Research for my ROC comment

Status
Not open for further replies.

sandsnow

Senior Member
In researching old ROP & ROC for my comment on my rejected proposal #4-41, I came across this for the 2002 NEC. My proposal concerned the outside disconnecting means. My substantiation could have been better, but I waited until the last minute. I don't think I would have made the proposal had I known what went on before. By looking at the ROC action my idea was accepted for the 2002 code but didn't make it in. I know it's long,but comprehending the detail in the text is not important to my question.

Is the action in the ROC stage the final word on what is going to be in the Code or am I missing something? If I can find out why it didn't make it, I will know whether or not to try and make an argument.

4- 25 - (225-32): Accept
Note: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that 225-
31(A)(1)be revised to read as follows:
?(1) Outside. Where the branch circuit or feeder disconnecting
means is outside a building or structure it shall be installed on the
building or structure supplied or shall be located within sight from
the building or structure supplied.?
The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the issue
involves safety and correlation concerns which warrant this
change.
In the Panel Action text, delete the sentence ?The following
exceptions apply to all of NEC 225.31? and revise ?Exception No.
1? to read ?Exception No. 1 to (A) and (B)?, revise ?Exception
No. 2? to read ?Exception No. 2 to (A) and (B)?, revise
?Exception No. 3? to read ?Exception No. 3 to (A) and (B)?, and
revise ?Exception No. 4? to read ?Exception No. 4 to (A) and (B)?
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee National
Electrical Code
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 4-24
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee
directs that the Panel clarify the Panel Action on this Proposal as it
relates to Proposal 4-22a. This action will be considered by the
Panel as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the National
Electrical Code Technical Correlating Committee in accordance
with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
The panel clarifies that Section 225.31 including all of the changes
incorporated through the proposal and comment period shall read
as follows and is the panel's final action on Section 225.31:
225.31 Disconnecting Means.
Means shall be provided to disconnect all ungrounded
conductors that supply or pass through a building or structure in
accordance with (A) and (B).
(A) Readily Accessible Location. The branch circuit or feeder
disconnecting means shall be installed at a readily accessible
location in accordance with (1) or (2).
(1) Outside. Where the branch circuit or feeder disconnecting
means is outside a building or structure it shall be installed on the
building or structure supplied or shall be located not more than
15m (50 ft) from the building or structure supplied.
(2) Inside. Where the branch circuit or feeder disconnecting
means is installed inside, it shall be nearest the point of entrance of
the supply conductors.
(B) Conductors Considered Outside. For the purposes of this
section, the requirements of 230.6 shall be permitted to be used.
The following exceptions apply to all of NEC 225.31:
Exception No. 1: For installations under single management,
where documented safe switching procedures are established and
maintained for disconnection, and where the installation is
monitored by qualified individuals, the disconnecting means shall
be permitted to be located elsewhere on the premises.
Exception No. 2: For buildings or other structures qualifying
under the provisions of Article 685, the disconnecting means shall
be permitted to be located elsewhere on the premises.
Exception No. 3: For towers or poles used as lighting standards,
the disconnecting means shall be permitted to be located
elsewhere on the premises.
Exception No. 4: For poles or similar structures used only for
support of signs installed in accordance with Article 600, the
disconnecting means shall be permitted to be located elsewhere on
the premises.
PANEL STATEMENT: By this action the panel clarifies its action
on Proposal 4-22a and incorporates all panel actions on Comments
4-18 through 4-24. The panel action for this comment is intended
as the final action on Section 225-31.
NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 11
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 11
 

charlie

Senior Member
. . . Is the action in the ROC stage the final word on what is going to be in the Code or am I missing something? . .
Larry, addressing this question only, the panel action during the ROC ballot is generally final. However, the TCC gets to look at the panel action again and if the TCC finds a problem, the revision reverts back to the original text and comes back to the panel during the next cycle as a new proposal. Also, if it is acted on at the NFPA annual meeting, it will be sent back to the panel. Also, the Standards Council can send it back to the panel. And lastly, the NFPA Board of Directors can send it back to the panel. In all cases of being returned to the panel, no revision is made to the original text. :)
 

charlie

Senior Member
For what it is worth, the action shows up in the ROP in the next cycle after it passes through the panel again. In the case of appeals to the NFPA Board of Directors, the pending appeals show up in the printed code books in front of the affected articles. :smile:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top