2025 Code Revision and Interpretation Committee Code Interpretation 

EC 110.16 (Applicable to 2025 EC)

Article 110.16 requires arc flash labeling for all switchboards and panelboards located in other than dwelling units. However, nowhere in Article 110.16 does it state that the arc flash label needs to indicate the type of PPE to be worn, the calculated incident energy level, or the arc flash boundary. Is it acceptable to provide a generic arc flash sticker, or do we need to provide custom arc flash labels based on an arc flash study in compliance with NFPA 70E?

In accordance with 110.16, the arc flash label must meet the requirements in 110.21(B). Specific marking requirements are required, when serving equipment rated 1,200A or more, per 110.16(B), and PPE, flash boundary, or incident energy are not one of them

Article 100 (Applicable to 2025 EC)

Article 100 defines Selective Coordination for the full range of overcurrent protective device opening times. The previous NYC Electrical Code defined Selective Coordination only for 0.1 seconds and longer. Since the 2020 NEC does not explicitly indicate that exact times for which selective coordination is defined, I would like direction from ECRIC as to what the minimum time would need to be for two devices to be considered selectively coordinated. It is physically impossible to coordinate at zero seconds, because no manufacturer publishes data for time current characteristics at exactly zero. Please advise what the minimum time would need to be for two time-current characteristic curves to intersect and still be considered selectively coordinated.

Selective Coordination requires coordination across the full range of overcurrent interrupting time, or to coordinate for all fault duration and fault levels, not just a specific minimum time.

When the upstream OCPD needs a Ground-Fault Protection (GFP) relay to pick up ground faults. Such relay makes it more difficult to coordinate with the downstream device, since its curve will most likely overlap with the downstream device at a certain amperage range. Does GFP need to be included in the coordination study?

Ground-Fault Protection is only required to be part of the selective coordination study for health care facility and Critical Operation Power System (COPS), per sections 517.17(C) and 708.52(D).

Article 100 Definitions (Applicable to 2011 EC):

2011 New York City Electrical Code

When the upstream OCPD needs a Ground-Fault Protection (GFP) relay to pick up ground faults. Such relay makes it more difficult to coordinate with the downstream device, since its curve will most likely overlap with the downstream device at a certain amperage range. Does GFP need to be included in the coordination study?

Yes.

See attached TCC. BL-1 has ground fault protection. The ground fault protection curve intersects with the FS-2 curve. Does BL-1 and FS-2 selectively coordinate?

Yes. Also see answer for Item #4 below.

When coordination is required by code, for example, in emergency systems, legally required standby systems, and service switch OCPDs above 601A, is it required to show the ground fault protection curve for coordination?

No.

Is the ground fault protection curve only required to be shown and coordinated in the study when it is under 517.17(C) and 708.52(D), or similar code sections with Ground Fault Protection and sub-sections addressing Selectivity?

Yes. Ground-Fault Protection is only required to be part of the selective coordination study for health care facility and Critical Operation Power System (COPS), per sections 517.17(C) and 708.52(D).

NOTE: A ground-fault protection system is not an OCPD.

EC 110.26(C) (Applicable to 2011 or 2025 EC)

We are proposing two options for an electrical installation below:

OPTION 1: With Electrical Room for main service equipment only, see attached

A dedicated Electrical Room is provided, because one of our service switches is 1200A, which requires to have a personnel door per NEC 110.26(C)(3). The width of the electrical equipment is less than 6ft. The meter bank and two electrical panels are placed outside the Electrical Room while maintaining EC 110.26 working space requirements.

Can we keep the meter bank and two panels outside the Electrical Room and the room is feasible?

Yes, it is permitted under the 2011 NYC Electrical Code. However, two doors or extra working spaces will be required per 110.26(C) in the 2025 NYC Electrical Code. Also, the PV disconnect switch is considered service disconnect in the 2025 NYC Electrical Code.

OPTION 2: Without Electrical Room, see attached

To eliminate the Electrical Room, we split the 1200A service into two 600A switches, each serves 12 meters. All equipment is enclosed in NEMA-1 rated enclosures and meets EC 110.26(A) working space requirements.

Can we proceed without an electrical room with this setup?

Yes, you can. The installation must comply with all requirements in 110.26(F).

I would like a clarification to an issue that seems to have two very different interpretations. This relates to Section 230.41(E) in the amendments, which states the following:

"Services 1000KVA and over. Ampacity of the service-entrance conductors for services 1000 KVA and larger shall not be less than the sum of the maximum ampere ratings of the service disconnecting means. When including fire pump disconnects in the calculation, 125 percent of the fire pump full load amperes shall be added.

Exception: The ampacity of service-entrance conductors need not exceed the maximum demand calculated in accordance with Article 220 for up to a maximum of 4000 amperes per service. For services under 4000 amperes, calculations shall be available upon request by the AHJ."

The above exception implies that not only the service conductors but also the rating of the service switchboard need not exceed 4000 amperes per service. This is the usual interpretation and it means that the bus of a switchboard does not need to be greater than 4000 amperes no matter the sum of the service switches it contains nor the NEC calculated load that the switchboard serves.

If my calculated load on the switchboard is 5000 amps and Con Ed determines that the load at the building would be met with one service of 4000 amps, one does not have to then follow the NEC. Several engineers some of whom were or are on the committee disagree and state that a 5000 amp board would be required.

Can ECRIC please clarify this issue once and for all. I believe the confusion exists because the exception only addresses service conductors and does not mention switchboards or the bus within them.

When applying the Exception, the ampacity of service entrance conductors, service equipment, and over-current protection devices, need not be greater than 4,000 amperes for any single service entrance, even if the calculated demand for the service, in accordance with Article 220, is greater than 4,000 amperes.

Although the exception is written in the context of service conductors, it is intended to also include service equipment and over-current protective devices.

EC 220.82 (Applicable to 2011 EC)

We are in the process of evaluating an infrastructure upgrade for a multi-family residential building in NYC. The owner is looking into installing Ephoca HVAC units (Heat Pump + Heat), in all residential units. The electrical characteristic of the Ephoca HVAC unit, at 230V single phase, consists of a compressor, indoor ECM fan motor, outdoor ECM fan motor, plus 1800W supplemental electric heat (see attached page 12). Please note that the worst-case load is during Winter where the compressor, fans, and electric heat are running simultaneously. Our interpretation based on NEC 220.82 (C) (4) and (C) (5) is that 65% or 40% demand can be applied to the 1800W electric heat, based on the quantity of Ephoca HVAC units. For example:

3 Epocha Units
((4.7+0.2+0.7)*230 + 1800*0.65)*3 = 7374W

4 (or more) Epocha Units
((4.7+0.2+0.7)*230 + 1800*0.40)*4 = 8032W

Please confirm that our interpretation aligns with New York City Electrical Code Committee, also see cutsheet of the HVAC unit attached.

Yes, the calculations are correct.

EC 250.52 & 250.53 (Applicable to 2011 EC)

We are attempting to improve the grounding for an existing (1924) 4-story multifamily dwelling of masonry wall/timber joist construction which sits directly on bedrock. A 1950s electrical service upgrade which consolidated multiple service entrances left the structure with only a single point of grounding, via a clamp on the incoming water service. The masonry walls of the structure are directly on bedrock just below cellar-floor level. There is no structural steel. Both inside the building, at cellar level, and as measured by probes extending 10' from the exterior towards the property line, there is at most 42' of soil atop bedrock. A vertical ground rod therefore cannot be driven, nor can a rod be driven at an angle of 45 degrees or less. The existing masonry walls do not have concrete footings nor rebar.

Under Article 250, are the following means of grounding acceptable in this situation?

The existing clamp on the water service will remain, and be connected per Code along with the new grounding means, to the distribution panel where ground and neutral are bonded.

1. May we drill horizontally through the foundation wall where it extends at least 30" below the soil surface outside the building, and horizontally drive a ground rod into the otherwise undisturbed soil?
2. May we dig a small trench to a depth of 30" outside the building, place an 8' ground rod horizontally in this excavation, and connect this with appropriately sized wire through the cellar wall, then backfill the excavation?
3. May we excavate along the interior of the cellar wall to reach bedrock, thus constructing a new footing for the wall (tied to the existing cellar wall with rebar), and construct a concrete-encased electrode in this footing?

Method 2 is acceptable, when the ground rod is installed per EC 250.53(G), the first ground rod shall have a resistance to ground of 25 ohms or less. Method 3 is also acceptable, when the concrete-encased electrode is installed per EC 250.52(A)(3).

EC 220.61 (Applicable to 2011 EC)

I have questions about shared neutral conductor for multiple apartment panels. I am working on a high-rise residential building that was built in 1995 in NYC; it was built per the Gray Electrical Code book of 1987. The apartments have gas range and PTAC units at the windows. Each apartment is fed with 100A fuses at the meter-bank. Three stacked apartments are fed with a common neutral (either a #4 or a #6 copper conductor). The building owner is renovating most of the apartments, the PTAC’s will be replaced in kind. All the kitchen appliances will be replaced with same type of appliances in the same location. We are proposing to add a garbage disposal in the kitchen and radiant floor heating the master bathrooms. The added load DOES NOT increase the demand for the apartments enough to require an increase of the 100A fuse.

The question regarding the neutral conductors is:

We are adding unbalanced loads (radiant floor and garbage disposals are 120V) to the apartment; do we need to check the increased load on the neutral conductor?

Yes, since you are adding unbalanced loads to the existing neutral, such neutral must be checked to ensure it will comply with the current NYC Electrical Code. Also, you can refer to Section 220.61 and Annex D for details and calculation samples.

In the gray electrical Code book, they state that we can use a common neutral; however it doesn’t mention how to size that common neutral. The existing neutral seems undersized. It can only carry the unbalanced load for one out of the three apartments. Is there a section in the Gray book that allows reduction of the neutral conductor?

Section 27-3181 of the Gray Book allows reduction of the neutral conductor. Attached are the two pages of the Gray book on the neutral conductor for your reference. This is to understand if the original construction complied with Code at that time.

EC 220.87 (Applicable to 2011 or 2025 EC)

We are providing electrical upgrade design services for a residential dormitory building in NYC. The existing stoves in each unit are to be replaced with higher-capacity electric stoves. To determine the feeder capacity, we plan on performing a 30-day ammeter reading per 220.87. Please confirm if this method is acceptable under the 2011 and 2025 NYC Electrical Code.

Yes, when meeting all the conditions and requirements in section 220.87. The 2011 NYC Electrical Code doesn’t permit the use of this method (or Exception) to size the service load.

EC 230.43 (Applicable to 2011 EC)

The Article 230.43 of the 2011 NYC Electrical Code is stating the following:

230.43 Wiring Methods for 600 Volts, Nominal, or Less. Service-entrance conductors shall be installed in accordance with the applicable requirements of this Code covering the type of wiring method used and shall be limited to the following methods:

…

(2) Rigid metal conduit.

…

Service entrance conductors shall not run within the hollow spaces of frame buildings.

In our case the Con Ed cooper Detail Box (POE) is located in the unfinished cellar. And the Service Switches (SS) are located on the Ground floor in the Electrical Room approximately 30 feet away horizontally. We have installed feeders from Con-Ed Cooper Detail to SS in RMC tight to the concrete slab and encased with 2 in of cement board underneath and on the sides. There is no penetration of any hollow spaces of framing involved. Please see attached diagram and advise whether our installation is correct.

No, the installation is not Code compliance, the service entrance conductors must be encased in a minimum of 2-inch concrete, the use of cement boards is not permitted.

EC 210.60 (Applicable to 2011 or 2025 EC)

We are currently working on a project consists of student dormitories of which we need assistance with the interpretation of the Code based on the current 2011 NYC Electrical Code or if we adapt the 2025 NYC Electrical Code, in regard to receptacle placement and fixed in place furniture.

In accordance with 210.60 the sleeping rooms in the dormitory is following requirements of 210.52 (A) through (D) and will be located conveniently for permanent furniture.

But we have two receptacles that when placed in the open shelving of the furniture we need to know if it will be exempt from 210.52(A)(2) requirements or if a receptacle will be required:

1. In the kick plate of the furniture
2. Along the wall exterior wall between the beds next to the AC unit to meet the requirements.
3. we also have an outlet under the desk, does that count for the 6' from door?

See attached plans.

Yes, the proposed receptacle outlet locations are Code compliance. Receptacles outlets are permitted to be located conveniently for permanently installed furniture layout in accordance with 210.60(B).

EC 220.87 (Applicable to 2011 or 2025 EC)

We have received and reviewed the 30-day ammeter readings, per 220.87(1), for the distribution feeders. We would like to confirm whether the proposed electric cooking loads are subject to the demand factors outlined in the NYC 2011 Electrical Code, Table 220.84, based on the number of dwelling units connected to each distribution feeder.

For example:
Feeder X: 4-350MCM (310A)
Feeder X OCPD: 300A
# Units: 4 units
30-Day Ammeter Reading: 27.98KVA
30-Day Ammeter Reading @125%: 34.97KVA
Electric Cooking: 26.62KVA
Electric Cooking Demand (45% Demand Factor): 11.98KVA
Feeder Load [KVA]: 47KVA
Feeder Demand [A]: 130A
Determination: Feeder Adequate

Yes, the cooking loads, based on nameplate rating, are subject to the demand factors in Table 220.84 when utilizing Part IV, Optional Feeder Load Calculations.

BC 2702.1.7.1

We request an interpretation for work being performed in the existing Main Electrical Service Switchboard Room housing normal and emergency service equipment. The existing room was constructed in accordance with 1968 NYC Building Code and complies with that version of the code. The room currently houses several Automatic Transfer Switches (ATS) which constitutes a violation of the current version of the NYC BC Section 2702.1.7.1. We are modifying the existing normal power Electrical Switchboards by rearranging the switch order and will be filing drawings for Electrical Planning Review with the DOB. We would like to separate the existing ATS(s) and remove or relocate them as part of our modernization.

Due to the existing location of the Electrical Service Room and our inability to relocate ALL the ATS(s) and exit the room with the required number of conduits, we propose to create a 2-hour rated room within the existing Electrical Service room and install several the ATS(s) within that separate room. The room will have doors opening INTO the electrical service room. The ATS(s) will serve Life Safety and Critical loads of the hospital building. It is our interpretation that this will comply with the current iteration of the Building Code.

Please confirm the above described work and equipment arrangement are acceptable. Also see the attached plan for the proposed layout.

Yes, the proposed 2-hr fire rated room will meet BC 2702.1.7.1. However, the emergency supply side and load side feeders shall not pass through the existing main electrical room. The working spaces of all electrical equipment must comply with NYC Electrical Code.

EC 210.52 (Applicable to 2011 or 2025 EC)

Please provide assistance with the interpretation of the code based on the current 2008 Code or if we adapt the 2020 Code in regard to the definition of fixed cabinets as per NEC Section 210.52 (A)(2)(1). Is there a further breakdown as to what constitutes as fixed cabinets? For example, is a metal closet that is anchored down to the wall considered a fixed cabinet? Dormitories are required to follow NEC section 210.52 based on NEC Section 210.60(A). Often times in dormitories lockers or closets are provided for the habitants.

Are insulation piercing connectors approved by NYC for this purpose?

If these lockers, closets, or cabinets do not have countertops or similar work surfaces, the bottoms are flush with the floor, and they are anchored to the wall do they count as fixed cabinets?

Yes, they are considered fixed cabinets, if they are anchored to the wall and part of the permanent set up.

If these lockers, closets, or cabinets do not have countertops or similar work surfaces, the bottoms are 4 inches to 6 inches off the floor on pedestals, and they are anchored to the wall do they count as fixed cabinets?

Yes, they are considered fixed cabinets, if they are anchored to the wall and part of the permanent set up.

Section 210.52(A) (Applicable to 2011 or 2025 EC)

I have a question regarding convenience receptacle requirement for dwelling units. For the attached kitchen layout, will a convenience receptacle (mounted at 18” AFF) required for the yellow highlighted wall?

Under the 2011 NYC Electrical Code, a convenience receptacle will not be required, the counter receptacles, when installed within 5’-6” of the floor and within the required 210.52 distance, may serve the highlighted wall space. Under the 2025 NYC Electrical Code, a convenience receptacle will be required, in accordance with section 210.52(A)(4).

Section 210.52(C) (Applicable to 2011 EC)

I have an island in my kitchen. It is 9’ 8” long, 3’ wide. There is a sink in the island. The far edge of the sink is 17.5” away from the edge of the island, see the attached photos. I understand Code 210.52(C)(2) is the applicable section of the NYC Electrical Code. The installation is filed under the 2011 Code. See photos attached. I have the followings questions:

Given that the distance from the far side long edge of the sink (where the faucet is) to the edge of the countertop is greater than 12", is the countertop considered a single space (and not be considered 3 separate spaces)?

Yes, if the width of the countertop behind the sink is more than 12”, the countertop space is considered a single space.

As a single space, is it true that 210.52(C)(2) requires at least one GFI receptacle in the island, but not more than one?

No, for a single space, a minimum of one receptacle will be required but more are permitted for a kitchen island countertop space.

I understand GFI Receptacles are not counted if it is under an overhang that is more than 6” wide, but if they are installed there, they don’t count as the required receptacle, but also are not a violation. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct, receptacles are permitted to be located at that location, they just won’t be counted as the required receptacles to meet 210.52(C).

If we put the GFI receptacle at the end of the island and this would satisfy the requirement in 210.52(C)(2). Correct?

Yes, but the receptacle must be located no more than 12” below the countertop.

Section 210.65 (Applicable to 2025 EC)

We have been receiving a lot of negative feedback from clients and architects on this new 2025 code section, in regard to conference room receptacles. A majority of office spaces are constructed mainly with fixed glass walls, which do not allow for installation of receptacles on the wall. The only alternate solution is to put in a large number of floor outlets close to the wall, which would be a tremendous cost for outlets that are not likely to be used.

In regard to the new requirement for a minimum quantity of receptacles in conference rooms. Do fixed glass walls that are floor to ceiling require outlets?

The glass wall shall be included in the calculation to determine the required number of receptacles, but the receptacles are not required to be at/on the glass wall.

If yes to number one, can we match the quantity of receptacles required by installed in other walls that are more suitable for installing receptacles?

Yes, the required number of receptacles per 210.65(B)(1) is permitted to be located on other walls, on the floor or fixed furniture, within the meeting room.

If there is a fixed conference table with several outlets located around the table for ease of use for power outlets within the table, does that meet the intent of this Code? Even if we include a receptacle for every 12 feet of perimeter of the table?

Yes, except for the required floor receptacle per 210.65(B)(2). The quantity of receptacles must be calculated per 210.65(B) and the perimeter of the table can’t be used for such calculation.

Section 210.65(B) (Applicable to 2011 or 2025 EC)

We are designing an alteration to an existing high-rise building. The existing building’s electrical service is served by (3) 27kV services from Con Edison. Con Ed revenue metering is performed on the 27kV side. (3) step down transformers are installed indoors by the landlord to step down voltage from 27kV to 480V, 3 phase, 3 wire. The transformers secondaries are connected to a main 5,000 Amp, 480V 3 phase, 3 wire switchboard in a “main-tie-main-tie-main” arrangement. See attached sketch. Secondary power for the fire alarm system is through a diesel generator.

Can primary power for the fire alarm system be located at the 5,000 Amp main-tie-main switchboard arrangement or does power need to be located at the secondary side of one of the (3) step down transformers? We believe the main-tie-main arrangement meets the intent of section 760.41(A). See the attached one line diagram.

No, the primary power connection (or tap) for the fire alarm system shall be located at the secondary side of one of the three step down transformers. Unless it is allowed by special permission request (CCD1).

Section 230.46 (Applicable to 2011 EC)

We have to connect 30Amp Fire Alarm Disconnect to the electrical feeder consisting of 3 set of 500MCM (in parallel). We are using 500MCM Polaris Connectors to tap the wires coming out of the feeder from the CT cabinet. The minimum size of the wire which can be connected to that Polaris Connector is 250MCM. 250 MCM does not fit in the terminals of 30Amp Fire Alarm disconnect. Is it acceptable to connect 250MCM to another Polaris Connector and then to tap from 250MCM to #10 AWG? All taps are less than 10ft. If not, please advise how shall we connect the fire alarm disconnect. Please see the attached diagram. This installation will be performed under the 2011 NYC Electrical Code.

Yes, the use of two Polaris connectors is permitted for this installation, when the splicing of service-entrance conductors complies with Section 230.46).

Section 340.10 (Applicable to 2011 or 2025 EC)

The GC is constructing roof deck areas that include sitting spaces with trees, etc. The floor installation consists of a 2-3” foam layer atop the roof, with a 2-3” hollow space above it, where square stones are laid for walkways (please see attached pictures). Given the configuration, running conduits has proven challenging due to necessary bends and the distribution of lights, sometimes as many as 50 lights. I would like to inquire if it is permissible to use UF cable in this design. I understand that UF cable is generally accepted for outdoor applications. Section 340.10(3) states it can be used in wet, dry, and corrosive environments, and NYC regulations have banned on direct burial from Section 340.10(1). In our case its not buried Section 340.12 mentions sunlight resistance for exposed cables but does not explicitly prohibit outdoor usage. In our case, the UF cables employed are sunlight resistant and are concealed within the hollow space between insulation and the deck. This is for a high-rise R-2 residential building and the UF cables are only serving branch circuits, such as lighting and receptacles. Please advise if this application is acceptable. See the attached photos.

Yes, UF cable is allowed for this roof deck installation, between the roof insulation and the stone tile, provided that the cable is not exposed and not subject to physical damage. The cable must be properly secured and supported per Code

EC 450.13 (Applicable to 2011 EC)

We have an installation of a 75KVA transformer above an accessible ceiling grid (a.k.a. drop ceiling / ACT) which received a violation referencing 450.13(B). We feel the overall intent of code section 450.13 - Accessibility, as the title implies, is to ensure adequate accessibility to transformers. As the section reads, "all transformers ... shall be readily accessible to qualified personnel for inspection and maintenance OR shall meet the requirements of 450.13(A) or 450.13(B). Sub-paragraphs (A) and (B) allow for open ceiling installations or above ceiling installations less than 50KVA to NOT be readily accessible. We feel that the transformer in our case is readily accessible by simply removing some ceiling tiles, which is a common occurrence in any commercial space. Therefore, the intent of code section 450.13 is met, and the exceptions in sub-paragraphs (A) and (B) for non-readily accessible transformers need not apply. Furthermore, we see no technical reason why a 45KVA transformer would be considered acceptable above a ceiling but not the next size up, 75KVA transformer. If a transformer is suitable for ceiling mounting and is installed with proper accessibility and clearances, the KVA rating of the transformer should have no bearing on it's accessibility. Additionally, the transformers primary overcurrent protection is directly below it, mounted on the wall within the space (less than 6'-7" AFF) so that the transformer can be easily de-energized for maintenance and inspection.

Does our installation meet the intent of the code and may it remain as installed?

No, the installation doesn’t comply with 450.13

EC 406.12 (Applicable to 2025 EC)

Section 406.12 of the 2025 Electrical Code requires tamper-resistant receptacles in areas specified in 406.12 (1) through (8). It provides 4 exceptions that appear logical, but by reading of the occupancies this would require tamper-resistant receptacles in utility spaces such as mechanical spaces, electrical rooms, water meter rooms, etc. that are off limits to the occupants, if the intent is buildings of the occupancies indicated. If the term 'area' is intended to be specifically those spaces in any building occupancy that would meet the definition, then it would seem that for our case of schools it would only be rooms where children would be and not the utility spaces of buildings of an occupancy described. We are requesting to verify that tamper-resistant receptacles are not required in utility spaces, which makes no sense since it is not a safety issue as the spaces are only accessible to maintenance staffs. While we believe the question would apply to most of the occupancies, our agency is responsible for Preschool and Educational occupancy.

Yes, tamper-resistant receptacles are required in utility spaces (electrical rooms, mechanical spaces, water meter rooms, etc.) of an education facility.

EC 430.109 (Applicable to 2011 or 2025 EC)

In our project, Decora Switches with on/off tags have been used as means of disconnect for the indoor wall blowers inside residential apartments. Please see the attached photo. Is this installation acceptable?

A disconnecting mean is not required for an indoor HVAC unit (evaporator), when its horsepower is rated 1/8 or less, the branch-circuit overcurrent device is permitted to be served as the disconnecting mean, per 430.109(B). However, if a disconnecting mean is provided or required by the listing of the equipment per 110.3(B), it must meet the requirements of 430.104 and 422.35.

EC 404.9(B) (Applicable to 2011 or 2025 EC)

A building that I’m working in will have an electrical inspection for the light switches and receptacles. The building is old but needs an electrical inspection for a certificate of occupancy letter. I have been providing a bonding jumper from receptacles and switches to the metal boxes, however some of the older switches don’t have a grounding terminal. For these switches with no ground terminal, do I have to replace the switches to newer switches with ground terminals or is the yoke considered as a grounding mechanism?

Utilizing the yoke as a grounding mechanism is acceptable for switches, if the metal boxes are bonded.

EC 408.11 (Applicable to 2011 or 2025 EC)

I have a project at our 4 Metrotech Center building in Brooklyn that involves the upgrade of our existing paralleling switchgear from fused, pringle switches to circuit breakers. After the upgrade is completed, we are looking to get DOB/AHJ approval on the installation. However, there are some circumstances that may complicate the approval process. Please note that the following conditions below:

• ASCO switchgear was designed and constructed to meet UL891 standards, the existing ASCO paralleling switchgear is missing its UL affixed label.
• JPMC has retained the services of Unity Electric (Electrical Contractor) to perform testing as per NETA standards with a PE stamp. They are not a NETA accredited agency. Intertek is retained to review the report and provide their signoffs.
• Project has been submitted for EPR for review with the EPR# BK03366
• The switchgear is original to the building which was built around 1991.

Based on the above, there were some concerns that at the end of the project, the DOB will not approve this approach, and we will have issues during closeout. Is it possible to get a confirmation that the DOB will accept the NETA testing report from Unity Electric, with ETL approval even though the paralleling switchgear does not have a UL certified sticker on it?

DOB will accept modifications to existing switchboards/switchgears when the modification is designed by an NRTL certified switchboard manufacturer and performed by the manufacturer or a licensed electrician under the supervision and direction of the manufacturer.

EC 517.13 & 517.61 (Applicable to 2011 EC)

We recently received two objections below for job # Q01135026I1EL related to 517.13 & 517.61. The work in question was performed in a BJ’s wholesale eyeglass sales area, which contains a Testing Room and an Exam Room (see attached drawing for reference). We have built numerous box stores within the 5 boroughs with similar eyeglass sales departments and don’t recall them requiring any hospital grade wiring or devices. Also see photos and plan attached.

• Floor GND:155-FIXED WIRING IN PATIENT CARE AREA NOT OF PROPER TYPE optical patients’ area Hospital grade cables 517.13 (patient care area)
• Floor GND:339-MINIMUM NUMBER OF HOSPITAL GRADE RECEPTACLE OUTLETS NOT PROVIDED optical patients’ area with equipment Hospital grade receptacles 517.61 (Anesthetizing Locations).

No, hospital grade wiring and receptacle outlets are not required for such installation.

EC 695.4(A) (Applicable to 2011 EC)

We request clarification on feeding fire pumps and overcurrent protection. Please see the attached riser of a situation we have been asked to review. There are 4 fire pumps in a building, the design calls for a service switch fused at 2000A that is fed with a tap in the CT compartment of the main service board, after the CT's and before the 1st switch. Can that switch feed a fire pump distribution panel on another floor that feeds the 4 four fire pumps via individual fused switches? NYC Amendment 695.4(A) says "Fire pump or limited service fire pump shall be supplied from a single dedicated service disconnecting means and associated overcurrent protective device installed between the power source and one of the following:

1. listed fire pump controller
2. listed fire pump power transfer switch
3. listed combination fire pump controller and power transfer switch."

Is it to be interpreted that the "dedicated service disconnecting means and associated overcurrent protective device" are 2 separate devices or 1 device?

They are one device, such as a single disconnect switch with fuses.>

If it is to be interpreted that they are separate devices is the attached design an acceptable installation if all code requirements are met for feeder and fuse sizing of fire pumps?

See above, the proposed design is not Code compliant.

EC 695.3(C) (Applicable to 2025 EC)

Section 695.3(C) states that if the sources in 695.3 (A) are not practicable and the installation is part of a multibuilding campus-style complex, then two or more feeders shall be permitted as more than one power source if such feeders are connected to, or derived from, separate utility services, as approved by the authority having jurisdiction. Section 695.4 (B)(1)(b) permits additional disconnecting means and associated overcurrent protective device(s) for systems installed under the provision of 695.3 (C) only.

A Con Edison Block House located in Building A was built to provide electrical service to a campus. This Block House houses the Con Edison service disconnect switches and Con Edison meters which feed each of the buildings on the campus. Building C and Building D will require 30HP limited service sprinkler booster pump. Building C and Building D do not have emergency generator. See the attached one line diagram. We have the following questions regarding section 695.3 (C):

NYC Electrical Code section 695.5(B) specifies dedicated metering for the fire pump, and section 760.41(A)(1) specifies that utility metering of the fire alarm system shall maintain power continuity to the fire alarm system at all times.

Building D will be fed by two Con Edison electrical services supplied from the Block House, routed separately to the building. Is it permissible to provide normal power to Building D's limited service sprinkler booster pump via feeder taps located at the point of entry of Building D ahead of the building disconnecting means? ATS will be provided to switch over between the two power sources. Refer to attached sketch.

Yes, the installation is permitted, assuming emergency/standby power is not required for Building D, in accordance with Building Code Chapter 27.

Therefore, the question arises: Can we connect the fire pump and fire alarm through a single CL-type meter, or do we need to provide dedicated meters for both systems?

Yes, the installation is permitted, assuming emergency/standby power is not required for Building C, in accordance with Building Code Chapter 27.

Future editions of the Existing Building Code may require emergency/standby power and this would impact the above answers.

EC Article 760 (Applicable to 2011)

Are all fire alarm system electrical power service taps required to be inspected in all cases and an approval issued? Yes _____ No _____

Yes

If yes to the question above, is the approval required to be provided to the Fire Alarm Inspection Unit (FAIU), when the inspection takes place? Yes _____ No _____

Yes, when being asked by FAIU.

If not, should they be to ensure full Code compliance?   Yes _____ No _____

N/A

Attached, are two sets of drawings showing Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) electrical connection to clarify them and be added to the present Fire Alarm System electrical connection set for reference. Please review them an indicate below it they are or are not and if not why and what needs to be modified so that they are.

A. Is the first drawing the includes a transfer switch acceptable?   Yes _____ No _____

Yes. See answer to ‘4.C’ below for more information.

B. Is the second drawing that does not include a transfer switch but is a direct UPS powered feed acceptable?    Yes______ No ______

Yes. See answer to ‘4.C’ below for more information. 

C. State drawing that is not and why or what has to be modified so that it is.

For the 2025 NYC Electrical Code, the fused cut-out panel needs to comply with section 760.41(D)(5).

When using an UPS with a transfer switch, does the UPS and transfer switch must be in two separated 2-hour rated spaces?   Yes _____ No _____

No.

If not to the question above, can they share the same two hour rated space?     Yes ______ No ______

Yes, they can share the same 2-hr rated room.

Confirm that the Building Code 2022 Section 2702.2.1.1 can be applied as is without having to do a CCD1 request in order for it to apply to such conditions.   Yes _____ No _____

Yes, but this section is limited to prior code buildings with “Occupancy Group A” as the dominant Occupancy.

EC 760.52 (Applicable to 2011 or 2025 EC)

We respectfully submit the following questions:

Can fire alarm cables be placed exposed in an independently supported from building structure, dedicated cable or basket tray above 8’ in non-machine room areas?

Yes, but it is only limited to Power-Limited Fire Alarm (PLFA) cables, when installed per NYC Electrical Code (EC) 760.130(B)(1).

If the answer to 1) is no same question if the tray is permanently marked every section in Red Lettering: “Fire Alarm Cables Only”.

See answer above.

Same Question as 1) below 8’ in non-machine room areas.

No, the installation must comply with EC 760.46 or EC 760.130(B)(1).

Same Question as 1) but in machine room areas:

1. a) Above
   No, installation must comply with EC 760.52(A) or EC 760.131(A).
2. Below 8’
   No

EC 760.179 (Applicable to 2011 or 2025 EC)

Often, multiple fire alarm control panels are used in large buildings and connected in a network fashion (sometimes, remote fire alarm control panels are referred to as Data Gathering Panels or DGPs). This network connection doesn’t fit the definition of NPLFA circuits since it is not connected between the Class 2 or Class 3 overcurrent protection and the load. See the attached Listed and FDNY-approved Network Controllers catalog cutsheet (model 4-NET-CAT - top of page 3).

NOTE: The use of larger conductors, such as NPLFA cables, is not suitable due to the increased reactance they introduce, which can adversely affect the performance of high-frequency communication circuits.

760.2 Definitions

Fire Alarm Circuit. The portion of the wiring system between the load side of the overcurrent device or the power-limited supply and the connected equipment of all circuits powered and controlled by the fire alarm system. Fire alarm circuits are classified as either non-power-limited or power-limited.

Fire Alarm Circuit Integrity (CI) Cable. Cable used in fire alarm systems to ensure the continued operation of critical circuits during a specified time under fire conditions.

Non-Power-Limited Fire Alarm Circuit (NPLFA). A fire alarm circuit powered by a source that complies with 760.41 and 760.43.

Power-Limited Fire Alarm Circuit (PLFA). A fire alarm circuit powered by a source that complies with 760.121.

Is a network connection of a fire alarm control panel or DGP considered a fire alarm circuit and required to meet the wiring requirements of NPLFA circuits?

Please note that the use of larger conductors, such as NPLFA cables, is not suitable due to the increased reactance they introduce, which can adversely affect the performance of high-frequency communication circuits.

1. No, CAT5/6 cable is permitted for network connection (for communication) between Fire Alarm panels (including remote annunciators) or DGPs, when meeting the requirements below:

1. 1. Cable is part of Class X fire alarm circuit, also known as a Style 7 circuit, is a highly reliable fire alarm system pathway that provides fault isolation between devices. It's essentially a Class A circuit with added isolation modules to prevent a single short or open circuit from disabling the entire system. This ensures that even with a fault, the majority of the system can continue to function, enhancing overall system reliability and survivability.
   2. Cable is in a 2-hour rated enclosure
   3. Cable meets UL 444 standard
   4. Cable meets Article 800 of 2025 NYC Electrical Code.

If CAT5/6 wires are used to connect the Fire Alarm Control Panel/DGPs is it required to meet 760.179?

No, see answer above.

EC 700.12 (Applicable to 2011 or 2025 EC)

Please review the attached document (rule) and questions below. The main question here is, will Building Energy Storage Systems (ESS) be permitted as alternative to those listed below for new and existing buildings as an acceptable secondary power source as required by the Buildings Code for Fire Alarm and Communication Systems since it will act in the same manner? That is in place of a gas generator or UPS to be an acceptable alternative.

New buildings: Yes ____ No __X__

Existing buildings: Yes ____ No __X__

Will electrical connection drawing be provided as to show the proper method for doing so from your agency? buildings: Yes ____ No __X__

As per prior building stated below but not as per new buildings that we are requesting a determination on it too.

2702.2.1.1 Prior Code buildings.

In prior buildings, where a stationary generator is not otherwise required, the power source for emergency power to the voice/alarm communication system may be served by a gas generator or an uninterpretable power (UPS) in accordance with the New York City Electrical Code.

No, Energy Storage System (ESS) is currently NOT classified as one of the acceptable emergency power sources in Electrical Code Article 700 for Fire Alarm and Voice/Alarm Communication Systems.

Section 760.41(A)(1) (Applicable to 2011 or 2025 EC)

Section 760.41(A)(1) states that the primary power supply for the fire alarm system shall be connected to the primary power source ahead of all building service disconnecting means. In reference to Article 695 (Fire Pump), section 695.3(C) outlines the requirements for installation that is part of a multibuilding campus-style complex, as approved by the authority having jurisdiction. Section 695.4(B)(1)(b) permits additional disconnecting means and associated overcurrent protective device(s) for systems installed under the provision of 695.3 (C) only.

Building C, Building D, and the south ancillary buildings are part of a multibuilding campus-style complex. Each of the buildings is fed from a Con Edison Blockhouse located in Building A on campus. The Blockhouse houses the Con Edison service disconnect switches and Con Edison meters which feed each of the buildings on campus. Each building complies with Part II of Article 225. Each building will be fed by one concrete encased feeder supplied from the Blockhouse. The Blockhouse has four distinct Con Edison service feeders, routed separately to the building, and tied to a paralleling bus, where the paralleling bus feeds the campus buildings' service disconnect switches. Each building will have a separate and independent fire alarm system.

Is it permissible to provide normal power for the fire alarm system to each of the buildings on campus via a feeder tap located at the point of entry of each building ahead of the building disconnecting means? The fire alarm system for each of the buildings will also be equipped with a storage battery power supply in compliance with Section 760.41(C). Refer to the attached one line diagram.

This question only pertains to normal power connection. Emergency power is not required for the buildings.

Yes, if these buildings are under the same ownership, have an easement to be treated as one property, and comply with Part II of Article 225, then Fire Pump and Fire Alarm may be connected ahead of the main disconnecting means of their respective building they serve.

Section 725.136 (Applicable to 2011 or 2025 EC)

I’m seeking clarification on the application of the August 7, 2024 Code Interpretation issued by the ECRIC for Section 725.136. The interpretation states that the Excel 18/2 control cable shown in the referenced submittal is permitted to be installed in the same conduit with Class 1 wiring, provided it complies with the manufacturer’s specifications. My understanding is that the basis of approval is the cable’s construction (Temperature Rating, UL listing, etc.) and compliance with Section 725.136, rather than the manufacturer itself.

Currently, field enforcement appears to be granting approval only when the Excel brand is submitted, while rejecting other equivalent products (i.e., Windy City Wire 18/2 of identical construction and listing, see the attached cutsheet). This effectively limits approval to a single manufacturer, which seems inconsistent with the Code’s intent and with how equivalent products are usually considered.

Does the August 7, 2024 interpretation apply to any cable of equivalent construction and listing, not solely for Excel branded cable, as long as it meets the requirements of Section 725.136 and the manufacturer’s instructions? Please confirm.

Yes, the August 7, 2024 interpretation is applicable to any 18/2 control cable with equivalent construction, rating and listing, given that the cable is identified for the application. Additionally, cables with a 30-mil (minimum) jacket will meet the requirement of a barrier where required by Article 725.