Does the NEC505 allow self certification by the manufacturer for class 1 Zone 0/1/2

[Art2010]

Does the NEC505 allow self certification by the manufacturer for electrical equipments placed in Class 1 Zone 0, Zone 1 or Zone 2?
Background: NEC505.9 state that: ?suitability of identified equipment shall be determined by one of the following: (1) Equipment listing or labeling, (2) Evidence of equipment evaluation from qualified test-laboratory or inspection agency concerned with the product evaluation, (3) Evidence accepted to the authority having jurisdiction such as MANUFACTURER?S SELF-EVALUATION or an owner engineering judgment?. However, NEC505.20 states under Equipment Requirements: ? In Class 1 Zone 0 or Zone 1 or Zone 2, only equipment specifically listed and marked as suitable for the location shall be permitted? (i.e. there is no mention of MANUFACTURER?S SELF-EVALUATION).

 

[bluesmoke...oops]

I would say no as a "Manufacturer's Self-Evaluation" isn't the same thing as being listed. 505.9 Lets you talk the AHJ into accepting your self-evaluation is they wish, but 505.20 says for specific class/zones, you can't do that. It has to be listed.

 

[bphgravity]

Where are you at and what is the application for the use of ZONES as an alternative to DIVSIONS?

It is rare to see A505 use in the USA...

 

[rbalex]

Does the NEC505 allow self certification by the manufacturer for electrical equipments placed in Class 1 Zone 0, Zone 1 or Zone 2?
Background: NEC505.9 state that: “suitability of identified equipment shall be determined by one of the following: (1) Equipment listing or labeling, (2) Evidence of equipment evaluation from qualified test-laboratory or inspection agency concerned with the product evaluation, (3) Evidence accepted to the authority having jurisdiction such as MANUFACTURER’S SELF-EVALUATION or an owner engineering judgment”. However, NEC505.20 states under Equipment Requirements: “ In Class 1 Zone 0 or Zone 1 or Zone 2, only equipment specifically listed and marked as suitable for the location shall be permitted” (i.e. there is no mention of MANUFACTURER’S SELF-EVALUATION).

The “key” is recognizing identified is a defined term and Section 505.9 is a general rule while 505.20 lists specific applications. For example, the exceptions in 505.20(C) use listed and identified within their proper definitions; i.e., in Ex No. 3, equipment “suitable” for Zone 2, by virtue of being suitable for Division 2 may not actually be "marked" for Division 2 (or any other location for that matter).

There is similar text and concepts for Divisions in Section 500.8. The basic issue is that listing or labeling "marking" is specifically required for some, but not all, equipment applications. Per Art 100 definitions, “marking” is generally a function of a listing or labeling organization's certification process that is acceptable to the AHJ; however, not all equipment identified as “suitable” for Classified locations must necessarily be “marked” for them. Some applications may need to be validated by manufacturers or qualified engineering evaluation.

I personally believe an “engineering evaluator” should be a PE, but the CMP has too many non-PEs for that to fly. I would certainly demand it if I were the AHJ though since it is certainly practicing engineering and likely to fall within the State laws of such practice.

The demand many jurisdictions have that everything be listed is actually improper, since not everything is – for example, most motors identified as suitable for use in Division 2 are not listed for anything, even "ordinary locations."

 

[Art2010]

Thank you bluesmoke and Bob (rbalex) for the clarification. I appreciated your time and informative feedback.

with regard to the question from "bphgravity", this thread question came a result of oil/gas plant overseas initially used the NEC500 classification method but later re-classified to NEC505.