EEI-AAA A2014 FD ballotfinal - NFPANFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL FR‐50, Global Input,...

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


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


FR‐97, Section No. 1.3.1.1, See FR‐97

Eligible to Vote:23


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



Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23


David R. Carpenter reference update

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18

Page 3


FR‐39, Section No. 3.1, See FR‐39

Eligible to Vote:23


David R. Carpenter Reference update

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23



Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23


Negative 1

Page 4


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



Eligible to Vote:23


David R. Carpenter Change needed

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23


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


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


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



Eligible to Vote:23


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



Eligible to Vote:23


Negative 0

Abstain 1

David R. Carpenter Not sure I fully understand the reasoning behind this change

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23


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


Eligible to Vote:23


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



Eligible to Vote:23


David R. Carpenter Not needed

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18

Page 10



Eligible to Vote:23


David R. Carpenter much needed and should be in other NFPA standards

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23


David R. Carpenter needed for clairification

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23


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.


Page 11


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


Eligible to Vote:23


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


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



Eligible to Vote:23


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



Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23


David R. Carpenter needed information which does not need to be in the body of the text

Page 14


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


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


Eligible to Vote:23

Page 16



David R. Carpenter compliance with the NFPA Manual of Style

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18

Page 17



Eligible to Vote:23



Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23


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



Eligible to Vote:23


David R. Carpenter correct wording for application

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18

Page 19



Eligible to Vote:23


David R. Carpenter correlation with NEC and style manual

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23


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.


Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 17


Eligible to Vote:23


David R. Carpenter clarifies application

Negative 0

Page 20


Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23



Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18

Page 21



Eligible to Vote:23


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


Eligible to Vote:23


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


Eligible to Vote:23

Page 22



Paul Dobrowsky The opening phase should be improved for clarity such as "shall meet all the

following requirements" or "shall be:"


Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 17

Page 23



Eligible to Vote:23



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


Eligible to Vote:23


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


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


Eligible to Vote:23


David R. Carpenter needed information and clarification

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23


Page 25


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



Eligible to Vote:23






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


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


Eligible to Vote:23


David R. Carpenter needed change

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18

Page 28



Eligible to Vote:23


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


Abstain 0

Affirmative 17


Eligible to Vote:23






Negative 1


Abstain 0

Affirmative 17



Eligible to Vote:23


David R. Carpenter correction needed

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23



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



Negative 1


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


David R. Carpenter gives needed guidance

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18



Eligible to Vote:23


David R. Carpenter different nomenclature is used to be consistant

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23



Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23


David R. Carpenter improper annex note

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23



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.


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


Eligible to Vote:23




Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23


David R. Carpenter removed non‐applicable reference

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23


David R. Carpenter This guidance is needed

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23


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.


David R. Carpenter clarification makes the principle easier to apply

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 17


Eligible to Vote:23


David R. Carpenter needed reference

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18



Eligible to Vote:23


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


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



Eligible to Vote:23


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


Eligible to Vote:23


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..


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



Eligible to Vote:23


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


Eligible to Vote:23


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


Eligible to Vote:23


David R. Carpenter revised language clarificaton is needed


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


Eligible to Vote:23


Negative 1

David R. Carpenter See comment FR‐50

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18



Eligible to Vote:23






Negative 1


Abstain 0

Affirmative 17


Eligible to Vote:23



Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23




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


Eligible to Vote:23





bonding jumper" might be more appropriate. The parenthetical terms

(plug/sockets) should also be deleted.

Negative 2


Drake A. Drobnick I agree with the submitter's substantiation (PI#1) for removing 20 ampere

receptacles.


Abstain 0

Affirmative 16

FR‐88, Section No. 16.2.3 [Excluding any Sub‐Sections], See FR‐88

Eligible to Vote:23


David R. Carpenter Sign must be durable

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23


David R. Carpenter needed to stop confusion

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23







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



Eligible to Vote:23






Negative 1

David R. Carpenter See comments FR ‐50 & FR ‐ 80

Abstain 0

Affirmative 17


Eligible to Vote:23






Negative 1


Abstain 0

Affirmative 17



Eligible to Vote:23






Negative 1


Abstain 0

Affirmative 17


Eligible to Vote:23


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.


Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 17

FR‐55, Section No. A.3.3.9, See FR‐55

Eligible to Vote:23


Negative 1


Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23


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.)


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


Eligible to Vote:23



Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23


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



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



Eligible to Vote:23


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


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







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


Abstain 0

Affirmative 16



Eligible to Vote:23


Negative 2


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


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



Eligible to Vote:23



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


FR‐60, New Section after A.9.2.3.3, See FR‐60

Eligible to Vote:23


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


Eligible to Vote:23


David R. Carpenter corrected reference

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


Eligible to Vote:23



Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18



Eligible to Vote:23



Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


FR‐72, Section No. C.5, See FR‐72

Eligible to Vote:23



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


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


Abstain 0

Affirmative 17

FR‐92, Section No. F.2, See FR‐92

Eligible to Vote:23


David R. Carpenter compliance and clarity

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18


FR‐104, Section No. F.5.3.1, See FR‐104

Eligible to Vote:23



Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 18

FR‐31, New Section after F.5.4, See FR‐31

Eligible to Vote:23


Negative 0

Abstain 0

Affirmative 19

FR‐43, Section No. H.2, See FR‐43

Eligible to Vote:23


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



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


FR‐7, Section No. J.1.1, See FR‐7

Eligible to Vote:23


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


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


FR‐94, Section No. J.1.2.8, See FR‐94

Eligible to Vote:23


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

EEI-AAA A2014 FD ballotfinal - NFPANFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL FR‐50, Global Input,...

Documents

Transcript of EEI-AAA A2014 FD ballotfinal - NFPANFPA 79 A2014 (EEI‐AAA) FD BALLOT FINAL FR‐50, Global Input,...