NEC 2011 is now in effect in North Carolina

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hv&Lv said:
210.12 (B) to a point,

406.4(D)(4) for the receptacles

(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 inter-
rupter 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.

Note the 2014 effective date.

BTW, Found out how to copy and paste from secured .pdf's. I love OneNote now..
Click to expand...

Well if this is actually from the 2014 NEC draft, NFPA has over stepped their bounds as this is in direct conflict with grandfather laws and the Constitution Of The United States as well as many states Constitutions.

I have posted in the past where case laws have upheld that "No post facto laws shall never be enacted" does infact apply to civil laws which apply to building laws as well as vehicle regulations.

Look at it this way, if you replaced the engine in your 1969 car would EPA require you to bring it up to todays EPA standards? nope, that very same law protects us from EPA as well as other NTSB requirements such as seat belts in older cars and DOT requirements of turn signals on pre 1974 motor cycles and many other things.

changing a receptacle is a repair and you have that right, know the law and it will take your side.

With the fact I have yet to even see a receptacle type AFCI how is this to be accomplished except by protecting the whole circuit, this is another code that will drive more and more to not get permits and inspections even if no one stands up to the conflict part.

Here is a little of case laws that might explain my view:

Protect Property Rights by Prohibiting Ex Post Facto Laws

Two examples are useful in illustrating how prohibitions on ex post facto laws serve to protect property rights. The first example occurs in California state law. The traditional rule in California land use law, as described in Lippert v. Avco Community Developers, Inc. (1976), was that there was no vested right to develop one's property until an individual had a valid building permit and had performed substantial construction in good faith reliance upon the permit. California law was changed by the legislature in recognition of the fact that the building permit plays a relatively trivial part in the development process today, as compared to general plan amendments, zone changes, and environmental impact reports. The old law allowed a city to enact new zoning laws right up until the time that a building permit had been issued, which could be many years after a property owner applied for the subdivision permits that must be secured before a building permit could be issued. The new law, California's Government Code st66474.2, states that no new zoning laws (ex post facto laws, for example) can be applied after an individual has applied for a subdivision permit (a tentative tract map, in the parlance of California). By prohibiting the retroactive application of these zoning laws to completed applications to subdivide, the legislature expanded the rights of property owners.

The second example of the interplay between ex post facto laws and property rights occurs in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992). David Lucas paid almost one million dollars for two beachfront lots. When he bought the lots, he was allowed to build one house on each lot. The legislature then passed new laws prohibiting any building on the lots that were applied retroactively to his purchase.

The Supreme Court struck down the legislature's retroactive laws via the takings clause because Lucas was left with no viable use of his land and because he did not present any nuisance to his neighbors.[7] However, what if the new South Carolina law had allowed all owners the right to build only one house on any remaining lots they own? According to the Court, such an ex post facto law would not be counted as a taking as all use of the property has not been taken. Yet such a milder ex post facto law still would be objectionable, because it would deprive individuals of large portions and uses of their property, and it would deprive them of the ability to know in advance which laws will apply to their property.
Click to expand...

And most of the others can be read here
 
hurk27 said:
Well if this is actually from the 2014 NEC draft, NFPA has over stepped their bounds as this is in direct conflict with grandfather laws and the Constitution Of The United States as well as many states Constitutions.

I have posted in the past where case laws have upheld that "No post facto laws shall never be enacted" does infact apply to civil laws which apply to building laws as well as vehicle regulations.

Look at it this way, if you replaced the engine in your 1969 car would EPA require you to bring it up to todays EPA standards? nope, that very same law protects us from EPA as well as other NTSB requirements such as seat belts in older cars and DOT requirements of turn signals on pre 1974 motor cycles and many other things.

changing a receptacle is a repair and you have that right, know the law and it will take your side.

With the fact I have yet to even see a receptacle type AFCI how is this to be accomplished except by protecting the whole circuit, this is another code that will drive more and more to not get permits and inspections even if no one stands up to the conflict part.

Here is a little of case laws that might explain my view:



And most of the others can be read here
Click to expand...

Wow. You don't really believe I have acess to the 2014 draft, do you? Look on page 271 of the 2011 NEC, upper left hand side...
 
Buck Parrish said:
Well since you got us straight on an outlet. Now back to changing a switch. If you removed a single pole swich and replaced it with a single pole dimmer switch. Is that "modifying" a circuit? I don't have the 08 with me, I left it in Indy , hahaha. But any way does the 08 mention in 210.12 "modifying" a circuit. Also would changing a fuse panel to a breaker panel. Would that be modifying a circuit?

I know we talked about this when the 08 was adopted. I think this is a question that lots of folks are still wondering about.
And we would like to put it to rest once in for all for the 2011 book.
Thanks
Click to expand...

By the definition of "modify", IMO yes. You have changed the characteristics of the switch (a part of the circuit) rather than replace the switch.
For a panel, the same. Also, if you extend the conductors to reach the new breakers, haven't you "extended" the circuit?
Yes
(B) Branch Circuit Fxtensions or Modifications ?
I)Dwelling Units. In any of the areas specified in 210.12(A),
where branch-circuit wiring is modified, replaced, or ex
tended, the branch circuit shall be protected by one of the
following:
(1) A listed combination-type AFCI located at the origin of
the branch circuit
(2) A listed outlet branch-circuit type AFCI located at the
first receptacle outlet of the existing branch circuit

Anyone can beat this to death with definitions and interpretations. Fact is, someone tries to do things by the book 100% will be beaten out on jobs by others that don't some of the time. You have to pick and choose your own shortcuts.
 
In NC an electrical contractor must have 400 minutes of continuing education or 50 minutes of each hour for an 8 hour class. Half of this (200) minutes can be done through self-study but at least half must be done in a classroom.

An electrical inspector must have 360 minutes of continuing education or 60 minutes of each hour for a 6 hour class.

This doesn?t mean that they have to sit through a nonstop class it only means that they are required to sit for 360 minutes for inspectors and 400 minutes for contractors.

We have one class that takes place here in NC that last for two and sometimes 2 ? days and the student gets their required 1 years? worth of credit be it contractor or inspector. I usually see Roger and Dennis at this class every spring.
 
jwelectric said:
We have one class that takes place here in NC that last for two and sometimes 2 ? days and the student gets their required 1 years’ worth of credit be it contractor or inspector. I usually see Roger and Dennis at this class every spring.
Click to expand...

Yep and on top of that I get another 10 hours every year going to our local NCAEC meeting held once a month. Of course, after you have 3 years backlogged the credit hours are no good. I have my 3 years and throw away many more hours. Now if we can't log hours spent at MH that would be great.:D
 
Dennis Alwon said:
Yep and on top of that I get another 10 hours every year going to our local NCAEC meeting held once a month. Of course, after you have 3 years backlogged the credit hours are no good. I have my 3 years and throw away many more hours. Now if we can log hours spent at MH that would be great.:D
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you!
 
jwelectric said:
In NC an electrical contractor must have 400 minutes of continuing education or 50 minutes of each hour for an 8 hour class. Half of this (200) minutes can be done through self-study but at least half must be done in a classroom.

An electrical inspector must have 360 minutes of continuing education or 60 minutes of each hour for a 6 hour class.

This doesn?t mean that they have to sit through a nonstop class it only means that they are required to sit for 360 minutes for inspectors and 400 minutes for contractors.

We have one class that takes place here in NC that last for two and sometimes 2 ? days and the student gets their required 1 years? worth of credit be it contractor or inspector. I usually see Roger and Dennis at this class every spring.
Click to expand...

What I meant was do the inspectors have to have 6 hours on top of the 8 hours? Or do they just have to have 6 hours per year total?
I assume you answered the question with the second paragraph, so the contractor has to have more hours than the inspector? I wonder why that is, if the inspector is checking the work of what amounts to a more highly educated electrician.:p

I know what NC wants, I sat through the class given by Jimmy (and you) at the first of the year at the city building.
 
Hv&Lv said:
What I meant was do the inspectors have to have 6 hours on top of the 8 hours? Or do they just have to have 6 hours per year total?
I assume you answered the question with the second paragraph, so the contractor has to have more hours than the inspector? I wonder why that is, if the inspector is checking the work of what amounts to a more highly educated electrician.:p

I know what NC wants, I sat through the class given by Jimmy (and you) at the first of the year at the city building.
Click to expand...

If the inspector holds an electrical license then he must have 8 hours for the license but they will also get the 6 hours for their Standard Certificate at the same time.

Edited to add;

Thank you for attending our class and I hope that you got something from that class.
 
jwelectric said:
If the inspector holds an electrical license then he must have 8 hours for the license but they will also get the 6 hours for their Standard Certificate at the same time..
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, An inspector doesn't have to have a license for the trade he is inspecting for? How can he inspect someones work if he isn't qualified to hold a license in the trade he is inspecting?

jwelectric said:
Edited to add;

Thank you for attending our class and I hope that you got something from that class.
Click to expand...

I got my 8 hours ;)
It beats sitting at the Blue Mist every month.. Be back next Jan.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top