UL Listed romex connectors in recessed cans [Archive]

electricguy61

11-03-2008, 03:18 PM

Greg Swartz

11-03-2008, 03:23 PM

roger3829

11-03-2008, 03:32 PM

What code section did you violate?

If you installed them as per the manufactures instructions....... What more can he expect from you?

ohm

11-03-2008, 03:48 PM

What code section did you violate?

If you installed them as per the manufactures instructions....... What more can he expect from you?

The hooker may be the little ditty about the local authority. I've seen some UL listed lighting fixtures that if mounted per instructions places the wiring connections about 1 1/2" out of the box. They're Home Depots premier fixtures! How in the world did they get listed?

The inspector may just be doing you a favor.

electricguy61

11-03-2008, 03:58 PM

Inspector noted 300.4 B (1), which is for cables going through metal framing members.

I think I'll win this one.:grin:

infinity

11-03-2008, 04:05 PM

Inspector noted 300.4 B (1), which is for cables going through metal framing members.

I think I'll win this one.:grin:

I agree with you that the violation is bogus. We install things everyday with sharp edges. Did you ever feel the metal edges on some commercial panelboards? My only question is why he would even be inspecting the edge of a listed product, used according to it's instructions, in the first place.

raider1

11-03-2008, 04:05 PM

Inspector noted 300.4 B (1), which is for cables going through metal framing members.

I think I'll win this one.:grin:

I agree, you should win this one.

Chris

kjfelec

11-03-2008, 04:45 PM

Yup, you'll take this one.

haskindm

11-03-2008, 04:56 PM

IWe used the romex connectors built into the recessed cans (and UL approved). Inspector says he can feel a rough metal edge on the hole, and so a bushing or connector must be used. This house has @ 50 cans, so you can imagine why I don't want to redo all of them.

I've called and left messages for the inspector, and his boss, to argue that if the fixture is UL approved (including the connectors), it's OK to use them as per the installation instructions (attached for your review)

http://www.junolightinggroup.com/Instruction%20Sheets/Juno/IC%20&%20TC%20P5142.pdf

Any thoughts, especially from you inspectors?

UL does NOT "approve" light fixtures or anything else. Approved means "acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction". If the inspector is (or acts on behalf of) the Authority having jurisdiction in your area - they have not approved your fixtures and you will need to take steps to make them "acceptable". You can fight it, but is it worth it? Find out what they would require for these to be acceptable.

electricguy61

11-03-2008, 05:07 PM

UL does NOT "approve" light fixtures or anything else. Approved means "acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction". If the inspector is (or acts on behalf of) the Authority having jurisdiction in your area - they have not approved your fixtures and you will need to take steps to make them "acceptable". You can fight it, but is it worth it? Find out what they would require for these to be acceptable.

UL "listed" is what I should have said.

I don't believe the AHJ's inspector "approves" or "dis-approves" anything. He enforces the applicable codes the AHJ has adopted, which includes accepting UL listed equipment.

As stated in a later posting of mine, the inspector is mis-applying 300.4.(B) (1), which does not apply to lighting fixtures, but to metal framing members (metal studs)

ivsenroute

11-03-2008, 05:11 PM

resistance

11-03-2008, 05:18 PM

Understand your point... Never had an issue with this before.
I'd want to wear them down too...

However, consider how many more inspections you will have with this inspector...

Food for thought.
Greg

Who cares if the OP will have more inspections with the same inspector. Does this mean the OP should kiss butt! I think not! Right is right! End of it! Based on the information listed by the OP, and our company installing the same recess cans in the same way (per manufactures instructions), I see no violation.

stickboy1375

11-03-2008, 05:24 PM

I use Juno lights all the time, I'm impressed the inspector even opened up the j-box to be honest. :D

iwire

11-03-2008, 06:03 PM

resistance

11-03-2008, 06:29 PM

Let me first say it seems like a ridiculous call IMO.

Now that said, is there anything in the NEC that requires an inspector / AHJ to accept any product?

Here in MA we have an amendment that requires the inspector of wires to accept listed products when used per the listing. I see nothing similar in the NEC. I'm sure not any product. Yet, I see no reason why an inspector wouldn't be required to accept any listed equipment accredited by the AHJ--where the installer installed per section 110.3(B)

iwire

11-03-2008, 06:32 PM

Yet, I see no reason why an inspector wouldn't be required to accept any listed equipment accredited by the AHJ--where the installer installed per section 110.3(B)

We have no idea what the AHJs position is in the OPs case. :smile:

As I said, I think it is a bad call but it seems within the authority of the inspector and / or AHJ.

resistance

11-03-2008, 06:36 PM

We have no idea what the AHJs position is in the OPs case. :smile:

As I said, I think it is a bad call but it seems within the authority of the inspector and / or AHJ.
I agree!!!!!!

iwire

11-03-2008, 06:38 PM

I agree!!!!!!

Hopefully this will work out for the OP, it is not like Juno cans are something new and unproven.

Fulthrotl

11-04-2008, 03:59 AM

I just failed an inspection (I wasn't on-site, the general was there)

We used the romex connectors built into the recessed cans (and UL approved). Inspector says he can feel a rough metal edge on the hole, and so a bushing or connector must be used. This house has @ 50 cans, so you can imagine why I don't want to redo all of them.

Any thoughts, especially from you inspectors?

i won't even begin to split hairs about code around here, there are
people here far more knowledgeable than i about the nec....

however, i've learned to pick my battles. if the cans aren't sheetrocked
yet, and as you don't have rough electrical, i don't see how they can be...

i'd probably consider just using 1/2" 2 screw connectors and redoing
it.. even if i win this battle, and the inspector eats it, i'm probably going
to be dealing with him long after the 4 hours rework labor is forgotten...

and any inspector worth his clipboard can cost me 4 hours every time
he sees me, for the rest of his life if he wants to.

i was working as a foreman for a 75 man shop, and they had this
13 story core, with parking structure and landscape lighting, and
the GF got into a major hissy fit with the electrical inspector.
he won the first battle, and lost every one after that.

the electrical inspector came up with some of the most amazing
things ever devised.... including a "neutral fault test" and things
went back and forth, and the job stalled, and liquidated damages
ate the electrical contractor alive.

it was a $500k electrical job, and the shop went $300k out of
pocket, and never did get an occupancy permit. they closed their
doors because of this job.

i'll go pretty far out of my way to avoid a peeing contest with an
inspector.

my thought would be to pick your battles carefully.

randy

jrannis

11-04-2008, 06:23 AM

Just a thought but, can you get your supplier involved? They might want to know if the fixtures are about to be "black listed". Its possible that they deal with this inspector all of the time about the cans.

Even better call for another inspection, when he turns them down again, start smashing them out of the ceiling with a baseball bat, scream and yell at the cans and put on a good show for him. Inspections after that might be real quick and sweet.

electricmanscott

11-04-2008, 07:41 AM

I would hate to conradict a fellow inspector but I think I am your side with this one from what I hear. Of course once I see it for myself I may change my mind but I can't see going that far for something like that.

Yeah, heaven forbid an inspector is wrong, or a moron like this guy. :roll:

Read the link to the can for yourself.

Where do these idiots come from. There seems to be no end to the nonsense they come up with.

electricmanscott

11-04-2008, 07:45 AM

i won't even begin to split hairs about code around here, there are
people here far more knowledgeable than i about the nec....

however, i've learned to pick my battles. if the cans aren't sheetrocked
yet, and as you don't have rough electrical, i don't see how they can be...

i'd probably consider just using 1/2" 2 screw connectors and redoing
it.. even if i win this battle, and the inspector eats it, i'm probably going
to be dealing with him long after the 4 hours rework labor is forgotten...

and any inspector worth his clipboard can cost me 4 hours every time
he sees me, for the rest of his life if he wants to.

randy

You either part of the problem or part of the solution. You Randy are part of the problem.

Any person that would go back and redo 50+ recessed lights in this case would have to be completely insane.

electricmanscott

11-04-2008, 07:51 AM

We have no idea what the AHJs position is in the OPs case. :smile:As I said, I think it is a bad call but it seems within the authority of the inspector and / or AHJ.

Sure we do, he cited 300.4 B 1 Nonsense

If that is the case then then these guys can fail any job any time. That's pretty scary.

iwire

11-04-2008, 08:52 AM

Sure we do, he cited 300.4 B 1 Nonsense

That was what the inspector cited, we do not know what the AHJ has top say.

If that is the case then then these guys can fail any job any time. That's pretty scary.

I agree, but if that is not the case why did MA amend the code to require the acceptance of listed products when used as listed?

George Stolz

11-04-2008, 09:19 AM

Any person that would go back and redo 50+ recessed lights in this case would have to be completely insane.

Anyone who'd use those connectors instead of real romex connectors in the first place are insane, IMO. I don't need the warranty call, myself. I don't trust them. ;)

Now, as far as the inspector calling it, I'd say that's a bad call, I agree with the above.

electricguy61

11-04-2008, 12:21 PM

This morning, I was emailed NEC 314.42 as justification for the failed inspection.

I tried to discuss it by telephone, with both the inspector and the senior inspector, and was finally told that this was their interpretation of the code and they weren't going to discuss it any further.

Here was my email response:

Gentlemen:

My men are on their way to the job to wire the recessed cans according to your interpretation of the code, as I cannot hold up the general contractor from completing the job.

I do not wish to create an adversarial situation with your department, as we will be working together for many years.

Please do me the favor of reading the code requirement you quote, 314.42. It is referring to “covers of outlet boxes and conduit bodies having holes through which flexible cord pendants may pass shall be provided with approved bushing or shall have smooth, well-rounded surfaces on which the cord may bear”.

Again, I submit that this has no bearing on the fixed installation of NM cable in an UL fixture in approved manner.

http://www.junolightinggroup.com/Instruction%20Sheets/Juno/IC%20&%20TC%20P5142.pdf (http://www.junolightinggroup.com/Instruction%20Sheets/Juno/IC%20&%20TC%20P5142.pdf)

I would like to talk to the “authority having jurisdiction”, which you stated was *** ***. I can’t find an email address or contact information for him. Could I get this from you please?

Thank you for your time.

Respectfully

*** ***

I'll keep you updated

Fulthrotl

11-04-2008, 12:29 PM

You either part of the problem or part of the solution. You Randy are part of the problem.

Any person that would go back and redo 50+ recessed lights in this case would have to be completely insane.

why, thank you. that's the nicest thing anyone has said to me today.

i was not saying the inspector was correct. i was saying the inspector
with an attitude can cause untold grief to my checking account on future
work due to a damaged working relationship. he may be an idiot, but
idiot or not, he is a silent partner in my business whose contribution
can make or break a job.

it would seem you have a different philosophy than i do regarding dealing
with inspectors.

would you rather be right, or profitable?

randy

Fulthrotl

11-04-2008, 12:37 PM

electricguy61

11-04-2008, 12:48 PM

I'm not saying anybody is an idiot.

My point is if I'm doing something wrong, show me how. It wouldn't be the first mistake I've made, and I'll make many more.

What is upsetting is that I haven't failed an inspection in many years (actually, I can't remember the last one I failed). We take tremendous pride in our work. We also know that failed inspections cost everybody time and money, and would rather avoid them.

On the other hand, if the inspector is failing me for something that's code compliant, and I can prove it, he should be able to admit he's mistaken.

I'm fully aware of the truth of the posted comments about not pissing off the inspector. I would hope he/she would be adult enough to engage in a discussion without taking it personally or reverting to "I'm in charge, so there".

FYI: I spoke with two inspectors of the largest city in the area this morning (pop 1M), and they both stated that they would not have failed me on this matter. They also gave the caveate "of course, what we would do doesn't relate to what *** (the other city) will allow.

tonyou812

11-04-2008, 02:13 PM

Ive used them all the time and never had a problem with inspections or the can. Although I never use the snap in connectors for the wiring that come with some of them as they have failed me a few times.
I would fight this one. I wouldn't put up with it. Is it really any different than putting a romex in a metal device box with the clamp that comes with it?

JES2727

11-04-2008, 02:26 PM

Even better call for another inspection, when he turns them down again, start smashing them out of the ceiling with a baseball bat, scream and yell at the cans and put on a good show for him. Inspections after that might be real quick and sweet.

This is probably the best advice so far....

celtic

11-04-2008, 02:29 PM

i was not saying the inspector was correct. i was saying the inspector with an attitude can cause untold grief to my checking account on future work due to a damaged working relationship. he may be an idiot, but idiot or not, he is a silent partner in my business whose contribution can make or break a job.

:-?
You consider the EI to be a "silent partner in my business whose contribution can make or break a job"?

What exactly is he contributing?
Nothing

If you run your jobs according to what an EI wants, you will out of business. How is it possible to know what every EI's take on a particular item is? That is why there is an accepted code in place.

would you rather be right, or profitable?

Why can't it be both?
What you are inferring here is that you will succumb to the pressure of an EI that is wrong - which also makes you wrong.

it would seem you have a different philosophy than i do regarding dealing
with inspectors.

Count me as one with that "different philosphy" as well.

haskindm

11-04-2008, 04:29 PM

I don't believe the AHJ's inspector "approves" or "dis-approves" anything. He enforces the applicable codes the AHJ has adopted, which includes accepting UL listed equipment.

As stated in a later posting of mine, the inspector is mis-applying 300.4.(B) (1), which does not apply to lighting fixtures, but to metal framing members (metal studs)

Please look at 90.4. Especially the part that says that "The AHJ for enforcement of this code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, FOR DECIDING ON THE APPROVAL OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS...." (emphasis added)

Now look at the definition of "approved" in article 100 - "ACCEPTABLE TO THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION".

Also look at 110.2 - Approval. The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this code shall be acceptable only if APPROVED. I refer you again to the article 100 definition of "approved".

Strictly speaking the AHJ (or their representative) does not have to approve anything that they have issues with. This is NOT a difference of interpretation or a violation of a specific code section so no code section needs to be cited. The AHJ probably should have cited 90.4. The AHJ does not like the sharp edges on this connector in this fixture so he has decided not to "approve" it. You may not like it, but the NEC gives the AHJ this authority. Evidently Massachusetts limits this authority but most jurisdictions do not. If the inspector is the AHJ in your jurisdiction he is acting within his authority. The code says what it says. If the code meant that the the AHJ must accept UL Listed equipment installed according to its listing it would need to state that in the NEC; at the present time it does not. I feel your frustration, but the AHJ does have the authority to reject equipment for any reason as the code is presently written. The AHJ has stated that this fixture is not acceptable as installed so you will need to find out what needs to be done to make it acceptable. UL Stickers all over the fixture mean nothing unless the AHJ decides they do.

electricguy61

11-04-2008, 04:59 PM

Please look at 90.4. Especially the part that says that "The AHJ for enforcement of this code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, FOR DECIDING ON THE APPROVAL OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS...." (emphasis added)

Now look at the definition of "approved" in article 100 - "ACCEPTABLE TO THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION".

Also look at 110.2 - Approval. The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this code shall be acceptable only if APPROVED. I refer you again to the article 100 definition of "approved".

Strictly speaking the AHJ (or their representative) does not have to approve anything that they have issues with. This is NOT a difference of interpretation or a violation of a specific code section so no code section needs to be cited. The AHJ probably should have cited 90.4. The AHJ does not like the sharp edges on this connector in this fixture so he has decided not to "approve" it. You may not like it, but the NEC gives the AHJ this authority. Evidently Massachusetts limits this authority but most jurisdictions do not. If the inspector is the AHJ in your jurisdiction he is acting within his authority. The code says what it says. If the code meant that the the AHJ must accept UL Listed equipment installed according to its listing it would need to state that in the NEC; at the present time it does not. I feel your frustration, but the AHJ does have the authority to reject equipment for any reason as the code is presently written. The AHJ has stated that this fixture is not acceptable as installed so you will need to find out what needs to be done to make it acceptable. UL Stickers all over the fixture mean nothing unless the AHJ decides they do.

Assuming you're correct (which I don't), would this mean that any inspector could decide that he doesn't feel that Square D equipment meets his manufacturing standard, and so can arbitrarily fail any inspection where Square D equipment has been used? Or perhaps the fact that 15 & 20 amp breakers are approved for the installation of 2 conductors of the same size, but he doesn't like that so fails an inspection?

If a city agrees to accept UL listing as an approved means of testing equipment, and has not written a specific code, ordinance or rule disallowing a particular wiring method (that is otherwise universally approved), I don't see the how it can make a ruling as was made in my case. AHJ's have rules they must follow as well as everyone else. It would be chaos if not.

I'm not a lawyer, but I pretended to be once in a high school play:grin:

Greg Swartz

11-04-2008, 05:08 PM

Who cares if the OP will have more inspections with the same inspector. Does this mean the OP should kiss butt! I think not! Right is right! End of it! Based on the information listed by the OP, and our company installing the same recess cans in the same way (per manufactures instructions), I see no violation.

I spent 9 years in the Marine Corps... I do not kiss butt.
I do however, choose my battles wisely.

If you own a business, think about your bottom line:
I would rather be profitable and re-do the can wiring, than have an inspector be "pissed" at me.
I am not scared of the inspectors... on the contrary, when I am onsite during an inspection, I ask them the reasons why, and ask for code references.
The time lost in fighting the inspector will cost you more money in the long run, and possibly ruin a relationship with a contractor... all because you had to be right.
To be honest, the inspector is "right" too... what he is asking is not a violation of the NEC. He just wants to be "more" right.
I am not siding with the inspector.
I talk to them all the time. I have even proved several wrong, but still had to perform the requested "repair." I'm ok with that.
If you have to be right, you better be perfect... or better than that, you better know what the inspector is looking for.

Greg
"No butt kissing here!"

Greg Swartz

11-04-2008, 05:14 PM

I use Juno lights all the time, I'm impressed the inspector even opened up the j-box to be honest. :D

To be honest, I am too...
I guess no one should have left a ladder on the jobsite! :D

And point of note... your tagline is hilarous! I keep playing it when I have problems with inspectors... it's kinda in the same vein...
They keep telling you what they want (after they fail you), you can't understand it (and as in this post, no one can), then they trip charge you... and you ask more questions, more incorherence...

celtic

11-04-2008, 05:58 PM

Also look at 110.2 - Approval. The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this code shall be acceptable only if APPROVED. I refer you again to the article 100 definition of "approved".

The AHJ has stated that this fixture is not acceptable as installed so you will need to find out what needs to be done to make it acceptable. UL Stickers all over the fixture mean nothing unless the AHJ decides they do.

The NECH offers some insight into 110.2:

All electrical equipment is required to be approved as defined in Article 100 and, as such, to be acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction (also defined in Article 100). Section 110.3 provides guidance for the evaluation of equipment and recognizes listing or labeling as a means of establishing suitability.
Approval of equipment is the responsibility of the electrical inspection authority, and many such approvals are based on tests and listings of testing laboratories.

Lets revisit 100 again:

Labeled.
Equipment or materials to which has been attached

a label, symbol, or other identifying mark of an
organization that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction
and concerned with product evaluation, that maintains
periodic inspection of production of labeled equipment
or materials, and by whose labeling the manufacturer
indicates compliance with appropriate standards or performance

in a specified manner.

Listed.

Equipment, materials, or services included in a list

published by an organization that is acceptable to the authority
having jurisdiction and concerned with evaluation
of products or services, that maintains periodic inspection
of production of listed equipment or materials or periodic
evaluation of services, and whose listing states that either
the equipment, material, or service meets appropriate designated
standards or has been tested and found suitable for
a specified purpose.

FPN: The means for identifying listed equipment may vary
for each organization concerned with product evaluation,
some of which do not recognize equipment as listed unless
it is also labeled. Use of the system employed by the listing
organization allows the authority having jurisdiction to

identify a listed product.

By accepting the NEC, the AHJ has also accepted the Listing and Labeling that comes with any given product.

"Approval" is a completely different matter.

iwire

11-04-2008, 06:10 PM

By accepting the NEC, the AHJ has also accepted the Listing and Labeling that comes with any given product

I disagree, there is nothing in the NEC that forces the AHJ to accept listed equipment.

I think they should but they don't listen to me.:grin:

electricmanscott

11-04-2008, 06:28 PM

Anyone who'd use those connectors instead of real romex connectors in the first place are insane, IMO. I don't need the warranty call, myself. I don't trust them. ;)

.

Do you have anything to back that up? :confused:

I have myself used thousands of these "connectors" with zero problems. I can't be the only one that uses them.

I also use the "wagos" if the fixtures has them. I'm completely insane! :D

Just to reiterate, the inspector is a dummy and is way overstepping his authority as far as i am concerned.

iwire

11-04-2008, 06:30 PM

Just to reiterate, the inspector is a dummy and is way overstepping his authority as far as i am concerned.

Just to reiterate, show me the section in the National Electrical Code that states UL listed equipment must be accepted.

electricguy61

11-04-2008, 06:41 PM

Do you have anything to back that up? :confused:

I have myself used thousands of these "connectors" with zero problems. I can't be the only one that uses them.

I also use the "wagos" if the fixtures has them. I'm completely insane! :D

Just to reiterate, the inspector is a dummy and is way overstepping his authority as far as i am concerned.

OMG! YOU USE WAGO'S? You're gonna die, fur sure!

splinetto

11-04-2008, 07:02 PM

How are you going to seal the openings in the cans after you take the wires out?....You better just replace the hole can...All 50....

celtic

11-04-2008, 07:08 PM

I also use the "wagos" if the fixtures has them. I'm completely insane! :D

OMG! YOU USE WAGO'S? You're gonna die, fur sure!

I just put up about a dozen Halo cans...they came with WAGOs in them ~ the WAGOs all got tossed out.
Why?
I dunno :confused:
Why not?
LOL :grin:

iwire

11-04-2008, 07:09 PM

You better just replace the hole can...All 50....

The only correct course of action. :grin:

peter d

11-04-2008, 07:11 PM

How are you going to seal the openings in the cans after you take the wires out?....

Simple. Just use the metallic foil tape that the tin knockers use.

stickboy1375

11-04-2008, 07:17 PM

Simple. Just use the metallic foil tape that the tin knockers use.

I dont believe that is equivalent to the original j-box, but I do know I have done that in the past. But FWIW, the clamp in the closed position should satisfy the requirement.

electricmanscott

11-04-2008, 07:29 PM

I dont believe that is equivalent to the original j-box, but I do know I have done that in the past. But FWIW, the clamp in the closed position should satisfy the requirement.

As would LEAVING THE WIRE IN THE CLAMP in the first place. What a crock this is. Really makes me mad.

splinetto

11-04-2008, 07:32 PM

Instead of installing new cans, You could just rewire all 50 cans and abandon the wire previously ran however leaving them in the KOs thus solving the problem of sealing the kos

electricmanscott

11-04-2008, 07:36 PM

OMG! YOU USE WAGO'S? You're gonna die, fur sure!

Not in my own house, are you nuts! :grin:

iwire

11-04-2008, 07:37 PM

As would LEAVING THE WIRE IN THE CLAMP in the first place. What a crock this is. Really makes me mad.

Instead of getting mad, or yelling how about a code section? :smile:

I think it is a bad call as well but I don't immediately see a way around it using only the NEC.

electricmanscott

11-04-2008, 07:39 PM

Instead of getting mad, or yelling how about a code section? :smile:

I think it is a bad call as well but I don't immediately see a way around it using only the NEC.

A code section that allows you to use the factory clamp?

How about one that forbids it?

stickboy1375

11-04-2008, 08:00 PM

As would LEAVING THE WIRE IN THE CLAMP in the first place. What a crock this is. Really makes me mad.

what? you dont think I would freak in this predicament?

electricmanscott

11-04-2008, 08:08 PM

I don't think you guys get it.

I am talking about not removeing the romex from the clamps at all not just cut it off and leave the scrap.
50 recessed fixtures need to be rewired and then you have 50 fixtures with open kos???

All for no other reason than a highly ignorant inspector.

Get real.

I would go down swinging if it were me.

stickboy1375

11-04-2008, 08:10 PM

I would go down swinging if it were me.

So would I, but fortunately I don't have to.

mthead

11-04-2008, 09:55 PM

I tried to wend my way thru the responses here and..,I don't know -guess I lost my head-I'm an inspector and this seems like much adoo about nothing.!
The article referenced by the inspector does not come into play at all here.
The two code possibilities would be either "conductors entering a box ,enclosure,panel etc,and methods of securing as per type of conductor and type of box" or "manufacturers installation instructions". Both of theses possibilities allow for proper installation of RX conductors in a code compliant manner utilizing the manufacturer supplied clamps,inserts,strain relief ,etc ,methods.
In other words-you can install RX in a metal jem box using the supplied knockouts and clamps and it will be legal and safe.If you run your finger around the entry edge will you possibly find some"flash"?
Answer -yes, but that is not in itself a code violation.
The correct install method[having the RX sheath enter and be secured under the clamp method so as to act effectively as a 'bushing' allows the installation to be code compliant.

mthead

11-04-2008, 10:05 PM

electricguy61

11-05-2008, 01:28 AM

It is dissappointing to see a call like this-It unfortunately brings to mind the kind of calls made by those not really familiar with NEC CODE or its actual application in the field.

As I said before-If someone called me re; this I'd find a way to look at it again and have an enlightening conversation.
I would go see it for myself.As described it seems too simple a call.
You don't happen to have a picture of the issue in question do you?

I don't have a picture, but we're using the small, knockout openings on the ends of the jbox with the built-in cable clamp.

http://www.junolightinggroup.com/Ins...TC%20P5142.pdf (http://www.junolightinggroup.com/Instruction%20Sheets/Juno/IC%20&%20TC%20P5142.pdf)

I should say we were using them. Because the general wanted to sheetrock ASAP, my guys went back and re-wired the cans in question so they would pass inspection. It ended up only being 17. The Halo's we used had plastic connectors built into them, and the Elite fluorescent cans didn't come with anything built in, so we had used 3/8" romex connectors (2 screw connectors). Only the Juno cans were found to be unacceptable.

I'm still hoping to hear from the Chief Building Official. I'll keep the forum informed.

Thanks for all your input everyone.

iwire

11-05-2008, 05:54 AM

A code section that allows you to use the factory clamp?

How about one that forbids it?

90.4 gives the AHJ the responsibility for approving equipment.

From 90.4

The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of equipment and materials

It is pretty darn clear.

Again, I think it is a bad call but that does not change the rules.

Luckily for you and me in MA they amended 90.4 check it out and you will see what I mean.

iwire

11-05-2008, 05:59 AM

All for no other reason than a highly ignorant inspector.

Actually you are being ignorant in regards to the rules contained in the NEC.

I would go down swinging if it were me.

You would not have to be swinging as long as your working in our area, the rules are different.

You can bet I would try to talk to this inspectors boss as it is a bad call and I doubt the inspector is actually the AHJ but it can still go either way.

bjp_ne_elec

11-05-2008, 06:51 AM

Plesae help me get this clear in my mind - was the issue with the connect that the manufacturer put in to the box. I think if I read correctly, they're like the Arlington push ins that have an X to pop the wire through (see here: http://www.aifittingsproto.com/c_9.htm#NM94 ). Or was it a jagged edge on the JB on the fixture?

electricmanscott

11-05-2008, 07:14 AM

Actually you are being ignorant in regards to the rules contained in the NEC.

You would not have to be swinging as long as your working in our area, the rules are different.

You can bet I would try to talk to this inspectors boss as it is a bad call and I doubt the inspector is actually the AHJ but it can still go either way.

Ignoramus inspector cited two articles neithr of which are even close to applying to this installation.

The last one, 314.42 applys to j box COVERS. Nothing to do with the installation. NOTHING. But it's ME that is ignorant of the code. Ok Bob.

Your interpretation, correct or not is absurd. This gives the ahj authority to fail ANY installation for NO reason. That is ridiculously frightening.

"I don't accept Leviton receptacles....FAIL.." :rolleyes:

I'd bet this loser inspector has never worked in the trade a day in his miserable life. :rolleyes:

iwire

11-05-2008, 07:20 AM

Your interpretation, correct or not is absurd.

What do the words in NEC 90.4 mean to you?

I am asking, they seem clear to me, help me out what am I missing?

This gives the ahj authority to fail ANY installation for NO reason.

Pretty much how I see it but keep in mind inspectors are not usually the actual AHJ, they are inspectors.

That is ridiculously frightening.

Perhaps that is why MA modified 90.4?

electricmanscott

11-05-2008, 07:24 AM

I wish I would get a PM with the inspectors name and phone number. Even an email would suffice. :wink:

iwire

11-05-2008, 07:27 AM

I wish I would get a PM with the inspectors name and phone number. Even an email would suffice. :wink:

LOL :D, I think that might be very bad. :grin:

electricmanscott

11-05-2008, 07:27 AM

What do the words in NEC 90.4 mean to you?

I am asking, they seem clear to me, help me out what am I missing?

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree that the inspector can decide at will to accept or not equipment.

I don;t like the thought that it is even possible.

iwire

11-05-2008, 07:30 AM

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree that the inspector can decide at will to accept or not equipment.

Inspector no, AHJ yes.

The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of equipment and materials

Glad you work in MA or what? :)

electricmanscott

11-05-2008, 07:32 AM

Glad you work in MA or what? :)

Finally one reason. :D

ohm

11-05-2008, 07:33 PM

I bet a call to Juno and their 20 lawyers would brighten up the AHJ's life. Also, UL might want to question the inspector on what he made his decision on.

electricmanscott

11-05-2008, 08:19 PM

I bet a call to Juno and their 20 lawyers would brighten up the AHJ's life. .

Bet your bippy if I get that magical PM with the name and number of the inspector Juno will be on my list of calls.

Fulthrotl

11-05-2008, 10:13 PM

I wish I would get a PM with the inspectors name and phone number. Even an email would suffice. :wink:

i probably just misunderstood what you've said, please clarify it for me...

are you saying if you had the contact information of the inspector who
turned down the original poster's can light installation that you would
take it upon yourself to involve yourself in someone else's work, that
is not done under your license, that you did not perform the work on,
and that you have no financial involvement with? even if to do so could
possibly be detrimental to the original posters working relationship with
his inspector?

is that what you are telling all of us here. that you, acting on your own
initiative, would interfere in something that is none of your business?

just wondering.....

randy

electricmanscott

11-06-2008, 06:10 AM

i probably just misunderstood what you've said, please clarify it for me...

are you saying if you had the contact information of the inspector who
turned down the original poster's can light installation that you would
take it upon yourself to involve yourself in someone else's work, that
is not done under your license, that you did not perform the work on,
and that you have no financial involvement with? even if to do so could
possibly be detrimental to the original posters working relationship with
his inspector?

is that what you are telling all of us here. that you, acting on your own
initiative, would interfere in something that is none of your business?

just wondering.....

randy

Keep wondering Randy...

iwire

11-07-2008, 07:30 AM

I bet a call to Juno and their 20 lawyers would brighten up the AHJ's life. Also, UL might want to question the inspector on what he made his decision on.

I definitely agree with getting Juno involved, as far as UL I don't see a private listing agency having any ability to put pressure on the inspector.

jrannis

11-07-2008, 08:26 AM

I just put up about a dozen Halo cans...they came with WAGOs in them ~ the WAGOs all got tossed out.
Why?
I dunno :confused:
Why not?
LOL :grin:

Sorry,
But I like them for recessed lighting. Nothing worse than trying to splice #12 solid onto fixture wires.

electricmanscott

11-07-2008, 04:51 PM

Sorry,
But I like them for recessed lighting. Nothing worse than trying to splice #12 solid onto fixture wires.

Just use 14 then.

stickboy1375

11-07-2008, 04:54 PM

Just use 14 then.

You cant use #14 for lighting, you will go to hell, and and besides all that, it just wont work. :D

peter d

11-07-2008, 04:55 PM

Just use 14 then.

"I always use #12 minimum for all circuits."

;)

stickboy1375

11-07-2008, 04:56 PM

"I always use #12 minimum for all circuits."

;)

Your such a hack, I only use #10 minimum.

peter d

11-07-2008, 04:56 PM

You cant use #14 for lighting, you will go to hell, and and besides all that, it just wont work. :D

How did I know you would chime in as well? 8-)

iwire

11-07-2008, 04:56 PM

"I always use #12 minimum for all circuits."

;)

Hack ................ use 10 for everything.

electricmanscott

11-07-2008, 04:57 PM

You cant use #14 for lighting, you will go to hell, :D

Been there....not so bad :D

peter d

11-07-2008, 04:58 PM

Well you guys have me all figured out. Because I don't work to your standards I will tear up my license and go work at McDonalds. Wait, even McDonald's is too good....I give up.

stickboy1375

11-07-2008, 04:58 PM

Been there....not so bad :D

I use NM, so #14 cant be worse than that. ;):grin:

electricmanscott

11-07-2008, 05:00 PM

Well you guys have me all figured out. Because I don't work to your standards I will tear up my license and go work at McDonalds. Wait, even McDonald's is too good....I give up.

Two words...employee discount :D

peter d

11-07-2008, 05:03 PM

I use NM, so #14 cant be worse than that. ;):grin:

I always pipe everything even though I live nowhere near Chicago. It's just better that way because I said so.

stickboy1375

11-07-2008, 09:56 PM

I always pipe everything even though I live nowhere near Chicago. It's just better that way because I said so.

Do you still pull NM or do you use thhn? :grin:

peter d

11-07-2008, 11:37 PM

Do you still pull NM or do you use thhn? :grin:

I pull in old pieces of K&T-era cloth and rubber covered wire. ;)

jrannis

11-15-2008, 09:01 AM

Just use 14 then.

It wasnt a house!!!

danickstr

11-15-2008, 12:02 PM

Juno's lawyers should hear about this, at least. This an attack on their product which has legal ramifications for liability in millions of installations. I would think they would want to put the SMACK down on this foolish inspector, who is citing non-related articles.

Or at least their "other" legal could get his home address and send over the Juno enforcement crew to "chat" with him.

480sparky

11-15-2008, 12:04 PM

Just use 14 then.

It wasnt a house!!!

So? Why can't you use 14 in a non-dwelling application?

Pierre C Belarge

11-15-2008, 12:23 PM

I did not read this whole thread, but I think I have the gist of it.
The inspector turned an installation down based on he did not like something about the "listed product or a portion of the listed product.

Call/email the manufacturer, they have as much at stake here. Sometimes the inspection by the inspector may be correct. The manufacturer will then make corrections to the product. Most times the inspector is misjudging and letters from the manufacturer will help to straighten out the issue. It is a long process, but helps all in the long run.

I have contractors provide me with a letter from the manufacturer on different issues many times. The letter is sort of like insurance for me, the contractor and my company in the decision making process.

I was not on the job as has been described in this thread, but here is something to think about...

This inspector may be a creep and is just busting chops.
or
This inspector takes his job seriously and is very observant and has seen a flaw with the equipment.
The only real way to find out is to get a NRTL and/or the manufacturer involved. I have, as mentioned done this many times and you (as I have been) may be surprised at how often this process leads to a correction in manufacturing of a product.