Bill, I'm not sure, but I think that you can submit supporting evidence in the comment stage. I know that you cannot submit new or substantially changed wording, but as long as it supports the original proposal, they should consider it.
Dana, I haven't heard that the older ROPs and ROCs were going to be placed online. It would be a good idea.
#85470 - 07/07/0311:11 PMRe: 2005 ROP available now
My reason for asking is that I had submitted a proposal for an Exception to 210.8(B)(3) that would allow a Receptacle behind an Appliance (ie: Refrigerator) in Commercial Kitchen to be non-GFCI protected. It was rejected for lack of substantiation.
My "substantiation" was that GFCI protection is not required behind Refrigerators in Dwelling Units and it is already recognized in 525.23(B) that some cooking and refrigeration equipment is incompatible with GFCI protection and therefore not required by that section. I thought that an established code section would provide substantiation for a proposal that (I thought) just asks for some consistancy among sections.
What are your thoughts? Was my reasoning flawed?
[This message has been edited by Bill Addiss (edited 07-07-2003).]
#85471 - 07/08/0306:04 AMRe: 2005 ROP available now
Bill, Sometimes the CMPs are real picky about what they will accept. The nondwelling unit kitchen GFCI requirement has generated a number of proposals. I don't think that this issue will be completely resolved this code cycle. Don
#85473 - 07/08/0310:34 AMRe: 2005 ROP available now
I'm not sure what you mean. I thought that pointing to something already established/conceded in another area of the same standard would be a good substantiation, and an opportunity to get rid of another inconsistancy.
[This message has been edited by Bill Addiss (edited 07-08-2003).]
#85474 - 07/08/0311:18 AMRe: 2005 ROP available now