add FPN to 240.24(F)

Status
Not open for further replies.
sandsnow

sandsnow

Senior Member
Location
Southern California
Proposed text:

Add Fine Print Note to Section 240.24(F).
FPN: Consult local building codes for equipment permitted inside stairwells.

Substantiation:
This addition is necessary in view of today?s world of overlapping code requirements. No longer can an electrician consult only the NEC for his installation. The 2006 IBC does not permit penetrations into stairwells also known as exit enclosures. Just by looking at section 240.24(F) in the NEC, the electrician could be led to believe that as long as he does not place a cabinet containing overcurrent devices over a stairwell that he is good to go.
 
charlie

charlie

Senior Member
Location
Indianapolis
To tell the NEC user to "Consult local building codes" could be construed to be a requirement and not permitted in FPNs. I like the idea but the panel or the TCC will reject it on those grounds. Perhaps something like "Local building codes may have additional requirements or prohibitions for equipment to be installed inside stairwells." Please do not feel obligated to use my words. :smile:
 
sandsnow

sandsnow

Senior Member
Location
Southern California
I took my lead from 300.21. Trying to keep it concise.

FPN: Local building codes contain restrictions on items located in or penetrating stairwells.

On a side note I noticed many FPN's which start out with the word "See"

Isn't that a "command" type word? In 620.23 and 24 and also 300.17 and 22 there are examples which refer to the NEC and ASME.
 
charlie

charlie

Senior Member
Location
Indianapolis
sandsnow said:
. . . Isn't that a "command" type word? . .
Click to expand...
Larry, I don't know how the panel will react or even the TCC. I happen to like your idea and do not want it to get stepped on. Maybe I am being too critical but indicating that someone has to consult seems different to me than referring the reader to see something for more information. Whatever you submit in this regard, I will support and argue for (within reason, of course). :smile:
 
sandsnow

sandsnow

Senior Member
Location
Southern California
Charlie, I wasn't arguing for "see", just trying to get a feel for acceptability. At any rate I revised it more along what you suggested. Please see my last post.

Thanks for the support.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top