2011 NEC Errata

[jumper]

If anyone is interested, the first errata for 2011 was put on the website.

I am not sure if this link will work or not. You may need to sign in. (it is free)

http://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/70/Errata70-11-1.pdf

 

[infinity]

The link worked.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Thanks Derek

 

[480sparky]

I guess the '08 was perfect because an errata was never issued for it.

 

[tkb]

I just downloaded the 2011 NECH from the NFPA yesterday and it looks like it has been revised to include the Errata.

I can't figure out the following statement.

A first printing is indicated by the numeral 1as the last digit in the line of number appearing at the bottom of the first page.

Is it the 3 at the end of the electronic product number?

 

[tom baker]

Keep in mind if you have a violation due to an errata, and you don't know about the change, you could be on the hook.
At least thats what our AHJs had stated back in the 05 cycle. Sometimes there are some important erratas...and some are just typos

 

[bullheimer]

tom baker your name is killing me on this website because the last house i wired was for Baker Construction out of anacortes. his first name? You got it. (too).

he is a great guy and a great customer too. will be doing even more work for him soon.

thanks very much for this jumper, i got it printed and inserted into my handy dandy Handbook.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

They didn't catch the fact that the printing of the code missed section 690.62. It was added in the ROP, not changed at the ROC, and not removed by floor action or action of the Standards Council.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

They didn't catch the fact that the printing of the code missed section 690.62. It was added in the ROP, not changed at the ROC, and not removed by floor action or action of the Standards Council.

You mean there is an errata to the errata? :grin:

 

[al hildenbrand]

Is it the 3 at the end of the electronic product number?

Nope. It's the number three lines below that.

The last number is removed each time a new re-printing is prepared. The number removed is the number of the previous printing.

So, in the example you post, above, with the last number being "1", indicates a first printing.

 

[jwelectric]

Wonder why the errata did not include 215.2(A)(4) and the reference to Paragraph 310.15(B)(6)? Shouldn?t that be (7)?

 

[mbeatty]

Wonder why the errata did not include 215.2(A)(4) and the reference to Paragraph 310.15(B)(6)? Shouldn?t that be (7)?

I believe you are correct.
Mark