NFPA "Interests"

[rbalex]

I?ve posted in this section because the issue isn?t NEC specific and there?s no ?General? section. (And I'm an engineer) I?ve been in this forum long enough that I value the opinions and insights of its regular contributors ? whether I always agree with them or not.

I?ve been mulling this over for some time now (nearly eight years, actually) and I?ll readily admit I have an agenda. To properly discuss the issue I have in mind, it?s necessary to be familiar with the NFPA GUIDELINES TO CLASSIFICATION OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS It?s less than a page long and fairly easy to understand. Make sure you read the ?NOTES? carefully too; especially NOTE 3.

I believe the definition of ?User? is so broad it applies to all other ?Classifications? with the possible exception of ?Consumer? ? even ?Special Experts? although they are supposedly excluded by definition.

What do you think?

I?ll let the discussion stew a few days or so, before I get to my ultimate point.

 

[ron]

Re: NFPA "Interests"

Sounds fair that they would want to classify participants in some manner to help afford diversity in the committee.

I'm interested in where you are going on this, as I have just applied to be part of the 70E technical committee. I do not recall if I listed (or there was a place to list) a classification for myself, although now I guess I would be a user.

 

[charlie b]

Re: NFPA "Interests"

I am an engineer, and my role is design and construction support. I don't consider myself a "special expert," so "User" is the only classification that could apply to me. I can't think of an occupation within our industry, other than my own, that would not fall into one of the "obvious" categories (i.e., manufacturer, installer, enforcing authority, etc.). So I have to wonder whether you and I, and our ilk, are the intended members of the classification "user."

 

[sandsnow]

Re: NFPA "Interests"

I think it could apply to a developer. Someone who build residential or commercial developments and sells them off.
After looking at the committees, I see that IEEE member are listed most as users, with the American Chemistry Council also. Those chemists are listed a lot. What's their interest in the electrical code? probably some obvious connection I can't see
So I'm guessing that Bob has an issue with engineers as users ???

 

[charlie]

Re: NFPA "Interests"

I am not sure where this is going but my designation is UT and our purpose is to protect our interests (the same as all panel members) and to look after the interests of our customers. To that end, we attempt to prevent the eroding of 90.2(B)(5) and anything that will increase the costs to our customers unless the value in safety is proven.

An example of the first is the commercial parking lot lighting issue.

An example of the second is the expanded use of plastics and type NM cable.

Since you are specifically pointing out note 3 and UT is not listed, what are you fishing for?

 

[rbalex]

Re: NFPA "Interests"

Originally posted by sandsnow:
...
So I'm guessing that Bob has an issue with engineers as users

Charlie,
I was only pointing out there is a specially created interest for utilities - I definitely have no desire to remove them. I just want representation too. In my appointments I never represented my "Interest" as a design professional. I represented my clients (owner-operators) on Panel 11 and my construction trade organization on Panel 14 and 70E. During this time I discovered my "Interest" is virtually non-represented. I was occasionally permitted to sneak my design cap on, but you would be surprised at some of the conflicts I had - especially with my clients. I actually had less conflict with the contractors. I'll deal with this more in my next topic.