If you have an account with NFPA, and you sign in with that account, I believe the system will automatically enter the information from your profile. If you don't have an account, when you set it up, just enter your name without any other information. If you already have an account with a profile containing information you don't want, you may be able to set up a new account with a different email address.
Thanks. Isn't it the case too that at this stage, you can only submit a proposed revision for a vote on your exact text? Meaning you can't make a comment on the problem with something, make a suggestion on the text, and expect that if the committee members can't agree to your text but agree there's an issue to be addressed with the draft text, that they will consider an alternate text revision? If this is true, can you make multiple public comments on the same thing, so if they can't agree to one option they can consider the other?
You can suggest changes that do not introduce new concepts of ideas at this point. You can modify a rejected PI to make it clear, or to address the concerns addressed in the panel statement, but you can't add new ideas.
In my NFPA account, I leave the Organization blank so when I submit comments it is blank there.
At the Public Comment stage, you can in theory only comment on the changes that have been proposed in the first draft. In your comment there is a place to provide the input you are commenting on, that can be a PI, FN, CN, etc. While technically you cannot introduce new information at this stage, if there is already a comment on what you want to provide a new input on you can often write your comment in such a way that it introduces new information while commenting on an existing input. I see this pretty often. Then of course there are all kinds of internal task groups and the CMP itself who can introduce new changes at this stage.
If you introduce something totally new, the CMP should not accept it. Sometimes that happens, but then when they do, that sometimes gets reversed by the Correlating Committee.
I've seen it happen many times in past revisions. Changes are made after the comment stage by the CMP and just show up in the final code.
Some times that has happened, but it is not permitted. Sometimes the change is based on something that happened with the actual vote at the annual meeting, or actions by the correlating committee or standards council, but even there there should be no new material introduced. Some of these actions the come out of the annual meeting result in the text reverting back to what was in the previous code.
Don't care if they happened or not...they are not permitted by the NFPA rules and by the ANSI rules governing consensus standards. I have been told that lots of strange things have happened since they went to TerraView.
I think that’s the problem. It seems like the code in a lot of ways is being written to be more confusing nowadays and it’s surprising to me the number of times when they supposedly revise something to clarify something and end up with a piece of text and the final version that doesn’t clarify it at all, communicates something else, and then has to be revised again the next time. There’s a lot of people on the committees it seems pushing for changes just to drive more business to their company and there’s a lot of people that submit public inputs for that purpose as well. Just look at the mess with definitions this time around. It seems there was little to no public input on that one. The committee that accepted the proposal to do so put in a statement that it was not within its jurisdiction to reject it. Therefore any public comments that were made concerning that weren’t even considered because they didn’t even debate it.
Other than changing the actual text of a definition, or combining definitions of the same or similar terms, the move to place all definitions in Article 100 was not from a public input.
Yes yes yes exactly. The NFPA decided it wasn’t for public input. I’d point out that adoption of NFPA standards is voluntary. If they don’t care about user friendliness for the code, then they might pay for that one day. Other countries sometimes decide to adopt it and they are more likely than US states to decide to adopt something else if they fine the standard less relevant or user friendly. Eventually trades people won’t rely on having a copy of the code and will instead rely on heavily engineered designs and guidelines about electrical work that may include how to follow the code. The code will become some high and lofty document that only engineers have, just like the other IEEE standards that they may have. In time there will be even less industry input. If enough time persist with it becoming less and less user-friendly and thereby less and less user relevant perhaps the day will come when jurisdictions in the US will adopt a different standard.
Every other NFPA standard, and many other standards, have the definitions set up like the NEC is going to be in the 2023 edition.
The correlating committee looked at that before the first draft was published, and there were task groups assigned to work on public comments that would eliminate some of the multiple definitions of the same term. If the changes needed to fix things are editorial and not technical or if there was a PI to make a change in the definition, some of these will be completed for the 2023 cycle.
