Legality of NEC Handbook

[E=IR]

I am curious if anyone has had an AHJ or court system refuse any of the Mandatory wording contained in the Handbook because it is not the NEC only? I am in discussions with an engineer who says I cannot legally use anything from the Handbook. I have never seen this "argument" before and have used the Handbook to help some AHJ understand the intent of the code. Thank you for any feedback.

 

[infinity]

The commentary in the handbook is just the opinion of its authors not much different than the opinions posted here on this forum. Nothing in the NECH that's not part of the actual NEC wording is enforceable as code.

 

[ActionDave]

The commentary in the handbook is not enforceable. The other text is exactly the same as the plain code book.

 

[infinity]

This is right from the front pf the NECH:

Notice to Users
Throughout this handbook, the commentary text is overprinted with a color tint panel to distin-
guish it from the Code text. Note that the commentary is not part of the Code and therefore is
not enforceable.

 

[GoldDigger]

The commentary in the handbook is not enforceable. The other text is exactly the same as the plain code book.

But although it is not enforceable, it may be considered when arguing about wording in the NEC itself whose meaning is in dispute.
In a very loose sense, expert testimony which can be supported or refuted by other evidence.

Just as the Supreme Court looks only at the law as written, but still may choose to look at the recorded intent of Congress as reflected in the transcripts when considering what the words mean. The transcripts of debate cannot change the effect of the law when the wording is clear, but it can guide interpretation of unclear wording if the Justices are inclined to do that.
If the wording is unambiguous but also clearly not what Congress intended, the best that the Court can do is suggest that Congress amend the legislation to fix the problem.

One example is found in the Supremes' consideration of the Defense of Marriage Act. The supporters argue that the Act was just a reasonable and non-discriminatory use of the police powers of the State.
Opponents argue that the Act, although it does not say so in so many words, is intended to punish gays.
The record from the floor of Congress shows the leaders of both parties praising the fact that the law "sends a message to gays that their lifestyle will not be tolerated."
Ooops.
Not enforceable, but not to be ignored either.

 

[weressl]

But although it is not enforceable, it may be considered when arguing about wording in the NEC itself whose meaning is in dispute.
In a very loose sense, expert testimony which can be supported or refuted by other evidence.

Just as the Supreme Court looks only at the law as written, but still may choose to look at the recorded intent of Congress as reflected in the transcripts when considering what the words mean. The transcripts of debate cannot change the effect of the law when the wording is clear, but it can guide interpretation of unclear wording if the Justices are inclined to do that.
If the wording is unambiguous but also clearly not what Congress intended, the best that the Court can do is suggest that Congress amend the legislation to fix the problem.

One example is found in the Supremes' consideration of the Defense of Marriage Act. The supporters argue that the Act was just a reasonable and non-discriminatory use of the police powers of the State.
Opponents argue that the Act, although it does not say so in so many words, is intended to punish gays.
The record from the floor of Congress shows the leaders of both parties praising the fact that the law "sends a message to gays that their lifestyle will not be tolerated."
Ooops.
Not enforceable, but not to be ignored either.

Furthermore, just as litigators rely on expert opinion presentation to the jury and judge, the interpretation of the code would be subject to such in a court case. The NEC Handbook could be used to bolster such expert opinions since it is used by the entire electrical community to hel in understanding the NEC meaning and intent. Those guys CAN be considered as experts in their fields.

 

[ActionDave]

But although it is not enforceable, it may be considered when arguing about wording in the NEC itself whose meaning is in dispute.
In a very loose sense, expert testimony which can be supported or refuted by other evidence.

That is how I handle things when I am down at my inspector's office arguing.

Just as the Supreme Court looks only at the law as written, but still may choose to look at the recorded intent of Congress as reflected in the transcripts when considering what the words mean. The transcripts of debate cannot change the effect of the law when the wording is clear, but it can guide interpretation of unclear wording if the Justices are inclined to do that.
If the wording is unambiguous but also clearly not what Congress intended, the best that the Court can do is suggest that Congress amend the legislation to fix the problem.

One example is found in the Supremes' consideration of the Defense of Marriage Act. The supporters argue that the Act was just a reasonable and non-discriminatory use of the police powers of the State.
Opponents argue that the Act, although it does not say so in so many words, is intended to punish gays.
The record from the floor of Congress shows the leaders of both parties praising the fact that the law "sends a message to gays that their lifestyle will not be tolerated."
Ooops.
Not enforceable, but not to be ignored either.

I'm not going there. I may not be so lucky as to choose what kind of tar to be dipped in.

 

[jumper]

That is how I handle things when I am down at my inspector's office arguing.

I'm not going there. I may not be so lucky as to choose what kind of tar to be dipped in.

Sage advice on both accounts.:thumbsup:

 

[kwired]

The commentary in the handbook is not enforceable. The other text is exactly the same as the plain code book.

I don't understand why an AHJ or court would reject the actual NEC content printed in the handbook. Supporting it with a copy of NEC only will show it is the same thing, only the additional commentary in the handbook is what is different and this commentary is identified by a tinted background so one can tell what is NEC and what is commentary. And Rob has pointed out that it says this right near the front of the book.

 

[mwm1752]

In matters of opinion due to the AHJ interpretation ( Which I am one ) I will exhaust several routes -- hard text, commentary, manufacture techs, NRTL reps, electrical forums. The opinions are so wide spread on certain subjects it can give you a headache. Good lawyers can set the guilty free & put the innocent behind bars. IMO Life safety is priority & don't sweat the little stuff. If you can sleep at night with the decisions you make you are at least on the right track. Expert text & opinion should be applicable in court.

 

[ggunn]

I don't understand why an AHJ or court would reject the actual NEC content printed in the handbook.

They wouldn't, and that is what everyone is saying.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

In matters of opinion due to the AHJ interpretation ( Which I am one ) I will exhaust several routes -- hard text, commentary, manufacture techs, NRTL reps, electrical forums. The opinions are so wide spread on certain subjects it can give you a headache. Good lawyers can set the guilty free & put the innocent behind bars. IMO Life safety is priority & don't sweat the little stuff. If you can sleep at night with the decisions you make you are at least on the right track. Expert text & opinion should be applicable in court.

After reading the actual code text, the next place I look is the ROPs and ROCs.

 

[iwire]

Just as the Supreme Court looks only at the law as written, but still may choose to look at the recorded intent of Congress as reflected in the transcripts when considering what the words mean.

Of course the courts can choose to look at most anything. But your example above is more like the courts looking at the ROPs or ROCs at panel statements. In other words looking at statements made by those who made the law or rule.

Looking at the handbook is more like looking at a reporters view or opinion of Congresses actions. The people who write the handbook are not on the code making panels.

 

[kwired]

Of course the courts can choose to look at most anything. But your example above is more like the courts looking at the ROPs or ROCs at panel statements. In other words looking at statements made by those who made the law or rule.

Looking at the handbook is more like looking at a reporters view or opinion of Congresses actions. The people who write the handbook are not on the code making panels.

Kind of what Mike Holt does too. He analyzes code and publishes his interpretation of what it means. But for legal code enforcement his material is nothing more than his opinion and not an official representation from NFPA or the code making panels. The handbook is no different other than it does have an NFPA label on the book. It does have the mentioned disclaimer within that states it (the commentary portions) is nothing more than the opinion of the people that wrote it.

 

[weressl]

Kind of what Mike Holt does too. He analyzes code and publishes his interpretation of what it means. But for legal code enforcement his material is nothing more than his opinion and not an official representation from NFPA or the code making panels. The handbook is no different other than it does have an NFPA label on the book. It does have the mentioned disclaimer within that states it (the commentary portions) is nothing more than the opinion of the people that wrote it.

But the writers are considered experts in their field of work, otherwise who the heck would buy the book?!:lol:

 

[GoldDigger]

But the writers are considered experts in their field of work, otherwise who the heck would buy the book?!:lol:

The big difference in terms of legal proceedings is that the handbook cannot be cross-examined in court. The exact same people appearing in person and saying the exact same thing will have a lot more weight as evidence.

That is for a formal court proceeding. For an AHJ making a decision or responding to an appeal, the distinction can be less significant.

PS: From the point of view of the "expert", the big difference is between traveling to the location and getting paid versus just writing their part of the book....

 

[weressl]

PS: From the point of view of the "expert", the big difference is between traveling to the location and getting paid versus just writing their part of the book....

...and getting paid for it? Can you restate that difference, because as it is; it really does not make any difference for the "expert".

 

[GoldDigger]

...and getting paid for it? Can you restate that difference, because as it is; it really does not make any difference for the "expert".

From the point of view of the expert, having already written the book whether paid for it or not, it makes a big difference whether people bring the book into court or hire the expert.
I think that was what I was trying to get at.

 

[weressl]

From the point of view of the expert, having already written the book whether paid for it or not, it makes a big difference whether people bring the book into court or hire the expert.
I think that was what I was trying to get at.

Nobody is going to write free, you can bet on that. Nobody is going to hire you to write - parts of - a book that has no prospect of selling.

Furthermore, being the author of such expert opinion will earn you a seat in court as an expert. Now, depends on your ability to present and defend your opinion on the subject will actually earn your seat and money.

 

[jumper]

After reading the actual code text, the next place I look is the ROPs and ROCs.

Yeppers and/or ditto.

I learned this method from you.:thumbsup: