In reviewing the latest code, I think it’s worth discussing the sundry items. I intend to open discussions section by section. I hope our discussions are more than simply saying “this is dumb” or a simple re-hash of the seminar explanations.
90.5(C) discusses references to documents besides the NEC. IMO, this is logical quicksand, and easily highlights the gross inability of most people to think critically. Never has this been more clear than in the change to 90.5(C). The actual text of the change states “the reference is to be considered as the latest edition.” Sounds reasonable, save for two details: — First is that the same section is careful to note in the very next sentence that such references “are not enforceable.” — Next, in the “Analysis of Changes” an example is used of a Code requirement that Luminaires be “listed.” By inferring that this means products be listed to the latest version of the listing agency’s standard, a very real possibility exists that a marked product might no longer qualify — and the electrician has no way of telling which edition of the standard was in use when the product was listed. All we see is a sticker saying “listed.”
More sinister is the incorporation of these third party standards “by reference.” If you’re going to say a certain standard is mandatory, you have made that “law.” Laws are NOT subject to copyright, but are in the public domain. While the folks at the NFPA may claim ownership of the NEC, they most certainly do NOT own (for example) UL standard 1598. We can argue this until the cows come home, but what’s the point of being pedantic when — as the same Code section plainly states — your opinion is not enforceable?
In a separate illustration of the matter, I like to think of the dishonest sleight-of-hand played to get the NEC to ban the use of “sheet metal screws.” In every example cited by proponents of the change, a simple sheet metal screw was shown being used the wrong way, in the wrong materials, in the wrong sized holes. Once the prohibition was in place, it was suddenly used to ban a wide variety of screws. Some of these other screws were never intended for use in binding together sheet metal through prepared holes. Use of these other screws was banned, even when the screws were being used properly. This was because the dishonest proposer suddenly began referencing an ANSI standard. The use of the ANSI reference was never discussed. In the attached picture are seven screws. One is more correctly known as a “bolt” and is not an issue. Only one screw is of the type referred to in the proposal for the code change. The remaining five are all designed for uses that do not involve joining two pieces of sheet metal. Yet, all of these screws are included in the ANSI artwork. That’s called “bait and switch.” Yet the ‘fine print’ limits on enforcing such limits hasn’t held back inspectors at all.
(5) Machine screw-type fasteners that engage not less than two threads or are secured with a nut (6) Thread-forming machine screws that engage not less than two threads in the enclosure
Thank you, Greg. That elaboration on 250.8 helps with that specific issue, and perhaps we can open a thread later discussing that specific issue. The point of my comment here was to draw attention to the perils of adding references to code books, Folks seem unable to differentiate between what a code actually says, and their supporting their opinion by citing a common reference (like a dictionary).
Time and again I see such references treated as if they were the law. Heck, this very code change — which, as part of Section 90 isn’t part of the code at all, but merely an introduction — will be cited as proof that “The Code requires the use of the latest edition of the referenced document.”
This has been an issue ever since the ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) included an appendix illustrating various construction details. Despite the ADA and the appendix both plainly stating that the appendix was NOT part of the law, the whole industry began parroting the 18” receptacle height requirement. Inspectors have been happily enforcing the unenforceable.
Another example came about when the NEC required devices to have a bonding jumper “except when the device was mounted with two screws” The code change illustrations showed a surface-mounted box with a metal cover, and folks insist that this illustration is the ONLY exception to the bonding jumper requirement. No one seems to realize that there are other circumstances — “old work boxes” come to mind — that also meet the requirements of the exception.
I agree there are plenty of examples of other codes and standards that seem to imply they are part of the NEC but if it is not there, it is not there. We also might see some dialing back of regulations and administrative decisions by these alphabet agencies in light of the Loper Bright decision. Unfortunately the court made suing the government the only recourse although the government did lose the "presumption" that they are always right.