2014 NEC Public Comments

[infinity]

Does anyone have a link so that one could read the public comments made to proposals for the next NEC code cycle?

 

[Smart $]

Does anyone have a link so that one could read the public comments made to proposals for the next NEC code cycle?

NFPA website says... ROC Posting Date: 3/22/2013

However, you can read some under the ROC meeting agendas...

http://www.nfpa.org/AboutTheCodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?docnum=70&tab=nextedition

 

[infinity]

Thanks. I've visited the page in your link several times and find it as useless as their search engine. :slaphead:

 

[augie47]

 

[Smart $]

Thanks. I've visited the page in your link several times and find it as useless as their search engine. :slaphead:

Don't kill the messenger :happyno:

Are you looking for something in particular?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Thanks. I've visited the page in your link several times and find it as useless as their search engine. :slaphead:

I don't find that page hard to use. Not sure what you are looking for, but just scroll down to the "ROC Meeting Agendas", select the one from the CMP that you are interested in and open it or download it. These files contain all of the public comments and the initial CMP action on those comments. I believe that the panel statements and action are still subject to change as of the date that the panel agendas were posted.

 

[infinity]

I was looking for an aggregated document where one could search all of the comments at once without having to download 19 different documents and search them individually. Not to mention the needed information of which CMP you're search is under. IMO public comments on public documents should be a little easier for the public to find. :roll:

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I was looking for an aggregated document where one could search all of the comments at once without having to download 19 different documents and search them individually. Not to mention the needed information of which CMP you're search is under. IMO public comments on public documents should be a little easier for the public to find. :roll:

They will be in one document after the ROC is published. Nothing that is posted now, is offical.

 

[infinity]

They will be in one document after the ROC is published. Nothing that is posted now, is offical.

That's what I figured but really the comments should be posted in real-time this way someone could comment on the comment before the comment period ends. :happyyes:

 

[don_resqcapt19]

That's what I figured but really the comments should be posted in real-time this way someone could comment on the comment before the comment period ends. :happyyes:

There is no public comment on the comments.

There steps of the process are: 1) a proposal is made, 2) it is sent to the CMPs for action, 3) the proposals and the panel actions are published for public comment, a draft copy with the proposed changes is also published around the time of the ROP, 4) the public comments are sent to CMPs, 5) the panels take additional action on the comments, their action and panel statements are published, 6) the NFPA membership votes on the proposed document at its annual meeting, it is possible to make motions to change the document at the annual meeting.

 

[infinity]

So in other words there is no ability to comment on a comment. Is this intentional or just the way that it always been? IMO in the digital age to get the most public input the comment stage should be in real-time.

 

[George Stolz]

There's something good about the slowness of the process. Keeps the lobbyists from chattering their ears off. Imagine a code where incessant pleas from manufacturers take even more prominence.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

So in other words there is no ability to comment on a comment. Is this intentional or just the way that it always been? IMO in the digital age to get the most public input the comment stage should be in real-time.

There has never been a way to comment on a comment, other than action on the floor at the annual meeting. This is an ANSI consensus standard and I would expect that the process is spelled out somewhere.
I don't see how real-time comments would work. The CMP has to review and take action on each comment. That cannot be done in real time.

 

[infinity]

I was just looking for an easy (substitute lazy) way to read certain comments.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I was just looking for an easy (substitute lazy) way to read certain comments.

All of the comments and panel actions will be in a single pdf when they officially publish the ROP. Until then you can only look at them one panel at a time.

 

[shortcircuit2]

It appears that the NFPA will be changing the process later this year according to this...

http://www.nfpa.org/categorylist.as...ent process/proposals (rop) and comments (roc)

 

[tallgirl]

I was just looking for an easy (substitute lazy) way to read certain comments.

I'd like to find an easy (substitute "not a pain in the @ss") way to read comments by article. Looking at some of the comments, it looks like roof-top string inverters might become nigh on impossible, if the "no more than 80 volts (which we may lower) after pressing the ESD" requirement makes it in.

Not all that easy to find, wading through all those utterly useless comments about every other article

 

[shortcircuit2]

I'd like to find an easy (substitute "not a pain in the @ss") way to read comments by article. Looking at some of the comments, it looks like roof-top string inverters might become nigh on impossible, if the "no more than 80 volts (which we may lower) after pressing the ESD" requirement makes it in.

Not all that easy to find, wading through all those utterly useless comments about every other article

tallgirl, what section did you read that 80volt rule in for the ESD?

 

[tallgirl]

tallgirl, what section did you read that 80volt rule in for the ESD?

I believe it was a proposal to create a new 690.12 section. That or a revision to 690.11.

I'm not sure how that would work for string inverters since they usually wire from panel to panel, with a home run back to the string combiner. As I read the proposal, no portion of that entire string could be above 80 volts. Since Voc on a 72 cell module is over 40 volts, that means EACH AND EVERY module would have to be individually disconnectable.

(Hey, if the ROC were better organized I'd be able to go back and look!)

 

[GoldDigger]

I believe it was a proposal to create a new 690.12 section. That or a revision to 690.11.

I'm not sure how that would work for string inverters since they usually wire from panel to panel, with a home run back to the string combiner. As I read the proposal, no portion of that entire string could be above 80 volts. Since Voc on a 72 cell module is over 40 volts, that means EACH AND EVERY module would have to be individually disconnectable.

Maybe the solution would be to allow an ungrounded PV array in that case, so that no point would ever be 80 volts (or any other voltage) from ground.
Seriously, if you just disconnect both + and - leads from the string, you could argue that the requirement had been met.