3 Year NEC Cycle Too Often?

Status
Not open for further replies.
roger said:
Oh no it wouldn't, we would find something to go on about. ;)

Roger
Click to expand...

Around here?:roll:

we are still trying to figure which way the ground should go:grin:

I like HUDs adopting time line, last issue of CFR 24 3280.800 was based on the 1993 NEC the change in 2008 went with the 2005 and you think some states are slow.:cool:

I think 3 years is a little short between full changes, but critical safety issues, addressing new technology, Etc... could be done as in term amendments every year to 3 years, and the rest like the renumbering, changing words like they did in grounding sections, and moving sections around could wait till the next cycle of at least 5 years maybe more.

I think longer a cycle would allow more time to do research on proposals for the submitter and the acceptors, many proposals are shot down just because they don't have the time for this research.
 
Last edited:
LEO2854 said:
Just think from 1953,to 1959,there was a new code every year:roll:
Click to expand...


They're printed every year, even to this day. They just issue them under 3-year titles.

I happen to have a 1960 NEC. No surprise it's the same as the '59.

I have a 1957. I can't find any difference between it and my '56. And my '55 is a reprint of the '53.
 
Last edited:
480sparky said:
They're printed every year, even to this day. They just issue them under 3-year titles.

I happen to have a 1960 NEC. No surprise it's the same as the '59.

I have a 1957. I can't find any difference between it and my '56. And my '55 is a reprint of the '53.
Click to expand...


Wasn't it back in 74 or 78 when they skipped a year and went 4 years?
 
480sparky said:
They are NOW, but what do you do with a technology that ISN'T in the Code? There was a time that the Code doesn't address most of what's in your NEC now.
Click to expand...

The minimum principle still applies even when dealing with new technology. Wiring for an Ion drive is not yet covered in the NEC but it isn't prohibited either. If the techniques meet or exceed the existing state of the art then the install is acceptable.

Another example, the optical fuse using light tubes in place of copper as a fusing technology hasn't been invented yet. But when it is created then the UL listing and testing will demonstrate that it meets or exceeds the NEC requirements. Therefore it is acceptable.

renosteinke said:
<snip>
These days, it seems every non-electrician wants things spelled out to the Nth degree, just so they can second-guess the sparky. The NEC is being applied in areas for which it was never intended .... witness the insurance companies that won't insure a house with less than a 100-amp service, let alone K&T and fuses!
<snip>
The NFPA is not the AHJ, and it's time AHJ's stopped hiding behind it.
Click to expand...

Really to the heart of the issue. Political bureaucrats and Liability lawyers want lines drawn to create criminal and civil regulations. The PBs want solid lines a cop can understand to jail and fine people. The LLs want fuzzy lines to litigate. But they both want lines rather than results.

Like it or not the Tamper Resistant debate was primarily from PBs and LLs. The majority of defined injuries in the table published were for contact with damaged or improperly installed receptacles. The next big chunk were undefined. The final chunk where the receptacle was intact was a bare handful. But if you just look at the injury totals it's easy to presume that TRs are going to help. Truth is, a little but mostly not.
 
steve66 said:
The State still doesn't have to adopt the latest code.

Heck, here in Illinois we still have one State Agency going by the 1993 codes. That's the other end of the specturm. I think they are just too cheap to buy new code books.

Can you imagine what its like trying to have to try and find the 1993 versions of NFPA codes every time a violation is cited?

Steve
Click to expand...

I love my 1993 codebook. It's the older smaller book. I don't like the larger books they have now.
 
paul said:
I love my 1993 codebook. It's the older smaller book. I don't like the larger books they have now.
Click to expand...

If they kept that format the code would now look like a Graingers catalog (about 3" thick) which is anything but easy to hold or handle.
 
iwire said:
If they kept that format the code would now look like a Graingers catalog (about 3" thick) which is anything but easy to hold or handle.
Click to expand...

Yes the 1996 was 1068 pages the 2008 is 822 pages.
How many pages is the 2011 NEC ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top