Is this Administrativte or a Standard

Sierrasparky

Senior Member
Location
USA
Occupation
Electrician ,contractor
Hello,

It has been discussed here recenty that the City of los Angeles has basically banned the use of used or reconditioned molded case circuit breakers.

What I would like to know is this change and administrative change or one that is a New Standard code.

The code reads as follows. sec 93.0403 to read as follows:
" No used, reconditioned, or refurbished molded or electronic trip molded case circuit breakers."


The CA state Law provides that ammendments can only be made due to local climatic, geological or topographical.
The Express findings stated by the city of LA are as follows Section 93.0403 is an administrative amendment necessary to clarify the unaccepted reuse of certain used equipment.

So my question really is that is this a new code standard or is this an administative action.

Just recall there were several cities that banned the use of PEX and NM cable. Then when the state said that a city cannot make such changes unless one of the 3 express findings were met. Lo and behold those cities had to allow those methods to be used.

??
 

JDBrown

Senior Member
Location
California
I'd love to see the answer to this. I really don't understand all the legalities of it, but this is one of those requirements that has the potential to cause a lot of unnecessary cost in remodel projects. I'd love to see it disappear.

Based on the City's statement that you cited, it looks like they may be trying to head off any potential protests by claiming up front that it's just an administrative clarification -- sort of like they're saying, "Yeah, Inspectors have been approving this kind of installation for years even though they shouldn't have been, so we have to clarify it in the Municipal Code." My question is, what were they clarifying? Because I haven't been able to find anything else that even alludes to any type of used/refurbished/reconditioned equipment being unacceptable.

We all know that it's been common practice for years to use used/refurbished/reconditioned breakers in obsolete boards. It seems that the City is now claiming that this common practice has never been acceptable -- but what is this claim based on? As far as I can tell, it doesn't appear to be based on anything.

But what do I know? I'm no lawyer, and it seems you almost have to be one in order to figure out these sorts of nuances.

For what it's worth, we're doing a project in LA right now that involves a Bulldog switchboard from the 1950s. The Inspector hasn't complained about the reconditioned breakers yet, so we're all keeping our fingers crossed. I wonder if he's read the new amendment ... I'm certainly not going to be the one to point it out to him, though!
 

Sierrasparky

Senior Member
Location
USA
Occupation
Electrician ,contractor
JD,
The problem is NO city or County can make such amendments to a Building code unless there is a reasonable express findings of either
Climatic , Topgraphical, or Geological. PERIOD. Even if this was on the books in LA years ago it does not really matter. With every new code adoption cycle the city must claim the express findings all over again. There is no automatic caryover.

This mostlikely is the reason that Beverly hills has had to allow the use of Romex. There is no way to claim any of the 3 express findings as a reason for not allowing romex.


The legal aspect of this is staggering. The City has passed a law upon which the Stakeholders ( you and other EC, reselers and older building owner) where not notified or involved in the process. The ordinance passed the City council and now how ever Illegal by state law it is in place. The method to repeal is to challenge through the courts.

By the way this was not the only code change that is bogus. It is the only one that will affect me.
 

Sierrasparky

Senior Member
Location
USA
Occupation
Electrician ,contractor
FYI - CA definition of a standard:
18909. (a) "Building standard" means any rule, regulation, order,
or other requirement, including any amendment or repeal of that
requirement, that specifically regulates, requires, or forbids the
method of use, properties, performance, or types of materials used in
the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, or rehabilitation
of a building, structure, factory-built housing, or other
improvement to real property, including fixtures therein, and as
determined by the commission.


LOOKs To like this is a standard and a more restrictive one at that.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Hello,

It has been discussed here recenty that the City of los Angeles has basically banned the use of used or reconditioned molded case circuit breakers.

What I would like to know is this change and administrative change or one that is a New Standard code.

The code reads as follows. sec 93.0403 to read as follows:
" No used, reconditioned, or refurbished molded or electronic trip molded case circuit breakers."


The CA state Law provides that ammendments can only be made due to local climatic, geological or topographical.
The Express findings stated by the city of LA are as follows Section 93.0403 is an administrative amendment necessary to clarify the unaccepted reuse of certain used equipment.

So my question really is that is this a new code standard or is this an administative action.

Just recall there were several cities that banned the use of PEX and NM cable. Then when the state said that a city cannot make such changes unless one of the 3 express findings were met. Lo and behold those cities had to allow those methods to be used.

??
Sounds to me like in order to be consistent, they need to ban sales of used cars, trucks, machinery, appliances, furniture, or even real estate that has been previously used, and they need to shut down any second hand, thrift shops, or even charitable organizations that collect and redistribute used items in any way.:eek:
 

mgookin

Senior Member
Location
Fort Myers, FL
I can't speak for Cali but here in FL if you have a beef with a building official you can appeal to the state building commission. Find some girl scout and have her appeal (so you don't create an enemy regulator) the matter to the state building commission.
 

Sierrasparky

Senior Member
Location
USA
Occupation
Electrician ,contractor
I can't speak for Cali but here in FL if you have a beef with a building official you can appeal to the state building commission. Find some girl scout and have her appeal (so you don't create an enemy regulator) the matter to the state building commission.
This is not about a specific beef with a specific Buildnig official. This is about a flagrant abuse of POWER.
I posted this because I want to know if others see what I see.
 

mgookin

Senior Member
Location
Fort Myers, FL
This is not about a specific beef with a specific Buildnig official. This is about a flagrant abuse of POWER.
I posted this because I want to know if others see what I see.
The challenge is what's being enforced by that building official. Call it abuse of power if you want; that's fine. It sounds like it is. If that jurisdiction is requiring something which you think they have no lawful authority to require, the process to address that is elevating it to the state review board. Someone has to make the formal complaint.
 

Sierrasparky

Senior Member
Location
USA
Occupation
Electrician ,contractor
I can't speak for Cali but here in FL if you have a beef with a building official you can appeal to the state building commission. Find some girl scout and have her appeal (so you don't create an enemy regulator) the matter to the state building commission.
The challenge is what's being enforced by that building official. Call it abuse of power if you want; that's fine. It sounds like it is. If that jurisdiction is requiring something which you think they have no lawful authority to require, the process to address that is elevating it to the state review board. Someone has to make the formal complaint.
The problem is there is really no one to complaint to. The city had a process where they agendized this item hidden amongst other items. The comment period has passed sometime last year prior to its appearance on the public website. The only thing to do now is probably to sue. That would have to be left to an organization like PEARL.

The problem I see is that this type of thing will catch on with other cities and we will be back to yester year where it was a free for all to make new codes to suit certain constituents. Several years ago the State made is law that all jurisdictions in the state had to follow the latest adopted code period. The only more restrictive code that could be made had to have the one of the 3 express findings. However the state did not place any proceedure to deal with wrongful amendments.


Hey by the way I have never had to use a used or recon breaker so far. I do see that many of the equipment I service will soon be obsolete and the need will be.
 

rbalex

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Mission Viejo, CA
Occupation
Professional Electrical Engineer
I'm somewhat surprised. In the past I've found both the City and County of Los Angeles to be cognizant of the State laws with respect to Building Codes. Some of the smaller jurisdictions were totally unaware of the State's requirements for local amendments but a call to the BSC usually straightened the problem out. However, I've noticed a distressing trend in the last few years.

If you go to the CBSC website and scroll down a bit you'll find the records for a "webinar" on local amendments. Slides 32 to 35 talk about "Justifications". The problem is at the bottom of Slide 35.

With respect to the OP this is especially strange since the City and County of Los Angeles are home to several of the largest used and reconditioned electrical suppliers in the nation.
 

Sierrasparky

Senior Member
Location
USA
Occupation
Electrician ,contractor
I'm somewhat surprised. In the past I've found both the City and County of Los Angeles to be cognizant of the State laws with respect to Building Codes. Some of the smaller jurisdictions were totally unaware of the State's requirements for local amendments but a call to the BSC usually straightened the problem out. However, I've noticed a distressing trend in the last few years.

If you go to the CBSC website and scroll down a bit you'll find the records for a "webinar" on local amendments. Slides 32 to 35 talk about "Justifications". The problem is at the bottom of Slide 35.

With respect to the OP this is especially strange since the City and County of Los Angeles are home to several of the largest used and reconditioned electrical suppliers in the nation.
Sorry to burst your bubble. Los Angeles is probably the worst offender as far as it goes to code ammendments. For a long time prior to the State enacting the condions of Express findings to make ammendments LA had their own rules as did just that.
If you are not aware that every new code cycle each city must re-file all their ammendments. Lo and behold LA has not . They have done a lot but there is much more on the books that has not been.

From that BSC website any code ammendment not made through ordinance and filed with the State BSC is unenforceable.
The whole process is a farce as there is no recourse.
 
Top