Introduction

ARTICLE 90. INTRODUCTION The intent of this section is to establish a clear and definite relationship between the National Electrical Code and electrical system design as well as field installation. Basically stated, the NE Code is intended only to assure that electrical systems installed in commercial, industrial, institutional, and residential occupancies are safe. That is, to provide a system that is essentially free from hazard. The Code (throughout this manual, the words Code, NE Code, and NEC refer to the National Electrical Code) sets forth requirements, recommendations, and suggestions and constitutes a minimum standard for the framework of electrical design. As stated in its own introduction, the Code is concerned with the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity for light, heat, power, computers, networks, control, signaling, and other purposes. The NE Code is recognized as a legal criterion of safe electrical design and installation. It is used in court litigation and by insurance companies as a basis for insuring buildings. The Code is an important instrument for safe electrical system design and installations. It must be thoroughly understood by all electrical designers and installers. They must be familiar with all sections of the Code and should know the latest accepted interpretations that have been rendered by inspection authorities and how they impact the design and/or installation of electrical systems. They should keep abreast of Formal Interpretations, as well as the issues addressed by Tentative Interim Amendments (TIA) that are issued, periodically, by the NE Code committees. They should know the intent of Code requirements (i.e., the spirit as well as the letter of each provision) and be familiar with the safety issue at the heart of the matter. And, most important, they should keep a copy of the NEC and this Code handbook close by for ready reference and repeated study.
1

90.1. Purpose (A). Practical Safeguarding.

INTRODUCTION

90.1

(B). Adequacy. Its worth noting that compliance with the provisions of the National Electrical Code can effectively minimize fire and accident hazards in any

electrical system. A code-compliant installation will be essentially free from hazard, but not absolutely so. This provision is essentially unchanged since the 1937 edition, and has stood the test of time. Many installations with substantial code violations exist for protracted periods of time without loss experience through good fortune and the fact that protective systems frequently overlap. On the other hand, occasionally a fully compliant installation can fail, usually due to an unforeseen circumstance. Perfect safety is only achievable at infinite cost. Every three years the National Electrical Code Committee wrestles with the concept of essentially free as it considers proposed changes to the next edition. Although the Code assures minimum safety provisions, actual design work must constantly consider safety as required by special types or conditions of electrical application. For example, effective provision of automatic protective devices and selection of control equipment for particular applications involve engineering knowledge above routine adherence to Code requirements. Then, too, designers and installers must know the physical characteristicsapplication advantages and limitationsof the many materials they use for enclosing, supporting, insulating, isolating, and, in general, protecting electrical equipment. The task of safe application based on skill and experience is particularly important in hazardous locations. Safety is not automatically made a characteristic of a system by simply observing codes. Safety must be designed into a system. In addition to safety considerations, the need for future expansion and other common sense aspectssuch as voltage dropmust be considered and factored into the overall system design. The Code in this section makes it clear that more than Code compliance will be necessary to ensure a system that is not only safe but also functional and capable of providing for future needs, without compromising system-operating continuity or integrity. It is up to the designer and installer, in consultation with the owner, to provide adequate capacity, selectivity, isolation, and protection beyond its minimum requirements in order to achieve the desired system characteristics. Remember, it is always permissible to do more than the Code requires, but never permissible to do less than the Code-prescribed minimum. Addressing voltage drop illustrates these principles. No definite standards have been adopted for the maximum allowable voltage drop in most instances. There is a good reason for this. In most cases voltage drop is an inefficiency or inconvenience, but it does not rise to the level of a safety hazard. For example, a motor run at 10 percent voltage drop, but with appropriate running overload protection, will have a greatly reduced life span, but not create a shock, fire, or electrocution hazard. The National Electrical Code does note, however, in a nonmandatory explanatory note, that if the voltage drop from the point of service entrance to the final outlet does not exceed 5 percent, there will be reasonable efficiency of operation. The note also explains that not more than 3 percent voltage drop should occur in the feeder system ahead of the branch-circuit supply points, which leaves the other 2 percent for the

90.2

INTRODUCTION

branch circuit. In the end, the extent to which voltage drop in an electrical system is to be tolerated is the owners decision, because the NEC does not mandate design flexibility. There are some instances, however, where voltage drop does directly bear on safety and the NEC contains mandatory rules accordingly. For example, if the conductors to a fire pump are not sized to prevent the voltage drop while starting (i.e., while under locked-rotor conditions) from exceeding 15 percent, measured at the controller terminals, the control contactor for the motor may chatter and not reliably hold in, resulting in a failure to start with disastrous consequences. (C). This single sentence is also crucial. The NEC is not written for nor intended to be used by untrained individuals. Qualified electricians and engineers spend many years reviewing and thinking about its provisions. (D). Relation to Other International Standards. This section simply states that the National Electrical Code addresses the same safety issues addressed by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard for Electrical Installations of Buildings. Because the NEC covers the same consideration for safety as related to protection against electrical shock, protection against thermal effects, protection against overcurrent, protection against fault current, protection against overvoltage, faults between circuits, and so forth that are covered by the IEC Standard, it was considered necessary to establish that fact. This statement in this section facilitates the adoption of the Code by foreign countries and is consistent with the ongoing process of harmonizing the NEC and other accepted standards from around the world.
90.2. Scope

(A). Simply stated, the Code applies to all electrical workindoors and outdoorsother than that work excluded by the rules of part (B) in this section. Installation of conductors and equipment, anywhere on the load-side of the point of connection to the serving utility, must comply with the provisions given in the NEC. The scope of the NEC includes the installation of optical fiber cable, part (A). As part of the high-technology revolution in industrial and commercial building operations, the use of light pulses transmitted along optical fiber cables has become an alternative method to electric pulses on metal conductors for data, voice, and video networks, as well as for control and signaling. Although the technology of fiber optics has grown dramatically over recent years, it is still primarily used as a trunk line or backbone for high-speed networks, while horizontal distribution is generally accomplished via a twisted-pair or coaxial copper medium. Although coaxial cable can handle high rates of data transmission involved in data processing and computer control of machines and processes, optical fiber cables far outperform metallic conductorseven coaxial cablewhen it comes to bandwidth as well as cost of materials. (See Fig. 90-1.) NEC Art. 770, Optical Fiber Cables, covers the installation and use of fiberoptic cables. Part (A)(1) provides a laundry-list of specific indoor installations that must be in compliance with the applicable requirements given in the Code. Note that this section makes clear that the NE Code also applies to floating

INTRODUCTION

90.2

Fig. 90-1. The NEC covers the technology of fiber optics for communication and data transmission.

buildings because the safety of Code compliance is required for all places where people are present. Coverage of floating buildings is contained in NEC Art. 553. Part (A)(2) identifies specific outdoor installations, including carnivals and industrial substations, while part (A)(3) mandates that supply equipment and conductorswhether supplied from a utility as a service or from on-site generators as a separately derived systemas well as all other outside equipment and conductors must satisfy the rules and regulations of the NEC. Use of the word equipment in parts (A)(2) and (A)(3) makes clear that the NE Code applies to electrical circuits, systems, and components in their manner of installation as well as use. The following discussion and the discussion in 90.2(B)(5) are very closely related and often hotly debated. Information has been provided from both sides of the discussions as well as the commentary from the Code-making panels (CMPs) where available. The purpose is to allow each designer and installer to make their own judgment with regard to how these matters will be resolved based on a full understanding of both sides of the arguments.

90.2

INTRODUCTION

Although generally exempt from compliance with the NEC, according to 90.2(A)(4) certain utility-owned or -operated occupancies must be wired per the NEC. The wording in this section along with the companion rule of 90.2(B)(5) is intended to identify those utility electrical installations that are subject to the rules of the NEC and those that are not. Basically stated, any utility occupancy that is not an integral part of a generating plant, substation, or control center must comply with the NEC in all respects. Clearly, any office space, storage area, garage, warehouse, or other nonpower-generating area of a building or structure is not an integral part of the generation, transmission, or distribution of electrical energy and therefore is covered by the NEC. There has been discussion and disagreement over the meaning of the phrase, not an integral part of a generating plant . . . etc. Some feel that the phrase not an integral part of applies to the process of generation, and so forth. Others believe that it applies to the building. That is, if an occupancy identified in 90.2(B)(4) is part of a generating plant, it is exempt from compliance with the NEC. Although that doesnt seem to make sense, past comments made by the CMP indicate that it is the intent of this rule to exempt, say, office spaces within a generating plant. However this is not completely clear from the wording used. To prevent any problem with this section, one could choose to interpret this rule to require NEC compliance for any occupancy that is not an integral part of the process and wire such spaces in accordance with the NEC. Such interpretation cannot be disputed. That is, satisfying the more rigorous NEC requirements cannot be construed as a violation. But, if one does not comply, the potential for legal liability exists. Some may feel that the term integral part should be interpreted to mean integral part of the process (i.e., generation, transformation, or distribution of electric energy), according to commentary in the NEC Committee Reports for the 1987 NEC. Others feel that it should be taken to mean an integral part of the building or structure. Be aware that the first contention seems more reasonable. That is, just because an office is in a generating plant, it shouldnt be exempt from the NEC, especially since these areas will be occupied by the general public. And it seems logical that the same should apply to the cafeteria, bathrooms, and other areas within the plant that are not directly related to the task of generating and delivering electrical energy and will be occupied by other than qualified plant electrical personnel. With that said, it should be noted that the wording here could be read both ways and it will be up to the local AHJ to interpret what is and what is not required to comply with the NEC. It should be noted that equipment installed by the utility to perform associated functions, such as outdoor lighting at an outdoor substation, is intended to be considered as an integral part to the process and is therefore exempt from compliance with the NEC (Figs. 90-2 and 90-3). (B). Not Covered. The rules of the Code do not apply to the electrical work described in (1) through (5). The most common controversy that arises concerns exclusion of electrical work done by electric utilities (power companies), especially outdoor lighting.

INTRODUCTION

90.2

Fig. 90-2. Circuits and equipment of any utility company are exempt from the rule of the NEC when the particular installation is part of the utilitys system for transmitting and distributing power to the utilitys customersprovided that such an installation is accessible only to the utilitys personnel and access is denied to others. Outdoor, fenced-in utility-controlled substations, transformer mat installations, utility pad-mount enclosures, and equipment isolated by elevation are typical utility areas to which the NEC does not apply. The same is also true of indoor, locked transformer vaults, or electric rooms (Sec. 90.2). But electrical equipment, circuits, and systems that are involved in supplying lighting, heating, motors, signals, communications, and other load devices that serve the needs of personnel in buildings or on premises owned (or leased) and operated by a utility are subject to NE Code rules, just like any other commercial or industrial building, provided that the buildings or areas are not integral parts of a generating plant or substation.

90.2

INTRODUCTION

Fig. 90-3. Those buildings and structures that are directly related to the generation, transmission, or distribution of energy are intended to be excluded from compliance with the NEC. However, the rules covering this matter also indicate that functionally associated electrical equipmentsuch as the outdoor lighting for the utility-owned and -operated outdoor substationare also exempt from the NEC.

This rule emphatically explains that not all electrical systems and equipment belonging to utilities are exempt from Code compliance. Electrical circuits and equipment in buildings or on premises that are used exclusively for the generation, control, transformation, transmission, and distribution of electric energy are considered as being safe because of the competence of the utility engineers and electricians who design and install such work. Code rules do not apply to such circuits and equipmentnor to any communication or metering installations of an electric utility. But, any conventional electrical systems for power, lighting, heating, and other applications within buildings or on structures belonging to utilities must comply with Code rules where such places are not used exclusively by utilities for the supply of electric power to the utilities customers. An example of the kind of utility-owned electrical circuits and equipment covered by Code rules would be the electrical installations in, say, an office building of the utility. But, in the Technical Committee Report for the 1987 NEC, the Code panel for Art. 90 stated that it is not the intent of this rule to have NEC regulations apply to office buildings, warehouses, and so forth that are an integral part of a utility-generating plant, substation, or control center. According to comments from the CMP, NEC rules would not apply to any wiring or equipment in a utility-generating plant, substation, or control center and would not apply to conventional lighting and power circuits in office areas, warehouses,

INTRODUCTION

90.2

maintenance shops, or any other areas of utility facilities used for the generation, transmission, or distribution of electric energy for the utilitys customers. But NEC rules would apply to all electrical work in other buildings occupied by utilitiesoffice buildings, warehouses, truck garages, repair shops, etc., that are in separate buildings or structures on the generating facilitys premises. And that opinion was reinforced by the statements of the CMP that sat for the 1996 NEC. With that said, it should be noted that the actual wording used here in the Code could be read both ways and it will be up to the local AHJ to interpret what areas are and what areas are not required to comply with the NEC. The wording used in 90.2(B)(5)(c) recognizes non-NEC-complying utility installations in legally established easements or rights-of-way. This clearly exempts utility activities on public streets, alleys, and similar areas, even for street and area lighting for adjacent parking lots. However, the 2008 NEC deleted the phrase or by other agreements from this list. The concern was that this provision opened the door to utility noncompliance throughout a facility, provided an agreement could be struck with the owner and ratified by the governmental authority having jurisdiction over utility practice. Since utilities are governed by the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) whose provisions are entirely inappropriate for premises wiring, this concern is not inconsequential. In the 2011 version an elaborate compromise was struck that addressed numerous areas where formal easements are impractical, including federal lands and military bases, Indian reservations, railroad property, and state agencies, departments, and port authorities. This successfully covered many instances where the removal of the other agreements permission caused problems. Its list of governmental entities that are unique to the United States may, unfortunately, create adoption issues in foreign jurisdictions in which the NEC is or may in the future be adopted. However, the change remains extremely controversial because it has the potential to unravel over a century of established precedent regarding site lighting by utilities, where all of the work is on the line side of any service point, or where there is no service point whatsoever, as illustrated in Fig. 90-4. Virtually every electric utility has permission to supply outdoor lighting according to rates established by the governing authority, and that lighting need not be in a public way or in an easement, provided it is not premises wiring. The key to understanding the problem is the concept of a service point, defined in Art. 100. The NESC applies on the supply side of service points, where they exist. The NEC applies on the load side of service points, where they exist. It is instructive to review the premises underlying the 2005 NEC language. The entire premise behind allowing the NESC, substantially different from the NEC, to apply to utility work is a simple one: The organizational permanence, engineering supervision, and workforce training in the utility environment are fundamentally different than for premises wiring. Therefore, different standards can be applied to installations under their exclusive control. Whether this also applies to an Energy Service Company (ESCo) doing maintenance under contract with the utility is a regulatory matter that will depend on the degree of command and control exercised by the regulated utility.

90.2

INTRODUCTION

2011

2011

Fig. 90-4. This drawing shows an actual example of a practice that is widespread throughout the United States and many other countries. There is no service point, the parking lot luminaire is not premises wiring, and the maintenance will be performed by a utility line crew in the same bucket truck as services the street lighting, at the same time. The drug store is, in effect, buying the 27,500-lm output from each of the two 250-W high-pressure sodium (HPS) lamps. The 2011 NEC purports to claim jurisdiction over this portion of the parking lot lighting.

Area lighting wired to the NESC will lack local disconnects, specific overcurrent protection, and separate equipment grounding conductors, for just a few examples. Is this a safety issue if a utility line crew does the maintenance? Apparently not, given the ubiquitous presence of street lighting wired this way. Would it be a safety issue if it were premises wiring, maintained by others? Certainly, given that the NEC has never allowed such practices over its long history. The fact that these two statements are self-evidently both true leads to this conclusion: You cannot write and apply installation rules without taking the operational context into account. The NEC does exactly the same thing over and over again when it creates special exceptions and allowances for work that will be performed under qualified maintenance and supervision. Part (C) gives the AHJ the discretion to permit other than utilities the option to install conductors between the utility supply and the service conductors for individual buildings without complying with the NEC. Any such waiver is limited to outdoor portions of the electrical installation, or to conductors inside a building but only to the extent necessary to terminate at the nearest point to where the conductors enter the building. And as discussed at 230.6(5), as soon as wiring penetrates the outer membrane of a building, whether or not it has fully entered occupied space, it is inside the building for code enforcement purposes. Essentially it allows the inspector to permit the use of another standard such as in the utilities code, the NESC. Such permission is typically

10

INTRODUCTION

90.3

limited to campus-type environments where the utility supply to the premises is medium-voltage and distribution to, and between, buildings is installed and maintained by on-site personnel. Its worth noting that any such permission granted by the AHJ must be written permission to satisfy the definition of special permission, as given in Art. 100. Today, however, such occupancies frequently take service at an elevated voltage at a central point, and all the medium voltage feeders to serve the buildings are just that, feeders. As soon as the service point becomes a central medium voltage switch, this provision can no longer be applied to the individual buildings. There are far more mundane uses for this permission. Many CATV (see Article 820) companies rely on powered amplifiers mounted near the top of utility poles to keep their signal strength where it needs to be. Those amplifiers will have a small disconnect and overcurrent protective device located adjacent to the amplifiers. There are no provisions within the body of the NEC that allow for a service disconnect to be located at such a location, which is certainly not readily accessible. However, the entire installation is confined to the pole top, and special permission under 90.2(C) is routinely granted in such cases. 90.3. Code Arrangement. This section provides guidance on which rule takes precedence where two rules covering a particular installation are at odds. Basically, the rules in Chaps. 1 through 4 apply at all times, except for installations covered by Chap. 8, which stands alone. Installations covered by Chaps. 5, 6, and 7 must always comply with the requirements given in Chaps. 1 through 4, unless a specific rule in Chaps. 5 through 7 requires or permits an alternate method. One implication of this principle is that exceptions in Chaps. 1 through 4 that allow for different procedures in Chaps. 5 through 7 are unnecessary. The NEC Style Manual has been rewritten to take this into account, and such exceptions are disappearing from the NEC for this reason. Provisions in Chaps. 1 through 7 of the NEC only apply in Chap. 8 when a Chap. 8 article specifically cites them, and the numbers of such citations in Chap. 8 articles are steadily increasing for this reason. Chapter 9 consists of tables that are mandatory, but only applicable as referenced in earlier articles. The graphic provided in this section facilitates understanding of the relationship between various Code chapters. 90.4. Enforcement. This is one of the most basic and most important of Code rules because it establishes the necessary conditions for use of the Code. The NE Code stipulates that when questions arise about the meaning or intent of any Code rule as it applies to a particular electrical installation, including signaling and communication systems covered by Chap. 8, the electrical inspector having jurisdiction over the installation is the only one authorized by the NE Code to make interpretations of the rules. The wording of Sec. 90.4 reserves that power for the local inspection authority along with the authority to approve equipment and material and to grant the special permission for methods and techniques that might be considered alternatives to those Code rules that specifically mention such special permission. It should be noted that any deviation from standard Code enforcement must be done in accordance with the provisions given in Art. 100 by the definition of Special Permission. The most salient requirement is the need for

90.5

INTRODUCTION

11

documentation. That is, in order to comply with the definition of special permission, such permission must be in writing. This will serve to provide a written record of the circumstances surrounding the granting of a waiver. The NE Code permits the electrical inspector to waive specific requirements or permit alternate methods in any type of electrical installation. In residential, commercial, and institutional electrical systemsas well as in industrialinspectors may accept design and/or installation methods that do not conform to a specific Code rule, provided they are satisfied that the safety objectives of the Code rule are achieved. In other words, there must be a finding of equivalent safety before the permission is granted, and the permission to deviate from them must be provided in writing as required by the first sentence of the second paragraph in this section and stated by the definition of special permission given in Art. 100 (Fig. 90-5).

Fig. 90-5. Inspectors authority may be exercised either by enforcement of that individuals interpretation of a Code rule or by waiver of the Code rule when the inspector is satisfied that a specific non-Code-conforming method or technique satisfies the safety intent of the Code (Sec. 90.4).

This recognition of practices at variance with the Code is provided only for special conditions and must not be interpreted as a general permission to engage in non-Code methods, techniques, or design procedures. In fact, it is likely that inspectors will exercise this authority only with reluctance and then with great care, because of the great responsibility this places on the inspector. This is especially true because such permission may only be granted in writing. Clearly, this requirement for documentation will give many inspectors pause for reflection and reconsideration. It seems almost certain for the exercise of this prerogative. This section also covers instances when the the NEC has changed and new products are not yet available in the local market to comply with the revised terms. The AHJ may, but is not required to, permit the use of previously compliant products. 90.5. Mandatory Rules and Explanatory Material. This section provides guidance regarding proper application of the NEC. Although the NE Code consists essentially of specific regulations on details of electrical design and installation, there is much explanatory material in the form of notes to rules. Part (A) of this section addresses mandatory rules, which typically employ the phrases shall or shall not. Compliance with the Code consists in satisfying all requirements and conditions that are stated by use of the word shall or shall not where used in the body of a Code rule or Exception. Those words, anywhere in any rule or exception, designate a mandatory rule. Failure to comply with any mandatory Code rule constitutes a Code violation.

12

INTRODUCTION

90.6

Part (B) of this section indicates the wording that is used in permissive rules. These rules are typified by the use of phrases such as shall be permitted or shall not be required. Such rules typically provide or accept alternate measures or suspend requirements under certain conditions. It is not necessary to do what these rules permit; it is essentially an optional approach. Note that under the provisions of the NEC Style Manual, the word may is not to be used to set forth a permissive rule. When may is being used to indicate permission, it can only be used in the context of a discretionary action of the authority having jurisdiction. For example, NEC 430.26 authorizes, but does not require, an AHJ to permit the application of a demand factor to the loads on a motor feeder being sized under 430.24. This is an excellent example of the appropriate use of the word, as in . . . the authority having jurisdiction may grant permission for feeder conductors . . . . Part (C) explains that informational notes [formerly called fine-print notes (FPN)s, a change that has been applied throughout the NEC in this edition] are included, following certain Code rules, to provide additional information regarding related rules or standards. This information is strictly advisory or explanatory in nature and presents no rule or additional requirement. The same is true for bracketed information that references other NFPA standards. The inclusion of the referenced standard is to inform the reader of the origin of extracted text, where that text is taken from an NFPA standard. However, the reference to another NFPA standard in no way makes the referenced standard part of the Code; nor does such reference oblige compliance with other rules in the referenced standard. Informational notes explain NEC rules, they do not change NEC rules. If, in reading an informational note, it appears to allow or require something different from the rule that precedes it, then you are misreading the rule and you should read the rule again. Part (D), new for the 2011 edition covers the annexes at the end of the NEC, changing their titles to include the word Informative. This paragraph, in concert with the terminology change regarding informational notes, attempts to clarify a distinction between actual rules and merely informative text providing background or interpretive assistance. 90.6. Formal Interpretations. Official interpretations of the National Electrical Code are based on specific sections of specific editions of the Code. In most cases, such official interpretations apply to the stated conditions on given installations. Accordingly, they would not necessarily apply to other situations that vary slightly from the statement on which the official interpretation was issued. As official interpretations of each edition of the Code are issued, they are published in the NFPA News, and press releases are sent to interested trade papers. All official interpretations issued on a specific Code edition are reviewed by the appropriate CMP. In reviewing a request for a formal interpretation, a Code panel may agree or disagree. They will render a simple yes or no to the question, which places the burden on the questioner to provide a question that can be answered in the affirmative or negative. At some point in future Codes, the CMP might clarify the Code text to avoid further misunderstanding of intent. On the other hand, the Code panel may not recommend any change in

90.7

INTRODUCTION

13

the Code text because of the special conditions described in the request for an official interpretation. For these reasons, the NFPA does not catalog official interpretations issued on previous editions of the Code within the Code itself. Such Formal Interpretations can be obtained through the National Fire Protection Association. Under NFPA rules, Formal Interpretations require a four-fifths vote, which can easily result in sufficient dissent to preclude their issuance. They are issued on a specific edition of a standard, and are retained until the wording to which they applied changes. In addition, when a formal interpretation is issued, the technical committee (in this case a CMP) is encouraged (but not required) to review the disputed text that provoked the request for interpretation when they process the next edition. A classic example of a Formal Interpretation, on the text of the 1978 NEC, asked whether reinforcing steel in a concrete foundation was available for connection after the concrete had hardened. It was common for inspection authorities in Florida at the time to insist that footings be jackhammered and connections be made so as to bring these concrete-encased electrodes into the grounding electrode system. The panels answer was No and that interpretation retained its validity until the 2005 NEC changed the word available to present in what is now 250.50. It should be remembered that, according to 90.4, the authority having jurisdiction has the prime responsibility of interpreting Code rules in its area and disagreements on the intent of particular Code rules in its area; and disagreements on the intent of particular Code rules should be resolved at the local level if at all possible. A Formal Interpretation is not really a viable avenue for a couple of reasons. One is the amount of time it will take for the CMP to render its decision, which is generally months. The other is that even if you request a Formal Interpretation and the CMP agrees with your application, there is no guarantee that the authority having jurisdiction will accept the findings of an official interpretation, nor are they required to do so. Although this section deals with Formal Interpretations, it should be noted that changes in the Code are promulgated in a very similar manner. That is, changes to Code rules are generally precipitated by a request for change from the field. Guidance for submittal of a Code change is provided closely following the Index in the back of the Code. 90.7. Examination of Equipment for Safety. It is not the intent of the National Electrical Code to include the detailed requirements for internal wiring of electrical equipment. Such information is usually contained in individual standards for the equipment concerned. Note that Annex A at the end of the Code book includes the recognized product standards that the testing laboratories use to evaluate the products for which NEC rules require listings. The last sentence does not intend to take away the authority of the local inspector to examine and approve equipment, but rather to indicate that the requirements of the National Electrical Code do not generally apply to the internal construction of devices which have been listed by a nationally recognized electrical testing laboratory. Although the specifics of Code rules on examination of equipment for safety are presented in 110.2 and 110.3, the general Code statement on this matter is

14

INTRODUCTION

90.8

made here in 90.7. Although the Code does place emphasis on the need for third-party certification of equipment by independent testing laboratories, it does not make a flat rule to that effect. However, the rules of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) are very rigid in insisting on product certification. Codes and standards must be carefully interrelated and followed with care and precision. Modern work that fulfills these demands should be the objective of all electrical construction people. 90.8. Wiring Planning. These two sections address concepts that are essentially design-oriented. Part (A) alerts the reader to the fact that simply designing to Code-mandated minimums will not provide for any future expansion. Additional capacity in raceways, boxes, enclosures, and so forth, should be considered, but spare capacity is not required. Part (B) points out the fact that minimizing the number of conductors within a given raceway will minimize the number of circuits affected during a fault. Additionally, extra room in your raceways (i.e., fewer conductors than the maximum permitted) will also facilitate pulling of the conductors into the raceway. Again, providing extra room in raceways or limiting the number of circuits is only required as indicated elsewhere in the Code (e.g., 314.16 on box fill). 90.9. Metric Units of Measurement. Part (A) identifies metric measurements as the preferred measurement, although English units (i.e., inch-pounds-feet) are also provided as indicated by part (B). In part (C), the Code discusses when one is required to use a soft conversion and where a hard conversion is permitted. A soft conversion is direct mathematical conversion, for example, 1 m = 39.3 in.; a hard conversion is more practical, e.g., 1 m = 3 ft. It may seem counterintuitive to have a hard conversion as the inexact conversion. Another way to express the concept is that a hard conversion is the conversion a hard-core metric user would do, that is, use a round number for his or her metric measurement. The various explanations that follow in the NEC at this point regarding hard and soft conversion are primarily aimed at CMPs. They must make the decisions around which metric unit would unacceptably degrade safety, or cause wholesale changes in industry specifications. For example, CMP 9 used soft conversions in Table 314.16 because hard conversions would result in every steel box being at variance from NEC provisions, not by much, but enough to force extensive redesign of manufacturing facilities with no real safety benefit. CMP 1 made the decision that reducing the minimum workspace width in front of a panel from 762 mm (the soft conversion from 30 in.) to 750 mm (the hard conversion) would unacceptably degrade safety, and so that dimension has been retained as a soft conversion. The rule of part (D), Compliance, addresses the coexistence of the two systems of measurement. There the Code states that use of either the SI or the English units shall constitute compliance with this Code. Clearly, designers and installers may use either of the designated values. However, it should be noted that only one, or the other units of measure should be used throughout a given project. Inspectors have raised objection to mixing and matching units of measure.