readily accessible

[iwire]

If it is expected to remain in place and be functional for as long as the building will be usable, it is "permanent" as far as our use of the word is concerned.

:thumbsup:

I would only change that to 'for as long as needed'.

In other words if the equipment is removed that the ladder serves it can be removed after that.

 

[petersonra]

So glad to see there are those out there that think inspectors are robots you know not thinking, evaluating, making choices. I'd bet by the time you take it to court, that appliance in which a dedicated location was determined for, would be installed. Though your robot inclination of possible which is more probable/ most likely is by the black & white letters true(is readily accessible at the time of inspection). Never have this problem when installers use a bit of common sense when interpreting the meaning of code.

there would be no basis for a red tag if there was no appliance present. inspectors are not permitted by law to make judgement calls like this. They are only allowed to inspect to what the code says. not what they think is appropriate.

There would be no court necessary. The inspector's supervisor would slap him upside the head and set him straight.

In any case, doesn't the fridge need a receptacle behind it anyway? How else are you going to plug it in?

 

[iwire]

there would be no basis for a red tag if there was no appliance present. inspectors are not permitted by law to make judgement calls like this. They are only allowed to inspect to what the code says. not what they think is appropriate.

I agree and can't see any reasonable argument against that.

There would be no court necessary. The inspector's supervisor would slap him upside the head and set him straight.

My experience says otherwise.

Last time the supervisor explained to me that the definition in the code book was wrong. We were both there reading from the printed book yet he determined that the CMP made a mistake with the definition. (Vending Machine definition)

 

[mwm1752]

there would be no basis for a red tag if there was no appliance present. inspectors are not permitted by law to make judgement calls like this. They are only allowed to inspect to what the code says. not what they think is appropriate.

There would be no court necessary. The inspector's supervisor would slap him upside the head and set him straight.

In any case, doesn't the fridge need a receptacle behind it anyway? How else are you going to plug it in?

Never known a simple rejected inspection to be a red tag ( do you understand red tag procedures?) - would need a life safety issue to go to that extreme -- Inspectors make judgement calls all the time as the NEC is constantly being interpreted through its gray area's as this forum shows everyday -- Contractors shall be inspected per code as interpreted by the code official not what contractors think is appropriate -- Though if contractor & inspector can't talk there is probably bigger issues to tackle.

Any installer's boss would slap him upside the head if he installed a rest button behind a fridge on purpose --

In any case do they make breakers to protect the device so that you don't have to move the fridge in order to reset a button?? KISS rule applies in all cases

 

[K8MHZ]

In any case, doesn't the fridge need a receptacle behind it anyway? How else are you going to plug it in?

There is no receptacle behind my fridge. The fridge is plugged into a receptacle on the wall over the counter next to it.

 

[FionaZuppa]

there would be no basis for a red tag if there was no appliance present. inspectors are not permitted by law to make judgement calls like this. They are only allowed to inspect to what the code says. not what they think is appropriate.

There would be no court necessary. The inspector's supervisor would slap him upside the head and set him straight.

In any case, doesn't the fridge need a receptacle behind it anyway? How else are you going to plug it in?

a fridge recept could be to the side of the appliance.

and no, the AHJ has final word, NEC is a guide, not the legal jurisdiction. if the inspector is the supe, you goto who next? if its a blatant non-hazard bad decision, it will be overturned along the way, if there is any notion that the AHJ sees a small hazard they wish to avoid, its dead there.

If it is expected to remain in place and be functional for as long as the building will be usable, it is "permanent" as far as our use of the word is concerned.

nice, i'll chain a portable ladder to the deck and throw away the key. should not be a violation then.

 

[K8MHZ]

a fridge recept could be to the side of the appliance.

and no, the AHJ has final word, NEC is a guide, not the legal jurisdiction. if the inspector is the supe, you goto who next? if its a blatant non-hazard bad decision, it will be overturned along the way, if there is any notion that the AHJ sees a small hazard they wish to avoid, its dead there.


nice, i'll chain a portable ladder to the deck and throw away the key. should not be a violation then.

Actually, it's the other way around. The NEC is the legal rules, NOT a guide.

And, chaining something is not the same as affixing it. Affix means 'to fasten', and a chain is not a fastener. Nuts and bolts are fasteners. A bicycle chained to a pole, key lost or not, is not fixed or fastened to the pole.

Ain't the English language fun?

And here if the inspector is the supervisor, we can call the State of Michigan directly and they will straighten things out. The info for contacting them is part of our code update classes.

 

[FionaZuppa]

Actually, it's the other way around. The NEC is the legal rules, NOT a guide.

did you read page-1 past the cover of NEC code book?
i am shocked that you believe there is any legal control by the NEC codebook, which says absolutely nothing about "legal rules".
the AHJ can use the code book as a resource for enforcing what they want (aka "a reference"), and AHJ has final say-so.

 

[iwire]

did you read page-1 past the cover of NEC code book?
i am shocked that you believe there is any legal control by the NEC codebook, which says absolutely nothing about "legal rules".
the AHJ can use the code book as a resource for enforcing what they want (aka "a reference"), and AHJ has final say-so.

You seem clueless

The NEC is nothing but a book of words with no meaning until an area adopts it.

Once it is adopted it is the rule we and the AHJ have to follow. The AHJ cannot make up new requirements on the spot.

If an area wants to adopt the NEC and the AHJ disagrees with with some parts of it they make amendments to the NEC at that time.

In my area the AHJ has made 60 to 70 changes to the NEC and adopted the NEC with those changes.


You really need to forget any idea that an AHJ can make up rules on the spot.

 

[K8MHZ]

In my area the AHJ has made 60 to 70 changes to the NEC and adopted the NEC with those changes.

And in my area the AHJ, the State of Michigan, did away with all AFCI requirements for one and two family dwellings.

How bow dah, Fiona?

:lol:

 

[charlie b]

i am shocked that you believe there is any legal control by the NEC codebook, which says absolutely nothing about "legal rules".

In this respect, you are right. The NEC is written and issued by an organization that has no legal authority over any state or local jurisdiction. However, once a state or a local jurisdiction adopts the NEC, with or without its own amendments, then the NEC (as amended) becomes LAW in that state or local area.

the AHJ can use the code book as a resource for enforcing what they want (aka "a reference"), and AHJ has final say-so.

Here you are in error. The law has the final say-so. The AHJ (or any single inspector for that matter) is compelled to obey the law. No inspector has the authority to enact law. Only a governmental body can enact law.

 

[FionaZuppa]

In this respect, you are right. The NEC is written and issued by an organization that has no legal authority over any state or local jurisdiction. However, once a state or a local jurisdiction adopts the NEC, with or without its own amendments, then the NEC (as amended) becomes LAW in that state or local area.
Here you are in error. The law has the final say-so. The AHJ (or any single inspector for that matter) is compelled to obey the law. No inspector has the authority to enact law. Only a governmental body can enact law.

show me any state/local laws that say "the NEC is law". from what i see, the NEC "as adopted" is the goto reference book, to be interpreted by the AHJ, nothing more than that. and we are not talking about black-&-white items, we are talking about gray areas, which the AHJ can literally do what they want with, and same goes for areas not covered specifically within the NEC book.

 

[iwire]

the NEC "as adopted" is the goto reference book, to be interpreted by the AHJ

Correct the AHJ must interpret the rules not make new rules up.

 

[Carultch]

Correct the AHJ must interpret the rules not make new rules up.

90.4 should specify the onus of the AHJ to cite a specific code requirement.

 

[FionaZuppa]

Correct the AHJ must interpret the rules not make new rules up.

interpretation does not mean to make up new rules. interpretation means you can have wild swings in what an AHJ understands the words to mean. we never said AHJ was making up rules. there is nothing in NEC that says the AHJ cant make decision based on what the future use of the space might be given that there is evidence of such. but they need evidence to go by, etc.

 

[iwire]

interpretation does not mean to make up new rules. interpretation means you can have wild swings in what an AHJ understands the words to mean. we never said AHJ was making up rules. there is nothing in NEC that says the AHJ cant make decision based on what the future use of the space might be given that there is evidence of such. but they need evidence to go by, etc.

What you are suggesting is beyond interpretation. You have misunderstood the requirements, it's OK.

 

[iwire]

did you read page-1 past the cover of NEC code book?
i am shocked that you believe there is any legal control by the NEC codebook, which says absolutely nothing about "legal rules".

Here is page 1 of my code book.

 

[charlie b]

show me any state/local laws that say "the NEC is law".

Here is the cover page for the Seattle electrical code amendments. Note the word "ordinance." That is another word for "law."

 

[FionaZuppa]

the page-1 i was talking about was literally the 1st page past the cover page of nec 2014. all your local law says is, that the AHJ will use the NEC book as the reference. there is no jurisdiction from NFPA to the AHJ, as they duly note on page-1. some local govt's are afforded by state law to adopt the reference of their choosing, or to develop their own, and for obvious reasons adoption of NEC is easier, and some make local amendments. NEC is not law, its the chosen reference by which the AHJ can interpret any way they like as they have the right to do so.

 

[gadfly56]

the page-1 i was talking about was literally the 1st page past the cover page of nec 2014. all your local law says is, that the AHJ will use the NEC book as the reference. there is no jurisdiction from NFPA to the AHJ, as they duly note on page-1. some local govt's are afforded by state law to adopt the reference of their choosing, or to develop their own, and for obvious reasons adoption of NEC is easier, and some make local amendments. NEC is not law, its the chosen reference by which the AHJ can interpret any way they like as they have the right to do so.

Try this on for size:



5:23 is the enabling statute for the Uniform Construction Code. The NEC is part of the law. It's not just a reference.

NB; tried to put in a larger image, but the smaller one won't go away.