Retroactive Requirements in NEC

[tom baker]

While generally the NEC grandfathers existing applications, these are some sections that are retroactive:

408.4 Field Identification- Update circuit modifications
406.4 (D) 5 Tamper Resistant Receptacles - replacements required to be TR
406.4(D) 6 Weather Resistant Receptacles - replacements required to be WR
210.12(B) Circuit modifications to be AFCI

Are there others I missed?

 

[jimport]

GFI installation where called for under current codes.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I don't see any of those as retroactive rules. They only apply when you make a change to the wiring device or the circuit. A retroactive rule would require you to bring the existing electrical installation up to code when the new code is adopted in your area.

 

[tom baker]

Ok Don then not retroactive, but NEC language specifically requires when changing a receptacle to go to TR or WR.
When I replace a 2 wire receptacle I can replace with a 2 wire, or GFCI.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Ok Don then not retroactive, but NEC language specifically requires when changing a receptacle to go to TR or WR.
When I replace a 2 wire receptacle I can replace with a 2 wire, or GFCI.

Yes, the code now specifically requires that when replacing a receptacle device that you provide protection that is somewhat equivalent to what would be required for a new installation.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

If your state does not wish to adopt the new code then it need not be updated. Also it up to your state how they wish to apply the new codes. Nothing says they cant adopt 2011 only for new buildings.Some things will be hard to enforce if they can get away with no permits.

 

[weressl]

While generally the NEC grandfathers existing applications, these are some sections that are retroactive:

408.4 Field Identification- Update circuit modifications
406.4 (D) 5 Tamper Resistant Receptacles - replacements required to be TR
406.4(D) 6 Weather Resistant Receptacles - replacements required to be WR
210.12(B) Circuit modifications to be AFCI

Are there others I missed?

AFAIK OSHA has retroactive rules for electrical installations, but I the NEC. It is arguable if a Contractor is hired to work in or on a residential or any other private installation, should it be required to be bought up to Code and what parts? One's he is working on or even a receptacle he may plug his power-tool in. It would be the AHJ's call and we have seen postings - if my memory serves right - that such problems had surfaced before.

 

[renosteinke]

Please let me indulge in a little rant herre. This is one time where the proper language will help prevent further misunderstandings.

Oue Constitution recognizes a long established principle when it states "Congress shall make no ex post facto laws." That is, we can't write rules today to make what we did yesterday a crime.

There is no such thing as 'grandfathering.' Rather, we recognize that we cannot apply todays' code requirement to what was built before we had the rule.

Ditto for 'retroactive' requirements. From the starting point, we do not allow retroactive laws. That's what 'ex post facto' means: after the fact. (Please don't get off on tangents involving certain tax disputes).

Thus, the NEC cannot require us to change anything still in existance. It can require things to be brought to current standards whenever whenever that 'thing' is changed.

Some of the most invidious regulation currently being attempted focuses on defining what is 'change.' For example, some communities are attempting to make the simple sale of a property a 'change' - then going in and looking for non-permitted work, violations, etc. Whether that's proper is not the point of this thread, but it does show us the framework of our system.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

Please let me indulge in a little rant herre. This is one time where the proper language will help prevent further misunderstandings.

Oue Constitution recognizes a long established principle when it states "Congress shall make no ex post facto laws." That is, we can't write rules today to make what we did yesterday a crime.

There is no such thing as 'grandfathering.' Rather, we recognize that we cannot apply todays' code requirement to what was built before we had the rule.

Ditto for 'retroactive' requirements. From the starting point, we do not allow retroactive laws. That's what 'ex post facto' means: after the fact. (Please don't get off on tangents involving certain tax disputes).

Thus, the NEC cannot require us to change anything still in existance. It can require things to be brought to current standards whenever whenever that 'thing' is changed.

Some of the most invidious regulation currently being attempted focuses on defining what is 'change.' For example, some communities are attempting to make the simple sale of a property a 'change' - then going in and looking for non-permitted work, violations, etc. Whether that's proper is not the point of this thread, but it does show us the framework of our system.

The government has always found ways to force us to do what they want. Systematically they will force you to upgrade.Your social security number has been being misused for many years.It was never to be used as identification.See how far you get by refusing to give it.Try buying insurance on a house with K&T.

 

[weressl]

Please let me indulge in a little rant herre. This is one time where the proper language will help prevent further misunderstandings.

Oue Constitution recognizes a long established principle when it states "Congress shall make no ex post facto laws." That is, we can't write rules today to make what we did yesterday a crime.

There is no such thing as 'grandfathering.' Rather, we recognize that we cannot apply todays' code requirement to what was built before we had the rule.

Ditto for 'retroactive' requirements. From the starting point, we do not allow retroactive laws. That's what 'ex post facto' means: after the fact. (Please don't get off on tangents involving certain tax disputes).

Thus, the NEC cannot require us to change anything still in existance. It can require things to be brought to current standards whenever whenever that 'thing' is changed.

Some of the most invidious regulation currently being attempted focuses on defining what is 'change.' For example, some communities are attempting to make the simple sale of a property a 'change' - then going in and looking for non-permitted work, violations, etc. Whether that's proper is not the point of this thread, but it does show us the framework of our system.

You may want to read my post. OSHA 1910 Sub-part S indeed is the law, it is/was ratified by Congress and it does contain retroactive rules for electrical installations. They just don't call it retroactive. They identify certain rules that ALL installations, to be suitable as a workplace, must meet if they were constructed after two certain dates.