AHJ rejecting listed equipment

[Twoskinsoneman]

Was watching "Mike Holt's 2008 Understanding The Electrical Code" and he made a statement that I want to see who agrees with him. He says that 110.2 gives the AHJ the right to reject a listed item because he personally disagrees with the listing.
His example was reducing bushings. Reducing bushings are listed. The listing allows them to be used as an EGC connection. However he said if he was the AHJ he would reject them being used in this manner because he doesn't personally approve of them being used in that way.

Do you agree with Mike?

 

[resistance]

Many AHJ's don't approve of specific products (or codes), so they can ban them from their jurisdiction. If a product they do not approve of happens to be installed, then they can reject it. I guess my question would be: How do you define AHJ

 

[charlie b]

The words, as written, back up Mike's claim. In addition, the FPN under 110.2 reminds us to check the definition of "approved," and to read 90.7. Neither of these contradict Mike's claim.

 

[daleuger]

I'm not an inspector....just been observing them for a day or two now. I thought their job was to enforce code not what they like/don't like. I don't like to see joints in panels or untaped receptacles. Would I red tag you for it? Probably not.

 

[resistance]

I'm not an inspector....just been observing them for a day or two now. I thought their job was to enforce code not what they like/don't like. I don't like to see joints in panels or untaped receptacles. Would I red tag you for it? Probably not.

If the state has rules on specific (listed) products they do not approve of--because the product doesn't meet their safety standards---then the inspector can reject the listed product.

Same thing with code.

 

[daleuger]

If the state has rules on specific (listed) products they do not approve of--because the product doesn't meet their safety standards---then the inspector can reject the listed product.

Same thing with code.

That's true. According to a survey conducted on this very forum the other day some places are still on 2002 and farther back and apparently.....they vary by state.....some even by city apparently, and some don't even know what a code book is for other than a good door stop or paper weight.

I think I remember somebody telling me once that how dumb you are depends on where you're standing.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Time and time again you read about how inspectors are supposed to interpret the code not make up there own code and yet... According to popular opinion an inspector can basically reject anything based on this code.

It's funny a while ago I heard Mike Holt talk about inspectors that say "show me in the Code where such and such an installation is allowed" being out of line. But an inspector can say you can't use this listed equipment because I say so?

WTF?

IMO it's worst that making a rule up... they are not allowing something that is CLEARLY defined by the Code as ok.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

If the state has rules on specific (listed) products they do not approve of--because the product doesn't meet their safety standards---then the inspector can reject the listed product.

Same thing with code.

But what about an inspector rejecting something just because he feels squirmish about it? Such is the case with Mike and his reducing bushings.

 

[charlie b]

Before this goes too much further, let me invoke Charlie's Rule. Please read 110.2, and read the article 100 definition of "approved," and tell me what you think THOSE WORDS mean. We can come back to what anyone thinks is just plain wrong, and whether inspector should be allowed to inforce whatever they want. For now, just tell us what you think about THOSE WORDS.

 

[resistance]

But what about an inspector rejecting something just because he feels squirmish about it? Such is the case with Mike and his reducing bushings.

The inspector can be challenged based on facts listed in the National, and Local codes (Get the supervisor involved). If they don't want to hear you out, and you feel you are right--after careful research. Then you have many ways of making sure your inspector answers to the challenge.

 

[resistance]

Before this goes too much further, let me invoke Charlie's Rule. Please read 110.2, and read the article 100 definition of "approved," and tell me what you think THOSE WORDS mean. We can come back to what anyone thinks is just plain wrong, and whether inspector should be allowed to inforce whatever they want. For now, just tell us what you think about THOSE WORDS.

I was posting when Charlie b posted.

I agree with Charlie b!

 

[steve66]

I agree that the inspector can reject any listings they want.

It's a good thing. I think anyone could "list" a piece of equipment. I don't think anything says a listing has to be by UL or ETL..

Steve

 

[rbalex]

Curiously, the 110.2 FPN didn?t refer to the definition of AHJ. Much of the issue is determining who or what the AHJ is. The key is usually statutory authority and it is rarely vested in an individual although it can be. Most inspectors are actually agents for the AHJ. The AHJ definition?s FPN refers to a few other entities that usually have a vested interest in the installation.

I confess I chafe at statutory AHJs when they have undocumented requirements. I think I?m pushing 200 jurisdictions nationwide that I have worked in and not one has ever confessed to having a wacky requirement up front ? even though I asked. Those that did always waited until the installation was complete to spring it. That?s what appeals are for. Nevertheless, they have the authority (and responsibility) to reject what they believe to be unsafe.

 

[charlie b]

The City of Seattle is in the process of adopting the 2008 NEC, with its own amendments. A draft came out late yesterday. It included the following text, from their amendment of 110.2, which happens to fit nicely into this discussion:

The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this Code shall be ((DELETE acceptable)) approved only if ((DELETE approved)) the conductors or equipment meet minimum safety standards by conforming to applicable electrical product standards recognized by the authority having jurisdiction. Suitability of compliance may be demonstrated by listing or labeling from a National Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

This appears to take away any option an inspector might have to disallow a UL listed item on the basis of personal preference.

One more thing that is included in the draft:

Much of the issue is determining who or what the AHJ is. The key is usually statutory authority and it is rarely vested in an individual although it can be. Most inspectors are actually agents for the AHJ.

The draft states that the term AHJ shall be, "construed to mean the Director of the Department of Planning and Development, who is the code official." Inspectors in that department are acting under the direction of the AHJ.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Before this goes too much further, let me invoke Charlie's Rule. Please read 110.2, and read the article 100 definition of "approved," and tell me what you think THOSE WORDS mean. We can come back to what anyone thinks is just plain wrong, and whether inspector should be allowed to inforce whatever they want. For now, just tell us what you think about THOSE WORDS.

It says what it says. It says only that which is accepatble to the AHJ is approved.

I guess my previous opinion is wrong and Mike would have the right to reject listed equipment based on his personal opinion. I do find this hard to swallow. Maybe the AHJ definition should be made clear. Perhaps the AHJ should have to officially document that which is listed but not approved. There are good situations where a listed item may need to be rejected for sure.

IMO "i just don't like this product" should not be good enough.

I do see an awful lot of threads around here where an inspector has red tagged an installation and nearly everyone says he has no right to when the NEC doesn't condemn it.

 

[mjf]

Was watching "Mike Holt's 2008 Understanding The Electrical Code" and he made a statement that I want to see who agrees with him. He says that 110.2 gives the AHJ the right to reject a listed item because he personally disagrees with the listing.
His example was reducing bushings. Reducing bushings are listed. The listing allows them to be used as an EGC connection. However he said if he was the AHJ he would reject them being used in this manner because he doesn't personally approve of them being used in that way.

Do you agree with Mike?

I don't believe an inspector is an AHJ....the inspector enforces codes acording to the AHJ. Whether that AHJ is the 2008 NEC, the 2005 NEC,etc, etc, including local codes and amendments. If it's prohibited by code or amendment than it's prohibited, otherwise if code allows it than it is allowed. Seems rather simple to me.

 

[Hendrix]

It says what it says. It says only that which is accepatble to the AHJ is approved.

I guess my previous opinion is wrong and Mike would have the right to reject listed equipment based on his personal opinion. I do find this hard to swallow. Maybe the AHJ definition should be made clear. Perhaps the AHJ should have to officially document that which is listed but not approved. There are good situations where a listed item may need to be rejected for sure.

IMO "i just don't like this product" should not be good enough.

I do see an awful lot of threads around here where an inspector has red tagged an installation and nearly everyone says he has no right to when the NEC doesn't condemn it.

If the listing is accepted by OSHA, it should be accepted by the inspector. IMO

 

[resistance]

The draft states that the term AHJ shall be, "construed to mean the Director of the Department of Planning and Development, who is the code official." Inspectors in that department are acting under the direction of the AHJ.

This is why I asked the OP: What is his definition of AHJ. Many believe the electrical inspector is the only Authority---Not!!!

 

[billsnuff]

If the AHJ has banned it (romex in chi-town), then so be it, but it should be in writing, to be enforceable, if it is more restrictive. JMHSO

 

[cycotcskir]

I do find this hard to swallow. Maybe the AHJ definition should be made clear. Perhaps the AHJ should have to officially document that which is listed but not approved.

I realize that some inspectors seem to get off on the power that they have, but i don't think that this is the majority. I think that the majority are trying to do a good job with integrity. Some inspectors enforce the codes correctly and some misunderstand the code.

I say this because I think that the latitude is given to the AHJ to reject "on the spot" things that are deemed to be improper and/or unsafe by the Agent of the AHJ (inspector). There is no way that every possible unsafe condition could be addressed in writing beforehand.

To me, a good inspector is looking out for the best interests of himself(CYA), the home/business owner, the contractor (liability and cost... stopping them if you see them doing something dumb), the County/jurisdiction, and the general public. Many will err on the side of caution. This will inevitably cause disagreement from many contractors.

That's what is great about this forum, I get to see 10X the strange issues and confusing code issues than I do in the field. That way, I can help prevent these "on the spot" calls.