Delete 210.21(B)(2)

[George Stolz]

1.) NEC Section/Paragraph: 210.21 (B)(2), & Table 210.21 (B)(2)
2.) Proposal Recommends: [deleted text]
3.) Proposal: Delete the text and chart.
4.) Substantiation: Item (1) and (3) address receptacle ratings, whereas Item (2) addresses connected loads, which are more appropriately and already addressed in 210.23(A)(1). Section 210.21 (B)(2) is redundant.

[ March 25, 2005, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Delete 210.21(B)(2)

So, am I that smart or that retarded?

[ March 23, 2005, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Delete 210.21(B)(2)

 

[charlie]

Re: Delete 210.21(B)(2)

I am not sure I totally agree with the removal since I don't know how it would effect other areas of the Code (I didn't look that far). I would change the substantiation a little. Overall, this looks like a good proposal that may fly.

"4.) Substantiation: Item (1) and (3) in 210.21(B) address receptacle ratings, whereas Item (2) addresses connected loads, which are more appropriately and already addressed in 210.23(A)(1). Section 210.21 (B)(2) is redundant."

 

[rbalex]

Re: Delete 210.21(B)(2)

I agree with Charlie that the "substance" is worthwhile. One thing in the substantiation you may want to add to cover Charlie's coordination concern is a statement tp the effect that you have reviewed other potential conflicts (make sure you actually have ) Today, with searchable text, make sure no other Sections cross reference not just the text you want removed but the entire Section (210.21) its included in. Sometime conflicts get buried that way.

Keep this in mind for the Comment stage. If your Proposal is rejected, review the Panel Statement to see if they have identified a conflict rather than "technical" grounds. Since you are recommending wholesale deletion, its hard to say how "revising" the Proposal would reconcile the conflict; however, also check the conflicting text and see if any Proposals were made on it. You may be able to resolve a conflict with a Comment on the referenced Section's Proposal.

Just so you know, wholesale deletions are one of the hardest things to substantiate unless you can show the current text is actually in error or it is truly redundant. "Redundancy" is a very good reason though, because it reduces potential future conflicts.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Delete 210.21(B)(2)

Hmm...wish I had an electronic version of the NEC...

1.) NEC Section/Paragraph: 210.21 (B)(2), & Table 210.21 (B)(2)
2.) Proposal Recommends: [deleted text]
3.) Proposal: Delete the text and chart.
4.) Substantiation: Item (1) and (3) in 210.21(B) address receptacle ratings, whereas Item (2) addresses connected loads, which are more appropriately and already addressed in 210.23(A)(1). Section 210.21 (B)(2) is redundant.

So, anybody wanna do a search so I can state I looked? I'll pay ya a quarter...

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Delete 210.21(B)(2)

Thank youse guys, Charlie and Bob, for the replies.

 

[mc5w]

Re: Delete 210.21(B)(2)

I think that the table should be retained for 2 reasons:

1. Some people think that you are allowed to put 15 amps of load on a 15 amp circuit. This can be a matter of being 40 years out of date like I one time lost my job to a blind electrician.

2. Redundancy sometimes helps and having some data and calculation in tabular form helps with finding the answer. If you do something often enough you would do well to make yourself a crib sheet not to mention that some people are not quite so smart as we are.

 

[iwire]

Re: Delete 210.21(B)(2)

Originally posted by mc5w:
Some people think that you are allowed to put 15 amps of load on a 15 amp circuit.

Do you mean circuit or receptacle?

As far as circuits go you can certainly have 15 amps of load on a 15 amp circuit.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Delete 210.21(B)(2)

Originally posted by mc5w:
If you do something often enough you would do well to make yourself a crib sheet not to mention that some people are not quite so smart as we are.

If someone can't calculate 80% of something, a table isn't going to help, IMO.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Delete 210.21(B)(2)

1.) NEC Section/Paragraph: 210.21 (B)(2), & Table 210.21 (B)(2)
2.) Proposal Recommends: [deleted text]
3.) Proposal: Delete the text and chart.
4.) Substantiation: Item (1) and (3) in 210.21(B) address receptacle ratings, whereas Item (2) addresses connected loads, which are more appropriately and already addressed in 210.23(A)(1). Section 210.21 (B)(2) is redundant.

The following sections reference this section and would need to be amended to either reference 210.21 in general, or 210.23:

210.21, the FPN to 406.2(B), 406.3(A), 520.9, 530.21(A), Index: Heavy Duty Lampholders, and Index: Maximum Connected Load to Receptacles

No coordinating proposal will be submitted to request these amendments.