Enforcing 2008 NEC

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe I can just put this on the front cover of my '05:
2007 NEC.GIF
 
Last edited:
raider1 said:
LOL...

I wonder if you can get that in the special Utah edition?

Chris
Click to expand...
You can have any edition you want/need....

UTAHNEC2005.jpg



Hot off the presses for you Chris :D
 
"No, the 2007."
Click to expand...

i wired my brothers house last year. his gc was an "ec" and wasn't happy that he didn't get the elec. job too. he started telling my sister-in-law that i had made a lot of mistakes that didn't meet the code. she called me wanting to know why i did this. i gave her the code references to prove i was right; "the builder wants to know what year code book you have?", me: "2005". her: "oh, well he said you're supposed to be using the 2006. the changes are in there." ----- needless to say, he does not have a license and works in a town that doesn't enforce state law.
 
The picture of the 2007 "Special Iowa" edition had me laughing harder than I have laughed in some time.
 
georgestolz said:
Sounds as though the builder is misinformed.

The 2005 does require combination types to be used, but recognizes that if they don't exist you can keep using the branch/feeder types. The combination isn't on the market yet, so nothing has changed much from the 2002 so far.
Click to expand...
The combination type is on the market, by Siemens for sure.
 
If the combination type AFCI is not available, then 90.4 allows a product that complies with the previous edition of the NEC to be used.
 
480sparky said:
Went to look at a basement finish job today. Builder told me the city is already enforcing the 2008 Code, mentioning AFCI's in particular. How can an AHJ enforce a Code that hasn't even been published yet?
Click to expand...

The 2008 Code already exist, it was copyrighted in 2007. I have a copy that I can not reproduce because copyright restrictions.

The AHJ may enforce the new Code, even though it does not become effective until 01.01.2008 as far as NFPA concerned and will be effective in each State as Law when the State chooses so. The Contractor may choose to ask you to build to the 2008 Code because he knows that the Inspecion for Occupancy Permit will take place in 2008, or just want to be a POA.:rolleyes:
 
Wouldn't the code used to inspect the job depend on the date of the permit and not the date of inspection of occupancy? Thats how it works in CT, also we cannot use a new code until the state give us the effective date.
Lou
 
marissa2 said:
Wouldn't the code used to inspect the job depend on the date of the permit and not the date of inspection of occupancy? Thats how it works in CT,
Click to expand...

Same here in MA, as long as the permit is active the permit date will determine the code used for inspection.

Makes sense considering that was the code the job was bid to.

also we cannot use a new code until the state give us the effective date.
Click to expand...

Unless the code is legally adopted by an area the AHJ can not enforce it regardless of the copyright date.
 
Update

Update

FWIW, since the threads's been open, it was inspected two weeks ago. I didn't install any AFCIs, and I have yet to hear anything either from the AHJ or the builder.
 
What about bolt on breakers - AFCI combination devices

What about bolt on breakers - AFCI combination devices

I have an electrical inspector who is insisting that a project that has been under construction for 8 months has to have combination type AFCI circuit breakers (as of 1/1/0*). The building is a condo building, and we used three phase panels (CH) as each unit is very large, and very high end. The developer wanted lots of power. So we have 3 phase panels with bolt on circuit breakers. So far I have not been able to locate any bolt on CB's that are combination type AFCI, and CH flatly says they are not available. Inspector doesn't care, my problem, etc. Any way to get around this based upon non-availability?
 
See Toms post # 34. If the inspector doesn't want to use reason the owners can always take it court.

Roger
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top