AHJ rejecting listed equipment

[physis]

The words, as written, back up Mike's claim. In addition, the FPN under 110.2 reminds us to check the definition of "approved," and to read 90.7. Neither of these contradict Mike's claim.

This all seems gushy wooshie to me, in terms of what the code says. I'm gonna apologize to Charlie B. in advance because I know his ability to identify the active sections, and I'm going to use his posts to address this.

Before this goes too much further, let me invoke Charlie's Rule. Please read 110.2, and read the article 100 definition of "approved," and tell me what you think THOSE WORDS mean. We can come back to what anyone thinks is just plain wrong, and whether inspector should be allowed to inforce whatever they want. For now, just tell us what you think about THOSE WORDS.

Fisrt let's look at Article 100, Listed:

It says a lot of rather redundant things. This is what I find important.

................."that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction"...................

Charlie and Mike Holt are right. The trouble is that this makes Article 100, Listed, meaningless. Wasted ink in my opinion.

Please read 110.2.

110.2 Approval. The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this code shall be acceptable only if approved.

I guess that's different than adopted. If every single jurisdiction has to "approve", whatever the item might be, first, yeah, lots of luck with that. Wasted ink. Second, what kind of an impact would this wording have on any AHJ?

In case you might be interested, Articles 90, 100 and 110 are produced by CMP 1.

and to read 90.7.

90.7. The First long winded paragraph is pure gibberish that gives no intelligent direction. And I like how two thirds into that lengthy paragraph that make hardly an ounce of sense it says, "this avoids the necessity for repition of examinations by different examiners" and continues on to degrade, I guess, typical examiners. And don't forget the "expected" conflicting reports.

All of what I've posted on this issue so far I consider to be a complete waste of paper.

Let me ask what anybody makes of this section.

"It is the intent of this Code that factory installed internal wiring or the construction of equipment need not be inspected at the time of installation of the equipment, except to detect alterations or damage, If the equipment has been listed by a qualified testing labratory that is recognized as having the facilities described in the preceding paragraph and that requires suitability for installations in accordance with this code.

 

[petersonra]

Most times the inspector is not the AHJ, and has no authority on his own to decide much of anything.

That does not stop them from doing so though.

 

[physis]

Most times the inspector is not the AHJ, and has no authority on his own to decide much of anything.

That does not stop them from doing so though.

He or she represents and is an agent of the AHJ.

 

[cycotcskir]

He or she represents and is an agent of the AHJ.

With the power that has been delegated to him/her. This could be in differing amounts in pretty much all jurisdictions.

Which poses the question, How does an electrician know if their inspector actually posesses th the authority to "johnny on the spot" a call?

I guess the only way to know is to call the AHJ

 

[jim dungar]

"It is the intent of this Code that factory installed internal wiring or the construction of equipment need not be inspected at the time of installation of the equipment, except to detect alterations or damage, If the equipment has been listed by a qualified testing labratory that is recognized as having the facilities described in the preceding paragraph and that requires suitability for installations in accordance with this code.

This says the AHJ is allowed to, but is not required to, blindly accept a listing from a qualified testing agency.

This 'allowed but not required' intent is why, in the city of Seattle, someone wants to change the wording to 'must accept'.

 

[M. D.]

I didn't vote,.. because we have this handy dandy section in the mass code.

90-4. Enforcement. This Code shall be used by the authority enforcing the Code and exercising legal jurisdiction over electrical installations. The authority having jurisdiction of enforcement of the Code shall accept listed and labeled equipment or materials where used or installed in accordance with instructions included with the listing or labeling.

 

[physis]

I didn't vote,.. because we have this handy dandy section in the mass code.

90-4. Enforcement. This Code shall be used by the authority enforcing the Code and exercising legal jurisdiction over electrical installations. The authority having jurisdiction of enforcement of the Code shall accept listed and labeled equipment or materials where used or installed in accordance with instructions included with the listing or labeling.

I'm really not trying to rip on Charlie, but this listing stuff.

 

[iwire]

I didn't vote,.. because we have this handy dandy section in the mass code.

Thanks M. D. I was going to point that out as well.

It seems to me that Mike H is correct if based just on the the NEC or Mass. would not have had to make that amendment.

 

[iwire]

I'm really not trying to rip on Charlie, but this listing stuff.

Six of one, the early bird gets the worm.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

I didn't vote,.. because we have this handy dandy section in the mass code.

This is a great admendment. I wonder if it has ever been a NEC proposed change.

Just for an FWI there was at least one dude on Mike's "panel" in the video that did not agree, stating that he was a by-the-Code inspector and didn't force his opinions even though he personally would not perform such an install.

By the way the DVDs are awesome and I'm very glad I got them. I recommend them to anyone.

 

[cowboyjwc]

".....and installed in accordance with...."

I have turned down listed equipment, and remember just because it has a sticker doesn't mean it's listed, signs for instance, and when the testing lab came out they did everything but take away the guys rolls of stickers.

I have also turned down non listed equipment that didn't have a thing wrong with it.

The AHJ in most cases is a deputy of the Building Official, so that makes me a deputy, the BO does not have any more authority than me, he is simply my boss, much like a sheriff and a sheriffs deputy, there is only one sheriff, but the deputy's enforce the same laws. So when I am on the job I am the AHJ, you can go over my head, but since my BO is an engineer and has never been in the trades, he will usually ask me anyways, I must prove to him I'm correct, but he won't override me simply because you said I was wrong. If he wishes to give it away that too is fine by me as long as he signs the permit and doesn't ask me to.

 

[M. D.]

George tried this...

Report on Proposals A2007 ? Copyright, NFPA NFPA 70

(90.4)

_____________________________________________________________

Submitter: George Stolz, II, Pierce, CO

Recommendation: Add the following statement to 90.4:
The authority having jurisdiction of enforcement of the Code shall accept
listed and labeled equipment or materials where used or installed in accordance
with instructions included with the listing or labeling. The authority shall have
the responsibility for deciding upon the approval of unlisted or unlabeled
equipment and materials, and for granting the special permission contemplated
in a number of the rules.

Substantiation: As it is currently written, per 90.4 and 0.2, the authority
having jurisdiction has the final say and the authority to reject listed materials
and equipment. If listed products are used in accordance with their listing, then
these items should automatically be acceptable to the AHJ according to the
NEC. This would greatly clarify the roles of the parties involved. It would ease
the burden on inspectors who currently have to determine if they agree with the

listing, and would greatly ease the burden on the installers in the field. Listing
should stand as a guarantee to the installer that they are compliant with the
NEC. A similar rule has been adopted in Massachusetts to the benefit of all
parties involved.


Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The Title of Section 90.4 is Enforcement. Enforcement of
the NEC and determining the approval of equipment and materials is the
responsibility of the authority having jurisdiction. Adding wording to require
automatic approval of equipment or materials is in direct conflict with this
section and the definition of ?Authority Having Jurisdiction.? The submitter?s
concern relative to unlisted equipment is already addressed in the last sentence
of the first paragraph of 90.4.

Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 2
_________________________________

​

​

​

 

[weressl]

......... That?s what appeals are for. Nevertheless, they have the authority (and responsibility) to reject what they believe to be unsafe.

Don't they have the obligation to PROVE that it unsafe? I don't believe that 'believe' is a legaly enforcable action.

 

[physis]

Six of one, the early bird gets the worm.

I don't get it

 

[wbalsam1]

I voted that the AHJ can reject. It's extremely important to know who the AHJ is, though.

In New York State it is NOT the private third-party electrical inspector. Each municipal entity has an appointed official who acts under the police powers of the community to conduct inspections. Communities allow private companies to conduct inspections, but actual enforcement, when necessary, is done by the elected body. Waiving of rules including provisions found in the generally accepted standards such as the electrical code, is done at the state level by individual petition to the Variance Boards of Review. (This is the way it's set up, not necessarily the way it's run.)

 

[iwire]

I don't get it

Exactly, I had the same problem with your post.

 

[physis]

Exactly, I had the same problem with your post.

Which one?

My commentary on the three sections that Charlie posted, and I'm not getting on Charlie, he jsut pointed out the pertainent sections, do you see a useful pupose for them? It could all be left out.

I am going to have to vote that the AHJ is allowed to essentially ignore listings.

 

[jumper]

Before this goes too much further, let me invoke Charlie's Rule. Please read 110.2, and read the article 100 definition of "approved," and tell me what you think THOSE WORDS mean. We can come back to what anyone thinks is just plain wrong, and whether inspector should be allowed to inforce whatever they want. For now, just tell us what you think about THOSE WORDS.

"It says what it says", even though I do not totally agree with it. I only voted that the AHJ can reject, because of the wording. I read it twice.

 

[LarryFine]

I concede, and voted, that the AHJ may reject, but add that it's not usually the inspector; it's whoever or whatever the locality's laws say it is.

It's incumbent upon us to climb the food chain when necessary, if we disagree with an inpectors call. It is (or should be) just as illegal to fail a compliant installation as pass a non-compliant one.

I'd also ask the inspector what we would recommend as an acceptable alternative to his "request" to not rely on reducing washers for continuity in your case, just to humor him.

 

[physis]

After giving it some further thought and getting over what bothers me about some of the associated code and it's language I have to admit that it makes sense to generally accept listings and be able to, if neccesary, decline to allow something that maybe shouldn't be.

The whole thing is a bunch a double talk too though.