CPSC says to stop buying suicide cords...

[AC\DC]

True, but the issue has a lot of subtleties. For example one way they sometimes word it in State laws is that insurance must cover events that are “accidental and sudden”. The insurance companies can however say that buying and using an unlisted device is not accidental, that it was a deliberate act.

The safe bet is to only use listed devices. Most brick-and-mortar stores that have a lot to lose and don’t have Bezos Bucks to hire lawyers, rely on listings of products to protect themselves, which indirectly protects the consumers. Amazon IMHO has zero regard for consumers, they just take the money from Chinese and other crap vendors, then rely on their retained lawyers to shift the blame onto the purchaser under the legal precept of “caveat emptor”, or “buyer beware”, meaning it is encumber on the buyer of a product to ensure that it is safe, legal and of good quality. That precept has been basically superseded but product liability and implied warranty laws for the past hundred or more years, but is all but impossible to enforce here against a supplier in a place like China. Amazon is taking advantage of that fact and trying to shield themselves with the claims of just enabling the transaction.

Walmart has started taking this tact too now. We ordered a set of string lights for our patio last spring. The web page said they were UL listed, but what showed up had no label anywhere and immediately tripped the GFCI when I plugged them in. Contacted Walmart.com, they said that this was a private transaction between myself and the Chinese supplier, that they just facilitated it so they bore no responsibility. The Chinese supplier of course does not respond. It was only $30 so my interest in spending a lot of time on this is very low, which is I think part of their strategy. But I’m going to avoid Walmart.com now for sure.

is not what you stated ,one of the reason why we have a government…. to protect the people from shifty crap like this.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The same people who gave the FCC their power?

The FCC has their own certification process as no other existed.

We already have some NRTL to do the electrical work. The CPSC is already set up as an enforcement agency. Just need to have a law that says the CPSC can come down on you if you don't have an NRTL certification.

I would think some people in high density housing might disagree with your last statement. If JR's hover board starts on fire in a 20 storey high rise apartment building, it would seem to affect more than 1 household.

Sure it could have a huge effect, but I stand by my statement that the use of that type equipment is outside the scope of the NEC. You need to find another enforcement authority for that, and you need to keep in mind the protections of the Fourth Amendment when you do.

 

[drcampbell]

The Fourth Amendment protects people, not businesses. While it isn't legal to randomly search people's homes looking for dangerous devices without a warrant supported by probable cause, it is completely legal -- and in fact, a duty of government -- to conduct inspections and audits of businesses to assure that dangerous devices aren't being manufactured, imported, or offered for sale.

 

[jim dungar]

The CPSC already has the authority to ban these products.
From their website they can ban "...consumer products if no standard would adequately protect the public".

The issue maybe that these products are only in unsafe if misused.
What NRTL standard would apply? If the cord ends are attached correctly and the cable is the correct gauge, what is the problem - simply exposed live ends if one end is not plugged in. How is this different than listing a power cord with open pigtails?

In this case I agree there should be a public warning, just maybe not a ban.

 

[tortuga]

Code requires you to follow manufacturers instructions in article 110, superseding basically everything else. So technically, this isn’t true.

Listing agencies make mistakes all the time.
The most recent example is the highly popular LED wafer lights or 'rat traps'.
First the instructions said that mounting the junction box that came with them was optional.
The NEC does not even specify which listing agencies we must use, just on the AHJ to accept it.
So, for example
I could use a French listed breaker, with Italian wire in a Russian enclosure.
All CE or whatever listed, with blue neutrals to boot, becaue that manufacturer can now use 110.3(B) to override 200.6
and the NEC would be happy, if AHJ is happy, because everything is listed.

Also, you can check a UL listing if a product for free. Any UL listing mark must include a file number, you can look up that file number on UL.con.

Not anymore, its pay to play, I learned this the hard way recently.

 

[petersonra]

Listing agencies make mistakes all the time.
The most recent example is the highly popular LED wafer lights or 'rat traps'.
First the instructions said that mounting the junction box that came with them was optional.
The NEC does not even specify which listing agencies we must use, just on the AHJ to accept it.
So, for example
I could use a French listed breaker, with Italian wire in a Russian enclosure.
All CE or whatever listed, with blue neutrals to boot, becaue that manufacturer can now use 110.3(B) to override 200.6
and the NEC would be happy, if AHJ is happy, because everything is listed.



Not anymore, its pay to play, I learned this the hard way recently.

Some of what you are saying is just plain FALSE, so stop saying it.

The NEC requires some things be listed. If they are listed they must be listed. The code defines exactly what listed means.

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.

CE is not a listing at all. It is a mark applied by the manufacturer certifying that all appropriate EU standards are met. EU standards are not applicable to the US, so they are meaningless.

The origin of the product does not prevent the product from being listed IAW the NEC meaning of that term. There is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with using a part made in a foreign country as long as it meets the appropriate requirements.

A listing CANNOT override a requirement found in the NEC as it solely relates to product standards. The NEC generally does not care what is contained within a product. If the listing standard allows for blue wire as a neutral, that is acceptable within the product. Look inside an MCC some time. Ever notice that the neutral wire on the control transformers in the buckets is usually red instead of white?

The listing would not have instructions that allow for blue wire to be run to the device for its grounded conductor, but it could allow blue wire inside the device itself.

Where in the code does it ever require that a luminaire have a junction box?

 

[Jraef]

And MOST of the AHJs follow the convention of using OSHAs list of acceptable NRTLs.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The Fourth Amendment protects people, not businesses. While it isn't legal to randomly search people's homes looking for dangerous devices without a warrant supported by probable cause, it is completely legal -- and in fact, a duty of government -- to conduct inspections and audits of businesses to assure that dangerous devices aren't being manufactured, imported, or offered for sale.

I suggest you read See V Seattle....a $100 fine for refusal to permit a fire inspection at a business went all the way to the US Supreme Court and the city lost.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction for refusing to permit a representative of the City of Seattle Fire Department to enter and inspect appellant's locked commercial warehouse without a warrant and without probable cause to believe that a violation of any municipal ordinance existed therein. The inspection was conducted as part of a routine, periodic city-wide canvass to obtain compliance with Seattle's Fire Code. City of Seattle Ordinance No. 87870, c. 8.01. After he refused the inspector access, appellant was arrested and charged with violating § 8.01.050 of the Code:

"INSPECTION OF BUILDING AND PREMISES. It shall be the duty of the Fire Chief to inspect and he may enter all buildings and premises, except the interiors of dwellings, as often as may be necessary for the purpose of ascertaining and causing to be corrected any conditions liable to cause fire, or any violations of the provisions of this Title, and of any other ordinance concerning fire hazards. "

Appellant was convicted and given a suspended fine of $100 [Footnote 1] despite his claim that § 8.01.050, if interpreted to authorize this warrantless inspection of, his warehouse, would violate his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. We noted probable jurisdiction and set this case for argument with Camara v. Municipal Court, ante, p. 387 U. S. 523. 385 U.S. 808. We find the principles enunciated in the Camara opinion applicable here, and therefore we reverse

 

[ggunn]

Out in the wildwest of social media, ie, Facebook...

Do you remember Usenet?

 

[VirutalElectrician]

Sure it could have a huge effect, but I stand by my statement that the use of that type equipment is outside the scope of the NEC. You need to find another enforcement authority for that, and you need to keep in mind the protections of the Fourth Amendment when you do.

Not sure what left field that came out of.

CPSC doesn't go after consumers, they go after manufacturers/importers/suppliers.
A requirement that everything made/sold/imported into the U.S. be listed by a NRTL has nothing to do with the 4th.
It has to do with regulating business and commerce. Something the Consitution specifically mentions is the job of the federal government.

 

[VirutalElectrician]

Do you remember Usenet?

Oh jeepeers, of course I do! I used to run Usenet servers back in the mid 90s. INN and NNTP where in my blood at one time.

But now lets go back even further to BBSes...The hours my poor Hayes modem spent redialing to get logged into a BBS....Poor relay in that thing took a licking and kept on clicking...

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Not sure what left field that came out of.

CPSC doesn't go after consumers, they go after manufacturers/importers/suppliers.
A requirement that everything made/sold/imported into the U.S. be listed by a NRTL has nothing to do with the 4th.
It has to do with regulating business and commerce. Something the Consitution specifically mentions is the job of the federal government.

Its based on my opinion that you can't really keep the junk out of the US and the only enforcement would be after the product has been placed into use.

If you can keep the junk out, that would be great, but I just don't see any such law being passed, or if passed, I don't see it being enforced at the import points.

 

[ggunn]

Oh jeepeers, of course I do! I used to run Usenet servers back in the mid 90s. INN and NNTP where in my blood at one time.

But now lets go back even further to BBSes...The hours my poor Hayes modem spent redialing to get logged into a BBS....Poor relay in that thing took a licking and kept on clicking...

I remember BBS as well, but Usenet was truly the wild west. The challenge in participating in Usenet was to NOT get dragged into a flame war.

 

[tortuga]

A listing CANNOT override a requirement found in the NEC ...

We agree a product standard cannot overwrite the NEC. I was trying to illustrate what would happen if they could.
My point is there are lots of products in the residential sector where the line gets blurred.
You'll probably consider this as splitting hairs, but this one thing I see done often;
there are these newer 'wafer' thin LED lights that are a low cost alternative to traditional recessed can lights:



A traditional can light came with a 'feed-through' junction box mounted to it, rigidly with piece of sheet metal:


Now the wafer lights instructions indicate the 'feed-through' junction box mounting is optional.

And I see these installed this way frequently.
Yet NEC 410.30(A) requires luminaires to be "securely supported.” So now do we go by the instructions or the NEC?

Not a big deal to float the jbox on new construction the romex or MC will be secured within a foot or so of the box
, but what happens on a remodel when the box is floating in a attic ceiling and cable is fished in?

The WF4 and other wafer lights (listed in CSA file 3402-86) allow the junction box to be used with 2 #12/2 cables or raceways.
One could argue as soon as its also serving as a junction box (more than one cable) it would violate 314.23(C) to not mount it, and its on the installer to know that.
But it also could be argued in all cases the mounting is optional due to the instructions.

And I have also seen very flimsy knock off versions of these wafer lights that are not listed that homeowners have bought online.

 

[petersonra]

How do you know that it's listed as a junction box? You all has allowed for some kind of splices that you're allowed to use with NM cable that aren't in a junction box and these have been accepted.

 

[tortuga]

How do you know that it's listed as a junction box? You all has allowed for some kind of splices that you're allowed to use with NM cable that aren't in a junction box and these have been accepted.

There are old threads on here about these lights, I don't want to hi-jack the thread, just wanted to give a example of how a products instructions can seemingly confuse and conflict with the NEC.
Another example is the hugely popular ductless heatumps, I have installed several that say to use a 25 or 30 amp circuit. OK no problem I run a 10-2 to a disconnect, and feed the outdoor unit with liquidtight whip, pretty normal job.
Then it says to run 14-3 to the indoor unit.
OK no problem, easy job run some 14/3 UF.
Now when I look closely at the terminals for the outdoor unit L1 and L2 are just jumpered to the indoor unit terminals.
So now I just have some 14/3 UF cable on a 30A breaker.
Its a UL listed system, but it just over rides the NEC ampacity for 14/3 UF cable NEC 340.80.

 

[tortuga]

Heat pump connections in typical outdoor unit:

 

[Fred B]

Amazon and the "cheap" HO searched products are notorious for mislabeled advertising saying "UL listed" and on arrival no such listing anywhere on product.
HO doesn't like the price of legitimate products so will search the likes of Amazon for a cheaper similar product without regards for listings, or the potential safety hazards with the unlisted products.

Ps Amazon have removed a product "if" they are contacted with a concern over listing

 

[petersonra]

What makes you think a product is unsaved merely because it is unlisted?

 

[Fred B]

What makes you think a product is unsaved merely because it is unlisted?

Assume you meant unsafe.

Beyond requirements of the NEC for certain products to be listed, there is a presumption of product safety if listed that is not there if the product has not been tested to a product standard.
Listing doesn't matter if product manufacturing QC is lax, product safety can be jeopardized, but if QC continues to be lax, the listing can be pulled.