334.40b

Status
Not open for further replies.

Under budget

Member
Location
Ny
This article saw some changes in 2014 but Mikes library does not explain them .is it possible that the splice kits by tyco were not allowed in the 2008?
 

JFletcher

Senior Member
Location
Williamsburg, VA
This article saw some changes in 2014 but Mikes library does not explain them .is it possible that the splice kits by tyco were not allowed in the 2008?

The splice kits were renamed in 2014, but they have been allowed for 40+ years. I saw that MH article. Lemme see if I can find a link..

not MH, but here you go:

http://iaeimagazine.org/magazine/2014/07/10/enter-the-nonmetallic-sheathed-cable-interconnector/

eta: "The references to nonmetallic-sheathed cable has moved from Chapter 3, 3015 in the 1940 NEC, to Chapter 3, 3369 in the 1947 NEC, to Article 336 in the 1959 NEC, and is at present in Article 334 for the 2014 NEC."

seta: here's thread on the devices:

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=176521
 
Last edited:

Under budget

Member
Location
Ny
The splice kits were renamed in 2014, but they have been allowed for 40+ years. I saw that MH article. Lemme see if I can find a link..

not MH, but here you go:

http://iaeimagazine.org/magazine/2014/07/10/enter-the-nonmetallic-sheathed-cable-interconnector/

eta: "The references to nonmetallic-sheathed cable has moved from Chapter 3, 3015 in the 1940 NEC, to Chapter 3, 3369 in the 1947 NEC, to Article 336 in the 1959 NEC, and is at present in Article 334 for the 2014 NEC."

seta: here's thread on the devices:

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=176521
So in reading this iaei article the changes were based on the accepted proposal 7-50 but 7-51 was not accepted? Thanks for your help
 

Under budget

Member
Location
Ny
I am still seeking help with this article ,I have been notified by the AHJ to remove all of the interconnector devices utilized on a basement remodel based on the words ( to be used as a last resort) as it appears in the IAEI magazine article referencing the code change proposal 7-51. I have contested this because in doing so the owner would bear the burden of repairing finish surfaces disturbed encountered during the replacement of wiring to eliminate the use of these devices. As you may surmise I am not convincing the AHJ to see things in my prospective.the project in question is permitted under the 2008 code cycle so I feel these arguments around this should be no issue as the 2008 clearly allowed these devices to be use to rewire existing buildings
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
From the 2008 NEC do you mean 334.30(C)? Where in NY are you? The NYC electrical code has deleted this section in it's entirety.

334.30(C) Wiring Device Without a Separate Outlet Box. A
wiring device identified for the use, without a separate out-
let box, and incorporating an integral cable clamp shall be
permitted where the cable is secured in place at intervals
not exceeding 1.4 m (4 1 ⁄ 2 ft) and within 300 mm (12 in.)
from the wiring device wall opening, and there shall be at
least a 300 mm (12 in.) loop of unbroken cable or 150 mm
(6 in.) of a cable end available on the interior side of the
finished wall to permit replacement.

SECTION 334.30
Subsection 334.30(C) – Delete the subsection in its entirety.
 

Under budget

Member
Location
Ny
I am in western NY ,the code article is as in the title and addresses the Tyco romex splice kits that are approved for use without juntion boxes in concealed areas
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
I am in western NY ,the code article is as in the title and addresses the Tyco romex splice kits that are approved for use without juntion boxes in concealed areas

Ah sorry, you're correct I had the wrong section. :ashamed1:
 

JFletcher

Senior Member
Location
Williamsburg, VA
"A concealed splice would always seem to be a last resort and this change would limit the application to those situations." is commentary from that article, not even a FPN in the NEC. 334.40(B) doesnt contain this language, and the inspector cant cite it as a reason to fail you.
 

Under budget

Member
Location
Ny
"A concealed splice would always seem to be a last resort and this change would limit the application to those situations." is commentary from that article, not even a FPN in the NEC. 334.40(B) doesnt contain this language, and the inspector cant cite it as a reason to fail you.
Well he originally cited me because he thought these splices were not allowed u till the 2014 code cycle and because the permit was issued under the 2008 ( we skipped the 2011 in NY) the splices must be removed,I contested and he consulted the NFPA and a gentelman named Gil convinced him that he was wrong about the original citation but somehow convinced him these devices should only be used as a last resort and because the basement ceiling was open they should not be used. Unfortunately with this customer he will have to remove finishes on the upper floors in order for me to eliminate them so he can have the end results he wants
 

JFletcher

Senior Member
Location
Williamsburg, VA
Well he originally cited me because he thought these splices were not allowed u till the 2014 code cycle and because the permit was issued under the 2008 ( we skipped the 2011 in NY) the splices must be removed,I contested and he consulted the NFPA and a gentelman named Gil convinced him that he was wrong about the original citation but somehow convinced him these devices should only be used as a last resort and because the basement ceiling was open they should not be used. Unfortunately with this customer he will have to remove finishes on the upper floors in order for me to eliminate them so he can have the end results he wants

Under the 2008 NEC, 334.40(B), there is this part:

"...shall be permitted to be used without boxes in exposed cable wiring and for rewiring in existing buildings where the cable is concealed and fished"

last resort = no weight. It's meaningless. With a blank check, anything is possible. That the ceiling was open also means nothing. That is not what 334.40(B) reads. "Should not" is NOT the same as "can not". Should you have repulled runs or used j-boxes in the ceiling? Maybe. Is it an NEC violation to use listed interconnect devices here? (i.e, you CANNOT DO THAT!) Not imo.

If he is arguing the wiring is not exposed (which it isnt) and that the cable wasnt concealed AND fished (which it was concealed, but maybe not fished), then he may have you. That capitalized "and" (should read "or") is wrong to me, it would mean these splices cannot be used on any concealed NM cable that was not also fished in, unless my 1:45am logic is failing me....

I would politely go over his head on this. The only reason a customer would eat this rather than you is that you can (and have) prove to her/him this is a proper install, but the inspector sees differently. I believe you are correct on this matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top