# Does a light fixture replacement trigger AFCI?



## Yikes (Mar 22, 2018)

Talked with a building official today about an apartment property manager who wants to simply replace existing incandescent light fixtures with high efficacy fixtures in the bedrooms and hallways of about 50 units.
(typical fixtures, with typical ceiling junction box.)

The building official says that every outlet that is changed must be upgraded to Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters, and he says that since the light fixture's junction box meets NEC definition of "outlet", therefore the light circuit needs protection, and since the only place to do that on our lighting-only circuit is back at the load center, we need an AFCI circuit breaker.  But the load center is too old to support that kind of breaker, so now we have to replace the load centers and submit engineered electrical plans for approval.

I asked, *"so do you mean to say that if someone goes to Home depot to put in a new light fixture in their old house, they need to effectively replace the entire panelboard?"  
"Yes."*

*Question: where in the NEC does it say, or infer, that replacing a light fixture triggers AFIC for the lighting circuit?*
I can understand it for NEW construction per NEC 210.12(A)
I can understand it for EXISTING "wiring modifications" per NEC 210(B)
I can understand it for replacement of EXISTING "receptacle outlets" (not J-boxes) per NEC 406.4(D)4
But I don't see anything about replacing a light, when you are not touching the wiring (other than the connect the light in the existing J-box).

***

NEC 100 definition of outlet:  A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment.
NEC 100 definition of "receptacle": A contact device installed at the outlet for connection of an attachment plug.
NEC 100 definition of "receptacle outlet": An outlet where one or more receptacles are installed.


----------



## conarb (Mar 22, 2018)

Yikes, if that's the only work being done how does the building official even get involved?


----------



## mark handler (Mar 22, 2018)

The NEC’s requirements emphasize that AFCIs are important for existing homes where older wiring and outdated electrical work may increase the threat of an electrical fire.
Add a separate subpanel,  arc-fault protect it, adjacent to existing panel. All altered circuits will be protected.


----------



## fatboy (Mar 22, 2018)

Sorry........not adding/changing circuits..........fixtures can be changed out, as long the demand does not increase......at least in my neck of the woods..............


----------



## ICE (Mar 22, 2018)

It is rare that the scope of work is restricted to fixture for fixture at the exact location with no additional fixtures.....but if that is the actual situation then AFCI wouldn’t be required


----------



## ICE (Mar 22, 2018)

conarb said:


> Yikes, if that's the only work being done how does the building official even get involved?


An electrical permit would be the first clue that work is being done.


----------



## fatboy (Mar 22, 2018)

ICE said:


> It is rare that the scope of work is restricted to fixture for fixture at the exact location with no additional fixtures.....but if that is the actual situation then AFCI wouldn’t be required



That was the premise I was replying to........same location, no additional fixtures/loading.


----------



## conarb (Mar 22, 2018)

fatboy said:


> That was the premise I was replying to........same location, no additional fixtures/loading.


With high-efficiency replacing incandescent, theoretically the loads should be lower, if other work is contemplated change the fixtures first, then pull the permit.


----------



## Yikes (Mar 23, 2018)

We are doing other work, such as changing cabinets, putting in energy efficient windows, etc.  It's affordable housing and it qualifies for tax credit rehab funds.  However, the tax credit investors want to see permits for everything.  We went to submit plans, and the plans list all work being done, including swapping the fixtures for efficacy.  That's when the building officil said he wanted to see separate "electrical plans" for the light swap.  When I talked to him on the phone he said it was about the whole AFCI issue.
Again I ask, what code citation in the NEC would compel this?


----------



## tmurray (Mar 23, 2018)

Did he provide a code section?


----------



## ICE (Mar 23, 2018)

210.12(B)

Electrical plans would not be required here.


----------



## steveray (Mar 23, 2018)

Our amended IRC.....(Amd) E3902.13 Arc-fault circuit interrupter protection for branch circuit extensions or
modifications. Where branch-circuit wiring is modified, replaced, or extended in any of the areas
specified in Section E3902.12, the branch circuit shall be protected by one of the following:
1. A combination-type AFCI located at the origin of the branch circuit.
2. An outlet branch-circuit type AFCI located at the first receptacle outlet of the existing
branch circuit.
Exception: AFCI protection shall not be required where the extension of the existing
conductors is not more than 6 feet (1.8 m) in length and does not include any additional
outlets or devices.

I would not call it a modification....


----------



## mark handler (Mar 23, 2018)

steveray said:


> I would not call it a modification....


*Modification*...the making of a change in something ...Changing Light fixtures is making a Modification.
*Replaced*....to put something new in the place of...Replacing Light fixtures is the making of a change to the circuit. (Fixtures are the outlet of the circuit.)

*that being said i do agree with ICE*


ICE said:


> ..... fixture for fixture at the exact location with no additional fixtures..... then AFCI wouldn’t be required


*see exception  210.12b(2) Does not include additional fixtures*


----------



## steveray (Mar 23, 2018)

steveray said:


> Where branch-circuit wiring is modified



OK...in that case the fixture is not "wiring"...Better?


----------



## mark handler (Mar 23, 2018)

If the project is in CA, if Lighting is modified:
You also need to meet the CA Energy Code, per 6.7 of the Residential compliance standards


----------



## mark handler (Mar 23, 2018)

steveray said:


> OK...in that case the fixture is not "wiring"...Better?


IRC R105 And IBC 105; specifically say replacement of Lamps, not fixtures


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 23, 2018)

There you go, "muddying" the waters (smiling).


----------



## steveray (Mar 23, 2018)

2017 NEC 210.12(D) says branch circuit "wiring"....Not sure what code you use....


----------



## mark handler (Mar 23, 2018)

You are altering the branch circuit by modifying the "...outlets or devices..." attached to it.
Are you modifying a car by replacing the tires, yes.
Are you modifying a house by adding a bedroom, yes.

IRC R105 And IBC 105;  specifically say replacement of Lamps, not fixtures


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Mar 23, 2018)

ICE said:


> It is rare that the scope of work is restricted to *fixture for fixture* at the exact location with no additional fixtures.....but if that is the actual situation then AFCI wouldn’t be required



That's how understand it, same for a switch & receptacle, we call it the maintenance man rule. Also we amended our code to not requiring any AFCI's. 

Conarb would like us...I think??? Not sure?


----------



## conarb (Mar 23, 2018)

Pcinspector1 said:


> That's how understand it, same for a switch & receptacle, we call it the maintenance man rule. Also we amended our code to not requiring any AFCI's.
> 
> Conarb would like us...I think??? Not sure?


Yeah, you are making sense, requiring permits for any modification is tyranny at it's worst. This morning I was reading an article about people escaping the inner cities, some comments:



> Escaping overtaxation and ever increasing densities sought by City Planners.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> " Instead they are targeting EVERY commercial area for redevelopment into Mid-rise live work play areas... "
> 
> Straight out of the Agenda 21 play book.





> California is putting a NETZERO energy law  applying to ALL housing.
> 
> Think you've paid off your home and only have prop taxes and upkeep - think again  - because NO homes are net zero energy you will be required to pay at least $60,000 for upgrades - and i'm sure that's just the start.  And what California does the libtards and repulicucks bring elsewhere.  Debt Slave Heaven Hotel California
> 
> get on youtube   STOPTHECRIME.net new channel to see what the planned destruction in California





> Even better is that our plan must be approved by the ARC.  The ARC is a body of individuals that are NOT elected and have no direct accountability to the residents.
> 
> As far as I am concerned they are part of the local Deep State pushing us towards an objective most of us simply do not want.



I don't know where that last guy is located but his ARC is like our One Bay Area, that's the
*"NOT SO NICE"* United Nations Agenda 2030 for the New World Order.


----------



## steveray (Mar 23, 2018)

Not arguing that a permit is not required, just when to go all arcfault crazy....To further argue my point, I can replace 6' of wiring w/o going arcfault....Correct? if that wiring is connected to a device, I can still do it w/o arcfault...Correct? (because you would normally splice at a device)......Soooooo I can disconnect and reconnect a device w/o Arcfault ...Correct?


----------



## Yikes (Mar 23, 2018)

mark handler said:


> IRC R105 And IBC 105;  specifically say replacement of Lamps, not fixtures



Mark, you are correct, replacing of lamps (e.g. what we colloquially used to call the "light bulb") is considered maintenance, exempt from permit.
Fixtures are different: in theory, Joe Homeowner needs to pull a permit to replace the whole light fixture, because he's getting into the terminating wires at the junction box.  (In reality, Joe Homeowner has no time or inclination to pull permits, and this is one of those things that flies under the radar of the inspector.)  For a large project with "deep pockets", we pull permits to replace with high efficacy light fixtures so that no one can complain from an owner's liability/insurance standpoint.
None of this triggers AFCI in my opinion.


----------



## Yikes (Mar 23, 2018)

conarb, I don't want to officially "out" him here, but let's just say it's a large So Cal city close to the Mexican border... a city large enough where he ought to know better.
Regarding your theory about tyranny, there's nothing more tyrannical than an ego of a code official who is already so convinced he's right he can't even bother to cite the code reference lest he be proven wrong.


----------



## steveray (Mar 23, 2018)

90.1A Practical Safeguarding

110.12 Workmanlike manner

110.12A Openings shall be closed
110.27A live parts guarded from accidental contact

Tiger has plenty of stuff he can cite...Shame the department doesn't have the will to back him up....


----------



## conarb (Mar 23, 2018)

Yikes:

You'd think these guys would at least try to be nice with their pension funds near collapse, the market plunge of the last two days is really going to exasperate the situation.

An Arizona Senate candidate has suggested building a wall between Arizona and Calfiornia: 



			
				SHTF said:
			
		

> “As we look in Arizona, we often look into the dangers of the southern border,” McSally said during a round-table discussion about “sanctuary cities” Tuesday at the White House. “But if these dangerous policies continue out of California, we might need to build a wall between California and Arizona as well to keep these dangerous criminals out of our state,” she said, smiling, and perhaps a little sarcastically.
> 
> She added that California can’t just “provide sanctuary for these criminals and think that it’s only impacting California dangerously.” McSally’s comments come on the heels of the announcement that the federal government is suing the state of California (state government) for failing to enforce their laws.
> 
> ...




¹ http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-ne...-wall-between-california-and-arizona_03222018


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Mar 23, 2018)

How bout installing a gate on the golden gate bridge between Oakland and San Francisco, has that been proposed yet?


----------



## north star (Mar 23, 2018)

*$ ~ $ ~ $*

Once again ***conarb*** I have removed your inappropriate language
from Post # 21.......You *WILL NOT* be dropping any "F Bombs" on
this Forum !

If you want to report me to Jeff, go ahead!........This Forum appears
to not be for you any longer, ..for someone with such foul and gutter
type language.

*Clean up your act !!!!* 

*$ ~ $ ~ $*


----------



## conarb (Mar 23, 2018)

North Star:

I'll try to clean up my language but it reflects my frustration with an unconstitutional unelected body mandating what we do, and you guys are enforcing it.


----------



## fatboy (Mar 23, 2018)

I'll jump in with north star..........this is NOT a political forum............this is supposed to be, from my understanding, a forum to exchange information related to building codes...........not a political viewpoint. Correct me if I am wrong......


----------



## conarb (Mar 23, 2018)

fatboy said:


> I'll jump in with north star..........this is NOT a political forum............this is supposed to be, from my understanding, a forum to exchange information related to building codes...........not a political viewpoint. Correct me if I am wrong......


That's my beef Fatboy, codes have become political, that's what I want, get the political codes out of the codes.


----------



## jar546 (Mar 24, 2018)

conarb said:


> North Star:
> 
> I'll try to clean up my language but it reflects my frustration with an unconstitutional unelected body mandating what we do, and you guys are enforcing it.



Instead of a private message (again) I am going to tell you this publicly since you lack the ability to restrain from cleaning up your language before you hit the 'post reply' button.  I am going to consider this your last warning.  There are plenty of political forums that may tolerate this but 1) This is not a political forum and 2) We do not tolerate the type of language you are using.  Please conarb, a little discipline goes a long way and we are trying to keep this forum as professional as possible.


----------



## ICE (Mar 24, 2018)

steveray said:


> 90.1A Practical Safeguarding
> 
> 110.12 Workmanlike manner
> 
> ...


Wrong thread Steve.


----------



## ICE (Mar 24, 2018)

Yikes,
The main panel need not be updated if a separate panel is installed for the purpose of handling the light circuits.


----------



## conarb (Mar 24, 2018)

jar546 said:


> Instead of a private message (again) I am going to tell you this publicly since you lack the ability to restrain from cleaning up your language before you hit the 'post reply' button.  I am going to consider this your last warning.  There are plenty of political forums that may tolerate this but 1) This is not a political forum and 2) We do not tolerate the type of language you are using.  Please conarb, a little discipline goes a long way and we are trying to keep this forum as professional as possible.


Jeff:

Nobody addresses my concern that the codes have become political, the biggest example is the Green Code, we have a Green party in this country that doesn't amount to much, at least at the present time, but Green Parties in several European Countries are very powerful.  Going deeper, why do we enforce Energy Codes?  In a free country why are we mandating how much energy a man can use?  I realize that we get it a lot worse here in the Bay Area, but even look at that cartoon I posted with the shower head dripping, nothing gets the average public madder than shower heads that don't give a full stream of water, or toilets that have to be flushed three times, I've told of doing an ADA job in a large Catholic church, going back on complaints with the priest wanting to know why the toilets don't work, showing me a big sign saying: "Flush Three Times", I had to explain to him that the building code required low-flow toilets, so people who hate these things blame the building code. 

This thread is an example of somthing else, an architect (Yikes) comes on asking if he can avoid arc/fault when changing fixtures, most here try to give him interpretations as to why he has to have them, not how he can avoid them, why do some here think we even need them, is that a political belief that leads to over-the-top enforcement?


----------



## Msradell (Mar 24, 2018)

conarb said:


> Jeff:
> This thread is an example of somthing else, an architect (Yikes) comes on asking if he can avoid arc/fault when changing fixtures, most here try to give him interpretations as to why he has to have them, not how he can avoid them, why do some here think we even need them, is that a political belief that leads to over-the-top enforcement?


Especially in this case I can't see how anyone could justify requiring AFCIs for a lighting circuit.  It's not as if the fixtures or any part of the circuit are accessible to residents.  I do agree with that as you said people have been trying to give them reasons to justify adding them instead of helping him come up with a determination that they wouldn't be required.

At least in my opinion it's the same with many of the electrical codes.  Having GFCI or AFCI or even grounding receptacles for that matter doesn't affect anybody but the owner of the residence and his guests.  That's unlike some of the energy and water conservation codes that at least reduce the overall usage of those commodities which potentially could help reduce the costs of them for others.


----------



## jar546 (Mar 24, 2018)

conarb said:


> Jeff:
> 
> Nobody addresses my concern that the codes have become political, the biggest example is the Green Code, we have a Green party in this country that doesn't amount to much, at least at the present time, but Green Parties in several European Countries are very powerful.  Going deeper, why do we enforce Energy Codes?  In a free country why are we mandating how much energy a man can use?  I realize that we get it a lot worse here in the Bay Area, but even look at that cartoon I posted with the shower head dripping, nothing gets the average public madder than shower heads that don't give a full stream of water, or toilets that have to be flushed three times, I've told of doing an ADA job in a large Catholic church, going back on complaints with the priest wanting to know why the toilets don't work, showing me a big sign saying: "Flush Three Times", I had to explain to him that the building code required low-flow toilets, so people who hate these things blame the building code.
> 
> This thread is an example of somthing else, an architect (Yikes) comes on asking if he can avoid arc/fault when changing fixtures, most here try to give him interpretations as to why he has to have them, not how he can avoid them, why do some here think we even need them, is that a political belief that leads to over-the-top enforcement?



You can debate codes and how they were implemented all you want.  If you want to use vulgar language I have an issue with that.


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 24, 2018)

Home of the Brave, Land of the Free, our codes intended to protect many of us from ourselves and "others" who chose to believe that they are above the law. Yes on the surface many of our code requirements may be questionable but they serve a purpose, that being protecting us from poor workmanship and material failures. It won't be long before residual plastic is found in our seafood.


----------



## Msradell (Mar 24, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> Home of the Brave, Land of the Free, our codes intended to protect many of us from ourselves and "others" who chose to believe that they are above the law. Yes on the surface many of our code requirements may be questionable but they serve a purpose, that being protecting us from poor workmanship and material failures. It won't be long before residual plastic is found in our seafood.


I don't see how a lot of the codes, particularly electrical codes protect us from ourselves or poor workmanship, all they do is increase the costs of building a new home or updating an existing one.


----------



## ICE (Mar 25, 2018)

Msradell said:


> I don't see how a lot of the codes, particularly electrical codes protect us from ourselves or poor workmanship, all they do is increase the costs of building a new home or updating an existing one.



Electricity can kill by either direct contact with live parts or from fires caused by faulty installations. Electricity done wrong will ruin your stuff.  If you want to get rid of some code, start with plumbing (the lesser code).  It's next to impossible to screw up plumbing to the point that it is deadly.


----------



## rogerpa (Mar 25, 2018)

AFCI's are a fraud being perpretated on the home buying/building public.

AFCI's were originally developed as a bandaid for homes wired with aluminum romex, built (mostly in Canada), in the late 1960's to mid-1970's. After about 20 years of heating and cooling the aluminum wire connections loosen (creep)  and overheat. It also crystalizes and breaks resulting in arcing (90 volts). The life of an AFCI is...........about 20 years.

Michigan removed the requirement for AFCI's on 2/8/2016.
The reason Michigan deleted AFCI's is explained by a century old law of physics. A person named F. Pashchen in 1889 published a law which sets out what has become known as Paschen's Law. He determined the relationship between breakdown voltage, the gap between two metal plates, and the pressure. With air as the gas, *the minimum voltage is 327V*. The peak of a 120VAC sine wave is only 170V, and thus* continuous low current arcing is, by a law of physics, not possible with copper-copper.* Thus claims that a Combination AFCI will respond to arcing at a break in a conductor or a loose connection flies in the face of a law of physics.

http://www.combinationafci.com/resources/doc_ieee_combination_afci.pdf


----------



## ICE (Mar 25, 2018)

rogerpa said:


> AFCI's are a fraud being perpretated on the home buying/building public.
> 
> AFCI's were originally developed as a bandaid for homes wired with aluminum romex, built (mostly in Canada), in the late 1960's to mid-1970's. After about 20 years of heating and cooling the aluminum wire connections loosen (creep)  and overheat. It also crystalizes and breaks resulting in arcing (90 volts). The life of an AFCI is...........about 20 years.
> 
> ...


The link is an article that was written in 2012.  A lot can happen in five years.  It's relevance in 2018 is a question.


----------



## Flexo (Mar 25, 2018)

And with copper wire! Some fraud. 
I have seen three cases where new work would trip the AFCI, the electricians wanted me to approve doing away with the AFCI breaker, in each case they had to do their forensic electrician work and eventually found loose connections. I like AFCIs.


----------



## conarb (Mar 25, 2018)

rogerpa said:


> AFCI's are a fraud being perpretated on the home buying/building public.
> 
> AFCI's were originally developed as a bandaid for homes wired with aluminum romex, built (mostly in Canada), in the late 1960's to mid-1970's. After about 20 years of heating and cooling the aluminum wire connections loosen (creep)  and overheat. It also crystalizes and breaks resulting in arcing (90 volts). The life of an AFCI is...........about 20 years.
> 
> ...


Thanks Roger, as you can see from here inspectors want as many codes as they can get, as long as the ICC allows only government members to vote I don't see any hope


----------



## steveray (Mar 26, 2018)

ICE said:


> Wrong thread Steve.



Drats!.....Oh well....not going to repost there....You get my point...


----------



## rogerpa (Mar 26, 2018)

> The link is an article that was written in 2012. A lot can happen in five years. It's relevance in 2018 is a question.


Tiger, surely, you don't believe the laws of physics change? Or do you?

Flexo: I never said that an AFCI wouldn't trip on overload. What I said was, you can not sustain a continous arc at household voltages in copper wire, ergo, it's a false assumption that an AFCI will prevent a fire due to a continuously arcing broken wire. The original branch/feeder type AFCI's (AVZQ) contained a GFCI function that probably is what actually caused those devices to trip. Only some of the current code mandated Combination AFCI's (AWAH) retain that function. AFCI's don't detect glowing connections. See the Table on page 6 and the photos on page 8 of the above-referenced report.

The video you posted only proves that a standard breaker won't detect a glowing connection, not that an AFCI will (which won't either).The video producer offers no backup to his statements.

The bottom line is that manufacturers have a product that has outlived its market and theywant to keep selling it.


----------



## georgia plans exam (Mar 26, 2018)

From the OP: *Question: where in the NEC does it say, or infer, that replacing a light fixture triggers AFIC for the lighting circuit?

I think that the answer is "nowhere".

Thanks, GPE.

*


----------



## ICE (Mar 26, 2018)

rogerpa said:


> Tiger, surely, you don't believe the laws of physics change? Or do you?
> 
> The bottom line is that manufacturers have a product that has outlived its market and they want to keep selling it.



A test performed in 1889 along with a commentary published in 2012 is less than compelling. From the instruments to the metal alloy, it could be a new ballgame in this new day.....128 years later. The test hardly qualifies as a “law of physics”.

The 2012 commentary was created by an engineer in the employ of a manufacturer. As one would expect, that manufacturer rose to the top. The conclusion of the commentary did not call for eliminating AFCI from the code but rather the return of the feeder/branch circuit AFCI breaker.

The term combination AFCI is supposed to mean that the breaker will respond to series arcing as well as parallel arcing.  The 2012 commentary states that this is false advertising because the series arcing goes undetected.  If that is true, UL must take action to correct the misunderstanding.  To further complicate the issue is that in the wild most people take combination to mean GFCI as well as AFCI. I see that often.

How does this square with any of the arguments against AFCI:
https://www.amazon.com/Siemens-Q120...882&sr=8-1&keywords=siemens+afci+gfci+breaker

Apparently it is a combination AFCI as well as a GFCI breaker.  I bet that there is a Standard for that...and I would not be surprised to learn that it is a Draft Proposal....years old.


----------



## OverpricedEverything (Mar 26, 2018)

Yikes said:


> Talked with a building official today about an apartment property manager who wants to simply replace existing incandescent light fixtures with high efficacy fixtures in the bedrooms and hallways of about 50 units.
> (typical fixtures, with typical ceiling junction box.)
> 
> The building official says that every outlet that is changed must be upgraded to Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters, and he says that since the light fixture's junction box meets NEC definition of "outlet", therefore the light circuit needs protection, and since the only place to do that on our lighting-only circuit is back at the load center, we need an AFCI circuit breaker.  But the load center is too old to support that kind of breaker, so now we have to replace the load centers and submit engineered electrical plans for approval.
> ...


* If we all got together in one massive group and told the inspectors to pay for it, This foolishness would stop*


----------



## Paul Sweet (Mar 26, 2018)

AFCIs are here to stay, unless the swamp is drained better than it will ever be.  Several years ago the Consumer Product Safety Commission got some manufacturers to develop AFCIs, and then pressured NFPA to phase them in.  May as well just do as Big Brother says.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Mar 27, 2018)

conarb said:


> Thanks Roger, as you can see from here inspectors want as many codes as they can get, as long as the ICC allows only government members to vote I don't see any hope


How about voting and lobbying elected officials to amend or change the code at the state and local level as many have done?

Virginia Administrative provisions. "Any provisions of Chapters 2 - 35 of the IBC or any provisions of the codes and standards referenced in the IBC that address the same subject matter and impose differing requirements are deleted and replaced by the provisions of Chapter 1.

*103.5* Reconstruction, alteration or repair in Group R-5 (1 & 2-Family Dwelling) occupancies. The following criteria is applicable to reconstruction, alteration or repair of Group R-5 buildings or structures:
*1.* Any reconstruction, alteration or repair shall not adversely affect the performance of the building or structure, or cause the building or structure to become unsafe or lower existing levels of health and safety.

*115. Change Section E3902.12 to read:
E3902.12 Arc-fault protection of bedroom outlets.* All branch circuits that supply 120-volt, single phase, 15-ampere and 20-ampere outlets installed in bedrooms shall be protected by a combination type arc-fault circuit interrupter installed to provide protection of the branch circuit.

*IEBC 301.1.* "alterations complying with the laws in existence at the time the building or the affected portion of the building was built shall be considered in compliance with the provisions of this code unless the building is undergoing more than a limited structural alteration as defined in Section 907.4.3."


----------



## conarb (Mar 27, 2018)

Francis Vineyard said:


> How about voting and lobbying elected officials to amend or change the code at the state and local level as many have done?



Francis:

Lobbying is a very expensive process only undertaken by vested interests, and frankly all builders want is the ablility to build at whatever cost because people are so desperate for housing they will pay anything to get it, this is the reason for the slew of bills in the legislature now, but they are mostly directed at zoning.  

But you do give me an idea, Roger knows more about codes and the process than all the rest of us put together, he does go to all (I think) code hearings and does try to influence them, the fact that Michigan has done something about arc/fault indicates to me that Roger may have had something to do with that, what about it Roger, if you could get it through Michigan what about the rest of us?


----------



## tmurray (Mar 27, 2018)

conarb said:


> Nobody addresses my concern that the codes have become political...


It is not anyone's duty to justify codes to you.

As for the public not wanting all these codes. They do. 

The ICC makes a book. You elect someone who likes that book so much they turn it into a law. 

You don't like it? Elect someone who won't do that. 

You would think that if no one wanted these codes, a politician could run and win on this premise at all levels of government.


----------



## conarb (Mar 27, 2018)

tmurray said:


> It is not anyone's duty to justify codes to you.
> 
> As for the public not wanting all these codes. They do.
> 
> ...


We keep trying to do that, in 1978 we passed Prop 13 to limit property taxes and in the process limit all fees to the cost of providing services, cities routinely ignore this, when sued they pay the damages and resume doing the same things, in 2003 our Building Standards voted to adopt the NFRC 5000 in place of the I  Codes in an effort to mandate residential sprinklers among other things, we recalled the governor (Davis) and elected a new governor among charges of bribery, the Building Standards Board tendered their resignations which were accepted by the new governor who then appointed an entirely new board which imediately rescinded the prior board's vote and adopted the ICC Codes, but then the ICC codes adopted the residential sprinkler mandate anyway among charges of bribery.  In 2016 we elected a new President who promised to drastically reduce all regulations, you can see how that is working out, I don't think I can see any building/zoning codes that have been reduced.  Money in politics overwhelms everything else, the only solution is to vote with your feet,  several friends have done just that, I guess when enough of the high income taxpayers leave the state the state will wake up broke some day and then reduce regulation, I've told of one friend who did that and built a new home in Nevada for about a million dollars less than here, building permit fees were about 1/50th of what they would have been here, and inspection fees were almost non-existant as his architect was able to employ private inspection and the state didn't require any private inspection as per Chapter 17.  Currently there are several bills in the legislature to force cities to allow housing to be built, we'll have to see what gets passed.

This was in the paper yesterday:



			
				Mercury News said:
			
		

> The Regional Housing Need Allocation, known by its acronym RHNA, reveals how little influence the state has over local housing decisions and how difficult it might be to regain power.
> 
> “It’s highly politicized and arbitrary,” said State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, an advocate for reforming state housing laws. The housing guidelines have underestimated the booming economy and growing population, he said. “It’s important that we get RHNA right.”¹



Today this:



			
				Save Mount Diablo said:
			
		

> *Antioch has grown incredibly fast these past 15 years or so. In a city that now has more than 110,000 people, about 43% of residents have moved there since 2005.*
> *The Area at Risk*
> The Sand Creek Focus Area stretches across 4 sq. mi. (just under 2,800 acres) of the southern part of the city and is the largest continuous stretch of undeveloped land that remains. It has beautiful hills, an important creek and serves as rare plant and animal habitat.
> 
> ...






¹ https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03...housing-law-almost-everyone-wants-to-fix/amp/

² http://www.savemountdiablo.org/advocacy/issue/defending-antioch-sand-creek-focus-area/


----------



## Yikes (Mar 27, 2018)

TBCF friends, my original concern in this post is not the code.  I am happy to comply with code.  My concern is that: 
(a) the chief electrical plan checker is interpreting the NEC incorrectly, and I'm looking here for an unofficial 3rd party opinion (to make sure I'm not crazy);
(b) this same plan checker, when asked to cite a code reference to support his position, says he doesn't need to explain it and that it is the rest of us who are simply ignorant;
(c) because of his position, his staff is deeming our plans incomplete and will not even allow us to submit for plan check to get a fair review of the plans per code.
(d) when I call him about it, he complains that he doesn't have plans to review, so I'm wasting his time.
Classic Catch-22.


----------



## ICE (Mar 28, 2018)

Everybody has a boss.


----------



## tmurray (Mar 28, 2018)

You might be at a point where you make a demand of the code section he is enforcing in writing. In the letter you will want to highlight all the times you have requested this information and your requests have been refused. This letter can form the basis for further legal action, should you choose to pursue it against the official, so it should be brief and strictly factual. Provide him a deadline of when you expect his response. Next step after this would be to do as ICE said and go up the ladder.

As much as I would recommend against damaging the relationship between the official and registered professional or contractor, in this case the official is clearly oblivious to his legal responsibilities as a government official tasked with enforcement. I would not be surprised to hear that he is enforcing his own version code instead of the one adopted by the democratically elected officials. 

Regardless of whether the requirement exists or not, the official has a responsibility to provide the section that requires it when requested.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Mar 28, 2018)

tmurray said:


> You might be at a point where you make a demand of the code section he is enforcing in writing. In the letter you will want to highlight all the times you have requested this information and your requests have been refused. This letter can form the basis for further legal action, should you choose to pursue it against the official, so it should be brief and strictly factual. Provide him a deadline of when you expect his response. Next step after this would be to do as ICE said and go up the ladder.
> 
> As much as I would recommend against damaging the relationship between the official and registered professional or contractor, in this case the official is clearly oblivious to his legal responsibilities as a government official tasked with enforcement. I would not be surprised to hear that he is enforcing his own version code instead of the one adopted by the democratically elected officials.
> 
> Regardless of whether the requirement exists or not, the official has a responsibility to provide the section that requires it when requested.


As applicable where adopted:
*[A] 105.3.1 Action on application.* The building official shall examine or cause to be examined applications for permits and amendments thereto within a reasonable time after filing. If the application or the construction documents do not conform to the requirements of pertinent laws, the building official shall reject such application in writing, stating the reasons therefor. If the building official is satisfied that the proposed work conforms to the requirements of this code and laws and ordinances applicable thereto, the building official shall issue a permit therefor as soon as practicable.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 28, 2018)

Right or wrong, The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions.
You can appeal that.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Mar 28, 2018)

"The ICC makes a book. You elect someone who likes that book so much they turn it into a law."

What other choice do they have?  There used to be 3 books, so a municipality could switch if one became to onerous, but now there is a monopoly.

A few states allow municipalities to amend the code.  Several other amend the code at the state level.  Here in Virginia we're still using 2012 because we haven't been able to reach agreement on amendments to the 2015 code!

Few legislators are elected because of their position on the ICC.  Most of them don't even know what the ICC says, and just vote to adopt it because the ICC is supposed to be the expert.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 28, 2018)

*From the Mike Holt Forum:*
Per the NEC definition of device a light fixture is not a device. 
The box the fixture is mounted to is a "lighting outlet" per article 100 definition. As such 210.12 applies to it. 
But again you are not changing the outlet or the branch circuit. You should not be required to install a AFCI.


----------



## steveray (Mar 28, 2018)

Thanks Mark!


----------



## Yikes (Mar 28, 2018)

Update: now the plan checker is insisting that we provide dimmer switches in order to meet California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, but for existing buildings those standards say they apply to :
 - building additions per 150.2(a) - - but we are not adding on to the buildings
 - building alterations in conjunction with a change in building occupancy - - we are not doing that either.

I'm getting tired of proving what we're NOT doing, instead of just listing what we ARE doing.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 28, 2018)

California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
The altered component and any newly installed equipment serving the alteration shall meet the applicable requirements of Sections 110.0 through 110.9 and all applicable requirements of Section 150.0(a) through (m), Section 150.0(o) through (q);

*Is He seeing it as Altered? component? Is lighting a component?
ALTERED COMPONENT*

ALTERED COMPONENT is a component that has undergone an alteration (changing out the fixtures) and is subject to all applicable Standards requirements.


----------



## conarb (Mar 28, 2018)

Yikes:

This jerk needs to be taught a lesson, take all the information and give it to your attorney asking him to write a letter, a letter from an attorney will usually get passed on to the City Attorney's office and they usually don't want to run up their fees.


----------



## Yikes (Mar 30, 2018)

mark handler said:


> California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
> The altered component and any newly installed equipment serving the alteration shall meet the applicable requirements of Sections 110.0 through 110.9 and all applicable requirements of Section 150.0(a) through (m), Section 150.0(o) through (q);
> 
> *Is He seeing it as Altered? component? Is lighting a component?
> ...



Mark, in order to qualify as an “altered component” it has to: (1) be altered, (2) be subject to all applicable standard requirements. 
So if it is not subject to applicable req’s it is not an “altered component”. It must be something else, like a “replacement”.
Is that how to read it?


----------



## conarb (Mar 30, 2018)

Yikes said:


> Mark, in order to qualify as an “altered component” it has to: (1) be altered, (2) be subject to all applicable standard requirements.
> So if it is not subject to applicable req’s it is not an “altered component”. It must be something else, like a “replacement”.
> Is that how to read it?


Yikes, if he won't even give you code sections he is not being reasonable, there is no way you can deal with someone who is unreasonable, the threat of litigation is the only way to handle people like this.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 30, 2018)

Yikes said:


> Mark, in order to qualify as an “altered component” it has to: (1) be altered, (2) be subject to all applicable standard requirements.
> So if it is not subject to applicable req’s it is not an “altered component”. It must be something else, like a “replacement”. Is that how to read it?



§110.9 B 2016 Building Efficiency Regulations
Entire Luminaire *Alteration *includes: (a) removing and reinstalling a total of 10 percent or more of the existing luminaires; *or* (b)* replacing *or adding entire luminaires; or (c) adding, removing, or replacing walls or ceilings along with any redesign of the lighting system.


----------



## ADAguy (Apr 5, 2018)

:"cross connection" !


----------



## mark handler (Apr 5, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> :"cross connection" !


Codes work together. They are complimentery to each other Not seperate.


----------



## ADAguy (Apr 10, 2018)

Nice thing about your net image MH, it allows things to "slip" through on occasion, (it depends) subject to "certain" circumstances.


----------



## conarb (Apr 10, 2018)

mark handler said:


> Codes work together. They are complimentery to each other Not seperate.


Who determines whether they can work together or whether they are contradictory?  Also when there is a conflict who determines which codes supersede others?  At law we have levels of appeals where some courts supersede others and can set precedents that lower courts have to observe as precedents, in some cases they are mandatory precedents, in other cases they are just persuasive precedents: 



			
				Lectric Law said:
			
		

> Legal principle, created by a court decision, which provides an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later. Generally, decisions of higher courts (within a particular system of courts) are mandatory precedent on lower courts within that system--that is, the principle announced by a higher court must be followed in later cases. For example, the California Supreme Court decision that unmarried people who live together may enter into cohabitation agreements (Marvin v. Marvin), is binding on all appellate courts and trial courts in California (which are lower courts in relation to the California Supreme Court). Similarly, decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court (the highest court in the country) are generally binding on all other courts in the U.S.
> 
> Decisions of lower courts are not binding on higher courts, although from time to time a higher court will adopt the reasoning and conclusion of a lower court. Decisions by courts of the same level (usually appellate courts) are considered persuasive authority. That is, they should always be carefully considered by the later court but need not be followed.
> 
> ...



We need some kind of appelate system in the codes, unfortunately builders don't have the luxury of time in appealing rogue inspectors' arbitrary decisions.  What we have in the way of appelate boards are jokes, cities and counties usually set up an appelate panel drawn from city council members or boards of supervisors, people with no knowledge of laws or codes. As an example just look at this thread, inspectors nationwide interpreting the need for AFGIs differently, even an entire state dismissing them as unnecessary in all instances. 


¹ https://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p069.htm


----------

