Yes, TIAs Are Enforceable, And You Need to Keep Up With Them

[jar546]

Too many people in this industry think Tentative Interim Amendments are optional. They are not. A TIA is not a suggestion or a side note. It is an official part of the adopted code the moment it is issued by the NFPA Standards Council. When you adopt the 2023 NEC, for example, you are adopting the entire edition, which includes any TIAs that were issued and incorporated before printing. That is not up for debate. If the language of the TIA appears in the codebook your jurisdiction adopted, you are enforcing it.

This is where some professionals get tripped up. They assume that because their local ordinance adopted the 2023 NEC on a certain date, anything published after that date doesn't apply. That is false. TIAs are built into the document before it ever goes to print, and unless your jurisdiction explicitly removed or amended that section, the TIA is already part of the code you are using. There is no need to re-adopt it. It’s already there.

TIAs exist for a reason. They fix problems, close safety gaps, and respond to real-world issues. Some are temporary and have expiration dates, like the GFCI relief for HVAC units. Others are permanent clarifications to language that would have otherwise caused confusion or enforcement mistakes. Ignoring a TIA because you don’t understand how it got there or because it wasn’t part of the version you adopted two years ago is not just lazy, it’s dangerous.

Staying current with TIAs is part of your job if you are a contractor, inspector, engineer, or building official. The code is not static. The industry is not static. If a TIA is issued during the code cycle you are working under, it applies to you. And yes, it is enforceable. TIAs are not commentary. They are code.

 

[jar546]

Here is an example of a TIA (see attached PDF)

TIA 23.1 clarified that portable handlamps and portable luminaires (such as work lights or plug-in utility lights) must be grounded when used in both residential and non-residential settings, if they have exposed metal parts.

In simple terms:​

This TIA makes it clear that any portable plug-in light with exposed metal must be connected to a ground wire for safety. That applies whether it is used in a home, a shop, or a jobsite. Before this amendment, the requirement wasn’t clearly stated, which left room for misinterpretation and potential shock hazards.

Why it matters:​

It closes a gap that could have allowed ungrounded metal parts on plug-in lights, increasing the risk of electric shock. This is exactly the kind of safety issue TIAs are designed to fix. It is a good example of why professionals must keep up with these changes. They are not just paperwork. They exist to prevent injuries and deaths.

 

[wwhitney]

Too many people in this industry think Tentative Interim Amendments are optional. They are not. A TIA is not a suggestion or a side note. It is an official part of the adopted code the moment it is issued by the NFPA Standards Council. When you adopt the 2023 NEC, for example, you are adopting the entire edition, which includes any TIAs that were issued and incorporated before printing.

It seems to me that it is entirely up to the exact language the state uses in adopting the NEC. If the statute says "the 2023 National Electrical Code as published by NPFA on January 1, 2025," then any TIAs adopted after January 1, 2025 obviously are not incorporated into the statute. Whereas if the statute simply says "the 2023 National Electrical Code as published by NPFA" then it's more ambiguous. I would expect the former case, but you'd have to check state by state.

And then if the state amends the NEC, it will depend on how they adopt the code. If they adopt it by reference with specific amendments, the above would apply. But if they take the full text of the NEC at some point in time, and then modify that text, and adopt the entire modified text, then subsequent TIAs would obviously not be adopted.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jar546]

It seems to me that it is entirely up to the exact language the state uses in adopting the NEC. If the statute says "the 2023 National Electrical Code as published by NPFA on January 1, 2025," then any TIAs adopted after January 1, 2025 obviously are not incorporated into the statute. Whereas if the statute simply says "the 2023 National Electrical Code as published by NPFA" then it's more ambiguous. I would expect the former case, but you'd have to check state by state.

And then if the state amends the NEC, it will depend on how they adopt the code. If they adopt it by reference with specific amendments, the above would apply. But if they take the full text of the NEC at some point in time, and then modify that text, and adopt the entire modified text, then subsequent TIAs would obviously not be adopted.

Cheers, Wayne

Wayne, this is exactly the kind of academic response that confuses people. You’re throwing out a hypothetical that does not reflect how states actually adopt the NEC. Most adopt by edition, not by a fixed date. When they adopt the 2023 NEC, they are adopting the edition as published by NFPA, which includes any TIAs approved after printing. Those TIAs are already in the codebook and enforceable unless the state specifically removed them.

Connecticut is a perfect example. They adopted the 2020 NEC by edition. No date lock, no exclusion of TIAs. If the TIA is in the printed edition, it applies. No extra steps. No re-adoption. Just enforce the code as written.

The real problem is that too many people already ignore TIAs because someone told them they are optional. Your post feeds that. Most TIAs are about safety. Ignoring them over a technicality is how people get hurt. If someone wants to claim a TIA does not apply in their state, they need to show the adoption language that proves it. Otherwise, it stands.

If you actually know of a state that adopts the NEC the way you described, post it. Otherwise, let’s focus on how things work in the field instead of how they might work in theory.

 

[wwhitney]

Most adopt by edition, not by a fixed date.

Well, that is the question. You have stated Connecticut does it that way, so taking that as a given, that is a sample size of 1 out of 50.

California apparently doesn't do it that way. Here is a memo from the California Building Standards Commission on TIA 20-19 for the 2020 NEC. [California won't adopt the 2023 NEC until January 1, 2026.] https://www.dgs.ca.gov/-/media/Divi...rmation-Bulletins/2023/BSC-Bulletin-23-01.pdf
The memo says:

. . .
The provisions of NFPA TIA 20-19 were developed after California’s adoption of the 2020 NEC and therefore were not approved as part of the 2022 CEC. It is important to note that for local government to enforce the provisions of the NFPA TIA 20-19 they may do so by one of two means:

• Enacting a local ordinance: . . .

• Permit alternative methods: . . .

So my sample size of 1 out of 50 says the opposite of what your equal size sample says. Unless one of us does or finds a survey of all 50 states, I don't think we can say which case is more common.

The bottom line is that it does vary by state.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jar546]

Well, that is the question. You have stated Connecticut does it that way, so taking that as a given, that is a sample size of 1 out of 50.

California apparently doesn't do it that way. Here is a memo from the California Building Standards Commission on TIA 20-19 for the 2020 NEC. [California won't adopt the 2023 NEC until January 1, 2026.] https://www.dgs.ca.gov/-/media/Divi...rmation-Bulletins/2023/BSC-Bulletin-23-01.pdf
The memo says:



So my sample size of 1 out of 50 says the opposite of what your equal size sample says. Unless one of us does or finds a survey of all 50 states, I don't think we can say which case is more common.

The bottom line is that it does vary by state.

Cheers, Wayne

I have researched multiple states, including California (your home state), as well as Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Connecticut, and Virginia, and have worked in two of them. Additionally, the clear majority of states that adopt the ICC codes also adopt NFPA 70 as referenced, not by direct adoption.

Those of us who have been working day in and day out in this industry, served on ICC & state committees, belong to the NFPA & IAEI, attending dozens of meetings per year to help coordinate changes and the implementation of the codes, and understand how they work shy away from hypotheticals as they can create confusion amongst the masses which is detrimental to the industry as a whole.

You are the one with the hypothesis; therefore, the burden of proof is on you. There is academia, and there is the real, functioning, practical world. As a former adjunct faculty member at a college, I've learned firsthand that the hands-on, practical application of what is being taught clearly outweighs impractical hypothesis.

 

[jar546]

At the end of the day, TIAs are issued to address gaps, hazards, and code conflicts that cannot wait for the next cycle. Most are safety-driven. If we dismiss them because of a speculative technicality, we’re not protecting anyone. That is not code enforcement. That is avoidance.

 

[wwhitney]

I have researched multiple states, including California (your home state)

So you agree California does not adopt the NEC in a way that automatically incorporates TIAs?

, as well as Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Connecticut, and Virginia

A quick first round of looking into those states:

Florida: Chapter 27 of the Florida Building Code says "The provisions of this chapter and NFPA 70 shall govern the design, construction, erection and installation of the electrical components, appliances, equipment and systems used in buildings and structures covered by this code. . . ." Then Chapter 35 "Referenced Standards" refers to NFPA 70-20, the 2020 version of the NEC. As there is no mention of adoption date or which version of NFPA 70-20 applies, this is in accordance with the OP.

Pennsylvania: same as Florida, except they have adopted the 2018 IBC, which reference NFPA 70-17. The law listing the building codes has no direct reference to the NEC, so it appears only to be adopted as a referenced standard from Chapter 27 of the IBC. https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/D...ecure/pacode/data/034/chapter403/s403.21.html

Texas: "16 Texas Administrative Code Rule 73.100" says "Effective September 1, 2023, the department adopts the 2023 National Electrical Code as approved by the National Fire Protection Association, Inc. on August 12, 2022." That language would not include any TIAs issued after August 12, 2022. https://texas-sos.appianportalsgov....US&interface=VIEW_TAC_SUMMARY&recordId=214932

Connecticut: adopts the 2020 NEC by reference, so in accordance with the OP. https://portal.ct.gov/das/-/media/d...6ee85f2&hash=D6499605AC2B583D21207216CBEDE5D5

Virginia: ran out of steam at this point, but it appears it may be in accordance with the OP.

So our count stands as 2 states not in accordance with the OP, 4 states in accordance, although those 2 states represent 70 million people, vs 35 million people in the other 4 states. It is possible that California and Texas will be the only exceptions, not clear yet.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Too many people in this industry think Tentative Interim Amendments are optional. They are not. A TIA is not a suggestion or a side note. It is an official part of the adopted code the moment it is issued by the NFPA Standards Council. When you adopt the 2023 NEC, for example, you are adopting the entire edition, which includes any TIAs that were issued and incorporated before printing. That is not up for debate. If the language of the TIA appears in the codebook your jurisdiction adopted, you are enforcing it.

This may be true in Florida and some other states. It is not true in Connecticut.

Codes here are adopted by the legislature and are very specific as to the date and edition that is adopted. The process is lengthy and convoluted, so interim revisions or amendments to adopted codes and standards are never adopted.

The best example I can think of was a number of years ago when I worked as a code consultant in a firm owned by an architect friend who was the state's preeminent code consultant. I wrote up a report or a comment on something. When the boss reviewed it, he said I had mis-quoted the code. I said I had not. He pulled out a code book and showed me. I pulled out my code book and showed him.

They were different. It took a few minutes before we figured out that one of us had the first printing and one of us had the second printing. The legislature had explicitly adopted the first printing, so until our next code adoption cycle the errors in the first printing were binding law. The work-around was to have the State Building Inspector issue formal interpretations to correct the errors.

Referenced standards under the codes are fixed to the date current as of the date the codes are adopted.

 

[wwhitney]

Codes here are adopted by the legislature and are very specific as to the date and edition that is adopted. The process is lengthy and convoluted, so interim revisions or amendments to adopted codes and standards are never adopted.

Are you sure this information is still current?

Section 29-252 of the Connecticut General Statutes says "The State Building Inspector and the Codes and Standards Committee shall, jointly, with the approval of the Commissioner of Administrative Services and in accordance with the provisions of section 29-252b, adopt and administer a State Building Code based on a nationally recognized model building code . . ." So it seems that the legislature has delegated the adoption to those two entities. https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_541.htm#sec_29-252

The section also states "The code shall be revised as deemed necessary to incorporate any subsequent revisions to the code not later than eighteen months following the date of first publication of such subsequent revisions to the code." So if a TIA is considered a revision to the NEC, seems like that law requires the State Building Inspector and the Codes and Standards Committee to consider adopting the TIA within 18 months.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Are you sure this information is still current?

Section 29-252 of the Connecticut General Statutes says "The State Building Inspector and the Codes and Standards Committee shall, jointly, with the approval of the Commissioner of Administrative Services and in accordance with the provisions of section 29-252b, adopt and administer a State Building Code based on a nationally recognized model building code . . ." So it seems that the legislature has delegated the adoption to those two entities. https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_541.htm#sec_29-252

True, but that adoption process involves review and blessing of the to-be-adopted code by a legislative review committee (a committee of the state legislature). The legislative review committee reviews not only the proposed State amendments but also the specific editions of the codes that the proposed amendments are based on. That's why the issue of first or second printing became critical in the case I mentioned. The legislature specifically reviewd and the Codes and Standards Committee specifically adopted the fist printing of the building code.

The section also states "The code shall be revised as deemed necessary to incorporate any subsequent revisions to the code not later than eighteen months following the date of first publication of such subsequent revisions to the code." So if a TIA is considered a revision to the NEC, seems like that law requires the State Building Inspector and the Codes and Standards Committee to consider adopting the TIA within 18 months.

This was written into law when I was active in the local AIA chapter's Building Performance and Regulation Commission. The state had been very haphazard about adopting new codes when the national model codes were adopted. (We were under BOCA at the time.) We (the architects' and engineers' professional societies) got that language added to the statute. The intent was to adopt a new code every three years, following the cycle of the BOCA model code. The 18 months was intended to account for the time lag resulting from the legislative review process. It was supposed to mean that we would always adopt a new state building code within 18 months following the publication of a new model code.

Unfortunately, the language in the statute doesn't really say that.

In practice, successive state building inspectors decided that adopting an entire new code every three years was work, so what too often happened was a major code adoption followed on a more-or-less three year cycle by minor interim amendments, without moving to a newer code. Our 2005 state building code was based in the 2003 ICC model codes. We then skipped right over the 2006 and 2009 model codes. Our next new code adoption was the 2016 state building code, which was based on the 2012 ICC model codes. In 2018 we adopted a new state building code based on the 2015 ICC codes. We then skipped the 2018 ICC codes and in 2022 we adopted a new state building code based on the 2021 ICC model codes.

We were supposed to adopt the 2024 ICC codes this year, but the latest scuttlebutt suggests that now won't happen until the first quarter of 2026 (maybe).

 

[wwhitney]

Thanks for the detailed explanation @Yankee Chronicler.

So our count currently stands at 3 states plausibly follow the OP, 3 states do not, 44 states unchecked.

Cheers, Wayne