertaking further rulemaking, 

EPA has included a provision to the rule that would allow new 

technologies to be certified if an approved third-party testing 

organization adopted and performed a test that showed that the 

new technology achieved the same recovery efficiency as comparable 

certified equipment. This test would have to be approved by 

EPA. This provision is very similar to a provision in EPA's 

motor vehicle emissions testing program that allows motor vehicle 

manufacturers to request that EPA accept a new test procedure 

if existing procedures are not applicable to a certain vehicle 

(40 CFR 86.090-27). 

 EPA notes that if ARI 740-1993 is altered in a way that relates 

to the minimum requirements for ARI certification (Section 4 

of 740-1993, which EPA is requiring as part of this rule) or 

the measurement of the final recovery vacuum, purge efficiency, 

or maximum recovery rate of existing recovery technologies, 

those changes will not alter the requirements of this rule (and, 

therefore, EPA will not recognize certification under the new 

version) unless EPA undertakes a notice and comment rulemaking 

to adopt the changes. However, approved equipment testing organizations 

may add or change their own certification requirements and still 

have their certification recognized by EPA so long as they also 

continue to test in accordance with EPA's rule's requirements. 

 c. Revocation of certification. If previously certified equipment 

fails a follow-up test or inspection, the approved equipment 

testing organization is required to inform EPA of this fact, 

and the certification for that equipment will be revoked or 

suspended after allowing the manufacturer an opportunity to 

respond. In general, EPA has the authority to revoke or suspend 

any certification granted under the provisions of section 608. 

If the Agency determines that a person or entity has violated 

the regulations, or if the Agency has knowledge that a person 

or entity is incapable of fulfilling the requirements of the 

regulation, the Agency would revoke or suspend any certification 

previously granted. In the case of minor violations, the Agency 

may act to suspend certification for a given period of time. 

However, in the case of serious or repeat violations, the Agency 

may determine that revocation of certification is warranted. 

In the event of a revocation of equipment certification, the 

affected model of recycling or recovery equipment could no longer 

be manufactured. Similarly, in the event of revocation of technician, 

equipment-owner, or reclaimer certification, the affected technician, 

owner of recycling or recovery equipment, or reclaimer could 

no longer do business. 

 d. Approval of equipment testing organizations. In addition 

to ARI and UL, other testing organizations have indicated an 

interest in setting up their own programs to certify performance 

to EPA's specifications. EPA will approve any equipment certification 

program that can demonstrate that it: (1) Possesses thorough 

knowledge of the standards as they appear in 82.158 and ARI 

740-1993 (appendix B), (2) possesses the equipment described 

in ARI 740-1993 to test performance in the areas of concern, 

(3) possesses expertise in equipment testing, (4) has developed 

a program to verify the performance of certified recycling or 

recovery equipment manufactured over the long-term, including 

either retests of equipment or inspections of equipment at manufacturing 

facilities, and (5) is not financially or otherwise interested 

in the outcome of the testing. Organizations seeking approval 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 59 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
to be equipment certifiers should contact EPA. 

 In addition to the requirements above, equipment testing 

organizations are required to submit lists of approved equipment 

to EPA annually. They are also required to inform EPA within 

30 days of the certification of a new model of equipment or 

of the failure of a previously certified model of equipment. 

5. Testing of Recovery Machines Intended for Use With Small 

Appliances 

 In the proposal, the Agency required that recycling and recovery 

equipment intended for use with small appliances be tested according 

to the testing procedures published as appendix C. This was 

proposed because, at that time, the ARI 740 test method used 

for other recovery and recycling equipment could not accommodate 

the technologies specifically designed for recovering CFCs from 

small appliances. These technologies include both self-contained 

recovery equipment (active) and system-dependent (passive) machines. 

The test procedure in appendix C was developed by General Electric 

and could be used for both self-contained and system-dependent 

devices used on equipment with operating or nonoperating compressors. 

 Three commenters specifically agreed that the proposed appendix 

C was appropriate for testing recovery and recycling equipment 

for small appliances. Three commenters stated that the appendix 

was inappropriate and cited as their justification that systemdependent machines should not be used at all with small appliances, 

an issue discussed in section III.G.2. AHAM submitted comments 

that included changes to the proposed appendix C. They stated 

that after submitting the procedure to the Agency, General Electric 

worked with the member companies of AHAM to refine and improve 

the test procedure. The revisions address several concerns. 

First, the procedure was revised to more precisely measure the 

refrigerant trapped in shipping containers. Second, calculation 

of recovery efficiency for each recovery event was included. 

Third, the test to track compressor oil that might be removed 

from the test stand was deleted while steps were revised to 

account for any oil added to the stand or the recovery system 

to properly maintain the equipment. Finally, the number of recoveries 

performed as part of the test was reduced to provide for more 

cost-effective testing. All other changes were characterized 

as editorial. The Agency believes these changes are improvements 

to the procedure and has incorporated them into today's final 

rule. 

 In response to the concern that the ARI 740 testing procedure 

could not accommodate the types of technology used to service 

small appliances, ARI submitted changes to the 740 test procedure 

contained in appendix B. These changes are discussed in section 

G.4 above. The Agency agrees that these changes make it possible 

to test the technologies and has incorporated the language into 

appendix B. The rule language has been changed to allow recovery 

or recycling equipment intended for use on small appliances 

to be tested to either appendix B or appendix C. 

 As part of their comments, UL submitted an alternative test 

procedure to the procedure proposed in appendix C discussed 

above. Although their "Subject 2090, Outline of Investigation 

for Passive Refrigerant Recovery Systems" offers adequate testing 

of the safety of a passive device, it does not contain the same 

level of specificity in test procedure as the proposed GE changes 

with the AHAM changes discussed above. The Agency believes appendices 

B and C are adequate procedures for both the system-dependent 

and self-contained devices for small equipment and therefore, 

UL's method will not be added at this time. 

6. Effective Dates and Grandfathering Provisions 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 60 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 EPA proposed to give manufacturers of recycling and recovery 

equipment six months after publication of the final rule to 

certify all of their equipment to the new standards. Based on 

EPA's analysis of the manufacturer's capabilities to produce 

such equipment, EPA believed that this lead time was sufficient. 

 Commenters expressed a range of opinions regarding the appropriate 

effective date for third-party certification of equipment. Several 

agreed with the proposed date, six months after publication 

of the final rule. Some, however, believed that six months was 

not sufficient time to permit equipment testing organizations 

to become approved and complete their testing. Two commenters 

stated that because the promulgation date of this rule is known 

and equipment testing has already begun, EPA should allow only 

three months for manufacturers to have their equipment certified. 

 As was proposed, EPA is requiring that recycling and recovery 

equipment manufactured more than 6 months after publication 

of this rule be certified by an approved testing organization. 

The Agency believes that 6 months is adequate time for manufacturers 

to complete having their equipment tested by an approved testing 

organization. As one commenter noted, both manufacturers and 

testing organizations have had a great deal of notice regarding 

the probable requirements and effective dates of this rule, 

and testing of equipment has been in progress at more than one 

laboratory for over a year. As EPA stated in the proposal, equipment 

that was tested by a testing organization prior to promulgation 

of this rule (and, therefore, prior to official approval of 

the testing organization) will be considered certified if the 

testing showed that the equipment met EPA requirements and if 

the testing organization is approved. However, testing of equipment 

for use with some types of appliances (e.g., large low-pressure 

systems) has only recently begun, and the Agency does not therefore 

believe that it can require third-party certification of all 

recycling and recovery equipment manufactured in less than six 

months. 

 EPA proposed to "grandfather" recycling and recovery equipment 

manufactured until 6 months after publication of the final rule, 

if it met certain minimum requirements. Equipment intended for 

use with high-pressure refrigerants (except for refrigerants 

in small appliances) would have to have been able to evacuate 

systems to four inches of vacuum; equipment intended for use 

with low-pressure refrigerants would have to have been able 

to evacuate systems to 25 inches. Equipment intended for use 

with small appliances would have had to be able to recover 80% 

of the refrigerant in the small appliance, whether or not the 

compressor of the appliance was operating. (Equipment intended 

for use with very high-pressure refrigerants would have to have 

been able to evacuate systems to 0 inches of vacuum, or atmospheric 

pressure, as in the proposed requirements effective after 6 

months after publication of the final rule.) In addition, EPA 

requested comment on whether it should require grandfathered 

recycling and recovery equipment to be retrofitted with lowloss fittings. 

 The grandfathering proposal was intended (1) to avoid penalizing 

individuals who had purchased such equipment before it was legally 

required and (2) to encourage individuals who had not acquired 

such equipment to purchase it as soon as possible, rather than 

wait for certified equipment to become available. Although the 

standards for grandfathered recycling and recovery equipment 

were not as strict as those for certified recycling and recovery 

equipment, the Agency concluded that the benefits of beginning 

recovery sooner outweighed the small loss in recovery efficiency. 

However, because this advantage would disappear if less efficient 

equipment were used for too long, EPA requested comment on the 

option of requiring grandfathered recycling and recovery equipment 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 61 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
to be retired in five years. 

 Commenters universally supported the grandfathering of recycling 

and recovery equipment, citing the reasons above. Only a small 

percentage of the commenters expressed an opinion regarding 

the proposed evacuation standards and retrofit requirements 

for grandfathered equipment. Of these, two argued for less stringent 

evacuation standards, and one argued for more stringent evacuation 

standards, particularly for very large ( 1000 lbs.) high-pressure 

equipment. The two commenters who expressed an opinion regarding 

low-loss fittings were split, with one favoring them and one 

opposing them. A few commenters believed that EPA should require 

some type of testing of grandfathered equipment to ensure its 

performance to EPA's standards. 

 Some commenters supported mandatory retirement of grandfathered 

equipment after five years, noting that most regularly used 

recycling and recovery equipment would wear out in that time. 

A few commenters argued for retirement after shorter periods 

ranging from six months to three years. However, a number of 

commenters opposed mandatory retirement of grandfathered equipment. 

Many of these commenters stated that recycling and recovery 

equipment purchased for in-house use would not be used as frequently 

as equipment purchased by service contractors, and would therefore 

be expected to have a much longer useful life than five years. 

Some of these commenters argued that use of grandfathered equipment 

should be permitted indefinitely, so long as the equipment could 

meet the stricter standards required of fully certified equipment. 

 EPA has decided to retain its proposed grandfathering requirements 

and, therefore, is grandfathering recycling and recovery equipment 

that meets the minimum evacuation requirements that were proposed. 

These requirements are shown in Table 3 below. (As proposed, 

grandfathered recovery equipment used with small appliances 

must achieve a recovery efficiency of 80%.) The Agency is not 

requiring that this equipment be retrofitted with low-loss fittings 

or retired after five years. 

 Table 3.-Levels of Evacuation Which Must Be Achieved by Recovery or 

 Recycling Machines Intended for Use With Appliances {1} 

 [Manufactured before November 15, 1993] 

 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 Type of air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment with which 3 Inches 

 recovery or recycling machine is intended to be used 3 of 

 3 vacuum 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 

HCFC-22 equipment, or isolated component of such equipment, 3 0 

 normally containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant. 3 

HCFC-22 equipment, or isolated component of such equipment, 3 4 

 normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant. 3 

Very High-Pressure Equipment .................................... 3 0 

Other high-pressure equipment, or isolated component of such 3 4 

 equipment, normally containing less than 200 pounds of 3 

refrigerant. 3 

Other high-pressure equipment, or isolated component of such 3 4 

 equipment, normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant 3 

Low-pressure Equipment .......................................... 3 25 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 {1} Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances. 

 EPA is grandfathering recycling and recovery equipment for 

the reasons cited in the proposal and by numerous commenters. 

The Agency is retaining its proposed evacuation requirements 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 62 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
for this equipment because it continues to believe that most 

recycling and recovery equipment manufactured over the past 

two years can meet these requirements. Although third-party 

testing would help to ensure the performance of grandfathered 

equipment, EPA does not believe that such testing would be practical, 

given that a number of models currently in the field may no 

longer be produced and may in fact be "home-made" equipment. 

Thus, technicians are responsible for testing their own grandfathered 

equipment to ensure that it can meet EPA's requirements. 

 EPA is not requiring retirement of grandfathered equipment 

for two reasons. First, comments and EPA research both indicate 

that the expected lifetime of this equipment varies widely depending 

upon its application and frequency of use. Thus, a five-year 

retirement provision would tend to punish persons who have purchased 

recycling equipment only for in-house use and who may otherwise 

expect to be able to use their equipment for another five to 

ten years. Second and more important, a five-year retirement 

date would fall in late 1998, nearly three years after the phaseout 

of production of CFCs. By this time, EPA expects that the expense 

of CFCs will constitute a powerful private incentive to replace 

grandfathered equipment that is not as efficient as new equipment. 

However, EPA intends to monitor use of grandfathered equipment 

to ensure that it does not result in excessive emissions, and 

EPA will consider mandating retirement of less efficient equipment 

if such emissions become a problem despite the rising costs 

of CFCs. 

H. Certification of Technicians 

1. Description of Proposed Voluntary Technician Training and 

Certification 

 EPA did not propose a mandatory training or certification 

requirement as its lead option. The proposal agreed that private 

incentives were sufficient to ensure that technicians were properly 

trained in refrigerant recycling and recovery. In addition, 

such a program could create an administrative burden for EPA. 

However, the Agency did request comments on the mandatory certification 

option. In the absence of a mandatory program, the Agency stated 

that it could play an important role through a voluntary program 

by recognizing those who provide and participate in training 

programs which meet certain minimum standards. EPA proposed 

establishing a voluntary certification program whereby private 

sector certification programs could request EPA review and approval 

based on a set of defined qualifications. Core elements of such 

a program were reviewed in the proposal. In addition to requesting 

comment on the need and feasibility of a voluntary program, 

the Agency requested comment on whether a mandatory certification 

program is necessary or desirable. The proposal stated that 

a mandatory certification program could be very similar in form 

to the voluntary program. 

2. Decision to Establish a Mandatory Program 

 With this Notice, the Agency today is promulgating a mandatory 

technician certification program. Although the Agency had not 

proposed a mandatory program as its lead option, EPA now believes 

that such previously stated obstacles as administrative burden 

to both the Agency and to technicians can be overcome, and that 

the benefits of a mandatory program warrant its adoption. In 

addition, the Agency received over 18,000 comments in support 

of a mandatory program. Although 142 commenters opposed such 

a program, the overwhelming support indicates that technicians 

themselves believe that such a program is necessary. 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 63 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 a. Overwhelming Technician Response. The Agency received 

comments from over 18,000 technicians voicing their support 

for a mandatory technician certification program. Although there 

were dissenting opinions, these technicians as well as the major 

trade organizations representing these sectors endorse such 

a program. In addition, the manufacturers of recovery and recycling 

equipment supported mandatory certification, as did environmental 

organizations, arguing that it would increase compliance. Commenters 

had many reasons for their support for a mandatory technicians 

certification program. These reasons included the following: 

 Guaranteeing that technicians who handle refrigerants understand 

and practice proper safe refrigerant recovery and recycling 

techniques; 

 Promoting awareness of problems related to the venting, 

recovery, and recycling of refrigerants; 

 Ensuring environmentally safe service practices; 

 Receiving more liability protection; 

 Gaining consumer trust; 

 Improving leak detection; 

 Ensuring that equipment is properly maintained and used; 

 Improving productivity and cost savings through proper 

maintenance and usage practices; 

 Educating technicians on how to contain and conserve refrigerant 

effectively, curtailing illegal venting into the atmosphere; 

and 

 Creating uniform and enforceable laws. 

 In response to questions regarding the likely effectiveness 

of the proposed voluntary program, commenters stated that mandatory 

certification would foster fairer competition in the regulated 

community. Specifically, commenters were concerned that untrained 

technicians could undercut costs of trained technicians by not 

following procedures necessary for effective recovery of refrigerant. 

These untrained technicians might not invest in proper recovery 

or recycling equipment, and might continue to vent refrigerant. 

 One hundred and forty-two commenters expressed disapproval 

for mandatory technician certification. Some commenters stated 

that it would place an undeserved burden upon the stationary 

refrigeration and air conditioning industry because of the amount 

of time technicians and employers would have to expend to become 

certified. In response to these comments, the Agency has reviewed 

the results of requiring MVAC technicians to receive both mandatory 

training and mandatory certification under section 609. Typically, 

training and certification for MVAC technicians require less 

than two or three hours, with fees ranging between twelve and 

twenty dollars. The diverse equipment covered by section 608 

may require longer training sessions. The Agency has reviewed 

the cost and length of various training programs providing voluntary 

certification for technicians. The Agency believes adequate 

training and certification will require four to eight hours 

with fees ranging between thirty and seventy-five dollars. EPA 

does not view these fees or time needs as burdensome requirements. 

 The Agency realizes that if certification promulgated under 

today's rule was designed with organizations developing training 

and certification materials, followed by extensive Agency review 

of all training materials, certification exams and administrative 

procedures, the wider variety of equipment covered by today's 

rule could lead to long training sessions and costly programs. 

Therefore, today's rulemaking employs a more streamlined, less 

time-consuming approach. EPA has created three separate certification 

categories, based on industry divisions, allowing technicians 

to focus only on the kinds of equipment they service. Additionally, 

the Agency will provide a validated bank of questions, simplifying 

test development by certifying programs, and decreasing costs. 

This streamlined approach will also shorten the Agency's review 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 64 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
process. 

 Some commenters suggested that technicians have sufficient 

incentives to obtain proper training, thereby eliminating the 

need for mandatory certification. Private incentives include 

the value of recovered refrigerants, avoidance of injury, avoidance 

of equipment damage, negative publicity, and the technician's 

desire to avoid fines. In a "perfect market" such private incentives 

would encourage recovery and recycling; however, even within 

a "perfect market" incentives do not always reflect environmental 

costs. The escalating cost of refrigerant can be outweighed 

by labor costs to recover refrigerants, thus minimizing recycling 

procedures. Furthermore, training encourages proper techniques, 

without which contaminated refrigerant could be introduced into 

equipment. If equipment were to fail immediately due to contaminated 

refrigerant, then the technician could be held accountable. 

However, such failures can occur long after the technician introduced 

contaminated refrigerant, thus making it unlikely that the technician 

who introduced the contaminated refrigerant could be held responsible. 

 The RIA describes four benefits from requiring mandatory 

technician certification. First, certification decreases the 

costs for obtaining information for the technicians. Second, 

a technician certification program increases the probability 

that technicians receive adequate training concerning the requirements 

of today's rule and the proper operation of recycling equipment, 

leading to reduced emissions through increased compliance. Third, 

mandatory certification enhances EPA's ability to enforce today's 

rule, by providing another tool for use against intentional 

noncompliance: The ability to revoke the technician's certification. 

Finally, mandatory certification increases fairness by ensuring 

that all technicians are complying with today's rule. 

 The Agency believes that without a mandatory certification 

requirement, participation in voluntary programs will be limited, 

especially in the short-run. In anticipation of a mandatory 

certification requirement, several organizations designed and 

implemented voluntary certification programs. After the Agency 

proposed a voluntary approach, the Refrigeration Service Engineers 

Society reported a significant decrease in enrollment for its 

program. The Agency believes a mandatory program will significantly 

increase technician participation. 

 b. Lessened Burden to EPA and Technicians. The Agency believes 

it has developed a technician certification program that will 

not be burdensome to either the Agency or technicians. The Agency 

will authorize qualifying organizations to give an examination 

that tests knowledge of recovery and recycling procedures, as 

well as the environmental effects of refrigerant release. The 

Agency believes this will allow the largest number of technicians 

to become certified in a reasonable amount of time. The Agency 

will develop and validate a test bank of questions from which 

testing organizations will draw their questions. This will simplify 

test development by organizations and ensure a national uniform 

standard for the test. 

 EPA will not approve individual training and test review 

programs. Although training programs may be beneficial, technicians 

need only pass the test to become certified. The Agency believes 

that the market will determine which programs are needed to 

educate technicians sufficiently. 

 c. Better Environmental Protection. EPA reviewed the literature 

concerning effective training programs. The Agency anticipates 

that many technicians will participate in training programs 

before taking the certification test. The Agency believes an 

effective educational program aimed at preparing technicians 

for the certification test, will increase compliance with today's 

rulemaking, leading to better environmental protection. In particular, 

the Agency reviewed the University of Michigan's interim report 

"Evaluation of the Ford Motor Company/United Automobile Workers 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 65 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
Hazard Communications Program," which focused on how effective 

training can alter the participants' knowledge and attitudes, 

work practices and working conditions. The study found that 

this type of training has a number of positive impacts, including 

the ability to communicate useful information, foster safer 

work practices and improve health and safety control measures. 

The study concluded that 42 percent of the workers surveyed 

changed their work practices as a result of the training program. 

 The Agency believes that as technicians become more knowledgeable 

about recovery and recycling techniques, they will become aware 

of the environmental implications of their actions. EPA believes 

that information gained through certification will increase 

the technician's sense of social responsibility towards refrigerant 

recovery, and will therefore increase compliance with today's 

rule. Anecdotal evidence gathered from recent journal articles 

demonstrates that as individuals recognize their environmental 

responsibilities, they are more likely to comply with environmental 

regulations. 

 EPA's research and information supplied by trade associations 

indicates that the majority of technicians serving air-conditioning 

and refrigeration equipment today have little if any experience 

working with recovery and recycling equipment. Although recycling 

is common for equipment with large charge sizes, such as chillers 

and industrial process refrigeration, most technicians in the 

household refrigeration and household air conditioning sectors 

have not recycled CFCs or HCFCs in the past or have done so 

in a manner not aimed at minimizing emissions. In addition, 

although recycling may occur for commercial refrigeration, fear 

of incurring costs from the potential spoilage of food during 

repair of the system has limited recycling. Technicians who 

service equipment in these three sectors perform the largest 

number of service jobs per year. Thus, for a significant number 

of service technicians, it is extremely important to ensure 

that they understand the recycling requirements of section 608. 

 Industry representatives also believe that technician certification 

will significantly increase compliance with EPA's regulations. 

In one analysis submitted to EPA, representatives from the Trane 

Company reviewed probable compliance rates across service companies 

of different sizes. Trane Company estimated that a certification 

requirement will increase compliance by approximately 20 percent, 

reducing potential CFC emissions significantly and reducing 

the costs of the CFC phaseout by reducing the need for expensive 

retrofits. 

 d. Improved Productivity. The Agency believes that technician 

certification and education will improve the productivity of 

technicians. The Program Director for the CFC recovery and recycling 

education program for Ferris State University, a leading national 

vocational technical university, estimates that a recycling 

program similar to the one described here would dramatically 

improve worker proficiency. Specifically, the Ferris State University 

program director estimated that this training will: 

 Save 30%-50% of the time needed for each job over initial 

jobs by familiarizing technicians with appropriate procedures 

for use and maintenance of equipment in one structured course; 

 Improve productivity by one hour per service job over the 

long term; 

 Improve leak detection work, by choosing the appropriate 

method (halogen, halide, etc.), eliminating waste and saving 

two to three hours per job; 

 Avoid improper piping/soldering techniques (certified technicians 

would be less likely to create hazardous conditions resulting 

in a loss of refrigerant and saving the time required to remedy 

the problem); 

 Preserve HVAC/R and recovery/recycling operating capacity 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 66 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
by training technicians in the proper procedures for avoiding 

mixing refrigerants (in a typical system containing three pounds 

of refrigerant, mixing would result in one hour of lost labor, 

refrigerant loss, and costs of distillation and/or destruction 

of a trial mixture @$3.00/lb (current estimated price, leading 

to costs of at least $70-$80 each time refrigerants were erroneously 

mixed); and 

 Preserve equipment by training in proper oil application 

(using inappropriate oils would require that technicians flush 

out the system, requiring 8 to 10 hours of work and costing 

$460 to $560). 

 These estimates are based on the observation that technicians 

working on equipment in the most populous sectors (residential 

and household refrigeration) today are often not familiar with 

the procedures and practices required for effective recovery 

and recycling even within their own sector of the industry. 

 Proper technician education in recycling and recovery has 

a number of private benefits for technicians, contractors and 

equipment owners. It encourages the conservation of refrigerant, 

a valuable and increasingly scarce material, and it also helps 

to protect the air conditioning and refrigeration equipment 

by reducing improper servicing techniques and refrigerant contamination. 

Contaminated refrigerant can cause equipment failure or greatly 

reduce the equipment lifetime, incurring costs for needless 

repairs. Training in the safe handling of refrigerant may reduce 

on-the-job injuries. 

3. Program Elements 

Vol. 58 No. 92 Friday, May 14, 1993 p 28660 (Rule) 

 a. A Mandatory Program. In consideration of the need for 

effective refrigerant recycling programs, EPA is today establishing 

a mandatory certification program. All technicians must pass 

an exam administered by an approved EPA testing organization. 

Although training programs are beneficial, participation in 

a training program is not required by today's rule. All technicians 

must be certified within 18 months of the publication of this 

rule. EPA believes that this is an important component of the 

recycling and recovery program buttressed by receipt of over 

18,000 letters expressing support for mandatory technician certification. 

 Many commenters supported a certification program required 

by EPA, but administered by the private sector. Commenters stated 

that this type of program would ensure compliance with the Clean 

Air Act's goals of minimizing stratospheric ozone depletion 

in a cost-effective, market-based fashion. The mandatory technician 

certification program could be managed by industry along the 

lines of the voluntary program proposed. The Agency agrees and 

is therefore today establishing a testing program approved by 

EPA and administered by the private sector. All training programs 

will be operated by the private sector responding to the needs 

of the technicians. The Agency believes that this will create 

price-competitive training programs. EPA is concerned that costs 

to technicians be minimized and believes that price competition 

will lower costs in an economically efficient manner. It is 

the Agency's intention to publish the certification costs for 

training programs and certifying organizations and to make this 

information available from the Agency's Stratospheric Ozone 

Protection Hotline. 

 b. A National Program. Some commenters proposed approving 

as certifying programs only those organizations that meet national 

certification standards and have the proper infrastructure in 

place to administer testing. EPA believes that national organizations 

have an advantage in reaching a greater number of technicians 

in a reasonable amount of time. However, the Agency is concerned 

about limiting the competitive ability of many smaller creditable 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 67 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
organizations that possess the ability to provide testing. Again, 

it is the intention of the Agency only to approve the testing 

program, not the training program. 

 Many commenters who favored mandatory technician certification 

provided examples of existing state and local regulations. The 

South Coast Air Quality Management District and the State of 

Wisconsin's mandatory certification programs were offered as 

examples. A few commenters believed that these types of localized 

programs are sufficient. Others theorized that without a federal 

program, differences between the requirements of various municipalities 

will lead to a great deal of confusion in the industry. A few 

commenters stated that creating one standardized certification 

test with national acceptance would eliminate issues concerning 

reciprocity between state licensing programs and portability 

of certification. EPA applauds the efforts of state and local 

governments. The Agency believes creating a national program 

will decrease the need for a myriad of differing regulations. 

However, this regulation does not preempt state and local authority 

in any way. 

 Technician training and certification can be integrated into 

an extensive industry training infrastructure. The Air-Conditioning 

& Refrigeration Institute (ARI) estimates that there are approximately 

1,200 training programs for air conditioning and refrigeration 

technicians in the U.S. A large number of these programs have 

begun to train their students in proper methods for refrigeration 

conservation, including recovery and recycling, and ARI itself 

has incorporated a unit on environmental safety principles into 

its curriculum guide for HVAC/R instructors. 

 Many national educational and trade organizations such as 

Refrigeration Service Engineers Society, and Air Conditioning 

Contractors of America have developed training and testing programs 

specifically intended to help technicians comply with the July 

1, 1992 prohibition on venting. Many of these programs, which 

have already begun, can easily be modified to meet the needs 

of a mandatory program. 

 c. Personnel To Be Certified. Many commenters supported certification 

for all individuals who perform installation, service, maintenance, 

or repair functions that might reasonably be expected to release 

CFCs or HCFCs to the atmosphere. EPA believes that to reduce 

emissions to the "lowest achievable level" technician certification 

for individuals performing the functions noted above, is essential.

 Some commenters suggested that all persons coming into contact 

with or handling CFC refrigerants should be certified. Such 

a requirement would encompass not only those who service equipment 

but those who charge equipment during manufacture, transfer 

refrigerant from large to small containers for sale (e.g. wholesaler 

employees), and transfer refrigerant from small to large containers 

for shipment to reclaimers. However, five commenters expressed 

their strong opposition to the mandatory certification of factory, 

delivery, wholesale, or reclaimer personnel because sufficient 

incentives already exist to minimize venting in these sectors. 

 EPA is not requiring certification of these individuals because 

these transfer processes tend to be simpler than recovery from 

air conditioning and refrigeration equipment, and for the last 

two groups in particular, EPA agrees that there is a clear financial 

incentive to avoid venting. Nonetheless, EPA strongly encourages 

appropriate training of all individuals whose job responsibilities 

have any impact on the release of refrigerant to the atmosphere 

and who work in situations where technicians may reduce labor 

costs by venting rather than recovering. 

 EPA is requiring certification of all individuals who service 

air conditioning and refrigeration equipment besides MVACs. 

This group includes installers, contractor employees, in-house 

service personnel, and anyone else who performs installation, 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 68 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
maintenance, or repair that might reasonably have the opportunity 

to release CFCs or HCFCs into the atmosphere. In addition, individuals 

disposing of equipment other than small appliances and MVACs 

must be certified. EPA believes technicians working in these 

sectors have the greatest opportunity to release CFCs and HCFCs 

to the atmosphere. 

 Technicians servicing MVAC-like appliances, as defined in 

82.152(l) of the regulations, including agriculture and construction 

vehicles, are already required to become certified by an EPAapproved certification program. EPA recognizes that there are 

similarities between MVACs and MVAC-like appliances, including 

the use of an open-drive compressor and the amount of refrigerant 

the systems require. EPA believes that the training and certification 

provided by section 609 technician certification programs will 

more readily address issues concerning service practices used 

for servicing MVAC-like appliances. Therefore, technicians servicing 

MVAC-like appliances may choose to become certified by an EPAapproved section 609 technician certification program instead 

of by a section 608 technician certification program, and will 

then be considered certified according to the requirements of 

today's final rule. The Agency wishes to clarify that while 

technicians servicing MVAC-like appliances may choose a section 

609 technician certification program, the effective date for 

certification and all other requirements for these technicians 

are those promulgated today under section 608. 

 Technicians must be certified by November 14, 1994. Unless 

the law, EPA regulations, or recycling technology changes significantly, 

there is no need to recertify. EPA will formally notify all 

testing organizations and trade groups of the need to recertify 

through letters or Federal Register announcements. 

 Nine commenters urged EPA to include a phase-in period to 

allow time for adequate training and certification. The length 

of time varied from 12 months to 5 years. Commenters agreed 

that the deadline for technician certification should be long 

enough for EPA to approve multiple certifying programs and for 

technicians to have ample time to become properly trained and 

certified. Based on the time required for section 609 technician 

training and certification programs to apply and receive approval 

by the Agency, and to establish training classes, the Agency 

has concluded that an effective date of 18 months from the date 

of publication is reasonable. This will enable many private 

organizations adequate time to develop administrative testing 

procedures and to receive EPA approval in accordance with today's 

rule. 

 d. Types of certification. EPA proposed creating four separate 

technician certification categories. The equipment covered by 

section 608 varies widely in form, size, and purpose, ranging 

from industrial process refrigeration systems containing thousands 

of pounds of CFC-11 to home refrigerators containing 6 ounces 

of CFC-12. Recycling and servicing techniques that are appropriate 

to one may not be applicable to another. Creating four divisions 

would allow technicians to be tested on information concerning 

the types of and service practices for the equipment the technicians 

primarily service and maintain. Categories were intended for 

technicians servicing and maintaining the following types of 

equipment: 

 (1) Small appliances, 

 (2) High-pressure equipment with a charge of less than 50 

pounds, 

 (3) High-pressure equipment with a charge of more than 50 

pounds, and 

 (4) Low-pressure equipment. 

 Many commenters supported having certification divided into 

several categories. Various suggestions of additional categories 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 69 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
(such as one for small low-pressure equipment) were suggested 

by the commenters. Many commenters asserted that fewer categories 

were needed. To simplify the program, EPA decided to combine 

all of the high-pressure equipment into one category. EPA believes 

that issues affecting all high-pressure equipment are similar. 

Furthermore, combining the high-pressure equipment will minimize 

duplication and will ease the administrative burden associated 

with the development of the test bank. 

 Some commenters requested the inclusion of a category which 

encompasses those workers whose jobs entail work associated 

with each of the proposed categories. Technicians applying for 

this type of certification would need to pass a test with sections 

covering each of the sector-specific categories established 

by the Agency. EPA believes creating a comprehensive category 

for technicians passing exams in the three sector-specific areas 

is beneficial. This would ease administrative burdens for the 

certifying programs. EPA is therefore establishing a comprehensive 

category known as Universal Certification. 

 Based on the proposed voluntary certification scheme, and 

the comments received by the Agency, EPA is today establishing 

three different types of technician certification, and one comprehensive 

category. EPA has determined that three types of technician 

certification will accommodate the important differences between 

the various types of air conditioning and refrigeration equipment. 

 Type I certification is intended primarily for technicians 

servicing household appliances, and will test for knowledge 

of the recovery devices unique to this sector, including systemdependent recovery technologies. 

 Type II certification is intended for technicians servicing 

high-pressure equipment, such as unitary house air conditioners, 

and will include questions on the vacuum that must be drawn 

on this equipment and on technical points such as the proper 

valving for liquid and vapor recovery. In addition, Type II 

certification will encompass issues that are important for larger 

high-pressure equipment. These issues will include recovery 

using system receivers and safety concerns such as the proper 

use of refrigerant sensors in equipment rooms. 

 MVAC-like appliances are high-pressure equipment; therefore, 

technicians servicing MVAC-like appliances are considered Type 

II technicians. As noted earlier, technicians servicing MVAClike appliances may choose to become certified by an EPA-approved 

program under section 609, and will be considered certified 

according to the requirements of today's final rule. 

 Type III certification will cover issues unique to low-pressure 

equipment, such as evaporator heating for leak detection and 

the proper procedures for deep evacuation. 

 Because intermediate and very high-pressure equipment make 

up a very small percentage of air conditioning and refrigeration 

equipment, EPA is not planning to establish special certification 

requirements for technicians who work on these types of equipment. 

Instead, EPA is integrating general information on these equipment 

types into Type II and Type III certification, as appropriate. 

 e. Test content. Like technician certification under the 

section 609 Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning program, EPA proposed 

that technician certification under section 608 should test 

technicians on their understanding of the legal and environmental 

reasons for recycling and on the techniques for minimizing refrigerant 

emissions during the recycling process. Commenters suggested 

that a national standardized test include at least the following 

subjects: The importance of stratospheric ozone, the theory 

of ozone loss, basic air-conditioning and refrigeration operation, 

and good service practices such as leak detection, regulatory 

requirements and safety. EPA is requiring that these subjects 

be covered by the certification test. The Agency believes that 

this will ensure knowledge about the environmental impact of 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 70 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
CFC emissions, new regulations, and new equipment procedures, 

and will facilitate compliance with the law. These issues are 

incorporated in the set of test categories described in appendix 

D. 

 Eight commenters recommended that the certification tests 

include both a hands-on section and a written multiple choice 

section. Although a hands-on test might better ensure competency, 

EPA believes requiring a hands-on section would place an undue 

burden on both the certifying programs and the technicians. 

A program including hands-on testing would be more time-consuming 

and would create an additional cost for the technicians. 

 For all three types of sector-specific certification and 

comprehensive certification, today's rule requires a core of 

knowledge about environmental impacts of CFCs and HCFCs and 

about legal requirements regarding their use and disposal, including 

these regulations. In addition, each type of certification will 

require demonstrated knowledge of the recycling and recovery 

techniques appropriate to the equipment encompassed by that 

type of certification. General safety guidelines regarding the 

handling of refrigerants and pressurized cylinders will also 

be tested. 

 EPA also is requiring technician certification tests to cover 

safety issues and other federal regulations of which individuals 

performing refrigerant recycling and recovery should be aware. 

Safety issues include proper methods for filling and handling 

pressurized cylinders (which can explode if overfilled) and, 

for large equipment in closed spaces, appropriate measures for 

avoiding excessive exposure to refrigerant (which, in extreme 

cases, can lead to oxygen deprivation). The Department of Transportation 

has promulgated regulations in 49 CFR part 173 (primarily based 

on safety concerns) covering the transport of pressurized cylinders. 

 f. Test bank. EPA will provide a bank of test questions to 

cover these areas. Industry groups, including the Refrigeration 

Service Engineers Society, Mechanical Service Contractors of 

America, United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, and 

Air Conditioning Contractors of America have been working together 

and with EPA to develop a set of questions that they have stated 

could serve as the core for a central test bank. Other groups 

that have expressed an interest in becoming approved certifying 

programs have indicated that they would be willing to help develop 

and administer such questions. EPA will develop its questions 

from this bank. The Agency will meet with members of trade groups 

to develop additional questions. Additional organizations may 

meet with EPA at that time to submit questions. This group will 

meet every six months. 

 To ensure accuracy and fairness, test questions will be validated 

by EPA before any programs are approved to administer the certification 

test. Questions will be updated on a semi-annual basis, with 

those judged invalid or obsolete removed from the test bank. 

EPA will make the questions available to organizations that 

have been certified by the Agency. 

 The primary advantage of a single bank of test questions 

is that such a bank reduces the costs of developing a program, 

minimizes the review process, and will ensure consistency across 

certification programs. In addition, organizations interested 

in becoming certifying programs will be able to pool their efforts 

and will not have to develop (frequently identical) questions 

independently. A bank of test questions will ensure a uniform 

certification standard for all technicians. 

 EPA will conduct periodic reviews of test subject material 

and update the bank of test questions based upon analyses of 

their validity and the latest technological and legal developments 

in appliance maintenance, service, repair and disposal. EPA 

will then provide updated questions for use by approved technician 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 71 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
certifying programs. 

 The passing score for Type I certification tests using the 

mail-in format, is 84 percent. The Agency based this requirement 

on the scores used for the mail-in tests provided by section 

609 certifying programs. This score is identical to the score 

used by the Mobile Air Conditioning Society. The passing score 

for the closed-book certification test is 70 percent. Again, 

EPA based this requirement on the MVACs certification tests 

that use a similar format. 

 g. Test conditions. Commenters argued both for and against 

closed-book testing. One commenter suggested that an open-book 

test could facilitate learning of information that can be applied 

in the workplace. Two commenters stated that a more stringent, 

closed-book approach was justified due to the variety of equipment 

covered by section 608. While EPA agrees that open-book testing 

facilitates learning, the Agency recognizes that reviewing information 

for a closed-book test also facilitates the learning process. 

Furthermore, closed-book testing can better ensure the retention 

of information by the technicians. Accurate information retention 

ensures that the technicians have a basic understanding about 

the essential components of the recovery and recycling program. 

Moreover, the Agency does not believe that the questions on 

the certification tests should be so complicated or difficult 

that technicians are forced to refer constantly to their training 

materials. Technicians will be able to access more detailed 

information from equipment manuals during service procedures. 

EPA is therefore requiring closed-book testing for Type II, 

Type III and Universal technicians. EPA believes that this also 

will decrease the burden for the certifying programs. If EPA 

were to allow open-book testing, the proctors would be required 

to check all materials used by the technicians in order to ensure 

that technicians were not using answer keys, or sample questions 

directly mimicking the certification test. This would require 

the proctors to be familiar with a variety of acceptable and 

unacceptable materials provided by various training organizations, 

increasing the training requirements for the proctoring. Alternatively, 

the certifying program would need to supply technicians with 

EPA-approved materials, which would increase the technicians' 

costs and prolong the approval process for certifying programs, 

leading to technician certification delays. 

 Commenters supported both proctored and unproctored certification 

tests. Three commenters stated proctoring was unnecessary. Seven 

commenters favored a proctored exam. The Air Conditioning Contractors 

of America strongly advocated proctors to ensure the integrity 

of the test. EPA agrees that proctoring will protect the test's 

integrity and decrease opportunities for cheating. Therefore, 

the Agency is requiring proctored tests for Type II, Type III 

and Universal technicians. 

 The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, the AirConditioning & Refrigeration Institute, and several other comments 

supported an open-book, unproctored exam for technicians primarily 

servicing and maintaining small appliances. One commenter remarked 

that since these technicians are handling very small charge 

sizes, this less stringent approach is justified. Other comments 

stated that since technicians servicing and maintaining small 

appliances are often employed by small, decentralized businesses, 

bringing these technicians together, in order to participate 

in a proctored test, would not be cost-effective. Typically 

these appliances use sealed refrigerant systems. The Agency 

realizes that technicians servicing small appliances are less 

frequently required to make repairs that involve entering the 

sealed system, which could potentially lead to the release of 

refrigerant. Additionally, the Agency is aware that often small 

appliances contain only a few ounces of refrigerant, unlike 

industrial process refrigeration systems, which may contain 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 72 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
thousands of pounds of refrigerant. While the Agency believes 

a closed-book, proctored exam would provide a better means for 

testing the technicians's knowledge, EPA did not want to place 

an unwarranted burden on these technicians. Therefore, the Agency 

is not requiring closed-book, proctored testing for Type I technicians. 

EPA believes a mail-in program, similar to those used for MVAC 

technician certification will provide a sufficient educational 

vehicle for technicians who seldom come in contact with refrigerant. 

 h. Proof of certification. Certifying programs must issue 

a standard wallet-sized identification card no later than 30 

days from the date of the test. Type I certifying programs using 

mail-in formats must issue cards to certified technicians no 

later than 30 days from the date the certifying program receives 

the completed test and any required documentation. Certifying 

programs may mail or hand deliver the cards. 

 Each wallet-sized identification card must include, at a 

minimum, the name of the certifying programs including the date 

the certifying programs received EPA approval, the name of the 

person certified, the type of certification, a unique number 

for the certified person and the following text: 

[name of person] has been certified as [Type I, Type II, Type 

III and/or Universal-as appropriate] technician as required 

by 40 CFR part 82, subpart F. 

 EPA believes the use of standardized language will decrease 

administrative costs and will aid in enforcement. Standardized 

language will also ease the burden on refrigerant wholesalers, 

who will verify the certification of technicians purchasing 

any class I or class II substance, by inspecting identification 

cards. 

 i. Additional requirements. EPA will periodically inspect 

testing sites to ensure compliance with EPA regulations. If 

testing center discrepancies are found, they must be corrected 

within a specified time period. If discrepancies are not corrected, 

EPA may revoke the certifying program's approval. The inspections 

may include, but would not be limited to, reviewing provisions 

for test security, the availability of space and facilities 

to conduct the administrative requirements and ensure the security 

of the tests, the availability of adequate testing facilities 

and spacing of the applicants during testing, and the proper 

procedures regarding accountability, and ensuring that there 

is no evidence of misconduct on the part of the certifying programs, 

their representatives and proctors, or the applicants for certification. 

 EPA may also require technicians to demonstrate their ability 

to perform proper procedures for recovering and/or recycling 

refrigerant. Failure to demonstrate or failure to properly use 

the equipment may result in revocation of the technician's certificate. 

If a technician refuses to demonstrate his ability to properly 

use approved equipment or if a technician fails to properly 

use approved equipment, the Agency's likely response is the 

issuance of an administrative order pursuant to section 113(a), 

ordering the technician to demonstrate compliance with the statute 

and the regulations. Failing such demonstration, EPA would order 

revocation of the technician's certificate. The Agency may also 

order the technician who fails to properly use approved equipment 

to obtain additional training. Before a section 113(a) order 

may take effect, the technician to whom it is issued must be 

given an opportunity to confer with the Administrator or his 

or her representative concerning the alleged violation. 

 Certifying programs are encouraged to make provisions for 

non-English speaking technicians by providing tests in other 

languages or allowing the use of a translator when taking the 

test. 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 73 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 j. Approval process. Based on commenters' statements, EPA 

anticipates receiving a large number of applications from organizations 

seeking to become certifying programs. Therefore the Agency 

believes it is appropriate to establish priorities for the review 

of these programs. In order to certify as many technicians as 

possible in a reasonable amount of time, EPA will give priority 

to programs with national or broad geographic scope. Below are 

the guidelines EPA will use: 

 First: Certifying programs providing at least 25 testing 

centers with a minimum of one site in at least 8 different states 

will be considered. 

 Second: Certifying programs forming regional networks with 

a minimum of 10 testing centers will be considered. 

 Third: Certifying programs providing testing centers in geographically 

isolated areas not sufficiently covered by the national or regional 

programs will be considered. 

 Fourth: All other programs applying for EPA approval will 

be considered. 

 Sample application forms may be obtained by contacting the 

Stratospheric Ozone Hotline at 1-800-296-1996. 

 k. Grandfathering. Some organizations have already begun 

to train, test, and unofficially "certify" technicians in preparation 

for compliance with these regulations and with the prohibition 

on venting of CFCs and HCFCs. Some of these organizations have 

approached EPA to see whether their programs can be approved 

and their trainees grandfathered. EPA received comments from 

participants in these programs, some of which included copies 

of proof of "certification" or "certification" numbers. 

 EPA will grandfather technicians whose programs seek and 

receive EPA approval as a certifying program. As part of this 

process, these certifying programs may be required to send supplemental 

information or provide additional testing to ensure the level 

of the technicians' knowledge. The certifying programs will 

also have to issue new identification cards meeting the requirements 

specified above. 

 Persons who are currently technicians must be certified by 

(eighteen months from the date of publication). Technicians 

that participated in certification programs which do not become 

EPA certifying programs must either receive EPA-approved supplemental 

information from the original testing organization or be certified 

by taking a test given by an EPA-approved certification organization 

by (eighteen months from the date of publication). 

I. Restriction on Sales of Refrigerants to Certified Technicians 

1. Description of Proposal And Final Requirement 

 EPA did not propose a sales restriction on refrigerant as 

its lead option because the Agency had not proposed mandatory 

technician certification as its lead option. As part of the 

discussion on mandatory certification of technicians, however, 

the Agency suggested that it could restrict the sale of refrigerant 

to certified technicians in order to encourage full participation 

in training and certification programs and to ensure that only 

qualified individuals handle refrigerant. Based on comments 

supporting a sales restriction, the Agency believes restricting 

sales of refrigerant to only certified technicians is necessary 

to ensure that all technicians are properly trained and in compliance 

with this regulation. 

 In order to ensure that only qualified individuals handle 

refrigerant, the Agency is establishing a sales restriction 

on refrigerant until similar to that required under section 

609. The Act made it unlawful, effective November 15, 1992, 

for any person to sell or distribute, or offer for sale or distribution, 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 74 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
any class I or class II substance suitable for use as refrigerant 

in a motor vehicle air conditioning system and that is in a 

container with less than 20 pounds of refrigerant except to 

certified technicians. EPA has reviewed the success of this 

sales restriction and believes that the dangers associated with 

the release of CFCs and HCFCs into the atmosphere warrants extending 

the sales restriction to include all containers (regardless 

of size) of any class I or II refrigerant. Restricting the sale 

of refrigerants will ensure compliance with the regulations 

and aid in enforcement. 

 Some transactions involving refrigerant will be exempt from 

this restriction, because there is very little risk of refrigerant 

venting associated with these transactions. These transactions 

include refrigerant sold only for eventual resale to certified 

technicians (e.g., sales from a manufacturer to a wholesaler) 

and refrigerant contained in pre-charged air conditioning or 

refrigeration equipment. 

 The American Supply Association (ASA) stated at the December 

23, 1992 Public Hearing at EPA's Headquarters in Washington, 

DC, that wholesalers are willing to comply with a reasonable 

restriction on sales. ASA further asserted that requirements 

akin to state sales tax exemptions could provide a reasonable 

means for enforcing the restriction of refrigerant sales. EPA 

reviewed ASA's comments carefully and incorporated some of their 

recordkeeping suggestions into this rule. 

 Under the regulations promulgated today, only technicians 

certified by an approved section 608 or section 609 certification 

program and in possession of a valid certification identification 

card will be able to purchase refrigerant for use as of November 

14, 1994. The Agency realizes that clerks and runners, rather 

than trained technicians, frequently make refrigerant purchases. 

Since the nature of this business means that the certified technician 

will not always be the person to whom the wholesaler physically 

transfers the refrigerant, EPA will allow the technician to 

provide evidence of certification to the wholesaler prior to 

the first sale. The wholesaler may then keep a copy of the technician's 

certification identification card on file, much the same way 

as the wholesaler keeps evidence that a customer is exempt from 

state sales tax. A photocopy of the identification card may 

remain on the wholesalers' premises. Large purchasers and contractors 

may provide evidence to the wholesaler of individual certifications 

for their group of employees. Copies of these employees' identification 

cards may remain on the wholesalers' premises. It is the responsibility 

of the larger purchaser or contractor to notify the wholesaler 

regarding changes in the status of certified employees. 

 Individual purchasers, large purchasers, or contractors may 

authorize other employees to purchase or accept delivery of 

refrigerant. Under the regulations, a list of authorized personnel 

must be filed with the wholesaler and the certified technician 

or contractor is responsible for updating the list as necessary. 

The wholesaler is restricted to selling refrigerants only to 

the accounts with evidence of certification on file with the 

wholesaler prior to the sale or to technicians with valid section 

608 or section 609 certification identification cards. 

2. Response to Major Comments 

 Over twelve thousand commenters requested that the sale of 

refrigerant be limited to certified technicians or organizations 

employing certified technicians. Forty-three commenters additionally 

stated that limiting the sale of refrigerants to certified technicians 

provides a practical method for keeping refrigerant out of the 

hands of irresponsible operators. Thirty-three commenters added 

that a sales limitation will secure compliance with the regulations 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 75 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
and aid in enforcement. Two hundred and eighty-five commenters 

declared that a sales restriction would reduce easy access to 

refrigerant by untrained or undertrained individuals. 

 Thirteen commenters opposed restricting refrigerant sales 

to certified technicians. One commenter remarked that a sales 

restriction does not ensure compliance. Another commenter stated 

that sufficient safeguards existed in the proposal to prevent 

the sale of refrigerants to unauthorized persons. 

 The lead option in the proposed rule was based on voluntary 

certification, and EPA did not believe it was appropriate to 

propose limiting sales to persons who participated in a voluntary 

program. EPA is today requiring the certification of all technicians, 

therefore it is possible and practical for the Agency to require 

a more stringent approach. A sales restriction will limit the 

refrigerant sales only to qualified technicians. The Agency 

believes that unrestricted sales will enable untrained or undertrained 

technicians to obtain access to refrigerants that are likely 

to be used improperly in connection with servicing activities 

that will result in the venting of refrigerants. 

 Two commenters suggested that a sales restriction will lead 

to higher service prices and the creation of a black market 

for CFC refrigerants. EPA believes a sales restriction will 

not lead to an increase in service prices or the development 

of a black market because the cost of certification will not 

be burdensome. EPA anticipates the cost of certification to 

be slightly higher than the cost for certification under section 

609, and will require slightly longer training sessions. Fees 

for section 609 technician training and certification vary, 

but are in the range of twelve to twenty dollars, and usually 

require approximately three hours. The Agency believes adequate 

training and section 608 certification will require four to 

eight hours with fees ranging between thirty and seventy-five 

dollars. The Agency believes it will be far more financially 

prudent for technicians to become certified in accordance with 

the requirements promulgated under section 608, than to participate 

in any black market for refrigerants. 

 Several commenters stated that wholesalers should be required 

to register refrigerant sales by certification number to enable 

authorities to track refrigerant use. By recording refrigerant 

sales, groups who purchase large quantities of refrigerant could 

be easily identified and monitored. However, while this could 

aid enforcement authorities, EPA considers this recordkeeping 

and monitoring a sizable burden on the wholesalers. In addition, 

the Agency does not believe it is necessary or desirable to 

track the amount of refrigerant purchased by individual entities 

because today's rule does not establish quantity restrictions 

on refrigerant purchases. Moreover, this burden could lead to 

an increase in overhead costs which would be passed on to the 

technician. 

 Several commenters argued for the transfer of refrigerant 

to uncertified delivery personnel. Three commenters stated that 

drivers or delivery personnel should not have to provide proof 

of certification if they are merely transporting the refrigerant 

for a certified technician who will actually perform the service. 

Two commenters wrote that often the purchasing activities are 

separate from the servicing activities. One commenter declared 

that requiring the certified technician to be present at the 

time of purchase would be a logistical nightmare. The Agency 

understands that often the certified technician will not actually 

be present at the time the refrigerant is physically transferred. 

The Agency will allow the transfer of refrigerant to delivery 

personnel according to the guidelines detailed above. 

 Nine commenters requested that refrigerant purchasers be 

required to present proof of equipment certification before 

the sale. EPA views this requirement as unnecessary due to the 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 76 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
requirements concerning the proof of technician certification. 

Wholesalers can easily conduct visual checks of technicians' 

certification cards, and the use of standardized language will 

make these cards easily identifiable. 

J. Certification by Owners of Recycling or Recovery Equipment 

1. Description of Proposal and Final Rule 

 EPA proposed and is today requiring owners of recycling or 

recovery equipment, including contractors and other business 

entities responsible for air-conditioning and refrigeration 

equipment servicing (such as building owners with in-house service 

personnel), to submit a signed statement to the appropriate 

EPA Regional office by [Insert date 90 days after publication 

of the final rule], stating that they possess sufficient certified 

recovery and recycling equipment, or equipment grandfathered 

under today's rule, to perform on-site recycling or recovery. 

EPA believes this requirement is an important element of an 

effective recovery and recycling program. Equipment certification 

demonstrates the availability of appropriate equipment for use 

by certified technicians. 

 In addition to the name and address of the contractor, the 

statement must include the name of the manufacturer, date the 

equipment was manufactured, date of purchase, and if applicable, 

the model number and the serial number of the equipment. If 

the contractor repairs appliances besides small appliances, 

the form must indicate that at least one of the pieces of equipment 

listed in the statement is self-contained equipment. The statement 

must also include the number of service trucks (or other vehicles) 

used to transport technicians and equipment between the establishment 

and job sites in the field. (EPA received comments supporting 

the inclusion of both of these information requirements in the 

certification statement.) Sample forms may be obtained by contacting 

the Stratospheric Ozone Hotline at 1-800-296-1996. 

 In addition to the self-certification outlined above, EPA 

proposed several options for administering equipment owner certification. 

One option was direct certification by EPA, which required the 

equipment owner to submit substantiating documentation of equipment 

certification. EPA would then mail a certificate to the equipment 

owner. While this option could result in somewhat greater assurance 

of compliance with the regulations, the Agency is not requiring 

this option because it would be impractical given the large 

number of equipment owners and other business entities that 

would need to be reviewed and sent certificates. (Estimates 

of the number of contractors in the U.S. range from 22,000 to 

45,000.) Another similar option was to require the equipment 

owner to submit such documentation to approved third-party certifying 

programs; however, EPA is not aware of any potentially interested 

organizations. EPA recognizes that third-party certification 

may be a more reliable method for ensuring equipment owner compliance 

with these regulations, and the Agency may consider replacing 

the self-certification program with third-party certification 

at a later date. 

2. Response to Major Comments 

 Twenty-eight commenters supported owner self-certification 

as a way to maximize compliance without imposing undue cost 

and paperwork burdens on the owners. 

 Two commenters opposing self-certification remarked how the 

lack of a requirement in the proposal for technician certification 

would negate the need for owner certification. Without technician 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 77 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
certification, there is less assurance that a recovery/recycling 

machine will be used properly, regardless of whether or not 

the equipment was certified by the owner. However, through this 

rulemaking, EPA is today requiring the certification of all 

technicians. 

 One commenter suggested that equipment certification should 

be required within 180 days instead of 90 days, because provisions 

permitting the grandfathering of equipment will no longer be 

in effect. However, the grandfathering provision does not affect 

the self-certification of equipment by owners. Owners must certify 

all equipment, including grandfathered equipment. Therefore, 

the Agency does not believe extending the deadline would benefit 

equipment owners. 

 One commenter asked EPA to include the phrase "if applicable" 

when requesting the model and serial numbers of equipment. Additionally, 

the commenter asked that the phrase "or the last substantial 

revision" follow the request for the date of manufacture. EPA 

recognizes that some equipment may not have a model or serial 

number; therefore the phrase "if applicable" has been added. 

However, the Agency does not believe it is necessary to add 

"the last substantial revision" to this requirement. The Agency 

is interested in the date of manufacture to ensure that equipment 

either meets the required standards or is eligible to be grandfathered, 

which is based on the date of manufacture. 

K. Certification of Reclaimers 

1. Description of Proposed and Final Requirement 

 In order to ensure the quality of reclaimed refrigerant on 

the market, EPA proposed and is today requiring the certification 

of reclaimers. Consistent with the proposed rule, reclaimer 

certification will involve sending a signed statement from the 

reclaimer stating that it: (1) Returns refrigerant to at least 

the ARI Standard 700, (2) verifies this purity using the methods 

set forth in ARI Standard 700, and (3) disposes of wastes from 

the reclamation process in accordance with applicable laws and 

regulations. The requirement to dispose of wastes properly is 

important since the reclamation process can generate hazardous 

wastes. ARI Standard 700 is a purity standard set by the AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute to ensure that refrigerant 

is free of contaminants that can damage air conditioning and 

refrigeration equipment. 

 As proposed, the regulation provides that reclaimers cannot 

release more than 1.5 percent of the refrigerant during the 

reclamation process. Reclaimers on the STOPAC Subcommittee for 

recycling estimated that releases during a well-controlled reclamation 

process range between one and two percent of the quantity. One 

reclaimer on the STOPAC committee measured these losses and 

found them to be 1.2 percent of the original quantity. The Agency 

recognizes that fugitive emissions occur during the production 

of ozone-depleting chemicals and that the reclaimers should 

not be held to a more stringent requirement. According to reclaimers 

on the STOPAC committee, most releases take place during transfers 

of refrigerant between shipping containers and reclamation devices. 

Typically, reclamation itself takes place in a closed loop; 

refrigerant is not exposed to the atmosphere. Emissions that 

occur during this process result from sampling of refrigerant 

for purposes of analysis and from purging of noncondensables 

(air and other gases with a boiling point lower than that of 

refrigerant). Both types of releases are likely to be small; 

typically, samples consist of 50 grams of refrigerant, and purging 

of noncondensables takes place through a cold trap that recondenses 

and traps most of the refrigerant mixed with the air. Although 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 78 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
emissions from reclamation devices have not been quantified 

precisely, two reclaimers on the STOPAC subcommittee stated 

that emissions fall well under two percent of the quantity of 

refrigerant that enters the reclamation process. Based on this 

information EPA proposed and is today requiring to limit emissions 

from reclaiming facilities to 1.5 percent of the refrigerant 

received by them. The Agency estimates that approximately one 

percent of the refrigerant will be released during transfers 

of refrigerant to and from reclamation devices, and approximately 

one half of one percent will be released during the reclamation 

process itself. 

 In addition to the signed statement, the reclaimer must submit 

the name and address of all reclamation facilities and a list 

of all equipment it employs to analyze the refrigerant. EPA 

will periodically publish a list of certified reclaimers, including 

the name and address of all reclamation facilities. This list 

will be available through the Stratospheric Ozone Protection 

Hotline. Reclaimers must also maintain records of the names 

and addresses of persons sending material for reclamation and 

the quantity of the material (combined mass of refrigerant and 

contaminants) sent to them. On an annual basis, reclaimers are 

required to keep records of the mass of material sent to them, 

the mass of refrigerant reclaimed, and the mass of waste products. 

These records are required to ensure that refrigerant releases 

are minimized during the reclamation process and to satisfy 

reporting requirements under the Montreal Protocol. A copy of 

these records must be kept at the reclamation facilities. Based 

on discussions with reclaimers, EPA believes that most reclaimers 

already keep such records. Reclaimers must report to EPA within 

45 days after the end of the calendar year the volume of refrigerant 

received and reclaimed, as well as names of companies or technicians 

that supplied the refrigerant. 

 EPA will periodically inspect reclaimer facilities to ensure 

compliance with EPA regulations. If discrepancies are found, 

they must be corrected within a specified time period. If discrepancies 

are not corrected, EPA may suspend or revoke the reclaimer's 

certification. The inspections may include, but are not limited 

to, an examination of the reclaimer's records, a review of equipment 

employed by the reclaimer measuring the levels of refrigerant 

released to the atmosphere and a certification that refrigerant 

is purified to the standard set in the regulation. 

 EPA considered a second option for reclamation in the proposed 

rule. The Agency suggested that EPA-approved parties could administer 

reclaimer certification site inspections and/or sampling of 

refrigerant. Third-party certification would be more reliable 

than self-certification. Inspections and sampling would provide 

independent evidence that the ARI-700 standards were being achieved 

at the reclamation facility. However, at the time the proposal 

was being developed, no potential third-party certifying programs 

had established a reclaimer certification program. ARI was developing 

a program, but this program was not yet operational. Today ARI's 

Certification Program For Reclaimed Refrigerant is operating. 

A directory of all ARI-certified reclaimers, including the phone 

number and address of all reclaimer facilities, and a list of 

refrigerants reclaimed at these facilities is published twice 

a year. EPA encourages these efforts, and believes that such 

efforts provide more certainty to the purity of the refrigerant, 

and a wider acceptance for the reclaimed refrigerant in the 

industry. In the future the Agency may replace its reclaimer 

self-certification program with a requirement that reclaimers 

be certified by an approved third party. 

2. Response to Major Commenters 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 79 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 One commenter stated that it is unnecessary for EPA to require 

certification of certain information, including the percent 

release limitation and compliance with waste disposal laws. 

The commenter believed that it is inappropriate to require individuals 

to certify that they will obey legal requirements. EPA, however, 

views self-certification as necessary to ensure that reclaimers 

acknowledge the requirements of these regulations. Without this 

acknowledgement, reclaimers may be ignorant of the method of 

reclaiming and may not take the proper precautions and steps 

to ensure purity. The Agency believes that requiring the reclaimer 

to certify compliance with the above requirements ensures that 

the reclaimer is fully aware of the regulations regarding reclaimed 

refrigerant, and provides greater assurance that the reclaimer 

will abide by those regulations. 

 Eighteen commenters supported a requirement for third-party 

certification of reclaimers. Several commenters stated that 

the need to assure the quality of reclaimed refrigerant on the 

market is a strong reason for having third-party certification 

and sampling. One commenter declared that third-party certification 

is necessary to reduce the risk of contaminated refrigerant 

from entering the marketplace and causing potentially costly 

damage to air conditioning equipment. As stated above, when 

the Agency was developing the proposal, there were no operational 

third-party certification programs. EPA believes that the selfcertification program promulgated today provides adequate assurances 

of quality but, as indicated above, the Agency may evaluate 

the potential use of third-party certification in the future. 

Moreover, the Agency believes that third-party certification 

that is accepted by the industry will lend additional credibility 

to the purity of the refrigerant and provides a "good housekeeping 

seal of approval." 

 One commenter supported third-party certification to ensure 

reclaimers' products meet ARI-700 standards. The commenter believes 

there are financial incentives to "cheat" with mixed refrigerants 

that exceed the ARI-700 allowable limits. The Agency does not 

believe incentives to "cheat" exist. The risk of damaging expensive 

air conditioning and refrigeration equipment from refrigerant 

contamination, creates a significant incentive to ensure reclaimers 

meet ARI-700 standards. EPA reclaimer certification requires 

reclaimers to submit a list of all equipment employed by the 

reclaimer to analyze the refrigerant, and to certify that the 

equipment is properly used. This requirement assures EPA that 

reclaimers own and use appropriate equipment for achieving ARI700. 

 Five commenters supported the proposed recordkeeping requirements 

for reclaimers. One commenter remarked that records should be 

maintained at the facility available for EPA review. The Agency 

does require through this rulemaking that records must be readily 

available for review and that a copy of the records be maintained 

at the reclamation centers. 

 One commenter supported a more stringent maximum limit of 

1 percent emissions by reclaimer facilities. Reclaimers on the 

STOPAC Subcommittee for recycling estimated that releases during 

a well-controlled reclamation process range between one and 

two percent of the quantity. Based on this information, as well 

as additional information provided by actual measurements at 

one reclaimer's facilities, the Agency is maintaining its proposed 

requirement that reclaimers not emit more than 1.5 percent of 

the refrigerant during the reclamation process. EPA is concerned 

that requirements which are too stringent may impose unnecessary 

financial burdens on the reclaimer. 

 One commenter stated that reclaimed refrigerant should be 

labeled and sold as "reclaimed" rather than as "new" refrigerant. 

EPA believes that if the refrigerant is reclaimed to ARI-700 

standards, it is not necessary to label the refrigerant as reclaimed. 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 80 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
Often new refrigerant is mixed with reclaimed refrigerant meeting 

the ARI-700 standards. After the phaseout becomes effective, 

many of these refrigerants will only be available as reclaimed 

products. 

 One commenter stated that general education efforts on reclamation 

are needed, especially related to issues such as awareness, 

operational and maintenance options, equipment safety, and transportation 

packaging requirements. EPA agrees that education about reclamation 

is necessary. The Agency encourages organizations involved with 

reclamation to create and distribute informational brochures. 

The Agency regularly releases various fact sheets and informational 

brochures about topics related to refrigerant use. Information 

on reclamation is included. The Agency may consider creating 

or participating in a more extensive informational campaign 

at a later date. In addition, the Agency believes that thirdparty certification will serve the role of educating reclaimers 

on the necessary requirements. 

 Two commenters stated that the final rule should provide 

for reclaimer decertification in the case of enforcement actions 

for violations of the reclaimer requirements. Decertified reclaimers 

should be removed from the list of certified reclaimers, with 

reinstatement possible after actions are undertaken that would 

render their products acceptable for sale. The proposal and 

today's rule includes a provision for decertification. If discrepancies 

are found, reclaimers may be asked to correct the discrepancies 

within a specified time period. Failure to rectify the situation 

may result in revocation or suspension of the certification 

of the reclaimer. 

L. Recordkeeping Requirements 

 EPA has established the following recordkeeping requirements: 

 1. Equipment Certification Programs. 

 EPA is requiring equipment certification programs to maintain 

records of equipment testing and performance in addition to 

a list of equipment that meets EPA requirements. 

 2. Wholesalers. 

 Wholesalers are required to maintain the usual business records 

of their refrigerant transactions, including the name of the 

buyer and the quantity sold. 

 3. Reclaimers. 

 As discussed in section III.K, reclaimers are required to 

maintain records of the names and addresses of persons sending 

them material for reclamation and the quantity of the material 

(the combined mass of refrigerant and contaminants) sent to 

them. On an annual basis, reclaimers are required to keep records 

of the mass of material sent to them, the mass of refrigerant 

reclaimed, and the mass of waste products. These records are 

required to ensure that refrigerant releases are minimized during 

the reclamation process. Based on discussions with reclaimers, 

EPA believes that most reclaimers already keep such records. 

 4. Recovery and Recycling Equipment Owners. 

 Section 82.162 requires that persons maintaining, servicing, 

or repairing appliances (except for MVACs), and persons disposing 

of appliances (except small appliances, MVACs and MVAC-like 

equipment) must certify that such person has acquired and is 

properly using certified recovery or recycling equipment. By 

providing the Agency with information on equipment obtained 

and properly used, this certification will facilitate adequate 

enforcement of this regulation. 

 5. Disposers. 

 Persons disposing of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like 

appliances must maintain copies of signed statements obtained 

in accordance with 82.156(f)(ii). Such statements verify that 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 81 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
the refrigerant has been evacuated from the appliance or shipment 

of appliances previously. Persons who knowingly provide false 

statements will be subject to criminal penalties. By maintaining 

these signed statements, the disposer is able to show that proper 

evacuation occurred at a point in the disposal stream before 

reaching the disposer, thus shielding the latter from liability. 

 6. Technician Certification Programs. 

 Appendix D of this rulemaking outlines recordkeeping requirements 

for those programs certifying technicians, which include but 

are not limited to the names and addresses of all individuals 

taking the tests, the scores of all certification tests administered, 

and the dates and locations of all tests administered. 

 Certifying programs must send EPA an activity report every 

six months. This report will include the pass/fail rate and 

testing schedules. This will allow the agency to determine the 

relative progress and success of these programs. If the certifying 

program believes a test bank question needs to be modified, 

information about that question should also be included.

 Approved certifying programs will receive a letter of approval 

from EPA. The Agency is requiring that each testing center display 

a copy of that letter.

 7. Owners/Operators of Air-conditioning and Refrigeration 

Equipment.

 The Agency is requiring owners/operators to maintain records 

of servicing. The Agency believes that records of the service 

calls and amounts of refrigerant added to machines will assist 

technicians in their determination of leak rate and would also 

assist owners of equipment in the determination of the need 

for leak repair. The Agency believes these records, primarily 

in the form of service invoices, are already kept by equipment 

owners and therefore this requirement is not an additional burden 

on them. These records must also include refrigerant purchased 

and added to equipment each month in cases where owners add 

their own refrigerant.

M. The Safe Disposal Program

 In the December 10, 1992 proposal, EPA proposed requirements 

for the safe disposal of class I and class II substances as 

required in section 608 (b)(1) and (b)(3). EPA proposed a flexible 

regulatory approach to capture the refrigerant contained in 

equipment that enters the waste stream with the charge intact 

(household refrigerators and freezers, MVACs, room air conditioners, 

dehumidifiers, water coolers) to reflect the diversity of the 

disposal sector across the country. The Agency proposed that 

the final link in the disposal chain be responsible for assuring 

that refrigerant has been removed from equipment, although the 

final processor could require that refrigerant be removed before 

they accept equipment. One-time reporting to the Agency by establishments 

performing refrigerant removal was proposed. EPA did not propose 

mandatory certification of technicians removing refrigerant 

from equipment destined for disposal, although the development 

of guidance documents to assist technicians was discussed. The 

proposal also required that equipment used to recover refrigerant 

at disposal must meet a performance standard.

 Many of the public comments received supported the flexible 

regulatory approach taken by the Agency in this section. Specific 

comments were received on the recovery of CFC-11 from foam insulation, 

the registration of entities performing refrigerant removal 

and technician training. Commenters also discussed the performance 

standard for recovery equipment, recordkeeping and labeling 

of equipment that has been properly evacuated.

 This section will address the major issues raised by commenters 

regarding safe disposal of equipment containing class I and 

class II substances. Comments not addressed here are answered 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 82 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
in a comment response document available in the public docket 

for this rule.

1. Scope

 In the proposal, the Agency stated that the specific requirements 

in the safe disposal section of the rule focused on equipment 

that enters the waste stream with the refrigerant charge intact, 

i.e., equipment containing class I and class II refrigerant 

"in bulk." The Agency stated that the equipment that enters 

the waste stream with the charge of class I or class II refrigerant 

intact includes household refrigerators and freezers, MVACs, 

room air conditioners, dehumidifiers, water coolers, and some 

other relatively portable equipment. For all other refrigeration 

and air-conditioning equipment, the refrigerant must be removed 

before dismantling of the equipment in accordance with the requirements 

concerning servicing discussed earlier. Dismantling on-site 

of equipment of this type is an accepted industry practice. 

Two commenters supported this distinction made in the proposal 

while one commenter, the Institute of Scrap Metal Recycling 

(ISRI), maintained that this distinction was artificial and 

not contemplated by Congress.

 EPA made the distinction between equipment that is dismantled 

on-site and equipment that enters the waste stream with the 

charge intact because of the differences between the two types 

of equipment once they reach the end of their useful lives. 

Large equipment dismantled on-site must have refrigerant removed 

as part of the dismantling process because there is no other 

option that will result in successful recovery of refrigerant. 

The equipment is not moved off the site in one piece and dismantling 

results in release of the refrigerant. This equipment cannot 

enter the waste stream with the charge intact, while appliances 

and MVACs can and frequently do enter the waste stream with 

the charge intact. By making the distinction, EPA did not intend 

to prohibit the removal of refrigerant from equipment such as 

household appliances and MVACS in the home or the place of operation. 

The intent was that this equipment could be evacuated at any 

one of several stages, either before it entered the waste stream 

or once in the waste stream. In general, the safest and most 

cost-effective stage for refrigerant removal is an intermediate 

processor within the waste stream; EPA's flexible regulations 

are designed to allow that to happen. The distinction discussed 

above is maintained in today's final rule.

 The proposal did not include requirements to recover CFC11 from foam insulation used in buildings or appliances. With 

respect to foam that is an inherent element in buildings, EPA 

determined that such regulations are not required by section 

608 of the Act at this time. The Safe Disposal requirements 

that appear in section 608(b) of the Act are simply part of 

the section 608(a) regulations (the servicing requirements discussed 

previously in this final rule) and therefore are subject to 

the deadlines contained in section 608(a). As section 608(a) 

requires only that regulations concerning appliances and industrial 

process refrigeration be promulgated at this time, it does not 

require regulations concerning the disposal of foam insulation 

that is an inherent element of buildings (which are neither 

appliances nor industrial process refrigeration). Furthermore, 

removing building insulation during the process of demolition 

is difficult and exceptionally resource intensive. The long 

average lifetime of buildings and the slow release of the CFCs 

throughout the lifetime of the insulation results in possible 

retrieval of only residual amounts of CFC. The Agency is not 

aware of any existing or developmental technology to remove 

CFCs from building insulation even if the insulation could effectively 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 83 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
be removed. Only three commenters specifically addressed recovery 

of CFC-11 from building insulation and all three agreed with 

EPA's determination.

 With respect to foam insulation used in appliances, which 

is covered by section 608(a), the Agency received several comments 

that concurred with the statement in the proposal that it was 

premature to require recovery of CFC-11 at this time. NRDC and 

FOE, however, commented that EPA had neglected to make a finding 

as to whether recovering the CFCs trapped within such foam would 

produce "insignificant environmental benefits". Section 608(b)(3) 

states "that any product in which a class I or class II substance 

is incorporated so as to constitute an inherent element of such 

product shall be disposed of in a manner that reduces, to the 

maximum extent practicable, the release of such substances to 

the environment. If the Administrator determines that the application 

of this paragraph to any product would result in producing only 

insignificant environmental benefits, the Administrator shall 

include in such regulations an exception for such product." 

NRDC and FOE maintain that the emission of CFC-11 from foam 

insulation in appliances cannot be dismissed as insignificant.

 The Agency believes that there are significant technical 

and practicable uncertainties and problems in attempting to 

retrieve CFC-11 from foam. First, uncertainties exist regarding 

the amount of CFC-11 remaining in foam insulation once the appliance 

reaches the end of its useful life. The rate of dissipation 

out of the foam varies based on construction and the CFC-11 

also can migrate from the enclosed cells into the foam matrix. 

Concern over this uncertainty was raised in the November, 1992 

meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Copenhagen. 

Second, although the Agency is aware of the development and 

limited use of CFC-11 foam retrieval technology for appliances 

in Germany, a great deal of uncertainty remains concerning the 

practicality of this technology for widespread use in this country 

at this time. Initial equipment cost is approximately $1-1.5 

million per retrieval machine and operating expenses are expected 

to be at least equal to that figure on an annual basis because 

the activity, including removal of foam panels by hand, is labor 

intensive and the processing is energy intensive. Uncertainty 

also exists concerning the capacity of the equipment and the 

number of facilities that would need to be established around 

the country to process the 10 million appliances discarded annually.

 One commenter, Appliance Recycling Centers of America (ARCA), 

stated that they recently began a demonstration project with 

a utility to use the German technology in the United States. 

ARCA commented that it believes the decision to require this 

type of fully integrated appliance recycling system nationwide 

is premature at this time and the Agency is convinced by their 

statements because of their experience with the technology. 

They commented that the decision to establish a fully integrated 

appliance recycling program (including refrigerant removal, 

retrieval of CFC-11 from foam, capacitor removal and other activities 

such as mercury switch removal) should be left to State and 

local governments at this time because of the uncertainties 

regarding cost, capacity, recovery rate of CFC-11 and the difficulty 

in designing nationwide requirements that are viable within 

the variety of state and local waste disposal programs.

 An additional element of uncertainty regarding the establishment 

of a nationwide requirement to recover CFC-11 from foam is the 

progress towards a practical technology for direct destruction 

of foam insulation and the CFC-11 it contains. The Agency is 

aware of potential demonstration projects involving foam insulation 

destruction in the United States which may prove to offer cost 

efficiencies and increased environmental benefit as compared 

to recovery of CFC-11 from insulation. These demonstration projects 

are still in the planning stages. The Agency is interested in 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 84 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
any information concerning the practicality of foam destruction 

technology in this country and will consider regulation once 

more information is collected.

 Considering the uncertainty about the amounts retrievable, 

the viability of widespread use of CFC-11 removal technology 

in this country and the potential role for destruction technology 

in the future, the Agency believes requirements to remove CFC11 from foam are not practicable at this time and as a consequence, 

the Agency has not included such requirements in the final rule 

published today.

2. Regulatory Approach

 As discussed in the proposed rule, state and municipal authorities 

have traditionally designed and implemented waste management 

programs, including disposal and recycling systems for used 

appliances and motor vehicles. EPA's proposed regulatory approach 

was designed to ensure that the maximum amount of ozone-depleting 

substances are recovered before recycling or disposal of the 

used equipment by building on the waste disposal networks that 

currently exist. Regulatory flexibility in this area is essential 

for the success of the Safe Disposal Program. The proposal, 

therefore, established a general requirement that refrigerant 

be recovered before the final step in the disposal of equipment, 

but did not place a requirement solely on one specific entity 

in the disposal chain. The proposed rule did highlight, however, 

that ultimately it was the responsibility of the final link 

in the disposal chain to assure that the refrigerant has been 

removed.

 Although most of the comments that the Agency received supported 

the concept of a flexible regulatory approach for the safe disposal 

program, commenters were approximately evenly divided concerning 

the issue of what party should be ultimately responsible for 

removal of refrigerant. Several commenters believe that the 

responsibility to remove refrigerant should lie with the generator 

of the equipment. Commenters did not specify who the generator 

was other than to indicate it could be anyone who owned the 

equipment or delivered equipment to the landfill or scrap recycler. 

ISRI and other commenters contend that section 608(b)(1) requires 

that EPA's regulations mandate the recovery of ozone-depleting 

refrigerants from appliances prior to their delivery for recycling. 

This contention is based on the language of section 608(b)(1), 

which states that class I and class II substances contained 

in bulk "shall be removed from each such appliance, machine 

or other good prior to the disposal of such items or their delivery 

for recycling." According to ISRI, this language also distinguishes 

recycling of appliances from their disposal, and means that 

goods containing ozone-depleting substances must be evacuated 

prior to their delivery to the recycler. EPA believes, however, 

that recycling can be considered as one form of disposal and 

proposed that as part of the definition of recycling found in 

82.152. EPA notes that if recycling were totally distinct 

from disposal, recyclers would not be covered by the venting 

prohibition in section 608(c), which applies to the release 

of ozone-depleting refrigerants in "the course of maintaining, 

servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance." Based on 

this interpretation, the venting prohibition would refer only 

to disposal, but not recycling. ISRI itself, however, states 

that recyclers are covered by the venting prohibition, implicitly 

indicating that recycling is a form of disposal. EPA also notes 

that the Act provides that the regulations under section 608(a), 

of which 608(b) regulations are but one part, are to concern 

the use and disposal of class I and class II substances "during 

the service, repair or disposal" of air-conditioning and refrigeration 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 85 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
equipment. (Emphasis added.) Moreover, section 608(b)(2) provides 

that the section 608(a) regulations are to require that appliances 

or other equipment containing class I or II substances in bulk 

be "equipped with a servicing aperture or equally effective 

design feature which will facilitate the recapture of such substance 

during the service and repair or disposal of" the equipment. 

(Emphasis added.) This statutory language clearly indicates 

that Congress contemplated that EPA's regulations would deal 

with the removal of refrigerant during the disposal process 

and that EPA's approach-requiring that the refrigerant be removed 

prior to the last step in the disposal process-is consistent 

with the statutory language. As a consequence, EPA believes 

that although the language in section 608(b) clearly authorizes 

EPA to mandate the removal of CFCs and other ozone-depleting 

substances from appliances prior to their delivery for recycling, 

it does not require EPA to do so. 

 The Agency wishes to clarify that the prohibition on venting 

refrigerant includes individuals who are preparing to dispose 

of a used appliance. This does not mean that EPA encourages 

individual owners of single appliances to remove refrigerant; 

in fact, the Agency discourages this activity. Nevertheless, 

however, individuals may not knowingly release refrigerant from 

their used appliance. If the individual chooses to recover the 

refrigerant, he or she must conform to the equipment requirements 

in 82.158 and the required practices in 82.156. The Agency 

has also further clarified 82.156(f) to highlight that it 

is the ultimate disposer, the last entity in the disposal chain, 

that must either remove the refrigerant or obtain verification 

that refrigerant has been removed previously. As a result of 

these clarifying changes, the Agency is deleting from the proposal 

section 82.154(l), which required refrigerant removal before 

disposal, because it is now redundant. 

 ISRI and Universal Appliance Recycling suggest that the Agency 

consider the regulations developed in the state of Wisconsin 

as a model program. The Wisconsin program specifies that any 

person who delivers equipment to a scrap metal recycler must 

first remove the refrigerant or accept a written statement from 

the recycler that the recycler will remove the refrigerant. 

The program also requires approved equipment and certification 

requirements for individuals who use the equipment. 

 The Agency is aware of the Wisconsin program and applauds 

its development as an effective method to recover refrigerant 

from salvaged items. The proposed EPA regulations do not in 

any way prohibit the type of program developed in Wisconsin 

and the Agency encourages states and localities to consider 

the Wisconsin model as a complement to their existing waste 

disposal programs. As for adopting this state program across 

the country, however, EPA believes this would be counter to 

its stated goals of flexibility and interest in allowing local 

and state governments to establish programs compatible with 

their solid waste recycling laws, ordinances and available technologies. 

One commenter, the Appliance Recycling Centers of America, suggested 

that "over the next several years, the Agency should work with 

the states to determine which types of approaches work best 

for specific municipal solid waste management systems" and that 

is exactly the Agency's intention. 

 An example of the benefits of the Agency maintaining a flexible 

approach regarding specific components to the safe disposal 

program is found in the comments that suggest a mandatory label 

be affixed to equipment that has had refrigerant properly evacuated. 

The Agency received several comments requesting a mandatory 

brightly colored label be attached to equipment. Some types 

of labeling are already being implemented in parts of the country. 

Other commenters suggest that mandatory labels would be difficult 

to locate on equipment that has been crushed. They maintain 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 86 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
that verifying labels would add costs to the already fragile 

economics of the scrap recycling industry and therefore result 

in a cessation of recycling of appliances and automobiles. The 

Wisconsin program does not require labels, although it does 

require documentation that refrigerant removal has occurred. 

EPA believes the correct approach for the Federal program continues 

to be flexibility that allows localities to use labels or certification 

where appropriate; but, nationwide labeling or certification 

is not required under this regulation. 

 EPA maintains that the flexible regulatory approach is consistent 

with Congressional intent in sections 608 (b) and (c). EPA would 

like to clarify that it does not specifically require the last 

link in the disposal chain to remove refrigerant and, in fact, 

the Agency believes that the most cost-effective stage to remove 

refrigerant is typically not the scrap metal processor or the 

landfill operator, but an intermediate processor. The goal of 

the program is to provide the flexibility needed to permit the 

removal of refrigerant by the entity in the disposal chain that 

can accomplish the removal most efficiently. This goal must 

be combined with the venting prohibition, which does not allow 

the knowing release of class I or class II substances to the 

environment. In its comments, ISRI details realistic and specific 

steps a facility operator could take to ensure the proper recovery 

of CFCs and to avoid venting CFCs from inbound scrap materials. 

The procedures outlined include sending a letter to suppliers 

stating that refrigerant must be removed before equipment is 

accepted, posting signs at intake locations stating the facility's 

requirements regarding proper CFC removal, and requiring certification 

that CFCs have been removed. These steps constitute good faith 

efforts to fulfill the requirements of the venting prohibition 

and are exactly the type of procedures the Agency envisioned 

would be taken by processors not interested in removing refrigerant 

themselves. The Agency has incorporated more specificity in 

the Required Practice rule language ( 82.156(f)) regarding 

the steps a person must take if not recovering the refrigerant 

themselves. 

 In the proposal, the Agency suggested, but did not require, 

that periodic inspections be used as a method for the processor 

to determine that the claims being made by certifiers are true. 

Commercial Metal Company's comments included a scenario where 

the scrap processor would be held liable if a certifier stated 

that they removed 90 percent of the refrigerant while only actually 

removing 85 percent. The Agency wishes to clarify that if the 

processor did not know and had no reason to know that the certification 

was false, then he or she would not be liable for violating 

the regulations. 

 ISRI asked that the Agency specify that a presumption exists 

that refrigerant is no longer present in equipment that arrives 

at the scrap facility already crushed. The Agency understands 

that crushed automobiles commonly arrive at scrap facilities 

and that such automobiles no longer contain refrigerant. Consequently, 

it may be safely presumed that refrigerant is no longer present 

in equipment that is received in such condition. This clarification 

does not alter the responsibility to obtain certification when 

receiving equipment from suppliers. 

 The procedures mentioned by a few commenters that scrap recyclers 

or landfill operators tell suppliers to simply "cut the refrigerant 

lines" before delivering equipment to them are clearly unacceptable 

because they direct the supplier to violate the statute and 

the regulations. The knowing release of refrigerant to the atmosphere 

is a violation of the venting prohibition and accepting certification 

that equipment has been properly evacuated knowing that the 

certification is false is a violation of the regulation. 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 87 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
3. Registration of Entities 

 EPA proposed a one-time certification or registration requirement 

for those entities that recover refrigerant before disposal 

or recycling of equipment. This proposal was similar to the 

reporting requirement for the servicing sector, requiring name 

and address of the establishment, manufacturer name, model number, 

date of manufacture, the serial number of the equipment, and 

a statement that the equipment would be used properly. The registration 

was to be sent to the appropriate Regional office. 

 Five commenters supported one-time registration and one commenter 

did not support the requirement. ARCA stated that it believed 

more frequent reporting would be helpful, although they suggested 

that the information would be the most useful at the state level. 

The Agency agrees that the reporting of basic information regarding 

disposal is important for enforcement purposes and maintains 

the registration requirement in today's final rule. Although 

use of a specific form is not required, the Agency has modified 

the example form provided in the proposal to include a check 

box for those individuals performing disposal only. The Agency 

understands that the requested data concerning serial numbers 

is not necessary for self-built equipment. 

4. Certification to Final Processors 

 The proposal discussed the situation where the establishment 

that performs the disposal or recycling of the appliance or 

MVAC equipment chooses not to remove refrigerant or is unable 

to remove it (for example, the scrap recyclers who receive crushed 

cars). The Agency proposed the option of a certification procedure 

between the final processor and the suppliers of the goods or 

machines stating that the ozone-depleting chemicals have been 

properly removed. The proposed elements of the certification 

could vary based on the individual establishments involved; 

however, the Agency proposed that the final processors require 

suppliers to give the name and address of the person who recovered 

the refrigerant and the date refrigerant was recovered. 

 EPA discussed the option of combining the certification with 

a symbol or mark made on each piece of equipment that has had 

the refrigerant removed by the supplier. The Agency stated that 

this certification allows the final processors to continue to 

accept goods and machines for scrap recycling while being assured 

that their suppliers have removed refrigerant. The certification 

would not be sent to the Agency. 

 Commenters in general were in favor of some type of certification 

between the final processor and the recoverer of the refrigerant 

in the cases where the final processor does not remove the refrigerant 

itself. They agreed that there was no need to send the certification 

to the Agency, although many commenters suggested more flexibility 

in the elements of the certification. Several commenters suggested 

that certification be allowed for shipments of equipment instead 

of for each individual piece, especially in cases where the 

equipment is received already crushed. The Automotive Dismantlers' 

and Recyclers Association (ADRA) requested that vehicle recyclers 

be exempted from any recordkeeping or reporting to final processors 

because of the burden the requirements place on these small, 

family-run businesses. Finally, AHAM suggested that the Agency 

specifically limit the elements to name, address and date of 

refrigerant removal in order to restrict localities or individual 

final processors from requiring more information. 

 The intent of the Agency in specifying the elements of the 

certification between parties was to give guidance on the types 

of elements that the Agency believed necessary for an individual 

to be assured that refrigerant had been properly evacuated from 

equipment. As stated above, the Agency believes flexibility 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 88 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
is important in this program to allow for the variability of 

local circumstances. As a result, the Agency has modified the 

requirements of a certification between two parties to allow 

for a single certification for a shipment of equipment or other 

similar provisions, such as a contract between two parties stating 

that one party has the responsibility to remove refrigerant 

from equipment before delivery. The Agency believes that the 

contract option is appropriate for businesses such as the automotive 

dismantlers to streamline transactions in cases where they maintain 

long-standing business relationships with the scrap dealers. 

The change also reflects the fact that the stated requirements 

are a minimum and individuals, localities or states may ask 

for additional information if they wish. 

 The Agency received several comments on the proposed suggestion 

that labels or marks be placed on equipment once it had been 

evacuated. As stated in section 2 above, commenters were divided 

on the need and utility of marking individual pieces of equipment. 

Although the Agency understands that marking appliances can 

be a useful method to identify evacuated equipment and that 

some localities have already incorporated this idea, it may 

not be useful in all cases. As a result, the Agency will continue 

to offer marking or labeling appliances as a program suggestion, 

but will not require it. 

 Two commenters felt that the last sentence of 82.156(f)(2), 

which states that the signed statement between the entities 

"does not relieve the disposer of responsibility for recovering 

any refrigerant that remains in the appliance", is unfair and 

exceeds the requirements of the venting prohibition. They maintain 

that the scrap facility expects the requirements of the written 

agreement would be performed and should not be held liable for 

knowingly releasing ozone-depleting substances. The Agency believes 

that certification should reflect that refrigerant was properly 

removed (i.e. according to the standards set out in this regulation). 

If the certification is accepted in good faith, then the Agency 

agrees with the commenters that the entity receiving the certification 

is relieved of their liability. If the entity accepting the 

certification knows or should know that refrigerant remains 

in the appliance, they would still be held liable, however. 

 As stated in the proposal, the Agency wishes to clarify that, 

as in the case of the final processor that chooses not to remove 

refrigerant, the supplier to the final processor does not have 

to remove the refrigerant but then must assure, through an accompanying 

certification, that refrigerant has been removed earlier in 

the disposal chain. Any copies of the certificate of removal 

provided to the supplier could be passed on to the final processor. 

5. Technician Training 

 In the proposal, the Agency discussed the information needed 

by technicians to perform refrigerant removal from appliances 

including MVACs and concluded that the level of expertise required 

for recycling and recovery in the disposal sector may not be 

as high as that required in the servicing sector. The salvaging 

sector differs from servicing in that the technicians do not 

reintroduce refrigerant to equipment, they simply remove it. 

Other factors considered were the lack of trade associations 

or groups that may represent the wide variety of technicians 

that may perform the refrigerant removal activity and that the 

technicians involved in the removal of refrigerant may only 

perform this activity occasionally. As a result, the Agency 

did not propose technician certification requirements and instead 

stated it would develop guidance documents regarding refrigerant 

removal with the assistance of industry. 

 Seven commenters stated that they believed mandatory technician 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 89 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
certification should be required in the disposal sector, as 

well as the servicing sector. Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling 

Service Company, Inc. described several technical situations 

to illustrate the need for technician training for the proper 

removal of refrigerant. One commenter noted that technician 

certification should be required precisely because the individuals 

who will perform the removal only do so occasionally and therefore 

do not have as much knowledge as the servicing technicians. 

Consistency with the servicing requirements of both section 

608 and section 609, the amount of refrigerant available in 

the disposal sector, and the difficulty in distributing guidance 

material were also given as reasons for mandatory technician 

certification requirements. 

 The Agency believes that refrigerant recovery from any sector 

requires knowledge of both the equipment used to recover refrigerant 

and the appliance that is to be evacuated. Refrigerants are 

pressurized gases that could pose safety risks if not handled 

properly, the substances must be kept separate to be of value, 

and evacuation equipment must be used correctly to be effective. 

By not requiring technician certification, the Agency did not 

intend to imply that anyone could perform these activities without 

training. Instead, the proposal reflected the fact that recovery 

of refrigerant is a simpler task than the combination of recovering 

refrigerant and returning refrigerant (at the appropriate purity 

level) to equipment. The disposal sector is distinct from the 

servicing sectors of both section 608 and 609 in that refrigerant 

is not returned to equipment. A large amount of emphasis is 

placed on avoiding equipment contamination in the technician 

certification programs and this is not an issue at disposal. 

Purchasing refrigerant is also not necessary in the disposal 

sector, but technician certification is linked to the ability 

to continue to purchase new refrigerant needed for servicing 

equipment. 

 The Agency has developed a guidance document alerting state 

and local government officials of the environmental consequences 

of releasing refrigerant, refrigerant salvage techniques, the 

importance of not mixing different refrigerants, and the importance 

of selling the recovered substance to reclamation facilities 

for purification before reuse. The document discusses successful 

refrigerant removal programs that already exist and the Agency 

believes it is a useful first step in developing simple, readily 

available training material. EPA intends to develop additional 

documents to assist the disposal sector in implementing the 

requirements of the final rule. 

 Appliance Recycling Centers of America commented that "the 

Agency would be most effective in a coordinating role and in 

assisting states as they develop local training programs". The 

Agency agrees with the commenter and welcomes any additional 

comments or suggestions regarding appropriate projects, guidance, 

or assistance needed. 

6. Performance Standards for Recovery Equipment 

 In the proposal, the Agency required that the equipment used 

to recover refrigerant from appliances and motor vehicles meet 

the same performance standards as equipment required for servicing, 

except that passive systems would not be permitted for use with 

appliances at disposal. EPA did not propose to require certification 

of that equipment but instead proposed allowing individuals 

to develop their own equipment while setting performance requirements 

for the efficiency the Agency expects the equipment to meet. 

The efficiency standards proposed were 102 mm of mercury vacuum 

for MVACs and 90 percent evacuation of refrigerant for other 

small appliances. Any equipment intended for sale for use in 

salvaging operations must meet the efficiency standards and 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 90 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
the Agency recommended independent laboratory tests to assure 

that the equipment complies with industry safety standards. 

These tests would be the same as those for equipment intended 

for servicing. 

 Several commenters agreed that performance standards were 

an appropriate method for regulating the efficiency of the equipment 

used in the disposal sector. ARI, however, stated that all equipment 

should be certified in order to assure that equipment can reach 

efficiency levels before it is used. Although EPA agrees that 

the efficiency levels are important, the Agency remains unconvinced 

as to the benefit of extending the recovery equipment certification 

program for the servicing sector to the disposal sector. The 

Agency encourages the salvaging sector to use certified equipment 

when possible; however, the Agency is aware that some operations 

in the disposal sector frequently involve the evacuation of 

several pieces of equipment simultaneously. Some entities that 

are already evacuating equipment at disposal have built their 

own equipment suitable for their specific circumstances and 

are able to perform their salvage operations quickly and efficiently. 

The Agency would like to continue to encourage these activities 

and keep the burden of compliance low for the disposal sector. 

The Agency believes that there is a powerful incentive to recover 

as much refrigerant as possible once recovery is attempted because 

the refrigerant is a valuable product. Therefore, the Agency 

maintains the proposed performance standard concept in today's 

rule. 

 Several comments were received regarding the proposal to 

allow only active equipment to be used in the disposal sector. 

The small appliance disposal sector was distinguished from the 

small appliance servicing sector, where both active and passive 

systems were proposed as acceptable, because EPA was concerned 

that passive recovery would generally be less efficient and 

would require increased time for operation. On the other hand, 

the Agency also stated that a requirement to use only active 

equipment for small appliance disposal may make compliance more 

difficult and therefore less likely in some instances. Five 

commenters, including NRDC/FOE, suggested that the requirement 

remain as proposed, two commenters requested a deeper vacuum 

be required at disposal, and seven commenters, including AHAM, 

suggested that system-dependent (passive) equipment should not 

be excluded from the disposal sector. 

 Although EPA believes that system-dependent equipment will 

not play a large role in the disposal sector, especially in 

situations where several appliances are being evacuated at once, 

it has changed the performance requirements for the disposal 

sector to match those of the servicing sector. The primary reason 

for the change is because of the comment from AHAM that highlighted 

the potential overlap between the sectors and the possible scenario 

where a technician legally using a system-dependent device to 

service the appliance would not be allowed to recover the refrigerant 

from the same appliance if it were targeted for disposal. The 

Agency is aware of localities where the only option for refrigerant 

recovery from appliances is removal by service technicians and 

the Agency does not want to eliminate this compliance option. 

Obtaining compliance from as many technicians as possible and 

facilitating removal of refrigerant is a primary goal of the 

safe disposal program. Therefore, the equipment efficiency requirements 

have been modified to mirror the equipment efficiency requirements 

for the servicing sector (see 82.158(l/m)). 

 The proposal discussed the difficulties of refrigerant recovery 

from systems using CFC-12 when the ambient temperature falls 

below 60 degrees F. One commenter stated that many larger recovery 

operations actually occur indoors, although the Agency understands 

that smaller operations may indeed occur outside. Methods, such 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 91 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
as heating, to raise recovery efficiency were described by commenters. 

EPA believes market incentives exist, once recovery is attempted, 

to maximize the amount of refrigerant technicians try to recover 

for sale and, therefore, prescribed procedures are not necessary. 

The Agency intends to incorporate solutions into guidance documents 

to this, and other problems, as they are raised. 

 Finally, the Agency wishes to remind individuals gathering 

refrigerant at disposal that the refrigerant must be sold to 

reclamation facilities for purification before it is reintroduced 

into the servicing sector. 

 In summary, the safe disposal requirements in today's final 

rule maintain the flexibility proposed on December 10, 1992. 

EPA has further specified the procedures that final processors 

may require from their suppliers who remove refrigerant and 

the performance capability of equipment used is now consistent 

with the servicing sector. Technicians are not required to be 

certified but individuals who perform refrigerant recovery must 

provide basic information to the EPA Regional Offices. For a 

section by section summary of changes made to the proposed rule, 

see section IV. 

N. Servicing Apertures 

 Section 608 (b)(2) of the Act directs EPA to promulgate regulations 

requiring that any "appliance, machine, or other good containing 

a class I or class II substance in bulk shall not be manufactured, 

sold, or distributed in interstate commerce or offered for sale 

or distribution in interstate commerce unless it is equipped 

with a servicing aperture or an equally effective design feature" 

to facilitate removal of refrigerant at servicing and disposal. 

In today's notice, EPA is finalizing the requirement that all 

air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment manufactured after 

November 15, 1993 be equipped with a servicing aperture or an 

equally effective design feature. 

 In the proposed rule the Agency differentiated between appliances 

that contained less than one pound of refrigerant and appliances 

that contained more. EPA made this distinction to separate appliances 

that would require servicing apertures and those that would 

require process stubs or "pigtails". However, in light of comments 

received with the publication of the proposed rule, the Agency 

intends to distinguish equipment based on the definition of 

small appliances found in section III. E. of this rule for the 

purposes of this requirement. Based on this distinction, the 

Agency requires that all small appliances be manufactured with 

a process stub or "pigtail" within six months after publication 

of this final rule. The Agency altered this requirement in order 

to include other appliances that could contain more than one 

pound of charge but that normally have a process stub rather 

than a servicing aperture. These appliances include water coolers, 

window air conditioners, packaged terminal air conditioners, 

heat pumps, package terminal heat pumps, freezers and refrigerators, 

as well as any other equipment included in the definition of 

small appliance. The Agency recognizes that such equipment rarely 

requires entry into the refrigerant system, and that by requiring 

a servicing aperture could significantly increase possible leak 

rates. Since these systems rarely lose refrigerant during their 

current operation, the Agency did not want to incur emissions 

by requiring a servicing aperture for this equipment. 

 As proposed, the Agency is not dictating where the servicing 

aperture or the process stub should be placed for this equipment 

in today's rule. Several commenters believed that the Agency 

should specify the placement of the process stub and servicing 

aperture for different types of equipment, and that the common 

design does not allow for isolation of components to enable 

removal of liquid refrigerants. Given the varying types of airU.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 92 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
conditioning and refrigeration equipment in the market, however, 

the Agency could not accurately determine the appropriate placement 

of these valves in all equipment. The Agency believes that manufacturers 

themselves are best suited to decide the placement of these 

valves. Manufacturers can decide the appropriate placement of 

these valves, balancing potential leak rates, due to poor placement, 

with the need to easily recover the refrigerant. 

 Several commenters believed that the use of schraeder valves, 

flared or compression fittings and clamp-on piercing access 

valves should be prohibited. Valve cores restrict flow of liquid 

refrigerant and provide easy access for vandals. Adapters for 

charging hoses are not 100 percent leak-free as some adapters 

trap the refrigerant in the hose which allows for possible cross 

contamination into other clean systems. 

 However, several commenters stated that schraeder valves 

should not be prohibited, and that it is the technician and 

not the valve that is the problem. If the isolated portion of 

the system has been pumped down to atmospheric pressure, then 

there is little or no loss when there is a need to remove the 

valve stem. Other commenters stated that the schraeder valves 

are effective devices that actually minimize leaks, and although 

they tend to slow the process of recovering refrigerant, there 

are devices that will remove the valve core to speed up the 

process. 

 In today's final rule, the Agency is not prohibiting the 

use of schraeder valves on small appliances. EPA believes that 

such valves assist in the recovery of refrigerant, and that 

concerns for their release of refrigerant can be minimized through 

proper use. All schraeder valves should be capped while not 

in use. 

O. Exemption from Regulatory Requirements for Refrigerant Uses 

for Which No High-Efficiency Recovery Technology Exists 

 In the proposal, EPA requested comment on whether it should 

set up a procedure to grant exemptions from this rule's requirements 

for refrigerant uses for which no suitable, high-efficiency 

recovery technology existed. The Agency noted that it had been 

contacted by a technician servicing very high-pressure refrigeration 

equipment that could neither be evacuated on site using selfcontained (active) recovery equipment nor transported to a shop 

where self-contained recovery equipment was located. Based on 

this example, EPA was concerned that it might not be possible 

to comply with the rule's requirements while servicing or disposing 

of some types of appliances in some types of applications. The 

Agency emphasized that exemptions would only be granted under 

very limited circumstances, and that the burden of proof of 

the need for an exemption would lie on the person seeking it. 

 EPA received several comments favoring the establishment 

of a procedure whereby the Agency could review requests for 

exemption on a case-by-case basis. One commenter agreed with 

the need for an exemption process, but believed that exemptions 

should only be granted until applicable recovery technologies 

were developed. Other commenters favored the up-front exemption 

of certain sectors, such as airplanes and small appliances, 

from the rule. Two commenters stated that there should be no 

exemptions from the rule. 

 As discussed in section III. F, the Agency is allowing use 

of system-dependent (passive) equipment with less than 15 pounds 

of very high-pressure refrigerants (as well as other refrigerants), 

which will allow individuals recovering less than 15 pounds 

of very high-pressure refrigerants with system-dependent equipment 

to continue doing so without seeking an exemption. EPA has, 

therefore, decided that an exemption procedure is unnecessary. 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 93 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
The Agency believes that permitting system-dependent recovery 

equipment adequately addresses the concerns raised with regard 

to very high-pressure refrigerant. 

 EPA is not exempting any particular industry sector from 

this rule's requirements because the Agency is required by section 

608(a) to maximize recycling of class I and class II substances 

during the service, repair, and disposal of appliances, and 

recovery technologies exist for all of the applications of appliances 

of which the Agency is aware. EPA believes that it has tailored 

its requirements to ensure that they are practicable in all 

industry sectors, including small appliances and airplanes. 

IV. Summary of Changes to Proposed Rule 

 This section briefly describes the provisions of today's 

final rule. Any changes made to the rule language as a result 

of public comments are described. Various changes to the final 

rule that have been made for purposes of clarification are not 

described herein. 

A. Authority, Purpose and Scope 

 There have been additions to the scope section to clarify 

that the rule covers refrigerant reclaimers, appliance owners, 

and manufacturers of appliances and recycling and recovery equipment 

in addition to persons servicing, repairing, maintaining, and 

disposing of appliances. 

B. Definitions ( 82.152) 

 The following terms and definitions have been added or changed 

since the rule was proposed: 

 The term "active recovery equipment" has been changed to 

"self-contained recovery equipment," and the definition (now 

(u)) has been broadened to include equipment that may use means 

other than an on-board compressor to transfer refrigerant. 

 For the purposes of the leak repair requirements ( 82.156(i)), 

definitions were added for commercial refrigeration (d) and 

industrial process refrigeration (g). The disposal definition 

(e) remained essentially as proposed with additional clarification 

that it includes the entire disposal process. 

 The definition of "high-pressure appliance" (f) has been 

changed to include appliances using R-114. The term "intermediatepressure appliance" has been eliminated. 

 The definition of "low-loss fitting" (h) has been expanded 

to include fittings that can be closed manually. 

 A definition of "major maintenance, service, or repair" (j) 

was added. 

 A definition of MVAC-like appliance (l) was added to specify 

equipment used to cool driver or passenger compartments of nonroad vehicles. 

 A definition of "normally containing" (m) a quantity of refrigerant 

was added. 

 The term "passive recovery equipment" has been changed to 

"system-dependent recovery equipment," and the definition (now 

(w) has been changed slightly for clarity. 

 A definition of "recovery efficiency" (s) was added. 

 The definition of "small appliance" (v) has been changed 

to include specific products that are fully manufactured, charged, 

and hermetically sealed in a factory with five pounds or less 

of refrigerant. 

C. Prohibitions ( 82.154) 

 In general, the prohibitions prevent persons from performing 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 94 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
appliance maintenance, service, repair, and disposal without 

adhering to the requirements of section 608 and this rule. 

 Prohibition (a) reiterates the statutory prohibition on the 

knowing release of refrigerant during appliance maintenance, 

service, repair, and disposal. This prohibition also states 

that refrigerant released when the requirements of this rule 

or the MVACs rule (Subpart B) are followed will be considered 

"de minimis," and will therefore not be subject to the prohibition. 

Prohibition (b) prohibits persons from opening appliances without 

observing the required practices and using certified equipment. 

 Prohibitions (c) and (d) prohibit manufacturers of recycling 

and recovery equipment from manufacturing uncertified equipment 

and from altering certified equipment without having it recertified. 

 Prohibitions (e) and (f) prohibit persons who have not certified 

to the Administrator that they have acquired recycling and recovery 

equipment from performing appliance maintenance, service, repair, 

or disposal. 

 Prohibitions (g) and (h) ban the sale of unreclaimed refrigerants 

and sales of refrigerants by uncertified reclaimers. Prohibition 

(i) bans the release by reclaimers of more than 1.5 percent 

of the refrigerant received by them. 

 Prohibition (j) prohibits the sale of appliances (except 

small appliances) that are not equipped with servicing apertures 

six months after the final rule is published. Prohibition (k) 

prohibits the sale of small appliances that are not equipped 

with a process stub to facilitate the removal of refrigerant 

at servicing and disposal. 

 The prohibition that appeared as (l) in the NPRM was eliminated 

because of redundancy. 

 A new prohibition (l) has been added which prohibits anyone 

but certified technicians from opening appliances (except MVACs) 

or disposing of appliances (except small appliances, MVACs, 

and MVAC-like appliances). 

 Prohibition (m) prevents technician training or testing programs 

from issuing certificates pursuant to 82.161 unless the program 

has been approved. 

 Prohibition (n) bans the sale of any class I or class II 

substance after November 14, 1993 unless the sale is to certified 

technicians, manufacturers, sold for eventual resale to certified 

technicians, or charged into equipment by certified technicians. 

D. Required Practices ( 82.156) 

 This section establishes requirements for refrigerant recovery 

and disposition during the maintenance, service, repair, and 

disposal of appliances. 

 The evacuation requirements in 82.156(a)(1) (for appliances 

except small appliances) have been changed in a number of areas 

since the rule was proposed. The refrigerant quantity threshold 

between stringent and less stringent requirements has been changed 

from 50 lbs to 200 lbs, and the relevant quantity is no longer 

the total charge of the equipment, but the charge in the isolated 

component of the equipment that is opened for service. EPA is 

establishing less stringent requirements for appliances containing 

HCFC-22 than were proposed, and the evacuation level for large 

high-pressure appliances has been changed from 20 inches to 

15 inches. The effective date of the evacuation requirements 

has been changed from 30 days after publication of the rule 

to 60 days after publication of the rule. 

 EPA has added an exception to its evacuation requirements 

for maintenance, service, or repair that is not "major" and 

that is not followed by evacuation of the appliance to the environment. 

The exception for leaky appliances has been expanded to allow 

for evacuation of leaky low-pressure appliances in addition 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 95 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
to leaky high-pressure appliances. These exceptions appear at 

82.156(a) (1), (2), and (3). 

 EPA has expanded its required practices for evacuation of 

small appliances ( 82.156(a)(4)) to account for the fact that 

recovery equipment certified under appendix B may now be used 

in addition to equipment certified under appendix C. 

 The Agency has adopted applicable requirements from the MVACs 

rule for the maintenance, service, and repair of MVAC-like appliances 

( 82.156(a)(5)). 

 EPA has added requirement (b) to ensure that technicians 

who service, maintain, or repair appliances besides small appliances 

possess self-contained equipment in addition to system-dependent 

equipment. 

 Requirement (c) has been added to limit the use of systemdependent equipment to appliances with less than 15 pounds of 

refrigerant. 

 MVAC-like appliances have been excluded from provision (e), 

regarding transfers of refrigerant between equipment owned by 

the same person, because this provision contradicts the requirement 

to "properly use" recycling equipment under the MVACs rule, 

which is being adopted for MVAC-like appliances. 

 Required practice 82.156(f) was modified to specify that 

ultimate disposers of small appliances and MVACs must either 

remove the refrigerant from equipment or verify that it has 

been removed. Further specificity was added to clarify activities 

that facility operators could take to notify suppliers to remove 

refrigerant if they are not removing it themselves. The last 

sentence of the proposed 82.156(f) was deleted. 

 Required practice (h) regarding the performance standards 

for equipment used to recover refrigerant from small appliances 

was modified to reflect the changes in the efficiency standards 

for servicing equipment. No changes were made to the required 

practice (g) regarding equipment appropriate for removal of 

refrigerant from MVACs at disposal. 

 Required practice 82.156(i) was added to specify the size 

of leaks that must be repaired in the industrial process and 

commercial refrigeration sectors (35 percent per year), and 

for all other equipment (15 percent per year) with charges larger 

than 50 pounds. 

E. Standards for Recovery and Recycling Equipment ( 82.158) 

 Section 82.158(a) requires manufacturers of recycling and 

recovery equipment to have the equipment certified by an approved 

equipment testing organization to meet EPA's requirements. Section 

82.158(b) establishes these requirements for recycling and recovery 

equipment used with appliances besides small appliances. The 

levels of evacuation that the equipment must be able to achieve 

( 82.158(b)(1)) have been changed since the proposal to conform 

with the service practice standards described above. In addition, 

EPA is now requiring ARI 740-1993 instead of ARI 740-1988 as 

the method for testing equipment. 

 Provision 82.158(b)(2) has been added to permit the testing 

and certification of recycling or recovery equipment for which 

no test methodology is set forth in ARI 740-1993. Standard 82.158(b)(3), 

which adopts ARI's minimum requirements for equipment certification, 

is unchanged (except for its number). Standard 82.158(b)(4) 

has been changed to lower the quantity of refrigerant that can 

be released during noncondensables purging to three percent 

of the charge in two years. 

 Standard 82.158(b)(5) has been changed to require that 

recycling and recovery equipment possess "low-loss fittings" 

as defined at 82.152(h) (instead of "positive shutoff connections"). 

Standard 82.158(b)(6) has been added to require that equipment 

have its liquid and vapor recovery rates measured. 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 96 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 Section 82.158(c) establishes requirements for grandfathered 

recycling and recovery equipment. These requirements have not 

been changed since the proposal, except in the case of small 

HCFC-22 equipment. 

 The equipment standard in 82.158(d) was modified to require 

90% efficiency when the compressor on the appliance is operating 

and 80% efficiency when the compressor is not operational. These 

requirements are the same for both passive and active equipment. 

A provision was also added to establish a standard (four inches 

of Hg vacuum) for equipment intended for use with small appliances 

that is certified under Appendix B. The standard for equipment 

used to recover refrigerant from small appliances at disposal 

( 82.158(m)) was modified to reflect these changes also. There 

were no changes in 82.158(l)-equipment used to recover refrigerant 

from MVACs. 

 Requirement 82.158(f) was added to apply the certification 

requirements for recycling and recovery equipment used with 

MVACs to recycling and recovery equipment used with MVAC-like 

appliances. Requirement 82.158(g) permits grandfathering of 

recycling and recovery equipment intended for use with MVAClike appliances as long as that equipment can draw a vacuum 

of 102mm of mercury. 

E. Approved Equipment Testing Organizations ( 82.160) 

 A requirement was added to 82.160(c) to prevent organizations 

from certifying equipment before they are approved by EPA. However, 

82.160(e) was added to allow organizations to certify equipment 

tested previously under their programs if they can demonstrate 

to EPA that both the program and the equipment met all the requirements 

of this rule. 

F. Technician Certification ( 82.161) 

 Section 82.161(a) establishes a mandatory certification requirement, 

not in the NPRM, whereby all technicians must be certified by 

an approved certifying program within 18 months of the effective 

date of today's rule. 

 Section 82.161(b) describes the test subject material that 

will be included on the certification test. 

 Section 82.161(c) describes the responsibilities of certifying 

organizations. 

 Section 82.161 (d) and (e) describes the process for reconsideration 

of a certifying program. 

 Section 82.161(f) requires certified technicians to be able 

to perform recycling and recovery procedures. Failure to correctly 

perform these procedures could result in the revocation of certification. 

 Section 82.161(g) establishes a method for certifying programs 

to seek recognition for technicians trained prior to the effective 

date of today's rule. 

G. Certification by Owners of Recovery and Recycling Equipment 

( 82.162) 

 Section 82.162 requires the certification of equipment by 

owners by September 13, 1993. New 82.162 (a)(3) and (c)(3) 

have been added. These sections require the equipment owners 

to include the number of service vehicles used, as part of their 

certification statement. Sections 82.162 (a)(3) and (c)(3) in 

the NPRM now appear as 82.162 (a)(4) and (c)(4). These sections 

were slightly modified. Equipment grandfathered by today's rule 

may not have serial or model numbers, therefore the phrase "if 

applicable" was added. Corrections were made to the addresses 

listed in 82.162 (a)(5). 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 97 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
I. Reclaimer Certification ( 82.164) 

 Section 82.164 establishes the requirements for reclaimers 

reprocessing refrigerant after September 13, 1993. There were 

no changes between the NPRM and today's rule. 

J. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements ( 82.166) 

 Provision 82.166(b) was added to facilitate the functioning 

of the sales restriction. 

 Provision 82.166(c) (formerly (b)) has been changed to 

require submission of lists of certified equipment annually 

at the end of each calendar year rather than annually beginning 

60 days after publication of this rule. 

 Provision 82.166(f) was added to require technician certification 

programs to keep records of the names and addresses of all individuals 

taking the tests, the scores of all certification tests administered, 

and the dates and locations of all tests administered, and to 

send EPA an activity report every six months. 

 Provision 82.166(j) was added to require persons servicing 

appliances normally containing over 50 pounds of refrigerant 

to provide the owner and/or operator of such appliances with 

documentation that indicates the amount of refrigerant added 

to the appliance. 

 Provision 82.166(k) was added to require owners and/or 

operators of appliances normally containing over 50 pounds of 

refrigerant to keep servicing records documenting the date and 

type of service, as well as the quantity of refrigerant added. 

 Provision 82.166(l) was added to require technicians to 

keep a copy of their certificate at their place of business. 

K. Appendices A, B and C. 

 Appendix A was not changed. 

 Appendix B was changed from ARI 740-1991 to ARI 740-1993. 

 Appendix C has been modified in some of its measurement techniques. 

L. Standards for Becoming a Certifying Program for Technicians 

(Appendix D) 

 Appendix D establishes additional requirements organizations 

must meet in order to be approved as a technician certifying 

program pursuant to 82.161. 

V. Summary of Supporting Analyses 

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

 Executive Order No. 12291 requires the preparation of a regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA) for major rules, defined by the order 

as those likely to result in: 

 (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; 

 (2) A major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual 

industries, Federal, state or local government agencies, or 

geographic industries; or 

 (3) Significant adverse effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of the 

United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based 

enterprises in domestic or export markets. 

 The annualized costs for this rulemaking, $71 million, fall 

under $100 million. Therefore, the Agency has determined that 

this regulation does not meet the definition of a major rule 

under E.O. 12291. Nonetheless, due to the proximity of the costs 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 98 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
of this rule to the $100 million threshold, the Agency has fulfilled 

the requirements of E.O. 12291 and prepared an RIA to assess 

the impact of the regulation (see Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

The National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program, March 

23, 1993) which is available for review in the public docket 

for this rulemaking. This analysis is summarized below. 

 1. Baseline. Since these regulations are being promulgated 

in addition to other regulations that affect the use of CFCs 

and HCFCs, the baseline for this analysis must reflect the state 

of affairs after the implementation of previous rules and before 

the implementation of the final rule. Two provisions of the 

Clean Air Act that must be considered when defining the baseline 

for these regulations are the phaseout of CFCs required by section 

604 of the Act and the prohibition on venting contained in section 

608(c), which is self-effectuating. For the purposes of the 

analysis, two variables were chosen to describe the effects 

of these provisions: the percentage of the market in which recycling 

and recovery would occur as a result of the provision (referred 

to as either market penetration or compliance); and the average 

recapture efficiency of the recycling or recovery methods that 

would be employed. 

 The CFC phaseout has two important effects for the baseline: 

it affects the quantities of CFCs and HCFCs that need to be 

recycled and it makes recycling cost-effective for owners of 

equipment in certain sectors. As the CFC phaseout restricts 

the supply of CFCs, their prices will rise. As a result, substitute 

chemicals will replace CFCs in new equipment and it will become 

less expensive to recycle the CFCs in existing equipment than 

to buy virgin CFCs to replace them. Sectors in which recycling 

is likely to occur under the phaseout include retail food, cold 

storage, chillers, refrigerated transport, and industrial process 

refrigeration. In this analysis, market penetration is expected 

to be 100%, and the efficiency of equipment to be about 95% 

in these sectors under the phaseout. A recovery efficiency of 

ninety-five percent is assumed to be the level that is most 

cost-effective from a private (as opposed to a social) perspective. 

This baseline assumes that producers will phase out the production 

of CFCs by January 1, 1996. 

 The self-effectuating prohibition on venting required by 

section 608(c) can be considered a minimal requirement to recycle 

because chemicals must be recycled, or at least stored, if they 

cannot be vented. However, because the prohibition on venting 

does not in itself contain standards, maximum recovery efficiency 

and full compliance would not be expected under the prohibition 

alone. The likely rates of compliance in the household refrigeration 

and residential air-conditioning sectors would be estimated 

to reach approximately 80% under the prohibition alone, and 

efficiencies are estimated to be 75% for these sectors. 

 Under the requirements of this recycling rule, recovery efficiencies 

are expected to range between 90% and 99%, depending upon the 

equipment requirements for each sector. The analysis assumes 

full compliance across all sectors. 

 2. Costs. The costs of the recycling rule consist of the 

costs of certifying recycling and recovery equipment, technician 

certification, recordkeeping costs, and refrigerant storage 

costs. The Agency estimates the cost for this regulatory program 

over a 25 year period between 1994 and 2015 is $1.3 billion. 

These costs were discounted at 2%. EPA performed this same analysis 

with discount rates of 4% and 7%. The costs are $1 billion and 

$0.8 billion, respectively. 

 3. Benefits. The benefits of the three provisions discussed 

above consist of the avoided damage to human health and the 

environment that would have occurred if, without regulation, 

ozone-depleting refrigerants had been released rather than recaptured. 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 99 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
EPA's calculation of benefits includes the following: (1) Reduction 

in the incidence of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer cases 

and fatalities, (2) reduction in the incidence of cataract cases, 

(3) increases in the value of crops harvested due to reductions 

in both direct UV effects and indirect effects from tropospheric 

(ground-based) ozone, (4) increases in the value of fish harvested 

due to decreased levels of damaging UV radiation, and (5) decreased 

costs in protecting polymer products. 

 Under the recycling rule, recycling efficiencies are assumed 

to increase because certification of recycling and recovery 

equipment increases the average efficiency of this equipment. 

The Agency estimates the range of benefits to be from $.4 billion 

to $1.7 billion, depending upon whether each life saved is valued 

at $3 or $12 million. These benefits were discounted at a 2% 

discount rate. The Agency estimated benefits at discount rates 

of 4% and 7%. The resulting benefits were from $.1 billion to 

$.6 billion at the 4% discount rate, and $.04 billion to $.2 

billion for the 7% discount rate. 

4. Initial Program Costs and Benefits for Technician Certification

 The short-term benefits of technician certification were 

not included in the previous section. The Agency assumed that 

all technicians immediately complied with the regulation, and 

that the market fully transmitted all costs and benefits to 

equipment owners and technicians. Under this "perfect market 

scenario", technicians knew how to recycle efficiently, did 

not mistakenly mix refrigerants, took precautions to avoid using 

contaminated refrigerants, and worked to maximize benefits for 

themselves, as well as for equipment owners. 

 Unfortunately, there are impediments to the functioning of 

this market. First, technicians may not be fully accountable 

to the owners. Eventual equipment failure and losses in energy 

efficiency cannot be readily traced to poor servicing techniques. 

These may be hidden costs, or may not surface until some time 

after servicing. In such cases, the owner is unable to determine 

the cause of the failure. Technician training can ensure an 

educated workforce to avoid costly mistakes. 

 Furthermore, there are over 300,000 technicians. It is difficult 

to assume that all 300,000 technicians immediately comply with 

the regulation, and use proper servicing techniques. Technicians 

must become trained in recycling techniques and become knowledgeable 

of the regulation. A technician certification program would 

provide this information as quickly as possible. 

 In a separate analysis, the Agency investigated short-term 

costs and benefits to the immediate implementation of the recycling 

program. Under this scenario, the Agency assumes that without 

technician certification and training, there are likely energy 

efficiency losses due to inadvertent mixing of refrigerants. 

The Agency estimates that in the first year, these costs could 

exceed $100 million. In addition, trained technicians would 

avoid introducing refrigerant contaminated with acids and other 

corrosives due to compressor burnouts. The Agency estimates 

this cost saving to be $15 million annually. 

 In addition, proper training could improve productivity. 

Under this assumption, technicians could save $50 million in 

the first year. Furthermore, increased recycling avoids the 

need to retrofit a significant number of pieces of equipment. 

This could save close to $88 million annually. 

 An increase in compliance rates due to better knowledge of 

responsibilities yields environmental benefits. EPA anticipates 

that an increase of 5% in compliance with the recycling regulation 

yields an annualized benefit of $10 to $42 million. Through 

increased recycling, the United States can avoid more than $6 

to $26 million in environmental costs for production past the 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 100 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
year 1995 for essential uses. 

 The Agency believes that these short-term cost savings and 

benefits exceed the costs for such a program. EPA estimates 

that the start-up cost to certify 300,000 technicians can range 

from $50 to $80 million. Even when compared to the long-term 

cost of $152 million for technician certification, these benefits 

outweigh the cost. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

1. Purpose 

 The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires 

that Federal agencies examine the impacts of their regulations 

on small entities. Under 5 U.S.C. 604(a), whenever an agency 

is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, 

it must prepare and make available for public comment an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA). Such an analysis is not 

required if the head of an agency certifies that a rule will 

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 

of small entities, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

 The Agency has performed an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis and determined that this regulation is unlikely to 

have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses. 

The analysis is found in appendix A in the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis: The National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program 

and is available for review in the docket. The methodology and 

results of the analysis are presented below. 

2. Methodology 

 To examine the impacts on small businesses, EPA characterized 

the regulated community by identifying the SIC codes that would 

be involved in the disposal of motor vehicle air conditioners 

and in the servicing, repair, and disposal of small appliances, 

residential air-conditioning, and transport refrigeration. Firms 

in these sectors were divided into six segments: Appliance repair 

shops, air-conditioning contractors, refrigerated transport 

service dealers, scrap yards and intermediate processors, automobile 

dismantlers, and autowreckers. Impacts on the retail food, cold 

storage, chiller, and industrial process sectors were not analyzed 

because refrigerant recycling and recovery is cost-effective 

from a private perspective in these sectors. For these sectors, 

the private costs associated with recycling and recovery are 

negligible or negative. In addition, two other sectors were 

excluded from the analysis: Vocational schools and municipal 

solid waste facilities. Data on vocational schools are scarce, 

and the proposed regulations, which affect only one aspect of 

vocational training, are not likely to have any significant 

impact on vocational schools. Similarly, the regulations are 

not likely to have a significant impact on municipal solid waste 

facilities because these facilities generally do not accept 

white goods such as refrigerators, freezers, and room air conditioners. 

 There was a disparity between the EPA and the Census Bureau 

estimates of the number of establishments in each of the six 

affected industry segments. In some areas, such as the appliance 

repair segment, the number of establishments estimated by EPA 

exceeded the number allocated to the corresponding SIC category. 

In others, such as the air-conditioning contractor segment, 

EPA estimates fell below Census numbers for the corresponding 

SIC. The disparities in each category were largely a matter 

of definition. Because the Census Bureau assigns a business 

to a given SIC code based on the source of the majority of its 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 101 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
sales receipts, an SIC code may not include many businesses 

that do only some work in the area of concern. At the same time, 

some SIC codes may prove overly inclusive, such as SIC 1711, 

"Plumbing, Heating, and Air-conditioning Contractors," which 

includes some establishments engaged only in plumbing work and 

not in the service or disposal of air-conditioning equipment. 

In choosing the SIC codes that corresponded to segments of the 

potential regulated community, EPA's analysis focussed primarily 

on ensuring that each sector of the potential regulated community 

had a corresponding SIC code that accurately represented its 

structure. The fraction of businesses that would be defined 

as small (under the Small Business Act, or SBA) among the establishments 

identified by EPA in each segment was then assumed to be the 

same as the fraction of businesses that would be defined as 

small among those in the comparable SIC category. 

 After determining the number of entities in each industry 

segment that would be classified as small, the Agency examined 

the compliance costs initially incurred by firms and the extent 

to which these costs could be passed on to consumers. EPA then 

performed impact tests using sales, profits, and cash-flow measures. 

 The costs incurred by a firm as a result of the proposed 

rule include the following elements: Labor costs, operating 

costs, capital costs, certification costs, and the avoided costs 

of purchasing virgin refrigerant. To estimate these costs, EPA 

used data on the quantity of air-conditioning or refrigeration 

equipment in each of the affected sectors and on the frequency 

of service and disposal in each sector. EPA then divided affected 

businesses into those with under $1 million annual sales and 

those with over $1 million annual sales. This distinction is 

important because larger firms perform more service and disposal 

jobs than smaller firms and therefore incur higher labor and 

operating costs. (The distinction bears no direct relationship 

to the SBA definition of small business.) Annual direct compliance 

costs per business ranged between $624 for small appliance repair 

shops and $36,932 for large autowreckers. 

 Under certain conditions, some portion of regulatory costs 

will be passed on to consumers. Since the proposed rule meets 

these conditions, businesses will not bear all regulatory costs. 

(For a complete discussion of regulatory costs incidence, please 

see appendix A to the RIA.) Microeconomic theory suggests that 

the ratio between the elasticity of demand for a good and the 

elasticity of supply for that good is roughly equivalent to 

the ratio between the producers' share of regulatory costs and 

the consumers' share of regulatory costs. The extent to which 

regulatory costs may be passed on to consumers, therefore, depends 

upon the relationship between the elasticity of demand and the 

elasticity of supply for the good in question. The elasticities 

of demand and supply are a measure of how demand for a good 

and supply of a good change in response to changes in price. 

 Although the factors that determine supply and demand elasticity 

can be complex, certain forces frequently play an important 

role in determining the character of supply and demand elasticity 

for a good. Generally, demand for a good will decrease when 

the price rises because consumers will choose to purchase substitutes 

for the good. However, if substitutes are nonexistent or expensive, 

consumers will have fewer alternative to purchasing the original 

good, and demand will change very little. In this case, the 

demand elasticity for the good is low. Supply of a good will 

usually decrease when the price falls because it becomes less 

profitable to produce the good. However, if it is expensive 

to change the supply of the good (e.g., requires the retirement 

of valuable capital equipment), producers will have fewer alternatives 

to producing the good, and supply will change relatively little. 

In this case, the supply elasticity of the good is low. 

 When the demand elasticity for a good is low and the supply 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 102 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
elasticity for the good is high, the majority of regulatory 

costs will likely be borne by consumers. EPA developed elasticity 

estimates for each segment of the regulated community. Demand 

elasticity estimates for the specific goods in question were 

not available. As a result, the Agency used estimates of demand 

elasticity in closely related industries as proxies for actual 

elasticity estimates. Since no estimates of supply elasticity 

were available, the Agency developed quantitative estimates 

of supply elasticity based on its understanding of the various 

segments of the regulated community. 

 EPA's analysis showed that demand was likely to be inelastic 

in all affected industry segments. For instance, demand for 

household appliance service is unlikely to fall significantly 

in response to a rise in price because (1) Equipment such as 

the household refrigerator renders a service that is vital to 

most consumers, and (2) the few substitutes to appliance repair, 

such as purchase of a new appliance, are often expensive and 

impracticable. The situation is similar in the other service 

segments. In the disposal segments, demand is likely to be inelastic 

because consumers have few alternatives to disposing of appliances 

when these items are retired, and auto dismantlers and wreckers 

(who play the role of consumer in this transaction) have few 

substitutes for junked automobiles in their operations. 

 Elasticities of supply varied somewhat more. The appliance 

and residential air-conditioning repair segments are likely 

to have high supply elasticities because entering these businesses 

requires a relatively low capital investment and moving into 

related areas (e.g., heating) is relatively easy. On the other 

hand, the supply elasticity of refrigerated transport service 

is lower because refrigerated transport service is highly specialized 

and entry into the industry entails substantial capital investment. 

Scrap yards and intermediate processors are likely to respond 

readily to price changes because they have a large degree of 

flexibility with regard to which type of appliances they choose 

to accept. Supplies of junked automobiles, however, are unlikely 

to change significantly in response to the prices offered for 

them. 

 Based on these estimates, EPA calculates that firms will 

bear between four percent (for scrap yards and intermediate 

processors) and 25 percent (for refrigerated transport service 

dealers) of the compliance costs associated with the proposed 

rule. Annual compliance costs borne by firms range between $39 

for small appliance repair shops and $6,987 for large auto dismantlers. 

(Again, the term "large" is used here to refer to a large small 

business.) 

 To evaluate the significance of these costs, EPA performed 

impact tests using sales, profits, and cash flow measures. Existing 

EPA guidelines suggest that significant economic impacts on 

small businesses occur when any one of the following three criteria 

are satisfied (Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, 

Planning, and Evaluation, Guidelines for Complying with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, Draft Document dated January 18, 

1991.): 

 Annual compliance costs exceed one percent of sales; 

 Annual compliance costs exceed 10 percent of profits; or 

 Annual debt-financed capital compliance costs exceed 20 

percent of current cash flow. 

These criteria makeup a screening test used to assess initially 

the impacts likely to result from a proposed regulation. Should 

a "substantial number" of small business, defined as over 20 

percent of affected small business, satisfy any of the criteria 

outlined above, EPA guidelines require that more detailed economic 

analysis be performed. 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 103 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 Many small establishments failed the profits and cash flow 

tests (that is, profits and cash flow were negative) before 

imposition of the regulation. These were thus determined to 

be in poor financial condition under the baseline and their 

continued failure of these tests was not attributed to the proposed 

rule. Any small entities not in poor financial condition under 

the baseline that failed any of the tests above were assumed 

to incur a significant economic impact under the proposed rule. 

 EPA's analysis showed that the proposed rule will have a 

significant impact on 16 percent of the affected small businesses. 

These small businesses may respond in a number of ways. They 

may: (1) Close as a result of the costs imposed by regulation, 

(2) avoid the costs imposed by the regulation by ceasing work 

on refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment while continuing 

to provide other types of service, or (3) continue to service 

or dispose of affected equipment while incurring increased cost. 

 Available census and financial data suggest that most of 

the 16 percent will continue to service or dispose of affected 

equipment. EPA estimates that annual compliance costs borne 

by firms as a result of the proposed rule will actually exceed 

annual profits for approximately 2500 small businesses. These 

2500 establishments comprise approximately 3 percent of all 

small businesses in the regulated community. Firms that incur 

annual compliance costs in excess of annual profits may be forced 

out of business or, alternatively, may elect to discontinue 

work that involves refrigeration or air-conditioning equipment. 

Firms whose annual compliance costs fall below their annual 

profits are likely to stay in business. 

 Where possible, EPA has attempted to minimize the economic 

impact of this regulation on small businesses. For instance, 

EPA is proposing less stringent standards for the recovery of 

refrigerant from small appliances, which are frequently repaired 

by one- or two-man service shops. These standards would permit 

the use of relatively inexpensive passive recovery devices. 

In addition, EPA is proposing fewer requirements and a more 

flexible program for the disposal of small appliances, room 

air conditioners, and MVACs because the industries that dispose 

of these items are unusually decentralized. 

 Moreover, this analysis probably overstated the potential 

impacts of regulation for two reasons. First, it estimated the 

combined impacts of both the section 608 recycling rule and 

the self-effectuating prohibition on venting. EPA estimates 

that for the residential air-conditioning and household appliance 

sectors, 80 percent of recovery jobs can be attributed to the 

prohibition on venting, and for transport refrigeration, 50 

percent of recovery jobs can be attributed to the prohibition. 

If this analysis had examined only the incremental impacts due 

to the recycling rule, the estimate of the percentage of small 

businesses affected significantly would have been reduced accordingly. 

Second, this analysis examined each industry segment in isolation, 

failing to account for interactions between competing industry 

sectors (e.g., service vs. disposal of appliance) that would 

tend to decrease costs borne by firms. Thus, the Agency certifies 

that this regulation will not have an impact on a significant 

number of small entities, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

 The information collection requirements in this rule have 

been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq. An Information Collection Request document (ICR No. 

1626.02) has been prepared by EPA and a copy may be obtained 

from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M Street, 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 104 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
SW., (PM-223Y); Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-

2740. 

 Public reporting burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to vary from 0.08 to 180 hours per response with 

an average of 0.2 hours per response, including time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and completing the collection of 

information. 

 Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other 

aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions 

for reducing this burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch; 

EPA; 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management 

and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked "Attention: Desk Officer 

for EPA." 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

 Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Stratospheric ozone 

layer. 

 Dated: April 23, 1993. 

Carol M. Browner, 

Administrator. 

 For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 82-PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 

 1. Authority: The authority citation for part 82 continues 

to read as follows: 

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

 2. Part 82 is amended by adding subpart F to read as follows: 

Subpart F-Recycling and Emissions Reduction 

Sec. 

82.150 Purpose and scope. 

82.152 Definitions. 

82.154 Prohibitions. 

82.156 Required practices. 

82.158 Standards for recycling and recovery equipment. 

82.160 Approved equipment testing organizations. 

82.161 Technician certification. 

82.162 Certification by owners of recovery and recycling equipment. 

82.164 Reclaimer certification. 

82.166 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

Appendix A to Subpart F-Specifications for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants 

Appendix B to Subpart F-Performance of Refrigerant Recovery, 

Recycling and/or Reclaim Equipment 

Appendix C to Subpart F-Method for Testing Recovery Devices 

for Use With Small Appliances 

Appendix D to Subpart F-Standards for Becoming a Certifying 

Program for Technicians 

Subpart F-Recycling and Emissions Reduction 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 105 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
82.150 Purpose and scope. 

 (a) The purpose of this subpart is to reduce emissions of 

class I and class II refrigerants to the lowest achievable level 

during the service, maintenance, repair, and disposal of appliances 

in accordance with section 608 of the Clean Air Act. 

 (b) This subpart applies to any person servicing, maintaining, 

or repairing appliances except for motor vehicle air conditioners. 

This subpart also applies to persons disposing of appliances, 

including motor vehicle air conditioners. In addition, this 

subpart applies to refrigerant reclaimers, appliance owners, 

and manufacturers of appliances and recycling and recovery equipment. 

82.152 Definitions.

 (a) Appliance means any device which contains and uses a 

class I or class II substance as a refrigerant and which is 

used for household or commercial purposes, including any air 

conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or freezer. 

 (b) Approved equipment testing organization means any organization 

which has applied for and received approval from the Administrator 

pursuant to 82.160. 

 (c) Certified refrigerant recovery or recycling equipment 

means equipment certified by an approved equipment testing organization 

to meet the standards in 82.158 (b) or (d), equipment certified 

pursuant to 82.36(a), or equipment manufactured before November 

15, 1993, that meets the standards in 82.158 (c), (e), or 

(g). 

 (d) Commercial refrigeration means, for the purposes of 

82.156(i), the refrigeration appliances utilized in the retail 

food and cold storage warehouse sectors. Retail food includes 

the refrigeration equipment found in supermarkets, convenience 

stores, restaurants and other food service establishments. Cold 

storage includes the equipment used to store meat, produce, 

dairy products, and other perishable goods. All of the equipment 

contains large refrigerant charges, typically over 75 pounds. 

 (e) Disposal means the process leading to and including: 

 (1) The discharge, deposit, dumping or placing of any discarded 

appliance into or on any land or water; 

 (2) The disassembly of any appliance for discharge, deposit, 

dumping or placing of its discarded component parts into or 

on any land or water; or 

 (3) The disassembly of any appliance for reuse of its component 

parts. 

 (f) High-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses 

a refrigerant with a boiling point between -50 and 10 degrees 

Centigrade at atmospheric pressure (29.9 inches of mercury). 

This definition includes but is not limited to appliances using 

refrigerants -12, -22, -114, -500, or -502. 

 (g) Industrial process refrigeration means, for the purposes 

of 82.156(i), complex customized appliances used in the chemical, 

pharmaceutical, petrochemical and manufacturing industries. 

This sector also includes industrial ice machines and ice rinks. 

 (h) Low-loss fitting means any device that is intended to 

establish a connection between hoses, appliances, or recovery 

or recycling machines and that is designed to close automatically 

or to be closed manually when disconnected, minimizing the release 

of refrigerant from hoses, appliances, and recovery or recycling 

machines. 

 (i) Low-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a 

refrigerant with a boiling point above 10 degrees Centigrade 

at atmospheric pressure (29.9 inches of mercury). This definition 

includes but is not limited to equipment utilizing refrigerants 

-11, -113, and -123. 

 (j) Major maintenance, service, or repair means any maintenance, 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 106 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
service, or repair involving the removal of any or all of the 

following appliance components: Compressor, condenser, evaporator, 

or auxiliary heat exchanger coil. 

 (k) Motor vehicle air conditioner (MVAC) means any appliance 

that is a motor vehicle air conditioner as defined in 40 CFR 

part 82, subpart B. 

 (l) MVAC-like appliance means mechanical vapor compression, 

open-drive compressor appliances used to cool the driver's or 

passenger's compartment of an non-road motor vehicle. This includes 

the air-conditioning equipment found on agricultural or construction 

vehicles. This definition is not intended to cover appliances 

using HCFC-22 refrigerant. 

 (m) Normally containing a quantity of refrigerant means containing 

the quantity of refrigerant within the appliance or appliance 

component when the appliance is operating with a full charge 

of refrigerant. 

 (n) Opening an appliance means any service, maintenance, 

or repair on an appliance that could be reasonably expected 

to release refrigerant from the appliance to the atmosphere 

unless the refrigerant were previously recovered from the appliance. 

 (o) Person means any individual or legal entity, including 

an individual, corporation, partnership, association, state, 

municipality, political subdivision of a state, Indian tribe, 

and any agency, department, or instrumentality of the United 

States, and any officer, agent, or employee thereof. 

 (p) Process stub means a length of tubing that provides access 

to the refrigerant inside a small appliance or room air conditioner 

and that can be resealed at the conclusion of repair or service. 

 (q) Reclaim refrigerant means to reprocess refrigerant to 

at least the purity specified in the ARI Standard 700-1988, 

Specifications for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants (appendix A to 

40 CFR part 82, subpart F) and to verify this purity using the 

analytical methodology prescribed in the ARI Standard 700-1988. 

In general, reclamation involves the use of processes or procedures 

available only at a reprocessing or manufacturing facility. 

 (r) Recover refrigerant means to remove refrigerant in any 

condition from an appliance without necessarily testing or processing 

it in any way. 

 (s) Recovery efficiency means the percentage of refrigerant 

in an appliance that is recovered by a piece of recycling or 

recovery equipment. 

 (t) Recycle refrigerant means to extract refrigerant from 

an appliance and clean refrigerant for reuse without meeting 

all of the requirements for reclamation. In general, recycled 

refrigerant is refrigerant that is cleaned using oil separation 

and single or multiple passes through devices, such as replaceable 

core filter-driers, which reduce moisture, acidity, and particulate 

matter. These procedures are usually implemented at the field 

job site. 

 (u) Self-contained recovery equipment means refrigerant recovery 

or recycling equipment that is capable of removing the refrigerant 

from an appliance without the assistance of components contained 

in the appliance. 

 (v) Small appliance means any of the following products that 

are fully manufactured, charged, and hermetically sealed in 

a factory with five (5) pounds or less of refrigerant: refrigerators 

and freezers designed for home use, room air conditioners (including 

window air conditioners and packaged terminal air conditioners), 

packaged terminal heat pumps, dehumidifiers, under-the-counter 

ice makers, vending machines, and drinking water coolers. 

 (w) System-dependent recovery equipment means refrigerant 

recovery equipment that requires the assistance of components 

contained in an appliance to remove the refrigerant from the 

appliance. 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 107 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 (x) Technician means any person who performs maintenance, 

service, or repair that could reasonably be expected to release 

class I or class II substances from appliances into the atmosphere, 

including but not limited to installers, contractor employees, 

in-house service personnel, and in some cases, owners. Technician 

also means any person disposing of appliances except for small 

appliances. 

 (y) Very high-pressure appliance means an appliance that 

uses a refrigerant with a boiling point below -50 degrees Centigrade 

at atmospheric pressure (29.9 inches of mercury). This definition 

includes but is not limited to equipment utilizing refrigerants 

-13 and -503. 

82.154 Prohibitions. 

 (a) Effective June 14, 1993, no person maintaining, servicing, 

repairing, or disposing of appliances may knowingly vent or 

otherwise release into the environment any class I or class 

II substance used as refrigerant in such equipment. De minimis 

releases associated with good faith attempts to recycle or recover 

refrigerants are not subject to this prohibition. Releases shall 

be considered de minimis if they occur when: 

 (1) The required practices set forth in 82.156 are observed 

and recovery or recycling machines that meet the requirements 

set forth in 82.158 are used; or 

 (2) The requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 82, subpart 

B are observed. 

The knowing release of refrigerant subsequent to its recovery 

from an appliance shall be considered a violation of this prohibition. 

 (b) Effective July 13, 1993 no person may open appliances 

except MVACs for maintenance, service, or repair, and no person 

may dispose of appliances except for small appliances, MVACs, 

and MVAC-like appliances: 

 (1) Without observing the required practices set forth in 

82.156; and 

 (2) Without using equipment that is certified for that type 

of appliance pursuant to 82.158. 

 (c) Effective November 15, 1993, no person may manufacture 

or import recycling or recovery equipment for use during the 

maintenance, service, or repair of appliances except MVACs, 

and no person may manufacture or import recycling or recovery 

equipment for use during the disposal of appliances except small 

appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances, unless the equipment 

is certified pursuant to 82.158 (b), (d), or (f), as applicable. 

 (d) Effective June 14, 1993, no person shall alter the design 

of certified refrigerant recycling or recovery equipment in 

a way that would affect the equipment's ability to meet the 

certification standards set forth in 82.158 without resubmitting 

the altered design for certification testing. Until it is tested 

and shown to meet the certification standards set forth in 

82.158, equipment so altered will be considered uncertified 

for the purposes of 82.158. 

 (e) Effective August 12, 1993, no person may open appliances 

except MVACs for maintenance, service, or repair, and no person 

may dispose of appliances except for small appliances, MVACs, 

and MVAC-like appliances, unless such person has certified to 

the Administrator pursuant to 82.162 that such person has 

acquired certified recovery or recycling equipment and is complying 

with the applicable requirements of this subpart. 

 (f) Effective August 12, 1993, no person may recover refrigerant 

from small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances for purposes 

of disposal of these appliances unless such person has certified 

to the Administrator pursuant to 82.162 that such person has 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 108 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
acquired recovery equipment that meets the standards set forth 

in 82.158 (l) and/or (m), as applicable, and that such person 

is complying with the applicable requirements of this subpart. 

 (g) Effective August 12, 1993 until November 13, 1995, no 

person may sell or offer for sale for use as a refrigerant any 

class I or class II substance consisting wholly or in part of 

used refrigerant unless the class I or class II substance has 

been reclaimed as defined at 82.152(q). 

 (h) Effective August 12, 1993 until November 13, 1995, no 

person may sell or offer for sale for use as a refrigerant any 

class I or class II substance consisting wholly or in part of 

used refrigerant unless the refrigerant has been reclaimed by 

a person who has been certified as a reclaimer pursuant to 

82.164. 

 (i) Effective August 12, 1993, no person reclaiming refrigerant 

may release more than 1.5% of the refrigerant received by them. 

 (j) Effective November 15, 1993, no person may sell or distribute, 

or offer for sale or distribution, any appliances, except small 

appliances, unless such equipment is equipped with a servicing 

aperture to facilitate the removal of refrigerant at servicing 

and disposal. 

 (k) Effective November 15, 1993, no person may sell or distribute, 

or offer for sale or distribution any small appliance unless 

such equipment is equipped with a process stub to facilitate 

the removal of refrigerant at servicing and disposal. 

 (l) Effective November 14, 1994 no person may open an appliance 

except for an MVAC and no person may dispose of an appliance 

except for a small appliance, MVAC, or MVAC-like appliance, 

unless such person has been certified as a technician for that 

type of appliance pursuant to 82.161. 

 (m) No technician training or testing program may issue certificates 

pursuant to 82.161 unless the program complies with all of 

the standards of 82.161 and appendix D, and has been granted 

approval. 

 (n) Effective November 14, 1994 no person may sell or distribute, 

or offer for sale or distribution, any class I or class II substance 

for use as a refrigerant to any person unless: 

 (1) The buyer has been certified as a Type I, Type II, Type 

III, or Universal technician pursuant to 82.161; 

 (2) The buyer has been certified pursuant to 40 CFR part 

82, subpart B; 

 (3) 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); 

 (4) The refrigerant is sold to an appliance manufacturer; 

 (5) The refrigerant is contained in an appliance; or 

 (6) the refrigerant is charged into an appliance by a certified 

technician during maintenance, service, or repair. 

 (o) It is a violation of this subpart to accept a signed 

statement pursuant to 82.156(f)(2) if the person knew or had 

reason to know that such a signed statement is false. 

82.156 Required practices. 

 (a) Effective July 13, 1993, all persons opening appliances 

except for MVACs for maintenance, service, or repair must evacuate 

the refrigerant in either the entire unit or the part to be 

serviced (if the latter can be isolated) to a system receiver 

or a recovery or recycling machine certified pursuant to 82.158. 

All persons disposing of appliances except for small appliances, 

MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances must evacuate the refrigerant 

in the entire unit to a recovery or recycling machine certified 

pursuant to 82.158. 

 (1) Persons opening appliances except for small appliances, 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 109 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances for maintenance, service, or 

repair must evacuate to the levels in Table 1 before opening 

the appliance, unless 

 (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 82.152(j); or 

 (ii) Due to leaks in the appliance, evacuation to the levels 

in Table 1 is not attainable, or would substantially contaminate 

the refrigerant being recovered. In any of these cases, the 

requirements of 82.156(a)(2) must be followed. 

 (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 82.152(j), the appliance must: 

 (A) Be evacuated to a pressure no higher than 0 psig before 

it is opened if it is a high- or very high-pressure appliance; 

or 

 (B) Be pressurized to 0 psig before it is opened if it is 

a low-pressure appliance, without using methods, e.g., nitrogen, 

that require subsequent purging. 

 (ii) If, due to leaks in the appliance, evacuation to the 

levels in Table 1 is not attainable, or would substantially 

contaminate the refrigerant being recovered, persons opening 

the appliance must: 

 (A) Isolate leaking from non-leaking components wherever 

possible; 

 (B) Evacuate non-leaking components to be opened to the levels 

specified in Table 1; and 

 (C) Evacuate leaking components to be opened to the lowest 

level that can be attained without substantially contaminating 

the refrigerant. In no case shall this level exceed 0 psig. 

 (3) Persons disposing of appliances except for small appliances, 

MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances, must evacuate to the levels 

in Table 1. 

 Table 1.-Required Levels of Evacuation for Appliances 

 [Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances] 

 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 Inches of Hg vacuum (relative to standard 

 3 atmospheric pressure of 29.9 inches Hg) 

 ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 Using recovery 3 

 3 or recycling 3 Using recovery or recycling 

 Type of appliance 3 equipment 3 equipment manufactured or 

 3 manufactured 3 imported on or after Nov. 15, 

 3 or imported 3 1993 

 3 before Nov. 15,3 

 3 1993 3 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 3 

HCFC-22 appliance, or 3 0 3 0. 

 isolated component of such 3 3 

appliance, normally 3 3 

containing less than 200 3 3 

pounds of refrigerant. 3 3 

HCFC-22 appliance, or 3 0 3 0. 

 isolated component of such 3 3 

appliance, normally 3 3 

containing less than 200 3 3 

pounds of refrigerant. 3 3 

HCFC-22 appliance, or 3 4 3 10. 

 isolated component of such 3 3 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 110 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
appliance, normally 3 3 

containing 200 pounds or 3 3 

more of refrigerant. 3 3 

Other high-pressure 3 4 3 10. 

 appliance, or isolated 3 3 

component of such 3 3 

appliance, normally 3 3 

containing less than 200 3 3 

pounds of refrigerant. 3 3 

Other high-pressure 3 4 3 15. 

 appliance, or isolated 3 3 

component of such 3 3 

appliance, normally 3 3 

containing 200 pounds or 3 3 

more of refrigerant. 3 3 

Very high-pressure 3 0 3 0. 

 appliance. 3 3 

Low-pressure appliance .... 3 25 3 25 mm Hg absolute. 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 (4) Persons opening small appliances for maintenance, service, 

or repair must: 

 (i) When using recycling and recovery equipment manufactured 

before November 15, 1993, recover 80% of the refrigerant in 

the small appliance; or 

 (ii) When using recycling or recovery equipment manufactured 

on or after November 15, 1993, 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; or 

 (iii) Evacuate the small appliance to four inches of mercury 

vacuum. 

 (5) Persons opening MVAC-like appliances for maintenance, 

service, or repair may do so only while properly using, as defined 

at 82.32(e), recycling or recovery equipment certified pursuant 

to 82.158 (f) or (g), as applicable. 

 (b) Effective July 13, 1993, all persons opening appliances 

except for small appliances and MVACs for maintenance, service, 

or repair and all persons disposing of appliances except for 

small appliances must have at least one piece of certified, 

self-contained recovery equipment available at their place of 

business. 

 (c) System-dependent equipment shall not be used with appliances 

normally containing more than 15 pounds of refrigerant. 

 (d) All recovery or recycling equipment shall be used in 

accordance with the manufacturer's directions unless such directions 

conflict with the requirements of this subpart. 

 (e) Refrigerant may be returned to the appliance from which 

it is recovered or to another appliance owned by the same person 

without being recycled or reclaimed, unless the appliance is 

an MVAC-like appliance. 

 (f) Effective July 13, 1993, persons who take the final step 

in the disposal process (including but not limited to scrap 

recyclers and landfill operators) of a small appliance, room 

air conditioning, MVACs, or MVAC-like appliances must either: 

 (1) Recover any remaining refrigerant from the appliance 

in accordance with paragraph (g) or (h) of this section, as 

applicable; or 

 (2) Verify that the refrigerant has been evacuated from the 

appliance or shipment of appliances previously. Such verification 

must include a signed statement from the person from whom the 

appliance or shipment of appliances is obtained that all refrigerant 

that had not leaked previously has been recovered from the appliance 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 111 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
or shipment of appliances in accordance with paragraph (g) or 

(h) of this section, as applicable. This statement must include 

the name and address of the person who recovered the refrigerant 

and the date the refrigerant was recovered or a contract that 

refrigerant will be removed prior to delivery. 

 (3) Persons complying with paragraph (f)(2) of this section 

must notify suppliers of appliances that refrigerant must be 

properly removed before delivery of the items to the facility. 

The form of this notification may be warning signs, letters 

to suppliers, or other equivalent means. 

 (g) All persons recovering refrigerant from MVACs and MVAClike appliances for purposes of disposal of these appliances 

must reduce the system pressure to or below 102 mm of mercury 

vacuum, using equipment that meets the standards set forth in 

82.158(l). 

 (h) All persons recovering the refrigerant from small appliances 

for purposes of disposal of these appliances must either: 

 (1) 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; or 

 (2) Evacuate the small appliance to four inches of mercury 

vacuum. 

 (i) (1) Owners of commercial refrigeration and industrial 

process refrigeration equipment must have all leaks repaired 

if the equipment is leaking at a rate such that the loss of 

refrigerant will exceed 35 percent of the total charge during 

a 12 month period, except as described in paragraph (i)(3) of 

this section. 

 (2) Owners of appliances normally containing more than 50 

pounds of refrigerant and not covered by paragraph (i)(1) of 

this section must have all leaks repaired if the appliance is 

leaking at a rate such that the loss of refrigerant will exceed 

15 % of the total charge during a 12-month period, except as 

described in paragraph (i)(3) of this section. 

 (3) Owners are not required to repair the leaks defined in 

paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section if, within 30 days, 

they develop a one-year retrofit or retirement plan for the 

leaking equipment. This plan (or a legible copy) must be kept 

at the site of the equipment. The original must be made available 

for EPA inspection on request. The plan must be dated and all 

work under the plan must be completed within one year of plan's 

date. 

 (4) Owners must repair leaks pursuant to paragraphs (i)(1) 

and (2) of this section within 30 days of discovery or within 

30 days of when the leak(s) should have been discovered, if 

the owners intentionally shielded themselves from information 

which would have revealed a leak. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the control 

number 2060-0256) 

82.158 Standards for recycling and recovery equipment. 

 (a) Effective November 15, 1993, 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) 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 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 112 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
shall have had such equipment certified pursuant to 82.36(a). 

 (b) Equipment manufactured or imported on or after November 

15, 1993 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 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 the ARI Standard 740-1993, 

Performance of Refrigerant Recovery, Recycling and/or Reclaim 

Equipment (ARI 740-1993) (Appendix B): 

 Table 2.-Levels of Evacuation Which Must Be Achieved by Recovery or 

 Recycling Equipment Intended for Use With Appliances {1} 

 [Manufactured on or after November 15, 1993] 

 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 Type of appliance with which recovery or recycling machine is 3 Inches 

 intended to be used 3 of Hg 

 3 vacuum 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 

HCFC-22 appliances, or isolated component of such appliances, 3 0 

 normally containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant. 3 

HCFC-22 appliances, or isolated component of such appliances, 3 10 

 normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant. 3 

Very high-pressure appliances .................................. 3 0 

Other high-pressure appliances, or isolated component of such 3 10 

 appliances, normally containing less than 200 pounds of 3 

refrigerant. 3 

Other high-pressure appliances, or isolated component of such 3 15 

 appliances, normally containing 200 pounds or more of 3 

refrigerant. 3 

Low-pressure appliances ........................................ 3 {2} 25 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 {1} Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances. 

 {2} mm Hg absolute. 

 The vacuums specified in inches of Hg vacuum must be achieved 

relative to an atmospheric pressure of 29.9 inches of Hg absolute.

 (2) Recovery or recycling equipment whose recovery efficiency 

cannot be tested according to the procedures in ARI 740-1993 

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:

 (i) Is intended for use with the same type of appliance; 

and

 (ii) Achieves the level of evacuation in Table 2.

 (3) The equipment must meet the minimum requirements for 

ARI certification under ARI 740-1993.

 (4) If the equipment is equipped with a noncondensables purge 

device:

 (i) The equipment must not release more than five percent 

of the quantity of refrigerant being recycled through noncondensables 

purging under the conditions of ARI 740-1993; and

 (ii) Effective May 14, 1995, the equipment must not release 

more than three percent of the quantity of refrigerant being 

recycled through noncondensables purging under the conditions 

of ARI 740-1993.

 (5) The equipment must be equipped with low-loss fittings 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 113 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
on all hoses.

 (6) The equipment must have its liquid recovery rate and 

its vapor recovery rate measured under the conditions of ARI 

740-1993.

 (c) Equipment manufactured or imported before November 15, 

1993 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 will be considered certified if it 

is capable of achieving the level of evacuation specified in 

Table 3 of this section when tested using a properly calibrated 

pressure gauge:

 Table 3.-Levels of Evacuation Which Must Be Achieved by Recovery or 

 Recycling Machines Intended for Use With Appliances {1} 

 [Manufactured before November 15, 1993] 

 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 Inches of vacuum 

 Type of air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment 3 (relative to 

 with which recovery or recycling machine is intended 3 standard 

 to be used 3 atmospheric 

 3 pressure of 29.9 

 3 inches Hg) 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 

HCFC-22 equipment, or isolated component of such 3 0 

 equipment, normally containing less than 200 pounds 3 

of refrigerant. 3 

HCFC-22 equipment, or isolated component of such 3 4 

 equipment, normally containing 200 pounds or more of 3 

refrigerant. 3 

Very high-pressure equipment ......................... 3 0 

Other high-pressure equipment, or isolated component 3 4 

 of such equipment, normally containing less than 200 3 

pounds of refrigerant. 3 

Other high-pressure equipment, or isolated component 3 4 

 of such equipment, normally containing 200 pounds or 3 

more of refrigerant. 3 

Low-pressure equipment ............................... 3 25 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 {1} Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances. 

 (d) Equipment manufactured or imported on or after November 

15, 1993 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:

 (1) Recovering 90% of the refrigerant in the test stand when 

the compressor of the test stand is operating and 80% of the 

refrigerant when the compressor of the test stand is not operating 

when used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions 

under the conditions of appendix C, Method for Testing Recovery 

Devices for Use with Small Appliances; or

 (2) Achieving a four-inch vacuum under the conditions of 

appendix B, ARI 740-1993.

 (e) Equipment manufactured or imported before November 15, 

1993 for use with small appliances will be considered certified 

if it is capable of either:

 (1) Recovering 80% of the refrigerant in the system, whether 

or not the compressor of the test stand is operating, when used 

in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions under the 

conditions of appendix C, Method for Testing Recovery Devices 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 114 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
for Use with Small Appliances; or

 (2) Achieving a four-inch vacuum when tested using a properly 

calibrated pressure gauge.

 (f) Equipment manufactured or imported on or after November 

15, 1993 for use during the maintenance, service, or repair 

of MVAC-like appliances must be certified in accordance with 

82.36(a).

 (g) Equipment manufactured or imported before November 15, 

1993 for use during the maintenance, service, or repair of MVAClike appliances must be capable of reducing the system pressure 

to 102 mm of mercury vacuum under the conditions of the SAE 

Standard, SAE J1990 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart B).

 (h) Manufacturers and importers of equipment certified under 

paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section 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].

 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.

 (i) The Administrator will maintain a list of equipment certified 

pursuant to paragraphs (b), (d), and (f) of this section by 

manufacturer and model. Persons interested in obtaining a copy 

of the list should send written inquiries to the address in 

82.160(a).

 (j) Manufacturers or importers of recycling or recovery equipment 

intended for use during the maintenance, service, or repair 

of appliances except MVACs or MVAC-like appliances or during 

the disposal of appliances except small appliances, MVACs, and 

MVAC-like appliances must periodically have approved equipment 

testing organizations conduct either:

 (1) Retests of certified recycling or recovery equipment; 

or

 (2) Inspections of recycling or recovery equipment at manufacturing 

facilities to ensure that each equipment model line that has 

been certified under this section continues to meet the certification 

criteria.

Such retests or inspections must be conducted at least once 

every three years after the equipment is first certified.

 (k) An equipment model line that has been certified under 

this section may have its certification revoked if it is subsequently 

determined to fail to meet the certification criteria. In such 

cases, the Administrator or her or his designated representative 

shall give notice to the manufacturer or importer setting forth 

the basis for her or his determination.

 (l) Equipment used to evacuate refrigerant from MVACs and 

MVAC-like appliances before they are disposed of must be capable 

of reducing the system pressure to 102 mm of mercury vacuum 

under the conditions of the SAE Standard, SAE J1990 (appendix 

A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart B).

 (m) Equipment used to evacuate refrigerant from small appliances 

before they are disposed of must be capable of either:

 (1) Removing 90% of the refrigerant when the compressor of 

the small appliance is operating and 80% of the refrigerant 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 115 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
when the compressor of the small appliance is not operating, 

when used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions 

under the conditions of appendix C, Method for Testing Recovery 

Devices for Use With Small Appliances; or 

 (2) Evacuating the small appliance to four inches of vacuum 

when tested using a properly calibrated pressure gauge. 

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 82.158 and appendices B or C of this subpart. The application 

shall be sent to: Section 608 Recycling Program Manager, Stratospheric 

Protection Division, 6205-J, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. 

 (b) Applications for approval must include written information 

verifying the following: 

 (1) The list of equipment present at the organization that 

will be used for equipment testing. 

 (2) Expertise in equipment testing and the technical experience 

of the organization's personnel. 

 (3) Thorough knowledge of the standards as they appear in 

82.158 and appendices B and/or C (as applicable) of this subpart. 

 (4) The organization must describe its program for verifying 

the performance of certified recycling and recovery equipment 

manufactured over the long term, specifying whether retests 

of equipment or inspections of equipment at manufacturing facilities 

will be used. 

 (5) The organization must have no conflict of interest and 

receive no direct or indirect financial benefit from the outcome 

of certification testing. 

 (6) The organization must agree to allow the Administrator 

access to records and personnel to verify the information contained 

in the application. 

 (c) Organizations may not certify equipment prior to receiving 

approval from EPA. If approval is denied under this section, 

the Administrator or her or his designated representative shall 

give written notice to the organization setting forth the basis 

for her or his determination. 

 (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 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. 

 (e) Testing organizations seeking approval of an equipment 

certification program may also seek approval to certify equipment 

tested previously under the program. Interested organizations 

may submit to the Administrator at the address in 82.160(a) 

verification that the program met all of the standards in 

82.160(b) and that equipment to be certified was tested to and 

met the applicable standards in 82.158 (b) or (d). Upon EPA 

approval, the previously tested equipment may be certified without 

being retested (except insofar as such retesting is part of 

the testing organization's program for verifying the performance 

of equipment manufactured over the long term, pursuant to 

82.160(b)(4)). 

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the control 

number 2060-0256) 

82.161 Technician certification. 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 116 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 (a) Effective November 14, 1994, persons who maintain, service, 

or repair appliances, except MVACs, and persons who dispose 

of appliances, except for small appliances, room air conditioners, 

and MVACs, must be certified by an approved technician certification 

program as follows: 

 (1) Persons who maintain, service, or repair small appliances 

as defined in 82.158(v) must be properly certified as Type 

I technicians. 

 (2) Persons who maintain, service, or repair high or very 

high-pressure appliances, except small appliances and MVACs, 

or dispose of high or very high-pressure appliances, except 

small appliances and MVACs, must be properly certified as Type 

II technicians. 

 (3) Persons who maintain, service, or repair low-pressure 

appliances or dispose of low-pressure appliances must be properly 

certified as Type III technicians. 

 (4) Persons who maintain, service, or repair low- and highpressure equipment as described in 82.161(a) (1), (2) and 

(3) must be properly certified as Universal technicians. 

 (5) Persons who maintain, service, or repair MVAC-like appliances 

must either be properly certified as Type II technicians or 

complete the training and certification test offered by a training 

and certification program approved under 82.40. 

 (b) Test Subject Material. The Administrator shall maintain 

a bank of test questions divided into four groups, including 

a core group and three technical groups. The Administrator shall 

release this bank of questions only to approved technician certification 

programs. Tests for each type of certification shall include 

a minimum of 25 questions drawn from the core group and a minimum 

of 25 questions drawn from each relevant technical group. These 

questions shall address the subject areas listed in appendix 

D. 

 (c) Program Approval. Persons may seek approval of any technician 

certification program (program), in accordance with the provisions 

of this paragraph, by submitting to the Administrator at the 

address in 82.160(a) verification that the program meets all 

of the standards listed in appendix D and the following standards: 

 (1) Alternative Examinations. Programs are encouraged to 

make provisions for non-English speaking technicians by providing 

tests in other languages or allowing the use of a translator 

when taking the test. If a translator is used, the certificate 

received must indicate that translator assistance was required. 

A test may be administered orally to any person who makes this 

request, in writing, to the program at least 30 days before 

the scheduled date for the examination. The letter must explain 

why the request is being made. 

 (2) Recertification. The Administrator reserves the right 

to specify the need for technician recertification at some future 

date, if necessary, by placing a notice in the Federal Register. 

 (3) Proof of Certification. Programs must issue individuals 

a wallet-sized card to be used as proof of certification, upon 

successful completion of the test. Programs must issue an identification 

card to technicians that receive a score of 70 percent or higher 

on the closed-book certification exam, within 30 days. Programs 

providing Type I certification using the mail-in format, must 

issue a permanent identification card to technicians that receive 

a score of 84 percent or higher on the certification exam, no 

later than 30 days after the program has received the exam and 

any additional required material. Each card must include, at 

minimum, the name of the certifying program, and the date the 

organization became a certifying program, the name of the person 

certified, the type of certification, a unique number for the 

certified person, and the following text: 

 [Name of person] has been certified as a [Type I, Type II, 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 117 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
Type III, and/or Universal, as appropriate] technician as required 

by 40 CFR part 82, subpart F. 

 (4) The Administrator reserves the right to consider other 

factors deemed relevant to ensure the effectiveness of certification 

programs. 

 (d) If approval is denied under this section, the Administrator 

shall give written notice to the program setting forth the basis 

for her or his determination. 

 (e) If at any time an approved program violates any of the 

above requirements, the Administrator reserves the right to 

revoke approval. 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. 

 (f) Authorized representatives of the Administrator may require 

technicians to demonstrate on the business entity's premises 

their ability to perform proper procedures for recovering and/or 

recycling refrigerant. Failure to demonstrate or failure to 

properly use the equipment may result in revocation of the certificate. 

Failure to abide by any of the provisions of this subpart may 

also result in revocation or suspension of the certificate. 

If a technician's certificate is revoked, the technician would 

need to recertify before maintaining, servicing, repairing or 

disposing of any appliances. 

 (g) Persons seeking approval of a technician certification 

program may also seek approval for technician certifications 

granted previously under the program. Interested persons may 

submit to the Administrator at the address in 82.160(a) verification 

that the program met all of the standards of 82.161(c) and 

appendix D, or verification that the program met all of the 

standards of 82.161(c) and appendix D, except for some elements 

of the test subject material, in which case the person must 

submit verification that supplementary information on that material 

will be provided pursuant to appendix D, section (j). 

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the control 

number 2060-0256) 

82.162 Certification by owners of recovery and recycling 

equipment. 

 (a) No later than August 12, 1993, or within 20 days of commencing 

business for those persons not in business at the time of promulgation, 

persons maintaining, servicing, or repairing appliances except 

for MVACs, and persons disposing of appliances except for small 

appliances and MVACs, must certify to the Administrator that 

such person has acquired certified recovery or recycling equipment 

and is complying with the applicable requirements of this subpart. 

Such equipment may include system-dependent equipment but must 

include self-contained equipment, if the equipment is to be 

used in the maintenance, service, or repair of appliances except 

for small appliances. The owner or lessee of the recovery or 

recycling equipment may perform this certification for his or 

her employees. Certification shall take the form of a statement 

signed by the owner of the equipment or another responsible 

officer and setting forth: 

 (1) The name and address of the purchaser of the equipment, 

including the county name; 

 (2) The name and address of the establishment where each 

piece of equipment is or will be located; 

 (3) The number of service trucks (or other vehicles) used 

to transport technicians and equipment between the establishment 

and job sites and the field; 

 (4) The manufacturer name, the date of manufacture, and if 

applicable, the model and serial number of the equipment; and 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 118 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 (5) The certification must also include a statement that 

the equipment will be properly used in servicing or disposing 

of appliances and that the information given is true and correct. 

Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having 

their places of business in: 

Connecticut 

Maine 

Massachusetts 

New Hampshire 

Rhode Island 

Vermont 

must send their certifications to: 

 CAA 608 Enforcement Contact, EPA Region I, Mail Code APC, 

JFK Federal Building, One Congress Street, Boston, MA 02203.

 Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having 

their places of business in: 

New York 

New Jersey 

Puerto Rico 

Virgin Islands 

must send their certifications to: 

 CAA 608 Enforcement Contact, EPA Region II, Jacob K. Javits 

Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 5000, New York, NY 

10278.

 Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having 

their places of business in: 

Delaware 

District of Columbia 

Maryland 

Pennsylvania 

Virginia 

West Virginia 

must send their certifications to: 

 CAA 608 Enforcement Contact, EPA Region III, Mail Code 

3AT21, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

 Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having 

their places of business in: 

Alabama 

Florida 

Georgia 

Kentucky 

Mississippi 

North Carolina 

South Carolina 

Tennessee 

must send their certifications to: 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 119 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 CAA 608 Enforcement Contact, EPA Region IV, 345 Courtland 

Street, NE., Mail Code APT-AE, Atlanta, GA 30365. 

 Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having 

their places of business in: 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Ohio 

Wisconsin 

must send their certifications to: 

 CAA 608 Enforcement Contact, EPA Region V, Mail Code AT18J, 

77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3507.

 Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having 

their places of business in: 

Arkansas 

Louisiana 

New Mexico 

Oklahoma 

Texas 

must send their certifications to: 

 CAA 608 Enforcement Contact, EPA Region VI, Mail Code 6TEC, First Interstate Tower at Fountain Place, 1445 Ross Ave., 

Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733.

 Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having 

their places of business in: 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Missouri 

Nebraska 

must send their certifications to: 

 CAA 608 Enforcement Contact, EPA Region VII, Mail Code 

ARTX/ARBR, 726 Minnesota Ave., Kansas City, KS 66101.

 Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having 

their places of business in: 

Colorado 

Montana 

North Dakota 

South Dakota 

Utah 

Wyoming

must send their certifications to: 

 CAA 608 Enforcement Contact, EPA Region VIII, Mail Code 

8AT-AP, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2405.

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 120 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having 

their places of business in: 

American Samoa 

Arizona 

California 

Guam 

Hawaii 

Nevada 

must send their certifications to: 

 CAA 608 Enforcement Contact, EPA Region IX, Mail Code A3, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

 Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having 

their places of business in: 

Alaska 

Idaho 

Oregon 

Washington 

must send their certifications to:

 CAA 608 Enforcement Contact, EPA Region X, Mail Code AT082, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101.

 (b) Certificates under paragraph (a) of this section are 

not transferable. In the event of a change of ownership of an 

entity that maintains, services, or repairs appliances except 

MVACs, or that disposes of appliances except small appliances, 

MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances, the new owner of the entity 

shall certify within 30 days of the change of ownership pursuant 

to paragraph (a) of this section. 

 (c) No later than August 12, 1993, persons recovering refrigerant 

from small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances for purposes 

of disposal of these appliances must certify to the Administrator 

that such person has acquired recovery equipment that meets 

the standards set forth in 82.158 (l) and/or (m), as applicable, 

and that such person is complying with the applicable requirements 

of this subpart. Such equipment may include system-dependent 

equipment but must include self-contained equipment, if the 

equipment is to be used in the disposal of appliances except 

for small appliances. The owner or lessee of the recovery or 

recycling equipment may perform this certification for his or 

her employees. Certification shall take the form of a statement 

signed by the owner of the equipment or another responsible 

officer and setting forth: 

 (1) The name and address of the purchaser of the equipment, 

including the county name; 

 (2) The name and address of the establishment where each 

piece of equipment is or will be located; 

 (3) The number of service trucks (or other vehicles) used 

to transport technicians and equipment between the establishment 

and job sites and the field; 

 (4) The manufacturer's name, the date of manufacture, and 

if applicable, the model and serial number of the equipment; 

and 

 (5) The certification must also include a statement that 

the equipment will be properly used in recovering refrigerant 

from appliances and that the information given is true and correct. 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 121 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
The certification shall be sent to the appropriate address in 

paragraph (a). 

 (d) Failure to abide by any of the provisions of this subpart 

may result in revocation or suspension of certification under 

paragraph (a) or (c) of this section. 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. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the control 

number 2060-0256) 

82.164 Reclaimer certification. 

 Effective August 12, 1993, persons reclaiming used refrigerant 

for sale to a new owner must certify to the Administrator that 

such person will: 

 (a) Return refrigerant to at least the standard of purity 

set forth in ARI Standard 700-1988, Specifications for Fluorocarbon 

Refrigerants; 

 (b) Verify this purity using the methods set forth in ARI 

Standard 700-1988; 

 (c) Release no more than 1.5 percent of the refrigerant during 

the reclamation process, and 

 (d) Dispose of wastes from the reclamation process in accordance 

with all applicable laws and regulations. The data elements 

for certification are as follows: 

 (1) The name and address of the reclaimer; 

 (2) A list of equipment used to reprocess and to analyze 

the refrigerant; and 

 (3) The owner or a responsible officer of the reclaimer must 

sign the certification stating that the refrigerant will be 

returned to at least the standard of purity set forth in ARI 

Standard 700-1988, Specifications for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants, 

that the purity of the refrigerant will be verified using the 

methods set forth in ARI Standard 700-1988, that no more than 

1.5 percent of the refrigerant will be released during the reclamation 

process, that wastes from the reclamation process will be properly 

disposed of, and that the information given is true and correct. 

The certification should be sent to the following address: Section 

608 Recycling Program Manager, Stratospheric Protection Division, 

(6205-J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20460. 

 (e) Certificates are not transferable. In the event of a 

change in ownership of an entity which reclaims refrigerant, 

the new owner of the entity shall certify within 30 days of 

the change of ownership pursuant to this section. 

 (f) Failure to abide by any of the provisions of this subpart 

may result in revocation or suspension of the certification 

of the reclaimer. 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. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the control 

number 2060-0256) 

82.166 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

 (a) All persons who sell or distribute any class I or class 

II substance for use as a refrigerant must retain invoices that 

indicate the name of the purchaser, the date of sale, and the 

quantity of refrigerant purchased. 

 (b) Purchasers of any class I or class II refrigerants who 

employ technicians who recover refrigerants may provide evidence 

of each technician's certification to the wholesaler who sells 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 122 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
them refrigerant; the wholesaler will then keep this information 

on file. In such cases, the purchaser must notify the wholesaler 

regarding any change in a technician's certification or employment 

status. 

 (c) Approved equipment testing organizations must maintain 

records of equipment testing and performance and a list of equipment 

that meets EPA requirements. A list of all certified equipment 

shall be submitted to EPA within 30 days of the organization's 

approval by EPA and annually at the end of each calendar year 

thereafter. 

 (d) Approved equipment testing organizations shall submit 

to EPA within 30 days of the certification of a new model line 

of recycling or recovery equipment the name of the manufacturer 

and the name and/or serial number of the model line. 

 (e) Approved equipment testing organizations shall notify 

EPA if retests of equipment or inspections of manufacturing 

facilities conducted pursuant to 82.158(j) show that a previously 

certified model line fails to meet EPA requirements. Such notification 

must be received within thirty days of the retest or inspection. 

 (f) Programs certifying technicians must maintain records 

in accordance with section (g) of appendix D of this subpart. 

 (g) Reclaimers must maintain records of the names and addresses 

of persons sending them material for reclamation and the quantity 

of the material (the combined mass of refrigerant and contaminants) 

sent to them for reclamation. Such records shall be maintained 

on a transactional basis. 

 (h) Reclaimers must maintain records of the quantity of material 

sent to them for reclamation, the mass of refrigerant reclaimed, 

and the mass of waste products. Reclaimers must report this 

information to the Administrator annually within 30 days of 

the end of the calendar year. 

 (i) Persons disposing of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAClike appliances must maintain copies of signed statements obtained 

pursuant to 82.156(f)(2). 

 (j) Persons servicing appliances normally containing 50 or 

more pounds of refrigerant must provide the owner/operator of 

such appliances with an invoice or other documentation, which 

indicates the amount of refrigerant added to the appliance. 

 (k) Owners/operators of appliances normally containing 50 

or more pounds of refrigerant must keep servicing records documenting 

the date and type of service, as well as the quantity of refrigerant 

added. The owner/operator must keep records of refrigerant purchased 

and added to such appliances in cases where owners add their 

own refrigerant. Such records should indicate the date(s) when 

refrigerant is added. 

 (l) Technicians certified under 82.161 must keep a copy 

of their certificate at their place of business. 

 (m) All records required to be maintained pursuant to this 

section must be kept for a minimum of three years unless otherwise 

indicated. Entities that dispose of appliances must keep these 

records on-site. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the control 

number 2060-0256)

Appendix A to Subpart F-Specifications for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants

 This appendix is based on Air-conditioning and Refrigeration 

Institute Standard 700-88:

Section 1. Purpose

 1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to enable users 

to evaluate and accept/reject refrigerants regardless of source 

(new, reclaimed and/or repackaged) for use in new and existing 

refrigerating and air conditioning products within the scope 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 123 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
of ARI.

 1.1.1 This standard is intended for the guidance of the industry, 

including manufacturers, refrigerant reclaimers, repackagers, 

distributors, installers, servicemen, contractors and for consumers.

 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 defines and classifies refrigerant 

contaminants primarily based on standard and generally available 

test methods and specifies acceptable levels of contaminants 

(purity requirements) for various fluorocarbon refrigerants 

regardless of source. These refrigerants are: R11; R12; R13; 

R22; R113; R114; R500; R502 and R503 as referenced in the ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard "Number Designation of Refrigerants" (American Society 

of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 

Standard 34-78).

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 of refrigerants and contaminants addressed 

are listed in the following general classifications:

 4.1.1 Characterization

a. Boiling point

b. Boiling point range

 4.1.2 Contaminants

a. Water

b. Chloride ion

c. Acidity

d. High boiling residue

e. Particulates/solids

f. Non-condensables

g. Other refrigerants

Section 5. Sampling, Test Methods and Maximum Permissible Contaminant 

Levels

 5.1 The recommended referee test methods for the various 

contaminants are given in the following paragraphs. If alternate 

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 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 by connecting the sample 

cylinder 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. 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. 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 124 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
Purging is not an acceptable procedure for a gas phase sample 

since it may introduce a foreign product. Since R11 and R113 

have normal boiling points at or above room temperatures, noncondensable determination is not required for these refrigerants.

 5.2.3 Liquid Phase Sample. A liquid phase sample, which may 

be obtained as follows, is required for all tests listed in 

this standard, except the test for non-condensables. Place an 

empty sample cylinder with the valve opened in an oven at 230øF 

[110øC] 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.

 5.2.3.1 The valve and lines from the unit to be sampled shall 

be clean and dry. Connect the line to the sample cylinder loosely. 

Purge through the loose connection. Make the connection tight 

at the end of the purge period. Take the sample as a liquid 

by chilling the sample cylinder slightly. Do not load the cylinder 

over 80 percent full at room temperature. This can be accomplished 

by weighing the empty cylinder and then the cylinder with refrigerant. 

The cylinder must not become completely full of liquid below 

130øF [54.4øC]. When the desired amount of refrigerant has been 

collected, close the valve(s) and disconnect the sample cylinder 

immediately.

 5.2.3.2 Check the sample cylinder for leaks and record the 

gross weight.

 5.3 Refrigerant Boiling Point and Boiling Range.

 5.3.1 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.

 5.3.2 The required values for boiling point and boiling point 

range are given in Table 1, "Physical Properties of Fluorocarbon 

Refrigerants and Maximum Contaminant Levels."

 5.3.3 Gas chromatography (GC) is an acceptable alternate 

test method which can be used to characterize refrigerants. 

This is done by comparison to the known standards. Listed below 

are some readily available GC methods.

 Alternate Gas Chromatography Test Methods 

 [See Appendix A for titles and sources] 

 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 Refrigerant 3 ICI 3 Dupont 3 Allied 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 3 3 

R11 3 RSV/ALAB/CM3 and 3 F3205.165.01CW 3 G-11-7A 

 3 RSV/ALAB/CM4 3 3 

R12 3 RSV/ALAB/CM5 3 F3227.165.01CW(P) 3 G-12-7A 

R13 3 RSV/ALAB/CM20 3 F3275.165.01CC(P) 3 - 

R22 3 RSV/ALAB/CM8 3 F3290.165.01LV(P) 3 G-22-7A 

R113 3 RSV/ALAB/CM6 3 F3297.165.01CC 3 GSVD-1A 

R114 3 RSV/ALAB/CM21 3 F3305.165.01CC(P) 3 G-114-7A 

R500 3 RSV/ALAB/CM5 3 F3327.165.01CW(P) 3 G-500-7A 

R502 3 RSV/ALAB/CM8 3 F3333.165.01CC 3 G-502-7A 

R503 3 RSV/ALAB/CM20 3 F3337.165.01CW(P) 3 G-503-7A 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 Note: Equivalent laboratory test methods may be available from other producers of these 

 refrigerants. 

 5.4 Water Content.

 5.4.1 The Karl Fischer Test Method shall be used for determining 

the water content of refrigerant. This method is described in 

ASTM Standard for "Water In Gases Using Karl Fisher Reagent" 

E700-79, reapproved 1984 (American Society for Testing Materials, 

Philadelphia, PA). This method can be used for refrigerants 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 125 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
that are either a liquid or a gas at room temperature, including 

Refrigerants 11 and 113. 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 Water is a harmful contaminant in refrigerants because 

it causes freeze up, corrosion and promotes unfavorable chemical 

breakdown. The refrigerants covered in this standard shall have 

a maximum water content of 10 parts per million (ppm) by weight.

 5.5 Chloride Ions. The refrigerant shall be tested for chlorides 

as an indication of the presence of hydrochloric or similar 

acids.

 5.5.1 The test method shall be that described in the Federal 

Specification for "Fluorocarbon Refrigerants," BB-F-1421B, dated 

March 5, 1982, (U.S. General Services Administration) section 

4.4.4 (silver nitrate reagent). This simple test will detect 

HC1 and other halogens and requires only a 5 ml sample. The 

test will show noticeable turbidity at equivalent HC1 levels 

of about 25 ppm by weight or higher.

 5.5.2 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 The acidity test uses the titration principle to detect 

any compound that ionizes as an acid. The test requires about 

a 100 to 120 gram sample and has a lower detection limit of 

0.1 ppm by weight.

 5.6.2 The test method shall be per Allied approved analytical 

procedure "Determination of Acidity in Genetron(R) and Genesolv(R) 

Fluorocarbons," GP-GEN-2A (used by permission of Allied-Signal, 

Inc., Columbia Road and Park Avenue, P.O. Box 1139R, Morristown, 

New Jersey 07960), or DuPont procedure, "The Determination of 

Acid Number-Visual Titrimetric Procedure," FPL-3-1974 (used 

by permission of Freon Products Division E.I. duPont de Nemours 

and Co., Inc., Brandywine Building 13237, Wilmington, Delaware 

19898).

 5.6.3 The maximum permissible acidity is 1 ppm by weight.

 5.7 High Boiling Residue.

 5.7.1 High boiling residue will be determined by measuring 

the residue after evaporation of a standard volume of refrigerant 

at a temperature 50øF [10.0øC], above the boiling point of the 

sample using a Goetz tube as specified in the Federal Specification 

for "Fluorocarbon Refrigerants," BB-F-1421B, dated March 5, 

1982. Oils and organic acids will be captured by this method.

 5.7.2 The value for high boiling residue shall be expressed 

as a percentage by volume and shall not exceed the maximum percent 

specified in Table 1.

 5.8 Particulates/Solids.

 5.8.1 During the Boiling Range test, 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 empty Goetz bulb after the sample has evaporated 

completely. Presence of dirt, rust or other particulate contamination 

is reported as "fail."

 5.8.2 For details of the above test method, refer to the 

DuPont method for "Determination of Boiling Range, Residue, 

Particulates" F3200.037.01CW(P) (used by permission of Freon 

Products Division, E.I. duPoint de Nemours and Co., Inc.).

 5.9 Non-Condensables.

 5.9.1 Non-condensable gases consist primarily of air accumulated 

in the vapor phase of refrigerant-containing tanks. The solubility 

of air in the refrigerants liquid phase is extremely low and 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 126 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
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 The test method shall be that described in the Federal 

Specification for "Fluorocarbon Refrigerants," BB-F-1421B, dated 

March 5, 1982, section 4.4.2 (perchloroethylene method). Gas 

Chromatography, as described in 5.3.3 is an acceptable alternate 

test method.

 5.9.3 The maximum level of non-condensables in the vapor 

phase of a refrigerant in a container shall not exceed 1.5 percent 

by volume.

 5.10 Other Refrigerants.

 5.10.1 The amount of other refrigerants in the subject refrigerant 

shall be determined by one of the gas chromatographic methods 

described in 5.3.3 for the appropriate refrigerant.

 5.10.2 The subject refrigerant shall not contain more than 

0.5 percent by weight of other refrigerants (see Table 1).

Section 6. Reporting Procedure

 6.1 The source (manufacturer, reclaimer or repackager) of 

the packaged refrigerant should be identified. The fluorocarbon 

refrigerant shall be identified by its accepted refrigerant 

number and/or its chemical name. Maximum permissible levels 

of contaminants are shown in Table 1. Test results shall be 

tabulated in a like manner.

Section 7. Voluntary Conformance

 7.1 Voluntary Conformance. Conformance to this standard is 

voluntary. However, any refrigerant specified as meeting these 

requirements shall meet all of the requirements given in this 

standard.

 Table 1-Physical Properties of Fluorocarbon Refrigerants and Maximum Contaminant Levels 

 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 Refrigerants 

 ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 R11 3 R12 3 R13 3 R22 3 R113 3 R114 3 R500 3 R502 3 R503 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Physical 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Properties: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 Boiling 3 74.9 3 -21.6 3 -114.6 3 -41.4 3 117.6 3 38.8 3 -28.3 3 -49.8 3 -127.6 

 point. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 F @ 29.92 3 [23.8] 3 [-29.8] 3 [-81.4] 3 [-40.8] 3 [47.6] 3 [3.8] 3 [-33.5] 3 [-45.4] 3 [-88.7] 

 in. Hg. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 Boiling 3 0.5 3 0.5 3 0.9 3 0.5 3 0.5 3 0.5 3 0.9 3 0.9 3 0.9 

 range F 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 for 5% to 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 85% by 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 volume 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 distilled 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Vapor Phase 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Contaminant 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 Air and 3 3 1.5 3 1.5 3 1.5 3 3 1.5 3 1.5 3 1.5 3 1.5 

 other non 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 -condens- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 ables (in 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 filled 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 container 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 ) Max. % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 by volume 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 127 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
Liquid Phase 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Contaminant 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 Water-ppm 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 

 by weight 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 Chloride 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 

 ion-no 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 turbidity 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 to pass 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 by test. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 Acidity- 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 

 Max. ppm 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 by weight 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 High 3 0.01 3 0.01 3 0.05 3 0.01 3 0.03 3 0.01 3 0.05 3 0.01 3 0.01 

 boiling 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 residues- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 Max. % by 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 volume. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 Particula- 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 

 tes/ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 Solids- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 visually 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 clean to 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 pass. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 Other ref- 3 0.5 3 0.5 3 0.5 3 0.5 3 0.5 3 0.5 3 0.5 3 0.5 3 0.5 

 rigerants 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 -Max. % by 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 weight. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Titles and Sources of Alternate Gas Chromatography Test Methods

ICI

General Chemical Business

ICI Chemicals and Polymer Ltd.

P.O. Box 13

The Heath

Runcorn Cheshire, England WA74QF

 Methods for the Analysis of "Arctons," MD1400/32 "Organic Impurities by Gas Chromatography" 

 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 Refrigerant 3 Method No. 3 Title 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 3 

R11 3 RSV/ALAB/CM3 and RSV/ALAB/CM4 3 Arcton 11. 

R12 3 RSV/ALAB/CM5 3 Arcton 12. 

R13 3 RSV/ALAB/CM20 3 ............................................................ 

R22 3 RSV/ALAB/CM8 3 Arcton 22. 

R113 3 RSV/ALAB/CM6 3 Arcton 113. 

R114 3 RSV/ALAB/CM21 3 Arcton 114. 

R500 3 RSV/ALAB/CM5 3 ............................................................ 

R502 3 RSV/ALAB/CM8 3 ............................................................ 

R503 3 RSV/ALAB/CM20 3 ............................................................ 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 Note: Used with permission of the source. 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 128 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
DuPont

Freon Products Division

E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc.

1007 Market Street

Wilmington, Delaware 19898

 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 Refrigerant 3 Method No. 3 Title 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 3 

R11 3 F3205.165.01CW 3 Determination of Purity by Gas Chromatography "Freon" 11 

 3 3 Fluorocarbon. 

R12 3 F3227.165.01CW(P) 3 "Freon" 12 Determination of Purity. 

R13 3 F3275.165.01CC(P) 3 Determination of Composition "Freon" 13 Fluorocarbon. 

R22 3 F3290.165.01LV(P) 3 "Freon" 22 Determination of Purity by Gas Chromatography. 

R113 3 F3297.165.01CC 3 "Freon" 113 Determination of Purity by Gas Chromatography. 

R114 3 F3305.165.01CC(P) 3 "Freon" 114 Fluorocarbon-Determination of Composition. 

R500 3 F3327.165.01CW(P) 3 "Freon" 500 Determination of Composition by Gas. 

R502 3 F3333.165.01CC 3 "Freon" 502 Determination of Composition Chromatography. 

R503 3 F3337.165.01CW(P) 3 "Freon" 503 Determination of Composition. 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 Note: Used with permission of the source. 

Allied

Allied-Signal, Inc.

Engineered Material Sector

P.O. Box 1139R

Morristown, New Jersey 07960

 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 Refrigerant 3 Method No. 3 Title 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 3 

R11 3 G-11-7A 3 Determination of Genetron(R) 11 Fluorocarbon (Assay) 

 3 3 Fluorocarbon 12, Carbon Tetrachloride, and Non-Specified 

 3 3 Fluorocarbons in Genetron(R) 11 Fluorocarbon. 

R12 3 G-12-7A 3 Determination of Genetron(R) 12 Fluorocarbon (Assay), 

 3 3 Fluorocarbons 11, 13, 22 and Non-Specified Fluorocarbons in 

 3 3 Genetron(R) 12 Fluorocarbons. 

R13 3 3 ............................................................ 

R22 3 G-22-7A 3 Determination of Genetron(R) 22 Fluorocarbons (Assay), 

 3 3 Fluorocarbons 12, 21, 23 and Non-Specified Fluorocarbons in 

 3 3 Genetron(R) 22 Fluorocarbons. 

R113 3 GSVD-1A 3 Determination of Genesolv(R) D (Assay), Fluorocarbons 112, 114,

 3 3 122, 123 and 1112a in Genesolv(R) D. 

R114 3 G-114-7A 3 Determination of Genetron(R) 114 Fluorocarbon (Assay), 

 3 3 Fluorocarbons 113, 115, 123, and Non-Specified 

 3 3 Fluorocarbons in Genetron(R) 114 Fluorocarbon. 

R500 3 G-500-7A 3 Determination of Fluorocarbon 12, Fluorocarbon 152a and Non- 

 3 3 Specified Fluorocarbons in Genetron(R) 500 Fluorocarbon. 

R502 3 G-502-7A 3 Determination of Fluorocarbon 22 and Fluorocarbon 115, and 

 3 3 Non-Specified Fluorocarbons in Genetron(R) 502 Fluorocarbon. 

R503 3 G-503-7A 3 Determination of Fluorocarbon 13, 23, 12, 22 and Non- 

 3 3 Specified Fluorocarbons in Genetron(R) 503 Fluorocarbon. 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 Note: Used with permission of the source. 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 129 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
Bibliography

 For additional information on subjects or tests described 

in this Standard see:

1. ASHRAE Handbook Refrigeration 1986, Chapter 7, "Moisture 

 and Other Contaminant Control in Refrigerant Systems." American 

 Society for Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

 Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA 30329.

2. ASTM Standard Designation D3401-78, Standard Test Method 

 for "Water in Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures." 

 American Society for Testing Materials, 1916 Race Street, 

 Philadelphia, PA 19103.

3. ASTM Standard D1533-83, "Water in Insulating Liquid (Karl

 Fischer Reaction Method)." American Society for Testing 

 Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

4. ASTM Standard 2989-74 (reapproved 1981), Standard Test Method 

 for "Acidity-Alkalinity of Halogenated Organic Solvents 

 and Their Admixtures." American Society for Testing Materials, 

 1916 Race street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

5. DuPont Technical Bulletin B-8, "Quality Specifications and 

 Methods of Analysis for the `Freon' Fluorocarbon Refrigerants." 

 Freon Products Division, E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., 

 Inc.

6. Parmelee, H. M. "Solubility of Air in Freon-12 and Freon-

 22." Refrigerating Engineering, June 1951, page 573.

7. Wojtkowski, E.F. "System Contamination and Cleanups," ASHRAE 

 Journal, June 1964, page 49.

Appendix B to Subpart F-Performance of Refrigerant Recovery, 

Recycling and/or Reclaim Equipment

 This appendix is based on Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration 

Institute Standard 740-91.

Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment

Section 1. Purpose

 1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to establish 

methods of testing for rating and evaluating the performance 

of refrigerant recovery, and/or recycling equipment, and general 

equipment requirements (herein referred to as "equipment") for 

containment or purity levels, capacity, speed, and purge loss 

to minimize emission into the atmosphere of designated refrigerants.

 1.1.1 This standard is intended for the guidance of the industry, 

including manufacturers, refrigerant reclaimers, repackers, 

distributors, installers, servicemen, contractors and for consumers.

 1.1.2 This standard is not intended to be used as a guide 

in defining maximum levels of contaminants in recycled or reclaimed 

refrigerants used in various applications.

 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 defines general equipment requirements 

and the test apparatus, test mixtures, sampling and analysis 

techniques that will be used to determine the performance of 

recovery and/or recycling equipment for various refrigerants 

including R11, R12, R13, R22, R113, R114, R123, R134a, R500, 

R502, and R503, as referenced in the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-

1992, "Number Designation of Refrigerants" (American Society 

of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc.).

Section 3. Definitions

 3.1 Recovered refrigerant. Refrigerant that has been removed 

from a system for the purpose of storage, recycling, reclamation 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 130 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
or transportation.

 3.2 Recover. To remove refrigerant in any condition from 

a system and store it in an external container without necessarily 

testing or processing it in any way.

 3.3 Recycle. To reduce contaminants in used refrigerant by 

oil separation, non-condensable removal and single or multiple 

passes through devices which reduce moisture, acidity and particulate 

matter, such as replaceable core filter-driers. This term usually 

applies to procedures implemented at the field job site or in 

a local service shop.

 3.4 Reclaim. To reprocess refrigerant to new product specifications 

by means which may include distillation. Chemical analysis of 

the refrigerant is required to determine that appropriate product 

specifications are met. The identification of contaminants, 

required chemical analysis, and acceptable contaminant levels 

will be established in the latest edition of ARI Standard 700 

"Specifications of Fluorocarbon and other Refrigerants." This 

term usually implies the use of processes or procedures available 

only at a reprocessing or manufacturing facility.

 3.5 Standard Contaminated Refrigerant Sample. A mixture of 

new and/or reclaimed refrigerant and specified quantities of 

identified contaminants which are representative of field obtained, 

used refrigerant samples and which constitute the mixture to 

be processed by the equipment under test.

 3.6 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.

 3.7 Recycle Rate. The amount of refrigerant processed (in 

pounds) divided by the time elapsed in the recycling mode in 

pounds per minute. 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 maximum rate based 

solely on the higher of the liquid or vapor recovery rate, by 

which the rated contaminant levels can be achieved.

 3.8 Equpment Classification.

 3.8.1 Self Contained Equipment. A refrigerant recovery or 

recycling system which is capable of refrigerant extraction 

without the assistance of components contained within an air 

conditioning or refrigeration system.

 3.8.2 System Dependent Equipment. Refrigerant recovery equipment 

which requires for its operation the assistance of components 

contained in an air conditioning or refrigeration system.

 3.9 "Shall", "Should", "Recommended" or "It is Recommended", 

"Shall" "Should", "recommended", or "it is recommended" shall 

be interpreted as follows:

 3.9.1 Shall. Where "shall" or "shall not" is used for a provision 

specified, that provision is mandatory if compliance with the 

standard is claimed.

 3.9.2 Should, Recommended, or It is Recommended, "Should", 

"recommended", is used to indicate provisions which are not 

mandatory but which are desirable as good practice.

Section 4. General Equipment Requirements

 4.1 The equipment manufacturer shall provide operating instructions, 

necessary maintenance procedures, and source information for 

replacement parts and repair.

 4.2 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 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 131 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
such as "to change the filter every 400 pounds, or every 30 

days" shall not be acceptable except for equipment in large 

systems where the Liquid Recovery Rate is greater than 25 lbs/min 

[11.3 Kg/min] where the filter/drier(s) would be changed for 

every job.

 4.3 The equipment shall either automatically purge non-condensables 

if the rated level is exceeded or alert the operator that the 

non-condensable level has been exceeded. While air purge processes 

are subject to the requirements of this section, there is no 

specific requirement to include an air purge process for "recycle" 

equipment.

 4.4 The equipment's refrigerant loss due to non-condensable 

purging shall not be exceeded 5% by weight of total recovered 

refrigerant. (See Section 9.4)

 4.5 Internal hose assemblies shall not exceed a permeation 

rate of 12 pounds mass per square foot [5.8 g/cm 2 ] of internal 

surface per year at a temperature of 120 F [48.8 øC] for any 

designated refrigerant.

 4.6 The equipment shall be evaluated at 75 F [24 øC] per 

7.1. Normal operating conditions range from 50 øF to 104 F [10 

øC to 40 øC].

 4.7 Exemptions:

 4.7.1 Equpment intended for recovery only shall be exempt 

from sections 4.2 and 4.3.

 Table 1.-Standard Contaminated Refrigerant Samples 

 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 R11 3 R12 3 R13 3 R22 3 R113 3 R114 3 R123 3 R134a 3 R500 3 R502 3 R503 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Moisture 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

content: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 PPM by 3 100 3 80 3 30 3 200 3 100 3 85 3 100 3 200 3 200 3 200 3 30 

 weight of 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 pure ref- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 rigerant. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Particulate 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

content: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 PPM by 3 80 3 80 3 80 3 80 3 80 3 80 3 80 3 80 3 80 3 80 3 80 

 weight of 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 pure ref- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 rigerant 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 characte- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 rized by 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 {1}. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Acid content:3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 PPM by 3 500 3 100 3 NA 3 500 3 400 3 200 3 500 3 100 3 100 3 100 3 NA 

 weight of 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 pure ref- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 rigerant- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 (mg KOH 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 per kg 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 refrig.) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 characte- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 rized by 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 {2}. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Mineral oil 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

content: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 % by 3 20 3 5 3 NA 3 5 3 20 3 20 3 20 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 NA 

 weight of 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 pure ref- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 rigerant. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 132 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 Viscosity 3 300 3 150 3 3 300 3 300 3 300 3 300 3 150 3 150 3 150 3 

 (SUS). 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 Non conde- 3 NA 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 NA 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 nsable 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 gases air 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 content % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

 volume{3} 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 {1} Particulate content shall consist of inert materials and shall comply with particulate requirements in ASHRAE 

 Standard 63.2, "Method of Testing of Filtration Capacity of Refrigerant Liquid Line Filters and Filter Driers." 

 {2} Acid consists of 60% oleic acid and 40% hydrochloric acid on a total number basis. 

 {3} Synthetic ester based oil. 

Section 5. Contaminated Refrigerants 

 5.1 The standard contaminated refrigerant sample shall have 

the characteristics specified in Table 1, except as provided 

in 5.2 

 5.2 Recovery equipment not rated for any specific contaminant 

can be tested with new or reclaimed refrigerant. 

Section 6. Test Apparatus 

 6.1 Self Contained Equipment Test Apparatus. The apparatus 

as shown in Figure 1 consists of a 3 cubic foot [0.085 m3] mixing 

chamber with a conical-shaped bottom, although a larger mixing 

chamber is permissible. The size of the mixing chamber depends 

upon the size of the equipment. The outlet at the bottom of 

the cone and all restrictions and valves for liquid and vapor 

refrigerant lines in the test apparatus shall be a minimum of 

0.375 in. [9.5 mm] inside diameter or equivalent. The minimum 

inside diameter for large equipment for use on chillers shall 

be 1.5 in. [38 mm.]. The mixing chamber shall contain various 

ports for receiving liquid refrigerant, oil, and contaminants. 

A recirculating line connected from the bottom outlet through 

a recirculating pump and then to a top vapor port shall be provided 

for stirring of the mixture. Isolation valves may be required 

for the pump. Alternative stirring means may be used if demonstrated 

to be equally effective. 

 6.1.1 For liquid refrigerant feed, the liquid valve is opened. 

For vapor refrigerant feed, the vapor valve is opened and refrigerant 

passes through an evaporator coil. Flow is controlled by a thermostatic 

expansion valve to create 5 F [3 øC] superheat at an evaporator 

temperature of 70 F ñ 3 F[21 øCñ2ø]. The evaporator coil or 

equivalent evaporator means shall be either sized large enough 

for the largest system or be sized for each system. 

 6.1.2 An alternative method for vapor refrigerant feed is 

to pass through a boiler and then an automatic pressure regulating 

valve set at refrigerant saturation pressure at 75 F ñ 3 F [24 

øC ñ 2 øC]. 

 6.2 System Dependent Equipment Test Apparatus. This test 

apparatus is to be used for final recovery vacuum rating of 

all system dependent equipment. 

 6.2.1 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 1/4 

inch [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 1/4 inch [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. 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 133 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
>>>> See the accompanying hardcopy volume for non-machine-readable

data that appears at this point. 

Section 7. Performance Testing 

 7.1 Contaminant removal and performance testing shall be 

conducted at 75 F ñ 2 F [23.9 øC ñ 1.1 øC]. 

 7.1.1 The equipment shall be prepared for operation per the 

instruction manual. 

 7.1.2 The contaminated sample batch shall consist of not 

less than the sum of the amounts required to complete steps 

7.1.2.2 and 7.1.2.3 below. 

 7.1.2.1 A liquid sample shall be drawn from the mixing chamber 

prior to starting the test to assure quality control of the 

mixing process. 

 7.1.2.2 Vapor refrigerant feed testing, if elected, shall 

normally be processed first. After the equipment reaches stabilized 

conditions of condensing temperature and/or storage tank pressure, 

the vapor feed recovery rate shall be measured. One method is 

to start measuring the vapor refrigerant recovery rate when 

85% of refrigerant remains in the mixing chamber and continue 

for a period of time sufficient to achieve the accuracy in 9.2. 

If liquid feed is not elected, complete Step 7.1.2.4. 

 7.1.2.3 Liquid refrigerant feed testing, if elected, shall 

be processed next. After the equipment reaches stabilized conditions, 

the liquid feed recovery rate shall be measured. One method 

is to wait 2 minutes after starting liquid feed and then measure 

the liquid refrigerant recovery rate for a period of time sufficient 

to achieve the accuracy in 9.1. Continue liquid recovery operation 

as called for in 7.1.2.4. 

 7.1.2.4 Continue recovery operation until all liquid is removed 

from the mixing chamber and vapor is removed to the point where 

the equipment shuts down per automatic means or is manually 

stopped per the operating instructions. 

 7.1.2.5 After collecting the first contaminated refrigerant 

sample batch, the liquid and vapor value of the apparatus shall 

be closed and the mixing chamber pressure recorded after 1 minute 

as required in 9.5. After preparing a second contaminated refrigerant 

sample batch, continue recovery until the storage container 

reaches 80% liquid fill level. After recycling and measuring 

the recycle rate per section 7.1.3, set this container aside 

for the vapor sample in 8.2.2. 

 7.1.2.6 Interruptions in equipment operations as called for 

in instruction manual are allowable. 

 7.1.3 Recycle as called for in equipment operating instructions. 

Determine recycle rate by appropriate means as required in 9.3. 

 7.1.4 Repeat steps 7.1.2, 7.1.2.4, and 7.1.3 with contaminated 

refrigerant sample until equipment indicator(s) show need to 

change filter(s). It will not be necessary to repeat the recycle 

rate determination in 7.1.3. 

 7.1.4.1 For equipment with a multiple pass recirculating 

filter system, analyze the contents of the previous storage 

container. 

 7.1.4.2 For equipment with a single pass filter system, analyze 

the contents of the current storage container. 

 7.1.5 Refrigerant loss due to the equipment's non-condensable 

gas purge shall be determined by appropriate means. (See Section 

9.4.) 

 7.2 System Dependent Equipment. This procedure shall be used 

for vacuum rating of all system dependent equipment. Liquid 

refrigerant recovery rate, vapor refrigerant recovery rate, 

and recycle rate are not tested on system dependent systems. 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 134 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 7.2.1 The apparatus operation and testing shall be conducted 

at 75 F ñ 2 F. [23.9 øC. ñ/1.1. øC.]. 

 7.2.2 The apparatus shall be charged with refrigerant per 

its system design specifications. 

 7.2.3 For measurement of final recovery vacuum as required 

in 9.5, first shut the balance line isolation valve and wait 

1 minute for pressure to balance. Then connect and operate the 

recovery system per manufacturers recommendations. When the 

evacuation is completed, open the balance line isolation valve 

and measure the pressure in the balance line.

Section 8. Sampling and Chemical Analysis Methods

 8.1 The referee test methods for the various contaminants 

are summarized in the following paragraphs. Detailed test procedures 

are included in Appendix A "Test Procedures for ARI STD 700." 

If alternate test methods are employed, the user must be able 

to demonstrate that they produce results equivalent to the specified 

referee method.

 8.2 Refrigerant Sampling.

 8.2.1 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.

 8.2.2 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 and acceptable 

procedure for a gas phase sample since it may introduce a foreign 

product. Since R11, R113 and R123 have normal boiling points 

at or above room temperature, noncondensable determination is 

not required for these refrigerants.

 8.2.2.1 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.

 8.2.2.2 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.

 8.2.3 Liquid Phase Sample. A liquid phase sample is required 

for all tests listed in this standard, except the test for noncondensables.

 8.2.3.1 Place an empty sample cylinder with the valve open 

in an oven at 230 F [110øC] for one hour. Remove it from the 

oven while hot, immediately connect to an evacuation system 

and evacuate to less than 1mm. mercury (1000 microns). Close 

the valve and allow it to cool.

 8.2.3.2 The valve and lines from the unit to be sampled shall 

be clean and dry. Connect the line to the sample cylinder loosely. 

Purge through the loose connection. Make the connection tight 

at the end of the purge period. 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.

 8.2.3.3 Check the sample cylinder for leaks and record the 

gross weight.

 8.3 Water Content.

 8.3.1. The Coulometric Karl Fischer Titration shall be the 

primary test method for determining the water content of refrigerants. 

This method is described in Appendix A. This method can be used 

for refrigerants that are either a liquid or a gas at room temperature, 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 135 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
including Refrigerants 11 and 13. 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.

 8.3.2 The Karl Fischer Test Method is an acceptable alternative 

test method for determining the water content of refrigerants. 

This method is described in ASTM Standard for "Water in gases 

Using Karl Fisher Reagent" E700-79, reapproved 1984 (American 

Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA).

 8.3.3 Report the moisture level in parts per million by weight 

if a sample is required.

 8.4 Chloride. The refrigerant shall be tested for chlorides 

as an indication of the presence of hydrochloric or similar 

acids. 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 chlorides.

 8.4.1 The test method shall be that described in Appendix 

A "Test Procedures for ARI-700." The test will show noticeable 

turbidity at equivalent chloride levels of about 3 ppm by weight 

or higher.

 8.4.2 The results of the test shall not exhibit any sign 

of turbity. Report results as "pass" or "fail."

 8.5 Acidity.

 8.5.1 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 

A. "Test Procedures for ARI-700." The 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 Section 5.7. The test requires about a 100 to 120 gram sample 

and has a low detection limit of 0.1 ppm by weight as HC1.

 8.6 High Boiling Residue.

 8.6.1 High boiling residue will be determined by measuring 

the residue of a standard volume of refrigerant after evaporation. 

The refrigerant sample shall be evaporated at room temperature 

or a temperature 50 F [10ø.0C], above the boiling point of the 

sample using a Goetz tube as specified in Appendix A "Test Procedures 

for ARI-700." Oils and or organic acids will be captured by 

this method.

 8.6.2 The value for high boiling residue shall be expressed 

as a percentage by volume.

 8.7 Particulates/Solids.

 8.7.1 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 empty Goetz 

bulb after the sample has evaporated completely. Presence of 

dirt, rust or other particulate contamination is reported a 

"fail." For details of this test method, refer to Appendix B 

"Test Procedures for ARI-700."

 8.8 Non-Condensables

 8.8.1 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 refrigerant containing 

tanks. The solubility of air in the refrigerants 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.

 8.8.2 The test method shall be gas chromatography with a 

thermal conductivity detector as described in Appendix A "Test 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 136 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
Procedures for ARI-700."

 8.8.2.1 The Federal Specification for "Fluorocarbon Refrigerants," 

BB-F-1421B, dated March 5, 1992, section 4.4.2 (perchloroethylene 

method) is an acceptable alternate test method.

 8.8.3 Report the level of non-condensable as percent by volume.

Section 9. Performance Calculation and Rating

 9.1 The liquid refrigerant recovery rate shall be expressed 

in pounds per minute [kg/min] and measured by weight change 

at the mixing chamber (See Figure 1) divided by elapsed time 

to an accuracy within .02 lbs/min. [.009 kg/min]. Ratings using 

the Push/Pull method shall be identified "Push/Pull". Equipment 

may be rated by both methods.

 9.2 The vapor refrigerant recovery rate shall be expressed 

in pounds per minute [kg/min] and measured by weight change 

at the mixing chamber (See Figure 1) divided by elapsed time 

to an accuracy within .02 lbs/min. [.0.009 kg/min].

 9.3 The recycle rate is defined in 3.7 and expressed in pounds 

per minute [kg/min] of flow and shall be per ASHRAE 41.7-84 

"Procedure For Fluid Measurement Of Gases" or ASHRAE 41.8-89 

"Standard Method of Flow of Fluids-Liquids."

 9.3.1 For equipment using multipass 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 the refrigerant. Any set-up or operator 

interruptions shall not be included in the time T. The accuracy 

of the recycle rate shall be within .02 lbs/min. [.009 kg/min].

 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 9.6. Specifically, 

a recovery rate determined from bypassing a contaminant removal 

device cannot be used as a recycle rate when the contaminant 

levels in 9.6 are determined by passing the refrigerant through 

the containment removal device.

 9.4 Refrigerant loss due to non-condensable purging shall 

be less than 5%. This rating shall be expressed as "passed" 

if less than 5%.

 This calculation will be based upon net loss of non-condensables 

and refrigerant due to the purge divided by the initial net 

content. The net loss shall be determined by weighing before 

and after the purge, by collecting purged gases, or an equivalent 

method.

 9.5 The final recovery vacuum shall be the mixing chamber 

pressure called for in 7.1.2.5 expressed in inches of mercury 

vacuum, [mm Hg or kP]. The accuracy of the measurement shall 

be within ñ.1 inch [ñ2.5mm] of Hg and rounding down to the nearest 

whole number.

 9.6 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, percentage by volume

Particulate/solid, Pass/Fail

Non-condensables, % by volume

 9.7 Product Literature: Except as provided under product 

labelling in Section 11. performance ratings per 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 

and 9.5 must be grouped together and shown for all listed refrigerants 

(11.2) subject to limitations of 9.8. Wherever any contaminant 

levels per 9.6 are rated, all ratings in 9.6 must be shown for 

all listed refrigerants subject to limitations of 9.8. The type 

of equipment in 11.1 must be included with either grouping. 

Optional ratings in 9.8 need not be shown.

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 137 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 9.8 Ratings shall include all of the parameters for each 

designed refrigerant in 11.2 as shown in Tables 2 and 3.

 Table 2.-Performance 

 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 3 3 3 System 

 Parameter/type of equipment 3 Recovery 3 Recovery 3 Recycle 3 depende- 

 3 3 /recycle 3 3 nt equ- 

 3 3 3 3 ipment 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 3 3 3 

Liquid refrigerant recovery 3 (2) 3 (2) 3 N/A 3 N/A 

 rate. 3 3 3 3 

Vapor refrigerant recovery rate 3 (2) 3 (2) 3 N/A 3 N/A 

 3 3 3 3 

Final recovery vacuum.......... 3 (1) 3 (1) 3 N/A 3 (1) 

Recycle rate................... 3 N/A 3 (1) 3 (1) 3 N/A 

Refrigerant loss due to non- 3 (3) 3 (1) 3 (1) 3 N/A 

 condensable purging. 3 3 3 3 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 1 Mandatory rating. 

 2 For a recovery or recovery/recycle unit, one must rate for either liquid 

 feed only or vapor feed only or can rate for both. If rating only the one, 

 the other shall be indicated by "N/A." 

 3 For Recovery Equipment, these parameters are optional. If not rated, use 

 N/A. 

 Table 3.-Contaminants 

 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 3 Recovery/ 3 3 System 

 Contaminant/type of equipment 3 Recovery 3 recycle 3 Recycle 3 dependent 

 3 3 3 3 equipment 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 3 3 3 

Moisture content ................. 3 (*) 3 x 3 x 3 NA. 

Chloride ions .................... 3 (*) 3 x 3 x 3 NA. 

Acidity .......................... 3 (*) 3 x 3 x 3 NA. 

High boiling residue ............. 3 (*) 3 x 3 x 3 NA. 

Particulates ..................... 3 (*) 3 x 3 x 3 NA. 

Non-condensables ................. 3 (*) 3 x 3 x 3 NA. 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 * For Recovery Equipment, these parameters are optional. If not rated, use N/A. 

 x Mandatory rating. 

Section 10. Tolerances

 10.1 Any equipment tested shall produce contaminant levels 

not higher than the published ratings. The liquid refrigerant 

recovery rate, vapor refrigerant recovery rate, final recovery 

vacuum and recycle rate shall not be less than the published 

ratings.

Section 11. Product Labelling

 11.1 Type of equipment. The type of equipment shall be as 

listed:

11.1.1 Recovery only

11.1.2 System Dependent Recovery

11.1.3 Recovery/Recycle

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 138 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
11.1.4 Recycle only 

 11.2 Designated refrigerants and the following as applicable 

for each:

11.2.1 Liquid Recovery Rate

11.2.2 Vapor Recovery Rate

11.2.3 Final Recovery Vacuum

11.2.4 Recycle Rate

Section 12. Voluntary Conformance

 12.1 Conformance. While conformance with this standard is 

voluntary, conformance shall not be claimed or implied for products 

or equipment within its Purpose (Section 1) and Scope (Section 

2) unless such claims meet all of the requirements of the standards.

Appendix A

 Particulate Used in Standard Contaminated Refrigerant Sample.

1. Particulate Specification

 1.1 The particulate material pm will be a blend of 50% coarse 

air cleaner dust as received, and 50% retained on a 200-mesh 

screen. The coarse air cleaner dust is available from: AC Spark 

Plug Division, General Motors Corporation, Flint, Michigan.

1.2 Preparation of Particulate Materials

 To prepare the blend of contaminant, first wet screen a quantity 

of coarse air cleaner dust on a 200-mesh screen (particle retention 

74 pm). This is done by placing a portion of the dust on a 200-

mesh screen and running water through the screen while stirring 

the dust with the fingers. The fine contaminant particles passing 

through the screen are discarded. The +200 mesh particles collected 

on the screen are removed and dried for one hour at 230 F [110 

øC]. The blend of standard contaminant is prepared by mixing 

50% by weight of coarse air cleaner dust as received after drying 

for one hour at 230 F [110 øC] with 50% by weight of the +200 

mesh screened dust.

 1.3 The coarse air cleaner dust as received and the blend 

used as the standard contaminant have the following approximate 

particle size analysis: Wt. % in various size ranges, pm.

 

 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 Size range 3 As received 3 Blend 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 3 

0-5 .......................................... 3 12 3 6 

 5-10 ......................................... 3 12 3 6 

10-20 ......................................... 3 14 3 7 

20-40 ......................................... 3 23 3 11 

40-80 ......................................... 3 30 3 32 

80-200 ........................................ 3 9 3 38 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Appendix C to Subpart F-Method for Testing Recovery Devices 

for Use With Small Appliances

Recovery Efficiency Test Procedure for Refrigerant Recovery 

Equipment Used on Small Appliances

 The following test procedure is utilized to evaluate the 

efficiency of equipment designed to recover ozone depleting 

refrigerants (or any substitute refrigerant subject to the recycling 

rules promulgated pursuant to section 608 of the Clean Air Act 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 139 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
Amendments of 1990) from small appliances when service of those 

appliances requires entry into the sealed refrigeration system 

or when those appliances are destined for disposal. This procedure 

is designed to calculate on a weight or mass basis the percentage 

of a known charge of CFC-12 refrigerant removed and captured 

from a test stand refrigeration system. Captured refrigerant 

is that refrigerant delivered to a container suitable for shipment 

to a refrigerant reclaimer plus any refrigerant remaining in 

the recovery system in a manner that it will be transferred 

to a shipping container after additional recovery operations.

 The test stand refrigeration system required for this procedure 

is constructed with standard equipment utilized in currently 

produced household refrigerator and freezer products. The procedure 

also accounts for compressor oils that might be added to or 

removed from the test stand compressor or any compressor used 

in the recovery system.

I. Test Stand

 Test stands are constructed in accordance with the following 

standards.

 1. Evaporator- 5/16 in. outside dia. with 30 cu. in. volume.

 2. Condenser- 1/4 in. outside dia. with 20 cu. in volume.

 3. Suction line capillary heat exchanger-appropriate for 

compressor used.

 4. An 800-950 Btu/hr high side case (rotary) compressor; 

or (depending on the test senario);

 5. An 800-9500 Btu/hr low side case (reciprocating) compressor.

 A person seeking to have its recovery system certified shall 

specify the compressors by manufacturer and model that are to 

be used in test stands constructed for evaluation of its equipment, 

and the type and quantity of compressor to be used in those 

compressors. Only a compressor oil approved for use by the compressor's 

manufacturer may be specified, and the quantity of compressor 

oil specified shall be an appropriate quantity for the type 

of oil and compressor to be used. In order to reduce the cost 

of testing, the person seeking certification of its recovery 

system may supply an EPA approved third party testing laboratory 

with test stands meeting these standards for use in evaluating 

its recovery system.

II. Test Conditions

 Tests are to be conducted at 75 degrees F, plus or minus 

2 degrees F (23.9 C +/-1.1 C). Separate tests are conducted 

on both high side case compressor stands and low side case compressor 

stands. Separate tests are also conducted with the test stand 

compressor running during the recovery operation, and without 

the test stand compressor running during the recovery operation, 

to calculate the system's recovery efficiency under either condition.

 These tests are to be performed using a representative model 

of all equipment used in the recovery system to deliver recovered 

refrigerant to a container suitable for shipment to a refrigerant 

reclaimer. The test stands are to be equipped with access valves 

permanently installed as specific by the recovery system's vendor 

to represent the valves used with that system in actual field 

operations.

 A series of five (5) recovery operations are to be performed 

for each compressor scenario and a recovery efficiency is calculated 

based on the total quantity of refrigerant captured during all 

five (5) recoveries. Alternatively, at the request of the recovery 

system's vendor, a recovery efficiency is to be calculated for 

each recovery event. In this case, a statistically significant 

number of recovery operations are to be performed. Determination 

of what is a statistically significant number of recoveries 

is to be calculated as set out below. These individual recovery 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 140 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
efficiencies are then averaged.

 There are four (4) compressor scenarios to be tested. These 

are a high side case compressor in working condition; a high 

side case compressor in nonworking condition; a low side case 

compressor in working condition; and a low side case compressor 

in nonworking condition. Recovery efficiencies calculated for 

the two working compressor scenarios are to be averaged to report 

a working compressor performance. The two nonworking compressor 

efficiencies are also to be averaged to report a nonworking 

compressor performance.

 If large scale equipment is required in the system to deliver 

recovered refrigerant to a refrigerant reclaimer (eg. carbon 

desorption equipment) and it is not possible to have that equipment 

evaluated under the procedure, the system's vendor shall obtain 

engineering data on the performance of that large scale equipment 

that will reasonably demonstrate the percentage refrigerant 

lost when processed by that equipment. That data will be supplied 

to any person required to evaluate the performance of those 

systems. The following procedure will also be modified as needed 

to determine the weight of refrigerant recovered from a test 

stand and delivered to a container for shipment to the large 

process equipment for further processing. The percentage loss 

documented to occur during processing is then to be applied 

to the recovery efficiencies calculated in this modified procedure 

to determine the overall capture efficiency for the entire system.

 The following are definitions of symbols used in the test 

procedure.

Test Stand:

 "TSO" means an original test stand weight.

 "TSC" means a charged test stand weight.

Shipping Containers:

 "SCO" means the original or empty weight of shipping container(s).

 "SCF" means the final or full weight of shipping container(s).

Recover/Transfer System:

 "RSO" means the original weight of a recovery/transfer system.

 "RSF" means the final weight of a recovery/transfer system.

 "OL" means the net amount of oil added/removed from the recovery 

 device and/or transfer device between the beginning and 

 end of the test for one compressor scenario.

Weighing steps are conducted with precision and accuracy of 

 plus or minus 1.0 gram.

III. Test Procedure

 1. Evacuate the test stand to 20 microns vacuum (pressure 

measured at a vacuum pump) for 12 hours.

 2. Weigh the test stand (TSO).

 3. If this is the first recovery operation being performed 

for a compressor scenario (or if a recovery efficiency is to 

be calculated for each recovery event), then weigh all devices 

used in the recovery system to deliver recovered refrigerant 

to a container suitable for shipment or delivery to a refrigerant 

reclaimer. Weigh only devices that can retain refrigerant in 

a manner that it will ultimately be transferred to a shipping 

container without significant release to the atmosphere (RSO).

 4. Weigh final shipping containers (SCO).

 5. Charge the test stand with an appropriate CFC-12 charge 

(either 6 oz. or 9 oz.).

 6. Run the test stand for four (4) hours with 100% run time.

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 141 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 7. Turn off the test stand for twelve (12) hours. During 

this period evaporate all condensation that has collected on 

the test stand during step 6.

 8. Weigh the test stand (TSC).

 9. Recover CFC-12 from the test stand and perform all operations 

needed to transfer the recovered refrigerant to one of the shipping 

containers weighed in step 4. All recovery and transfer operations 

are to be performed in accordance with the operating instructions 

provided by the system's vendor. The compressor in the test 

stand is to remain "off" or be turned "on" during the recovery 

operation depending on whether the test is for a nonworking 

or working compressor performance evaluation. If a recovery 

efficiency is to be calculated for each recovery event, transfer 

the captured refrigerant to a shipping container and then skip 

to step 13. Otherwise continue. If the system allows for multiple 

recovery operations to be performed before transferring recovered 

refrigerant to a shipping container, the transfer operation 

can be delayed until either the maximum number of recovery operations 

allowed before a transfer is required have been performed, or 

the last of the five (5) recovery operations has been performed.

 10. Perform any oil removal or oil addition operations needed 

to properly maintain the test stand and the devices used for 

recovery or transfer operations. Determine the net weight of 

the oil added or removed from the recovery device and/or transfer 

device. (OP1 for oil added, OP2 for oil removed).

 11. Evacuate the test stand to 20 microns vacuum for 4 hours.

 12. Return to step 2 unless five (5) recovery operations 

have been performed.

 13. Weigh all final shipping containers that received recovered 

refrigerant (SCF).

 14. Weigh the equipment weighed in step three (3) above (RSF). 

If a recovery efficiency is to be calculated for each recovery 

event, perform calculations and return to step one (1) for additional 

recoveries.

IV. Calculations

A. For Five (5) Consecutive Recoveries

 Refrigerant Recoverable equals the summation of charged test 

stand weights minus original test stand weights.

 5

 Refrigerant Recoverable = ä (TSCi - TSOi)

 i=1

 Oil Loss equals the net weight of oil added to and removed 

from the recovery device and/or transfer device.

 5

 OL = ä (OP1i - OP2i)

 i=1

 Refrigerant Recovered equals the final weight of shipping 

containers minus the initial weight of final shipping containers, 

plus final recovery system weight, minus original recovery system 

weight, plus the net value of all additions and removals of 

oil from the recovery and transfer devices.

 n

 Refrigerant Recovered = ( ä SCFi - SCOi ) + RSF - RSO - OL

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 142 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
 i=1

n=number of shipping containers used.

 Recovery Efficiency equals Refrigerant Recovered divided 

by Refrigerant Recoverable times 100%.

 Refrigerant Recovered

 Recovery Efficiency = ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ 100%

 Refrigerant Recoverable

 B. For Individual Recoveries

 Refrigerant Recoverable equals the charged test stand weight 

minus the original test stand weight.

 Refrigerant Recoverable = TSCO - TSO

 Refrigerant Recovered equals the final weight of the shipping 

container minus the initial weight of the shipping container 

plus the final weight of the recovery system minus the original 

recovery system weight.

 Refrigerant Recovered = SCF - SCO + RSF - RSO

 Recovery Efficiency equals Refrigerant Recovered divided 

by Refrigerant Recoverable times 100 percent.

 Refrigerant Recovered

 Recovery Efficiency = ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ 100%

 Refrigerant Recoverable

C. Calculation of a Statistically Significant Number of Recoveries

 Nadd = ((t*sd)/(.10*X)) 2 - N

Where:

 Nadd=the number of additional samples required to achieve 

 90% confidence.

 sd=Standard deviation, or (X/(N-1) 5)

 X=Sample average

 N=Number of samples tested

 

 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 Number of samples 3 t for 90% 

 3 confidence 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 143 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 3 

2........................................................... 3 6.814 

 3........................................................... 3 2.920 

 4........................................................... 3 2.353 

 5........................................................... 3 2.132 

 6........................................................... 3 2.015 

 7........................................................... 3 1.943 

 8........................................................... 3 1.895 

 9........................................................... 3 1.860 

10........................................................... 3 1.833 

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Procedure:

 1. Compute Nadd after completing two recoveries.

 2. If Nadd>0, then run an additional test.

 3. Re-compute Nadd. Continue to test additional 

 samples until Nadd<0.

V. Test Procedure Approval and Certification

 Each vendor of capture equipment for small appliances desiring 

certification will provide a representative model of its capture 

system and its recommended recovery procedures to an EPA approved 

third party laboratory for testing in accordance with this procedure. 

The third party laboratory will certify recovery systems that 

when tested in accordance with this procedure demonstrate a 

sufficient recovery efficiency to meet EPA regulatory requirements.

Appendix D to Subpart F-Standards for Becoming a Certifying 

Program for Technicians

Standards for Certifying Programs 

a. Test Preparation 

 Certification for Type II, Type III and Universal technicians 

will be dependent upon passage of a closed-book, proctored test, 

administered in a secure environment, by an EPA-approved certifying 

program. 

 Certification for Type I technicians will be dependent upon 

passage of an EPA-approved test, provided by an EPA-approved 

certifying program. Organizations providing Type I certification 

only, may chose either an on-site format, or a mail-in format, 

similar to what is permitted under the MVACs program. 

 Each certifying program must assemble tests by choosing a 

prescribed subset from the EPA test bank. EPA expects to have 

a test bank with a minimum of 500 questions, which will enable 

the certifying program to generate multiple tests in order to 

discourage cheating. Each test must include 25 questions drawn 

from Group 1 and 25 questions drawn from each relevant technical 

Group. Tests for Universal technicians will include 100 questions 

(25 from Group 1 and 25 from each relevant technical Group). 

Each 50-question test represents 10 percent of the total test 

bank. Questions should be divided in order to sufficiently cover 

each topic within the Group. 

 Each certifying program must show a method of randomly choosing 

which questions will be on the tests. Multiple versions of the 

test must be used during each testing event. Test answer sheets 

or (for those testing via the computer medium) computer files 

must include the name and address of the applicant, the name 

and address of the certifying program, and the date and location 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 144 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
at which the test was administered. 

 Training material accompanying mail-in Type I tests must 

not include sample test questions mimicking the language of 

the certification test. All mail-in material will be subject 

to review by EPA. 

 Certifying programs may charge individuals reasonable fees 

for the administration of the tests. EPA will publish a list 

of all approved certifying programs periodically, including 

the fees charged by the programs. This information will be available 

from the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline. 

b. Proctoring 

 A certifying program for Type II, Type III and Universal 

technicians must designate or arrange for the designation of 

at least one proctor registered for each testing event. If more 

than 50 people are taking tests at the same time at a given 

site, the certifying organization must adhere to normal testing 

procedures, by designating at least one additional proctor or 

monitor for every 50 people taking tests at that site. 

 The certification test for Type II, Type III and Universal 

technicians is a closed-book exam. The proctors must ensure 

that the applicants for certification do not use any notes or 

training materials during testing. Desks or work space must 

be placed in a way that discourages cheating. The space and 

physical facilities are to be conducive to continuous surveillance 

by the proctors and monitors during testing. 

 The proctor may not receive any benefit from the outcome 

of the testing other than a fee for proctoring. Proctors cannot 

know in advance which questions are on the tests they are proctoring. 

 Proctors are required to verify the identity of individuals 

taking the test by examining photo identification. Acceptable 

forms of identification include but are not limited to drivers' 

licenses, government identification cards, passports, and military 

identification. 

 Certifying programs for Type I technicians using the mailin format, must take sufficient measures at the test site to 

ensure that tests are completed honestly by each technician. 

Each test for Type I certification must provide a means of verifying 

the identification of the individual taking the test. Acceptable 

forms of identification include but are not limited to drivers' 

licenses numbers, social security numbers, and passport numbers. 

c. Test Security 

 A certifying program must demonstrate the ability to ensure 

the confidentiality and security of the test questions and answer 

keys through strict accountability procedures. An organization 

interested in developing a technician certification program 

will be required to describe these test security procedures 

to EPA. 

 After the completion of a test, proctors must collect all 

test forms, answer sheets, scratch paper and notes. These items 

are to be placed in a sealed envelope. 

d. Test Content 

 All technician certification tests will include 25 questions 

from Group I. Group I will ask questions in the following areas: 

I. Environmental impact of CFCs and HCFCs 

II. Laws and regulations 

III. Changing industry outlook 

 Type I, Type II and Type III certification tests will include 

25 questions from Group II. Group II will ask questions covering 

sector-specific issues in the following areas: 

IV. Leak detection 

V. Recovery Techniques 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 145 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
VI. Safety 

VII. Shipping 

VII. Disposal 

 Universal Certification will include 75 questions from Group 

II, with 25 from each of the three sector-specific areas. 

e. Grading 

 Tests must be graded objectively. Certifying programs must 

inform the applicant of their test results no later than 30 

days from the date of the test. Type I certifying programs using 

the mail-in format, must notify the applicants of their test 

results no later than 30 days from the date the certifying programs 

received the completed test and any required documentation. 

Certifying programs may mail or hand deliver the results. 

 The passing score for the closed-book Type I, Type II, Type 

III and Universal certification test is 70 percent. For Type 

I certification tests using the mail-in format, passing score 

is 84 percent. 

f. Proof of Certification 

 Certifying programs must issue a standard wallet-sized identification 

card no later than 30 days from the date of the test. Type I 

certifying programs using mail-in formats must issue cards to 

certified technicians no later than 30 days from the date the 

certifying program receives the completed test and any required 

documentation. 

 Each wallet-sized identification card must include, at a 

minimum, the name of the certifying program including the date 

the certifying program received EPA approval, the name of the 

person certified, the type of certification, a unique number 

for the certified person and the following text: 

 [name of person] has been certified as [Type I, Type II, 

Type III and/or Universal-as appropriate] technician as required 

by 40 CFR part 82, subpart F. 

g. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 

 Certifying programs must maintain records for at least three 

years which include but are not limited to the names and addresses 

of all individuals taking the tests, the scores of all certification 

tests administered, and the dates and locations of all tests 

administered. 

 Certifying programs must send EPA an activity report every 

six months, the first to be submitted six months following approval 

of the program by EPA. This report will include the pass/fail 

rate and testing schedules. This will allow the Agency to determine 

the relative progress and success of these programs. If the 

certifying program believes a test bank question needs to be 

modified, information about that question should also be included. 

 Approved certifying programs will receive a letter of approval 

from EPA. Each testing center must display a copy of that letter. 

h. Additional Requirements 

 EPA will periodically inspect testing sites to ensure compliance 

with EPA regulations. If testing center discrepancies are found, 

they must be corrected within a specified time period. If discrepancies 

are not corrected, EPA may suspend or revoke the certifying 

programs's approval. The inspections will include but are not 

limited to a review of the certifying programs' provisions for 

test security, the availability of space and facilities to conduct 

the administrative requirements and ensure the security of the 

tests, the availability of adequate testing facilities and spacing 

of the applicants during testing, a review of the proper procedures 

regarding accountability, and that there is no evidence of misconduct 

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 146 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005
on the part of the certifying programs, their representatives 

and proctors, or the applicants for certification. 

 If the certifying programs offer training or provide review 

materials to the applicants, these endeavors are to be considered 

completely separate from the administration of the certification 

test. 

i. Approval Process 

 EPA anticipates receiving a large number of applications 

from organizations seeking to become certifying programs. In 

order to certify as many technicians as possible in a reasonable 

amount of time, EPA will give priority to national programs. 

Below are the guidelines EPA will use: 

 First: Certifying programs providing at least 25 testing 

centers with a minimum of one site in at least 8 different states 

will be considered. 

 Second: Certifying programs forming regional networks with 

a minimum of 10 testing centers will be considered. 

 Third: Certifying programs providing testing centers in geographically 

isolated areas not sufficiently covered by the national or regional 

programs will be considered. 

 Fourth: All other programs applying for EPA approval will 

be considered. 

 Sample application forms may be obtained by contacting the 

Stratopheric Ozone Hotline at 1-800-296-1996. 

j. Grandfathering 

 EPA will grandfather technicians whose programs seek and 

receive EPA approval as a certifying program. As part of this 

process, these certifying programs may be required to send EPAapproved supplemental information or provide additional testing 

to ensure the level of the technicians' knowledge. The certifying 

programs will also issue new identification cards meeting the 

requirements specified above. 

 Persons who are currently technicians must be certified by 

November 14, 1994. Technicians that participated in certification 

programs which do not become EPA-approved certifying programs 

must either receive EPA-approved supplemental information from 

the original testing organization or be certified by taking 

a test given by an EPA-approved certification organization by 

November 14, 1994.

k. Sample Application 

 EPA has provided a sample application. The Agency designed 

the application to demonstrate the information certifying programs 

must provide to EPA. Programs are not required to use this form 

or this format. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the control 

number 2060-0256) 

[FR Doc. 93-10832 Filed 5-13-93; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Ozone Home | Ozone Science | Rules & Regulations | Alternatives

EPA Home | Privacy and Security Notice | Contact Us

Last updated on Friday, March 25th, 2005

URL: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html

U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule Page 147 of 147

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 10/14/2005