1-14 Log #225 NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject

[electsafeman]

Please send in a comment to ACCEPT this proposal, thank you!

1-14 Log #225 NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject
(90.2(A))
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Joseph A. Tedesco, Boston, MA
Recommendation: Revise as follows:
90.2 Scope (A) Covered. This code covers the installation and use of
electrical...no change.
Substantiation: See 110.3(B) Installation and Use.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The submitter?s substantiation does not account for the fact
that 110.3(B) refers only to listed equipment.
See the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects Section 4.3.3 that
states that proposals must include a statement of the problem and substantiation
for the proposal.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Negative: 2
Explanation of Negative:
HICKMAN, P.: We conclude that the submitter?s reference to 110.3(B) was
offered as an example of where ?and use? is used to substantiate the
recommendation and agree with the submitter that the scope of the document
should include ?and use? since the NEC does cover use as well as installation.
MCMAHILL, L.: This proposal should have been accepted. Although the
submitter did not provide clear substantiation for the proposed change, it is
apparent that parallel structure from one code section to another is the intent.
By accepting the change, parallel structure would have been attained.

 

[infinity]

Joe,

Care to explain exactly what you're getting at with this proposal?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I think the "use" is far outside the intended scope of the NEC. It is also my opinion that enforcement of any rules that cover the "use" of installed equipment would not normally be inspected and would make this provision unenforceable. At least one CMP is on record saying that you can't put unenforceable rules in the NEC.

...Unenforceable requirements must not be inserted into the NEC.

From comment 3-30 for the 2008 code.

 

[charlie]

Joe, you are well aware of the fact that most CMPs don't bother with 'votes' to accept a particular proposal. Additionally, this portion of the forum is normally to help with the wording and structure of a proposal or comment. Since you have not offered a comment for us to comment on, do you intend to do so in the near future? The reason I am asking is that your proposal was rejected. It is now up to you or anyone else who is interested to write an intelligent comment with substantiation concerning the rejected proposal. You also have to keep in mind that new language may not be submitted since it will not have the benefit of public review.

 

[electsafeman]

NEC Comment

NEC Comment

This is an exact copy that I sent in to NFPA and it already has many supporters, including IBEW and IAEI. Please let the members of this forum decide. You make some good points though. I believe that it will be accepted.


FORM FOR COMMENT FOR 2011 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE?
INSTRUCTIONS ? PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

Type or print legibly in black ink. Use a separate copy for each comment Limit
each comment to a SINGLE section. All comments must be received by NFPA by
5 p.m., EDST, Friday, October 23, 2009, to be considered for the 2011 National
Electrical Code. Comments received after 5:00 p.m., EDST, Friday, October 23, 2009,
will be returned to the submitter. If supplementary material (photographs, diagrams, reports, etc.) is
included, you may be required to submit sufficient copies for all members and alternates of the
technical committee.
For technical assistance, please call NFPA at 1-800-344-3555.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Log #:
Date Rec?d:
Please indicate in which format you wish to receive your ROP/ROC electronic paper download
(Note: If choosing the download option, you must view the ROP/ROC from our website; no copy will be sent to you.)
Date Name Tel. No.
Company Email
Street Address City State Zip
***If you wish to receive a hard copy, a street address MUST be provided. Deliveries cannot be made to PO boxes.
Please indicate organization represented (if any)
1. Section/Paragraph
2. Comment on Proposal No. (from ROP):
3. Comment recommends (check one): new text revised text deleted text
4. Comment (include proposed new or revised wording, or identification of wording to be deleted): [Note: Proposed text should be in
legislative format; i.e., use underscore to denote wording to be inserted (inserted wording) and strike-through to denote wording to be deleted
(deleted wording).]

Accept the proposal so the 2011 NEC will read as follows:
"90.2(A) Covered. This Code covers the installation and use of electrical conductors, equipment, and raceways; signaling and
communications conductors, equipment, and raceways; and optical fiber cables and raceways for the following:" no further changes

5. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Comment: (Note: State the problem that would be resolved by your recommendation; give the specific
reason for your Comment, including copies of tests, research papers, fire experience, etc. If more than 200 words, it may be abstracted for publication.)

In addition to 110.3(B), see the 2009 UL White book, Marking Guides, and correlation between these documents via the internet.

http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/offerings/perspectives/regulator/ccd/

http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/offerings/perspectives/regulator/electrical/

6. Copyright Assignment

(a) I am the author of the text or other material (such as illustrations, graphs) proposed in the Comment.

(b) Some or all of the text or other material proposed in this Comment was not authored by me. Its source is as follows:

(please identify which material and provide complete information on its source)
I hereby grant and assign to the NFPA all and full rights in copyright in this Comment and understand that I acquire no rights in any publication of NFPA
in which this Comment in this or another similar or analogous form is used. Except to the extent that I do not have authority to make an assignment in
materials that I have identified in (b) above, I hereby warrant that I am the author of this Comment and that I have full power and authority to enter into
this assignment.

Signature (Required) __________________________________________

PLEASE USE SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH COMMENT

Mail to: Secretary, Standards Council ? National Fire Protection Association
1 Batterymarch Park ? Quincy, MA 02169-7471 OR
Fax to: (617) 770-3500 OR Email to: proposals_comments@nfpa.org

 

[charlie]

1. it already has many supporters, including IBEW and IAEI
2. Accept the proposal so the 2011 NEC will read as follows: "90.2(A) Covered. This Code covers the installation and use of electrical conductors, equipment, and raceways; signaling and communications conductors, equipment, and raceways; and optical fiber cables and raceways for the following:"
3. In addition to 110.3(B), see the 2009 UL White book, Marking Guides, and correlation between these documents via the Internet. http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/offerings/perspectives/regulator/ccd/, http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/offerings/perspectives/regulator/electrical/

1. I doubt you have the support of the IAEI since that will not happen until the section meetings and processed through the IAEI. I don't know what the process is with the IBEW. I suspect you have the support of a few members but not either organization.
2. This is a huge change in the scope of the NEC and, I doubt, the TCC will ever agree to such a sweeping change. As stated by the panel, how do you enforce the actual use? The NEC has always been an installation document and other standards cover the use of installed materials.
3. Good references for my second point.

 

[nakulak]

I think that this is an interesting proposal, but the author's intent (in its entirety) is beyond my current level of understanding - I would love to see a short list of some of the ramifications that this proposal intends to address ?
Its my opinion that there are many areas of the NEC that do address the use, and I can see some areas where this would be a clarification; yet I also see the point that this could be a sweeping change, although possibly unenforceable, especially under the consideration that once a use and occupancy, or final inspection is approved there are hurdles to enforcing such a code. It should also be noted that if the intent is to enforce dangerous installations which are in use, that power is probably a de facto power already in existance from most jurisdictions and certainly by the federal gov.

 

[weressl]

Please send in a comment to ACCEPT this proposal, thank you!

1-14 Log #225 NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject
(90.2(A))
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Joseph A. Tedesco, Boston, MA
Recommendation: Revise as follows:
90.2 Scope (A) Covered. This code covers the installation and use of
electrical...no change.
Substantiation: See 110.3(B) Installation and Use.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The submitter?s substantiation does not account for the fact
that 110.3(B) refers only to listed equipment.
See the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects Section 4.3.3 that
states that proposals must include a statement of the problem and substantiation
for the proposal.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Negative: 2
Explanation of Negative:
HICKMAN, P.: We conclude that the submitter?s reference to 110.3(B) was
offered as an example of where ?and use? is used to substantiate the
recommendation and agree with the submitter that the scope of the document
should include ?and use? since the NEC does cover use as well as installation.
MCMAHILL, L.: This proposal should have been accepted. Although the
submitter did not provide clear substantiation for the proposed change, it is
apparent that parallel structure from one code section to another is the intent.
By accepting the change, parallel structure would have been attained.

This would further the over-reach of the NEC as it tries to usurp and elevate itself to Federally Mandated powers and further degrade the States' right to self-governance. The CMP had completely missed this in their comment.

 

[iwire]

This would further the over-reach of the NEC as it tries to usurp and elevate itself to Federally Mandated powers and further degrade the States' right to self-governance. The CMP had completely missed this in their comment.

How would that change (which I am against anyway) degrade the States' right to self-governance?

Each area chooses to adopt the NEC or not, Chicago for example does not use the NEC at all.

Even if an area adopts the NEC they are free to amend it, here we have about 60 amendments to the NEC.

 

[mivey]

"Use" having more than one meaning. I'm thinking more like "for use" vs "being used". I'm not quite sure how to phrase that.

 

[weressl]

How would that change (which I am against anyway) degrade the States' right to self-governance?

Wouldn't you agree if I tell you what pen to use I would attempt to deny your right to choose whatever pen you would like to use?

If I also were to tell you how to use such a pen, like write with your left hand if you're right handed or vice-versa, that would be further interference in your right?

Do you follow events as States, one after the other, (re)declaring their right for self-governance?

It is for the same reason - among many - that OSHA can not adapt the NEC.