Commission Action: Approved

DCA09-DEC-351 by Joseph Belcher, Code Consultant

Question: In the case of sunrooms attached to single family dwellings, do the provisions of AAMA
2100 related to receptacle outlets prevail?

Answer: Yes. AAMA 2100 is more specific than NFPA 70 (NEC) with regard to the definition of
sunrooms and the placement of receptacle outlets, and therefore in according to Section
102.1 of the FBC, Building, AAMA 2100’s provisions prevail over NFPA 70 (NEC) with regard
to the subject in question.

My BO is happy

IMHO that was the wrong decision. It allowed an arbitrary AAMA classification of certain types of sunrooms as "nonhabitable" and thus to ignore the very real practice that people do use these areas. Consequently, we will see an increased use of extension cords, power taps, and unpermitted and uninspected electrical work.
Furthermore, the NEC requires receptacles in other non-habitable areas such as garages,laudry rooms and other areas.
Lastly, it has allowed requirements that would have increased safety to be trumped by more "specific" requirements,that actually reduced the overall safety .
I submitted comments to the FBC on this DEC but they were obviously rejected.

I agree with Mr.Heinz.

I hope my comment my BO is happy reflects that I am not. I agree with you 100 percent.

I would think the iaei organization would want to go to the capitol and try to change this code.I have seen many exentsion cords in these rooms.

The problem lies in FBCB 102.1 which has two potentially contradictory requirements in its two sentences.

"102.1 General. Where, in any specific case, different sections of this code specify different materials, methods of construction or other requirements, the most restrictive shall govern. Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the specific requirement shall be applicable."

Both the AAMA standard and the NEC are incorporated into the FBC by reference. The AAMA standard is the more specific while the NEC is the more restrictive. Each of these complies with only one of the sentences in FBFB 102.1, and in this case they are mutually exclusive.

The FB Commission chose to apply the "less restrictive" clause while ignoring the "more restrictive" one at the cost of public safety. This particular hole in the FBC could be manipulated and exploited by any vested interest and needs to be plugged. This could easily be done by adding a third sentence to 102.1 "Where both situations exist the more restrictive requirement shall be applicable."

I thought the wind code pretty much eliminated "sun rooms" as most people think of them. (the old "finished, enclosed porch")
When I renovated one of those old aluminum and glass rooms I ended up building something that the PA calls BAS and I had to meet all the code requirements of a regular house, including electrical requirements.
My impression as an observer is that if a "sun room" is built these days it will be unpermitted and uninspected anyway.
I suppose up in the "south Georgia" areas where they have a more relaxed opinion of wind, it might fly (no pun intended) but a dog house has to be 130 MPH rated or higher down south. Once you do all that, there is plenty of structure between windows to hold a receptacle. I agree with those who say, this will end up being used as regular living space and when it is cold, there will be a space heater or two in there. I see no reason why 210.52 shouldn't apply

This, for good or bad, is not within the mission or "purpose" of the IAEI organization. Not only does the IAEI not get involved in the politcal code process, it is actually forbidden. This is something more suited to other organizations like the Building Officials Association of Florida.

That being said, many of the Electrical TAC members are indeed IAEI members, thus influence electrically related code matters, when they are included in the discussion.