Just one more question, has there ever been a mistake published in the NEC code book? The teacher should know the answer to this one...
Now I am outta here for a new year pretzel,
Many many times and it is always addressed as soon as it is found. Most of the mistakes are typos and page numbering.
In the history of the NFPA there has never been a life safety issue printed.
The code making process is a long drawn out affair.
At the beginning of each code cycle (we will use the 2008) for the first few months there is what is called the proposal stage. Any one can make a proposal to have something in the code changed. In the proposal the reason for the change must be substantiated why the change is needed. This substantiation must be valid and life safety issues are a major reason for the change.
These proposals are then sent to one of the 20 Code Making Panels for their review. Here these 15 to 20 people will pick apart the proposal to see if it conflicts with some other part of the NEC and then they vote.
This vote will result in one of the following;
Reject: The panel can reject the proposal for any number of reasons. The panel will make a comment on why they rejected the proposal. I use this information quite often in the classroom.
Accept in part: The code panel might see that part of the proposal is good but part is not so good and then vote to accept it in part. Here they will again give the reason why only part was accepted.
Accept in principal: The code panel may see that the idea of the submitter was good but the wording was bad. Remember when the codes are adopted by a state or city they become law so the wording is very important. Again the panel will give a reason
Accept: here the code panel just accepts the proposal as it is written
After all this takes place the Report on Proposals are sent to those who made a proposal and then the next cycle starts.
The comment stage;
During the comment stage any one can make a comment on any proposal that has been voted on. This process goes on for a couple of months before everything is complied into the new code.
For the 2008 code cycle I made five proposals. Four were accepted either fully or in part. One was rejected but I did get an informal ruling on what the intent of that particular code sections was.
As you can see the NEC is not just written by a bunch of tie wearing people sitting around in the office with nothing else to do. The NEC is written by people just like you and me.
Below is an example of a proposal that may have conflicted with another part of the NEC and the action taken by the Code Panel.
This was my proposal
1-39 Log #1299 NEC-P01 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(100.Lighting Outlet)
_____________________________________________________________
TCC Action: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that this Proposal be referred to Code-Making Panels 2 and 18 for comment.
Submitter: Joseph Whitt, JW Electric
Recommendation: Revise text to read:
Lighting Outlet. An outlet intended for the direct connection of a permanently installed, cord and plug connected lampholder, a luminaire (lighting fixture), or a pendant cord terminating in a lampholder.
Substantiation: As worded, a lighting outlet would require a direct connection to the premises wiring. This could be interpreted to mean that the luminary would be required to be installed to a box with wire nuts which would leave out a cord and plug connected luminary as outlined in 410.30. This would also negate Exception No. 1 of 210.70(A)(1).
This would also clear up the confusion for inspectors and electrical contractors as to whether a receptacle used for the sole purpose to supply current to a luminary is a lighting outlet or not. This will help in clearing up the confusion over the use and switching of small appliance and laundry receptacles for permanently installed under cabinet luminaries.
As an instructor of inspector classes in the state of North Carolina, I see those inspectors coming through my classes are split about fifty/fifty on this issue. This issue needs clarity.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Revise the definition to read as follows:
“Lighting Outlet. An outlet intended for the connection of a lampholder, a luminaire (lighting fixture), or a pendant cord terminating in a lampholder.
Panel Statement: The panel concludes this action meets the intent of the submitter. CMP-1 agrees that the definition may conflict with the requirement in 410.30(C)(1) and other code sections that allow for the use of attachment plugs for the connection of luminaires. CMP-1 disagrees that the existing definition negates 210.70(A)(1), Exception No. 1. CMP-1 has revised the definition by deleting the word “direct.†The panel recommends that the TCC forward this action to CMP-18.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12
_____________________________________________________________