[Florida Code Talk] REMOVAL REQUEST
Jon Cole
joncole999 at cfl.rr.com
Wed May 27 12:21:18 EDT 2009
More information about the CodeTalk mailing list
Wed May 27 12:21:18 EDT 2009
- Previous message: [Florida Code Talk] Rule 9B - 3.047, GFCI Protection
- Next message: [Florida Code Talk] Accessibility in Lecture Halls
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Well, I have tried to unsubscribe from these emails 4 times during the past 2 months by following the procedure at the bottom of the screen, but I still get 10-15 emails a day from this forum... I'm going to try doing a reply to all from every email I get and see if someone there will get sick of it and actually remove me from the distribution list as I've requested. jc. -----Original Message----- From: codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com [mailto:codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com] On Behalf Of Bryan Holland Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 7:27 AM To: Building Officials Association of Florida, Inc.; codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com; codetalk at myfloridacode.com Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] [Florida Code Talk] Rule 9B - 3.047, GFCI Protection Hello All, According to Rule 9B - 3.047, Section 2705.1 of the FBC and E3304.1 of the FBC-R will be amended to include to language found in Section 680.22(B) of the 2008 NEC which requires GFCI protection of both direct connected (hard-wired) and cord-and-plug connected pool pump motors. However, there will also be an Exception for one-and two-family dwellings. This exception is NOT found in the NEC. As indicated in the IAEI Analysis of Changes, Proposal 17-85 was rejected which suggested this rule be placed back into the NEC as it was in the 1999 edition. It was looked at again by CMP-17 after a review of data provided from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, National Injury Information Clearinghouse. (See Comment 17-75 of the NFPA-70, 2007 Record of Comments.) I can and have supported making amendments to the NEC when the code is made stronger and provides better protection to people and property, but can't understand why or how the Florida Building Commission is in a position to reduce what is established as the minimum provisions by a consensus process. For example, the requirement for bonding metal studs in buildings and structures enhanced the NEC requirements without creating a significant burden to builders and contractors. This new rule reduces the minimum provisions for safety of a nationally recognized standard with no real substantiation provided for creating the Exception. I hope you all can take some time to review this matter and forward your comments and opinions to the Florida Building Commission. Bryan P. Holland City of North Port 4970 City Hall Blvd. North Port, FL 34286 (941) 429-7053 bholland at cityofnorthport.com www.iaeifl.org <http://www.iaeifl.org> www.boaf.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://myfloridacode.com/pipermail/codetalk/attachments/20090527/5f2ddda8/at tachment.html _______________________________________________ CodeTalk mailing list CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com Unsubscribe or change your options at: http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk
- Previous message: [Florida Code Talk] Rule 9B - 3.047, GFCI Protection
- Next message: [Florida Code Talk] Accessibility in Lecture Halls
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CodeTalk mailing list