Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

[joe tedesco]

Revise the 2005 NEC Section:

"90.2 Scope.

(A) Covered. This Code covers the installation of electrical conductors, equipment, and raceways; signaling and communications conductors, equipment, and raceways; and optical fiber cables and raceways for the following:"

So that it will read as follows in the 2008 NEC:

"90.2 Scope.

(A) Covered. This Code covers the installation and use of electrical conductors, equipment, and raceways; signaling and communications conductors, equipment, and raceways; and optical fiber cables and raceways for the following:"

Reason:

Everything that is installed is also used by someone, and there are entire articles covering installation and use of many electrical products.

[don_resqcapt19]

Joe,
How could that be enforced?
Don

[joe tedesco]

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
Joe,
How could that be enforced?
Don Don:

I am not sure, but it is true and the NFPA CMP 1 members should think about this issue very carefully.

I will submit this proposal to the NFPA.

[don_resqcapt19]

Joe,
I think that any attempt to enforce a rule like that would be a serious affront to the 4th Amendment.
Don

[joe tedesco]

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Don: How is this suggestion any different from 110.3(B)?

(B) Installation and Use. Listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.:confused:

[don_resqcapt19]

Joe,
My point is that the*"use" part is not enforceable, even with 110.3(B). The AHJ just can't walk in and inspect how I am using the equipment. He would need "probable cause" and a search warrant. It would be almost impossible to find "probable cause". It makes no sense to me to have a rule that cannot be enforced.
Don

[petersonra]

Such an insane rule would seem to require the end user to get a permit to plug an extra TV in.

I think such a rule would not only be unenforcable but widely laughed at. It would tend to make the code less enforcable.

plus there is absolutely no reason for it.

[joe tedesco]

Then what about AFCI's for AC Units 440.65, and other rules calling for specific safety items for hair dryers and other personal grooming appliances -- it is in the code! :confused:

[charlie]

Joe, you are running amuck. What are you really trying to accomplish? :D

[joe tedesco]

Originally posted by charlie:
Joe, you are running amuck. What are you really trying to accomplish? :D I think that the Code should add the words I mentioned in the first post. :D

Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant and Instructor

[don_resqcapt19]

Joe,
I don't think those rules belong in the code either. They are not within the scope of the code. Those things should be left to the product standards.
Don

[joe tedesco]

Don:

I agree, that's probably a better approach, as you suggest, however, that will never happen because the structure of the NEC Committee and NFPA's long standing affiliations with the major groups are set in stone.

I would like to hear what you would propose, for example, would you want to delete certain sections and articles from the code, Annex A, etc.?

[George Stolz]

Did someone forget their meds? :confused:

[don_resqcapt19]

Joe,
To start with, I think that the code, for the most part, should stop at the point where the equipment is connected to the building wiring system(the outlet). That would mean anything to do with plug and cord connected equipment should be removed.
I don't see a problem with the Annex, as that is informational only, not code rules.
Don

[charlie]

Don, that is exactly why we revised 240.5. CMP-10 does not feel like in general that the Code should cover wiring that is not building wiring. This is a product standards issue. :D

[rbalex]

Actually, I'd get rid of Annex A too. It implies motors are REQUIRED to be listed. Except for motors in hazardous locations, virtually no motors are listed. While California isn't even on the 2002 yet, the CBO for the project I'm working on attempted to use the revised Annex A to "Prove" that motors are required to be listed.

The problem with Annex A is that there are many products that are listed but are not required to be. For those jurisdictions that misread 90.7, Annex A is a killer.

[roger]

Thanks Bob. ;)

Roger

[joe tedesco]

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
Joe,
To start with, I think that the code, for the most part, should stop at the point where the equipment is connected to the building wiring system(the outlet). That would mean anything to do with plug and cord connected equipment should be removed.
I don't see a problem with the Annex, as that is informational only, not code rules.
Don Don: Please take a look at this information from UL and the impact the 2005 NEC has on their standards.

http://www.joetedesco.com/ul05.pdf

I will also email this link to you in case it gets deleted.

[George Stolz]

I scrolled through halfway, looked like mostly no effect.

What's the point?

[charlie]

Joe is trying to make the point that the CMPs will make changes to the Code that will effect the UL standards. :D

[don_resqcapt19]

Joe,
A quick look at the UL information shows me that most of the changes involve things that are part of the building wiring system...not cord and plug connected equipment. There will always be interaction between the code and the standards for the items that are installed as part of the building wiring system. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem making the code a "use" code in addition to an "installation" code, and I have a problem with code rules that apply to things that are not part of the building wiring system.
Don

[joe tedesco]

Originally posted by georgestolz:
Did someone forget their meds? :confused: Was this comment intended as a insult to the posters here? You added nothing dealing with any technical content.

Please count to 10 before you post a message of this type.

I hope that the Moderator's will agree with me.

[rbalex]

Originally posted by charlie:
Joe is trying to make the point that the CMPs will make changes to the Code that will effect the UL standards. :D And, in my opinion, that particular point is well taken.

There is really no "stand alone” set of Standards out there. Depending on the jurisdictions electrical work is still affected by other organizations – organizations that may or may not have a bent toward coordinating with NFPA. Thankfully UL is one that is interested. We have often made the point in this forum that the UL “White Book” is Volume II of the NEC.

However, there is a problem with UL too. While they generally attempt to reconcile their Standards with the NEC; they, as an organization, also strongly attempt to influence the adoption of their standards by attempting to get “listing and labeling” made a general requirement. You will only have to go back an edition or two in the White Book and you will find that Category Code PRGY was not in it. “PRGY” is the code for “Motors.” For the most part, NEMA motors have never been listed and UL has wanted to change that for years. They can’t directly force the motors manufactures to list, so they have been trying the indirect approach of having the NEC do it for them.

The problem with the UL Standards, in my opinion, is they are NOT truly consensus standards despite what ANSI says and the public has no real input to them. The NEC may be the only way the public can affect them.

[rbalex]

BTW, that is not the way I think it should be - just my take on how things are at the moment.

[George Stolz]

Originally posted by joe tedesco:
Was this comment intended as a insult...Honestly, it was insulting. I apologize.

A proposal to add "and use" to a code that is already generalistic (Edit: almost to) the point of unusuability seems a little fruitless and effectively a waste of time, in my opinion. But I could have stated that in a less insulting and clearer manner.

IMO, it rings similar to the code in 590 which puts it into law that Christmas lights shall only be allowed to hang for 90 days. Has this ever been enforced? At least that one has specifics to it, even if it is laughable.

[ February 20, 2005, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

[iowadean]

in 590 which puts it into law that Christmas lights shall only be allowed to hang for 90 days. In the 2005 NEC, 590.5 adds that holiday lighting must be listed. As an inspector, does that mean I must check all the holiday lighting that is put up in my jurisdiction? Sorry, but that is not going to happen. For one thing, there is no permit required so how would you track it? This might get the insurance company off the hook if a fire is started by unlisted equipment. Otherwise, what is the point of stating this?

[sandsnow]

Originally posted by rbalex:
You will only have to go back an edition or two in the White Book and you will find that Category Code PRGY was not in it. “PRGY” is the code for “Motors.” For the most part, NEMA motors have never been listed and UL has wanted to change that for years.
The problem with the UL Standards, in my opinion, is they are NOT truly consensus standards despite what ANSI says and the public has no real input to them. The NEC may be the only way the public can affect them. Bob
Your motor comment is interesting. Back 20 years ago the story was that UL could not list a motor because they did not know what it was going to be used for. Someone could connect a 5HP motor to a fan requiring 7.5 HP for example. Since the pool pump motor has the pump attached, then that was the end use. Aren't hazardous motors listed or classified only for the hazardous application?

Doesn't UL have industry reps on their councils and committees or whatever they are? I will have to go to the website and look.
Maybe it's not open to everyone like the NEC proposals; but it's better than the ICC where the building code is written (voted on) by soley the building officals.

BTW, your annex A story takes personal ambition/ego on the part of an AHJ to a new low.

[rbalex]

Larry,

UL is definitely opening up - much to their credit. Before 8-10 years ago virtually their entire "User Advisory Committee" base was manufacturers. As far as they were concerned, that's who their users were.

I remember it was a big deal with the API when one of our Subcommittee on Electrical Equipment members was invited to join their motor UAC. In 2001, I was invited to join the UAC for HazLoc products and the appointment was in progress when I left my employer. I never restarted the clock.

Their ANSI certification as a consensus organization has been challenged a enough times by enough organizations and individuals that ANSI has asked them to review their appointment process. They have responded positively, if slowly.

[tony_psuee]

Larry and others too,

If you are interested, below is a link of which Standard Technical Panels (STP's) are currently looking for members and the respective representation category.

http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/stp/call_4_members.html

Tony

[goodcode]

An interesting issue. The problem is real.
The proposed solution however, would be uneforceable.
There is no easy solution, no one section to suggest text to eliminate untrained persons from making safe electrical installations an accident waiting to happen or eliminate abuse of appliances by homeowners.
Two suggestions: (1) Address individual product issues with individual changes to the NEC to drive the Product Standards. An good example is the the text in 404.15 (B). Anywhere there is a Part in an Article titled "Construction Specifications" or similiar, we can drive the product standards through the NEC.
(2) Where possible strengthen minimum installation requirements in the NEC. If a single problem continues to appear in existing installations we can attempt to strengthen existing installation minimums.
Send in those proposals!

[charlie]

Hello GoodCode, I am looking forward to hoisting a few with you again. http://www.clicksmilies.com/auswahl/ernaehrung004.gif Take care, Charlie

[goodcode]

Definition:
Few, A. Always more than one, usually more than two.

[charlie]

I don't remember having less than three. :D

[physis]

Oh man, I always miss out. :(