70 NEC P14 - NFPA...ANSI/ISA 60079‐29‐2 and ANSI/ISA TR12.13.03 for guidance on gas detection systems. Mark C. Wirfs The Task Group developed the change of the (A) title to …

Eligible to Vote: 16Not Returned : 2William E. McBride,Corey CahillVote Selection Votes Comments

Affirmative 12Affirmative with Comment 2Mark C. Wirfs NoneDonald W. Ankele At the end of informational note 1, add the phrase :"...where heat generating parts are not

included within the enclosure."Negative 0Abstain 0


Affirmative 11Affirmative with Comment 1Mark C. Wirfs NoneNegative 2

NEC‐P14 First Draft Ballot (A2016)

FR‐3910, Definition: Dusttight., See FR‐3910

FR‐3997, New Definition after Definition: Copper‐Clad Aluminum Condu..., See FR‐3997

David B. Wechsler While it is understood that confusion may exist with the term “cord connector” used in product standards it is felt that complete resolution resides not within the NEC, but in product standards. To reduce this impact it is strongly suggested that the term “cord fitting” be used since in fact the method of termination is incorporated often with a fitting. Therefore, the revised defined term should be as follows: 100 (new) Cord Fitting (as applied to Hazardous Classified Locations) A product intended to terminate a cord or cable to a box or similar device and reduce the strain at points of termination and may include an explosionproof, a dust‐ignition proof, or a flameproof seal

Haywood Kines Definitions that are only applicable to Chapter 5 need to remain within the .2 sections within the Articles in Chapter 5 so that the information needed for the user is readily available. Relocating the definitions to Article 100 and adding the text (as applied to Hazardous (Classified) Locations) so users will understand the definitions only apply to Articles in Chapter 5 unnecessarily expands the text in Article 100 and does add any benefit to the Electrical industry using the National Electrical Code.

Abstain 0



FR‐3999, New Definition after Definition: Premises Wiring (System)., See FR‐3999


Abstain 0


Affirmative 10Affirmative with Comment 2Mark C. Wirfs NoneDonald W. Ankele Retain the defined terms with a reference to see Article 100 for the actual definition. For example

"Combustible Dust. See Article 100 for definition." This will help the user in applying Articles 500 through 504 and 510 through 516.

Negative 2Dave Burns The definitions were relocated based on direction from the TCC. Panel 14 followed this direction

but is unaware if other panels followed suit. Consistancy within the document is important to the user. If the definitions are to be moved to Art. 100, some cross‐reference should be provided for this code cycle.

FR‐3918, Section No. 500.2 [Excluding any Sub‐Sections], See FR‐3918


Abstain 0


Affirmative 11Affirmative with Comment 1Mark C. Wirfs NoneNegative 2Dave Burns The definitions were relocated based on direction from the TCC. Panel 14 followed this direction

but is unaware if other panels followed suit. Consistancy within the document is important to the user. If the definitions are to be moved to Art. 100, some cross‐reference should be provided for this code cycle. Its is noted that corrections to the reference are not part of this negative comment.


FR‐3929, Definition: Combustible Dust., See FR‐3929

Abstain 0


Affirmative 12Affirmative with Comment 1Mark C. Wirfs NoneNegative 1Haywood Kines Definitions that are only applicable to Chapter 5 need to remain within the .2 sections within the

Articles in Chapter 5 so that the information needed for the user is readily available. Relocating the definitions to Article 100 and adding the text (as applied to Hazardous (Classified) Locations) so users will understand the definitions only apply to Articles in Chapter 5 unnecessarily expands the text in Article 100 and does add any benefit to the Electrical industry using the National Electrical Code.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 12Affirmative with Comment 1Mark C. Wirfs None.Negative 1

FR‐3904, Definition: Combustible Gas Detection System., See FR‐3904

FR‐3906, Definition: Control Drawing., See FR‐3906


Abstain 0


Affirmative 10Affirmative with Comment 3Mark C. Wirfs None on this one.Donald W. Ankele Remove the reference to ANSI/UL 1202‐2013 and strike out the title to NEMA 250.

William G. Lawrence, Jr. The added text shown as "ANSI/UL 1202:2013" should not have been added. The text "Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, and" should have been deleted as it was the title of the deleted ANSI/NEMA 250.

Negative 1Haywood Kines Definitions that are only applicable to Chapter 5 need to remain within the .2 sections within the


Abstain 0

FR‐3907, Definition: Dust‐Ignitionproof., See FR‐3907


Affirmative 12Affirmative with Comment 2Mark C. Wirfs None.Donald W. Ankele update the edition date to 2013Negative 0Abstain 0




Abstain 0


FR‐3912, Definition: Hermetically Sealed., See FR‐3912

FR‐3915, Definition: Purged and Pressurized., See FR‐3915




Abstain 0



FR 3916, Unclassified Locations


Abstain 0


Affirmative 11Affirmative with Comment 2Mark C. Wirfs NoneDonald W. Ankele Add informational note to the definition for Nonincendive Field Wiring that referenced ISA

12.12.01‐2013.Negative 1Haywood Kines Definitions that are only applicable to Chapter 5 need to remain within the .2 sections within the


Abstain 0

Eligible to Vote: 16

FR‐3913, Definitions (500.2): Nonincendiv... to Oil Immersi..., See FR‐3913

FR‐3962, Section No. 500.4(B), See FR‐3962

Not Returned : 2William E. McBride,Corey CahillVote Selection Votes Comments

Affirmative 13Affirmative with Comment 1Mark C. Wirfs None.Negative 0Abstain 0


Affirmative 12Affirmative with Comment 2Jeremy Neagle The phrase 'mechanical ventilation that operates continuously or is initiated by a detection system

that alarms at 1000 ppm' may not provide the user with enough information to select, install and operate a gas detection system adequate for the task. Consider including a reference to 505.8(I) or ANSI/ISA 60079‐29‐2 and ANSI/ISA TR12.13.03 for guidance on gas detection systems.

Mark C. Wirfs The Task Group developed the change of the (A) title to GENERAL based on applicability and context coverage. They FAILED to do the SAME for 505.5 (A) and 506.5(A). The same logic and style manual basis applies and this should have bee ALSO changed.

Negative 0Abstain 0


FR‐3934, Section No. 500.5(A), See FR‐3934



Affirmative 11Affirmative with Comment 2Mark C. Wirfs None.Donald W. Ankele Remove the reference to dust and fibers/flyings as there are no testing, approval or area

classification requirements that address one specific dust or fiber/flying.

Negative 1William G. Lawrence, Jr. "or fiber/flying" should not be added. "dust" should be deleted. 1. The product standards do not

include such a product marking. a. ANSI/ISA 12.12.01 only addresses marking for a specific gas or vapour. b. ANSI/UL 1203 only addresses marking for a specific gas or vapour. 2. IEC TC31 has made it quite clear that complete identification of a specific dust or fiber/flying would involve such detail that it is not practical. It is not as simple as identifying the chemical formula of a gas or vapor. Aspects such as the chemical formula or CAS number of each constituent, along with amount of percentage of each, the bulk density, and the particle density could all be important. 3. The product standards for dusts or fibers/flyings are based on particle size (for exclusion) and maximum surface temperature (for layer/cloud ignition). For a small portion of Intrinsic Safety, protection is based on limitation of available energy to initiate an explosion. The maximum permitted energy of ~160?J is very conservative for dust. 4. All known equipment can be accommodated within the requirements of the existing equipment standards. There is no need to add additional confusion as to what is and is not suitable. 5. At one time, there may have been a need due to the temperature restrictions of Table 500.8(D)(2), but that requirement was removed ~20 years ago.

Abstain 0

FR‐3935, Section No. 500.6(A)(4), See FR‐3935


Affirmative 11Affirmative with Comment 3Mark C. Wirfs NONE>Donald W. Ankele Due to this being extracted text, do not make the revision to MIC ratio in order to align with the

indicated extraction.William G. Lawrence, Jr. the edits shown to "MIC Ratio" should not be implemented. The extracted text should be shown

exactly as it is in NFPA 497.Negative 0Abstain 0


Affirmative 12Affirmative with Comment 2Mark C. Wirfs NONEDonald W. Ankele Due to this being extracted text, undo the edit and drop the date on D 3175 in order to align with

the indicated extraction.Negative 0Abstain 0

Eligible to Vote: 16Not Returned : 2

FR‐3961, Section No. 500.6(B)(2), See FR‐3961

FR‐3937, Section No. 500.7(K) [Excluding any Sub‐Sections], See FR‐3937

William E. McBride,Corey CahillVote Selection Votes Comments





Affirmative 11Affirmative with Comment 2Mark C. Wirfs None.


FR‐3984, Section No. 500.8(C)(3), See FR‐3984

Donald W. Ankele The change to (3) should be to only add the text "or specific gas or vapor." HazLoc standards exist such as ANSI ISA 12.12.01 and ANSI UL 1203 have such provision for marking of a specific gas or vapor in place of a gas group. There are no published requirements for the construction, testing and marking for a specific dust, fiber or flying. Similarly regarding the note, remove reference to dust and fiber/flying.

Negative 1William G. Lawrence, Jr. The text "dust or fiber/flying" should not be added. The Informational Note should read: "A specific

gas or vapour is typically identified by the chemical formula" 1. The product standards do not include such a product marking for dusts or fiber/flying. a. ANSI/ISA 12.12.01 only addresses marking for a specific gas or vapour. b. ANSI/UL 1203 only addresses marking for a specific gas or vapour. 2. IEC TC31 has made it quite clear that complete identification of a specific dust or fiber/flying would involve such detail that it is not practical. It is not as simple as identifying the chemical formula of a gas or vapor. Aspects such as the chemical formula or CAS number of each constituent, along with amount of percentage of each, the bulk density, and the particle density could all be important. 3. The product standards for dusts or fibers/flyings are based on particle size (for exclusion) and maximum surface temperature (for layer/cloud ignition). For a small portion of Intrinsic Safety, protection is based on limitation of available energy to initiate an explosion. The maximum permitted energy of ~160?J is very conservative for dust. 4. All known equipment can be accommodated within the requirements of the existing equipment standards. There is no need to add additional confusion as to what is and is not suitable. 5. At one time, there may have been a need due to the temperature restrictions of Table 500.8(D)(2), but that requirement was removed ~20 years ago.

Abstain 0


FR‐3982, Section No. 500.8(D)(2), See FR‐3982




Affirmative 11Affirmative with Comment 3Mark C. Wirfs None.Donald W. Ankele Regarding paragraph 2, the paragraph needs to be further edited to remove the phrase "have a

class of fit of at least 6g/6H and shall". This is because the fittings are required in the first paragraph to be listed. The class of fit is a requirement of listing. Therefore it is not needed to require gauging of the threads in the field.

William G. Lawrence, Jr. The product standards for fittings and equipment already include the necessary class of fit. "shall have a class of fit of at least 6g/6H and" is not required and can be deleted.

Negative 0Abstain 0


FR‐3983, Section No. 500.8(E)(2), See FR‐3983

FR‐3987, Section No. 500.8(F), See FR‐3987





FR‐3940, Sections 501.10(A)(1), 501.10(A)(2), See FR‐3940

Dave Burns The addition of Type HDPE conduit in this section in not part of this negative ballot. As currently written, there are no restrictions in the use of non‐armored cable in Division 1 locations which could compromise the level of safety at the location. The use of this cable in Division 1 locations is suitable provided there are appropriate restrictions as identified in the proposed text below. The new text in (f) should be modified as follows: (f) In industrial establishments with restricted public access, where the conditions of maintenance and supervision ensure that only qualified persons service the installation, for applications limited to 600 volts, nominal, or less and where protected from damage by location or a suitable guard, listed Type TC‐ER‐HL cable with an overall jacket and a separate equipment grounding conductor(s) in accordance with 250.122 and installed in accordance with the provisions of Article 336.10 including the restrictions of 336.10(7) shall be permitted for the following applications: (1) For applications limited to 150 volts, nominal, or less and limited to 30A circuit maximum. (2) For applications above the limitations identified in (1), a metallic shield encompassing all the current carrying conductors of sufficient material and size that will provide a reliable ground fault path that will ensure the operation of a ground fault protection device shall be required.

Steven J. Blais It is not clear as to what type of connectors and/or couplings are suitable to transition from HDPE to Threaded Rigid Metal Conduit or Threaded Steel Intermediate Metal Conduit prior to emerging from the ground. The committee statement indicates that “mid span failures are extremely rare”; this is in large part due to the more robust wiring methods required for Class I, Div 1 locations. Allowing long runs of a cable wiring method with only a nonmetallic jacket is not equivalent to the protection afforded by metal conduit or cable armor. Nonmetallic wiring methods such as PVC conduit and RTRC are only allowed where encased in concrete, and NEMA would support the allowance of TC‐ER‐HL where encased in concrete.

John L. Simmons This revision permits "plug and play" installations which would indicate the purpose is to allow personnel with a lower level of knowledge to connect and disconnect the instrumentation. There is no guarantee that the cable will ever be supported as required in Article 336. The phrase "in industrial establishments with restricted public access, where the conditions of maintenance and supervision ensure that only qualified persons service the installation" adds nothing to warrant an exception to the restrictions placed on these installations in the current NEC. Why are we creating code language that is subjective and ambiguous with terms that are not defined in the National Electrical Code? What is an “industrial establishment”? How does restricted public access make an installation more secure? Does the restricted access mean that fewer people will be hurt if something goes wrong? Are there some industrial locations that allow public access and others that do not? Who determines how much public access is allowed to comply with this relaxed requirement? Who will monitor the access? The parent text requirements found in this section are there because hazardous gases or vapors may be present in explosive mixtures, how does restricting public access improve safety or make it less dangerous than other, non‐industrial, locations? Does the phrase “where conditions of maintenance and supervision ensure that only qualified persons service the installation” make sense? How can conditions of maintenance ensure what qualified persons do? While the NEC does provide a very loose definition of a qualified person, does the fact that a facility that is designated an industrial location ensure that installation and maintenance personnel are qualified to safely install electrical equipment in hazardous locations? It is a mistake to relax any Code requirement with the belief that by loosely defining a type of facility, restricting public access and stating that some condition of maintenance will ensure that qualified person will service the location. How will the fact that qualified persons are servicing the installation prevent a fire or explosion if there is a failure of the equipment or an accident? If a wiring application is safe for a Class I, Division 1 location in a location classified as an Industrial establishment, why isn’t the application safe for a non‐industrial location? The whole concept of an industrial location as currently used and as proposed herein is not defined and loosely restricted. This language is confusing and unenforceable

Abstain 0



Affirmative 9Affirmative with Comment 2David B. Wechsler There has been no data supplied to support EMT’s use in Class I hazardous classified locations and

merely suggesting that other methods may or may not offer equivalent protection is highly subjective. We strongly suggest that CMP14 review this application in the comment stage and consider what data, if any, supports adding this use in Class I, hazardous classified locations. Note: Correct spelling of Metallic

Mark C. Wirfs None.Negative 3Dave Burns The wiring method "EMT" is not equivalent to any existing approved wiring methods for use in

Class I, Division 2 locations. There were no adequate substantiations provided with this proposal. There is no evidence to justify the lowering of standards for wiring practices in Class I, Division 2 areas. There were no restrictions for fittings; this method would not provide the positive grounding provisions in order to provide a reasonable degree of safety in hazardous locations. An application of a seal fitting with this material may not comply with the requirements of Article 358.12. The physical properties of this method is not sufficient to be installed in hazardous location. The wall thickness of EMT is typically less than half on the other wiring methods identified in this section. EMT conduit installed in Division 2 public areas such as garages, gas stations, hangers, etc. could be subject to physical damage and result in an open ignition source in a hazardous location. This use of this wiring method in Class I, Division 2 locations will lower the current standard of safety.

John L. Simmons A Class I, Division 2 location is just an accident or equipment malfunction from being a Class I, Division I location. This first revision will relax the wiring methods permitted in Class I, Division 2 locations without providing one piece of technical data to prove that the use of EMT and /or threadless fittings provides a safe installation in these locations. This could prove to be dangerous.

Haywood Kines The use of Electrical Metallic Tubing in any Class 1 Division II location such as repair garages where there are potential hazards or accidental damage to the raceways that creates a potential safety hazard where the raceway is used as the equipment grounding means. Arching from fault currents due to damaged tubing or fittings used on this type of raceway could be a safety hazard due to the types of liquids or gases present in the air. The approval for use in Industrial establishments with restrict public access and conditions of maintenance and supervision was ensued by qualified personnel only, would be a lower hazardous use of EMT and its listed fittings.

Abstain 0





FR‐3973, Section No. 501.15(D)(1), See FR‐3973




Affirmative 12Affirmative with Comment 1Mark C. Wirfs None.Negative 1Donald W. Ankele Retain the wording of the 2014 NEC. This is because the proposed revision could permit the

passage of gasses or vapors into an unclassified area. The 2014 wording was revised such that the end of the cable be sealed in accordance with the sealing criteria in 501.15(E)(1) in order to seal the end of the cable because a cable with a gas tight sheath is no required to be sealed at the boundary.

Abstain 0

Eligible to Vote: 16Not Returned : 2William E. McBride,Corey Cahill



Vote Selection Votes Comments

Affirmative 11Affirmative with Comment 1Mark C. Wirfs None.Negative 2Dave Burns Standard AC power plugs and receptacles should not be used for instrument connections. This may

cause instrument malfunctions as the shielded circuits will not be continuous and promote possible confusion of power and instrumentation receptacles leading to instruments being exposed to excessive voltage resulting in a possible source of ignition in a hazardous location. Item (5) is recommended to be deleted as it provides nothing of value. Edit text as below: (2) Connections. To facilitate replacement in industrial establishments with restricted public access, where the conditions of maintenance and supervision ensure that only qualified persons service the installation, and where the cable is not subject to physical damage; meters, instruments and relays shall be permitted to be connected through Type TC‐ER‐HL cable, by means of attachment plugs and receptacles specifically identified for instrumentation, provided that all of the following conditions apply: (1) Attachment plug and receptacle is listed for use in Class I, Division 1 locations and for use with TC‐ER‐HL cable and individual circuits limited to 3 amperes. (2) The attachment plug and receptacle is interlocked mechanically, or electrically, or otherwise designed so that they cannot be separated when the contacts are energized and the contacts cannot be energized when the plug and socket outlet are separated. (3) Type TC‐ER‐HL cable is listed for use in Class I, Division 1 locations. (4) Type TC‐ER‐HL cable is installed in accordance with the provisions of Article 336, including the restrictions of 336.10(7).

John L. Simmons This revision permits "plug and play" installations which would indicate the purpose is to allow personnel with a lower level of knowledge to connect and disconnect the instrumentation. There is no guarantee that the cable will ever be supported as required in Article 336. The phrase "in industrial establishments with restricted public access, where the conditions of maintenance and supervision ensure that only qualified persons service the installation" adds nothing to warrant an exception to the restrictions placed on these installations in the current NEC. Why are we creating code language that is subjective and ambiguous with terms that are not defined in the National Electrical Code? What is an “industrial establishment”? How does restricted public access make an installation more secure? Does the restricted access mean that fewer people will be hurt if something goes wrong? Are there some industrial locations that allow public access and others that do not? Who determines how much public access is allowed to comply with this relaxed requirement? Who will monitor the access? The parent text requirements found in this section are there because hazardous gases or vapors may be present in explosive mixtures, how does restricting public access improve safety or make it less dangerous than other, non‐industrial, locations? Does the phrase “where conditions of maintenance and supervision ensure that only qualified persons service the installation” make sense? How can conditions of maintenance ensure what qualified persons do? While the NEC does provide a very loose definition of a qualified person, does the fact that a facility that is designated an industrial location ensure that installation and maintenance personnel are qualified to safely install electrical equipment in hazardous locations? It is a mistake to relax any Code requirement with the belief that by loosely defining a type of facility, restricting public access and stating that some condition of maintenance will ensure that qualified person will service the location. How will the fact that qualified persons are servicing the installation prevent a fire or explosion if there is a failure of the equipment or an accident? If a wiring application is safe for a Class I, Division 1 location in a location classified as an Industrial establishment, why isn’t the application safe for a non‐industrial location? The whole concept of an industrial location as currently used and as proposed herein is not defined and loosely restricted. This language is confusing and unenforceable.

Abstain 0

FR‐3971, Sections 501.105(B)(1), 501.105(B)(2), 501.105(B)(3), 501.1..., See FR‐3971


Affirmative 11Affirmative with Comment 3Mark C. Wirfs None.Donald W. Ankele Although not indicated by legislative text or other means such as the committee statement, the

content of (B) (1), (2), (3) and (4) have been re‐ordered, making the references within them now incorrect. Keep the original order of content as is currently published.

William G. Lawrence, Jr. The sections have been renumbered and the references to those sections are now incorrect. (1) was (4), (2) was (1), (3) as (2), (4) was (3). (5) and (6) remained numbered as in the 2014 NEC.

Negative 0Abstain 0


Affirmative 10Affirmative with Comment 2Mark C. Wirfs None.Donald W. Ankele Add Type TC cable to (6)(1) as it is a permitted Div. 2 wiring method.Negative 2


Dave Burns This section is for instruments and relays and the current restriction for 3 ampere circuits should be maintained. Delete "if applicable" in (4), delete text in (5) as it adds no value, and delete (6) as the label exception introduces unnecessary hazards in a Division 2 locations. The section is proposed to read as follows: (B) Class I, Division 2. (6) Connections. To facilitate replacements, process control instruments shall be permitted to be connected through flexible cord, listed Type TC‐ER cable or Type TC‐ER‐HL cable, by means of attachment plug, and receptacle specifically identified for instrumentation, provided that all of the following conditions apply: (1) Attachment plug and receptacle is listed for use in Class I, Division 2 locations and for use with flexible cords, Type TC‐ER cable or Type TC‐ER‐HL cable as applicable, and shall be of the locking and grounding type. Exception: A Class I, Division 2 listing is not required if the circuit is nonincendive field wiring. (2) Unless the attachment plug and receptacle are interlocked mechanically, or electrically, or otherwise designed so that they cannot be separated when the contacts are energized and the contacts cannot be energized when the plug and socket outlet are separated, a switch complying with 501.105(B) (2) is provided so that the attachment plug or receptacle is not depended on to interrupt current. Exception: The switch is not required if the circuit is nonincendive field wiring. (3) The current does not exceed 3 amperes at 120 volts, nominal. (4) The flexible cord does not exceed 900 mm (3 ft), is of a type listed for extra‐hard usage or for hard usage if protected by location. (5) Type TC‐ER cable or Type TC‐ER‐HL cable is installed in accordance with the provisions of Article 336, including the restrictions of 336.10(7), if applicable.

John L. Simmons Section 501.105(B)(6) is not positive code language, it is a disguised exception. Requiring a label that does not reduce or eliminate the hazard in a Class 1, Zone 1 location might not prevent a worker from plugging or unplugging equipment under load. There is always the possibility that an explosive concentration can exist and someone may unplug an instrument under load. The purpose of the National Electrical Code is to protect persons and property from the hazard arising from the use of electricity, this language does not provide for that. 505.17(B)(6) should be deleted.

Abstain 0



Total Voted : 14

For Simple majority and also two‐third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 9 and the two‐third affirmative votes needed are 10

TRUEFR‐3966, Section No. 501.125(A), See FR‐3966

John L. Simmons I understand the proposed restriction for this application and agree that the associated danger warrant either doing away with the practice or adding Code language that ensures the safety of the installation. The proposed language is subjective and ambiguous with terms that are not defined in the National Electrical Code. What is an “industrial establishment”? Is an industrial establishment created when the public is restricted and there are some type of conditions mandating that only qualified persons service the equipment? Does the fact that we classify a facility as being an industrial establishment mean that maintenance and repair operations are better than a non‐industrial establishment? What are the guidelines for an industrial establishment and who is charged within ensuring that the facility remains in compliance? What is intended when the language “restricted public access” is used? Does it mean that the public should be kept out of the facility or do members of the public have to be accompanied, if the visit the facility? How does this provide a safer environment? Does the phrase “where conditions of maintenance and supervision ensure that only qualified persons service the installation” make sense? How can conditions of maintenance ensure that qualified persons service the facility? If an installation is dangerous under any circumstance, then it is the responsibility of the NEC to prohibit the practice for all facilities to ensure the safety of everyone involved. Fire and explosions cannot be prevented merely by creating an industrial establishment category

Abstain 0




Negative 1David B. Wechsler Nothing in the NEC prohibits a shaft bonding device to be used on inverter‐fed motors. There is not

documentation to suggest that all inverter‐fed motors require this bond. No standard has been supplied to define how the potential discharge energy would be ‘nonincendive’. The term ‘application’ for which the requirement of nonincendive is not identified.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 12Affirmative with Comment 2Steven J. Blais Type TC‐ER‐HL is not a flexible cord or flexible cable. Flexible cords and flexible cables are covered

in Article 400.Mark C. Wirfs None.Negative 0Abstain 0





John L. Simmons This revision permits "plug and play" installations which would indicate the purpose is to allow personnel with a lower level of knowledge to connect and disconnect the instrumentation. There is no guarantee that the cable will ever be supported as required in Article 336. The phrase "in industrial establishments with restricted public access, where the conditions of maintenance and supervision ensure that only qualified persons service the installation" adds nothing to warrant an exception to the restrictions placed on these installations in the current NEC. Why are we creating code language that is subjective and ambiguous with terms that are not defined in the National Electrical Code? What is an “industrial establishment”? How does restricted public access make an installation more secure? Does the restricted access mean that fewer people will be hurt if something goes wrong? Are there some industrial locations that allow public access and others that do not? Who determines how much public access is allowed to comply with this relaxed requirement? Who will monitor the access? The parent text requirements found in this section are there because hazardous gases or vapors may be present in explosive mixtures, how does restricting public access improve safety or make it less dangerous than other, non‐industrial, locations? Does the phrase “where conditions of maintenance and supervision ensure that only qualified persons service the installation” make sense? How can conditions of maintenance ensure what qualified persons do? While the NEC does provide a very loose definition of a qualified person, does the fact that a facility that is designated an industrial location ensure that installation and maintenance personnel are qualified to safely install electrical equipment in hazardous locations? It is a mistake to relax any Code requirement with the belief that by loosely defining a type of facility, restricting public access and stating that some condition of maintenance will ensure that qualified person will service the location. How will the fact that qualified persons are servicing the installation prevent a fire or explosion if there is a failure of the equipment or an accident? If a wiring application is safe for a Class I, Division 1 location in a location classified as an Industrial establishment, why isn’t the application safe for a non‐industrial location? The whole concept of an industrial location as currently used and as proposed herein is not defined and loosely restricted. This language is confusing and unenforceable.

Abstain 0





Affirmative 12Affirmative with Comment 1Mark C. Wirfs None.Negative 1Dave Burns The use of non‐shielded and non‐metallic jacked MV cable should not be allowed in Class III,

Division 1 locations. The substantiation for this proposal provided by a cable manufacturer "MV cable is allowed for Class I, Division 2 locations and should be allowed in Class III, Division 1 and 2 locations, as well" is not sufficient to lower the current standard of safety. Type MV Cable should have a more robust jacket if it is to be allowed in a Division 1 locations.

Abstain 0



FR‐3992, Section No. 504.1, See FR‐3992




Affirmative 12Affirmative with Comment 1Mark C. Wirfs None.Negative 1Haywood Kines Definitions that are only applicable to Chapter 5 need to remain within the .2 sections within the


Abstain 0


FR‐3919, Definition: Associated Apparatus., See FR‐3919

FR‐3920, Definition: Intrinsically Safe Apparatus., See FR‐3920


Affirmative 10Affirmative with Comment 2Mark C. Wirfs None.Donald W. Ankele Add the wording "[as applied to Hazardous (Classified) Locations]"Negative 2Dave Burns The definitions were relocated based on direction from the TCC. Panel 14 followed this direction

but is unaware if other panels followed suit. Consistancy within the document is important to the user. If the definitions are to be moved to Art. 100, some cross‐reference should be provided for this code cycle.


Abstain 0



FR‐3921, Definitions (504.2): Intrinsical... to Simple Appa..., See FR‐3921


Abstain 0




Total Voted : 14


TRUEFR‐3991, Section No. 504.10(A), See FR‐3991

FR‐3990, Sections 504.10(B), 504.10(C), 504.10(D), See FR‐3990






Affirmative 11Affirmative with Comment 2Mark C. Wirfs None.Donald W. Ankele Retain the defined terms with a reference to see Article 100 for the actual definition. This will help

the user in applying Articles 500 through 504 and 510 through 516.


FR‐3905, Definition: Combustible Gas Detection System., See FR‐3905



Abstain 0





FR‐3922, Definition: Electrical and Electronic Equipment., See FR‐3922

FR‐3917, Definition: Unclassified Locations., See FR‐3917

Donald W. Ankele Retain the defined terms with a reference to see Article 100 for the actual definition. This will help the user in applying Articles 500 through 504 and 510 through 516.



Abstain 0


Affirmative 12Affirmative with Comment 2Mark C. Wirfs None.Donald W. Ankele Update the ANSI/UL 60079‐18 to 2015. Update the ANSI/UL 60079‐1 to 2015.Negative 0Abstain 0


FR‐3927, Definitions (505.2): Encapsulati... to Type of Pro..., See FR‐3927


Affirmative 11Affirmative with Comment 2Mark C. Wirfs None.Donald W. Ankele Add a sentence to the end of the first paragraph under (A) "Gas detection equipment is

documented in accordance with 505.8(I)" and remove note 2.Negative 1David B. Wechsler Regarding Informational Note 9: While potential risks of ignition from electrical equipment utilizing

optical emissions technology may exist, the design and use of suitable electrical equipment used in hazardous classified locations is already addressed in the NEC. Optical emissions are not within the scope of the NEC. Therefore there is no need to include this reference in the NEC.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 13Affirmative with Comment 1Mark C. Wirfs The Task Group developed the change of the (A) title to GENERAL based on applicability and

context coverage for 500.5(A). They FAILED to do the SAME for 505.5 (A) and 506.5(A). The same logic and style manual basis applies and this should have been ALSO changed. We need to modify the 505.5(A) title to GENERAL.

Negative 0Abstain 0





Affirmative 11Affirmative with Comment 3Mark C. Wirfs NoneDonald W. Ankele Due to this being extracted text, do not make the revision to MIC ratio in order to align with the




Affirmative 11Affirmative with Comment 3Mark C. Wirfs None.Donald W. Ankele Due to this being extracted text, do not make the revision to MIC ratio in order to align with the




FR‐3949, Section No. 505.6(C), See FR‐3949













Affirmative 12Affirmative with Comment 2Mark C. Wirfs None.Donald W. Ankele update the reference to ANSI/UL 60079‐1 to 2015Negative 0Abstain 0


Total Voted : 14


TRUEFR‐3964, Section No. 505.9(E)(1), See FR‐3964


Affirmative 11Affirmative with Comment 3Mark C. Wirfs None.Donald W. Ankele Regarding paragraph 2, the paragraph needs to be further edited to remove the phrase "have a

class of fit of at least 6g/6H and". This is because the fittings are required in the first paragraph to be listed. The class of fit is a requirement of listing. Therefore it is not needed to require gauging of the threads in the field.

William G. Lawrence, Jr. The product standards for fittings and equipment already include the necessary class of fit. "shall have a class of fit of at least 6g/6H and" is not required and can be deleted.

Negative 0Abstain 0






Affirmative 12Affirmative with Comment 1Mark C. Wirfs None.Negative 1Dave Burns The additional text appears to add confusion and seems to add requirements that are beyond the

use of ‘ia’ circuits for Class I, Zone 0 applications.Abstain 0





Dave Burns As currently written, there are no restrictions in the use of non‐armored cable in Zone 1 locations which could compromise the level of safety at the location. The use of this cable in Zone 1 locations is suitable provided there are appropriate restrictions as identified in the proposed text below. The new text in (i) should be modified as follows: (i) In industrial establishments with restricted public access, where the conditions of maintenance and supervision ensure that only qualified persons service the installation, for applications limited to 600 volts, nominal, or less and where protected from damage by location or a suitable guard, listed Type TC‐ER‐HL cable with an overall jacket and a separate equipment grounding conductor(s) in accordance with 250.122 and installed in accordance with the provisions of Article 336.10 including the restrictions of 336.10 (7) shall be permitted for the following applications: (1) For applications limited to 150 volts, nominal, or less and limited to 30A circuit maximum. (2) For applications above the limitations identified in (1), a metallic shield encompassing all the current carrying conductors of sufficient material and size that will provide a reliable ground fault path that will ensure the operation of a ground fault protection device shall be required.

Steven J. Blais Type TC‐ER‐HL is limited to 1” by the product standard, and should continue to be limited in size and use to maintain the safety of wiring methods in Class I, Zone 1 locations.

Abstain 0





Affirmative 9Affirmative with Comment 2Mark C. Wirfs None.Donald W. Ankele Add Type TC cable to (C)(1) as it is a permitted Zone 2 wiring method.Negative 3Dave Burns Section 505.17(B) was only for controls and instruments and the requirements for power circuits

should remain separate. The 3 Amp and 120 Volt limitation should remain for controls and instrumentation applications. A specific type of interlocked instrument receptacle that cannot be unplugged while energized should be required to eliminate the issues documented in the negative statements for FR 3967 and FR 3969. The requirements for controls and instrumentation and Power should not be comingled in the same section. The statement “only necessary receptacles” is vague and unenforceable and should be deleted.

Steven J. Blais Type TC‐ER‐HL is not a flexible cord or flexible cable. Flexible cords and flexible cables are covered in Article 400.


John L. Simmons This revision permits "plug and play" installations which would indicate the purpose is to allow personnel with a lower level of knowledge to connect and disconnect the instrumentation. There is no guarantee that the cable will ever be supported as required in Article 336. The phrase "in industrial establishments with restricted public access, where the conditions of maintenance and supervision ensure that only qualified persons service the installation" adds nothing to warrant an exception to the restrictions placed on these installations in the current NEC. Why are we creating code language that is subjective and ambiguous with terms that are not defined in the National Electrical Code? What is an “industrial establishment”? How does restricted public access make an installation more secure? Does the restricted access mean that fewer people will be hurt if something goes wrong? Are there some industrial locations that allow public access and others that do not? Who determines how much public access is allowed to comply with this relaxed requirement? Who will monitor the access? The parent text requirements found in this section are there because hazardous gases or vapors may be present in explosive mixtures, how does restricting public access improve safety or make it less dangerous than other, non‐industrial, locations? Does the phrase “where conditions of maintenance and supervision ensure that only qualified persons service the installation” make sense? How can conditions of maintenance ensure what qualified persons do? While the NEC does provide a very loose definition of a qualified person, does the fact that a facility that is designated an industrial location ensure that installation and maintenance personnel are qualified to safely install electrical equipment in hazardous locations? It is a mistake to relax any Code requirement with the belief that by loosely defining a type of facility, restricting public access and stating that some condition of maintenance will ensure that qualified person will service the location. How will the fact that qualified persons are servicing the installation prevent a fire or explosion if there is a failure of the equipment or an accident? If a wiring application is safe for a Class I, Division 1 location in a location classified as an Industrial establishment, why isn’t the application safe for a non‐industrial location? The whole concept of an industrial location as currently used and as proposed herein is not defined and loosely restricted. This language is confusing and unenforceable. Requiring a label that does not reduce or eliminate the hazard in a Class 1, Zone 1 location might not prevent a worker from plugging or unplugging equipment under load There is always the possibility that an explosive concentration can exist andAbstain 0









FR‐3923, Definition: Associated Nonincendive Field Wiring Apparatus., See FR‐3923



Abstain 0






Abstain 0

FR‐3903, Definition: Combustible Dust., See FR‐3903






Abstain 0



FR‐3908, Definition: Dust‐Ignitionproof., See FR‐3908


Donald W. Ankele Retain the defined terms with a reference to see Article 100 for the actual definition. This will help the user in applying Articles 500 through 504 and 510 through 516.



Abstain 0


Affirmative 12Affirmative with Comment 1Mark C. Wirfs None.Negative 1Haywood Kines Definitions that are only applicable to Chapter 5 need to remain within the .2 sections within the


Abstain 0

FR‐3924, Definition: Pressurized., See FR‐3924






Abstain 0



FR‐3914, Definitions (506.2): Nonincendiv... to Nonincendiv..., See FR‐3914

FR‐3928, Definitions (506.2): Protection ... to Protection ..., See FR‐3928

Donald W. Ankele Update the reference to ANSI/UL 60079‐18 to 2015 and add the reference to ANSI/UL 60079‐31:2015 under protection by enclosure "t".

Negative 0Abstain 0




Affirmative 12

Total Voted : 14

FR‐3925, Definitions (506.2): Zone 20 Haz... to Zone 22 Haz..., See FR‐3925

Total Voted : 14



Affirmative with Comment 1Mark C. Wirfs None.Negative 1David B. Wechsler Regarding Informational Note 2: While potential risks of ignition from electrical equipment utilizing

optical emissions technology may exist, the design and use of suitable electrical equipment used in hazardous classified locations is already addressed in the NEC. Optical emissions are not within the scope of the NEC. Therefore there is no need to include this reference in the NEC.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 13Affirmative with Comment 1Mark C. Wirfs The Task Group developed the change of the (A) title to GENERAL based on applicability and

context coverage for 500.5(A). They FAILED to do the SAME for 505.5 (A) and 506.5(A). The same logic and style manual basis applies and this should have been ALSO changed. We need to modify the 505.6(A) title to GENERAL.

Negative 0Abstain 0




Affirmative 13Affirmative with Comment 1Mark C. Wirfs NONE>Negative 0Abstain 0




Affirmative 12Affirmative with Comment 2Mark C. Wirfs NONE>Donald W. Ankele Delete 506.9(B)(2) as there are no testing, approval or area classification requirements that address

one specific dust or fiber/flying.Negative 0Abstain 0




Affirmative 10Affirmative with Comment 2Mark C. Wirfs NONE>Donald W. Ankele Revise 506.9(C)(2)(4) to revert back to the original text as there are no testing, approval or area

classification requirements that address one specific dust or fiber/flying.

Negative 2Dave Burns Need to remove the addition of the words "or a specific dust or ignitable fiber/flying or a specific

combination thereof". This creates confusion for the installers and inspectors. The specific dust that the device is approved for will not likely appear on the label and will be only in the documentation. Current product standards do not permit the listing of specific dusts.


William G. Lawrence, Jr. The revision to add "or a specific dust or ignitible fiber/flying or a specific combination thereof" should not be added. 1. The product standards supporting Article 506; ANSI/ISA 60079‐0 and ANSI/UL 60079‐0 do not include such a product marking. 2. IEC TC31 has made it quite clear that complete identification of a specific dust or fiber/flying would involve such detail that it is not practical. It is not as simple as identifying the chemical formula of a gas or vapor. Aspects such as the chemical formula or CAS number of each constituent, along with amount of percentage of each, the bulk density, and the particle density could all be important. 3. The product standards for dusts or fibers/flyings are based on particle size (for exclusion) and maximum surface temperature (for layer/cloud ignition). For a small portion of Intrinsic Safety, protection is based on limitation of available energy to initiate an explosion. The maximum permitted energy of ~160?J is very conservative for dust. 4. All known equipment can be accommodated within the requirements of the existing equipment standards. There is no need to add additional confusion as to what is and is not suitable. 5. At one time, there may have been a need due to the temperature restrictions of Table 500.8(D)(2), but that requirement was removed ~20 years ago.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 12Affirmative with Comment 1Mark C. Wirfs NONE>Negative 1


William G. Lawrence, Jr. (2) should not appear. 1. The product standards supporting Article 506; ANSI/ISA 60079‐0 and ANSI/UL 60079‐0 do not include such a product marking. 2. IEC TC31 has made it quite clear that complete identification of a specific dust or fiber/flying would involve such detail that it is not practical. It is not as simple as identifying the chemical formula of a gas or vapor. Aspects such as the chemical formula or CAS number of each constituent, along with amount of percentage of each, the bulk density, and the particle density could all be important. 3. The product standards for dusts or fibers/flyings are based on particle size (for exclusion) and maximum surface temperature (for layer/cloud ignition). For a small portion of Intrinsic Safety, protection is based on limitation of available energy to initiate an explosion. The maximum permitted energy of ~160?J is very conservative for dust. 4. All known equipment can be accommodated within the requirements of the existing equipment standards. There is no need to add additional confusion as to what is and is not suitable. 5. At one time, there may have been a need due to the temperature restrictions of Table 500.8(D)(2), but that requirement was removed ~20 years ago.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 12Affirmative with Comment 2Mark C. Wirfs NONE>Donald W. Ankele Add the words "wrench tight" at the end of the paragraph.Negative 0Abstain 0







Affirmative 13Affirmative with Comment 1




Mark C. Wirfs NONE>Negative 0Abstain 0






Total Voted : 14


FR‐3955, Section No. 511.3(D), See FR‐3955





Affirmative 11Affirmative with Comment 2Mark C. Wirfs NONE>Marc J. Bernsen Where PVC,RTRC and HDPE are used and buried under not less than 2 ft of cover. The requirment

to be encased in 2" of concrete should be retained. There are locations in the mining and logging industies where a commercial garage may not have a concrete floor.

Negative 1John L. Simmons This new section will in some cases create unsafe conditions. The scope of Article 511 includes

areas where repairs are made. This would include areas where repairs are made in spaces without concrete floors. The use of nonmetallic conduit in an area without a concrete floor and where a tractor is being repaired may introduce an unsafe condition in which the raceway may be broken due the weight of the tractor and one that is propelled by tracks.

Abstain 0

FR‐3994, New Section after 511.7, See FR‐3994






Affirmative 13Affirmative with Comment 1

FR‐3926, Definitions (513.2): Mobile Equi... to Portable Eq..., See FR‐3926


FR‐4002, New Section after 514.3(B)(2), See FR‐4002

Mark C. Wirfs NONE>Negative 0Abstain 0














Affirmative 13Affirmative with Comment 1Mark C. Wirfs NONE>Negative 0


Total Voted : 14


Abstain 0



FR‐3956, Article 516, See FR‐3956

Documents

70 NEC P14 - NFPA...ANSI/ISA 60079‐29‐2 and ANSI/ISA TR12.13.03 for guidance on gas detection systems. Mark C. Wirfs The Task Group developed the change of the (A) title to …