NEC 2020 Question on GFCI Protection

[bill1952]

Tricky when a legislative body adopts a code by reference and then there are errata and addendums. I think if I were a code official - we're all lucky this is hypothetical - I enforce the adopted code with the errata and adenda and the TIAs in the case of NFPA, as being in the publics best interest and within the intent of the legislation.

 

[jar546]

While a TIA or an errata may be of interest they cannot be enforced until the entity that adopted the code has taken formal action to modify the code.

That is incorrect. The TIA becomes the code the second it is published.

 

[wwhitney]

That is incorrect. The TIA becomes the code the second it is published.

It becomes part of the model code, but it may or may not be automatically adopted by a given jurisdiction, depending on the legislative language that the jurisdiction used in adopting the NEC.

A few examples that come to mind (not a legal expert, just what I would expect):

1) The law references the "2020 National Electrical Code as published by the NFPA on such and such a date." Subsequent TIAs are not automatically adopted. TIAs adopted before the specified date would be adopted.
2) Or maybe it says "the 2020 National Electrical Code including all TIAs and errata." TIAs are automatically adopted.
3) Or maybe the entire body of the 2020 NEC as of that point in time is literally incorporated into the body of the legislation. Subsequent TIAs are not automatically adopted.
4) Or maybe it just says "the 2020 National Electrical Code," and then it might end up being litigated whether that means the version that existed at the time the law was adopted, or whether the legislative body intended to give the NFPA the ability to change the law of the land in that jurisdiction via the TIA process.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jar546]

It becomes part of the model code, but it may or may not be automatically adopted by a given jurisdiction, depending on the legislative language that the jurisdiction used in adopting the NEC.

In PA, TIAs count, in Florida TIAs count, my guess is those that don't include TIAs simply don't want to, not that they can't. I created another post specifically about TIAs and why they are issued.

 

[wwhitney]

in Florida TIAs count

Can you expand on the code or legislative language which makes this true?

Floridabuilding.org seems to the official website of the Florida Building Commission. This page https://www.floridabuilding.org/fbc/thecode/NFPA.html says that the NEC (NFPA 70) is adopted by reference from the Florida Building Code Chapter 27. It also says "Consult these volumes of the different editions of the Florida Building Code to determine which edition of NFPA 70 OR NFPA 70A they adopt."

But when I look at the 2020 Florida Building Code, the word "Electrical" in the index lists only "105.2, 112, Chapter 27, Appendix K". None of those sections clarify which version of the NEC is adopted, let alone whether TIAs are automatically adopted. All I see is 2701.1 Scope stating "The provisions of this chapter and NFPA 70 shall govern . . ."

Thanks,
Wayne

 

[jar546]

We adopt the NFPA 70 and when the NFPA is changed with a TIA, it changes the NFPA 70. There is no adoption date and in meetings with BOAF members at conferences, it is understood that the TIAs are important changes and the NFPA does not take them lightly. There is no language that specifically prohibits TIAs from being adopted, therefore, for the good of the community, since TIAs are approved by the NFPA for safety reasons, we enforce them.

Just look at the TIA for NEC 555 in the 2017 version. The TIA was imperative for safety and then they changed the verbiage in the 2020 version to further fix the issue.

The commission shall use the International Codes published by the International Code Council, the National Electric Code (NFPA 70), or other nationally adopted model codes and standards for updates to the Florida Building Code.

As you can see, nothing is locked down to a specific code as written on a specific date. When the publisher of the NFPA feels it necessary to incorporate a TIA, the code itself is changed. You can't justify not acknowledging TIAs that are safety-related because of verbiage that does not exist.

 

[Mark K]

It becomes part of the model code, but it may or may not be automatically adopted by a given jurisdiction, depending on the legislative language that the jurisdiction used in adopting the NEC.

A few examples that come to mind (not a legal expert, just what I would expect):

1) The law references the "2020 National Electrical Code as published by the NFPA on such and such a date." Subsequent TIAs are not automatically adopted. TIAs adopted before the specified date would be adopted.
2) Or maybe it says "the 2020 National Electrical Code including all TIAs and errata." TIAs are automatically adopted.
3) Or maybe the entire body of the 2020 NEC as of that point in time is literally incorporated into the body of the legislation. Subsequent TIAs are not automatically adopted.
4) Or maybe it just says "the 2020 National Electrical Code," and then it might end up being litigated whether that means the version that existed at the time the law was adopted, or whether the legislative body intended to give the NFPA the ability to change the law of the land in that jurisdiction via the TIA process.

Cheers, Wayne

To make a TIA enforceable when it is published by a non-governmental organization would mean that we no longer need state legislatures and city councils or an agency empowered to adopt regulations. It would also suggest that the building department is not answerable to anybody.

Any jurisdiction that enforces a TIA that was not formally adopted by an appropriate legislative body is exceeding its authority. The legislative body cannot adopt a standard that will be published some time in the future.

 

[wwhitney]

We adopt the NFPA 70 and when the NFPA is changed with a TIA, it changes the NFPA 70. . . . As you can see, nothing is locked down to a specific code as written on a specific date.

But by that logic, as soon as a new edition of the NEC comes out, Florida would immediately start enforcing that version of the NEC. Is that Florida's practice, or does it stick to the latest NEC that was published at the time the current version of the Florida Building Code was adopted?

The commission shall use the International Codes published by the International Code Council, the National Electric Code (NFPA 70), or other nationally adopted model codes and standards for updates to the Florida Building Code.

That sounds like you are quoting something, do you have a reference?

Based on the information you've provided so far, it seems to me it would take an act of the Florida Building Commission to adopt the TIA. And so if Florida building departments are enforcing TIAs absent that, and were challenged in court, there's a good chance it would go against the building department.

Of course, the TIA to 2020 NEC 210.8(F) that started this discussion was a relaxing of requirements, rather than a new requirement. As such the building department has the authority to waive the unamended 210.8(F) as per the TIA under the language in NEC 90.4.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ICE]

Tentative Interim Amendment. The definition of the word tentative is: “not certain or fixed. Synonyms include: unconfirmed, unsettled, preliminary.

The obvious conclusion is that the next code cycle might change to include the information found in the TIA… or it might be something similar or perhaps not at all. A history of TIAs could demonstrate the outcomes but I’m not the person to get that far into it.

Given that we are talking about the Electrical Code and electricity tends to kill people when it escapes…. Not paying attention to a TIA is a dumb move. Building officials are tasked with making decisions regarding safety. A Tentative Interim Amendment can be enforced with or without any government agency approval.

Limiting a building official’s authority to the absolute letter of the formally adopted code closes the door to innovation and progress. Could I ignore every wrong thing that I come across that’s not specifically addressed in a code? After all, it can’t be wrong if there’s no code that says that it’s wrong.

It’s not like there’s a flood of mistakes that are not recognized by the code. It happens and when it does the inspector should rise to the occasion. To presume otherwise denies reality.

 

[steveray]

Well I have to take my last statement back, just double checked and discovered that this is indeed an upcodes discrepancy.

"This requirement shall become effective on January 1, 2023, for mini-split-type heating/ventilating/air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment and other HVAC units employing power conversion equipment as a means to control compressor speed."

Does not exist in my hard copy, and does not exist in the BSC published version. I would say that this is not valid. I am very curious where this came from.

That was the original...The TIA modified it when NFPA realized they couldn't legitimately give minisplits a pass (because of the electrification agenda and they fact that they can't get them to work on GFCI yet) and not other listed HVAC equipment...If one piece of equipment needs to be safe they all do ...Right?