I have used this approach with limited success; the most common CMP response being some form of "ask the AHJ," which is what I was usually trying to avoid in the first place since I was getting conflicting interpretations.
Originally posted by charlie:
Wayne, I think the Code already permits you to do what you already want to do. However, if you make a proposal to do just that, the panel will be forced to answer with "the Code already permits what the submitter is trying to accomplish" or "no, the panel doesn't agree with the submitter" and give reasons why not. In either case, you will have an official interpretation or a changed section of the Code that will make it more clear. The Code making process is used this way all the time.
I was lead engineer on a project that covered over 200 installations ("mini-marts" for a major gasoline distributor) in 17 States and something like 70 distinct jurisdictions. I often got 6-10 different interpretations on multiple issues, especially hazardous locations. :confused:
Nevertheless, it's worth the shot and I've found it still helps me clarify my own approach to interpretations.
Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
"I know that you believe you understand what you think the NEC says, but I am not sure you realize that what you read is not what it means." (Corollary to Charlie's Rule)