been fabricated after the fact to satisfy the listing requirements for the pipe. It may also be why Michigan filed an official complaint with ANSI regarding the listing agency’s process. This is an example of a loophole in the product certification system. If product-listing agencies are simply going to collect money and issue listings without enforcing the standards that the  products  are  supposed  to  be  listed  to,  then  the  system needs to be fixed. The product certification agencies should witness the testing to make sure that it is actually being done, and they should not rely so much on the applicant’s promises or on questionable paperwork. The system needs to be adjust- ed to make it fair for U. S. manufacturers who have on-site testing, quality control and pollution control equipment and actually meet the requirements in the standard. In my opinion, Michigan code officials did their job. In this day and age, with all of the other quality problems with prod- ucts being imported from China, I’m finding it hard to find much  sympathy for someone who may be trying to cut cor- ners. n Ron George specializes in plumbing, piping, fire protec- tion   and   HVAC   design.   He   also   provides   plumbing/ mechanical     code     and     product     standard     consulting services  and  forensic  investigations  of  mechanical  system failures. Ron is also a contributing writer and code consul- tant for Plumbing Engineer. of  8,764  pieces  of  pipe  in  sizes  ranging  from  two  inches through 10 inches diameter in 10-foot lengths being produced from Nov. 21, 2006 through Nov. 25, 2006. The listing agency also  had  paperwork  showing  that  they  were  on  site  at  that foundry on Nov. 21, 2006, but their inspection report showed no production at the time of inspection, and they had notes stating that no listed products were in stock at the time of their inspection. This indicates that either the listing agency’s site visit report or the manufacturer’s test reports are in error. The paperwork also indicated a shipping date from the foundry of Dec. 2, 2006, so there should have been a significant portion of the 8,764 pieces of pipe in production and in stock when the listing agency inspector was at the foundry. I know the code consultant who represented the Chinese pipe  importer.  He  is  a  very  bright  individual  and  a  well- respected  person  in  the  industry.    I  understand  that  he  got involved with his client somewhat late in the process, and tes- timony revealed that he did not have all of the information at some of the early meetings. I am sure that if he had more time to  review  the  test  results  before  the  hearings  he  would  not have attacked the chief plumbing official in Michigan and the Michigan Plumbing Board as he did in his article. I applaud the state plumbing board and the chief plumbing official for their attention to detail in catching these inconsistencies in the test reports and denying the materials. I’m sure that they based their denial on concerns that these reports could possibly have Reprinted with permission from Ron George Design & Consulting Services Code Report