Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

24468

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 86 / Thursday, May 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
proposed rule 85 FR 35886, June 12, 2020, EPA indicated it would take advance comments on the possibility of proposing, in a separate rule, training and service requirements, and we thank the industry for their advance comments. We will take these comments into consideration to determine whether we should propose such a rule on training or undertake other future action. We note that certain safety requirements for refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment are already included in 40 CFR part 82, subpart F, under EPAs Refrigerant Management Program. We also indicated in our proposal, as we did in previous rules finding flammable refrigerants acceptable subject to use conditions e.g. 76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19454, April 10, 2015, that industry may be better suited than EPA to develop appropriate training, and we see that this development has already started across multiple fronts.
Comment: AHRI strongly supports incorporation of new refrigerant and requirements regarding A2L refrigerants into existing certification requirements. The Alliance likewise supported this position asking EPA to update the training and certification framework. Rheem encourages EPA to incorporate group A2L and group A3
refrigerants into any requirements for training and certification that currently exist for group A1 refrigerants.
emphasis in original. EIA
recommended that EPA mandate training and servicing requirements for all flammable refrigerants holding that in addition to putting consumers at risk, not mandating such training would create confusion for contractors if EPA
has different rules and standards for different refrigerants.
Response: Although AHRI and Rheem did not indicate which existing training and certification requirements to which they were referring, we believe it would include the existing technician certification required under regulations implementing section 608 of the Clean Air Act. EPA has incorporated information on flammable refrigerants into the question bank for tests for such certification, which is required to service equipment that contains the refrigerants covered by this rulemaking, and has standards in place for refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment used with such refrigerants.
As we consider these advance comments, we note that EPAs 608 test bank already includes questions concerning A2L refrigerants and the appliances covered by this rule, and EPA continues to review the test bank and can consider adding additional
VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:29 May 05, 2021

Jkt 253001

questions in the future if appropriate.
As noted above, EPA will consider these advance comments as we determine what, if any, additional actions we might take, including considering issuing a proposed rulemaking addressing the possibility of mandating certain additional training requirements.
Comment: In their support of a separate rulemaking to update training and certification requirements for A2L
refrigerants, Carrier suggested that a rulemaking provide training and service requirements for anyone purchasing A2L refrigerants or servicing equipment containing A2L refrigerants, noting that Australia and Japan have credited such requirements in their successful adoption of such refrigerants.
Johnson Controls recommended a licensing system, delivered by trade schools and accredited by established contractor trade organizations, for handling A2L refrigerants. They emphasized the need for hands-on training, including demonstration of skills as it relates to the brazing, evacuating, charging, handling, storage, transportation, etc. of mildly flammable, A2L refrigerants.
Response: EPA acknowledges the suggestion of undertaking a rulemaking to provide training and service requirements for technicians and the suggestion that it cover those purchasing A2L refrigerants and servicing equipment containing them.
Likewise, we acknowledge Johnson Controls recommendations of hands-on training and the topics suggested to be included in a licensing training curriculum. As noted above, EPA is taking these advance comments into consideration for possible future industry engagement and possible rulemaking or other future action.
Comment: EIA commented that industry has an aging and diminishing workforce that need to be retrained. In addition to flammability, they opined the training needs to cover other safety aspects including health and environmental aspects of venting and accidental release. They also stated that there is significant confusion and lack of clarity when it comes to applicability of the venting prohibition itself, which still applies to the maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of equipment containing HFCs. They noted that the workforce needs to be provided basic awareness and education of refrigerant lifecycle and impacts at different stages while also noting that such education and training already exists. EIA offered suggestions on how the training program they support could be managed, such as allowing a certain
PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

grace period for servicing companies to bring technicians into compliance before such training becomes mandatory. They noted EPA could partner with the Department of Labor to support the transition to low-GWP
alternatives, particularly to small businesses and women or minority owned companies, possibly complementary to apprenticeship programs under the Workforce Opportunity and Innovation Act.
Response: EPA appreciates EIAs concern with respect to technicians handling of refrigerants. We further note that EPAs current CAA section 608
technician certification test bank includes questions concerning topics such as environmental impacts, laws and regulations including the venting prohibition and its applicability, safety, flammable refrigerants, and safe disposal. Under the current regulations, EPA can make changes to the test bank.
EPA observes that while our proposed rulemaking took advance comment on the possibility of proposing training and service requirements for certain flammable refrigerants through a separate rulemaking, we neither proposed to create a complementary technician training and certification program in the current rulemaking, nor did we propose to modify our existing CAA 608 technician certification program in the current rulemaking. We appreciate EIAs suggestions and as noted above we will take these comments into consideration in determining whether to propose a rule or undertake other future action on such training or service requirements.
Comment: Honeywell stated that any transition to A2L refrigerants should also be accompanied by a comprehensive training program covering the installation and maintenance of equipment containing A2L refrigerants. They held that such a training program should be established, through rulemaking, by EPA before finalization of this rule. Others, including manufacturers intending to use these A2L refrigerants in their equipment, disagreed. For instance, Carrier said they see no reason to delay this rulemaking in order to initiate a separate rulemaking on training and certification for A2L refrigerants. Daikin also supported EPAs approach of not proposing specific training or service practices at this time, stating that manufacturers using A2L refrigerants provide training to their service personnel.
Response: After considering these comments, we agree with the comments that it is not necessary to delay this rulemaking to undertake separate action
E:FRFM06MYR2.SGM

06MYR2