- Location
- Massachusetts
Does anyone have access to Proposal 1-64 of the 1994 ROP?
Thanks, Bob
Thanks, Bob
georgestolz said:I know what you're up to.
Oh. Then I guess I can get that sly look off my face then...iwire said:
I already told everyone over in the other thread.
georgestolz said:Oh. Then I guess I can get that sly look off my face then...
No one has access to that document...there was no ROP for the NEC in 1994.Does anyone have access to Proposal 1-64 of the 1994 ROP?
don_resqcapt19 said:Bob,
No one has access to that document...there was no ROP for the NEC in 1994.
Don
2-175 Log #1089 NEC-P02 Final Action: Reject
(210.21(B)(2) and Table 210.2(B)(2))
Submitter:
Daniel Leaf, Seneca, SC
Recommendation:
Delete.
Substantiation:
This section has nothing to do with safety and is virtually unenforceable when the load is portable or transient, or connected after inspection. In Proposal 1-64 of the 1994 ROP, the panel rejected the proposal to define an individual circuit as one supplying a single receptacle inferring that a circuit supplying a duplex receptacle with only one equipment plugged in is an individual circuit. If this is the intent, the receptacle can supply any load for which it is rated. Receptacles are evaluated for their full ratings. There are listed appliances with rated current over 12 amperes with factory equipped 15 ampere plugs with no instructions to utilize an individual circuit, such as hair dryers, central vacuums, pressure water sprayers, etc. implying the testing agency found no hazard with a multiple receptacle circuit.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: See the panel action and statement on Proposal 2-174.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12
M. D. said:But I found what your looking for.....
iwire said:M.D. Thank you, that appears to be just what I was looking for.