National Fire Protection Association · 2016-05-10 · Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs Vote Selection Votes Comments Affirmative 20 Affirmative with Comment 2 James B. Hayes this is an improvment

National Fire Protection Association

1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471

Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org

TO: Technical Committee on Electrical Equipment of Industrial Machinery (EEI-AAA)

FROM: Mark Cloutier, Staff Liaison

DATE: May 10, 2016

SUBJECT: NFPA 79 First Draft TC Ballot Circulation

____________________________________________________________________________

The receipt due date of May 9, 2016 for the NFPA 79 ballot has passed.

In accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards, the

preliminary First Draft ballot results are attached for your review. These results include

explanation of negative votes, abstentions and affirmative votes with comments.

28 Members Eligible to Vote

6 Ballots Not Returned (Boggs, Douglas, Kovacik, Mulherrin, Titus and Ziegeweid)

If you wish to change your vote, the change must be received at NFPA prior to Tuesday, May

17, 2016. Members who did not returned a ballot may do so now. Ballots or changes may be

made by going to the following link: NFPA Vote.net Ballot

The return of ballots is required by the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA

Standards.

http://www.nfpa.org/catalog/services/customer/nfpa_committee_vote.asp

Eligible to Vote: 28

Not Returned : 6

Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.

Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.

Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs

Vote Selection Votes Comments

Affirmative 20

Affirmative with Comment 2

James B. Hayes this is an improvment

Robert Gruendel Agreed

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 20


James B. Hayes ? No Comment


Negative 0

FR-16, Global Input, See FR-16

NFPA 79 FIRST DRAFT BALLOT CIRCULATION


Total Voted : 22

Page 1 of 41

http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/FormLaunch?id=/TerraView/Content/79-2015.ditamap/2/C1456860762654.xml&viewmode=nfpa/xslt/nfpaviewmode.xsl


Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 19


James B. Hayes improves clarity



Total Voted : 22

Page 2 of 41


Mark R. Hilbert I agree with using one term for the First Draft and choosing “plainly visible” over “clearly

visible” as it is used in more than one location. However, from an inspection standpoint,

only the term “visible” is necessary and “plainly” should be removed where used for the

Second Draft. Having “plainly” before “visible” does not add clarity and is too subjective.

When there is a visibility requirement within a section it must be judged based on the

particular application. Using either “plainly visible” or “clearly visible” does not help with

enforcing or interpreting a visibility requirement. It can only be judged on the specific

application. If there are different interpretations of the visibility requirements within a

section, then the section should be rewritten to more clearly identify the visibility

requirement.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 19


Mark R. Hilbert I agree with the Committee’s action and that a task group is needed to establish any

necessary comments to coordinate with the increase in the scope of the document from

“600” to “1000” volts. This should include correlating Table 11.5 with Table 110.26(A) of

the 2017 Edition of NFPA 70 (NEC). A task has been established to review the document

and submit comments as necessary.

FR-3, Section No. 1.1.1, See FR-3

Total Voted : 22

Page 3 of 41


James B. Hayes Improvment


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 20



Negative 1

James B. Hayes Keep at 600 volt.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6




FR-19, New Section after 3.3.5, See FR-19

Total Voted : 22

FR-4, Chapter 2, See FR-4

Total Voted : 22

Page 4 of 41




Affirmative 20


James B. Hayes Standardize


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 20


James B. Hayes better to align with NEC


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22

Page 5 of 41



Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 18


James B. Hayes better clarity


Negative 2

Palmer L. Hickman The 79 Technical Committee should consider using definitions consistent with those in

NFPA 70E.

Paul Dobrowsky I am not opposed to changing the term to match what is in IEC 60204-1 but am opposed to

including the parenthetical note next to the term in Chapter 3. The committee voted to

remove IEC parenthetical notes for the 2015 edition of NFPA 79 due to confusion. Although

this situation is slightly different providing the wording in Annex A is sufficient.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6




FR-6, Section No. 3.3.19.4, See FR-6

Total Voted : 22


Page 6 of 41




Affirmative 20


James B. Hayes Clarity


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 20




Negative 0

Abstain 0


Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22

Page 7 of 41



Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 18




Negative 1

Paul Dobrowsky I am not opposed to changing the term to match what is in IEC 60204-1 but am opposed to

including the parenthetical note next to the term in Chapter 3. The committee voted to

remove IEC parenthetical notes for the 2015 edition of NFPA 79 due to confusion. Although

this situation is slightly different providing the wording in Annex A is sufficient.

Abstain 1

Palmer L. Hickman The Technical Committee should consider using definitions consistent with those in NFPA

70E.


Not Returned : 6





Total Voted : 22


Page 8 of 41




Affirmative 19


James B. Hayes Align with NEC


Paul Dobrowsky Delete the term "socket" in 3.3.91 (now 3.3.96) and anywhere else it or plug/socket is used

other than in Annex J. IEC parenthetical terms were agreed to be deleted in the 2015

revision of NFPA 79.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 17


Palmer L. Hickman The Correlating Committee may want to review this and other definitions in 79.


Total Voted : 22

Page 9 of 41


Mark R. Hilbert I am supporting the addition of this definition at the First Draft stage as I believe that

comments from the public would be beneficial. However, I currently disagree the proposed

definition will add clarity or usability to the document as it does not consider all situations

that could occur. When there is a visibility requirement within a section it must be judged

based on the particular application. Using either “plainly visible” or “clearly visible” does

not help with enforcing or interpreting a visibility requirement. Whether something is

“visible” can only be judged on the specific application. If there are different

interpretations of the “visibility requirements” within a section, then the section should be

rewritten to more clearly identify the visibility requirement.



Negative 1

Paul Dobrowsky I agree with being consistent but am unsure if the term "plainly" is helpful or even if

defining it is helpful. The term "In sight From" is defined as being "visible" from and not

more than 50 ft from" without the word "plainly". That seems to be sufficient. The concept

needs to use the same wording but modifying the definition of "In sight From" would make

it different from the NEC without a reason. Consider deleting the word "plainly" where

used with "visible" throughout the standard.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





FR-13, Chapter 4 [Title Only], See FR-13

Total Voted : 22

Page 10 of 41


Affirmative 20


James B. Hayes Better


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 20




Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR-17, New Section after 4.3.2.7, See FR-17

Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22

Page 11 of 41



Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 17


James B. Hayes Good addition


William Brungs Vote affirmative providing interlocks do not have to run through disconnect switch.

Negative 2

Paul Dobrowsky The revision is not bad but does not go far enough. The committee statement is not

consistent with the language in the section. All of the changes suggested in PI 155 should

be accepted. An industrial machinery manufacturer cannot be expected to guess what

other types of other equipment could be located near their industrial machine.

Jay Tamblingson The proposed text does not alter the requirement as indicated in the committee

statement. The phrase "the equipment" is already understood to be that "of an industrial

machine".

Abstain 0


Total Voted : 22

Page 12 of 41



Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 19


James B. Hayes word smithing

Robert Gruendel This should be further clarified as to the party responsible to ensure this is satisfied.

Negative 1

Daniel R. Neeser This requirement is misleading since “the point of supply” is not well defined. This change

could be interpreted to require the marking of the available fault current at downstream

“subpanels”. The current requirement in 16.4.3 requires: Where more than one incoming

supply circuit is to be provided, the nameplate shall state the information in 16.4.1 for each

circuit. This would require each supply circuit industrial control panel to be marked with

the SCCR and the current text of 4.8 would require the industrial control panel to be rated

for the maximum available fault current. In addition, “fault current” should be changed to

“short-circuit current” which is the term being used in the 2017 NEC.

Abstain 0

Total Voted : 22

FR-15, Section No. 4.8, See FR-15

Page 13 of 41



Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 17


James B. Hayes good for Clarity


Mark R. Hilbert I agree with the Committee’s actions to revise the title and text of Chapter 5 to identify

that Chapter 5 provides the requirements for the supply circuit disconnecting means and

terminations of the machine. However, I believe that additional work must be done to

really clarify what the supply circuit to a machine is. This will also assist with clarifying how

to apply the interlocking requirements of 6.2.4. I do not agree that just removing the term

“incoming” alone is going to provide the necessary clarification as there will still be

questions on what a supply circuit is. I recommend comments for replacing “incoming”

with “machine” where applicable so it would read “machine supply circuit” and then

providing a definition of “machine supply circuit.” as follows: “Machine Supply Circuit.”

“The conductors between the premises wiring and the machine disconnecting means or

terminals.” Replacing the term “incoming” with “machine” and including a definition as

recommended will add clarity regarding what the machine supply circuit is.

Daniel R. Neeser To correlate with change, revise 5.1 – delete “incoming” and “conductor”. Revise 5.1.2 –

delete “incoming” in 2 places. Revise 5.1.4 – delete “incoming”. Revise 5.1.5 – delete

“incoming”. Revise 5.1.6 – delete “incoming”. Revise


Page 14 of 41


Negative 1

Jay Tamblingson The proposed change gives the reader the impression that Chapter 5 has been reduced to

cover only supply circuit terminations and disconnecting means. The existing title should be

maintained as it more accurately reflects the topics including incoming supply terminal

terminations, supply circuit disconnecting means, means for removal of power to prevent

unexpected startup, and devices for disconnecting electrical equipment. In addition, the

existing title more closely aligns with that in IEC 60204-1 and maintains harmonization.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 17


James B. Hayes word Fixing



Total Voted : 22

Page 15 of 41


Mark R. Hilbert I agree with the Committee’s actions to revise the text of Chapter 5 to clarify that Chapter

5 provides the requirements for the supply circuit to the machine, to correlate the

exceptions for remote disconnecting means and to recognize new technology that uses

“covers” instead of “doors.” It is just as important for a disconnecting means associated

with a cover, as opposed to a door, to be provided with a means to be locked in the open

position. However, I believe that additional work must be done in order to really clarify

what the supply circuit to a machine is. I do not agree that just removing the term

“incoming” alone is going to provide the necessary clarification as there will still be

questions on what a supply circuit is. I recommend comments for replacing “incoming”

with “machine” where applicable so it would read “machine supply circuit” and then

providing a definition of “machine supply circuit.” as follows: “Machine Supply Circuit.”

“The conductors between the premises wiring and the machine disconnecting means or

terminals.” Replacing the term “incoming” with “machine” and including a definition as

recommended will add clarity regarding what is the machine supply circuit. I do not agree

with adding the exception to 5.3.1.4 which removes the interlocking of the supply circuit

disconnecting means with the control enclosure if it takes a tool to the control enclosure.

This longstanding requirement provides a greater degree of safety and only applies to the

disconnecting means for the supply circuit. The above suggested definition will clarify that.

The requirement to include a safety sign in accordance with 16.2 is problematic as there is

no guidance as to which of the eight different requirements in the section are to be

complied with. Additionally, there is no direction as to what the sign should indicate.

Negative 2

William Brungs Implementing this FR will be in conflict with UL 508A, Sections 66.1.2 & 66.1.3

Page 16 of 41

Jay Tamblingson This FR should not be accepted for the following reasons: 1. The term “incoming supply

circuit” is used in NEC Article 670 and should be retained for consistency. Removing the

term "incoming" reduces clarity as it is intended to reference a supply originating from

outside the electrical equipment of the machine. 2. The new exception to 5.3.1.4 would

permit on any size machine the substitution of the existing requirements for interlocking of

the disconnect with the enclosure door by use of a door requiring tool access and a safety

sign. No substantiation has been provided that shows how this change “meets an

equivalent control as the existing requirements" as expressed in the committee statement.

The interlocking requirement should be maintained where practicable unless sufficient

alternative measures are provided to ensure equivalent protection.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 18


James B. Hayes OK simplified


FR-28, Chapter 6, See FR-28

Total Voted : 22

Page 17 of 41


Paul Dobrowsky The changes made are improvements but the concept in 6.2.1 needs improvement.

Insulated conductors by themselves are not protection from electric shock, that is why they

need to be in cable assemblies, enclosures, or raceways. The concepts of Basic Insulation"

and "Reinforced Insulation" should be added and possibly defined. Double Insulated and

reinforced insulated live parts can be suitable for electric shock protection but basic

insulation is not. The conductors in cable assemblies and in flexible cords although

insulated should not be depended on for protection from electric shock by themselves. The

conductors along with the outer covering or jacket can be suitable for protection from

electric shock. These possible definitions are offered for consideration but there are

probably better definitions in product standards. Basic Insulation. Material that provides a

degree of protection from electric shock and short circuits. Reinforced Insulation. Material

that provides protection suitable for contact by persons.

Negative 1

Palmer L. Hickman The Correlating Committee should review the use of basic and fault in this action and in the

Article 100 definitions. In addition, all of 6.4 should be reviewed including, but not limited

to, protection against shock. The Correlating Committee should also direct the NFPA 79

Technical Committee to reconsider its action related to what was added in 6.4.1.2 where

"Class 2 circuits, as covered in...Article 725 of NFPA 70(NEC), shall be permitted to be used

to provide protection from electric shock and other hazards." This is in conflict with the

definition of Class 2 circuit in 725.2 in the NEC, for example.

Abstain 0

Total Voted : 22

Page 18 of 41


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 17




Mark R. Hilbert This revision depends on the development of a new product standard. It may need to be

removed for the Second Draft if the work is not complete as there will be no products for

the applications.

Daniel R. Neeser Add “specific type and” ahead of “rating”. Exception No. 2: Where the controller is an

adjustable speed drive that is listed and marked “Suitable for Output Conductor

Protection,” the maximum rating of the designated SCPD shall be determined by replacing

the full-load current in Table 7.2.10.1 with the drive’s rated input current. The SCPD shall

not exceed the "specific type and" rating marked on the adjustable speed drive or in the

manufacturer’s instructions. Additionally Table 7.2.10.1 should be revised for time-delay

fuses. There is no need to list RK1 and RK5 separately, nor add a note (3) for Class RK5.

When motor controller are tested they are tested with Class RK5 limiter. There is not

option to test with Class RK1 fuses. So the motor controllers are simply specified as listed

with Class R fuses. Suggested change is below. Type of Application2 Fuse Class with Time

Delay1 AC-2 AC-3 AC-4 R 150 175 175 Note 3 - deleted

FR-65, Section No. 7.2.10.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections], See FR-65

Page 19 of 41


Negative 1

William Brungs Implementing this FR will be in conflict with NFPA 70, Section 430.130 Implementing this

FR will be in conflict with UL 508A, Section 31.1.3 Also, Exception 2 contains the word

“shall” which dictates that the maximum rating of the designated SCPD MUST be

determined by this method; “the maximum rating of the designated SCPD shall be

determined by replacing the full-load current in Table 7.2.10.1 with the drive’s rated input

current.” Exercising this method for determining the maximum rating should be a choice of

the person implementing the NFPA79 standard, and not stated as a requirement, which is

dictated by the word “shall”. Implementers of the NFPA79 standard may elect NOT to use

Exception 2, thereby using the initial guidelines of Section 7.2.10.1

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 17


James B. Hayes Better reff.



Total Voted : 22

Page 20 of 41


Paul Dobrowsky The following requirement was added to NEC 670.6 for 2017 based on FR 3357. It seems

that NFPA 79 should be consistent. "Industrial machinery with safety interlock circuits shall

have surge protection installed." This is the committee statement: The study, “Data

Assessment for Electrical Surge Protective Devices” commissioned by the Fire Protection

Research Foundation, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471, provides results of a

2013 and 2014 survey of facility managers concerning surge damage. It shows that 26%

had damage to safety interlocking systems on machines due to surges. These safety

interlocking systems are in place to protect workers from interactions with the machinery.

Additionally all equipment needs to be installed and used according to the manufacturer's

instructions if listed. Additionally add a new section to Chapter 1, possibly as 1.7, to read as

follows: Listed or Labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any

instructions included in the listing or labeling.

Mark R. Hilbert This revision depends on the development of a new product standard. It may need to be

removed for the Second Draft if the work is not complete as there will be no products for

the applications.

Negative 1

William Brungs Implementing this FR will be in conflict with NFPA 70, Section 430.130 Implementing this

FR will be in conflict with UL 508A, Section 31.1.3 Also, Exception 2 contains the word

“shall” which dictates that the maximum rating of the designated SCPD MUST be

determined by this method; “the maximum rating of the designated SCPD shall be

determined by replacing the full-load current in Table 7.2.10.1 with the drive’s rated input

current.” Exercising this method for determining the maximum rating should be a choice of

the person implementing the NFPA79 standard, and not stated as a requirement, which is

dictated by the word “shall”. Implementers of the NFPA79 standard may elect NOT to use

Exception 2, thereby using the initial guidelines of Section 7.2.10.4

Abstain 0

Total Voted : 22

Page 21 of 41


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 20


James B. Hayes aline with NEC


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 19


James B. Hayes good clarification



Total Voted : 22


Page 22 of 41



Paul Dobrowsky The wording in the requirement needs improvement and the committee statement does

not use the correct terms. It might be better to use the existing concept and change the

term "equipment grounding circuit" to equipment grounding conductor" 8.1.2

Connections. Grounded conductors shall not be connected to equipment grounding

conductors except at either the source or first disconnecting means of a grounded

separately derived system. Additionally the phrase "equipment grounding circuit" needs to

be changed to "equipment grounding conductor" and/or bonding jumper in Chapter 18 and

anywhere else it appears.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 19


James B. Hayes alines with NEC . althoght maybe the old version was good enought


Negative 1

Jay Tamblingson The proposed text in 8.2.1 appears to now be essentially redundant with 8.2.1.2.1 and does

not add clarity. The term "incoming" in 8.2.1.3.1 is needed to differentiate that the

terminal is related to a supply originating from outside the machine (see related ballot

comments on FR-24).

Abstain 0


Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22

Page 23 of 41



Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 20


James B. Hayes god for Safety


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 18


James B. Hayes No comment


FR-47, New Section after 9.2.5.3.2, See FR-47

Total Voted : 22


Page 24 of 41



Paul Dobrowsky Suggest revising the sentence to read as follows: Stop functions shall be initiated by de-

energization, not energization, of a device or as a command to a programmable logic

controller (PLC), except for cycle stop commands (stop by energization),

Negative 1

Jay Tamblingson The new requirement is unclear as to the scope of stop commands it is intended to address

and appears to limit the use of Safety PLC's for issuing of stop commands. Stopping by de-

energization is presently mentioned in Annex H.2 as one component for minimizing the

probability of control function failure.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 19


James B. Hayes clarity

Jim Couch 10.1.6.2 Arrangement of Operator Interface Devices. All start pushbuttons shall be

mounted above or (left) next to their associated stop pushbuttons. Change verbiage from

left to next. Many designers incorporate the stop pushbutton to be closer to the operator

during normal operation. This is considered to be a safer practice for the operator. This will

also bring NFPA closer in line with IEC 60204-1 as 60204 does not define to the left or right.


Total Voted : 22

Page 25 of 41


Negative 1

Robert Gruendel Additional discussion is needed to ensure the current safety technologies are not

prohibited.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 20


James B. Hayes I am familur with this need


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6






Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22

Page 26 of 41



Affirmative 20


James B. Hayes better safety


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 20


James B. Hayes Fine


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22

Page 27 of 41



Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 18


James B. Hayes OK


Paul Dobrowsky Revise 11.4.8.1 to allow the print pocket to be located elsewhere even if it is practical. Why

make someone open an enclosure, possibly exposing themselves to hazards, if they need

the documentation. It shall be permissible to place a pocket suitable for the environment

outside the door of the control enclosure or compartment in a well-identified location.

Mark R. Hilbert I am voting affirmative as I agree the revision adds clarity to the section. However, I

disagree the existing text limits the use of a print pocket to just traditional prints.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Total Voted : 22


Page 28 of 41




Affirmative 20


James B. Hayes word smithing


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 17


James B. Hayes good


Negative 3

William Brungs Conductors should be sized to the load of the motor or, when used with a variable

frequency drive, sized to the maximum output of the drive


Total Voted : 22

Page 29 of 41


Daniel R. Neeser The new requirement would permit reduction of conductor sizes in across the line motor

circuits without any corresponding requirements in motor overload settings and/or size of

branch short-circuit and ground fault protection to maintain conductor protection. For

servo drive systems, the requirements in 19.3.2 already address the concerns stated in the

substantiation.

Jay Tamblingson The proposed new requirement permits reduction in motor circuit conductor sizing without

additional new conductor overload and branch short circuit and ground fault protection

rules for general individual-motor branch circuits. For servo motor systems, the change is

unnecessary as 19.3.2 already addresses the concerns expressed in the committee

statement.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 20


James B. Hayes Better word


Negative 0

Abstain 0

Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22

Page 30 of 41



Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 19




Mark R. Hilbert I am voting affirmative as I agree the addition of this language however, this is already

covered in 13.2.1.3 but as “factory applied connectors that molded onto cables.” Rather

than adding another section a comment should be submitted to revise 13.2.1.3 as follows:

“Factory-applied connectors and their associated wiring devices shall be permitted. Such

connectors shall not be considered as splices or joints.” Revising 13.2.1.3 in this manner

would address all types of factory-applied connectors, etc. without adding another section.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6






Total Voted : 22

Page 31 of 41




Affirmative 20


James B. Hayes good correction


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 18


James B. Hayes OK I liked it the old way


Negative 2

Paul Dobrowsky Removing Exception eliminates an important allowance. Replace Exception to read as

follows: Exception No. 1. Circuits operating at less than 50 volts, that are not required to be

grounded, shall be permitted to use conductors with green insulation or green with one or

more yellow stripes for other than equipment grounding conductors.


Total Voted : 22

Page 32 of 41


Jay Tamblingson The current exception 1 should not be deleted as it is similar to Exception 1 of NEC 250.119

which permits the use of green for other than equipment grounding. It would however, be

recommended to have clear requirements contained in Chapter 8 to define where

equipment grounding is not required. One possible example would be an exception to 8.2.1

as follows: Exception: Equipment parts that are likely to become energized only by a

conductor of a circuit operating at 50 volts or less shall not be required to be grounded.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 19


James B. Hayes alinement


Mark R. Hilbert A task group has been created to review the Standard for the use of the term “ducts” and

to develop comments to replace it with “wiring channels” or “wireway” as appropriate.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22

Page 33 of 41



Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 19


James B. Hayes Fine


Mark R. Hilbert A task group has been created to review the Standard for the use of the term “ducts” and

to develop comments to replace it with “wiring channels” or “wireway” as appropriate.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 20




Total Voted : 22

Page 34 of 41





Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 20


James B. Hayes Correct


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6






Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22

Page 35 of 41




Affirmative 20


James B. Hayes Clarification


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 18


James B. Hayes better Safety

Paul Dobrowsky Add the following to Chapter 15 or Chapter 11. Presently the standard does not provide

any direction for sizing motor controllers. Motor controllers shall be provided in

accordance with Article 430, Part VII, of NFPA 70.


Total Voted : 22

Page 36 of 41


Negative 2

William Brungs Receptacles internal to the enclosure are only made accessible to authorized personnel if

the enclosure has been opened. Provisions should be made within the standard where GFCI

is not needed if the receptacle is marked as to acceptable connected equipment.

Robert Gruendel I agree with the overall revision intent, but critical systems which cause a greater hazard

when shut down, should be excluded from any GFCI requirement.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 20




Negative 0

Abstain 0


Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22

Page 37 of 41



Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 20



Negative 1

James B. Hayes we need to keep the lock out reff.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 20


James B. Hayes fine


Negative 0

Abstain 0

Total Voted : 22

FR-43, Section No. B.1, See FR-43


Total Voted : 22

Page 38 of 41




Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 20


James B. Hayes Fine


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 20


James B. Hayes OK


Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR-67, Section No. F.5.4, See FR-67

Total Voted : 22

FR-44, Section No. D.1, See FR-44

Total Voted : 22

Page 39 of 41




Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 20


James B. Hayes Clarity with CEMA


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 20


James B. Hayes OK Some are coming ?


Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR-62, Section No. J.3, See FR-62

Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22

FR-61, New Section after J.3, See FR-61

Page 40 of 41




Not Returned : 6





Affirmative 20


James B. Hayes up date good


Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR-64, Chapter K, See FR-64

Total Voted : 22

Page 41 of 41


Documents

National Fire Protection Association · 2016-05-10 · Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs Vote Selection Votes Comments Affirmative 20 Affirmative with Comment 2 James B. Hayes this is an improvment