0 members (),
18
guests, and
14
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 201
OP
Member
|
The NFPA Standards Council will be meeting on July 14, 2004 in San Francisco, CA to make a final decision on the items being appealed and the items sent back to the Code Making Panels. If you are interested in seeing what the panels have done with the items that were sent back, go here and choose items from the July 14 items. ![[Linked Image]](https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/biggrin.gif)
Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis Utility Power Guy
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,105 Likes: 3
Member
|
Thanks Charlie! ![[Linked Image]](https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/smile.gif) Bill
Bill
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 597
Member
|
CharlieE,
Thanks for this link. Since I am, at the moment, primarily interested in what the 2005 NEC 210.12(B) will look like, I found it frustrating to find all the info as it is scattered over four downloads. I finally got over 38 (thirty eight) Megs downloaded, used WinZip, and read the documents.
The WinZipped files pertaining to 210.12(B) are: Att 04-7-1-a-1.pdf Att04-7-1-a-2.pdf Att04-7-1-a-3.pdf Att04-7-1-a-4.pdf Att04-7-1-a-5.pdf Att-7-1-a-6.pdf Att04-7-1-a-7.pdf
None of these files are in "Attachments, Part 2" so you can skip it, saving an 8 MB download and extraction.
This is rather exciting. Nine more days to go until showtime at the July 14-16 Standards Council Meeting in San Francisco.
Al
Al Hildenbrand
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 597
Member
|
The NFPA Standards Council meeting starts tomorrow (Wed.) morning 8 AM PST. First item on the printed agenda is the dust up over 210.12(B). ![[Linked Image]](https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/biggrin.gif)
Al Hildenbrand
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 597
Member
|
Al Hildenbrand
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 597
Member
|
Al Hildenbrand
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 597
Member
|
Al Hildenbrand
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 625
Member
|
A must admit that I'm having a little trouble decoding all the "accept the proposal to reject the acceptance of the rejection of the..." language. If I got it right, they voted not to extend AFCIs to all living areas, but they're going to vote on it again later? Can anybody confirm whether this is what they're actually trying to say?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 201
OP
Member
|
Sorry, you have to look at the way things are actually acted upon. For instance, during the Comment stage a comment may say, "Reject proposal 10-123." The panel votes to accept or reject the comment. Therefore, panel 10 accepts comment 10-90 to reject proposal 10-123." That same logic carries over to the Standards Council. To answer your question, all of the appeals to overturn the panel action have failed except for one. This includes the attempt to require AFCI protection on all 15 and 20 ampere circuits. ![[Linked Image]](https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/biggrin.gif)
Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis Utility Power Guy
|
|
|
Posts: 806
Joined: October 2004
|
|
|
|