AHJ rejecting listed equipment

AHJ rejecting listed equipment

  • The AHJ can reject listed equipment.

    Votes: 35 67.3%

  • The AHJ can not reject equipment that is listed.

    Votes: 17 32.7%
  • Total voters
    52
Status
Not open for further replies.
LarryFine said:
It is (or should be) just as illegal to fail a compliant installation as pass a non-compliant one.
Click to expand...

The AHJ can do that also. 90.4 "By special permission the (AHJ) may waive specific requirements in this code or permit alternative methods..."

Lets be honest the AHJ can allow anything or not allow anything he chooses.

LarryFine said:
I'd also ask the inspector what we would recommend as an acceptable alternative to his "request" to not rely on reducing washers for continuity in your case, just to humor him.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear this was just a hypothetical but Mike H did say the alternative would be you would have to pull an EGC in whatever conduit landed in the reducing bushing. The bond from raceway-to-reducing bushing-to-cabinet is insufficient.
 
cowboyjwc said:
".....and installed in accordance with...."

I have turned down listed equipment, and remember just because it has a sticker doesn't mean it's listed, signs for instance, and when the testing lab came out they did everything but take away the guys rolls of stickers.

.
Click to expand...

I agree signs are probably the most abused of anything that is UL listed. As you say many sign makers have UL stickers and if not checked take advantage . As a whole UL listed materials and equipment are better left alone. The testing process that UL and most third party listers use is well beyond the capabilities of any AHJ. Thats not to say that other manufactures don't have a roll of stickers as well and have to be looked at.
 
Twoskinsoneman said:
Just to be clear this was just a hypothetical but Mike H did say the alternative would be you would have to pull an EGC in whatever conduit landed in the reducing bushing. The bond from raceway-to-reducing bushing-to-cabinet is insufficient.
Click to expand...
What would be wrong with just using a bonding bushing?
 
How do we change out vote ? I will admit it allows the ahj (may not be the inspector) to say no to it but i believe it would call for as an amendment and not simply up to an inspectors mood on a monday morning after his wife and dog left him.
 
It seems that most people agree that the wording of the code allows the AHJ to reject in this scenario and that the Inspector is not the AHJ, but a representative.

My question (especially to the inspectors) is, has the AHJ delegated this authority to you for the jobs that you inspect?
 
SEO said:
I agree signs are probably the most abused of anything that is UL listed. As you say many sign makers have UL stickers and if not checked take advantage . As a whole UL listed materials and equipment are better left alone. The testing process that UL and most third party listers use is well beyond the capabilities of any AHJ. Thats not to say that other manufactures don't have a roll of stickers as well and have to be looked at.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said. If I see any testing lab any more (TUV, Metlabs, ETL, whatever) I'm usually good.

There's more to the story about the sign.

It was installed by a company the I am familer with, when I went out for the inspection there were no UL labels on the sign, so they called the next day and lo and behold, UL labels. The problem is that UL labels cannot be installed in the field with out a UL rep present, so they called the UL rep out and the plastic was to thin and they weren't using the right grade of metal for the letters and all kinds of other things. He was not very happy with them and spent several days at their shop.
 
LarryFine said:
I concede, and voted, that the AHJ may reject, but add that it's not usually the inspector; it's whoever or whatever the locality's laws say it is.

It's incumbent upon us to climb the food chain when necessary, if we disagree with an inpectors call. It is (or should be) just as illegal to fail a compliant installation as pass a non-compliant one.

I'd also ask the inspector what we would recommend as an acceptable alternative to his "request" to not rely on reducing washers for continuity in your case, just to humor him.
Click to expand...

LarryFine said:
What would be wrong with just using a bonding bushing?
Click to expand...


They didn't expore all possibilities it may be fine. Or the inspector may have a personal "feeling" that the bonding bushing isn't good enough though it may be listed...:grin:
 
cowboyjwc said:
I agree with everything you said. If I see any testing lab any more (TUV, Metlabs, ETL, whatever) I'm usually good.

There's more to the story about the sign.

It was installed by a company the I am familer with, when I went out for the inspection there were no UL labels on the sign, so they called the next day and lo and behold, UL labels. The problem is that UL labels cannot be installed in the field with out a UL rep present, so they called the UL rep out and the plastic was to thin and they weren't using the right grade of metal for the letters and all kinds of other things. He was not very happy with them and spent several days at their shop.
Click to expand...

Field listing is usually very expensive, but sometimes it's the ony thing that can be done.
 
I think that a lot of posters on this thread are assuming that the listing agency is from the US. I see equipment that is listed in other countries. Now if a product has a forged UL sticker on it from China is an AHJ supposed to approve it, I don't think so. Europe and Canada have testing agencies their standards are different than ours. (could be better). I don't think that when an AHJ uses their authority to dissaprove a listed product it's a personal thing it's a matter of concern for the installer and consumer. Somebody has to make the determination of what is approved. Per section 110.2, 90.7, 110.3 and definition of approved it looks like the AHJ. The AHJ excepts a lot of responsibility when they either approve or dissaprove a product. Usually inspectors are not the AHJ they are an agent of the AHJ and can act on behalf of the AHJ. If the AHJ did not have the authority to approve listed equipment who would?
 
I was told by an environmental guy, that the standard in the US for asbestos is less than one percent. He said that canada was different... 5 percent, i think. China was even less restrictive. So, certified asbestos-free from canada can be up to 5 times more hazardaous than here.

I imagine that there will be a comparable issue within the listings for electrical equipment
 
SEO said:
I think that a lot of posters on this thread are assuming that the listing agency is from the US. I see equipment that is listed in other countries. Now if a product has a forged UL sticker on it from China is an AHJ supposed to approve it, I don't think so. Europe and Canada have testing agencies their standards are different than ours. (could be better). I don't think that when an AHJ uses their authority to dissaprove a listed product it's a personal thing it's a matter of concern for the installer and consumer. Somebody has to make the determination of what is approved. Per section 110.2, 90.7, 110.3 and definition of approved it looks like the AHJ. The AHJ excepts a lot of responsibility when they either approve or dissaprove a product. Usually inspectors are not the AHJ they are an agent of the AHJ and can act on behalf of the AHJ. If the AHJ did not have the authority to approve listed equipment who would?
Click to expand...

It is pretty clear that the Federal Government had issued a list of NRTL's(Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories) with the caviat that the listing by those Laboratories are only valid if and when it is US specific. I think that tha AHJ overstepping its authority if it is to approve a label that is not recognized based on US standards. He can still approve the equipment to be safe, but the burden of proof that it is so will be fully the AHJ's responsibility.

I would think that the AHJ would need to have specifically written rules for this, otherwise it can be consdiered an arbotrary decision open for legal challange.
 
I agree but somebody has to be the policeman to check for a valid listing. And who else other than the AHJ they are the last one to look at the equipment. Listed equipment is often times altered in the field and now the listing could be voided. Should it be approved?
 
SEO said:
I agree but somebody has to be the policeman to check for a valid listing. And who else other than the AHJ they are the last one to look at the equipment. Listed equipment is often times altered in the field and now the listing could be voided. Should it be approved?
Click to expand...

Modifications without the listing agency's review should void the listing. There is no standardized method available for the AHJ to validate the modification.
 
SEO said:
I think that a lot of posters on this thread are assuming that the listing agency is from the US. I see equipment that is listed in other countries. Now if a product has a forged UL sticker on it from China is an AHJ supposed to approve it, I don't think so.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Let's amend the premise and say we agree that the product must genuinely be UL listed, and not just bear a fake sticker.

Now what?

Who's the field authority that authenticates UL stickers for every job? How does the contractor who intends to comply avoid the fake UL stickers?

I don't think that when an AHJ uses their authority to dissaprove a listed product it's a personal thing it's a matter of concern for the installer and consumer.
Click to expand...
Okay, that's a fair generalization, too, but how do we enforce non-personal-bias in inspecting? And nobody questions their motivation, just their authority.

Somebody has to make the determination of what is approved. Per section 110.2, 90.7, 110.3 and definition of approved it looks like the AHJ. The AHJ excepts a lot of responsibility when they either approve or dissaprove a product. Usually inspectors are not the AHJ they are an agent of the AHJ and can act on behalf of the AHJ. If the AHJ did not have the authority to approve listed equipment who would?
Click to expand...
Even then, there should be a concensus among the bodies that make up the body that is the AHJ, and not a whim of one person. There can't be that many new situations popping up.

Certainly, the question of bonding through reducing washers isn't a new one. If an inspector can't cite a code section for a rejection, he should be able to cite a discussion-derived decision.
 
I don't know if it's good or bad Larry but it seems like you look at things sort of like I do, at least in this last post. :grin:
 
Last edited:
LarryFine said:
Fair enough. Let's amend the premise and say we agree that the product must genuinely be UL listed, and not just bear a fake sticker.

Now what?

Who's the field authority that authenticates UL stickers for every job? How does the contractor who intends to comply avoid the fake UL stickers?.
Click to expand...

That should be Customs and Commerce's responsibility to assure that no counterfeight product enters the US. That WOULD be a useful activity. Ul has a list of Companies and specific products and C&C should authenticate the shipment's origin. Random sampling of the product should complete the verification process.

LarryFine said:
Okay, that's a fair generalization, too, but how do we enforce non-personal-bias in inspecting? And nobody questions their motivation, just their authority.

Even then, there should be a concensus among the bodies that make up the body that is the AHJ, and not a whim of one person. There can't be that many new situations popping up.

Certainly, the question of bonding through reducing washers isn't a new one. If an inspector can't cite a code section for a rejection, he should be able to cite a discussion-derived decision.
Click to expand...

Both authority AND motivation should be fair game. No ruling should be made without documented backup either existing in Code sections or specific prior ruling that published and sent to all licensed Contractor in the State. Individual inspectros should and do not have the authority to make rulings up as they go. They are NOT rule-makers, but enforcers of existing Code.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top