2014 406.4(D)(4) Replacement Receptacles

[Sierrasparky]

Massachusetts has acted on the intent of the rule...but the language of 406.4(D)(4) still needs work IMO.

You folks are making something of nothing.
The code wants us to AFCI older homes. The way they went about it was to start with replacements of receptacles. The IAEA interpetation is just that. It is not a NEC code. Furthermore the IAEA interpetation only referenced devices and not specifically receptacle devices. The code however states receptacle devices and at least in my state the more restrictive code prevails. Thus you better stock up on AFCI receptacles. :thumbsup:

 

[al hildenbrand]

Massachusetts has acted on the intent of the rule...but the language of 406.4(D)(4) still needs work IMO.

I agree.

 

[iwire]

Or we could live in the real world and not the internet.

 

[Sierrasparky]

And what would be your version of the real world.

 

[iwire]

And what would be your version of the real world.

My own personal version of the real world is one where inspectors enforce the intent, or at least what they see as the intent and don't get too tied up in the minutia of wording. I had an inspector tell me the NEC definition vending machine was wrong. Oh well, its an extra to make him happy.

It is good that some do get into this minutia and send in proposals to correct grammar / wording issues but that is certainly not me. I am a 'get the job done and signed off kind of guy'. The world has room for both personalities.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Real world , everyone has their own opinion to suit their own needs.
It would be great if codes were written more concise and we all were on the same page.

Sort of like unobtanium.