2014 406.4(D)(4) Replacement Receptacles

[shortcircuit2]

In dwelling units, do replacement 125volt receptacles require AFCI protection under 406.4(D)(4) of the 2014 NEC if there isn't:

1. A branch circuit installed under 210.12(A) of the 2014 NEC?

Or

2. There isn't a branch circuit extension or modification under 210.12(B) of the 2014 NEC?

 

[Ponchik]

In dwelling units, do replacement 125volt receptacles require AFCI protection under 406.4(D)(4) of the 2014 NEC if there isn't:

1. A branch circuit installed under 210.12(A) of the 2014 NEC? If it is a new circuit then it requires AFCI

Or

2. There isn't a branch circuit extension or modification under 210.12(B) of the 2014 NEC? The AHJ may call the "receptacle changing" a circuit modification.

I don't have the 2014 but the best I can say is ask your local AHJ.

 

[cowboyjwc]

I don't have one either, but I would say no.

 

[fmtjfw]

In dwelling units, do replacement 125volt receptacles require AFCI protection under 406.4(D)(4) of the 2014 NEC if there isn't:

1. A branch circuit installed under 210.12(A) of the 2014 NEC?

Or

2. There isn't a branch circuit extension or modification under 210.12(B) of the 2014 NEC?

2014 406.4(D)(4) is unchanged from 2011:

(4) Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection. Where a receptacle outlet is supplied by a branch circuit that requires arc-fault circuit-interrupter protection as specified elsewhere in this Code, a replacement receptacle at this outlet shall be one of the following:
(1) A listed outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit-interrupter receptacle
(2) A receptacle protected by a listed outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit-interrupter type receptacle
(3) A receptacle protected by a listed combination type arc-fault circuit-interrupter type circuit breaker

This requirement becomes effective January 1, 2014.


It appears to me that the requirement (from 2011) came into being at the beginning of this year but does not require the adoption of 2014. Thus until 2014 is adopted you use the 2011 list of locations.

 

[Sierrasparky]

2014 406.4(D)(4) is unchanged from 2011:

(4) Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection. Where a receptacle outlet is supplied by a branch circuit that requires arc-fault circuit-interrupter protection as specified elsewhere in this Code, a replacement receptacle at this outlet shall be one of the following:
(1) A listed outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit-interrupter receptacle
(2) A receptacle protected by a listed outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit-interrupter type receptacle
(3) A receptacle protected by a listed combination type arc-fault circuit-interrupter type circuit breaker

This requirement becomes effective January 1, 2014.


It appears to me that the requirement (from 2011) came into being at the beginning of this year but does not require the adoption of 2014. Thus until 2014 is adopted you use the 2011 list of locations.

Yes that is the way I read it.
How many of us will comply.

 

[shortcircuit2]

but I would say no.

That is the way I see it also. I was looking for different input from others. If you read the language in 406.4(D)(4) it tells us...

"Where a receptacle outlet is supplied by a branch circuit that requires arc-fault circuit-interrupter protection as specified elsewhere in this Code"

Elsewhere in the code:

210.12(A) tells us if we install a branch circuit...

210.12(B) tells us if we modify or extend a branch circuit...

Definition of a branch circuit doesn't include a receptacle device.

 

[joebell]

I think "elsewhere in the code" refers to the locations listed in 210.12(A).

If you need to replace a receptacle in a living room, then that one device would have to be an AFCI receptacle. One of the reasons for the Jan 2014 delay was to allow manufacturers time to get their product to market.

 

[Sierrasparky]

That is the way I see it also. I was looking for different input from others. If you read the language in 406.4(D)(4) it tells us...

"Where a receptacle outlet is supplied by a branch circuit that requires arc-fault circuit-interrupter protection as specified elsewhere in this Code"

Elsewhere in the code:

210.12(A) tells us if we install a branch circuit...

210.12(B) tells us if we modify or extend a branch circuit...

Definition of a branch circuit doesn't include a receptacle device.

I don't really agree with your interpetation.
The code section 406.4 D is all about replacements. This is the same situation for replacements of outlets in the kitchen or for that matter non tamper proof. Are you to say that we don't need to install GFCI when a replacement is made next to a bathroom sink?

I like your twist however

 

[fmtjfw]

ARTICLE 406? RECEPTACLES, CORD CONNECTORS, AND ATTACHMENT PLUGS (CAPS)
406.4 General Installation Requirements.
(D) Replacements. Replacement of receptacles shall comply
with 406.4(D)(1) through (D)(6), as applicable.

(1) Grounding-Type
(2) Non-Grounding-Type
(3) GFCI
(4) AFCI
(5) Tamper-Resistant
(6) Weather-Resistant

Each of the sub rules (1)..(6) essentially state that if the location, under current code, requires one or more of these 6 attributes, then the replacement shall meet the new requirements, even if the replaced receptacle did not.

 

[al hildenbrand]

ARTICLE 406? RECEPTACLES, CORD CONNECTORS, AND ATTACHMENT PLUGS (CAPS)
406.4 General Installation Requirements.
(D) Replacements. Replacement of receptacles shall comply
with 406.4(D)(1) through (D)(6), as applicable.

(1) Grounding-Type
(2) Non-Grounding-Type
(3) GFCI
(4) AFCI
(5) Tamper-Resistant
(6) Weather-Resistant

Each of the sub rules (1)..(6) essentially state that if the location, under current code, requires one or more of these 6 attributes, then the replacement shall meet the new requirements, even if the replaced receptacle did not.

So. . . with about 1/4 to 1/3 of the housing stock in this country having ungrounded wiring method branch circuits (K&T or romex) that include original two-wire non-grounding type receptacle outlets, my question is (allying with the OP) : can I replace the old worn non-grounding type receptacle in a BED ROOM with a new non-grounding type receptacle under 406.4(D)(2) alone. . . --OR-- are (D)(4) and (D)(5) required to be invoked?

 

[GoldDigger]

So. . . with about 1/4 to 1/3 of the housing stock in this country having ungrounded wiring method branch circuits (K&T or romex) that include original two-wire non-grounding type receptacle outlets, my question is (allying with the OP) : can I replace the old worn non-grounding type receptacle in a BED ROOM with a new non-grounding type receptacle under 406.4(D)(2) alone. . . --OR-- are (D)(4) and (D)(5) required to be invoked?

IMHO you need to replace it with a tamper resistant GFCI receptacle (or add GFCI upstream).
If you could find a two-wire TR receptacle and provided upstream GFCI you could use it.
Same for AFCI, namely upstream AFCI plus a TR two wire would be OK if you could find one.

 

[al hildenbrand]

IMHO you need to replace it with a tamper resistant GFCI receptacle (or add GFCI upstream).
If you could find a two-wire TR receptacle and provided upstream GFCI you could use it.
Same for AFCI, namely upstream AFCI plus a TR two wire would be OK if you could find one.

406.4(D)(2)(a) A non-grounding-type receptacle(s) shall be permitted to be replaced with another non-grounding-type receptacle(s)

406.4(D)(2)(a) says I don't have to use a GFCI as long as I use a non-grounding-type receptacle for replacement.

Now, we've had the TR requirement for a while, and the manufacturers of non-grounding-type receptacles have been clear that they have no intentions of manufacturing a TR non-grounding-type receptacle. That is, a two-wire TR can't be bought. It is my experience that the AHJ, the State of Minnesota Electrical Licensing and Inspection has used, and IS using, 406.4(D)(2)(a) to allow non-TR two-wire receptacles to replace old worn devices.

This question is for those who have first hand experience with your local AHJ. What does the AHJ allow? Can the non-grounding-type receptacle be replaced with a non-grounding-type receptacle, per 406.4(D)(2)(a) without invoking TR and AFCI?

How is 406.4(D)(2)(a) being enforced in the field?

 

[GoldDigger]

Ignoring TR is a strong argument, but since there are other methods for providing AFCI, I do not think that the two wire receptacle is a viable solution for that requirement.



Tapatalk!

 

[shortcircuit2]

I think "elsewhere in the code" refers to the locations listed in 210.12(A).

If you need to replace a receptacle in a living room, then that one device would have to be an AFCI receptacle. One of the reasons for the Jan 2014 delay was to allow manufacturers time to get their product to market.

I agree with the reasoning behind the delay.

I'm just saying the language in 406.4(D)(4) could be challenged when a replacement is all that is being performed.

 

[shortcircuit2]

I don't really agree with your interpetation.
The code section 406.4 D is all about replacements. This is the same situation for replacements of outlets in the kitchen or for that matter non tamper proof. Are you to say that we don't need to install GFCI when a replacement is made next to a bathroom sink?

I like your twist however

Well now, the language of 406.4(D)(3) regarding GFCI replacements leaves no room for error in interpretation when we look to 210.8 or other sections that require GFCI protection of receptacle outlets... "elsewhere in this Code".

 

[fmtjfw]

NEC 2014

NEC 2014

So. . . with about 1/4 to 1/3 of the housing stock in this country having ungrounded wiring method branch circuits (K&T or romex) that include original two-wire non-grounding type receptacle outlets, my question is (allying with the OP) : can I replace the old worn non-grounding type receptacle in a BED ROOM with a new non-grounding type receptacle under 406.4(D)(2) alone. . . --OR-- are (D)(4) and (D)(5) required to be invoked?

See:

406.12 Tamper-Resistant Receptacles. Tamper-resistant receptacles shall be installed as specified in 406.12(A) through (C).
(A) Dwelling Units. In all areas specified in 210.52, all nonlocking-type 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper-resistant receptacles.
(B) Guest Rooms and Guest Suites of Hotels and Motels. All nonlocking-type 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles located in guest rooms and guest suites of hotels and motels shall be listed tamper-resistant receptacles.
(C) Child Care Facilities. In all child care facilities, all nonlocking-type 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper-resistant receptacles.

Exception to (A), (B), and (C): Receptacles in the following locations shall not be required to be tamper resistant:
(1) Receptacles located more than 1.7 m (5 1?2 ft) above the floor.
(2) Receptacles that are part of a luminaire or appliance.
(3) A single receptacle or a duplex receptacle for two appliances located within dedicated space for each appliance that, in normal use, is not easily moved from one place to another and that is cord-and plug-connected
in accordance with 400.7(A)(6), (A)(7), or (A)(8).
(4) Nongrounding receptacles used for replacements as permitted in 406.4(D)(2)(a).

 

[fmtjfw]

I agree with the reasoning behind the delay.

I'm just saying the language in 406.4(D)(4) could be challenged when a replacement is all that is being performed.

Please quote the Code supporting a challenge.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Please quote the Code supporting a challenge.

If I replace an existing non-grounding-type receptacle in a Bedroom that is on a Knob & Tube branch circuit, and, as part of the replacement, I install a white and black pigtail for the neutral and energized conductor, I have extended the wiring of the branch circuit. In such a scenario, the 2014 210.12(B) exception is invoked, IMO.

2014 National Electrical Code
210.12(B) Branch Circuit Extensions or Modifications - Dwelling Units
Exception. AFCI protection shall not be required where the extension of the existing conductors is not more than 1.8 m (6 ft.) and does not include any additional outlets or devices.

 

[al hildenbrand]

2014 National Electrical Code
406.12 Tamper-Resistant Receptacles.
Exception to (A), (B), and (C): Receptacles in the following locations shall not be required to be tamper resistant:
(4) Nongrounding receptacles used for replacements as permitted in 406.4(D)(2)(a).

2014 National Electrical Code
210.12(B) Branch Circuit Extensions or Modifications - Dwelling Units
Exception. AFCI protection shall not be required where the extension of the existing conductors is not more than 1.8 m (6 ft.) and does not include any additional outlets or devices.

OK. So as I read this, when I'm working under the 2014 (which, in Minnesota happens early this coming summer) I can, by Code:

1. Replace an existing non-grounding-type receptacle in a bedroom with a new non-grounding-type receptacle that is non-TR and, as long as I pigtail two or more conductors, no AFCI protection is required.

2. Replace an existing grounding-type receptacle in a bedroom with a TR-grounding-type receptacle and, as long as I pigtail two or more conductors, no AFCI protection is required.

Now, I know there are more "if-thens" that get into other cases, like if I have a need for GFCI protection, or if the receptacle is different than 15 or 20 Amp 120 Volt, etc., and I am not trying to side-step them.

My points #1 & #2 are about areas listed in 210.12(A) and applying 406.4(D) in all its glory to the lowly single family residence with existing non-grounding wiring method(s) supplying existing non-grounding-type receptacles, as well as the single family residence with existing grounding wiring method(s) supplying existing grounding-type receptacles.

 

[joebell]

OK. So as I read this, when I'm working under the 2014 (which, in Minnesota happens early this coming summer) I can, by Code:

1. Replace an existing non-grounding-type receptacle in a bedroom with a new non-grounding-type receptacle that is non-TR and, as long as I pigtail two or more conductors, no AFCI protection is required.

2. Replace an existing grounding-type receptacle in a bedroom with a TR-grounding-type receptacle and, as long as I pigtail two or more conductors, no AFCI protection is required.

Now, I know there are more "if-thens" that get into other cases, like if I have a need for GFCI protection, or if the receptacle is different than 15 or 20 Amp 120 Volt, etc., and I am not trying to side-step them.

My points #1 & #2 are about areas listed in 210.12(A) and applying 406.4(D) in all its glory to the lowly single family residence with existing non-grounding wiring method(s) supplying existing non-grounding-type receptacles, as well as the single family residence with existing grounding wiring method(s) supplying existing grounding-type receptacles.

I can see the last paragraph to 90.4 being cited for not providing the TR element but I believe AFCI protection would still be required citing 406.4(D)(4)(3).