德國的空調(diào)和制冷業(yè)質(zhì)疑政府的新提案，反對在現(xiàn)行法規(guī)尚未執(zhí)行的情況下打擊F-gas的非法貿(mào)易。

The German air conditioning and refrigeration industry has questioned new government proposals to combat the illegal trade in F-gases at a time when current legislation is not being enforced.

聯(lián)邦環(huán)境、自然保護與核安全部（BMU）已對德國《化學(xué)法》提出了一項修正案，該修正案將引入附加要求，以追蹤供應(yīng)和使用鏈中的制冷劑。

The Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) has presented an amendment to Germany’s Chemicals Act which would introduce additional requirements to track refrigerants along the supply and use chain.

這將強制要求對每次制冷劑的購買和銷售進行記錄和聲明。

This would make it mandatory for every purchase and sale of refrigerants to be documented and declared.?

聯(lián)邦德國制冷設(shè)備制造商協(xié)會（BIV），德國制冷和空調(diào)專家協(xié)會（VDKF）以及中央空調(diào)和冷氣熱泵協(xié)會（ZVKKW）認為，這除了不切實際之外，還會造成官方正努力執(zhí)行當(dāng)前的F-gas法規(guī)時，出現(xiàn)相當(dāng)多的官僚主義。

The Federal Association of German Refrigeration Plant Builders (BIV), the Association of German Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Specialists (VDKF) and the Central Association of Cold and Air Conditioning Heat Pumps (ZVKKW) argue that, in addition to being impractical, this would create considerable additional bureaucracy at a time when the authorities are struggling to implement the current F-gas regulations.?

這些團體還堅持認為新法規(guī)會影響德國制造商的競爭力，并擔(dān)心這可能導(dǎo)致在全國范圍內(nèi)全面禁止含氟氣體（F-gas)或?qū)⑺麄兿拗圃贔-gas法規(guī)之外。

The groups also insist that the new legislation risks impacting the competitiveness of German manufacturers and are concerned that it creates the possibility of generally banning F-gases nationally or restricting them beyond the F-gas ordinance.

行政負擔(dān)

Bureaucratic burden

要求制冷和空調(diào)公司向客戶提供制冷劑來源的書面或電子憑證會大大增加官僚主義，特別是對于那些已經(jīng)負擔(dān)過多行政程序和法規(guī)的小型公司而言。

The requirement for refrigeration and air conditioning companies to provide customers with written or electronic evidence of the origin of the refrigerant will significantly increase bureaucracy, especially for smaller companies who, it is argued, are already over-burdened with administrative procedures and regulations.

這些團體還比較關(guān)注的是，該法律草案并未明確說明如何根據(jù)聲明清楚地識別制冷劑瓶。

The groups are also concerned that the draft law does not make it clear how the refrigerant cylinder can be clearly identified in relation to the declaration.

他們認為，制冷劑鋼瓶上的識別號與發(fā)票或交貨單并未有所關(guān)聯(lián)，只有壓紋可以清楚地識別出鋼瓶的所有者。

The identification numbers on the refrigerant cylinders are not linked to the invoice or delivery notes and only the owner of the cylinder can be clearly identified by the embossing, they argue.?

這些團體在對BMU的回應(yīng)中表示：“這意味著必須通過其商品管理系統(tǒng)中的交貨或發(fā)票文件將瓶子追溯到批發(fā)商。尚不清楚該瓶的當(dāng)前含量如何追溯到配額以及最初的配額持有人首次將制冷劑投放到歐盟市場的年份?！?/span>

“This means that the bottle must be traced back to the wholesalers via the delivery or invoice document in their merchandise management system.?It is not clear how the current content of the bottle can be traced back with the quota and the year in which the original quota holder first placed the refrigerant on the EU market,” the groups say in a response to the BMU.

執(zhí)法

Enforcement

盡管他們認識到計劃中的程序旨在使當(dāng)局能夠在將來更好地跟蹤供應(yīng)和使用鏈，但目前并未強制規(guī)定要求制冷劑購買者擁有必要的F-gas認證的現(xiàn)行法規(guī)。

While they recognise that the planned procedures are intended to enable the authorities to better track the supply and use chains in the future, current regulations requiring refrigerant purchasers to possess the necessary F-gas certification are not being enforced.

他們爭辯說：“像往常一樣，在線冷媒貿(mào)易活躍，而沒有檢查貿(mào)易伙伴的專門方式，向私人終端用戶出售的預(yù)充式拆分設(shè)備也是類似情況。安裝是否由有資歷的公司來執(zhí)行，也沒有任何監(jiān)管?！?/span>

“There is – as before – a lively online trade in refrigerants, without the specialist knowledge of the trading partners being checked,” they argue. “The same applies to the sale of pre-filled split devices to private end users.?As a rule, there is no check as to whether the installation was actually carried out by a certified company.?

“如果現(xiàn)行法規(guī)已經(jīng)使得貿(mào)易監(jiān)督管理機構(gòu)過載，那么沒有理由希望在執(zhí)行和批準(zhǔn)目前提議的舉證義務(wù)方面，情況會有所改變。”

If the trade supervisory and control authorities already seem overwhelmed with the enforcement of the existing regulations, then there is little reason to hope that this will change with regard to the enforcement and sanctioning of the now proposed obligation to provide evidence.”