"label"

[ryan_618]

I am going to propose to delete the word "label" and "labeled" from the NEC.

Is there any value in these terms? Isn't listing good enough? Why labeling?

 

[charlie b]

I thought the word "label" just referred to the sticky piece of paper that you put on the equipment, to show the world that the item had been listed. :-? If that is the truth, then I would agree that there is no need for that word.

 

[charlie b]

By the way, should we suggest to the Forum Administration (not the Moderators, they have no real power) that this topic area's name be changed to refer to the 2011 NEC?

 

[ryan_618]

I think we can wait until this cycle is done for that. It seems that some still want to discuss the 2008 proposals and comments. for example, where else would I post my thread about 310.15(B)(6).

Perhaps in September or October, after the 2008 comes out, we can change the name.

 

[peteo]

No, I disagree. The label is a very significant part of product safety and liability issues. Take, just as an example, a UL listed machine and have the customer clean off the UL or third party label.

What happens if it gets moved? Who's going to plug it in? Defacing or removing the label can be a very costly mistake. It might mean, for example, that an industry moves to a place where the mayor can call the local inspectors to influence things. It becomes political.

Also, the propotion of third partyh IAEI members in the CMPs does not bode in your favor...

 

[ryan_618]

If you search the NEC for the word "label" or "labeled", you will find that the term is used not in the context of the Article 100 definition, but more typically in the context of labeling with an arc flash sticker, or labeling with a panel schedule.

Right now the code misuses a defined term more often than they use it correctly. I further submit that the real safety of a product comes from its listing, not an affixed label.

In the example that someone removes the label...so what? A coke machine has a UL sticker on it, then it gets removed and someone plugs it in. Is it now unsafe???

 

[George Stolz]

By the way, should we suggest to the Forum Administration (not the Moderators, they have no real power) that this topic area's name be changed to refer to the 2011 NEC?

Speak for yourself; I can bend spoons with my mind.

Anyway, I think it wouldn't hurt to make it cycle-inspecific, either now or later. If there's a good reason to keep it cycle-specific, then I agree it ought to be later in the year.
---------------------
I think having the label is important, because otherwise how is the listing readily confirmed? Does the inspector take the installer's word for it? Maybe I'm not understanding this?

 

[iwire]

IMO 'labeled' has to stay how would you word 110.3(B) without it?

It seems following the 'label' volts, amps, phase, etc. on equipment is an important requirement.

 

[augie47]

spoon

spoon

trust him, he can

http://forums.mikeholt.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=525&stc=1&d=1180043993

 

[sandsnow]

According to UL, the only evidence a product is listed is by the label.
If there is no label, then a product would require a field evaluation to determine eligibility to bear the listing mark.

A better tack would be to correct mistakes like in the arc flash label requirement. maybe substitute signage.

On the other hand labeled in Art 100 could be replaced "listing mark", which is probably more consistent with UL and other NRTL language.

By the way, there is no spoon.

 

[tom baker]

One of ULs biggest issues is counterfit "labels" on products from overseas.