NEC 110.26(A) working space requirements to a 60A non-fused disconnect should not apply?

Does 440.14 in the 2023 actually say
“Disconnecting means shall meet the working space requirements of 110.26(A) regardless if equipment is likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized or not" modifying 110.26 in legally enforceable language? Or does it just say
Disconnecting means shall meet the working space requirements of 110.26(A)?
 
tortuga said:
Does 440.14 in the 2023 actually say
“Disconnecting means shall meet the working space requirements of 110.26(A) regardless if equipment is likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized or not" modifying 110.26 in legally enforceable language?
Click to expand...
No, it does not say that, and it does not modify 110.26. What it does do is reference the requirements in 110.26(A), i.e. the various dimensions and other limitations in 110.26(A)(1) through (6), and says that those apply to the specified HVAC disconnects independent of whether the first paragraph of 110.26(A) would also cause them to apply.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
and says that those apply to the specified HVAC disconnects independent of whether the first paragraph of 110.26(A) would also cause them to apply.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
An attorney would argue Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius,
the express mention of 110.26(A) by 440.14 is all inclusive, it excludes the possibility that 440.14 modified 110.26(A).
Therefore 110.26(A) is unchanged and a disconnect only needs to meet 110.26(A) if equipment is likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized.
Presumably yes 440.14 intended to modify 110.26(A) however,
presumption may not be used in determining a statute. Doing otherwise is a violation of due process.
"It is a violation of due process of law to employ a "statutory presumption", whereby the reader is compelled to
guess about precisely what is included in the definition of a word, or whereby all that is included within the
meaning of a term defined is not described SOMEWHERE within the body of law or Title in question. " -SCOTUS
 
tortuga said:
An attorney would argue Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius,
Click to expand...
Fortunately we're not attorneys and can be a bit more reasonable.

The change in 440.14 in the 2023 NEC was intended for a reason. It was not intended to reiterate a requirement that is already in force (that would be an Informational Note, reminding the reader of the requirements of 110.26(A).

This, along with the PI and the CMP text behind the change in 440.14, make the intent clear.

IIRC, the original PI suggested referencing 110.26(A)(1) through (3) (at least, possibly more of the requirements), which I agree would have been clearer.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Working space is great don't get me wrong, I over design it all the time, but they did not write what they meant to and personally
I dont think there is anything more dangerous about a 480V HVAC non fused disconnect than a 480V motor non fused disconnect that would require working space to service the disconnect while de-energized, so I am going with the legal interpretation on this one that 440.14 effectively does nothing new.
 
Jaybone812 said:
No problem
What code cycle are you on, 2023 is the only cycle that has specifically called out the requirement for 110.26(a) working space for the disconnect
Click to expand...
I don't see anything that calls out any specific type of equipment, and working space is pretty much unchanged from what it has been for a long time. What I do see that has changed is it now applies to 1000 volts nominal or less and over 1000 volts is covered elsewhere. Still just mentions where the equipment is likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing or maintenance like it always has mentioned but no mention of what specific kind of equipment this may or may not apply to.
 
I don't know any inspectors that would not expect a voltage measurement to be made at the disconnect, fused or not, as part of troubleshooting and they will all require 110.26(A) work spaces.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I don't know any inspectors that would not expect a voltage measurement to be made at the disconnect, fused or not, as part of troubleshooting and they will all require 110.26(A) work spaces.
Click to expand...
That may be the case with the AHJ, but that doges the question of the enforcability of the wording in 440.14 when it can be proven that is is unlikely a disconnect will need to be examined while energized.
An attorney can invoke the rule Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius, which means that when a law specifically mentions one thing, it’s assumed to exclude others. Since Section 440.14 specifically mentions Section 110.26(A), that mention is considered complete. It means 440.14 does not change or add to the requirements of 110.26(A).
So, 110.26(A) stays the same. A disconnect only has to meet 110.26(A) if the equipment is likely to be examined, adjusted, serviced, or maintained while it’s energized.

Even if it seems like the CMP intneded 440.14 to change 110.26(A), courts can’t assume that was the intent based on a PI or CMP statement or even a 'informational note'. Making assumptions like that goes against due process.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has said, it violates due process when a law forces people to guess what a word means or includes—especially if the meaning isn’t clearly explained somewhere in the law.
 
Rick 0920 said:
Would you guys think the clearances mentioned in 110.26(a) would be required if a 2 pole 30A toggle switch were located at the outside condensing unit to serve as the disconnecting means and the overcurrent protection was provided by the breaker in the panel?
Click to expand...
Comes down to AHJ and their determination of what may be likely to require examination, adjustment, service or maintenance while energized.

Taking a voltage measurement to prove it is not energized does fit into the examination part and is required by most safety protocols.

Not sure what NFPA70 or other standards have to say about visibly verifying open connection. I noticed the last couple years Square D safety switches (at least the 600 volt switches I have primarily been around) now all have a window so you can see if the switch knives are engaged or not without having to open the cover. Majority I have been involved with are all outdoors and curious to see how long that clear (some sort of plastic) window holds up in sunlight before you either A can't see through it, B it gets brittle and breaks out and you now have an opening for fingers, rodents, insects, etc to enter, or C combination of both A and B.
 
tortuga said:
That may be the case with the AHJ, but that doges the question of the enforcability of the wording in 440.14 when it can be proven that is is unlikely a disconnect will need to be examined while energized.
An attorney can invoke the rule Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius, which means that when a law specifically mentions one thing, it’s assumed to exclude others. Since Section 440.14 specifically mentions Section 110.26(A), that mention is considered complete. It means 440.14 does not change or add to the requirements of 110.26(A).
So, 110.26(A) stays the same. A disconnect only has to meet 110.26(A) if the equipment is likely to be examined, adjusted, serviced, or maintained while it’s energized.

Even if it seems like the CMP intneded 440.14 to change 110.26(A), courts can’t assume that was the intent based on a PI or CMP statement or even a 'informational note'. Making assumptions like that goes against due process.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has said, it violates due process when a law forces people to guess what a word means or includes—especially if the meaning isn’t clearly explained somewhere in the law.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, that can NEVER be proven for any piece of electrical equipment. Remember verification of absence of voltage is examination. This will get a violation notice from me and every inspector I know, every time.

There was no intent to change anything with the addition of the 2023 language in 440.14. It does nothing more than the previous Informational Note #2 that was deleted because 110.26 is in Chapter 1 and applies through out the code. In fact the language in 440.14 in the 2023 code is a violation of the style manual as it is redundant. 110.26(A) applies no matter what.
 
kwired said:
I don't see anything that calls out any specific type of equipment, and working space is pretty much unchanged from what it has been for a long time. What I do see that has changed is it now applies to 1000 volts nominal or less and over 1000 volts is covered elsewhere. Still just mentions where the equipment is likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing or maintenance like it always has mentioned but no mention of what specific kind of equipment this may or may not apply to.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t saying there was any change to 110.26(a) I was saying 2023 was the first time that 440.14 has specifically said the disconnecting means shall meet the working space requirements of 110.26(a)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2021.png
    IMG_2021.png
    227.9 KB · Views: 3
Jaybone812 said:
I wasn’t saying there was any change to 110.26(a) I was saying 2023 was the first time that 440.14 has specifically said the disconnecting means shall meet the working space requirements of 110.26(a)
Click to expand...
But older codes had an Informational Note telling you to read 110.26. There was no need for the 2023 language change, as 110.26 always applies unless there is something that says it doesn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top