"Greg O" wrote in message
...

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...

Read it and weep!

Weep? You make this sound like this is an argument, I thought we
were
just digging for the facts.

Don't get your panties in a knot, I am just screwing with you!

Go to page 19, end of the page, starting section F Sales Restriction.
There
it clearly states that is is illegal for anyone to possess refrigerant
without certification in containers less than 20 lbs.. Later the paragragh
mentions that the rules where changed again to include any size container.

Another poster cannot find any prohibition to possession, I haven't
looked.


AND,

The section you mention,
82.34,(a)No person repairing or servicing MVACs for consideration, and no
person repairing or servicing MVAC like appliances, may perform any
service
involving the refrigerant for such MVAC or MVAC like appliance:

If you are NOT a "person repairing or servicing MVACs for
consideration" or a "person repairing or servicing MVAC like appliances",
then (1) and (2) below do not apply.



(1) Without properly using equipment approved pursuant to 82.36;

(2) Unless any such person repairing or servicing an MVAC has been
properly
trained and CERTIFIED by a technician certification program approved by
the
administrator pursuant to 82.40;
Blah, blah, blah......

In 82.34(a), I do not have a clue why they insist on including the term
consideration, it clearly requires everyone to be certified if they are
working on MVAC, (motor vehicle air conditioning), or MVAC-like
appliances.
Notice they do not say technician, they state person.

It says what it says and I don't find it particularly confusing unless
you are trying to get it to say something that it doesn't say.

Pretty clear to me, you need to be certified.

That is not clear to me. If you are NOT a "person repairing or
servicing MVACs for consideration" and you are NOT a "person repairing or
servicing MVAC like appliances", then 82.34,(a) clearly does not apply,
(perhaps something ELSE applies, but I haven't found it yet.)

Although this government lawyer legalese language can be confusing!!

True enough, I am a commercial pilot so I am pretty used to reading
through this crap, not to mention having studied Administrative Law in grad.
school and I do not (yet) agree with your take on this. Also, this
conversation is almost moot because getting certified is such a trivial
excercise (a few $ and one night on the Internet) that the EPA license is
meaningless.

Regards;
Vaughn

If someone goes as far as to
take the test for 608, or 609 this is all covered. It is too bad that the
EPA can not simplify it so the basics are covered and if more info is
needed
THEN you can read through all the BS!
Greg