2008 tia

Status
Not open for further replies.

480sparky

Senior Member
Location
Iowegia
While meandering around the NFPA website, I stumbled across a TIA for the 2008.

Nothing earthshattering to write home about. Just a deletion in Art. 645 that referred to the now-gone 42-space panelboard limit.
 

cadpoint

Senior Member
Location
Durham, NC
Why are TIA's, put out like that ?

Does the issue itself cause this to be done?

Any body got a layman's answer on this (other than going and reading the subcommittees rules) ?

:D
 

480sparky

Senior Member
Location
Iowegia
Why are TIA's, put out like that ?

Does the issue itself cause this to be done?

Any body got a layman's answer on this (other than going and reading the subcommittees rules) ?

:D
That one has me baffled as well. Why not just put it in the errata? It seems so trivial.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
That one has me baffled as well. Why not just put it in the errata? It seems so trivial.
Errata is for just that...typos in the book, not for actual code changes which this is. I assume that there was a computer power panel manufacturer that wanted to build a panel with more than 42 spaces and he could not without this code change. This is a tentative change and will become part of the process for the 2011 NEC.
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/Standards Council/FD08-7-36-dD08-17NFPA70.pdf
 

480sparky

Senior Member
Location
Iowegia
Errata is for just that...typos in the book, not for actual code changes which this is. I assume that there was a computer power panel manufacturer that wanted to build a panel with more than 42 spaces and he could not without this code change. This is a tentative change and will become part of the process for the 2011 NEC.
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/Standards%20Council/FD08-7-36-dD08-17NFPA70.pdf
Don, I see what you're saying, but this TIA appears to address what I consider a typo.... a reference to a requirement that no longer exists.

Let's pretend T310.16 is renumbered T310.1601 for the 2011. The table is referred to several times throughout the Code. If a reference to T310.16 is somehow overlooked, I'd call that a typo because it never got changed.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Don, I see what you're saying, but this TIA appears to address what I consider a typo.... a reference to a requirement that no longer exists.
The code section that the TIA applies to does not reference a section that has been deleted. It is a stand alone code rule that limits the number of OCPDs in a panel to 42.
645.17 Power Distribution Units.
Power distribution units that are used for information technology equipment shall be permitted to have multiple panelboards within a single cabinet, provided that each panelboard has no more than 42 overcurrent devices and the power distribution unit is utilization equipment listed for information technology application.
The fact that the rule has been removed in Article 408 has no effect on this rule as the Chapter 6 rules modify the Chapter 1 through 4 rules. With the removal of the rule in 408 there is no technical reason for the rule to remain in 645, but the fact that it was left there in not a typo. The removal requires panel action just like any code change proposal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top