Food for thuoght

[jwelectric]

The NEC Process

The NEC is developed through a consensus process approved by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Any person of the public can summit a proposal for a change to the NEC. All proposals are organized by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and sent to the nineteen Technical Committees also known a Code-Making Panels (CMP). The Code-Making Panels will take one of five actions on the proposals; accept, accept in principle, accept in part, accept in principle in part or reject. Should the Code-Making Panel reject a proposal they must issue a written explanation on the rejected proposal. It takes a two thirds approval vote in order to take action on a proposal.
A report on the proposals is sent to the Technical Correlating Committee where they check for any conflicting actions. The Report on Proposals is then written and distributed.
Comments on the ROP are then made and organized by the NFPA and returned to the Code-Making Panels. Again these meetings are open to all who are interested. At this stage there is one more action that the CMP can take. The CMP can put a comment on Hold which would return it to the next code cycle as a proposal. The CMP will then return the comments to the Technical Correlating Committee where they will check them again for conflicts before returning them to NFPA for approval. Any amendments made by the NFPA will be sent back to the proper CMP for their approval.
A couple points of interest about this process, one is that beside each name of the CMP listed in the front of the NEC is a letter in brackets, example John Doe [SE]. Here is an abbreviated list of these letters; M-Manufactures, U-Users, I/M-Installers & Maintainers, R/T- Researchers & Testers, E- Inspectors Enforcers. Take note that ?AHJ? is not in any CMP, I suppose that the code makers call the ?inspector? inspector. Second, there seems to be a lot of manufactures, ?sellers?.

Edited to say
Comments on accuracy are welcome.

[ January 22, 2005, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]

 

[charlie]

Re: Food for thuoght

You might also take a look here at my comment posted January 22, 2005 06:56 PM.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Food for thuoght

Sorry Charlie, I missed this thread I have been really busy for the past couple of weeks. I am all for the change in 250 with a better explanation of bonding and grounding.

Is my post correct or does it need twigging?

 

[charlie]

Re: Food for thuoght

Looks OK to me.

 

[physis]

Re: Food for thuoght

The CMP can put a comment on Hold which would return it to the next code cycle as a proposal

Can I ask Charlie or JW to verify if my assumption that "comment" here should be proposal?


I'm actually not nit picking, although it even looks that way to me.

 

[charlie]

Re: Food for thuoght

JW is correct . . . mostly.

A comment will make a request to do something with a proposal. If the comment is to change the proposal's intent and that new language with the new direction has not had public review, the comment will be held until the next cycle. This can be done by the CMP (Technical Committee) or the TCC will place it on hold. The action on the comment will automatically include the proposal.

Another situation is where an issue gets bogged down in the CMP to the point that it can not be resolved in the time allotted, the CMP can place it on hold and assign a task force to look at the issue. The task force may then talk to whomever the members desire to get additional information. They will meet, sometimes more than once, to see if they can reach a consensus. The task force will then make a recommendation to the CMP in the form of a new proposal. The proposal will address the held comments and proposals. This is the process that the task force on the grounding/bonding conductor issue is using.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Food for thuoght

Thank you Charlie for your response to Sam about Comments, I have a class that is in Codeology (I hope that is a word) and wasn?t sure just how it worked when there was a dispute on a comment. I posted my thoughts on how the process worked to get input for my class.

When the CMP can?t agree on the comment stage they appoint the Task Committee to investigate and come to a conclusion?

The last part of my post is the consensus of the 21 students taking NEC class, the part with the letters beside the panelist names. I had never though about that very much.
:roll:

 

[physis]

Re: Food for thuoght

Ok, it seemed strange to put a comment on hold.

 

[charlie]

Re: Food for thuoght

When the CMP can't agree on the comment stage they appoint the Task Committee to investigate and come to a conclusion?

That is correct but they have no authority to make a change. They essentially report back to the panel with a report and a proposal.

Sam, the proposal is included.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Food for thuoght

thanks Charlie, The class ans myself thank you for clearing this up for us

 

[physis]

Re: Food for thuoght

Now I'm confused again. Is it:

[A] The comment

The proposal

[C] The comment and the proposal

that is put on hold?

Edit: I'm not trying to be difficult I'm just an ameture at the process.

[ January 23, 2005, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: physis ]

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Food for thuoght

I'm thinking the comment has the proposal stapled to it, if I understand Charlie correctly.

 

[physis]

Re: Food for thuoght

I'm just trying not to guess cause my first guess was wrong.

 

[charlie]

Re: Food for thuoght

George is essentially correct as I understand the process. Don't forget, I have demonstrated that I make mistakes.

 

[physis]

Re: Food for thuoght

So I'm not gonna get a solid answer on this am I?

That's pretty much the way I figured it too.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Food for thuoght

If I understand the process the way it goes is a proposal is made for a code change. This is sent to NFPA and they organize them and send them to the CMP who in turn sends them to the TCC. A report on the proposals is published and the comment stage begins with the same thing happening all over again. This time the CMP can ?HOLD? the ?comment? and appoint a Task Committee to investigate and argue over the comment which will be brought back next code cycle as a proposal.
Example is 680.26 (C) 2005 has been bounced around for a couple of cycles. Rumor had it in 2002 that the electrical contractor was going to have to bond the water in the pool. The NRTL?s were having a hard time approving a connector that could be tightened down around the water drops. (a little humor)

 

[charlie]

Re: Food for thuoght

Yep, although it sounds strange to send it to the TCC. The TCC does look over our shoulders and do send comments back to the panels. They also sent panel actions to other panels for additional information. I guess you are indeed correct in that it is sent to the TCC.

 

[physis]

Re: Food for thuoght

So, I'm seeing this now as the comment itself being held over until the next cycle therefore not having an effect on the proposal during the current cycle.

I hope I'm not just off in left field and belaboring this to death.

 

[charlie]

Re: Food for thuoght

I think we are getting stuck on semantics. By holding the comment, the proposal is held as well.

 

[rbalex]

Re: Food for thuoght

The "formal" process is outlined in Section 4 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects(Regs)

This web page has several other important links.

"Holds" during my tenure on various NFPA TCs were limited to "new material" introduced during the Comment stage.

With regard to "Interests" the various Committee Membership Classifcations are listed on page 775 of the standard softbound edition of the 2005 NEC. Several organizations are represented on every CMP. IAEI is one of them and could be considered to represent "AHJ."

It should be noted that these classifications are guidelines and are not formally included in the "Regs." They are mentioned in the "Standards Council Selection Process".