Public Inputs

Status
Not open for further replies.

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
One of my PI's has a response message of...
"The existing text is clear and the proposed revision does not provide adequate substantiation to warrant the change without further testing. The submitter is encouraged to work with appropriate agencies to develop test data."

Are these guys really that dense???

I took a quick glance at some of my PI's, I wonder if they actually read some of them, if so their reading comprehension isn't so good. :roll:
 

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
I took a quick glance at some of my PI's, I wonder if they actually read some of them, if so their reading comprehension isn't so good. :roll:
I think that just one member of the panel writes the response after the vote, so you would not know what the majority of the panel thought they were voting on and their reasons. :(
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
I took a quick glance at some of my PI's, I wonder if they actually read some of them, if so their reading comprehension isn't so good. :roll:
I agreeeee!!!

Here's an example: [xxx] = deleted text, xxx = new text
250.20 Alternating-Current Systems to Be Grounded.
...
(B) Alternating-Current Systems of 50 Volts to 1000 Volts. ...:
(1) Where the system can be grounded so that the maximum voltage to ground on [the] any ungrounded conductor does not exceed 150 volts

Substantiation:
In the case of a 240V 3Ø 3W delta connected system, which the midpoint of one phase winding is available but NOT used as a circuit conductor, it can be grounded so two conductors do not exceed 150 volts to ground. The third conductor would be approximately 208 volts to ground. As currently worded, the requirement can be interpreted to mean only systems where all ungrounded conductors are limited to 150 volts or less to ground are required to be grounded.

Resolution: The substantiation is not consistent with the proposed requirement. Three phase 3 wire systems do not have a midpoint.
 

Rich Elec.

Senior Member
Location
Pennsylvania
That is a big issue. Under the old system, proposals that were rejected in the ROP often were accepted in the ROC based on the comments. It really takes the public out of the process leaving it up to the CMP members.

I agree, seeing the rejected proposals is as important as the accepted ones.

The format changes have really made the process MORE complex!
All of the information is spread out.
 

Rich Elec.

Senior Member
Location
Pennsylvania
If you go to First Revision with Final Ballot Results you can see the actual vote with the panel members Affirmative or Negative statements to the panel statement.

All I'm saying is that all this info was on the same page in the ROC. It would be nice to have all this on the same page or in one place.

I wonder if they could link the changes in the first draft to the PI, similarly to what they used to do with the NEC Direct website subscription service.

From what I am seeing, I can view "Public Inputs with Responses PDF" which offer no ballot results, and I can view "First Revision with Final Ballot Results" which offers no submitter names.

Is there another link that I'll need to have up to view what used to be all in one place!?
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
From what I am seeing, I can view "Public Inputs with Responses PDF" which offer no ballot results, and I can view "First Revision with Final Ballot Results" which offers no submitter names.

Is there another link that I'll need to have up to view what used to be all in one place!?
I don't think you can find it all in one location, and you need to post your comment from the First Draft, but you also need to have information from the First Draft Report to put in your comment.
As far as I can tell you can only comment on the actual First Draft and if that is the case there is no way to comment on a rejected PI.

What a huge step backwards for the whole code revision process.
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
I don't think you can find it all in one location, and you need to post your comment from the First Draft, but you also need to have information from the First Draft Report to put in your comment.
As far as I can tell you can only comment on the actual First Draft and if that is the case there is no way to comment on a rejected PI.

What a huge step backwards for the whole code revision process.
I just submitted a PC.

AFAICT, the process is only different than a PI submission in that 1) comment will be from NFPA 70 view which is identical to the First Draft Report except indexing on left is more refined, and 2) there is an added step which requires adding at least one Related Comment or Related Item—for which Public Input, First Revision, Committee Input, Correlating Revision, Correlating Note are the choices along with their corresponding number.

What this amounts to is, if you are commenting on a rejected PI, you will have to revise the NFPA 70 text (whether it be a revised section or unchanged section) to mimic the PI (with perhaps any additional changes to the PI) prior to the Add Related Item stage. The difficult part is accessing the related item information while in the revision stage. As such, I suggest anyone submitting a comment on a rejected PI to gather all pertinent information in another application (e.g. have the Public Inputs with Responses PDF open to copy from) during the process.

I also noticed "Add New Section" is available from the NFPA 70 view. I did not use that option at the PI stage or now, so have no idea what is involved in that process.
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
What a huge step backwards for the whole code revision process.

Agreed. I think their definition of "progress" is different than ours...

...similar to their idea of "working" and mine...

What a crock. :rant:

working%20my%20aaa_zpsr7tbqryg.jpg
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
Bring back the old version of the ROP and ROC. I get frustrated while the system is WORKING and just exit. I'm sure they will see less public participation with this new process.
Perhaps some help...

On the NEC document page of NFPA, Next Edition tab, scroll down to First Draft Ballot section about midway on the page... click on "+ show more First Draft Ballot". Two additional links appear:


The latter is essentially the same as what you'll see in TerraView's First Draft Report pages except you get the full "first report" rather than just the "article text".

The former is pretty much self explanatory... ;)

Also note that NFPA 70 Home (where you start the "Comment" process) and First Draft Report Home (view only pages) will actually be under two separate tabs at the top of the window, and you can switch even while an FDR page is "working".
 

Attachments

  • TerraView Comment.jpg
    TerraView Comment.jpg
    20.4 KB · Views: 0

MasterTheNEC

Host of ElectricianLIVE.com
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
Master Electrician & Director of Codes and Standards
let me just say this.....during the PI stage it went like a dream.....at the PC stage.....the online process stinks in my opinion. I have a list of PC's to make and can't seem to get a single one to take online......so the process is still very problematic for the back end PC's......guess it means light work loads at the CMP meetings....lol....I will just have to wait and see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top