March 2008

Click here for NYS Security and Fire Alarm Requirements

Click Here for Late Breaking News on Alarm Licenses

NEWS from CPSC

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Progress Lighting Recalls Ceiling-Mounted Outdoor Light Fixtures; Lights Can Fall Off Mounting and Injure Consumers

Name of Product: Progress Lighting Outdoor Ceiling Light Fixtures

Units: About 1,000

Importer: Progress Lighting, of Greenville, S.C.

Manufacturer: Pegtom, of Hong Ding, China

Hazard: A weld that affixes a mounting bracket to the ceiling pan can fail, which can cause the fixture to fall and injure nearby persons.

Incidents/Injuries: Progress Lighting has received six reports of fixtures falling. No property damage or injuries have been reported.

Description: Only Progress Lighting ceiling-mounted outdoor light fixtures with model numbers P5526-20 and P5526-44 are included in the recall. The light fixtures have three flame-shaped lights inside a beveled glass and solid frame. The fixtures require (3) 60-watt light bulbs. “Made in/Hecho En/Fabrique Aux China” and the model numbers are written on the packaging of the product.

Sold at: Electrical and lighting distributors nationwide from January 2007 through November 2007 for about $200.

Manufactured in: China

Remedy: Consumers should contact Progress Lighting to schedule a free repair of the lighting fixture.

Consumer Contact: For more information, contact Progress Lighting toll-free at (866) 418-5543 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site at www.progresslighting.com

January 2008

Commercial Collections Programs

The Fleet Program
The Fleet Program helps firms organize and keep track of their parking tickets. Any firm can participate if it has one or more vehicles registered or leased under the company's name and address. Companies in the Fleet Program receive weekly reports listing tickets issued to enrolled plates. They are then given a penalty-free period to address those tickets.

Weekly reports are available on paper, which take 7-10 days to arrive by mail, or by e-mail, which is much faster. When a company enrolls in the Fleet Program, it selects either paper or electronic reports. However, if a company has selected paper reports and later decides that e-mail would be more efficient, the company can submit a request for e-mail Fleet reports, in writing, to the Fleet Unit.

Please include the following information in this request: Company name and address, E-mail address (to which reports will be sent), Name of contact person, and Contact's phone number

Send this request to:
NYC Department of Finance
Fleet/Rental Programs
66 John Street, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10038

Please allow 2-3 days for your request to be processed.

For more info: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/jump/ezfleet.shtml

February 2007

Underwriters Laboratories is looking for interested parties to serve on a Standard Technical Panel for Cable Positioning Devices (metal and plastic).

I presently serve on the panel.  Please let me know if you would be interested or know someone who is interested in serving on the panel.

STP 1565 Members,

We are in urgent need of additional members for our Standards Technical Panel for Positioning Devices (STP 1565).  In particular, we need recommendations that would fit in any of the categories listed below.  Please let me know as soon as possible if you have any recommendations.
We do not need additional manufacturers of positioning devices, as that category is already well represented on the STP.  Your assistance with providing recommendations would be greatly appreciated.


Supply Chain: Component producers for an end-product STP or end-product producers for a component STP; installers; distributors; and retailers. Manufacturers with no manufacturing facilities for the products by the STP, but solely use contract manufacturers to make the products. Wholesale or retail purchase-resellers for products made by other companies are also considered as part of the supply chain category.

Commercial/Industrial User: Organizations that use the product in a commercial or industrial setting. Examples include a restaurant owner/operator serving on an STP for commercial cooking equipment, or a gas station owner/operator serving on an STP for flammable liquid storage tanks.  Representative of organizations that manufacture products covered by the standard, whose organization also use the product, are not eligible for STP membership under this category

General Interest: Consultants, academia, scientists, etc that are not covered by the other participation categories, such as professional societies, attorneys, and safety experts and trade associations. Companies that only private-brand label products (made by another manufacturer) covered by the STP.

AHJ: Those involved in the regulation or enforcement of the requirements of codes and standards at the state and local level. Where public safety is primary, the authority having jurisdiction may be a state, local, or other regional department or individual such as a fire chief; fire marshal; chief of a fire prevention bureau, labor department, or health department; building official; electrical inspector; or others having statutory authority. For insurance purposes, an insurance inspection department, rating bureau, or other insurance company representative may be the authority having jurisdiction

Government: Representatives from federal agencies.  These may include CPSC, FDA, EPA, DOT, DOE, DOD, NIST, etc. Also, representatives of state, local, or regional government bodies that do not fall under the category of AHJ.

Testing and Standards Organization: Organizations that test and/or certify products covered by the standard, or that develop standards/codes related to the products covered by the Standard

Consumer: Consumer organizations, consumer departments at universities, home economic departments at universities, professional consumers, individuals who use the product as part of their livelihood and are not eligible for STP membership under another interest category


Thanks!

Jonette Herman
Project Manager for STP 1565
Staff Engineer
Standards Dept. - RTP Office
Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
phone: (919) 549-1479
FAX: (919) 547-6179
e-mail: Jonette.A.Herman@us.ul.com
- For more information about UL, its Marks, and its services for
EMC, quality registrations and product certifications for global
markets, please access our web sites at http://www.ul.com and
http://www.ulc.ca or contact your local sales representative. --

December 2006

November 2006

Grounding drawing based on the 2005 NEC

Click Image to Enlarge

October 19, 2006

Type MC Cable Specifications

September 2006

Click here to view the "Residential Load Calculations" Spreadsheet

March 2006

Click to here view Memorial for Sal Mugavero

January 2006

All cellphone number are being released to telemarketers, call the DO NOT CALL List at 888-382-1222 from your cellphone or visit www.donotcall.gov on the web and list all the numbers to prevent annoying calls.

Click here for the list of the most common installation deficiencies as defined by inspectors in New Hampshire – 1999 Code

August 2005

Click here for the Small Commercial Lightning Program Information

Cell Phones and Driving
THE TOPIC

JUNE 2005

In the United States over 190 million people used cell phones as of June 2005, compared with approximately 4.3 million in 1990, according to the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association.

Increased reliance on cell phones has led to a rise in the number of people who use the devices while driving. There are two dangers associated with driving and cell phone use. First, drivers must take their eyes off the road while dialing. Second, people can become so absorbed in their conversations that their ability to concentrate on the act of driving is severely impaired, jeopardizing the safety of vehicle occupants and pedestrians. Since the first law was passed in New York in 2001 banning hand-held cell phone use while driving, there has been debate as to the exact nature and degree of hazard. At first safety experts focused on the problem as part of the larger one of driver distractions in general. These can include anything that reduces driver concentration on road hazards from drinking coffee to talking with another passenger. Now there is increasing evidence that the dangers associated with cell-phone use outweigh those of other distractions. Safety experts also acknowledge that the hazard posed by cell phone conversations is not eliminated, and may even be increased, by the use of hands-free sets.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

Studies: A new government study to be released during the third week in June indicates that the distraction of cell phones and other wireless devices was far more likely to lead to crashes than other distractions faced by drivers. Researchers for the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) tracked 100 cars and their drivers for a year and concluded that talking on cell phones caused far more crashes, near-crashes and other incidents than other distractions.

These findings seem to contradict an August 2003 report from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety that concluded that drivers are far less distracted by their cell phones than other common activities, such as reaching for items on the seat or glove compartment or talking to passengers. The study was based on the analysis of three hour videotapes from cameras installed in the vehicles of 70 drivers in North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

Another survey by the NHTSA found that more people are using cell phones while driving. The survey found that the number of drivers using cell phones at any particular moment during daylight hours increased from 6 percent in 2002 to 8 percent (or 1.2 million drivers) in 2004. The jump was most noticeable among women (up to 6 percent from 4 percent in 2002) and young drivers ages 16 to 24 (up to 8 percent from 5 percent in 2002). The percentage of men using cell phones remained steady at 4 percent. The overall figure includes hand-held and hand-free models.

More people are using cell phones while driving, according to a new National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) survey. The survey found that the number of drivers using cell phones at any particular moment during daylight hours increased from 6 percent in 2002 to 8 percent (or 1.2 million drivers) in 2004. The jump was most noticeable among women (up to 6 percent from 4 percent in 2002) and young drivers ages 16 to 24 (up to 8 percent from 5 percent in 2002). The percentage of men using cell phones remained steady at 4 percent. The overall figure includes hand-held and hand-free models.

Many studies have shown that using hand-held cell phones while driving can constitute a hazardous distraction. However, the theory that hands-free sets are safer has been challenged by the findings of several studies. A September 2004 study from the NHTSA found that drivers using hand-free cell phones had to redial calls 40 percent of the time, compared with 18 percent for drivers using hand held sets, suggesting that hands free sets may provide drivers with a false sense of ease.

A study from the University of Utah published in the winter 2004/2005 issue of Human Factors, the quarterly journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, found that motorists who talked on hands-free cell phones were 18 percent slower in braking and took 17 percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked. An earlier University of Utah study by the same researchers found that drivers talking on hands-free cell phones were less likely to recall seeing pedestrians, billboards or other roadside features.

A study published in the March 2003 issue of The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, found that the distraction risk is as high for drivers who use hands-free cell phones, as for drivers who use hand-held devices.

State and Federal Initiatives: The number of state legislatures debating measures that address the problem of cell-phone use while driving and other driver distractions continues to rise. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, over two-thirds of states looked at bills that would restrict the use of cell phones while driving in the first part of 2005. Four states -- Colorado, Delaware, Maryland and Tennessee -- banned their use by young drivers in 2005. In May, the city of Chicago banned the use of hand held cell phones while driving, imposing penalties of $50 or $200 (the latter if the driver is involved in an accident).

In June 2005 the Connecticut legislature passed a bill banning the use of hand-held cell phones while driving. The governor is expected to sign the legislation, which imposes fines of up to $100 for violations. In January 2004 New Jersey passed a similar to bill and in April of that year the District of Columbia (DC) followed suit. In New Jersey fines range between $100 and $250; in DC fines are $100. New York was the first state to enact such legislation in 2001. Drivers there face fines of $100 for the first violation, $200 for the second and $500 thereafter.

In June 2003 federal and state highway safety agencies issued new guidelines for reporting crashes caused by distracted drivers. The authorities are asking police across the nation to note whether a driver was distracted and the source of the distraction, such as cell phone, radio, passenger, or another vehicle.

Businesses: Businesses are increasingly prohibiting workers from using cell phones while driving to conduct business. In July 2004, the California Association of Employers recommended that employers develop a cell phone policy that requires employees to pull off the road before conducting business by cell phone.

Court Decisions: In December 2004 a civil case involving a car crash caused by a driver using a cell phone for business reasons was dismissed when the driver’s employer, Beers Skanska Inc., agreed to pay the plaintiff $5 million. The plaintiff in the case being heard in Georgia’s Fulton County Superior Court was severely injured in the crash. The suit is among the most recent of several cases where an employer has been held liable for an accident caused by a driver using a cell phone. See background section on Employer and Manufacturer Liability.

In mid-October 2004 in the case of Yoon v. Wagner a Virginia jury awarded $2 million in damages to the family of a young girl who was killed by a driver using a cell phone at the time of the accident. The plaintiff also filed a suit against the driver’s employer after it became clear through an examination of phone records that the driver had been talking to a client when she hit the girl.

BACKGROUND

Cell phones play an integral role in our society. However, the convenience they offer must be judged against the hazards they pose. Inattentive driving accounted for 6.4 percent of crash fatalities in 2003 — the latest data available — according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Inattentive driving includes talking, eating, putting on make up and attending to children. Using cell phones and other wireless or electronic units are also considered distractions.

As many as 40 countries may restrict or prohibit the use of cell phones while driving. Countries reported to have laws related to cell phone use include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Botswana, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Singapore, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe. Most countries prohibit the use of hand-held phones while driving. Drivers in the Czech Republic, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom may use cell phones but can be fined if they are involved in crashes while using the phone. Drivers in the United Kingdom and Germany also can lose insurance coverage if they are involved in a crash while talking on the phone.

Supporters of restrictions on driving while using a cell phone say that the distractions associated with cell phone use while driving are far greater than other distractions. Conversations using a cell phone demand greater continuous concentration, which diverts the driver’s eyes from the road and his mind from driving. Opponents of cell phone restrictions say drivers should be educated about the effects of all driver distractions. They also say that existing laws that regulate driving should be more strictly enforced.

Employer and Manufacturer Liability: Although only a handful of high-profile cases have gone to court, employers are still concerned that they might be held liable for accidents caused by their employees while driving and conducting work-related conversations on cell phones. Under the doctrine of vicarious responsibility, employers may be held legally accountable for the negligent acts of employees committed in the course of employment. Employers may also be found negligent if they fail to put in place a policy for the safe use of cell phones. In response, many companies have established cell phone usage policies. Some allow employees to conduct business over the phone as long as they pull over to the side of the road or into a parking lot. Others have completely banned the use of all wireless devices.

In an article published in the June 2003 edition of the North Dakota Law Review, attorney Jordan Michael proposed a theory of cell phone manufacturer liability for auto accidents if they fail to warn users of the dangers of driving and talking on the phone at the same time. The theory holds that maker liability would be similar to the liability of employers who encourage or demand cell phone use on the road. Holding manufacturers liable would cover all persons who drive and use cell phones for personal calls. Michael notes that some car rental agencies have already placed warnings on embedded cell phones in their cars.


© Insurance Information Institute, Inc. - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

November 2004

Click here for the
NYC Carbon Monoxide Law Information

January 2004

Dear New Licensee,

The Five Boro Electrical Contractor's Association is an association of licensed electrical contractors in New York City. We are an organization of about 300 members serving the special needs of licensed electrical contractors since 1957. We provide all members with a full range of valuable electrical information and support activities for your business.

— We provide active representation of the trade's interest in the current revision of NYC

Electrical Code and we also have representation on the New York City Advisory Board and Code Interpretation Committee.

•  We challenge New York City and public utilities on issues that negatively impact licensed electrical contractors.

•  We are the watchdog organization identifying unlicensed electrical contractors and report work sites to the NYC Bureau of Electrical Controls (NYC BEC)

•  We conduct training seminars to educate our membership about new changes in the Code, advances in technology, new products on the market, and general business survival techniques (including insurance assistance for general liability, worker's compensation and disability)

•  We provide a monthly forum for our members to be heard on matters of their individual concerns and provide a monthly report on all committee business. A free dinner and guest speaker enhance the evening.

•  We monitor the NY Board of Fire Underwriters for the 5 Boros in addition to Nassau and Suffolk counties.

We have a proven record of commitment to licensed electrical contractors. Our accomplishments include, but are not limited to the following:

•  Established a “due process” procedure at the License Board for all electrical contractors.

•  Provided opportunity to licensed contractors to hold multiple licenses and multiple occupancies.

•  Always at the forefront of maintaining low license fees.

•  Facilitated a Coalition Against Self-Certification to express concern over the City's intention to allow electrical installations to be “self-certified”.

•  Established a positive working relationship with both the NYC BEC and Con Edison inspectors.

We invite you to attend our monthly meeting, dinner included, on the third Tuesday of every month (except July and August).

However, if you care to join our organization at this time, please fill out the attached application and mail it to our office. This will automatically entitle you to a seat while your application is being processed. For further information, please call committeeman Ralph Barba (914)804-8383 or our office at (718) 846-1104.

Sincerely,

Louis Cotroneo

President

Click here to download Word Form

Roland Wertz
436 Beach 129th Street
Belle Harbor, NY 11694
(718) 474-1738
(718) 474-7870 - Fax

Dear Five Boro Members:

I would like to make all the members aware of a new ruling by the Bureau of Electrical Control. Before doing any service work in Breezy Point, Roxbury, as well as some areas of Rockaway in New York, you need to ask the customer if they have a Certificate of Occupancy, for their home. WIthout it the Bureau of Electrical Control will not issue a permit. The homes in these areas were originally built for summer use only and were built by Marine & Aviation between 1900 & 1930 on Federal land. They now belong to a Cooparative and most do not have a Certificate of Occupancy. The Cooperative has no way of getting a Certificate of Occupancy either. There are 3 steps to getting a Letter of Objection, from the Buildings Department, which you can use in lieu of the C.O., so that the Bureau of Electrical Control will issue a permit:

1. Call the Sandbourne Map Company and describe the location of the building. They will send you a copy of maps for the area, with the home on it. The cost is approximately $125.00.
2. Go to the Finance Department and tell them why you need the Letter of No Objection. They will send you proof of the taxes paid by the homeowner.
3. Get a professional survey by a licensed Architect. The cost is approximately $700.00. There is a Mr. Bianco in that area and he is familiar with the community.
4. Once you are in possession of all these documents, go to the Buildings Department and they will provide you with a Letter of No Objection.

All this may take up to 6 weeks to complete. This new ruling by the Bureau of Electrical Control is just one more burden on our members and other licensed contractors. LIPPA is setting meters without temporary or permit numbers. This leaves the door opened again for unlicensed work.

GOD BLESS THE SYSTEM!!

Members: Take Heed to the below letter (reproduced here for better reading purposes). Joe DiGangi wrote a letter to the editor of Ridgewood Times and this disclaimer has been added to their classified section. If you see something that isn't right, don't leave it up to someone else to correct. Take action and you can get results. Way To Go Joe!!!

Burner Electric Corp.
64-20 Fresh Pond Road
Ridgewood, NY 11585
(718) 381-8256

August 27, 2003

Maureen E. Walthers
Publisher and Editor
Ridgewood Times
66-58 Fresh Pond Road
Ridgewood, New York 11386-0299

Dear Ms. Walthers:

We have noted that there are numerous advertisements in your classified department labeled "Handyman" that indicate that they do electrical work. Please note that per the New York City Bureau of Electrical Control, a licensed electrical contractor must perform all electrical work.

It would be appreciated that the attached disclaimer, as posted in the telephone directories, be printed in your classified pages.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,

Joseph DiGangi