Codes & Compliance FAQs

The NSCA Codes & Compliance Committee provides a forum for members to ask questions and find answers to the issues they’re most concerned about in regard to compliance.
Ask our committee a question and the most appropriate subject-matter expert will provide you with direction or advice. We may point you to other resources on NSCA’s website or to the leading authorities on the topic as well.
Our goal is to provide direction and best practices while respecting the local authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). The general advice we provide may still require you to check local ordinances, codes, or permitting regulations.

 

SUBMIT A QUESTION

 

Code Conflicts (1)

A: The risk involved with misinterpreting codes or standards can be devastating to a project. This is one of the reasons NSCA took its legislative agenda to membership in 2019 for approval.

Historically, integrators have relied upon manufacturers and vendor partners to interpret the intent of the specifier in the absence of clarity. Today, that responsibility is shifting to the integrator because multiple systems and/or applications are integrated and interconnected.

The code official (AHJ) is likely to be concerned only with the basic or core purpose for which a system is required or specified based upon specific occupancy. We often see AHJs asking for proof that basic systems meet code; they aren’t as concerned with ancillary or supplemental features as long as they don’t interfere with or alter the operation or integrity of the core system.

A: We push back. Our company never issues a price on a project without clarity on this. We would rather pass on a project than send out a bid we’re uncomfortable with. We also do what we can to educate the spec writers and consultants on what our AHJs will and won’t accept.

A: Our biggest problem is confusion between UL, ICC, and NFPA. We try to educate our team and adhere to the highest standards but feel like our competitors do what’s cheapest (and get away with it).

Choose your FAQ category: Code Conflicts

Load More

Code Conflicts (1)

A: The risk involved with misinterpreting codes or standards can be devastating to a project. This is one of the reasons NSCA took its legislative agenda to membership in 2019 for approval.

Historically, integrators have relied upon manufacturers and vendor partners to interpret the intent of the specifier in the absence of clarity. Today, that responsibility is shifting to the integrator because multiple systems and/or applications are integrated and interconnected.

The code official (AHJ) is likely to be concerned only with the basic or core purpose for which a system is required or specified based upon specific occupancy. We often see AHJs asking for proof that basic systems meet code; they aren’t as concerned with ancillary or supplemental features as long as they don’t interfere with or alter the operation or integrity of the core system.

A: We push back. Our company never issues a price on a project without clarity on this. We would rather pass on a project than send out a bid we’re uncomfortable with. We also do what we can to educate the spec writers and consultants on what our AHJs will and won’t accept.

A: Our biggest problem is confusion between UL, ICC, and NFPA. We try to educate our team and adhere to the highest standards but feel like our competitors do what’s cheapest (and get away with it).

Choose your FAQ category: Code Conflicts

Load More

Code Conflicts (1)

A: The risk involved with misinterpreting codes or standards can be devastating to a project. This is one of the reasons NSCA took its legislative agenda to membership in 2019 for approval.

Historically, integrators have relied upon manufacturers and vendor partners to interpret the intent of the specifier in the absence of clarity. Today, that responsibility is shifting to the integrator because multiple systems and/or applications are integrated and interconnected.

The code official (AHJ) is likely to be concerned only with the basic or core purpose for which a system is required or specified based upon specific occupancy. We often see AHJs asking for proof that basic systems meet code; they aren’t as concerned with ancillary or supplemental features as long as they don’t interfere with or alter the operation or integrity of the core system.

A: We push back. Our company never issues a price on a project without clarity on this. We would rather pass on a project than send out a bid we’re uncomfortable with. We also do what we can to educate the spec writers and consultants on what our AHJs will and won’t accept.

A: Our biggest problem is confusion between UL, ICC, and NFPA. We try to educate our team and adhere to the highest standards but feel like our competitors do what’s cheapest (and get away with it).

Choose your FAQ category: Code Conflicts

Load More

Code Conflicts (1)

A: The risk involved with misinterpreting codes or standards can be devastating to a project. This is one of the reasons NSCA took its legislative agenda to membership in 2019 for approval.

Historically, integrators have relied upon manufacturers and vendor partners to interpret the intent of the specifier in the absence of clarity. Today, that responsibility is shifting to the integrator because multiple systems and/or applications are integrated and interconnected.

The code official (AHJ) is likely to be concerned only with the basic or core purpose for which a system is required or specified based upon specific occupancy. We often see AHJs asking for proof that basic systems meet code; they aren’t as concerned with ancillary or supplemental features as long as they don’t interfere with or alter the operation or integrity of the core system.

A: We push back. Our company never issues a price on a project without clarity on this. We would rather pass on a project than send out a bid we’re uncomfortable with. We also do what we can to educate the spec writers and consultants on what our AHJs will and won’t accept.

A: Our biggest problem is confusion between UL, ICC, and NFPA. We try to educate our team and adhere to the highest standards but feel like our competitors do what’s cheapest (and get away with it).

Choose your FAQ category: Code Conflicts

Load More

Code Conflicts (1)

A: The risk involved with misinterpreting codes or standards can be devastating to a project. This is one of the reasons NSCA took its legislative agenda to membership in 2019 for approval.

Historically, integrators have relied upon manufacturers and vendor partners to interpret the intent of the specifier in the absence of clarity. Today, that responsibility is shifting to the integrator because multiple systems and/or applications are integrated and interconnected.

The code official (AHJ) is likely to be concerned only with the basic or core purpose for which a system is required or specified based upon specific occupancy. We often see AHJs asking for proof that basic systems meet code; they aren’t as concerned with ancillary or supplemental features as long as they don’t interfere with or alter the operation or integrity of the core system.

A: We push back. Our company never issues a price on a project without clarity on this. We would rather pass on a project than send out a bid we’re uncomfortable with. We also do what we can to educate the spec writers and consultants on what our AHJs will and won’t accept.

A: Our biggest problem is confusion between UL, ICC, and NFPA. We try to educate our team and adhere to the highest standards but feel like our competitors do what’s cheapest (and get away with it).

Choose your FAQ category: Code Conflicts

Load More

Code Conflicts (1)

A: The risk involved with misinterpreting codes or standards can be devastating to a project. This is one of the reasons NSCA took its legislative agenda to membership in 2019 for approval.

Historically, integrators have relied upon manufacturers and vendor partners to interpret the intent of the specifier in the absence of clarity. Today, that responsibility is shifting to the integrator because multiple systems and/or applications are integrated and interconnected.

The code official (AHJ) is likely to be concerned only with the basic or core purpose for which a system is required or specified based upon specific occupancy. We often see AHJs asking for proof that basic systems meet code; they aren’t as concerned with ancillary or supplemental features as long as they don’t interfere with or alter the operation or integrity of the core system.

A: We push back. Our company never issues a price on a project without clarity on this. We would rather pass on a project than send out a bid we’re uncomfortable with. We also do what we can to educate the spec writers and consultants on what our AHJs will and won’t accept.

A: Our biggest problem is confusion between UL, ICC, and NFPA. We try to educate our team and adhere to the highest standards but feel like our competitors do what’s cheapest (and get away with it).

Choose your FAQ category: Code Conflicts

Load More

Code Conflicts (1)

A: The risk involved with misinterpreting codes or standards can be devastating to a project. This is one of the reasons NSCA took its legislative agenda to membership in 2019 for approval.

Historically, integrators have relied upon manufacturers and vendor partners to interpret the intent of the specifier in the absence of clarity. Today, that responsibility is shifting to the integrator because multiple systems and/or applications are integrated and interconnected.

The code official (AHJ) is likely to be concerned only with the basic or core purpose for which a system is required or specified based upon specific occupancy. We often see AHJs asking for proof that basic systems meet code; they aren’t as concerned with ancillary or supplemental features as long as they don’t interfere with or alter the operation or integrity of the core system.

A: We push back. Our company never issues a price on a project without clarity on this. We would rather pass on a project than send out a bid we’re uncomfortable with. We also do what we can to educate the spec writers and consultants on what our AHJs will and won’t accept.

A: Our biggest problem is confusion between UL, ICC, and NFPA. We try to educate our team and adhere to the highest standards but feel like our competitors do what’s cheapest (and get away with it).

Choose your FAQ category: Code Conflicts

Load More

Code Conflicts (1)

A: The risk involved with misinterpreting codes or standards can be devastating to a project. This is one of the reasons NSCA took its legislative agenda to membership in 2019 for approval.

Historically, integrators have relied upon manufacturers and vendor partners to interpret the intent of the specifier in the absence of clarity. Today, that responsibility is shifting to the integrator because multiple systems and/or applications are integrated and interconnected.

The code official (AHJ) is likely to be concerned only with the basic or core purpose for which a system is required or specified based upon specific occupancy. We often see AHJs asking for proof that basic systems meet code; they aren’t as concerned with ancillary or supplemental features as long as they don’t interfere with or alter the operation or integrity of the core system.

A: We push back. Our company never issues a price on a project without clarity on this. We would rather pass on a project than send out a bid we’re uncomfortable with. We also do what we can to educate the spec writers and consultants on what our AHJs will and won’t accept.

A: Our biggest problem is confusion between UL, ICC, and NFPA. We try to educate our team and adhere to the highest standards but feel like our competitors do what’s cheapest (and get away with it).

Choose your FAQ category: Code Conflicts

Load More

Code Conflicts (1)

A: The risk involved with misinterpreting codes or standards can be devastating to a project. This is one of the reasons NSCA took its legislative agenda to membership in 2019 for approval.

Historically, integrators have relied upon manufacturers and vendor partners to interpret the intent of the specifier in the absence of clarity. Today, that responsibility is shifting to the integrator because multiple systems and/or applications are integrated and interconnected.

The code official (AHJ) is likely to be concerned only with the basic or core purpose for which a system is required or specified based upon specific occupancy. We often see AHJs asking for proof that basic systems meet code; they aren’t as concerned with ancillary or supplemental features as long as they don’t interfere with or alter the operation or integrity of the core system.

A: We push back. Our company never issues a price on a project without clarity on this. We would rather pass on a project than send out a bid we’re uncomfortable with. We also do what we can to educate the spec writers and consultants on what our AHJs will and won’t accept.

A: Our biggest problem is confusion between UL, ICC, and NFPA. We try to educate our team and adhere to the highest standards but feel like our competitors do what’s cheapest (and get away with it).

Choose your FAQ category: Code Conflicts

Load More

Code Conflicts (1)

A: The risk involved with misinterpreting codes or standards can be devastating to a project. This is one of the reasons NSCA took its legislative agenda to membership in 2019 for approval.

Historically, integrators have relied upon manufacturers and vendor partners to interpret the intent of the specifier in the absence of clarity. Today, that responsibility is shifting to the integrator because multiple systems and/or applications are integrated and interconnected.

The code official (AHJ) is likely to be concerned only with the basic or core purpose for which a system is required or specified based upon specific occupancy. We often see AHJs asking for proof that basic systems meet code; they aren’t as concerned with ancillary or supplemental features as long as they don’t interfere with or alter the operation or integrity of the core system.

A: We push back. Our company never issues a price on a project without clarity on this. We would rather pass on a project than send out a bid we’re uncomfortable with. We also do what we can to educate the spec writers and consultants on what our AHJs will and won’t accept.

A: Our biggest problem is confusion between UL, ICC, and NFPA. We try to educate our team and adhere to the highest standards but feel like our competitors do what’s cheapest (and get away with it).

Choose your FAQ category: Code Conflicts

Load More

Code Conflicts (1)

A: The risk involved with misinterpreting codes or standards can be devastating to a project. This is one of the reasons NSCA took its legislative agenda to membership in 2019 for approval.

Historically, integrators have relied upon manufacturers and vendor partners to interpret the intent of the specifier in the absence of clarity. Today, that responsibility is shifting to the integrator because multiple systems and/or applications are integrated and interconnected.

The code official (AHJ) is likely to be concerned only with the basic or core purpose for which a system is required or specified based upon specific occupancy. We often see AHJs asking for proof that basic systems meet code; they aren’t as concerned with ancillary or supplemental features as long as they don’t interfere with or alter the operation or integrity of the core system.

A: We push back. Our company never issues a price on a project without clarity on this. We would rather pass on a project than send out a bid we’re uncomfortable with. We also do what we can to educate the spec writers and consultants on what our AHJs will and won’t accept.

A: Our biggest problem is confusion between UL, ICC, and NFPA. We try to educate our team and adhere to the highest standards but feel like our competitors do what’s cheapest (and get away with it).

Choose your FAQ category: Code Conflicts

Load More


Member Access

USER NAME:
PASSWORD:
SIGN IN
X
Privacy
We are very proud to say that NSCA has a strict policy on the protection of your information and data. We have never sold, nor will we, any confidential member information. That includes your contact names, emails and contact information. By clicking on “I accept” you acknowledge that we use cookies to analyze the effectiveness and usage of content developed for a more personalized and valuable experience. This site uses Google Analytics to help us monitor the user behavior and type of content our members value so we can focus on the highly valued topics and resources. As such cookies may track things such as how long you spend on the site and the pages that you visit so we can continue to produce engaging content.
Attention Members

You must sign in to gain full access to your benefits or to renew your membership.

Not a member? Click here to join.

Sign In