Bob
I am not aware of any reason that should require an apology on your part. I appreciate your concern and frankly hope that I did not offend you or any other member regarding this issue (although we apparently provided some entertainment). I feel such opposing views are healthy and in my case, usually provide a valuable degree of clarity regarding different sections of the MEC and NEC. As a friend of mine preaches it’s all about intent vs. language.
I do not know what the original reference in the MEC was getting at when they used the term “authority enforcing this Code”(Mass ROP’s are like hens teeth). But when I look at section 90.4 it states the “authority enforcing this Code and exercising legal jurisdiction”, and the following sentence states that the “authority having jurisdiction and enforcing”??
I admit my original response may have been a bit passionate but I was not upset. I do not see a point of demarcation regarding the intent of the NEC’s AHJ and the authority of Mass. Municipal Inspectors as provided in CMR 12 or Chapter 166. Section 32 over their area.
In locals other than ours if there were a dispute regarding the language of the NEC Official interpretations are only rendered through a petition to the chair of the Code Making Panel, I do not see a discernable difference between that process and the interpretations process in MA. We additional have an appeals process and an opportunity to petition the Supreme Court.
If you look at Article 80.2 definitions (yes I know MA does not adopt it) the job description of AHJ is not much different than Authority Enforcing, (I will attempt to gain a more informed information).
Your opinion is valid and I’m sure that you will continue to defend it, as you should! I hope that I will be able to do the same.
Thanks
Charlie
