Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Status
Not open for further replies.

joe tedesco

Senior Member
Revise the 2005 NEC Section:

"90.2 Scope.

(A) Covered. This Code covers the installation of electrical conductors, equipment, and raceways; signaling and communications conductors, equipment, and raceways; and optical fiber cables and raceways for the following:"

So that it will read as follows in the 2008 NEC:

"90.2 Scope.

(A) Covered. This Code covers the installation and use of electrical conductors, equipment, and raceways; signaling and communications conductors, equipment, and raceways; and optical fiber cables and raceways for the following:"

Reason:

Everything that is installed is also used by someone, and there are entire articles covering installation and use of many electrical products.
 

joe tedesco

Senior Member
Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
Joe,
How could that be enforced?
Don
Don:

I am not sure, but it is true and the NFPA CMP 1 members should think about this issue very carefully.

I will submit this proposal to the NFPA.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Joe,
I think that any attempt to enforce a rule like that would be a serious affront to the 4th Amendment.
Don
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Joe,
My point is that the?"use" part is not enforceable, even with 110.3(B). The AHJ just can't walk in and inspect how I am using the equipment. He would need "probable cause" and a search warrant. It would be almost impossible to find "probable cause". It makes no sense to me to have a rule that cannot be enforced.
Don
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Such an insane rule would seem to require the end user to get a permit to plug an extra TV in.

I think such a rule would not only be unenforcable but widely laughed at. It would tend to make the code less enforcable.

plus there is absolutely no reason for it.
 

joe tedesco

Senior Member
Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Then what about AFCI's for AC Units 440.65, and other rules calling for specific safety items for hair dryers and other personal grooming appliances -- it is in the code! :confused:
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Joe,
I don't think those rules belong in the code either. They are not within the scope of the code. Those things should be left to the product standards.
Don
 

joe tedesco

Senior Member
Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Don:

I agree, that's probably a better approach, as you suggest, however, that will never happen because the structure of the NEC Committee and NFPA's long standing affiliations with the major groups are set in stone.

I would like to hear what you would propose, for example, would you want to delete certain sections and articles from the code, Annex A, etc.?
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Joe,
To start with, I think that the code, for the most part, should stop at the point where the equipment is connected to the building wiring system(the outlet). That would mean anything to do with plug and cord connected equipment should be removed.
I don't see a problem with the Annex, as that is informational only, not code rules.
Don
 

charlie

Senior Member
Location
Indianapolis
Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Don, that is exactly why we revised 240.5. CMP-10 does not feel like in general that the Code should cover wiring that is not building wiring. This is a product standards issue. :D
 

rbalex

Moderator
Staff member
Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Actually, I'd get rid of Annex A too. It implies motors are REQUIRED to be listed. Except for motors in hazardous locations, virtually no motors are listed. While California isn't even on the 2002 yet, the CBO for the project I'm working on attempted to use the revised Annex A to "Prove" that motors are required to be listed.

The problem with Annex A is that there are many products that are listed but are not required to be. For those jurisdictions that misread 90.7, Annex A is a killer.
 

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Electrician
Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Thanks Bob. ;)

Roger
 

joe tedesco

Senior Member
Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
Joe,
To start with, I think that the code, for the most part, should stop at the point where the equipment is connected to the building wiring system(the outlet). That would mean anything to do with plug and cord connected equipment should be removed.
I don't see a problem with the Annex, as that is informational only, not code rules.
Don
Don: Please take a look at this information from UL and the impact the 2005 NEC has on their standards.

http://www.joetedesco.com/ul05.pdf

I will also email this link to you in case it gets deleted.
 

charlie

Senior Member
Location
Indianapolis
Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Joe is trying to make the point that the CMPs will make changes to the Code that will effect the UL standards. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top