Thread: NEC Code - UTAH Adopts 2008 NEC

From the NEMA news source:

Utah began enforcement of the 2008 National Electrical Code statewide beginning on January 1, 2009. In keeping with past electrical code adoptions, Utah adopted the NEC without amendments, including the expanded application of AFCI protection and tamper resistant receptacles in dwellings.

While adoption without amendment of the most recent edition of the National Electrical Code benefits all construction in the state because of consistent requirements, there is a point of confusion for dwellings. The State has also adopted the 2006 International Residential Code (IRC) in its entirety, including the electrical chapters. With the 2006 IRC containing the residential requirements from the 2005 NEC, there is confusion over which regulations apply. Obviously, the disparity has major implications in application of AFCI protection for most circuits in a dwelling and requirements for temper resistant receptacles. Under the worst case scenario, a jurisdiction could enforce the 2008 NEC for apartments, condominium, and other multi-family dwellings, but revert to the 2005 NEC provisions found in the 2006 IRC for one-family and two-family dwellings. Discussions have not resolved this conflict as of this writing. The Utah Building Code web site is http://www.dopl.utah.gov/programs/ubc/.

Similar Threads:

• Change to NAHI Code of Ethics
• Code reference for b-vent support
• Code Change
• Need help with code reference

Actually, there is really no confusion if one reads the codes are written.

The 2006 IRC *only applies to* one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses, and the 2006 IRC specifically states "Residential electrical provisions are based on the 2005 National Electrical Code® (NFPA-70)".

Thus, when the IRC is applicable, i.e., "one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses", the electrical requirements of the 2006 IRC are applicable.

When the IRC is not applicable, such as for apartment/condo buildings, extended stay hotels, etc., then the 2008 NEC is applicable, including the extended AFCI requirements.

Utah's Uniform Building Standard Act Rules are clear on the subject. The section was deleted and replaced with NFPA 70 (NEC) edition 2008, with no statewide ammendments. The UBC is reviewed every other year. The effective date for enforcement for 2008 NEC for BOTH IRC and IBC was January 1, 2009. IMHO (assuming I'm reading it correctly), the original post quote was a red herring non-issue, and erroneously stated that the electrical chapters of IRC were adopted, they were not.

UT Admin Code R156-56. Utah Uniform Building Standard Act Rules.

Utah's citation is R156-56.

Originally Posted by Speciffic editions of Uniform Building Standards: R156-56-701

says:

1) In accordance with Subsection 58-56-4(3), and subject to the limitations contained in Subsection (6), (7), and (8), the following codes are hereby incorporated by reference, which codes together with any amendments specified under these rules, are adopted as the construction standards to be applied to building construction, alteration, remodeling and repair and in the regulation of building construction, alteration, remodeling and repair in the state:
(a) the 2006 edition of the International Building Code (IBC), including Appendix J promulgated by the International Code Council shall become effective on January 1, 2007;
(b) the 2008 edition of the National Electrical Code (NEC) promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association, to become effective January 1, 2009;
(c) the 2006 edition of the International Plumbing Code (IPC) promulgated by the International Code Council shall become effective on January 1, 2007;
(d) the 2006 edition of the International Mechanical Code (IMC) promulgated by the International Code Council shall become effective on January 1, 2007;
(e) the 2006 edition of the International Residential Code (IRC) promulgated by the International Code Council shall become effective on January 1, 2007;........

Originally Posted by Statewide Amendments to the ICC: R156-56-801

The following are adopted as amendments to the IBC to be applicable statewide:
(1) All references to the ICC Electrical Code are deleted and replaced with the National Electrical Code adopted under Subsection R156-56-701(1)(b).
(2) Section 101.4.1 is deleted and replaced with the following:
101.4.1 Electrical. The provisions of the National Electrical Code (NEC) shall apply to the installation of electrical systems, including alterations, repairs, replacement, equipment, appliances, fixtures, fittings and appurtenances thereto.......

Originally Posted by Statewide Amendments to the IRC: R156-56-802

The following are adopted as amendments to the IRC to be applicable statewide:
(1) All statewide amendments to the IBC under Section R156-56-801, the NEC under Section R156-56-806, the IPC under Section R156-56-803, the IMC under Section R156-56-804, the IFGC under Section R156-56-805 and the IECC under Section R156-56-807 which may be applied to detached one and two family dwellings and multiple single family dwellings shall be applicable to the corresponding provisions of the IRC. All references to the ICC Electrical Code are deleted and replaced with the National Electrical Code adopted under Section R156-56-701(1)(b).........

Originally Posted by J Bowman

From the NEMA news source:

J Bowman, Having two electrical codes in effect at the same time is an unfortunate condition caused by the way these codes cycle.

We in New York state also have 2 electrical codes in effect, but ours are the earlier versions (editions) due to the cycling. We have the RCNYS (based on the IRC but with NYS enhancements) which is based on the 2002 NEC, and then for multiple dwellings and all other buildings, we have the BCNYS (NY's Building Code based on the IBC) which references the 2005 NEC. Later editions reference later NEC standards.

It's important for permit issuing agencies and those charged with enforcement to keep track of the issuance dates.

I believe that NM is now using the 2006 IRC and the 2008 NEC. I just had a final on part of my project, and we had to put in tamper resistant receptacles. The majority of my existing house is wired with 12-3, so we did not put in any AFCI breakers. We may have to put in AFCI protection on the new circuits. I had a rough in inspection today on the majority of the project, and he didn't even look in the panel, so that may come up later on, or not.

The copyrighted originally quoted "Code Alert" is here:

NEMA - Code Alert: Utah, 23 February 2009

Its a non-issue.

ICC Electrical Code "Code alert"
NEMA - Code Alert: ICC, 17 June 2008

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Utah's Uniform Building Standard Act Rules are clear on the subject. The section was deleted and replaced with NFPA 70 (NEC) edition 2008, with no statewide amendments. The UBC is reviewed every other year. The effective date for enforcement for 2008 NEC for BOTH IRC and IBC was January 1, 2009. IMHO (assuming I'm reading it correctly), the original post quote was a red herring non-issue, and erroneously stated that the electrical chapters of IRC were adopted, they were not.

UT Admin Code R156-56. Utah Uniform Building Standard Act Rules.

Utah's citation is R156-56.

Possible red herring in there as Utah adopted the 2006 IRC, including the electrical section chapters, then amended out the ICC Electrical Code, which was not in the IRC to start with.

(underlining and bold are mine)

- R156-56-802. Statewide Amendments to the IRC. - - The following are adopted as amendments to the IRC to be applicable statewide:

- - - (1) All statewide amendments to the IBC under Section R156-56-801, the NEC under Section R156-56-806, the IPC under Section R156-56-803, the IMC under Section R156-56-804, the IFGC under Section R156-56-805 and the IECC under Section R156-56-807 which may be applied to detached one and two family dwellings and multiple single family dwellings shall be applicable to the corresponding provisions of the IRC. All references to the ICC Electrical Code are deleted and replaced with the National Electrical Code adopted under Section R156-56-701(1)(b).

Being as Chapter 27 of the IBC *did* specifically have ICC Electrical Code requirements, named as such, and the IRC *does not* have ICC Electrical Code requirements, those are specifically named "This Electrical Part (Chapters 33 through 42) is produced and copyrighted by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and is based on the 2005 National Electrical Code® (NEC®) (NFPA 70-2005), copyright 2005 National Fire Protection Association, all rights reserved. Use of the Electrical Part is pursuant to license with the NFPA.", those actually *may not have been deleted* by that act.

I can see where the confusion is coming from. If a legislative act deletes something *by name* which *does not exist*, that does not automatically delete something which is in place and replacing it and *of a different name*.

Thus, one cannot "replace" a non-existing reference with an existing reference. That is like counting from 1 to 10 and replacing #11 ... when there is no #11 to replace.

However, for those in Utah, that link which John provided should be ( Utah Division of Occupational&Professional Licensing ) - the link if his post did not work for me - and that link leads to this link ( http://www.dopl.utah.gov/laws/R156-56.pdf ) which is the adoption for the codes.

After going to the last link, scroll down to page 18, to R156-56-701 for a list of adopted codes, then scroll down to page 20, to R156-56-801 for Statewide Amendments to the IBC (Holy Cow!), then scroll down to page 30, to R156-56-802 for Statewide Amendments to the IRC (Holy Cow!)

There are 10 pages of Amendments to each the IBC and the IRC, then following that are the Amendments to the other codes.

As already referenced the IBC was ammended as well.

The links I provided are accurate and do not carry the error/ommission disclaimers that the commission's site does.

"The following are adopted as amendments to the IBC to be applicable statewide:"

Originally Posted by Statewide Amendments to the ICC: R156-56-801
The following are adopted as amendments to the IBC to be applicable statewide:
(1) All references to the ICC Electrical Code are deleted and replaced with the National Electrical Code adopted under Subsection R156-56-701(1)(b).
(2) Section 101.4.1 is deleted and replaced with the following:
101.4.1 Electrical. The provisions of the National Electrical Code (NEC) shall apply to the installation of electrical systems, including alterations, repairs, replacement, equipment, appliances, fixtures, fittings and appurtenances thereto.......


Keep reading the ammendments the answer is in there - hint: 1&2 family v. more than 2 family residential.

BTW,

county and city ammendments follow.

Hint: The answer is in BOLD RED TEXT (my highlighting for you)

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

"The following are adopted as amendments to the IBC to be applicable statewide:"

Originally Posted by Statewide Amendments to the ICC: R156-56-801
The following are adopted as amendments to the IBC to be applicable statewide:
(1) All references to the ICC Electrical Code are deleted and replaced with the National Electrical Code adopted under Subsection R156-56-701(1)(b).
(2) Section 101.4.1 is deleted and replaced with the following:
101.4.1 Electrical. The provisions of the National Electrical Code (NEC) shall apply to the installation of electrical systems, including alterations, repairs, replacement, equipment, appliances, fixtures, fittings and appurtenances thereto.......


Keep reading the ammendments the answer is in there - hint: 1&2 family v. more than 2 family residential.

BTW,

county and city ammendments follow.

Hint: There were, and still are, no references to the "ICC Electrical Code" in the 2006 IRC.

You (hopefully) will see: it IS a red herring.

Checks & Balances, the Legislature has named the NEC, the Legislature has given the Rule Maker the Authority to adopt unspecified model codes for other specified areas, to adopt future editions of the NEC and other unnamed model codes, and to ammend them as needed. The Legislature has NOT given the Rule Maker the Authority to Adopt any other Code regarding Electrical - only that they might adopt a newer edition, and that they might ammend it.

The Rule Making Authority has adopted the 2008 NEC with NO Statewide Ammendments - effective Jan 1 2009.

It has to do with how the Legislature structured (wrote) the LAW (UTAH CODE), which authorized the RULES to be written, the CODE is always OVER the Rules it authorizes.

The legislature was QUITE CLEAR.

The CODE, the LAW which authorizes the RULES in the first place was VERY SPECIFIC as to the Electrical Code preference and authority.

It was and IS the National Electrical Code published by NFPA.

It (the NEC) was the only NAMED model code by the Legislature - the Legislature did not name any other publisher or specific Code by name, publisher/promulgator or purpose.

It (the Legislature) provided for the Rule Making Authority to select their publisher of choice for the other types of model codes it legislated a necessity and directive for. The ONLY authority regarding the NEC that the Rule Making Authority has is in the selection of Edition, and to make ammendments to it.

In the arena of Electrical Codes, it IS ONLY the NEC (NFPA 70) edition selected by the Rule Making Authority and as Ammended b the Rule Making Authority. Irrespective of the failure of the Rule Making Authority to correct or ammend their other model code elections, the Legislature directed BY LAW (UTAH CODE) that the NEC IS the Authoritative CODE (editions adopted as ammended or unammended).

Not because I said so, not because the Rules clearly say so, because the Legislature said so in granting authority for the rules to be written and followed!

Originally Posted by Utah Code 58-56-4(2)

Title 58
Chapter 56
Section 4

Sub-Section 2 Reads as follows (underlining & emphasis mine).

(a) Subject to the provisions of Subsections (4) and (5), the following codes, each of which must be promulgated by a nationally recognized code authority, shall be adopted, in the manner described in Subsection (2)(b), as the construction codes which the state and each political subdivision of the state shall follow in the circumstances described in Subsection (3):
--(i) a building code;
--(ii) the National Electrical Code promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association;
--(iii) a residential one and two family dwelling code;
--(iv) a plumbing code;
--(v) a mechanical code;
--(vi) a fuel gas code;
--(vii) an energy conservation code; and
--(viii) a manufactured housing installation standard code.

-(b) In accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, the division, in collaboration with the commission, shall adopt by rule specific editions of the codes described in Subsection (2)(a), and may adopt by rule successor editions of any adopted code.

-(c) The division, in collaboration with the commission, may, in accordance with Section 58-56-7, adopt amendments to the codes adopted under Subsection (2)(a), to be applicable to the entire state or within one or more political subdivisions.

Minimum Electrical Code standard statewide = 2008 NEC.

By the way, the CODE citation is from the ACTUAL Utah Uniform Building Standards ACT itself, not the Rules written for it.

You can find it in Title 58 (Occupations and Professions) at Chapter 56.

The NEC 2008 IS applicable, electrical references in other codes are NOT except as they served previously to expressly AMMEND the 2005 edition of the NEC. References in the 2006 IRC are specific in reference to the 2005 NEC edition and as the IRC was not named by the ACT itself, do not serve to override a later adoption of the 2008 Edition of the NEC without ammendments, irrespective of how the rules were "wrongly" or "incorrectly" written/referenced - all such electrical references in the IRC are moot or overridden by the 2008 NEC effective 01/01/09.

It was a red pecking err herring argument which was and is pointless. There was no worst case scenerio there was no confusion of intent, just not Peck-perfect rule writing.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Actually, there is really no confusion if one reads the codes are written.

The 2006 IRC *only applies to* one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses, and the 2006 IRC specifically states "Residential electrical provisions are based on the 2005 National Electrical Code® (NFPA-70)".

Thus, when the IRC is applicable, i.e., "one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses", the electrical requirements of the 2006 IRC are applicable.

When the IRC is not applicable, such as for apartment/condo buildings, extended stay hotels, etc., then the 2008 NEC is applicable, including the extended AFCI requirements.

Nope, completely wrong.

The electrrical requirements of the 2006 IRC were only applicable as ammendments to the 2005 NEC until the rule making authority adopted the 2008 NEC with no statewide ammendments.

The Act itself makes this clear (as was the intent of the legislature). This is not the first oops in harmonizing model codes.

The language of the Act superceeds the language of the Rules, as the Rules are authorized and limited by the authority and direction of the Act itself.

The 2008 NEC prevails, any ammenments referencing prior editions of the NEC are moot until/unless they are further ammended to reflect reference to the 2008 NEC...or the legislature ACTS...or

highest level (checks & balances) order or finding by one of the other constitutionally authorized branches of government (i.e. Executive, Judiciary) to override/check the Legislature.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

By the way, the CODE citation is from the ACTUAL Utah Uniform Building Standards ACT itself, not the Rules written for it.

You can find it in Title 58 (Occupations and Professions) at Chapter 56.

This is what I mean, you have flashes of brilliance (your searching) and then finish it off with: 1) incorrect information; 2) snide remarks, which just makes you incorrect information that much worse for you; 3) not providing links, just statements, of what is where, if you truly wanted to be helpful, you would provide the links, but, then again, that would allow us to check your incorrectness and find your errors easier, another for those actions.

This is a link to what you were, or what I think you were, referencing, but was actually afraid I would find, so you did not include the link to it, hoping that we all would accept your word as gospel, we don't and it isn't. Utah Code Section 58-56-4

Go down to (for everyone else, Watson thought he could hood-wink us on this)
- 58-56-4
- - (2)
- - - (a):
- - - - Subject to the provisions of Subsections (4) and (5), the following codes, each of which must be promulgated by a nationally recognized code authority, shall be adopted, in the manner described in Subsection (2)(b), as the construction codes which the state and each political subdivision of the state shall follow in the circumstances described in Subsection (3):
- - - - - (i) a building code;
- - - - - (ii) the National Electrical Code promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association;
- - - - - (iii) a residential one and two family dwelling code;
- - - - - (iv) a plumbing code;
- - - - - (v) a mechanical code;
- - - - - (vi) a fuel gas code;
- - - - - (vii) an energy conservation code; and
- - - - - (viii) a manufactured housing installation standard code.
- - - (b) In accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rule making Act, the division, in collaboration with the commission, shall adopt by rule specific editions of the codes described in Subsection (2)(a), and may adopt by rule successor editions of any adopted code.
- - - (c) The division, in collaboration with the commission, may, in accordance with Section 58-56-7, adopt amendments to the codes adopted under Subsection (2)(a), to be applicable to the entire state or within one or more political subdivisions.

The NEC 2008 IS applicable, electrical references in other codes are NOT except as they served previously to expressly AMMEND the 2005 edition of the NEC.

Quite incorrect, Watson old chap. That law simply states that the following are adopted, without stating anything else about them:
- - - - - (i) a building code;
- - - - - (ii) the National Electrical Code promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association;
- - - - - (iii) a residential one and two family dwelling code;

As you will notice, should have noticed, which I am pointing out so you will notice - (i) is the adoption of *A* "building code" without stating which one or what edition, (ii) is the adoption of the NEC without stating which edition is adopted, and (iii) is the of *A* residential one and two family dwelling code without stating which one, what code, or what edition

The above also does not state or imply that one code supersedes another code.

References in the 2006 IRC are specific in reference to the 2005 NEC edition and as the IRC was not named by the ACT itself, do not serve to override a later adoption of the 2008 Edition of the NEC without ammendments, irrespective of how the rules were "wrongly" or "incorrectly" written/referenced - all such electrical references in the IRC are moot or overridden by the 2008 NEC effective 01/01/09.

Incorrect again Watson my man. You have now moved from the law, as YOU pointed out to the non-applicable rules as YOU pointed out (which is, of course, again incorrect, the RULES do apply and are applicable and specific, the law is general in nature.

It was a red pecking err herring argument which was and is pointless. There was no worst case scenerio there was no confusion of intent, just not Peck-perfect rule writing.

Your post and thought process is so Watsonized as to be irresponsible at worst by intentionally trying to state something which it is not, or just plain ignorant of the facts by unintentionally thinking what you were stating, especially after you stated that the law ruled and then tried to include the rules you discard into what the law stated when it was, is, simply not there.

It would greatly improve your believability if you would simply state you were wrong when you are wrong, than trying to make us all believe you are infallible and then prove to us that you are not, even going back and changing posts to make it look like you were not and not acknowledging you have done so, that is about as low on the ethics ladder as one can get, below the bottom rung, with the bottom run being so high above you that the bottom rung is not even in sight.

To make yourself believable, you first and foremost need to start being honest, make honest posts, honest mistakes, and own up to those mistakes, then, and only then, can your posts and information begin to become believable.

Enough said about how low you have dug yourself, here is hoping you reach for, and grab, the rope being thrown down to you. I promise I won't let go while you are on your way up. Promise. No, really I do promise.

By the way, you did notice in the following that the Rules ARE "law" by reference: (underlining and bold are mine)
- - - (b) In accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rule making Act, the division, in collaboration with the commission, shall adopt by rule specific editions of the codes described in Subsection (2)(a), and may adopt by rule successor editions of any adopted code.

It IS a red herring. You don't understand the hierarchy of the rule of law.

An executive department cannot superceed the act of the legislature providing the authority of the rules or enforcement. Only the Gov under an executive order may subject to an overriding ACT or appeal/decision by the Court.

Link providing access to citations and accesss already provided.

Bills are before the Legislature to revoke certain rule making authority previously granted to the Commission, specifically regarding selection of the other model codes and editions, for good reason - some in the Legislature are ticked off by similar illogical unconstitutional arguments (poor) attempting to support similar positions of yourself.

Its a non-issue, and no, it is not necessary nor required to make anything easier for you, or to justify anything to one who cannot comprehend the elemental checks and balances system of government or the basics of rule versus act.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

It IS a red herring. You don't understand the hierarchy of the rule of law.

I do understand it, apparently you do not.

Also, you are saying the law says the 2008 and the law only says the NEC.

THE RULES say the specific editions of the various general codes THE LAW requires to be adopted.

THE RULES specify the 2008 NEC and the 2006 IRC.

THE RULES specify amendments to them, and none of THE RULES amendments removes the electrical chapters from the IRC. Therein lies their problem, and what they are talking about.

Tell you what, you go there and do it differently, get fined, then try to use that excuse to get out of it.

After you pay your fine, come back here ... or not.

Watson,

Just to help you understand it, in case you are thinking of posting something which indicates you still not not understand it and get it, here it is, simplified for you.

(underlined, bold red text is what you need to pay specific attention to for the 'how', followed by underlined, blue text for the 'what', the larger text is also VERY CRITICAL)

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

- 58-56-4
- - (2)
- - - (a):
- - - - Subject to the provisions of Subsections (4) and (5), the following codes, each of which must be promulgated by a nationally recognized code authority, shall be adopted, in the manner described in Subsection (2)(b), as the construction codes which the state and each political subdivision of the state shall follow in the circumstances described in Subsection (3):
- - - - - (i) a building code;
- - - - - (ii) the National Electrical Code promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association;
- - - - - (iii) a residential one and two family dwelling code;
- - - - - (iv) a plumbing code;
- - - - - (v) a mechanical code;
- - - - - (vi) a fuel gas code;
- - - - - (vii) an energy conservation code; and
- - - - - (viii) a manufactured housing installation standard code.
- - - (b) In accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rule making Act, the division, in collaboration with the commission, shall adopt by rule specific editions of the codes described in Subsection (2)(a), and may adopt by rule successor editions of any adopted code.
- - - (c) The division, in collaboration with the commission, may, in accordance with Section 58-56-7, adopt amendments to the codes adopted under Subsection (2)(a), to be applicable to the entire state or within one or more political subdivisions.

THE RULES specify specifically which editions of which specific codes.

THE RULES specify what, if any, amendments there are, which may be additions, changes, or deletions.

Everything NOT deleted remains, anything NOT added does not exist, anything NOT changed remains as it was (I thought those points were obvious, but I guess you missed those points).

THE RULES adopted the 2008 NEC.

THE RULES adopted the 2006 IRC.

THE RULES deleted the ICC Electrical Code from the IRC (which did not exist in the IRC, thus was not deleted).

THE RULES *did not* delete or change the NEC provisions in the IRC, thus those remain unchanged.

THE RULES, thusly, have adopted the 2008 NEC to be applicable for everything not included in the 2006 IRC as the 2006 IRC contains its own National Electrical Code rules.

THE RULES, by adopting the 2006 IRC adopted the electrical provisions within the IRC, which were neither deleted nor changed by amendments.

If you disagree, instead of doing your usual 'look here ... look there' crapola, do as we (the others of us) do and actually post what you are referring to, that will eliminate two things: 1) any miscommunication, and, 2) your ability to say that was not what you were referring to - you know, in other words ... be honest and forthright for once.

The problem with giving you the information is akin to handing a child a loaded hand gun with the safety off. You tend to shoot yourself with it since you don't understand it.

Don't put words or PECKERISMS in my figurative mouth.

My posts speak for themselves. So does your own ignorance.

It is clear why you never went far.

shouldn't have to explain the code cycles or the history but for the JP-impaired:

First the Legislature passed an ammendment to the ACT. naming the NEC and not naming the other model codes with specificity but requiring the Commission to adopt other model codes, an edition of the NEC and ammend as necessary and adopt future editions and ammend as necessary.

Next the 2005 edition of NEC was adopted and made effective
THEN the 2006 IRC was adopted (limitations and amendments) and made effective thus part VIII which btw does NOT stand alone was thereby ammending the 2005 NEC in the arena of 1 & 2 family dwellings,
THEN the 2008 edition of the NEC was adopted statewide without ammendment - thus rendering part VIII moot.

The legislature mandated the NEC with or without ammendments and indicated that when a newer edition was adopted with or without determined statewide ammendments - as the named authority it rules.

Opinions of others don't matter - the Legislature has made it clear in the ACT. The language of the ACT superceeds the RULES that the ACT authorized be written.

Utah Constitution and Court rulings on the matter make this clear.

Unlike some I do NOT "publish" or "EDIT and PUBLISH" unauthorized and restricted use RULINGS or communications from Authorities, or AG Briefs, without permission. Only what is EXPRESSLY permitted or Expressly declared as PUBLIC DOMAIN.

Its a red-herring and that's ALL it is. Tantrums and foot stomping won't make it anything other than a foul rotting red-herring mush.

Politics ran amok between the Law Makers and the blue's on the commission. The Legislature is dealing with it, latest move is a Bill to ammend the Act to take away the selection of the other Model Codes and the selection of the choice of editions from the Commission, nobody wants that. It is a non-issue red-herring (for anyone with sense enough not to cut off their nose to spite their face).

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

The problem with giving you the information is akin to handing a child a loaded hand gun with the safety off. You tend to shoot yourself with it since you don't understand it.

You are admitting that you would not be able to change your tale, then?

That's what I expected.

Don't put words or PECKERISMS in my figurative mouth.

My posts speak for themselves.

You mean squeak for themselves.

I don't have to put Watsonizing into your posts, you do that yourself, along with evading direct questions and avoiding direct answers, and, when you answers prove incorrect, you go back and change them to make it look like you were correct instead of admitting you were incorrect.

I see why you said you entire family never called you anything but H.G Watson, I can see it now ...
Little Hubert Jr. says 'Dad, I ...'
and you respond '*I* *TOLD* *YOU* *TO* *CALL* *ME* *HG*, you hear!' ...
'YES DAD ... ER ... I MEAN ... HG',
'BOY, THAT IS *SIR*, YOU HEAR!'.

Bet you really had your family going with those demands, yes, sir, I can see little Hubby running from you now scared so much he wet his pants.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

First the Legislature passed an ammendment to the ACT. naming the NEC and not naming the other model codes with specificity but requiring the Commission to adopt other model codes, an edition of the NEC and ammend as necessary and adopt future editions and ammend as necessary.

So far, so good, you are right there, except that the legislature passed the ACT allowing for, requiring, RULES to be promulgated to further the wishes of the legislature.

Those RULES are what specifies the edition of the NEC AND the other codes and their editions.

The legislature mandated the NEC with or without ammendments

That part is correct.

and indicated that when a newer edition was adopted with or without determined statewide ammendments - as the named authority it rules.

Not only does your sentence not make sense in a whole sentence as you had it, but the two parts do not make sense either.

"and indicated that when" and nothing to close that into a complete thought.

The legislature did adopted the NEC as THE electrical code. The legislature did not adopt, specify to adopt, or indicate that it wanted to adopt, any specific editions or the latest most current edition. The legislature gave that authority to the rule making body.

Opinions of others don't matter - the Legislature has made it clear in the ACT. The language of the ACT supersedes the RULES that the ACT authorized be written.

The ACT does not supersede the specifics of the RULES which the ACT authorized as the ACT is GENERAL and the RULES are specific and the SPECIFIC RULES are within the GENERAL requirements of the ACT.

Therefore, the ACT backs up the RULES as adopted by the authorized rule making body.

Unlike some I do NOT "publish" or "EDIT and PUBLISH" unauthorized and restricted use RULINGS or communications from Authorities, or AG Briefs, without permission. Only what is EXPRESSLY permitted or Expressly declared as PUBLIC DOMAIN.

Anything on the internet, produced by a state, is public domain, expressly declared or not. In part by the simple fact that the state placed them in the public domain themselves and at their direction.

Its a red-herring and that's ALL it is. Tantrums and foot stomping won't make it anything other than a foul rotting red-herring mush.

Yes, you are the red herring, and your tantrums, foot stomping, yelling, calling people names, nor anything else you do will cover that foulness up.

The state of Utah has two, count them, two electrical codes: one for non-IRC code structures and one for IRC code structures.

It really is as simple as that.

Politics ran amok between the Law Makers and the blue's on the commission. The Legislature is dealing with it, latest move is a Bill to ammend the Act to take away the selection of the other Model Codes and the selection of the choice of editions from the Commission, nobody wants that.

When, or *IF*, that happens, then that question will clear itself up, although anyone with sense already sees that.

It is a non-issue red-herring (for anyone with sense enough not to cut off their nose to spite their face).

As much as you would like it to be a red herring, the only red herring issue here is you trying to direct attention away from the fact that you will do anything you can *NOT* to answer a direct question, and anything you can *NOT* to provide documentation to back up your answers.

The reason is obvious, if you provide documentation to back up your answers (like the rest of us do) you would eliminate the wiggle room you require to be able to wiggle out of incorrect answers and turn them into not so incorrect answers in the hopes those answers will be seen as correct. And, if all else fails, you will simply go back and change your answers to reflect that you were not incorrect and not acknowledge that you did not.

Each of your last posts have been going to great lengths to avoid answering direct questions, and to avoid giving direct answer with back up documentation. How long do you think you can keep that farce running until you accidentally change a correct answer to an incorrect answer?

Boy, that would be the day.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

The ACT does not supersede the specifics of the RULES which the ACT authorized as the ACT is GENERAL and the RULES are specific and the SPECIFIC RULES are within the GENERAL requirements of the ACT.

Therefore, the ACT backs up the RULES as adopted by the authorized rule making body.



Anything on the internet, produced by a state, is public domain, expressly declared or not. In part by the simple fact that the state placed them in the public domain themselves and at their direction.

Nope. Completely backwords. Where the Act is specific the rules may not conflict for they would beyond the scope of authority which provides for the rules or the rule making body in the first place.

Nope. Again, you have it completely backwords.

Nope, email correspondence, faxes, snail mail, which carries with it a proviso is NOT public domain, neither is/are protected, limited communications. Especially when it carries with it restrictions prohibiting its duplication, dissemination, or use for a limited and specific purpose, and a prohibition to redact anything contained therein except by the issuing authority under penalty of law. Further, when copyrighted infomation is published with permission of the holder which includes citation and/or reproduction of any portion must follow expressed limited use provisions and accompanying language, it must be followed. But then again you violate those copyright, licensing, privacy, and similar, rules all the time, I choose to not. (I responded to request from IL by redacting quotes of your post publishing similar without authority IDPH correspondence, did you yet?).

But go ahead argue with the Comission and Utah CIs and rule writers tell them how wrong they are. Not much local chapter technical discussions are on the internet, they don't need to be.
Mike Holt's Forum - View Single Post - Suggested Proposals for the 2008 NEC

Despite certain persons that WANT the IRC to stand on its own, it doesn't because the IRC electrical provisions are DERIVED from the NEC. The problem with the approach of certain persons is that the IRC itself does not stand on its own but provides that if more complicated or larger capacity electrical eqipment is installed in a residence, the NEC applies because they are not provided for in the IRC.

When you think you have a consensus, then go argue with the Legislature, the AG and the Utah Court.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

You are admitting that you would not be able to change your tale, then?

That's what I expected.



You mean squeak for themselves.

I don't have to put Watsonizing into your posts, you do that yourself, along with evading direct questions and avoiding direct answers, and, when you answers prove incorrect, you go back and change them to make it look like you were correct instead of admitting you were incorrect.

I see why you said you entire family never called you anything but H.G Watson, I can see it now ...
Little Hubert Jr. says 'Dad, I ...'
and you respond '*I* *TOLD* *YOU* *TO* *CALL* *ME* *HG*, you hear!' ...
'YES DAD ... ER ... I MEAN ... HG',
'BOY, THAT IS *SIR*, YOU HEAR!'.

Bet you really had your family going with those demands, yes, sir, I can see little Hubby running from you now scared so much he wet his pants.

Were you always such a cad or did you have to work at it?

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Were you always such a cad or did you have to work at it?

As I keep saying, but apparently you keep not understanding (like everything else) ..

YOU are an excellent teacher.

I am a fast learner.

YOU are teaching me well.

What I've found hard to do is, when you accidentally hook a jerk fish, you really hate to waste the effort and time playing it so you can reel it in and remove your hook and save the hook and line, sometimes, though, you just have to cut the jerk loose and let it run with the hook and line.

(snip)

(bye hook and line - hate to lose you, but I have more bait, more hooks, and plenty of line on the reel ... )