In light of the recent court decision in Texas,what impact will this have on the NEC?

Will we see each state putting it's own stamp on a version of the NEC,and further add to the questions of who allows what and where?

Will we even have a true NEC for the basis?

Russell,

What exactly was the Tx court case?

Paul,
The 5th Circuit of the US Court of Appeals has ruled that if a "model" code is adopted as law, then it can be freely published online without infringing the copyright laws. Here is the court's opinion . Note that this ruling only applies to the 5th circuit, which covers the states of Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Courts in other areas may cite this case, but the ruling in the 5th circuit, does not automatically prevent copyright infringement law suits against those who publish copyrighted codes online in areas outside of the 5th Circuit. The ruling was appealed to the US Supreme Court, but they declined to review the case.
Don

[This message has been edited by resqcapt19 (edited 07-02-2003).]

[This message has been edited by resqcapt19 (edited 07-17-2003).]

In my opinion, most code users will still purchase the code books. Few could work with only an online copy. The ruling does not say that the code books must be free. If fewer copies of the book are actually sold, the cost may have to go up so that the sponsoring organization can recover their costs.
Don

I know I'm a bit simple-minded,but wouldn't it be easier for all concerned to make the Nec exactly what it says and have 1 code nationwide?

Russell

Hey Russell, I question your simple-mindedness, but the word "simple" does come to play. Your idea would never work because it would be "simple" and practical.

Roger

Russell:
WE have the NEC available at most of our libraries here in NJ. Also, the town that I work in PT as an AHJ has a copy of the NEC, and Handbook available at the Construction Office Permit counter. Most of the other towns will provide a NEC, IF someone asks for it. (Not to "take" but to read as reference)

Occasionally, I have given homeowners "copies" of outlet spacing requirements, and EC's copies of emergency lighting references. I may be "violating" the copyright law, then again I may not be.

BTW:
NJ "adopts" the NEC (with amendments) as the Electrical Sub-Code for the State Uniform Construction Code. THe State does not "re-print" the NEC into it's UCC books. THe UCC Blue Book is available at ALL town Construction Offices, but I do not believe the general public can buy it. (That may be wrong) It is very boring reading, as it is a "legal document" (Law) and mostly written in "legaliese".
John

[This message has been edited by HotLine1 (edited 07-02-2003).]

One potential problem I could see with the Nec free online,is that homeowners will download it and start argueing code issues,whether they know what they're reading or not.

Can anyone else see this or am I being paranoid?


Russell

HotLine1:

Is this what you mean?
http://www.state.nj.us/dca/codes/forms/pubsandsubs.htm

Russ,
Can't be done. The adoption of building codes by the federal government would be unconstitutional. That type of legislation is reserved to state and local governments. Of course with Ashcroft in power who knows what rights the federal government will trample on next.
Don

the ultimate Q here would be who the NEC is for.

if in fact it is for our trade alone , then so be it, secret handshakes and all.

however,

if the NEC is truely a document of safety, then it belongs to the public
(isn't the NFPA tax funded?).

~S

sparky,
The NFPA is a private organization and is not tax supported. With the NEC being the most adopted code of any of the model codes, the sales of the NEC provide monetary support for many of the other NFPA codes and standards that do not sell enough copies to cover the cost of the code making process.
Don

Don,
I never thought about that, good point.

Roger


[This message has been edited by Roger (edited 07-02-2003).]

I understand Don's point to a degree.

But what would be the difference in a Federally mandated Nec,and the Federally pushed seat belt laws? Both concern public safety.

I remember that my state was threatened with withholding of Federal Highway funds if we didn't fall in line.

Russell

Anyone remember when the Feds pushed the 55 MPH speed limit down our throat. They could probably do it with the NEC if they were so inclined.

Thanks for the explanation. The usual bad timing meant that I received Mike Holt's e-mail about this right after I posted the question!

You mean like we have in Britain? (Though of course we're a much smaller country.)

Maybe it would be unconstitutional for the G-men to impose the NEC as a single code applicable right across the nation, but do you think it would be a nice idea if the 50 state governments (plus D.C.) could get together and agree voluntarily to standardize everything around the NEC?

I suppose that each state would then have to persuade individual counties and cities to fall into line as well. Perhaps I'm being simple-minded now?

[This message has been edited by pauluk (edited 07-03-2003).]

It sure would be much easier on the field electrician and Ahj's Imho Paul.

Russell

ga.sparky,
Yes the feds did force the 55 MPH by the threat of with holding federal highway funds. This is how they got around the constitution. They did not make a law that actually forced the states to adopt the 55MPH. It is still optional, but if you don't do what they want, they would reduce or take away the federal highway funds for your state. I don't think they provide any funding for code enforcement so they have no stick to wave at the states to force a nation wide NEC.
Don

Hello don,

Didn't the feds also do that with the drinking age? I also think they are going to try to do it with seat belt laws.

Oh well, just an idea my simple head thought up.

Russell

Party-Pooper on deck to deliver next level of potentially poor news.

The Feds, if they so desire, could find a way to exert some leverage on the governments of states to comply. The entity that could really begin to push the code compliance forward might be the insurance carriers and underwriters. Right now in the southwest we are seeing building codes, zoning, defensible space and infrastructure requirements being modified or enhanced due to the big Cerro Grande fire that demolished a couple hundred homes in a fairly small community. As if the government wasn't enough of a force to beef up fire mitigation, now the insurance companies who took a sizable hit have now begun to come back into the game of rebuilding by stating that if you build in certain materials or haven't done enough 'defensible space' planning, they may opt to not sell you insurance coverage. Most of their losses will be or have been reimbursed by FEMA or other govt coffers but they're not in business just to break even and with the recent history of hurricanes, floods and fires they're wanting to take whatever preventative measures they can to guard their own tails.

[This message has been edited by BuggabooBren (edited 07-03-2003).]

If the NEC were adopted verbatim...
The next time Southern California had an earthquake there would be lotsa deaths from falling fixtures in office buildings.
We're not all the same, and the NEC is not an all emcompassing manual...but a minimum.
There is a need for local Codes...S

I never thought about it that way Scott.

I guess the Nec as a starting point with local amendments is best all the way around.

Russell

But they didn't say how it was to be enforced, right? I seem to remember hearing of one mid-Western state (Kansas??) which imposed the limit to keep their funding but set the fine for driving over 55 but below 75 to a paltry $5.

Good point on the earthquakes and other natural hazards in various parts of the country. There's got to be a lesson there for the push toward a "harmonized" code in Europe too -- Norway and Greece are very different.

Paul,the Feds did the same with some states on the seat belt legislation.

Our speaker of the house in Ga. got the law passed, but it excluded pickups and bigger trucks at his insistence. I'm sure that'll change now that he's retired tho.

Russell

I think the geographical ammendments would be a given.

I once did a school in central FL with a generic spec (engineer obviously was a snow bird)) calling for PVC to be buried something like 3'6" to accomplish a clearance of 10" below freeze level.

In central FL 10" below freeze level would be some where in a flight path.

This real situation on the flip would definatly have to come in to play in a true nationaly adopted code, which is where we are now isn't it?

Roger