Will There Be A Final Draft Report For The NEC

[yesterlectric]

I found last year that reading the first second draft report with its highlighting of changed text and ease of access to any related public inputs that drove a change, is a great way to get updated on changes to the NEC. However this late in the game I am not so keen on studying the second draft report if it has things that are likely to change any day due to NITAMS, CAMS, etc. Does anyone know if we will be getting a third or final draft report that is in similar format to the first and second draft reports, but less likely to change?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The only thing you see after the second draft report is the actual code. You can, however, find any changes that were made after the second draft, at nfpa.org/70. Sometimes they are not easy to locate. Those changes would be panel action on successful CAMs. or TIAs issued by the Standards Council.
Note: if you have LiNK, you can already read the final version of the 2023 code.

 

[yesterlectric]

I am telling you I am reading the definitions and it is a mess. Will serve to cause people to throw their hands in the air. Just a quick example:

1. A connector is an "electromechanical" fitting!! Common definitions for electromechanical are more applicable to mechanized devices, like contactors, not connectors. Oh, but look at the CMP that's responsible because it may just be applicable in the articles they write (look at that table too) or in just article 393. Everywhere else it says connector it's likely not meaning this definition but maybe one day that will change. Or, if that comittee gets jurisdiction over another article and it says "CMP" but not a special article then maybe it will apply to two articles.
2. An Insulated Conductor is only an overhead service conductor!! Oh, but wait that's only if you see it in article 396. So everywhere else it says insulated connector use your common sense. But make sure you read each year the little articles/CMP's listed.

This isn't making electrical more safe or encouraging compliance. It's making the NEC a more hard to use standard such that less people will be motivated to understand it. Don't say if you don't like it change it. Many were against this. NFPA responded to public comments saying that commenters didn't have the ability to comment on the directions to follow the style manual. NEC may over time become less relevant if they keep this up.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

.....
2. An Insulated Conductor is only an overhead service conductor!! Oh, but wait that's only if you see it in article 396. So everywhere else it says insulated connector use your common sense. But make sure you read each year the little articles/CMP's listed.
....

This is to include overhead triplex and quadplex conductors as those conductors are "covered" and not actually insulated.
There is a general definition of that term.

Conductor, Insulated. (Insulated Conductor)
A conductor encased within material of composition and thickness that is recognized by this Code as electrical insulation. (CMP-6)

The [CMP-x] following the definition does not indicate the application of the definition. It only indicates the CMP that is responsible to writing the definition.

If the definition is intended to only apply to a specific article, that is indicated by the article number in (xxx) following the termination. Where the term applies to a number of articles, that is indicated by a statement like "[as applied to hazardous (classified) locations]"
If neither an article number or statement are found, the definition applies throughout the code.

As far as the location of the definitions, I believe that the NEC is the last of the "model codes" written for local or state adoption that did not have the definitions in a common location.

 

[yesterlectric]

If the definition is intended to only apply to a specific article, that is indicated by the article number in (xxx) following the termination. Where the term applies to a number of articles, that is indicated by a statement like "[as applied to hazardous (classified) locations]"
If neither an article number or statement are found, the definition applies throughout the code.

Yes and either way you slice it it is going to make things more difficult to interpret. Remember that the NEC is not a design guide or instruction manual. Professionals have to seek that separately via the use of other publications & standards, hired design consultants at times, continueing education. So making the NEC hard to use has the affect of taxing the time available for other tasks. And in this case it is being made hard to use for no good safety related reason at all. Probably however, it will drive sales of more books written by committee members.

As far as the location of the definitions, I believe that the NEC is the last of the "model codes" written for local or state adoption that did not have the definitions in a common location.

And probably for good reason. BTW how does the NEC compare to other standards in terms of number of people buying a copy, number of pages, breadth of coverage? No reason to trash it just to make it have an index lke the others. There's a reason it has to be in its own binding since it is formatted for the electrical industry and not the gas industry.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Yes and either way you slice it it is going to make things more difficult to interpret. Remember that the NEC is not a design guide or instruction manual. Professionals have to seek that separately. So making the NEC hard to use has the affect of taxing the time available for other tasks. And in this case it is being made hard to use for no good safety related reason at all. Probably however, it will drive sales of more books written by committee members.


And probably for good reason. BTW how does the NEC compare to other standards in terms of number of people buying a copy, number of pages, breadth of coverage? No reason to trash it just to make it have an index lke the others. There's a reason it has to be in its own binding since it is formatted for the electrical industry and not the gas industry.

I am not aware of any panel members who write books about the NEC.

I don't see this change as either good or bad....just different. It is no more less user friendly.
This is just simply a change and many do not like any type of change.

No idea of what "its own binding" means. There are hundreds of different codes, standards, and recommended practices, that are each in "their own binding."

If the NEC followed other codes and standards, 110.26(A)(1) would be more like 1.10.26.1.1.

 

[jim dungar]

Remember that the NEC is not a design guide or instruction manual. Professionals have to seek that separately via the use of other publications & standards, hired design consultants at times, continueing education.

In any the actual woding, it is not a design guide for untrained individuals. It is certainly in its purview to contain some design requirements.
My problem with it is when it addresses issues beyond the wiring system outlet.

 

[yesterlectric]

In any the actual wording, it is not a design guide for untrained individuals. It is certainly in its purview to contain some design requirements.
My problem with it is when it addresses issues beyond the wiring system outlet.

Not what it says. it says it is not intended as a design guide OR an instruction manual for untrained persons. I personally think it ridiculous when the response to unnecessarilly ambiguous language being added to the NEC is: "Oh, it's not a guide for untrained persons," when trained persons such as electricians, inspectors, engineers, find the language to be problematic. Not that this is what you are saying but I have heard some folks who sit on committees say this.

"It's own binding" was just a figure to say it is its own book, covering something different than say, gas, and thus can be expected to need to be different.

Regarding writing of books, IAEI makes a definitions index and has many representatives on the panels, many committee members sell training, and I predict that with this change to the definitions section that someone will make a booklet of definitions that is organized differently for ease of use.
The NFPA encourages people to subscribe to its NFPAlink service to make its now more difficult to read standards easier to read (racket).

Even Mike Holt has commented on how it's getting harder to interpret the code. It's not just because things are becoming more technical. It's also due to a lot of needless revisions that just make for confusion.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

....

... someone will make a booklet of definitions that is organized differently for ease of use.

...The NFPA encourages people to subscribe to its NFPAlink service to make its now more difficult to read standards easier to read ...

The arrangement of the terms was changed for ease of electronic searching. I see NO difficulties in having all of the definitions in one place, as long as you can read and understand how they are set up.

LiNK provides no functionality that was not available in previous electronic versions of the code.

 

[kwired]

I found last year that reading the first second draft report with its highlighting of changed text and ease of access to any related public inputs that drove a change, is a great way to get updated on changes to the NEC. However this late in the game I am not so keen on studying the second draft report if it has things that are likely to change any day due to NITAMS, CAMS, etc. Does anyone know if we will be getting a third or final draft report that is in similar format to the first and second draft reports, but less likely to change?

If these definitions appear in anything other than art 100, they only apply to the portion of code they appear in, that has been that way for some time now. Definitions in art 100 apply everywhere in NEC unless specifically mentioned otherwise in a particular section might start out with "for applications of this section only ...."

 

[ramsy]

..ridiculous when the response to unnecessarilly ambiguous language being added to the NEC is: "Oh, it's not a guide for untrained persons," when trained persons such as electricians, inspectors, engineers, find the language to be problematic.

NFPA-70 can't provide untrained persons, or designers a complete reference of contents, for the same reason each article doesn't reference all applicable code in one place.

When more than one code section applies to a task, there's no standard for cross reference, no index of jargon, and no way to discover it, much less after NFPA abolished key word search from its publications.

Even Mike Holt has commented on how it's getting harder to interpret the code. It's not just because things are becoming more technical. It's also due to a lot of needless revisions that just make for confusion.

The unreadable structure of NFPA-70 provides a competitive barrier to entry-level academics, the same way specialized technical skills for equipment, listings, & inspections provide a competitive barrier to market entry.

If not for detecting carbon deposit & galvanization failures between dissimilar alloys, AFCI's best function was as barrier against unskilled labor shops.

Unwilling to see slave labor pried from their cold dead hands, non-union developer & general contractor-sponsored lobbies are amending out this barrier thru their chamber of commerce.