2008 Code Cycle

[charlie]

As far as I am concerned, the 2008 Code Cycle is under way. We are in Chicago for our first meeting of the EEI group. Other groups (NEMA, NECA, IBEW, IEC, IEEE, IAEI, etc.) will have meetings soon if they haven't had them already, to discuss their strategy, new proposals, give instructions to new representatives, and give direction for the panel members that represent their organizations.

The deadline is the first week of November, get your proposals ready now if you are going to submit them.

 

[physis]

Re: 2008 Code Cycle

Geez.

You're right Charlie.

I want to make a single proposal and I'm not yet prepared.

I'm drawn to article 690 because it's terminology is either a disgrace or intended to make things a mysterious collection of weird words and strange sentences or it simply needs some adjustments.

If it's the latter I think I can help.

 

[bphgravity]

Re: 2008 Code Cycle

The problem I have is that the 2005 will not be adopted until July 2006 here in Florida. This means the 2008 changes are pretty much in the book before we even get to work under the 2005. The only proposals that I could submit are the ones I find inherently wrong with the code, but I will not know if there is other issues with the 2005 until we have to work under it and those issues come up.

 

[charlie]

Re: 2008 Code Cycle

Bryan, I agree with you. Indiana has not adopted the 2005 yet either and most don't have a clue what is going on with the new rules until they are red tagged.

Sam, get it on.

 

[ryan_618]

Re: 2008 Code Cycle

I've got about 30 or so ready to submit

 

[rbalex]

Re: 2008 Code Cycle

The project I'm on is operating under the 1998 California Electrical Code which is based on the 1996 NEC. Still, I have about a dozen 2008 Proposals that I'm definitely planning to lobby during the Comment stage, if necessary.

In fact, I think the Comment stage is what will be critical on this Forum since we will have a better chance than in the past toi get the word out critical Proposals.

 

[peter d]

Re: 2008 Code Cycle

It seems like the code making and revising process operates at a far greater speed than many states and municipalities that ultimately adopt it.

This year, many states have surprised me and adopted the '05 rather quickly, but there are still many laggards out there.

I'm sure this is totally obvious, and I haven't a clue what could be done about it. Certainly trying to make change in a huge state like California isn't going to happen overnight, or even within a year.

From my perspective, the introduction of new code while the old code is still being figured out tends to introduce a state of mass confusion in many end users, be it inspectors or electricians.

I'm certainly not advocating dumbing anything down or chaning the process. But do the code making panels really need to review the many "make multiwire branch circuits illegal" proposals cycle after cycle when the issue has long ago been settled?

[ August 15, 2005, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: peter d ]

 

[physis]

Re: 2008 Code Cycle

Peter, California's just plain out to lunch. It's that simple. :roll:

 

[physis]

Re: 2008 Code Cycle

You guys know that I feel disenfranchised.

You also know that I wonder if all this bureaucracy and I can even get along in the first place.

I respect pretty much all of you guys. So I'm interested your opinions.

I really am interested in improving things. What should I do to focus my efforts in a more productive direction? I mean aside from not complaining. (Good luck with that)

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 2008 Code Cycle

Originally posted by peter d:
From my perspective, the introduction of new code while the old code is still being figured out tends to introduce a state of mass confusion in many end users, be it inspectors or electricians.

I just don't understand why the current edition of the NEC can't be adopted immediately, in California or Rhode Island.

Let's face it, half the field (inspectors and electricians alike) are working from old knowledge of code that is getting corrected frequently anyway. They open their new black, or new red code book that's been collecting dust on their dash for six months to look up something they already know, to discover they didn't know it anymore.

That's half the reason "my inspector passed it" is a pretty flimsy code argument. Requirements change. I'll bet most swimming pools are installed to a hodgepodge (to the stricter side) of '99, '02, and '05 code. Just because they're hard to read, and difficult to maintain a current read on.

It's up to all of us to continue to search the code and never trust our memories.

Just my opinion.

 

[charlie]

Re: 2008 Code Cycle

George, the way I remember the process in Indiana, we have to first go through all the Indiana amendments, give notice of a public hearing, have it, give notice of a second one, have it, make recommendations to the State Building Commission, send the final Code to State Attorney General, and then adopt it into law. By statute, this takes a lot of time and it can't be changed without changing the statute.

 

[physis]

Re: 2008 Code Cycle

Let me offer a different perspective behind California finding itself not capable of keeping up.

Is someone benefiting somewhere?

Because the reality of it is, the state of California couldn't care less
who does or doesn't understand anything.

 

[hmspe]

Re: 2008 Code Cycle

You should be in Arizona, where, because of "home rule", each city and each county adopts whatever Code they choose, with whatever amendments seem good at the time. I think everyone has finally moved past the '93, but the '96 is still used in some areas. Adopting newer Codes doesn't seem to generate much interest in most jurisdictions -- the process takes a lot of time and a lot of man-hours, and most jurisdictions are understaffed. Since the jurisdictions don't like to give up control, I doubt that this method of Code adoption will change.