Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org
M E M O R A N D U M
To: NFPA Technical Committee on Electrical Equipment of Industrial Machinery
From: Elena Carroll, Administrator, Technical Projects
Date: November 8, 2012
Subject: NFPA 79 First Draft TC FINAL Ballot Results (A2014 Cycle)
According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot.
23 Members Eligible to Vote 4 Not Returned (Gililland, Mariuz, Sroczynski, Watson) 11 Affirmative on All 8 Negatives on one or more first revision: (Carpenter, Dobrowsky, Drobnick, Hickman, Hilbert, Neeser,
Soter, Tamblingson) 1 Abstention on one or more first revision: (Carpenter) The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of the vote for each first revision.
There are two criteria necessary for each first revision to pass ballot: (1) simple majority and (2) affirmative 2/3 vote. The mock examples below show how the calculations are determined.
(1) Example for Simple Majority: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members, 11 affirmative votes are required to pass ballot. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligible to vote ÷ 2 = 10 + 1 = 11)
(2) Example for Affirmative 2/3: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members and 1 member did not
return their ballot and 2 members abstained, the number of affirmative votes required would be 12. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligble to vote – 1 not returned – 2 abstentions = 17 x 0.66 = 11.22 = 12 )
As always please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐50, Global Input, See FR‐50
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
Mark R. Hilbert Continue to create the revision as recommended by the meeting actions.
Relocating the parenthetical terms to a new annex and creating a cross
reference for the US and IEC terms along with additional explanatory
material will benefit all readers of the Standard as well as the harmonization
process. The Grounding and Bonding Task Group is continuing to work on
comments for the development of the new Annex. There is an opportunity
for the public as well as committee members to provide comments that will
help explain the similarities and differences between the US and the IEC
grounding and bonding terms and applications. Recommendations in
comments would be appreciated.
Negative 1
Page 1
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
David R. Carpenter I certainly agree with the submitter concerning the nomenclature of
understanding between the IEC and NFPA standards. I also agree that the
NFPA 70 is the base standard for NFPA 79. However,that does not negate the
need for understanding the IEC terms which are needed to properly install,
maintain and troubleshoot industrial machines located in the US and are
designed based on the IEC standards. Electricians, engineers and inspectors
are increasingly faced with Industrial Machines which are designed based on
IEC standards. It is imperative that they have guidance to prevent potential
hazards which can, and has resulted in shock hazards, fire hazards and the
destruction of equipment. A few examples of past problems: color codes
difference between IEC and NFPA concerning neutral applications, schematic
difference concerning interlocks, and transformer characteristics that change
grounding techniques and overcurrent protection application. This is
especially troublesome when troubleshooting and installation. Most often
seen when an IEC design is feed by a US system. The aforementioned is
similar discussion to why IEC clarification terms were put in this standard.
Industrial Machines have certain nuances which are not germane to facilities
and should have some application difference as is needed. See my comments
FR‐15
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
Page 2
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐97, Section No. 1.3.1.1, See FR‐97
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter comply with the NFPA Manual of Style
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐98, Section No. 1.3.2, See FR‐98
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter comply with the NFPA Manual of Style
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐38, Section No. 2.3.6, See FR‐38
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter reference update
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
Page 3
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐39, Section No. 3.1, See FR‐39
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter Reference update
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐99, Section No. 3.3.3.1, See FR‐99
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter comply with the NFPA Manual of Style
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐54, Section No. 3.3.9, See FR‐54
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 0
Negative 1
Page 4
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
David R. Carpenter Bonding ‐ the asterisk should not be removed because it leaves the reader
with less information to determine how to correlate with IEC designed
systems using the term "protective bonding circuit" definition ..See my
comments FR‐50... the asterisk does not complicate the standard but gives
needed information with out complicating the flow of sentence structure.
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
Page 5
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐5, Section No. 3.3.34, See FR‐5
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter Change needed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐3, Section No. 3.3.50, See FR‐3
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter Agree in principle
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐40, New Section after 3.3.55, See FR‐40
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 4
Palmer L. Hickman This term should apply globally throughout the document. This is a
recommendation to do so and have it included in the First Draft for public
review and comment.
David R. Carpenter Agree to be consistent with acceptably definition to all NFPA standards
Daniel R. Neeser The term should be consistent throughout the document. In some cases the
term that is used is “control panel” and these should be changed to
“industrial control panel”.
Page 6
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Jay Tamblingson While it is useful to add the definition of industrial control panel, there are a
number of uses of similar terms within the standard (control panel, control
enclosure, main enclosure, etc) which should either be included as reference
within this definition or those sections revised to use the defined term as
appropriate.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 15
Page 7
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐15, New Section after 3.3.71, See FR‐15
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter The term needs constancy but clarification in relation to Industrial Machines.
Branch Circuits have certain nuances indigenous to industrial machines which
are not to facilities
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
Page 8
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐41, Section No. 3.3.74, See FR‐41
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 1
David R. Carpenter Not sure I fully understand the reasoning behind this change
Affirmative 18
FR‐51, Section No. 3.3.77, See FR‐51
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
Mark R. Hilbert Continue to accept the revision. See my ballot comment on FR 50.
Negative 1
David R. Carpenter See comments on FR‐50
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
FR‐53, Section No. 3.3.78, See FR‐53
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
Mark R. Hilbert Continue to accept the revision. See my ballot comment on FR 50.
Negative 1
David R. Carpenter See comments on FR‐50
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
Page 9
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐44, Section No. 3.3.98, See FR‐44
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter Not needed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
Page 10
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐21, Section No. 3.3.100, See FR‐21
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter much needed and should be in other NFPA standards
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐19, New Section after 3.3.101, See FR‐19
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter needed for clairification
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐85, Section No. 4.4.2.1, See FR‐85
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 3
Paul Dobrowsky The entire section number appears to be struck through on the ballot. The
submitter did not strike through the entire number and I believe intended
the section be numbered 4.4.2.
David R. Carpenter comply with the NFPA Manual of Style
Page 11
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Jay Tamblingson The existing requirements of 4.4.2 for providing EMC mitigation are likely
unenforceable as they give no specific guidance regarding electrical noise and
transient levels permitted and when suppression must be provided. This
section should be revised to reference appropriate standards, manufacturer
requirements, and application considerations.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 16
FR‐45, Section No. 5.3.1.3, See FR‐45
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 4
David R. Carpenter needed
Jay Tamblingson The requirements in 5.3.1.4 need to be revised to align with the new
permitted use of separately mounted disconnecting means and asscociated
interlocking requirements contained in the revised text.
Mark R. Hilbert Continue to accept the revision. With the increasing awareness of electrical
hazards in the workplace and the desire to create safe work practices for
electrical workers in the United States it is common to locate the supply
circuit disconnecting means in a separate enclosure. This new exception
maintains the interlocking requirements of 6.2.3 while allowing the electrical
hazard reduction strategies formally limited to machines totaling 2 hp or less.
Page 12
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
J. B. Titus The new text from the committee action does not take into account random
events such as material handling, staged tooling and other situations that
could temporarily block immediate access to the disconnecting means. I
suggest inserting..... "and always readily accessible to the operator."
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 15
Page 13
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐23, Section No. 5.3.2, See FR‐23
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
Paul Dobrowsky The committee statement indicates that the term "rated" was deleted
elsewhere therefore should be deleted here but it appears in underlined
format in (2). I believe it needs to be removed.
David R. Carpenter clarification
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
FR‐100, Section No. 5.3.3.2.1, See FR‐100
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter comply with the NFPA Manual of Style
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐46, Section No. 6.1, See FR‐46
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
David R. Carpenter needed information which does not need to be in the body of the text
Page 14
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Mark R. Hilbert Continue to accept the revision. The requirements of Chapter 6 are intended
to warn a worker of a potential arc‐flash hazard. The requirement in 6.1
mirrors the National Electrical Code which already requires control cabinets
to be field labeled to warn workers of a potential arc‐flash hazard. Keeping
this requirement in NFPA 79 will be a benefit those working on electrical
equipment of industrial machinery in cases where NFPA 79 is the only
document used.
Page 15
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Negative 3
Paul Dobrowsky This change should not be made. Placing live parts in an enclosure inherently
reduces the likelihood of an arc flash event occurring. An indirect contact
electric shock incident can occur as a result of an insulation failure if the
enclosure integrity or the effective fault current path is compromised.
Electrical equipment does not warn of potential arc‐flash hazards and
marking requirements seem to belong in Chapter 16. First Revision No. 47‐
added Annex material to .6.2 that supports this concept.
Palmer L. Hickman The submitter of the Public Input has recommended a significant reduction in
personnel protection without technical substantiation. The assertion is made
that "Current language could be interpreted to require that the equipment
must be designed to protect person(s) from arc flash hazards." The present
requirements are clear. They do require protection against arc flash hazards.
See present requirements below: Electrical equipment shall provide
protection of persons from electric shock, from direct and indirect contact,
and from arc‐flash hazards.
Daniel R. Neeser Providing protection from direct contact or indirect contact does provide a
degree of protection from arc flash hazards, and as such it is more than just
“warn of potential” of arc flash hazards, as indicated in the new annex A.6.1.
Therefore the change would reduce the level of safety.
Abstain 0
Affirmative 14
FR‐101, Section No. 6.2.2.1, See FR‐101
Eligible to Vote:23
Page 16
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter compliance with the NFPA Manual of Style
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
Page 17
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐74, Section No. 6.4.1.1, See FR‐74
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter compliance with the NFPA Manual of Style
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐48, Section No. 6.6, See FR‐48
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 3
David R. Carpenter needed to be consistant concerning arc flash with other NFPA standards
Jay Tamblingson The reference here to 16.2.3 is too limiting. Subsection 16.2.7 also references
the requirement for warning against arc flash hazards. Should not 16.2.7 be
also referenced in 6 6? What is missing is some lower limit of the arc flash
hazard which could exclude those devices or assemblies for which the
warning is not needed. As of now the only exclusion is found in 16.2.3.2
which excludes items too small to place a label on.
Mark R. Hilbert Continue to accept the revision. See my ballot statement on FR 46.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 16
Page 18
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐20, Section No. 7.2.1.2, See FR‐20
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter correct wording for application
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
Page 19
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐13, Section No. 7.2.4.2.5, See FR‐13
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter correlation with NEC and style manual
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐103, Section No. 7.2.7.1, See FR‐103
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
Paul Dobrowsky Transformers and overload device requirements are provided with
references to the NEC. A similar requirement should be included for motor
controllers possibly as part of 7.2.10. Motor controllers shall be provided in
accordance with Article 430, Part VII of NFPA 70.
David R. Carpenter comply with the NFPA Manual of Style
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
FR‐14, Section No. 7.2.8, See FR‐14
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter clarifies application
Negative 0
Page 20
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐2, Section No. 7.2.10.1.1, See FR‐2
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter compliance with the NFPA Manual of Style
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
Page 21
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐17, Section No. 7.2.10.2, See FR‐17
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 3
David R. Carpenter consistancy and clarification of other articles/sections
Daniel R. Neeser Recommend deleting "ground fault" since this is redundant ‐ a ground fault is
a type of short‐circuit.
Jay Tamblingson It would be better, structure wise, if the added sentence was inserted as a
new listed item. If not, an "and" should be inserted before the two clauses so
the listed item (2) would be one sentence.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 16
FR‐16, Section No. 7.2.10.3, See FR‐16
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 3
David R. Carpenter consistancy and clarification of other articles/sections
Daniel R. Neeser Recommend deleting "ground fault" since this is redundant ‐ a ground fault is
a type of short‐circuit.
Jay Tamblingson The "is" in the last sentence should be "shall be"
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 16
FR‐22, Section No. 7.2.11.3, See FR‐22
Eligible to Vote:23
Page 22
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
Paul Dobrowsky The opening phase should be improved for clarity such as "shall meet all the
following requirements" or "shall be:"
David R. Carpenter clarification
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
Page 23
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐84, Section No. 7.3.1, See FR‐84
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
David R. Carpenter compliance with the NFPA Manual of Style
Stephen W. Douglas Is it necessary to include “motor controller”? Some may read this to mean
the overlaod protection needs to be installed ahead of the motor controller. I
recommend we remove “motor controller” from this requirement.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
FR‐18, Section No. 7.8, See FR‐18
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 3
Paul Dobrowsky Delete new 7.8.3 Where provided, SPDs shall be connected across the
terminals of all equipment requiring such protection. I understand this is an
existing requirement but SPD's are installed by choice so why shouldn't the
designer or installer be permitted to decide where to connect them.
David R. Carpenter Needed information to properly install, inspect or troubleshoot
Page 24
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Jay Tamblingson The new language appears to mandate that only devices classified as SPD's
can be used for surge suppression of switching transients, but does not
differentiate between transients in power circuits vs. control circuits. It is
common practice to use diodes on dc inductive loads to suppress switching
transients, but it is unclear if these are classified under as SPD's. In addition,
accessories for industrial components that provide suppression are not listed
as SPD's but as motor controller accessories.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 16
FR‐86, Section No. 7.9, See FR‐86
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter needed information and clarification
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐57, Section No. 8.1, See FR‐57
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
Page 25
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Paul Dobrowsky Removing the parenthetical terms is a good change and should improve
clarity. In addition replacing the phrase "equipment grounding circuit" with
"equipment grounding conductor", "bonding conductor" or "equipment
bonding jumper" might be more appropriate.
Jay Tamblingson Rather than deleting the the annex note reference under 8.1, it should be
retained and the annex note changed to refer to the new annex J on
grounding and bonding terminology.
Negative 1
David R. Carpenter See FR‐50 comments ‐ This especially applies to industrial machines and
should not be treated as facilities type language. There are times when the
two do overlap.
Abstain 0
Affirmative 16
Page 26
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐75, Section No. 8.2, See FR‐75
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
Paul Dobrowsky Removing the parenthetical terms is a good change and should improve
clarity. In addition replacing the phrase "equipment grounding circuit" with
"equipment grounding conductor", "bonding conductor" or "equipment
bonding jumper" might be more appropriate.
Negative 3
Mike Soter Exception allows the use of machine members for establishing the continuity
of a ground path. This is not an acceptable practice(regardless of machine
member size)for multiple reasons: 1. The resistivity of that path (based on
the number of bolted connections)may not be the least resistive path to the
source. 2. The path then becomes a "function" of non‐qualified individuals.
ie. Personnel familiar with electrical installations lose "functional" control of
the ground path integrity. 3. Non‐Electrical maintenance personnel may
inadvertantley break, or add resistance to that unlabeled/unidentified path
during the course of the machine's life expectancy.
Page 27
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
David R. Carpenter See comments FR‐50 and FR‐57
Jay Tamblingson The permission of the exception to 8.2.2.1 was removed from the 2007 NFPA
79 for reasons that included alignment with IEC 60204‐1 in accordance with
the July 23, 1998 letter from the Standards Council which read in part:
"Concur with the efforts of the NFPA 79 Committee to harmonize the
technical requirements of NFPA 79 and IEC 204, where feasible and where in
concert with the NEC and its related codes and standards." Further, the "in
concert with the NEC and its related codes and standards" part of the
permission from the Standards Council was then deemed to be met, as cited
by Lynn Saunders in his Comment, in that the removal of the allowance to
substitute machine members for an equipment grounding conductor met the
requirements of Article 300.3(B) of the NEC. It required that the equipment
grounding conductor be contained in the same raceway with the other
conductors of the same circuit. The proposed exception is, in effect, ignoring
the agreement to align with IEC 60204‐1 and the NEC 300.3(B) requirement.
It has been proposed on the basis of Article 250.136(A) which permits a
grounded metal rack or structure provided for the support of electrical
equipment to, in turn, ground the electrical equipment that is securely
Abstain 0
Affirmative 15
FR‐96, Section No. 8.3, See FR‐96
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter needed change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
Page 28
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐107, Section No. 8.4.2, See FR‐107
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
Paul Dobrowsky NFPA Staff's name incorrectly appears as the submitter. Removing the
parenthetical terms is a good change and should improve clarity. In addition
replacing the phrase "equipment grounding circuit" with "equipment
grounding conductor", "bonding conductor" or "equipment bonding jumper"
might be more appropriate.
Negative 1
David R. Carpenter See comments FR‐50 and FR‐57
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
FR‐76, Section No. 9.1.1.2, See FR‐76
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
Paul Dobrowsky Removing the parenthetical terms is a good change and should improve
clarity. In addition replacing the phrase "equipment grounding circuit" with
"equipment grounding conductor", "bonding conductor" or "equipment
bonding jumper" might be more appropriate.
Negative 1
David R. Carpenter See comments FR‐50 and FR‐57
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
Page 30
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐63, Section No. 9.1.4.2, See FR‐63
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter correction needed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐24, Section No. 9.2.2, See FR‐24
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter correction needed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐59, Sections 9.2.5.3.1, 9.2.5.3.2, See FR‐59
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter correction needed
Negative 1
Page 31
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Mark R. Hilbert I agree with the recommendation to change the word “where” to “as”
however, no action should be taken on the remainder of the proposed
revisions. By removing 9.2.5.3.1 there is no longer a mandatory requirement
to provide a Category 0 stop. I do not agree that 9.2.5.3 is redundant with
9.2.5.3.2. Section 9.2.5.3.2 only requires the Category 0, 1, or 2 stop(s) to be
provided and located as required by the risk assessment. There is no
mandatory requirement for a Category 0 stop to be provided. That
requirement is in 9.2.5.3.1.
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
FR‐25, Section No. 9.2.5.4.2.1, See FR‐25
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter gives needed guidance
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
Page 32
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐42, Section No. 9.3.6, See FR‐42
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter different nomenclature is used to be consistant
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐67, Section No. 9.4.1, See FR‐67
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter compliance with the NFPA Manual of Style
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐26, Section No. 9.4.3.2, See FR‐26
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter improper annex note
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐66, Section No. 9.4.3.4, See FR‐66
Eligible to Vote:23
Page 33
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 3
Paul Dobrowsky During the meeting there was considerable discussion about the necessary
provisions for software and firmware based controllers used in safety related
functions. Some indicated that the existing conditions cannot be met. Listed
products are available that supposedly meet these provisions. If the
provisions are not accurate they need to be modified but they need to
remain in the standard and not only determined by anyone's risk assessment
with no specific stated method.
Page 34
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
David R. Carpenter annex note which was incorrectly referenced has now been corrected
Jay Tamblingson The annex note revision was correct, but the committee action to reject the
changes proposed in Public Input 47 by the NFPA 79 Control and Technology
Task Force was not. Most of today's safety relays and controllers use
software or firmware, and the existing language essentially prescribes a level
of safety control system performance that may not be appropriate or
achievable for the level of risk identified. Functional safety solutions are
given in probabilistic terms. They are based on the theory that any electronic
component can fail at any time. This is quite different from the deterministic
approach used for electromechanical devices that have B10 life
characterizations where it is very improbable that a well‐designed redundant
system will fail during the derated B10 life of the devices. In addition, the
committee discussed the listing requirements in 9.4.3.4.1 for software and
firmware controllers. As it is not clear at this time if NRTL's are approved for
listing to appropriate functional safety standards, the language in this section
needs to be addressed in conjunction with 9.4.3.4.2 during the comment
stage to align with approval methods.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 16
FR‐1, Section No. 10.3.1.1, See FR‐1
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter compliance with the NFPA Manual of Style
Page 35
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐62, Section No. 10.7.4.1, See FR‐62
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter removed non‐applicable reference
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐34, Section No. 11.2.1.5.1, See FR‐34
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter This guidance is needed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐32, Section No. 11.3.2, See FR‐32
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
Paul Dobrowsky The term "NEMA" should be removed from this section. The NEC simply uses
the term "Type". leaving the term "NEMA" can infer that something different
than the NEC Type rations are intended.
Page 36
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
David R. Carpenter clarification makes the principle easier to apply
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
FR‐33, Section No. 11.4.2, See FR‐33
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter needed reference
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
Page 37
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐35, Section No. 11.5, See FR‐35
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 3
Paul Dobrowsky The additional text submitted in PI ? Log 114 needs to be added to this
section. It is my understanding that the NEC working spaces requirements are
applicable for the enclosure that contains the supply conductor. This is
supported by NEC 670.1, Informational Note 2. During the meeting there was
considerable discussion and disagreement about this issue. Clear direction
needs to be provided regarding which working space requirements are
applicable.
Drake A. Drobnick I agree with the submitter's substantiation (PI#96). Required equipment
working spaces shall be flat in both the entire depth and width dimentions.
David R. Carpenter This clarification needed
Negative 1
Page 38
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Mark R. Hilbert I voted negative as I do not agree with all the proposed changes. I agree with
the recommendations in PIs 104 & 56 to revise the metric measurement, the
recommendation in PI 55 to clarify Exception No. 4 by changing “and” to
“where” and the recommendation in PI 10 to relocate 11.5.1 to a new
11.5.1.4. I do not agree with the recommendation in PI 56 to add “opening
into the” in front of the words “control cabinet” in 11.5.1.2. The
requirements of this section are necessary to provide adequate space for
personnel to perform adjustment, examination, maintenance and servicing
tasks on the outside of enclosures as well as the inside. The proposed
changes only consider tasks that are performed inside of the enclosure when
in fact there are tasks performed on the outside of enclosures as well. For
example repair or replacement of the operating handle for a disconnecting
means mounted on the outside flange of a control cabinet. As revised
adjacent machine equipment could be placed in front of a control cabinet as
long as the cabinet opening is clear and I can operate the disconnecting
means operator. This will compromise the access to components mounted
on the outside of equipment and will significantly reduce the likelihood of
Abstain 0
Affirmative 15
Page 39
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐11, Section No. 12.5.5, See FR‐11
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
Paul Dobrowsky The term " derating" should be replaced with "adjustment" related to
"numbers of conductors" and "correction" relating to ambient temperature.
This cange has been made in the NEC and NFPA 79 should be consistent to
avoid confusion.
Jay Tamblingson Given that 4.4.3 states that the ambient operating temperature of the
equipment shall be betweeen 5c and 40C, it would be useful to update the
correction factors and ampacity tables based on 40C rather than requiring
users to always adjust from 30C ambient values and would improve
harmonization with IEC 60204‐1.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
FR‐10, Section No. 12.6.1.1, See FR‐10
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
David R. Carpenter Difference between ampacity and current in the sentence structure is
needed to keep definitions consist to application...Ampacity defines the
capability of a circuit to handle current.. Current Rating is the ability to
produce... This term is now consistent with other motor related standards
such as the DOE..
Page 40
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Daniel R. Neeser Class CF fuses which have the same performance requirements as Class J
fuses should be added to the list of acceptable fuses in 1(c)iii, 2(c)iii, and
3(c)iii. In addition, Class CF fuses should be added to Table 7.2.10.1. So it
should say "Class J or CF".
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
Page 41
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐9, Section No. 12.6.1.2, See FR‐9
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
David R. Carpenter see FR‐10 comments
Daniel R. Neeser Class CF fuses which have the same performance requirements as Class J
fuses should be added to the list of acceptable fuses in 1(c)iii, 2(c)iii, and
3(c)iii. In addition, Class CF fuses should be added to Table 7.2.10.1. So it
should say "Class J or CF".
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
FR‐73, Section No. 12.9.2, See FR‐73
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
David R. Carpenter revised language clarifies the intent
Mark R. Hilbert This revision also meets the intent of PI 103, Log #59.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
FR‐90, Section No. 13.1.4, See FR‐90
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 3
David R. Carpenter revised language clarificaton is needed
Page 42
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Daniel R. Neeser The term "supply circuits" should be better defined in the standard. Is it for
the supply to the main industrial control panel of a machine? Does it also
apply to industrial control panels downstream of the main industrial control
panel? I would think the requirements for downstream industrial control
panels, may not necessarily have the same requirements.
Stephen W. Douglas Is it the intent of the committee to prevent these supplies to be installed in
separate cables? Provide each supply is installed in a separate cable I believe
the intent of this requirement will be met. I recommend we add “or cables”
after the word raceway to read: Where the equipment is supplied from two
or more sources of power or from two or more independent disconnecting
means, the power wiring from each supply source or from each
disconnecting means shall be run in raceways, or cables and shall not
terminate in or pass through common junction boxes.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 16
FR‐77, Section No. 13.2.2.1, See FR‐77
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 0
Negative 1
David R. Carpenter See comment FR‐50
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
Page 43
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐78, Section No. 13.4.5.3, See FR‐78
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
Paul Dobrowsky Removing the parenthetical terms is a good change and should improve
clarity. In addition replacing the phrase "equipment grounding circuit" with
"equipment grounding conductor", "bonding conductor" or "equipment
bonding jumper" might be more appropriate.
Negative 1
David R. Carpenter See comment FR‐50
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
FR‐105, Section No. 13.5.10.1, See FR‐105
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter compliance with the NFPA Manual of Style
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐106, Section No. 14.1.1, See FR‐106
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 3
David R. Carpenter compliance with the NFPA Manual of Style
Page 44
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Paul R. Warndorf This item should be harmonized with FR‐90‐NFPA 79‐2012 and delete the
word "separate" from "separate raceway".
Stephen W. Douglas Is it the intent of the committee to prevent these supplies to be installed in
separate cables? Provide each supply is installed in a separate cable I believe
the intent of this requirement will be met. I recommend we add “or cables”
after the word raceway to read: Where the equipment has two or more
sources of power or two or more independent disconnecting means, power
wiring from each disconnecting means shall be run in separate raceways or
cables and shall not terminate in or pass through common junction boxes.
Negative 1
Jay Tamblingson This section should have been deleted as it is redundant with 13.1.4 which
applies to all conductors, including motor circuits.
Abstain 0
Affirmative 15
FR‐79, Section No. 15.1.1, See FR‐79
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
Paul Dobrowsky Removing the parenthetical terms is a good change and should improve
clarity. In addition replacing the phrase "equipment grounding circuit" with
"equipment grounding conductor", "bonding conductor" or "equipment
bonding jumper" might be more appropriate. The parenthetical terms
(plug/sockets) should also be deleted.
Negative 2
Page 45
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Drake A. Drobnick I agree with the submitter's substantiation (PI#1) for removing 20 ampere
receptacles.
David R. Carpenter See comment FR‐50
Abstain 0
Affirmative 16
FR‐88, Section No. 16.2.3 [Excluding any Sub‐Sections], See FR‐88
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter Sign must be durable
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐89, Section No. 16.4.1, See FR‐89
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter needed to stop confusion
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐80, Section No. 18.1, See FR‐80
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
Page 46
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Paul Dobrowsky Removing the parenthetical terms is a good change and should improve
clarity. In addition replacing the phrase "equipment grounding circuit" with
"equipment grounding conductor", "bonding conductor" or "equipment
bonding jumper" might be more appropriate.
Negative 1
David R. Carpenter This change does not stop or clear up confusion when Industrial Machine
design is based on IEC standards. See FR‐50.. Removing the term "protective
ground" does not explain how it (the term "Protective Ground")is to be
applied when referred to within specifications and wiring diagrams of IEC
based equipment. When the engineer or installer encounters the IEC Wirng
Diagram they are not aware that this in reference to the US equivalent of the
equipment ground... some think it is referring to the neutral....
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
Page 47
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐81, Section No. 18.2, See FR‐81
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
Paul Dobrowsky Removing the parenthetical terms is a good change and should improve
clarity. In addition replacing the phrase "equipment grounding circuit" with
"equipment grounding conductor", "bonding conductor" or "equipment
bonding jumper" might be more appropriate.
Negative 1
David R. Carpenter See comments FR ‐50 & FR ‐ 80
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
FR‐82, Section No. 18.3, See FR‐82
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
Paul Dobrowsky Removing the parenthetical terms is a good change and should improve
clarity. In addition replacing the phrase "equipment grounding circuit" with
"equipment grounding conductor", "bonding conductor" or "equipment
bonding jumper" might be more appropriate.
Negative 1
David R. Carpenter See comments FR ‐50 & FR ‐ 80
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
FR‐83, Section No. 18.4, See FR‐83
Page 48
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
Paul Dobrowsky Removing the parenthetical terms is a good change and should improve
clarity. In addition replacing the phrase "equipment grounding circuit" with
"equipment grounding conductor", "bonding conductor" or "equipment
bonding jumper" might be more appropriate.
Negative 1
David R. Carpenter See comments FR ‐50 & FR ‐ 80
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
FR‐87, Section No. 19.1, See FR‐87
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
David R. Carpenter This clarification is long over due. However, there is still work needed for this
section concerning existing applications with no manufactures guidance
concerning SCCR. This must be compliant with the manufactures testing
results for application.
Daniel R. Neeser It would be beneficial to clarify that the branch circuit overcurrent protective
device is really only providing short‐circuit protection. Recommend the
standard refer to the branch‐circuit short‐circuit and ground fault protection
be changed to branch‐circuit short‐circuit protection. In addition, it would be
beneficial to define the term in Chapter 3, such as Short‐circuit (fault). A
short‐circuit is a type of overcurrent condition where current flows outside of
the normal path. The fault can be line‐line, line‐ground (ground fault), line‐
neutral or combination.
Page 49
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
FR‐55, Section No. A.3.3.9, See FR‐55
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 0
Negative 1
David R. Carpenter See comments FR ‐50 & FR ‐ 80
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐95, Section No. A.3.3.32, See FR‐95
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
Palmer L. Hickman Delete the parenthetical references: Conduits, cable trunking systems (see
3.3.15), and underfloor channels are types of duct. (See also 3.3.80,
Raceway.)
Page 50
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
David R. Carpenter needed editorial change
Negative 1
Paul Dobrowsky This section and the definition of "Duct" in Chapter 3 should be deleted. The
term "Raceway" is defined and is the correct term. Adding information in the
proposed annex related to the term "duct" is appropriate.
Abstain 0
Affirmative 16
FR‐52, Section No. A.3.3.77, See FR‐52
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter See comments FR ‐50 & FR ‐ 80
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐69, Section No. A.3.3.85, See FR‐69
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter needed change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐8, Section No. A.4.1, See FR‐8
Eligible to Vote:23
Page 51
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
Palmer L. Hickman The Correlating Committee should review this action. It may be beyond the
scope of NFPA 79 to address static electricity.
David R. Carpenter needed reference
Negative 1
Daniel R. Neeser Adding this standard is not appropriate since the text does not address static
electricity (only in the annex material).
Abstain 0
Affirmative 16
Page 52
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐70, Section No. A.5.4.3, See FR‐70
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
Palmer L. Hickman Recommend removal of the parenthetical reference: The selection of other
means is dependent on many factors, taking into account those persons for
whom its use is intended. (See ANSI B11.0 and ISO 12100.)
David R. Carpenter Needed Reference
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
FR‐47, New Section after A.6.2, See FR‐47
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
David R. Carpenter best language for intent
Mark R. Hilbert Continue to accept the revisions. See my ballot comment on FR 46.
Negative 1
Daniel R. Neeser There are not currently UL 50E enclosures that are available as arc resistant,
only some low‐voltage and medium voltage equipment (switchgear and
motor control centers) is currently available.
Abstain 0
Affirmative 16
FR‐56, Section No. A.6.3.1.1, See FR‐56
Eligible to Vote:23
Page 53
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
Paul Dobrowsky Removing the parenthetical terms is a good change and should improve
clarity. In addition replacing the phrase "equipment grounding circuit" with
"equipment grounding conductor", "bonding conductor" or "equipment
bonding jumper" might be more appropriate.
Jay Tamblingson This is the only place where the term "equipment grounding system" is used.
The term "equipment grounding circuit" is used in Chapter 8 and elsewhere.
Negative 1
David R. Carpenter See comments FR ‐50 & FR ‐ 80
Abstain 0
Affirmative 16
Page 54
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐58, Section No. A.8.1, See FR‐58
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 0
Negative 2
David R. Carpenter See comments FR ‐50 & FR ‐ 80
Jay Tamblingson The annex note should be retained but revised to point to the new Annex J
containing details on grounding and bonding terminology.
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
FR‐61, New Section after A.9.2, See FR‐61
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
Palmer L. Hickman The first sentence does not appear to read correctly. Also, it is recommended
to remove the parenthetical reference: For removal of power it can be
sufficient to remove the power needed to generate a torque or force. This
can be achieved by declutching, disconnecting, switching off, or by electronic
means (see 9.2.5.4.1.4). When stop functions are initiated it can be necessary
to discontinue machine functions other than motion.
David R. Carpenter annex needed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
Page 55
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐64, Section No. A.9.2, See FR‐64
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
David R. Carpenter See comments FR ‐50 & FR ‐ 80
Jay Tamblingson The term "emergency stopping" should be changed to "stopping" as it
generically applies with the other items listed. As described in A9.2.5.4,
"emergency stop" is a complementary protective measure.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
Page 56
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐60, New Section after A.9.2.3.3, See FR‐60
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
Palmer L. Hickman This sentence does not appear to read correctly: The supply circuit
disconnecting means when opened achieves a Category 0 stop.
David R. Carpenter nedded
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
FR‐68, Section No. A.9.4.1.1, See FR‐68
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter corrected reference
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐65, Section No. A.9.4.3.2, See FR‐65
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter corrected reference
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
Page 57
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐71, Section No. A.14.1, See FR‐71
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter corrected reference
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
Page 58
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐72, Section No. C.5, See FR‐72
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter clarification
Negative 1
Mark R. Hilbert Adding “conveyors and conveying machines” to the examples of industrial
machines is not necessary and will likely add more confusion than
clarification from an inspection standpoint. For example would a conveyor
with a manual start/stop arrangement and loading that is permanently
installed between grade level or the 1st floor and the 2nd floor storage area
of an industrial or commercial facility be an considered an industrial
machine? The large complex types of “conveying machines” recommended in
the recommendation can be considered under C.5 (2) and (3) transfer and
sortation machines.
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
FR‐91, Section No. D.1, See FR‐91
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
Palmer L. Hickman It is suggested to remove the parenthetical information: Figure D.1(a)
through Figure D.1(q) are not intended to be (design) guidelines. They are
included only to illustrate documentation methods.
David R. Carpenter Agree that output and input are wrong in existing text
Negative 0
Page 59
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
FR‐92, Section No. F.2, See FR‐92
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter compliance and clarity
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
Page 60
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐104, Section No. F.5.3.1, See FR‐104
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
David R. Carpenter compliance with the NFPA Manual of Style
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 18
FR‐31, New Section after F.5.4, See FR‐31
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 19
FR‐43, Section No. H.2, See FR‐43
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
Palmer L. Hickman It is suggested to remove the parentheical references.
David R. Carpenter consistent terminology
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
FR‐49, New Section after H.5, See FR‐49
Eligible to Vote:23
Page 61
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 1
Mark R. Hilbert Continue to develop this Annex. See my ballot statement on FR 50.
Negative 1
David R. Carpenter The IEC terms and definition should be compared to NFPA to help the reader
understand how to apply.
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
Page 62
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐7, Section No. J.1.1, See FR‐7
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
Palmer L. Hickman The Correlating Committee should review this action. It may be beyond the
scope of NFPA 79 to address static electricity.
David R. Carpenter Needed reference
Negative 2
Drake A. Drobnick If we didn't accept any public inputs concerning static electricity there is no
need to reference this publication.
Daniel R. Neeser Adding this standard is not appropriate since the text does not address static
electricity (only in the annex material).
Abstain 0
Affirmative 15
FR‐30, Section No. J.1.2, See FR‐30
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 3
Drake A. Drobnick I agree with the submitter of PI#60. The dates for ISO 12100 and 13849‐1
should be updated.
David R. Carpenter ISO information needed
J. B. Titus According to the PI 60 and FR 30 statements for my submittal on J.1.2.5, the
recommended action was approved. Yet, the date for ISO 12100 was not
changed from 2003 to 2010 and likewise the date for ISO 13849‐1 was not
changed from 1990 to 2006.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 16
Page 63
NFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL
FR‐94, Section No. J.1.2.8, See FR‐94
Eligible to Vote:23
Choice Comments VotesAffirmative with Comment 2
Drake A. Drobnick The UL publication dates within this FR do not agree with dates for the same
publications found in FR#30.
David R. Carpenter the best reference available
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Affirmative 17
Page 64