12-1900-16739-10

STATE OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

 

In the Matter of the Petition of the Minnesota Pipe Trades Association for a Declaration that the Interim Approval for Air Admittance Valves Issued by the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Health is an Unadopted Rule

 

 

 

ORDER AMENDING

DECEMBER 14, 2005, ORDER

On December 14, 2005, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order in the above-entitled matter directing the Department of Labor and Industry to cease enforcement of the “Interim Approval for Air Admittance Valve as an Alternate Fixture, Appurtenance, Material or Method.”  On December 16, 2005, the Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry, M. Scott Brener, filed a letter requesting clarification of a sentence in the Order.  All parties were provided copies of the request.

On December 22, 2005, the Petitioner, filed a letter agreeing with the clarification sought by the Commissioner of Labor and Industry, and requested that the clarification of the sentence be expanded by deleting the phrase “a local building official” and replacing it with “the administrative authority.”  On December 23, 2005, the Department filed a letter concurring with the additional clarification sought by the Petitioner.

On December 27, 2005, Intervenor Studor objected to the post-Order letter submissions of the other parties and filed a Petition for Reconsideration or Rehearing.

Based on the file and proceedings herein, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:

ORDER 

1.               That the second full paragraph on page 7 be amended to read as follows:

Even if AAVs are not expressly prohibited by the Plumbing Code, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Interim Approval issued by the Commissioner of Health is not a permissible application of the alternate approval process set forth at Minn. R. 4715.0330.  The language of Minn. R. 4715.0330 suggests that the alternate fixture approval process is meant to be applied on a case-by-case basis to the specific facts of individual requests.  Subdivision 2 requires that “any person desiring to install or use a fixture” that is not expressly approved or prohibited in the Code demonstrate that the fixture appears safe for the use intended.  The administrative authority may permit “such use” if it does appear safe.  The process is meant to allow the approval of a request to use an alternate fixture brought by a person for a specific use.  Thus, for example, if AAVs were not expressly prohibited by the Plumbing Code, it would be appropriate for a local building official the administrative authority to approve the use of an AAV in a particular building.  The Interim Approval issued by MDH, however, is not the result of an individual application for a specific use.  Instead, it is an “agreement” of general applicability reached after protracted negotiations between MDH, Studor and manufacturers of AAVs.  The result is a general or global change to the Plumbing Code that authorizes the use of an alternate fixture or method that does not comply with existing plumbing principles set forth in the Code.  Such an across-the-board change that is inconsistent with the Plumbing Code may only be accomplished by amending the rules through formal rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.  The alternate fixture approval process may not be used to circumvent rulemaking under the APA.

2.               That the Department not publish the Administrative Law Judge’s Order of December 14, 2005, in the State Register, and instead publish the attached Amended Order in the State Register with the changes made to the paragraph above. 

3.               That Studor’s Petition for Reconsideration or Rehearing is DENIED.

Dated: January 3, 2006

 

 

 

                                                                

/s/ Steve M. Mihalchick

STEVE M. MIHALCHICK

Administrative Law Judge