Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Refrigerant Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Manufacturers and safety officials urge SBCC to reject IEC/efficiency‑list alternate pathways for flammable refrigerants
Summary
A broad coalition of industry, standards and fire safety witnesses urged the council to reject proposals that would accept IEC 60335‑2‑40 or energy‑efficiency lists as alternate certification paths for equipment using highly flammable refrigerants, citing conflicts with UL60335‑2‑40, ASHRAE standards and EPA SNAP listings.
A string of industry groups, certification experts and public‑safety witnesses told the State Building Code Council they oppose proposals to allow an IEC standard or energy‑efficiency program listings as an alternate compliance pathway for HVACR equipment that uses highly flammable refrigerants (A3/B3).
Vikas Mehta of Chemars Company argued the IEC path (IEC 60335‑2‑40) would undercut the U.S. safety baseline established by UL60335‑2‑40 and EPA SNAP, and "risks misalignment with federal requirements and confusion about compliance." Tom Deary of AHRI said UL60335‑2‑40 includes important North American deviations (charge limits and other technical measures) and that allowing IEC references would conflict with ASHRAE 15/15.2 and the SNAP program.
Multiple industry witnesses—Zac Johnson (Hardy), Jay Peters (Codes and Standards International), Clint Reese (AAON), Ruben Grijalva (former California State Fire Marshal) and Carolyn Logue (Washington Air Conditioning Contractors Association)—told the council accepting CE/IEC certification or NEEA (energy‑efficiency) lists in place of U.S. NRTL/UL certification would create enforcement confusion, fragment the market, increase training burdens for inspectors and first responders, and could enable broader deployment of highly flammable A3 refrigerants before workforce readiness and national consensus are in place.
"A product appearing on an efficiency‑related list should not be treated equivalent to listing and labeling by a nationally recognized testing laboratory," Ruben Grijalva said, adding that such a pathway could expose installers, inspectors and firefighters to unresolved safety risks.
Opponents requested SBCC retain alignment with UL60335‑2‑40, ASHRAE 15/15.2 and EPA SNAP and reject Proposals 24GP112 and 24GP113 (and related revisions). The council did not take a vote at the hearing; the record remains open.
