Sparky,
Thanks for looking through our information and replying to my message.
In regards to your question on the change in 430.102. I hope you agree this is a good change. It is something that IBEW fought very hard for and something that Bussmann supports. The reason the change occurred was that the previous exception in 430.102 (eliminating the disconnect at the motor provided the disconnect for the controller was lockable) was becoming the rule as opposed to the exception. This tended to spur the elimination of a local disconnect for motors and tended to cause the working of motors "hot" instead of going back to the controller disconnect and properly locking and tagging out the disconnect.
The revised text still permits the exception provided a safety procedures with proper lockout/tagout procedures are followed and preformed by qualified person or if additional hazards would result from a local disconnect. This is really the intent...safety and I think the change promotes safer installations. It also requires a permanently installed locking mechanism for the controller disconnect...again I believe this improves safety.
For commercial installations, I believe most people will be requiring a local disconnect "insight" of the motor to comply with the code change. For industrial installations, the maintenance practices and application would require analysis to determine if the exceptiosn can be met. If unknown, the disconnect at the motor would be recommended.
[This message has been edited by Dan Neeser (edited 03-28-2002).]
