Well, the EPA says that appliances under section 609 are not subject to section's 608 servicing requirements. And section 609 clearly states it applies to people doing commerce.
ASE material doesn't apply here because it's also commerce.
Not sure who is right in this case, but it's definitely not as clear cut as you originally made it out to be.
View attachment 280318
Edit:
Here is EPA's definition of a technician in section 608, which includes owners/operators. They clearly exclude MVACs.
View attachment 280320
The law is written poorly, IMO. Perhaps there is a grey area, if so it’s funky.
Take the actual law, not synopses:
So it’s only folks working on automotive AC for money, but it’s
anyone that touches automotive type AC for other equipment? So Farmer Bob is a felon if he charges his combine, but not his truck? After all, the term appliance is defined in the law as:
Well that seems downright silly. In fact, it’s probably really the opposite in actual intent. Fix a combine and it’s ok, fix your car and it’s an issue. After all, the aggregate release from on-road vehicles is waaaaay higher.
Look, If you think it’s fine to just vent refrigerant to the atmosphere, that’s on you.
To me, there’s enough in the quagmire of 608/609 that indicates that the obligation is to not vent, for me to take it that one should not vent. That includes topping up known leaking systems. Doesn’t matter if you’re getting paid or not, it’s just a stupid idea. Then again, people will poop in their drinking water if it’s convenient, or they think they’re spiting folks they don’t like…
And it’s not to mention that if you have a broken system, best practice is to actually fix it if you intend to use it…