110.2 Approval

[Dennis Alwon]

I am thinking about writing a proposal to delete this article. I have only seen inspectors use this when they want something their way. This gives carte blanc authority to an inspector to basically fail a compliant install. What good is that. If the conductors and equipment are listed equipment then why should the authority having jurisdiction have the authority to turn it down.

Feed back please--- I realize it probably will not get accepted but I am not happy with its interpretation. Maybe there is a reason for this article but I don't see it-- enlighten me.

110.2 Approval. The conductors and equipment required or
permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved.
Informational Note: See 90.7, Examination of Equipment
for Safety, and 110.3, Examination, Identification, Installation,
and Use of Equipment. See definitions of Approved,
Identified, Labeled, and Listed.

 

[jxofaltrds]

If an inspector does that use:

(A) Examination. In judging equipment, considerations
such as the following shall be evaluated:

I would use this to hold his feet to the fire.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

If an inspector does that use:

(A) Examination. In judging equipment, considerations
such as the following shall be evaluated:

I would use this to hold his feet to the fire.

My concept is to avoid an argument altogether

 

[chris kennedy]

Often some large machines we install are from overseas. Nice to have the AHJ approve them rather than go through a listing process.

I say leave it be.

 

[jxofaltrds]

My concept is to avoid an argument altogether

They only way that will happen is with superior knowledge. Here the inspector is required to cite the code not just say that it is in the book.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Often some large machines we install are from overseas. Nice to have the AHJ approve them rather than go through a listing process.

I say leave it be.

I thought the unit must be listed... I didn't think the authority having jurisdiction could ok a non listed product

 

[charlie b]

My understanding is that the code gives the AHJ the ability to use the listing as the basis for approval. Absent a listing, the AHJ can use other means to evaluate and approve equipment.

 

[iwire]

My concept is to avoid an argument altogether

Here in MA they amended 90.4 and part of it takes choice away from inspectors when it comes to listed equipment.

90.4. Revise the first paragraph to read as follows:
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. 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.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Here in MA they amended 90.4 and part of it takes choice away from inspectors when it comes to listed equipment.

That is a good option. I have heard of inspectors that would try and reject a listed product

 

[rbalex]

Here in MA they amended 90.4 and part of it takes choice away from inspectors when it comes to listed equipment.

You can probably thank Fred Hartwell for that MA 90.4 Amendment. It's been a while but I believe he made a similar Proposal to the NEC several cycles back. CMP1 was one of the strongest NIH at the time and heavily influenced by the IAEI. It was rejected. CMP1's make up has changed a bit with more "Users" involved.

You might want to strengthen the Public Information with FedOSHA's definitions of Approved, Accepted and Acceptable in 29 CFR 1910.399.

You might also check to see if Augie has any influence wit the IAEI rep.

 

[augie47]

The only influence this Augie has is with his dawg

The only change I can see would be adding 90.4 to the Informational Note or changing the NEC wording of 90.4 to that in MA.
I think in the end "approval" should be a local decision but such decisions should be the responsibility of the AHJ.
We often have small control panels built by local licensed personnel and built to NEC standards and they are "approved". Built by non licensed personnel to different standards requires a NRTL.
An unruly inspector needs to be addressed by local management and not by changing 110.2

 

[rbalex]

The only influence this Augie has is with his dawg

I can't seem to find the latest copy of the NFPA Technical Committee list. For the 2014 NEC, the IAEI rep was from TN.

I would prefer modifying the NEC 90.4 to the MA version. I would also prefer clarifying that the AHJ is not usually the immediate inspector.

Good code is not ambiguous. There's enough in the English language as it is. Also as it is, 90.4 is a statement of responsibility, not a declaration of prerogative. "Judgment calls" should be as few and far between as possible.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

The problem I have with article 90 is that it is not enforceable and who knows how that will be looked at

 

[raider1]

I can't seem to find the latest copy of the NFPA Technical Committee list. For the 2014 NEC, the IAEI rep was from TN.

I would prefer modifying the NEC 90.4 to the MA version. I would also prefer clarifying that the AHJ is not usually the immediate inspector.

Good code is not ambiguous. There's enough in the English language as it is. Also as it is, 90.4 is a statement of responsibility, not a declaration of prerogative. "Judgment calls" should be as few and far between as possible.

The IAEI Reps for Panel 1 are Susan Scearce and Paul Sood.

I don't know either one very well just met them at a NFPA committee meeting.

I do know Mike Stone quite well though and he is the alternate for NEMA.

As far as the IAEI's stance on 110.2, I am not aware of any special direction towards that rule.

Chris

 

[raider1]

As far as 110.2 goes, I may lead a sheltered life but I have never seen an inspector use 110.2 to fail an installation of a listed product.

Chris

 

[kwired]

The problem I have with article 90 is that it is not enforceable and who knows how that will be looked at

Why is art 90 not enforceable?

90.2 is one part in there that seems pretty important - it answers the question of what does the rest of the publication apply to?

 

[raider1]

Why is art 90 not enforceable?

90.2 is one part in there that seems pretty important - it answers the question of what does the rest of the publication apply to?

I believe what Dennis was saying is that Article 90 is an introduction and scope of the NEC and does not, or should not, contain any mandatory requirements. Article 90 is intended for guidance for applicability of the requirements in the NEC and the responsibilities of enforcement.

Chris

 

[kwired]

I believe what Dennis was saying is that Article 90 is an introduction and scope of the NEC and does not, or should not, contain any mandatory requirements. Article 90 is intended for guidance for applicability of the requirements in the NEC and the responsibilities of enforcement.

Chris

That makes some sense, kind of steps on the MA amendment having much meaning when it comes to enforcement though, it should probably be somewhere in chapter 1.