I suppose online access by subscription is a viable option but only if the quality and usability is better than the free version. So far, this free version doesn't showcase the product very well.
Have a great weekend. ~doug On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 2:56 PM Scott Aldous <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Doug, > > The free viewer works great... if your goal is to comply with the letter > of the law of providing free access while still attempting to maximize your > revenue from sales of the docs. > > I hadn't heard about no more pdf version available from NFPA. Looks like > they have a digital access version > <https://catalog.nfpa.org/NFPA-LiNK-Individual-Plan-P21459.aspx>, which > is a subscription service, and requires access to the internet to use. If a > subscription will give you access to all the NFPA docs, that would be more > interesting, but it doesn't look like this is the case. From this site > <https://www.nfpa.org/NFPA-LiNK>: > > Q: What information and content will I be able to access with NFPA LiNK™? > A: NFPA LiNK™ includes the four most recent editions of the *NEC*® (NFPA > 70®) and NFPA 70E® (2021), *Standard for Electrical Safety in the > Workplace®*, but you can expect to see codes and standards covering a > variety of topics being added to NFPA LiNK™ on an ongoing basis. > Eventually, NFPA LiNK™ will house additional NFPA codes and standards, > expert commentary, visual aids, and more. With a subscription to NFPA > LiNK™, you will have unlimited access to all of this! > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 1:44 PM Douglas Powell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes, >> >> This "free" version is what I was referring to about being very deficient >> with regard to usability. The pages cannot be scaled and are in jpg format >> only. To search for content you can only page through. You can find a >> table of contents but chapter level is about as granular as it gets. These >> codes are very expensive and I've been needing to research content of >> several: NFPA 1, NFPA 2, NFPA 55, NFPA 70, NFPA 70E, NFPA 79, NFPA 497, and >> NFPA 855. Using this "free viewer" is very painful when there are >> potentially 1,800 pages of code to read. >> >> I've recently learned the NFPA is going away from purchased PDF and doing >> hardcopy only, this is really going backward. >> >> Oh well, it's almost time for the weekend, so I'll tackle it again on >> Monday, >> >> Best, Doug >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> Definition of EXPERT - ex·pert /ˈekˌspərt/ >> >> noun >> a person who is a "*has been*" (ex-) and "*drip under pressure*" >> (-spurt) >> >> Usage: "*a compliance engineering expert weenie*" >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 2:09 PM Scott Aldous <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> FYI, the California version of the code is also available to view online >>> for free: >>> >>> >>> https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/codes-and-standards/free-access?mode=view >>> >>> There is a California Article 89 which is specific to the state of CA, >>> and various amendments throughout, with amendments varying depending on the >>> agency involved. There is a table before each article which gives a >>> summary. Example: >>> >>> [image: image.png] >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 12:24 PM Douglas Powell <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Rich, >>>> >>>> I knew about adoption policies and actually have a web monitor on >>>> https://www.nfpa.org/NEC/NEC-adoption-and-use/NEC-adoption-maps so I >>>> can capture any updates. I recommend reading the report "Falling behind on >>>> electrical safety" . >>>> >>>> I suppose that when adopted by any locality into law, then those >>>> portions may become publicly available. The NEC is on a three-year cycle >>>> and the example I always think of is LA County & City. Even though the >>>> State of Calif may at times be up to date, They are at least one edition >>>> behind at all times. >>>> >>>> Being optimistically cautious in Colorado... >>>> >>>> Doug >>>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:47 AM Richard Nute <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Doug: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If I remember correctly, the intro to the NEC says that it is a model >>>>> for adoption by various AHJs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In Oregon, each edition of NFPA 70 is formally adopted with exceptions >>>>> and additions. So, most of NFPA 70 is law. The amendments are freely >>>>> available. Many other jurisdictions do the same. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2017 Oregon Electrical Specialty Code (OESC) >>>>> <https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/codes-and-standards/free-access?mode=view&t=other&c=ORNEC2017> >>>>> Effective Oct. 1, 2017 >>>>> Based on the 2017 NFPA 70, National Electrical Code >>>>> Oregon amendments to the 2017 NEC *Updated Oct. 2020* >>>>> <https://www.oregon.gov/bcd/codes-stand/Documents/17oesc-table1-E-2020Oct.pdf> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Stay safe! >>>>> >>>>> Rich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Douglas Powell <[email protected]> >>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 30, 2020 7:00 AM >>>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>>> *Subject:* [PSES] NFPA Codes, law or not? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My Friday Question, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> NFPA Codes, law or not? Officially the answer is, "No, these are not >>>>> laws." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I recently saw a clarification stating: >>>>> >>>>> "*As a national consensus safety standard, NFPA 70 is not a law and >>>>> it has not been incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations. >>>>> Therefore, compliance is not deemed mandatory. Even so, OSHA has cited >>>>> NFPA >>>>> 70 in cases where lack of compliance has resulted in a workplace accident* >>>>> ." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is a nonprofit >>>>> organization and not a government entity. In the USA, possibly the best >>>>> known published document is the NFPA 70 which is the National Electric >>>>> Code >>>>> or NEC ®. And indeed, this code has been translated and adopted in >>>>> other countries in places like Latin America >>>>> <https://www.nfpa.org/NEC/NEC-adoption-and-use/NEC-adoption-and-use-in-Latin-America>. >>>>> Nevertheless, in my view, the whole system is bordering on becoming a >>>>> legal requirement, especially at the local level where Authorities Having >>>>> Jurisdiction (AHJs) adopt these into their local city and county codes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Occasionally a discussion is raised on electrical forums where someone >>>>> wants to point out that in this country any code which is officially >>>>> mandated law must be freely available for public use. NFPA does indeed >>>>> offer a "free view" but these are very deficient with regard to usability. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The question then becomes, "Should these codes be law? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Food for thought... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Doug >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Douglas E Powell >>>>> >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Douglas E Powell >>>> >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 >>>> - >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society >>>> emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail >>>> to <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: >>>> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html >>>> >>>> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site >>>> at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in >>>> well-used formats), large files, etc. >>>> >>>> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ >>>> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to >>>> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> >>>> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html >>>> >>>> For help, send mail to the list administrators: >>>> Scott Douglas <[email protected]> >>>> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> For policy questions, send mail to: >>>> Jim Bacher <[email protected]> >>>> David Heald <[email protected]> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Scott Aldous | Regulatory Compliance Manager | [email protected] | >>> 650-253-1994 <(650)%20253-1994> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> Douglas E Powell >> >> [email protected] >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 >> > > > -- > Scott Aldous | Regulatory Compliance Manager | [email protected] | > 650-253-1994 > > -- Douglas E Powell [email protected] http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]>
