Public Input Procedure

[Christoph]

Hello Friends,

I have currently passed my master exam and am a registered Master Electrician in my town now. Went through Mike Holts' Library to prepare and I must say it was worth every one of the $1,800 I spent on it.

Anyway ... as Mike points out I am wanting to be a contributor and make a public input to propose a change to the code. I have read the instructions on NFPA.org and I see that the deadline for the second draft inputs ended August 19, 2021.

Question: Do I just hold on to my suggestion for three years ir is there a way to record my input? Does anyone have experience with Public Input or getting involved in the code making process? Would be happy about any pointers.

Thank you for everyone in participating in this. Glad to be part of the community.

 

[tom baker]

Congratulations!
You won’t be able to submit any comments for the 2021 NEC. You can wait and see if those sections you wanted to comment on were changed and make those comments for the 2026 cycle. We have a topic on this forum for changes to the NEC and that is the best place to start.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The system will open up for 2026 inputs shortly after the 2023 code is published...so you should be able to submit a Public Input in September or October of this year for the 2026 code. All PIs for the 2026 code will have to be submitted by early September of 2023 if they follow the same schedule as they have in the recent past.

 

[tom baker]

Don follows the code changes closely and we are fortunate to have him as a moderator. IMO, the code change process has gotten more complicated recently. I have had a few good changes accepted, one for an article, and another for a GFCI requirement. And I have had quite a few rejected.

 

[paulengr]

Hello Friends,

I have currently passed my master exam and am a registered Master Electrician in my town now. Went through Mike Holts' Library to prepare and I must say it was worth every one of the $1,800 I spent on it.

Anyway ... as Mike points out I am wanting to be a contributor and make a public input to propose a change to the code. I have read the instructions on NFPA.org and I see that the deadline for the second draft inputs ended August 19, 2021.

Question: Do I just hold on to my suggestion for three years ir is there a way to record my input? Does anyone have experience with Public Input or getting involved in the code making process? Would be happy about any pointers.

Thank you for everyone in participating in this. Glad to be part of the community.

You CAN put them in out if sequence but if you do and they get accepted, it gets “accepted in principle” with an explanation that they are going to just hold it until the next cycle.

Usually if you submit during the proper (before first draft) you have a better chance of acceptance. 2nd draft is really for two purposes. Either you are commenting on the draft (editorial comment) or you are responding to your original public input and the response.

I’ve submitted and got a couple accepted for 70E.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

You CAN put them in out if sequence but if you do and they get accepted, it gets “accepted in principle” with an explanation that they are going to just hold it until the next cycle.

Usually if you submit during the proper (before first draft) you have a better chance of acceptance. 2nd draft is really for two purposes. Either you are commenting on the draft (editorial comment) or you are responding to your original public input and the response.

I’ve submitted and got a couple accepted for 70E.

The only way to get something changed in the NEC out of sequence is by a Tentative Interim Amendment.

There is no more "accepted in principle" for the NEC. Now the only panel actions for the NEC are accept, resolve (reject), or resolved but see. The resolved but see would be like the accepted in principle that existed in the past...they accepted the idea but made changes in the idea, the language, or both. The but see would send you to a first or second revision depending on if it is being applied to a public input or a public comment.

Nothing new is permitted to be introduced in the second revision, but you can comment on a resolved PI and bring it back to life in the second revision.

 

[infinity]

The new system is terrible. They have made the process more convoluted and more difficult for no good reason. It's such a pile of crap that I no longer bother even wasting my time writing them. I know others who feel the same way.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The new system is terrible. They have made the process more convoluted and more difficult for no good reason. It's such a pile of crap that I no longer bother even wasting my time writing them. I know others who feel the same way.

I see putting in proposals (public inputs) as much easier with the new system, but the biggest issue I have is you have to seek out the resolved (rejected) public inputs to comment on them. The number of comments has gone down as a result. In the past, it was common for a rejected item in the ROP (now first revision) to be accepted in the ROC (now second revision)

 

[Hv&Lv]

The new system is terrible. They have made the process more convoluted and more difficult for no good reason. It's such a pile of crap that I no longer bother even wasting my time writing them. I know others who feel the same way.

Hear, hear!

I’ve had one accepted way back when, but like others, had many rejected.
I quit when it became too aggravating to go through the process.

Hey, maybe they did that on purpose to get less proposals…

 

[petersonra]

Hear, hear!

I’ve had one accepted way back when, but like others, had many rejected.
I quit when it became too aggravating to go through the process.

Hey, maybe they did that on purpose to get less proposals…

They don't really want public input. All they really care about is input from the manufacturers and the other people who have money to make.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I don't understand how anyone sees the process to put in a change with the new system as being more difficult. I see it at much easier. There are other parts of the new process that I have issues with, but not the PI part.

The number of proposed changes has not dropped with the new input system, but the number of public comments has.

 

[kwired]

They don't really want public input. All they really care about is input from the manufacturers and the other people who have money to make.

Which is probably who initiated changes to make it more of a pain for anyone else to submit input. Political type actions isn't just for government operations.

 

[infinity]

I see putting in proposals (public inputs) as much easier with the new system, but the biggest issue I have is you have to seek out the resolved (rejected) public inputs to comment on them. The number of comments has gone down as a result.

The PI's are not the problem it's the comments and the overall process after the PI. My biggest issue is the lack of a single document that has all of the PI's with both rejection and accepted PI's like it was with the old system. You could simply download all 5000 or so proposals (as they were called then) in one searchable document and read the substantiation and comments and whether they were accepted or rejected.

 

[kwired]

The PI's are not the problem it's the comments and the overall process after the PI. My biggest issue is the lack of a single document that has all of the PI's with both rejection and accepted PI's like it was with the old system. You could simply download all 5000 or so proposals (as they were called then) in one searchable document and read the substantiation and comments and whether they were accepted or rejected.

The content that is easier to find on line only contains information on what content was included in the particular edition for the most part.

And you are right, there is likely many PI's that were rejected but no mention of them or why they were rejected. which would make it easier to know how to possibly reword a new PI if you are trying to get something in there but has been rejected before.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The PI's are not the problem it's the comments and the overall process after the PI. My biggest issue is the lack of a single document that has all of the PI's with both rejection and accepted PI's like it was with the old system. You could simply download all 5000 or so proposals (as they were called then) in one searchable document and read the substantiation and comments and whether they were accepted or rejected.

Yes, I said that the comments on a resolved PI were more difficult and has resulted in a lack of public comments.
The resolved PIs are still available in the First Draft Report, but you have to click on them to see them and, it is not as straight forward as thumbing or scrolling through the Report on Proposals from the previous system.

However seeing what has actually changed in the first draft report is easier than the the ROP as the complete text of the code is shown in legislative format in the first draft report.

Now when you get to the second draft report, the only things shown in legislative format are changed made to the first draft report. Changes that were made in the first draft report are just there, and so there is no single document that shows all of the changes. There was also no sigle document in the old system that showed all of the changes either. In both the new and old system, the only document that shows all of the changes is the actual code when it is published.

You look at the resolved PIs by clicking on the area circled in red below. The PIs that resulted in changes can be seen by clicking on the FR number shown in yellow.
But yes, it is not as straight forward as the ROP for viewing the resolved (rejected) PIs

 

[Christoph]

Thank you everyone for your … Input

I am more confused after reading all of your comments than I was after only trying to navigate the website. I understand that they have a how-to on their website and I tried to follow it but it didn’t explain to me (at least not in plain sight) that now is not the time for inputs.

Does anyone have any practical advice as to how to learn the workings of this organization to get involved and be informed enough? Please refrain from suggesting to get in touch with my company. They are not terribly interested in this process I don’t think. (And I work in Arc Flash Studies ).

Any practical guidance would be appreciated. Maybe someone here “in the know” needs a protégée I am really wanting to get more into compliance etc.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Take a look at this youtube video by Ryan Jackson:

If you want to play with it a bit, you could practice without actually submitting a public input using one of the codes that are accepting public inputs at this time. Go to https://www.nfpa.org/Codes-and-Standards/All-Codes-and-Standards/List-of-Codes-and-Standards, then in "development stage" click on "codes accepting public inputs". Select a code and try it, just don't hit submit at the end unless you actually want to submit a public input for that document.

The input stage is very straight forward. After you select a code an click on it, you will be taken to the home page for that code. There will be a click box that says "next edition". Clicking on that will take you to a page where you click on "submit a public input". Click that and it opens a version of that code. Select any section, and you will open a page with boxes next to each section. If you click in the box, there will be a popup at the bottom that gives you choices, one of which is "revise existing section". Click that and a new page opens where you can edit the text. There are following pages where you enter you substantiation and other information.

Note you have to register with the NFPA to submit and public inputs or public comments. I think the easiest way to learn this is to just play with it.

 

[Christoph]

Very good, thank you! Should have known to look on YouTube.