AGENDA National Electrical Code Correlating … . National Electrical Code ® Correlating Committee Meeting . NFPA 70E, 790, 791 Second Draft CC Meeting . December 22, 2016 2:00PM

AGENDA

National Electrical Code® Correlating Committee Meeting

NFPA 70E, 790, 791 Second Draft CC Meeting

December 22, 2016 2:00PM – 4:00PM (ET)

Telephone/Web Conference

Item No. Subject

Item 16-12-1 Call to Order

Item 16-12-2 Roll Call (Attachment A: Committee Roster)

Item 16-12-3 Approval or recent minutes (Attachment B)

Item 16-12-4 Second Draft review of NFPA 790 and 791 (Attachment C: Ballot finals)

Item 16-12-5 Second Draft review of NFPA 70E (Attachment D: Ballot final)

Item 16-12-6 Spring Meeting Date Poll

Item 16-12-7 New Business

Item 16-12-8 Adjournment

NEC Correlating Committee Second Draft Meeting on NFPA 70E, 790 and 791 Teleconference - December 22, 2016

Page 1 of 115

Attachment A: Committee Roster


Page 2 of 115

Address List No PhoneNational Electrical Code®

NEC-AACMark W. Earley

12/19/2016

NEC-AAC

Michael J. Johnston

ChairNational Electrical Contractors Association3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 1100Bethesda, MD 20814-5372Alternate: Stanley J. Folz

IM 8/2/2010NEC-AAC

Mark W. Earley

Secretary (Staff-Nonvoting)National Fire Protection Association1 Batterymarch ParkQuincy, MA 02169-7471

1/1/1989

NEC-AAC

James E. Brunssen

PrincipalTelcordia Technologies (Ericsson)11 Ashwood PlaceParsippany, NJ 07054-2213Alliance for Telecommunications Industry SolutionsAlternate: Ernest J. Gallo

UT 4/1/1996NEC-AAC

Kevin L. Dressman

PrincipalUS Department of Energy19901 Germantown RoadGermantown, MD 20874-1207

U 08/17/2015

NEC-AAC

Palmer L. Hickman

PrincipalElectrical Training Alliance5001 Howerton Way, Suite NBowie, MD 20715-4459International Brotherhood of Electrical WorkersAlternate: James T. Dollard, Jr.

L 10/23/2003NEC-AAC

David L. Hittinger

PrincipalIndependent Electrical Contractors of Greater Cincinnati586 Kings Run DriveCincinnati, OH 45232-1606Independent Electrical Contractors, Inc.Alternate: Lawrence S. Ayer

IM 11/2/2006

NEC-AAC

Richard A. Holub

PrincipalThe DuPont Company, Inc.DuPont Engineering974 Center Road, CRP 723/1114PO Box 2915Wilmington, DE 19805American Chemistry Council

U 08/11/2014NEC-AAC

John R. Kovacik

PrincipalUL LLC333 Pfingsten RoadNorthbrook, IL 60062-2096Alternate: Mark C. Ode

RT 1/15/1999

NEC-AAC

Alan Manche

PrincipalSchneider Electric1601 Mercer RoadLexington, KY 40511-1025

M 08/09/2012NEC-AAC

James F. Pierce

PrincipalIntertek Testing Services22887 NE Townsend WayFairview, OR 97024-4625Alternate: Christine T. Porter

RT 08/09/2012

NEC-AAC

Vincent J. Saporita

PrincipalEaton’s Bussmann Business510 East Villa RoadVilla Ridge, MO 63089National Electrical Manufacturers AssociationAlternate: George A. Straniero

M 03/05/2012NEC-AAC

Roland E. Deike, Jr.

Voting AlternateCenterPoint Energy, Inc.PO Box 1700Houston, TX 77251-1700Electric Light & Power Group/EEI

UT 04/08/2015

1NEC Correlating Committee Second Draft Meeting on NFPA 70E, 790 and 791 Teleconference - December 22, 2016

Page 3 of 115

Address List No PhoneNational Electrical Code®

NEC-AACMark W. Earley

12/19/2016

NEC-AAC

Robert A. McCullough

Voting Alternate141 Clay StreetTuckerton, NJ 08087-2611International Association of Electrical Inspectors

E 10/20/2010NEC-AAC

Lawrence S. Ayer

AlternateBiz Com Electric, Inc.2867 Stanton AvenueCincinnati, OH 45206Independent Electrical Contractors, Inc.Principal: David L. Hittinger

IM 8/5/2009

NEC-AAC

James T. Dollard, Jr.

AlternateIBEW Local Union 981701 Spring Garden StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19130International Brotherhood of Electrical WorkersPrincipal: Palmer L. Hickman

L 7/23/2008NEC-AAC

Stanley J. Folz

AlternateMorse Electric Company2405 Cosmic Ray PlaceHenderson, NV 89044National Electrical Contractors AssociationPrincipal: Michael J. Johnston

IM 4/17/2002

NEC-AAC

Ernest J. Gallo

AlternateTelcordia Technologies (Ericsson)444 Hoes Lane, Room 4D-644Piscataway, NJ 08854-4157Alliance for Telecommunications Industry SolutionsPrincipal: James E. Brunssen

UT 5/30/2008NEC-AAC

Mark C. Ode

AlternateUL LLC9786 West Sydney WayPeoria, AZ 85383Principal: John R. Kovacik

RT 7/19/2002

NEC-AAC

Christine T. Porter

AlternateIntertek Testing Services702 North 86th StreetSeattle, WA 98103-3830Principal: James F. Pierce

RT 08/11/2014NEC-AAC

George A. Straniero

AlternateAFC Cable Systems, Inc.106 Village Center DriveFreehold, NJ 07728-2510National Electrical Manufacturers AssociationPrincipal: Vincent J. Saporita

M 08/11/2014

NEC-AAC

Timothy J. Pope

Nonvoting MemberCanadian Standards Association178 Rexdale BoulevardToronto, ON M9W 1R3 CanadaCSA/Canadian Electrical Code Committee

SE 10/18/2011NEC-AAC

William R. Drake

Member Emeritus4464 Green Valley RoadFairfield, CA 94534-1362

M 1/1/1988

NEC-AAC

D. Harold Ware

Member EmeritusLibra Electric Company4736 Enterprise DriveOklahoma City, OK 73128

IM 4/1/1993NEC-AAC

Mark W. Earley

Staff LiaisonNational Fire Protection Association1 Batterymarch ParkQuincy, MA 02169-7471

1/1/1989

2NEC Correlating Committee Second Draft Meeting on NFPA 70E, 790 and 791 Teleconference - December 22, 2016

Page 4 of 115

Attachment B: Previous Meeting Minutes


Page 5 of 115

National Fire Protection Association

1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471

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

NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE® CORRELATING COMMITTEE

Teleconference on NEC Panel Workloads

October 12, 2016

Item 16-10-1 Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Item 16-10-2 Introduction and Roll Call

The following committee members and guests were in attendance:

MEMBERS WHO PARTICIPATED

NAME COMPANY/REPRESENTING

Michael Johnston, Chair National Electrical Contractors Association

Mark Earley, Secretary NFPA

James Brunssen, Principal Telcordia Technologies (Ericsson)/Representing

Alliance for Telecommunications Industry

Solutions

Kevin Dressman, Principal US Department of Energy

Palmer Hickman, Principal Electrical Training Alliance/Representing

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

David Hittinger, Principal Independent Electrical Contractors of Greater

Cincinnati/Representing Independent Electrical

Contractors, Inc.

Richard Holub, Principal The DuPont Company, Inc./Representing

American Chemistry Council

John Kovacik, Principal UL LLC

Alan Manche, Principal Schneider Electric

Vincent Saporita, Principal Eaton’s Bussmann Business/Representing

National Electrical Manufacturers Association

Roland Deike, Jr., Voting Alternate CenterPoint Energy, Inc./Representing Electric

Light & Power Group/EEI

Lawrence Ayer, Alternate to D.

Hittinger

Biz Com Electric, Inc./Representing Independent

Electrical Contractors, Inc.

Ernest Gallo, Alternate to J.

Brunssen

Telcordia Technologies (Ericsson)/Representing

Alliance for Telecommunications Industry

Solutions


Page 6 of 115

Christine Porter, Alternate to J.

Pierce

Intertek Testing Services

George Straniero, Alternate to V.

Saporita

AFC Cable Systems, Inc./Representing National

Electrical Manufacturers Association

Timothy Pope, Nonvoting Canadian Standards Association/Representing

CSA/Canadian Electrical Code Committee

GUESTS

NAME COMPANY

Diane Matthews NFPA Staff

VOTING ALTERNATE NOT PRESENT __________________________________________

NAME COMPANY

Robert McCullough, Voting

Alternate

International Association of Electrical Inspectors

M. Johnston provided an overview of the agenda.

Item 16-10-3 Potential Panel Reorganization

M. Johnston began the discussion by noting that condensing NEC panels is part of a long range plan. Seeking to

shift work and to change committee workload (in some instances) is for member benefit which would allow

committees to work more effectively. Reasons cited by both M. Johnston and M. Earley included a dramatic

decrease in work for the 2017 cycle, continuing a decline in the number of Inputs/Comments received. In some

instances, the lesser volume began occurring under previous cycles. The difficulty for some organizations to

staff multiple (or in some instance all) panels was discussed. The goal is to make better use of volunteers and

their valuable time.

M. Earley noted this will be a shift from the way we currently do business but we want to make the process

more efficient. M. Johnston stated that these moves will show we are progressive and refining and redefining

the committees was part of planning properly for the future. The assurance that a high level of expertise will be

maintained on all panels and that the committees maintain balance was prevalent throughout the discussion.

The first of two main issues for today were the reorganization of CMP 4 and CMP 10. Under the new plan,

Articles 225 and 230 would move from Panel 4 to Panel 10 and Article 215 would move from CMP 2 to CMP

10. This had been previously approved by the Correlating Committee, but it was opened for discussion and

reaffirmation. After discussion concluded, M. Johnston polled the committee and the proposed actions were

approved.

The second main issue was combining CMP 6 and CMP 7. Members expressed and discussed their viewpoints

and their concerns. After the discussion concluded, the committee voted to approve this action.

Recommendations on both of these actions will be forwarded to the Standards Council.

It was stressed that the CMPs being impacted (CMP 4, CMP 6, CMP 7, and CMP 10) would be dissolved and

members would need to reapply. The change to CMP 2 is so minor, there will be no action proposed on its

membership.


Page 7 of 115

16-10-4 Spring 2017 Correlating Committee Meeting

M. Earley noted the NEC Spring, 2017 meeting will provide the opportunity to develop long range plans. This

will be a planning session to brainstorm plans for the next edition of the NEC and editions going forward.

Agenda items will include planning a joint meeting with the CMP chairs (set for Fall 2017)

The Style Manual also needs to be reviewed. NFPA editorial staff will be invited to participate.

M. Johnston and M. Earley called for a TG Planning Committee for the spring meeting.

The following members were appointed:

J. Kovacik (chair)

V. Saporita

A. Manche

P. Hickman

L. Ayer and

E. Gallo

The task group was urged to be creative and come up with fresh, innovative ideas to consider.

16-10-5 Old Business

Moving forward, CMP chairs were asked to formulate and populate task groups, being careful to maintain

balance. Names of interested parties will be shared.

16-10-6 New Business

The schedule for the 2020 NEC has not yet been approved. It will be sent to the Standard Council for letter

ballot.

M. Earley noted that the public input closing date will be September 8, 2017, a bit earlier than usual. This will

give the task groups time to do their work and should not conflict with the November and December holidays.

The First Draft meetings will be held January 8-20, 2018.

The Second Draft meetings will be held earlier than last cycle but other elements should coincide with the

previous cycle schedule.

M. Earley reinforced that paper submissions will not be accepted during the next cycle.

M. Johnston announced that the submission deadline for committee applications to be discussed at the

December, 2016 Standards Council meeting has passed. The deadline for chair response is October 20th.

Also, the next meeting of the NEC Correlating committee will be a conference call to on the Second Draft of

NFPA 70E.

16-10-7 Meeting Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 11:07 am on Wednesday, October 12, 2016.


Page 8 of 115

Attachment C: NFPA 790/791 Ballot Finals


Page 9 of 115

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Technical Committee on Electrical Equipment Evaluation

FROM: Sarah Caldwell, Project Administrator

DATE: September 13, 2016

SUBJECT: NFPA 790 Second Draft Technical Committee FINAL Ballot Results (A2017)

According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass

ballot.

16 Members Eligible to Vote

3 Members Not Returned (Gillerman, Lewandowski, Trainor)

13 Members Voted Affirmative on All Revisions

0 Members Voted Negative on one or more Revisions

0 Members Abstained on one or more Revisions

The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the

explanation of the vote for each revision.

To pass ballot, each revision requires: (1) a simple majority of those eligible to vote and (2) an

affirmative vote of 2/3 of ballots returned. See Sections 3.3.4.3.(c) and 4.4.10.1 of the Regulations

Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.


Page 10 of 115

Second Revision No. 1-NFPA 790-2016 [ Section No. 5.2.8 ]

5.2.8

The FEB shall ensure that activities of related bodies do not affect the confidentially confidentiality ,objectivity, and impartiality of its field evaluations.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Mark Cloutier

Organization: [ Not Specified ]

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Mon Jul 11 10:27:24 EDT 2016

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The word "confidentiality" is misspelled in the first draft document.

Response Message:

Public Comment No. 1-NFPA 790-2016 [Section No. 5.2.8]

Ballot Results

This item has passed ballot

16 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All

0 Affirmative with Comments

0 Negative with Comments

0 Abstention

Not Returned

Gillerman, Gordon

Lewandowski, Mark L.

Trainor, Richard S.

Affirmative All

Burns, Julian R.

Carpenter, David R.

Chilton, Nancy W.

Farrell III, Michael J.

National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...

1 of 4 9/12/2016 3:03 PM


Page 11 of 115

McGee, Charles ?Scott?

Mello, Charles F.

Paulsen, Shawn

Rempe, Kenneth J.

Staires, John E.

Szende, Andras

Todd, Lawrence E.

Whipple, John J.

Widup, Ron


2 of 4 9/12/2016 3:03 PM


Page 12 of 115

Second Revision No. 2-NFPA 790-2016 [ Section No. C.1.2 ]

C.1.2

The following electrical product groups are identified as those requiring similar skills and technicalknowledge to properly complete a field evaluation:

(1) Power distribution equipment under 600 volts, including switchboards, panelboards, motor controlcenters, transformers, and switches

(2) Power distribution equipment over 600 volts (i.e., medium and high voltage), including switchgear,motor control centers , transformers, and switches

(3) Industrial control and utilization equipment, including industrial control panels, factory automation andequipment, industrial process equipment, motor-operated tools, and machinery such as aircompressors, pumps, and so forth

(4) Commercial utilization equipment and appliances, including commercial cooking equipment, motor-operated commercial cooking equipment, refrigeration and cooling equipment, heating equipment,laundry and dry cleaning equipment, HVAC units, and fan units

(5) Luminaires (i.e., lighting fixtures) and signs, including neon, LED, and messaging-type signs

(6) Medical and dental equipment

(7) Information technology equipment, including UPS systems and electronic control equipment

(8) Wet location equipment, including pools, spas, hot tubs, and fountain equipment

(9) Hazardous location equipment that has listed components for the area or is purged, pressurized, orventilated in accordance with NFPA standards to be changed to unclassified status

(10) Other similar electrical equipment




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Paragraph (2) of this section does not match paragraph (1) in its reference to a motor controlcenter. Insert the word "center" after "motor control".

ResponseMessage:

Public Comment No. 2-NFPA 790-2016 [Section No. C.1.2]

Ballot Results


16 Eligible Voters


3 of 4 9/12/2016 3:03 PM


Page 13 of 115

3 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Gillerman, Gordon


Trainor, Richard S.

Affirmative All

Burns, Julian R.

Carpenter, David R.

Chilton, Nancy W.



Mello, Charles F.

Paulsen, Shawn

Rempe, Kenneth J.

Staires, John E.

Szende, Andras

Todd, Lawrence E.

Whipple, John J.

Widup, Ron


4 of 4 9/12/2016 3:03 PM


Page 14 of 115

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Technical Committee on Electrical Equipment Evaluation

FROM: Sarah Caldwell, Project Administrator

DATE: September 13, 2016

SUBJECT: NFPA 791 Second Draft Technical Committee FINAL Ballot Results (A2017)

According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass

ballot.

16 Members Eligible to Vote

3 Members Not Returned (Gillerman, Lewandowski, Trainor)

13 Members Voted Affirmative on All Revisions

0 Members Voted Negative on one or more Revisions

0 Members Abstained on one or more Revisions

The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the

explanation of the vote for each revision.

To pass ballot, each revision requires: (1) a simple majority of those eligible to vote and (2) an

affirmative vote of 2/3 of ballots returned. See Sections 3.3.4.3.(c) and 4.4.10.1 of the Regulations

Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.


Page 15 of 115

Second Revision No. 1-NFPA 791-2016 [ Section No. 1.1.1 ]

1.1.1

This document covers recommended procedures for evaluating unlabeled electrical equipment inconjuction conjunction with the applicable national applicable nationally recognized standard(s) and anyrequirements of the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ).




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The term "applicable national recognized standard" is not the usual term used to denote anystandard used by a NRTL or FEB. The term "applicable nationally recognized standard" is the usualterm used, and should be used here.

ResponseMessage:

Public Comment No. 2-NFPA 791-2016 [Section No. 1.1.1]

Ballot Results


16 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Gillerman, Gordon


Trainor, Richard S.

Affirmative All

Burns, Julian R.

Carpenter, David R.


1 of 2 9/12/2016 4:23 PM


Page 16 of 115

Chilton, Nancy W.



Mello, Charles F.

Paulsen, Shawn

Rempe, Kenneth J.

Staires, John E.

Szende, Andras

Todd, Lawrence E.

Whipple, John J.

Widup, Ron


2 of 2 9/12/2016 4:23 PM


Page 17 of 115

Attachment D: NFPA 70E Ballot Final


Page 18 of 115

M E M O R A N D U M TO: Technical Committee on Electrical Safety in the Workplace FROM: Sarah Caldwell, Project Administrator DATE: November 30, 2016 SUBJECT: NFPA 70E Second Draft TC FINAL Ballot Results (A2017)

According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot with the exception of Second Revision Nos. 36 and 44 as shown in the attached report. A Second Revision that fails Ballot will be designated as a Committee Comment, marked as Reject, and published in the Comment Section of the Second Draft Report. If a Second Revision that revised text proposed in a First Revision fails Ballot, a Supplementary Ballot shall be conducted to determine whether the Committee is in support of the related First Revision. Second Revision No. 36 did have a related First Revision and a Supplementary Ballot was sent under separate cover.

Second Revision No. 44 did not have an associated First Revision, thus a Supplementary Ballot was not required.

27 Members Eligible to Vote 1 Members Not Returned (Jarvis) 10 Members Voted Affirmative on All Revisions (w/ comment: Barrios, Bowman, Gallo,

Hickman, McKinch, Mohla, Niemira, Widup) 15 Members Voted Negative on one or more Revisions (Barrios, Douglas, Drobnick, Dyson,

Eblen, Gray, Hayes, Hickman, McKinch, McNellis, Mohla, Niemira, Neitzel, Pace, Stallcup) 1 Members Abstained on one or more Revisions: (Eblen) The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of the vote for each revision.

To pass ballot, each revision requires: (1) a simple majority of those eligible to vote and (2) an affirmative vote of 2/3 of ballots returned. See Sections 3.3.4.3.(c) and 4.4.10.1 of the Regulations

Governing the Development of NFPA Standards. NEC Correlating Committee Second Draft Meeting on NFPA 70E, 790 and 791

Teleconference - December 22, 2016 Page 19 of 115

Eligible to Vote: 27

Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis

Vote Selection Votes Comments

Affirmative 20

Affirmative with Comment 2

Terrance L. McKinch The measurements are wrong

Ernest J. Gallo NFPA 70E should recognize the difference in physiological response to dc vs. ac

voltages. Table 130.4(C)(b) should therefore reflect a minimum dc voltage of 100 volts.

Perhaps NFPA could work with OSHA to obtain such recognition in the OSHA

requirements.

Negative 4

Election:70E_EEW-AAA_SD_Ballot_A2017

Results by Revision

SR-70, Detail, See SR-70


Page 20 of 115

http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/FormLaunch?id=/TerraView/Content/70E-2015.ditamap/2/C1469645206196.xml&viewmode=nfpa/xslt/nfpaviewmode.xsl

Bobby J. Gray Table 130.4(C)(b) should not be revised to establish the lower range to 50 volts dc. The

technical committee was miss-led to believe the 100 volt limit conflicts with the NEC or

OSHA. The table has nothing to do with installation rules in the NEC; it simply

establishes boundary distances to assist in choosing appropriate protection for workers

in the vicinity of exposed energized electrical conductors or circuit parts. Likewise, the

value in the existing language does nothing to conflict with the OSHA citation listed in

the committee statement that employers must deenergize exposed conductors

operating at 50 volts or more before a worker can work on or near the parts or justify

the need to keep them energized. Table 130.4(C)(b) is implemented after the employer

has met all the requirements established by OSHA and NFPA 70E regarding justification

for energized work. The DC Task Group has provided an overwhelming number of

technical and scientific justifications to support the ranges listed in the table are

appropriate for protecting the qualified worker while performing servicing and

maintenance on dc equipment or systems. The true agenda or evidence should be

provided for rejecting the scientific community or the language should remain, since

there has been provided no reports that the ranges have been a problem or created a

safety concern.


Page 21 of 115

Mark McNellis During the 2012 and 2015 cycles, the Technical Committee had lengthy debates over

the addition of a new DC table and threshold of 100-volt. The TC listened to the

substantiation provided by several experts referencing more than 30 research papers

supporting this change, including research performed by the International Electro-

technical Commission (IEC), and ultimately voted in favor of the new table and

threshold. Despite the decision of the TC, the Correlating Committee has requested

that the threshold be changed back to 50-volts to better align with OSHA standards.

Since the Technical Committee's original charge was to develop an electrical safety

standard for OSHA it stands to reason that NFPA should be setting the standard, not

following. Additionally, in order to be more accepted globally the standard should align

with the most recent research provided by the International Electro-technical

Commission. No evidence has been provided to support a change back to 50-volts.

James G. Stallcup I do not agree with changing the Table 130.4(C)(b) from 100 volts to 50 volts.


Page 22 of 115

James K. Niemira Clearance requirements are being increased for no technical reason and could cause

issues in existing space constrained installations. Existing installations may become non-

compliant and subject to costly modifications to bring them into compliance. The

upward creep in the clearance requirements is a result of compounded round-off errors

when converting original measurements from the imperial system (feet and inches) in

the SI metric system (meters its subdivisions cm, mm). Clearances original specified to

the nearest inch (an appropriately precise unit of measurement considering the

distances involved and the purpose) were translated to millimeters (an overly precise

unit for the purpose). The metric dimensions, after being adopted as the primary unit,

were then rounded up to the nearest multiple of 100 mm (0.1 m), which is nearly 4

inches and is too imprecise a unit for the specifying the distances involved. The cm

(0.01 m) or the inch are much more appropriate units of measurement for the purpose.

Rather than increasing the measurements specified in the imperial units, the

measurements specified using the metric dimensions should be specified with more

appropriate precision to the nearest centimeter (cm, 0.01 m).

Abstain 0


Page 23 of 115


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25


Terrance L. McKinch agree

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-2, Definition: Arc Flash Hazard., See SR-2

SR-3, Definition: Accessible, Readily (Readily Accessible)., See SR-3


Page 24 of 115




Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25


Negative 1

Terrance L. McKinch It is in the appendix

Abstain 0

SR-23, Definition: Ground-Fault Circuit Interrupter, Special Purpo..., See SR-23

SR-4, Definition: Electrically Safe Work Condition., See SR-4


Page 25 of 115




Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25


Terrance L. McKinch Agree with comments

Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-6, Definition: Shock Hazard., See SR-6

SR-5, Definition: Maintenance, Condition of., See SR-5


Page 26 of 115




Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25


Terrance L. McKinch agree with sentence change

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 24


Terrance L. McKinch Agree with Fault Current

Ernest J. Gallo In Informational Note No. 2 the text "...refers to the prospective short circuit current"

implies an 'expected' short circuit current. Where batteries are concerned, it is not the

'expected' short circuit current but the calculated or measured short circuit current

capable of being supplied by the battery.

Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-8, New Definition after Definition: Exposed (as applied to wir..., See SR-8

SR-7, Definition: Working Distance., See SR-7


Page 27 of 115




Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25


Terrance L. McKinch Agree

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 24


Louis A. Barrios Installation codes and standards provide requirements and recommended practices in

addition to installation safety. The proposed modification appears to be extending the

inspection beyond the scope of NFPA 70E. An improvement opportunity for the next

revision cycle is to limit this statement so that it applies only to safety related

requirements of applicable installation codes and standards.

Negative 1

Terrance L. McKinch Keep requirment

Abstain 0

SR-11, Section No. 110.1(B), See SR-11

SR-10, Article 105, See SR-10


Page 28 of 115




Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 23


Louis A. Barrios In 110.1(H)(2), the list of negative consequences including "processes, the work

environment, and equipment" have the potential to be applied beyond the scope of

NFPA 70E. An improvement opportunity for the next revision cycle is to limit this

statement so it applies only to personnel safety.

Daleep C. Mohla Add at the end of 110.1(H)(2) _ ‘affecting personnel safety” In 110.1 (H) (2) Note under

(2) Human error the wording “negative consequences on people, processes, the work

environment and equipment”. This wording has the potential to be applied beyond the

current purpose and scope of NFPA 70E. The proposed wording “(2) Human Error The

risk assessment shall address the potential for human error and it’s negative

consequences on people processes, the work environment, and equipment affecting

personnel safety. Overcurrent device operation of equipment or interruption of process

can be considered a negative consequence but it may not necessarily adversely impact

personnel safety.

Terrance L. McKinch Agree with hierarchy

Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-12, Section No. 110.1(H), See SR-12


Page 29 of 115



Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 24


Palmer L. Hickman We wonder if the intent of the requirement that electrical safety program include

elements to investigate electrical incidents includes investigating “close calls” and “near

misses” as provided for in the informational note.

Negative 1

Terrance L. McKinch Should be required

Abstain 0

SR-13, Section No. 110.1(J), See SR-13

SR-18, Section No. 110.1(I)(2), See SR-18


Page 30 of 115




Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-19, Section No. 110.2(B)(1), See SR-19

SR-14, Section No. 110.2(A) [Excluding any Sub-Sections], See SR-14


Page 31 of 115




Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25


Negative 1

Terrance L. McKinch Keep refresher annually

Abstain 0

SR-16, Section No. 110.2(C)(2), See SR-16



Page 32 of 115




Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 24


Terrance L. McKinch As long as it is somewhere


voltages. Perhaps NFPA could work with OSHA to obtain such recognition in the OSHA

requirements.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25


Terrance L. McKinch agree to 50 volts

Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-24, Section No. 110.4(E), See SR-24

SR-17, Sections 110.2(D), 110.2(E), See SR-17


Page 33 of 115




Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25


Negative 1

Terrance L. McKinch SPGFCI in in annex

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25


Negative 1

Terrance L. McKinch SPGFCI in in annex

Abstain 0

SR-22, Section No. 110.6(D), See SR-22

SR-20, Sections 110.6(B), 110.6(C), See SR-20


Page 34 of 115




Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25


Terrance L. McKinch approved as noted

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 23



SR-21, Section No. 110.7, See SR-21


Page 35 of 115



Louis A. Barrios In the new Exception to 120.5(7), the last part of the statement should read "...,

provided it meets all of the following requirements:". This is an editorial change to

correct "... it meets the all following requirements:". The informational note to

120.5(8)(2) should be returned to mandatory language so that it reads "Temporary

protective grounding equipment shall meet the requirements of ASTM F855, Standard

Specification for Temporary Protective Grounds to be Used on De-energized Electric

Power Lines and Equipment." The mandatory reference to the ASTM standard was

moved to an informational note in compliance with the NEC Style Manual. However, in

a letter from Dawn Michele Bellis, dated Sept 6, 2016, Ms. Bellis states "In the

Standards Council's view, the purpose of the NEC Style Manual (and similarly, that of

the NFPA Manual of Style) is to support consistency in NFPA documents. However,

neither Manual is intended to serve as an impediment to the needs of a TC, a standard,

or those utilizing the standard." As a result of this new guidance, the mandatory

reference to the ASTM standard should be retained to provide verifiable construction

and testing standards for temporary protective grounds intended for worker safety.

Negative 1

Terrance L. McKinch Voltage testing must be reiterated

Abstain 1


Page 36 of 115

Marcia L. Eblen Removing mandatory references to specific manufacturing, testing, use and care

requirements opens the door for misunderstanding, abuse, and increases the likelihood

of PPE meeting much lower standards. While specifying applicable state, federal, local

codes and standards must be followed offers some protections to US manufacturers

and users (OSHA requirements must be met and US users have historically relied on

ASTM standards), manufacturers and user in other countries and locations will be not

only be allowed, but possibly encouraged to use their own 'standards'. These other so-

called standards will not be obliged to be as good as or better than the ASTM standards

currently referenced. Reducing worker safety was not intended by the technical

committee or the technical correlating committee; however, it is a consequence of

these actions. Mandatory references to other standards should not be removed from

NFPA 70E Standard. Recent clarification by the NFPA Standards Council pointed out

that the Technical Committee chose to use the NEC Style Manual in 2004, largely, in

order to align the numbering conventions. The NEC Style Manual calls for the use of

informational notes rather than mandatory references, while the NFPA Manual of Style

allows mandatory references to other standards. According to the Standards Council,

the purpose of style manuals is to support consistency in NFPA documents and is not

intended to serve as an impediment to the needs of the Technical Committee nor those

utilizing the standard. In the current case, the 70E technical committee’s vote to

remove mandatory, manufacturing specifications, testing specifications, and use and

care requirements will have the unintended consequence of reducing worker safety.

The right thing to do is to vote negative on this Second Revision. Doing the right thing

clearly outweighs the otherwise rigid conformance to a self-declared rule of style.


Page 37 of 115


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 21


Ron Widup There are two non-technical editorial corrections required in the title and the first

sentence of 130.2(A)(3) After the number "50" the words "Vac or 100 Vdc" should be

deleted and replaced with the word "volts".


SR-27, Section No. 130.2 [Excluding any Sub-Sections], See SR-27



Page 38 of 115




voltages. Perhaps NFPA could work with OSHA to obtain such recognition in the OSHA

requirements.

Negative 2

Louis A. Barrios Establishing an electrically safe work condition is intended to de-energize and isolate

normally energized equipment to reduce the risk of shock, arc flash and other electrical

hazards while the equipment is being worked on. The requirements of 130.2 may be

interpreted to also apply to a disconnecting means being operated to establish an

electrically safe work condition for equipment downstream of the disconnecting

means. The exception in 130.2 was added in 2012 to recognize that the intent of the

Standard was not to require first de-energizing upstream of the circuit disconnecting

means being used to establish an electrically safe work condition for equipment located

downstream of the disconnecting means. The TC has recommended to delete this

exception because "normal operation" is already permitted by 130.2(A)(4).

Unfortunately, not all disconnecting means (such as pole-mounted, air break fused

disconnect switches) meet all of the requirements of 130.2(A)(4). Therefore, the

exception should not be deleted.


Page 39 of 115

Daleep C. Mohla The Exception should remain. Normal operation is only acceptable if ALL conditions

specified in 130.2 (A)(4) are met. Meeting ALL conditions is unlikely in many

commercial and some industrial sites even though equipment is operated according to

manufacturer’s instructions. It now will mean that the equipment cannot be operated

to establish an electrically safe work condition. Some equipment such as pole top

cutouts and draw out circuit breakers where opening the door is required to operated

do not meet all the conditions of normal operation which requires all doors be closed

and secured. This prohibition of operation could then cascade upstream if all the

equipment was of the same type. The utility would need to shutoff power because

operating the equipment (interacting) exposes the employee to a potential hazard.

Having to take this action is not practical or logical. This was one of the reasons the

exception was originally added.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-28, Section No. 130.2(B)(2), See SR-28


Page 40 of 115



Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25


Negative 1

Terrance L. McKinch These should be determined per the current statement

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 24




voltages. Section 130.4(F)(1) should state: "... operating at 50 volts ac or greater, or 100

volts dc or greater, insulating gloves ...". Perhaps NFPA could work with OSHA to obtain

such recognition in the OSHA requirements.

Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-30, Section No. 130.4(E), See SR-30

SR-29, Section No. 130.4(A), See SR-29


Page 41 of 115




Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 23


Ron Widup There is a non-technical editorial correction required in Table 130.5(C) with the term

and acronym for "circuit breaker (CB)". In some instances the term "circuit breaker" is

deleted and "CB" is left, or both "circuit breaker" and "CB" are used in conjunction with

each other, or just "CB" is used. For editorial clarity the combination of "circuit breaker

(CB)" should be used in all instances that "circuit breaker", "CB", or "circuit breaker

(CB)" is used within Table 130.5(C)

William Bruce Bowman The committee would be prudent to advise the use of untreated natural fibers for

when the energy is less than 1.2 cal/cm2 and should exclude the use of meltable fibers.

Negative 1

Terrance L. McKinch Make other standards mandatory

Abstain 0



Page 42 of 115



Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 24




voltages. Sections 130.6(A)(10 and (2) should recognize this difference by specifying

different levels for ac and dc. Perhaps NFPA could work with OSHA to obtain such

recognition in the OSHA requirements.

Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-32, Sections 130.6(A)(1), 130.6(A)(2), See SR-32


Page 43 of 115



Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 20


Ron Widup There is a non-technical editorial correction required in 130.6(C)(2) After the number

"50" the words "or 100 volts" should be deleted.

Louis A. Barrios The stated action in SR-33 is not consistent with other actions taken on the same

subject. If the committee's intent is to remove the reference to 100 Vdc, then "or 100

Vdc volts" should been stricken.


Ernest J. Gallo There appears to be an error in that two voltage thresholds are specified that would

preclude work where poor illumination or obstructed observation exists. Further, NFPA

70E should recognize the difference in physiological response to dc vs. ac voltages.

Perhaps NFPA could work with OSHA to obtain such recognition in the OSHA

requirements.

James K. Niemira The words "or 100 volts" should be stricken from the text. The requirement "greater

than 50 volts" already covers all higher voltages. The intent is to no longer have

different requirements for AC and DC voltages.

Negative 1

Palmer L. Hickman Note that SR 33 contains both 50 and 100 V.

Abstain 0



Page 44 of 115



Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 20


Ron Widup There are two non-technical editorial corrections required in 130.6(F) and 130.6(G).

After the number "50" the words "or 100 volts" should be deleted.

Louis A. Barrios The stated action in SR-34 is not consistent with other actions taken on the same

subject. If the committee's intent is to remove the reference to 100 Vdc, then "or 100

Vdc volts" should been stricken in two places.


Ernest J. Gallo There appears to be an error in both 130.6 (F) and (G) in that two voltage thresholds

are specified that would impact working precautions. Further, NFPA 70E should

recognize the difference in physiological response to dc vs. ac voltages. Perhaps NFPA

could work with OSHA to obtain such recognition in the OSHA requirements.

James K. Niemira The words "or 100 volts" should be stricken from the text in both places, (F) and (G).

The requirement "greater than 50 volts" already covers all higher voltages. The intent is

to no longer have different requirements for AC and DC voltages.

Negative 1

Palmer L. Hickman Note that FR 34 contains both 50 and 100 V.

Abstain 0

SR-34, Sections 130.6(F), 130.6(G), See SR-34


Page 45 of 115



Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25


Terrance L. McKinch agree NEC

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1


SR-38, Section No. 130.7(B), See SR-38

SR-9, Section No. 130.6(J), See SR-9


Page 46 of 115




Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 22


Palmer L. Hickman It is important to note that this First Revision is necessary to be in compliance with 4.2,

References to Other Standards, of the NEC Style Manual which states that "References

to other standards shall not be in mandatory Code text" and that "References to other

Standards shall be in the Informational Notes." This First Revision makes NFPA 70E in

compliance with the NEC Style Manual. Leaving these references in the standard as

mandatory has significant negative impact on the potential for international adoption

of NFPA 70E and prohibits development of competing standards. [the following is

edited to comply with the 4,000 character maximum permitted by NFPA] Furthermore,

the Correlating Committee is obligated to enforce the regulations and procedures that

have been put in place by NFPA Standards Council. For example: Excerpts from the

Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards: 3.4.3 Responsibilities. The

responsibilities of a Correlating Committee are: (a) ... (b) ... (c) ... (d) ... (e) ... (f)

Notifying a Technical Committee of its failure to comply with these Regulations or the

Manual of Style for NFPA Technical Committee Documents (g) ... (h) Establishing

Supplemental Operating Procedures, if desired (see 3.3.8) (i) Performing such other or

different duties as the Standards Council may from time to time assign 3.3.8

Supplemental Operating Procedures. A Technical Committee and/ or Correlating

Committee may adopt Supplemental Operating Procedures, provided that such

procedures are consistent with the Bylaws of the NFPA and with these Regulations.

Such procedures and amendments thereto shall be promptly transmitted to the

Standards Council Secretary, who shall submit them to the Standards Council for

approval. Amendments to the Bylaws of the NFPA or to these Regulations shall

automatically supersede any such procedures that may be in conflict therewith.

Supplemental Operating Procedures, in part: Adopted by the NEC Correlating

Committee on April 27, 2012. Approved by the Standards Council on August 9, 2012.

Introduction (a) Preamble. The Operations of the National Electrical Code Project (i.e.,

the NEC Correlating Committee (CC) and the various Technical Committees or Code-

Making Panels it supervises) are governed by the NFPA Regulations Covering the


Page 47 of 115

August 9, 2012. Introduction (a) Preamble. The Operations of the National Electrical

Code Project (i.e., the NEC Correlating Committee (CC) and the various Technical

Committees or Code-Making Panels it supervises) are governed by the NFPA

Regulations Covering the Development of NFPA Standards (Regs.). In addition to those

Regulations, the following Supplemental Operating Procedures (SOPs) have been

adopted and approved in accordance with 3.3.8 and 3.4.3(h) of the Regs. These

Supplemental Operating Procedures are intended to be consistent with and

supplement the Bylaws of the Association and the Regs. and should any conflict appear

either now or as the Bylaws or Regs. may be amended, the Bylaws and Regs. shall

govern. (b) The NEC Project. The organization and structure of The National Electrical

Code Project, as well as the NFPA Documents for which it is currently responsible, are

approved by the NFPA Standards Council and are set forth in Annex A to these SOPs, as

it may be revised from time to time…. 3.3 Responsibilities of the Correlating

Committee. In addition to the responsibilities and authority expressly set forth in Regs.

3.4, 4.3.6 and 4.4.7, the Correlating Committee shall have the following responsibilities:

1. Scope Approval. ... 2. Enforcement of the Style Manual. The Correlating Committee

shall be responsible for enforcement of the NEC Style Manual and the NFPA Manual of

Style for other documents under their responsibility. Within this responsibility the

necessary action may include:..., or revising the text to comply with the Style Manual

(at either the ROP or ROC stage.

Negative 2

Louis A. Barrios Mandatory reference to the listed ASTM standards should remain in NFPA 70E. Without

these mandatory references, users may pick and choose maintenance and use

requirements for hand and arm protection.



Page 48 of 115

Abstain 1

Marcia L. Eblen Mandatory references to other standards should not be removed from NFPA 70E

Standard. Recent clarification by the NFPA Standards Council pointed out that the

Technical Committee chose to use the NEC Style Manual in 2004, largely, in order to

align the numbering conventions. The NEC Style Manual calls for the use of











Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 23




Page 49 of 115































Page 50 of 115





















Negative 1


Abstain 1


Page 51 of 115

























Page 52 of 115


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 12


William Bruce Bowman It is important to specify examples of standards that should be met; however, this

document is used in other parts of the world.

FALSE



Page 53 of 115






compliance with the NEC Style Manual. The correspondence referenced in the negative

statements did not come from Standards Council, it was from Standards

Administration. Negative comments also reference a decision made by Standards

Council which is incorrect. This is not a safety issue. Leaving these references in the

standard as mandatory has significant negative impact on the potential for

international adoption of NFPA 70E and prohibits development of competing

standards. [the following is edited to comply with the 4,000 character maximum

permitted by NFPA] Furthermore, the Correlating Committee is obligated to enforce

the regulations and procedures that have been put in place by NFPA Standards Council.

For example: Excerpts from the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA

Standards: 3.4.3 Responsibilities. The responsibilities of a Correlating Committee are:

(a) ... (b) ... (c) ... (d) ... (e) ... (f) Notifying a Technical Committee of its failure to comply

with these Regulations or the Manual of Style for NFPA Technical Committee

Documents (g) ... (h) Establishing Supplemental Operating Procedures, if desired (see

3.3.8) (i) Performing such other or different duties as the Standards Council may from

time to time assign 3.3.8 Supplemental Operating Procedures. A Technical Committee

and/ or Correlating Committee may adopt Supplemental Operating Procedures,

provided that such procedures are consistent with the Bylaws of the NFPA and with

these Regulations. Such procedures and amendments thereto shall be promptly

transmitted to the Standards Council Secretary, who shall submit them to the

Standards Council for approval. Amendments to the Bylaws of the NFPA or to these

Regulations shall automatically supersede any such procedures that may be in conflict

therewith. Supplemental Operating Procedures, in part: Adopted by the NEC

Correlating Committee on April 27, 2012. Approved by the Standards Council on August


Page 54 of 115

Bylaws of the NFPA or to these Regulations shall automatically supersede any such

procedures that may be in conflict therewith. Supplemental Operating Procedures, in

part: Adopted by the NEC Correlating Committee on April 27, 2012. Approved by the

Standards Council on August 9, 2012. Introduction (a) Preamble. The Operations of the

National Electrical Code Project (i.e., the NEC Correlating Committee (CC) and the

various Technical Committees or Code-Making Panels it supervises) are governed by

the NFPA Regulations Covering the Development of NFPA Standards (Regs.). In addition

to those Regulations, the following Supplemental Operating Procedures (SOPs) have

been adopted and approved in accordance with 3.3.8 and 3.4.3(h) of the Regs. These















Negative 12


Page 55 of 115

Drake A. Drobnick The Technical Committee was lead to believe that Manual of Style recommendations

were mandatory and the standard needed to be revised accordingly. The Standard's

Council disagreed with this opinion in a letter addressed to the Technical Committee. In

light of this new information which makes them simply advisory, please change my

vote to NEGATIVE.


these mandatory references, manufacturers would be permitted to pick and choose a

testing standard or to self declare that their personal protective garments and

equipment are "safe".

James B. Hayes Keep the reff . in



Page 56 of 115

Daleep C. Mohla At the second draft meeting, all mandatory references of the standards, which are

enforceable were removed and added as a part of Informational Notes in order to

comply with the NEC Style Manual requirements. 70E -2015, 90.5 (C) Cleary states that

explanatory material contained in the Informational Notes are not enforceable as

requirements of this standard Converting these standards from enforceable

requirements to explanatory material would severely affect the electrical safety of

users of NFPA 70E in a negative manner. NFPA 70E has had these mandatory references

in multiple previous editions with no evidence of a problem. The following excerpt from

September 6, 2016 letter from the NFPA Standards Council clearly allows continuing

the practice of including mandatory standards in NFPA 70E “The Council was unaware

of any directive, decision or implication by it to date that would reverse the long

standing practice of NFPA 70E utilizing mandatory references. (As you note in your

correspondence, the use of mandatory references in 70E has occurred in multiple

editions.) In the Standards Council’s view, the purpose of the NEC Style Manual (and

similarly, that of the NFPA Manual of Style) is to support consistency in NFPA

documents. However, neither Manual is intended to serve as an impediment to the

needs of a TC, a standard, or those utilizing the standard” The NFPA Directory clearly

permits mandatory references in 3.3.7.1. Many other NFPA Codes and Standards

contain mandatory references to other standards. The NEC Style Manual was originally

created for the NEC only. NFPA 70E is not adopted as the NEC is. It is respectfully

requested that the NEC Correlating Committee revise 4.2 of the NEC Style Manual to

restrict mandatory references in the NEC but not in other standards such as NFPA 70E.


Page 57 of 115

























Page 58 of 115

Thomas B. Dyson "Removing mandatory references to specific manufacturing, testing, use and care





















The right thing to do is to vote negative on this Second Revisions. Doing the right thing

clearly outweighs the otherwise rigid conformance to a self-declared rule of style. "


Page 59 of 115

Dennis K. Neitzel I am casting a negative vote because I believe that the mandatory references are vital

to the purposes of NFPA 70E. Without mandatory references for PPE, it leaves it open

for anyone to claim arc-rated clothing and PPE by whatever means they want, which

could lead to personnel not being properly protected. The Technical Committee (TC)

was lead to believe that mandatory references were not allowed by NFPA and that they

would be removed with or without the TC approval. The following clarification was

provided by the NFPA Standards Council: “At the August 2016 Standards Council

meeting, members were presented with the issues raised in your July 12th

correspondence to the Standards Council regarding mandatory references appearing in

NFPA 70E. The Council was unaware of any directive, decision or implication by it to

date that would reverse the long standing practice of NFPA 70E utilizing mandatory

references. In the Standards Council’s view, the purpose of the NEC Style Manual (and



needs of a TC, a standard, or those utilizing the standard.”

James G. Stallcup I do not agree to changing PPE shall conform to the standards listed in Table

130.7(C)(14) to applicable state, federal, or local codes and standards.


Page 60 of 115

James K. Niemira Removing mandatory references to specific manufacturing, testing, use and care


of PPE failing to meet adequate performance standards. While specifying that

applicable state, federal, local codes and standards must be followed offers some

protections to US manufacturers and users (OSHA requirements must be met and US

users have historically relied on ASTM standards), manufacturers and users in other

countries and locations may not have appropriate laws and standards in place and may

be encouraged to accept the use of inadequate manufacturers' standards which may

not be as good as or better than the ASTM standards currently referenced. Reducing

worker safety was not intended by the technical committee or the technical correlating

committee; however, it is a consequence of these actions. Mandatory references to

other standards should not be removed from NFPA 70E Standard. Recent clarification

by the NFPA Standards Council pointed out that the Technical Committee chose to use

the NEC Style Manual in 2004, largely, in order to align the numbering conventions. The

NEC Style Manual calls for the use of informational notes rather than mandatory

references, while the NFPA Manual of Style allows mandatory references to other

standards. According to the Standards Council, the purpose of style manuals is to

support consistency in NFPA documents and is not intended to serve as an impediment

to the needs of the Technical Committee nor those utilizing the standard. In the current

case, the 70E technical committee’s vote to remove mandatory, manufacturing

specifications, testing specifications, and use and care requirements will have the

unintended consequence of reducing worker safety.

Michael J. Douglas We should reference appropriate ASTM standards as a minimum. This references

provide a baseline for evaluation of an equivalent standard when implementing NFPA

on a global platform.


Page 61 of 115

David A. Pace This second revision should be rejected and the 2015 language retained.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 24


Negative 1


Abstain 1



Page 62 of 115


























Page 63 of 115


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 24




Page 64 of 115































Page 65 of 115





















Negative 1


Abstain 0


Page 66 of 115


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 23


SR-40, Section No. 130.7(D)(1), See SR-40


Page 67 of 115































Page 68 of 115





















Negative 1


Abstain 1


Page 69 of 115

























Page 70 of 115


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 23


SR-43, Section No. 130.7(E)(1), See SR-43


Page 71 of 115































Page 72 of 115





















Negative 1


Abstain 1


Page 73 of 115















Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-41, Section No. 130.7(E)(4), See SR-41


Page 74 of 115



Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 12


William Bruce Bowman It is important to specify examples of standards that should be met; however, this

document is used in other parts of the world.

FALSE

SR-44, Section No. 130.7(G), See SR-44


Page 75 of 115






compliance with the NEC Style Manual. The correspondence referenced in the negative

statements did not come from Standards Council, it was from Standards

Administration. Negative comments also reference a decision made by Standards

Council which is incorrect. This is not a safety issue. Leaving these references in the

standard as mandatory has significant negative impact on the potential for

international adoption of NFPA 70E and prohibits development of competing

standards. [the following is edited to comply with the 4,000 character maximum

permitted by NFPA] Furthermore, the Correlating Committee is obligated to enforce

the regulations and procedures that have been put in place by NFPA Standards Council.

For example: Excerpts from the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA

Standards: 3.4.3 Responsibilities. The responsibilities of a Correlating Committee are:

(a) ... (b) ... (c) ... (d) ... (e) ... (f) Notifying a Technical Committee of its failure to comply

with these Regulations or the Manual of Style for NFPA Technical Committee

Documents (g) ... (h) Establishing Supplemental Operating Procedures, if desired (see

3.3.8) (i) Performing such other or different duties as the Standards Council may from

time to time assign 3.3.8 Supplemental Operating Procedures. A Technical Committee

and/ or Correlating Committee may adopt Supplemental Operating Procedures,

provided that such procedures are consistent with the Bylaws of the NFPA and with

these Regulations. Such procedures and amendments thereto shall be promptly

transmitted to the Standards Council Secretary, who shall submit them to the

Standards Council for approval. Amendments to the Bylaws of the NFPA or to these

Regulations shall automatically supersede any such procedures that may be in conflict




Page 76 of 115

Bylaws of the NFPA or to these Regulations shall automatically supersede any such

procedures that may be in conflict therewith. Supplemental Operating Procedures, in

part: Adopted by the NEC Correlating Committee on April 27, 2012. Approved by the

Standards Council on August 9, 2012. Introduction (a) Preamble. The Operations of the

National Electrical Code Project (i.e., the NEC Correlating Committee (CC) and the

various Technical Committees or Code-Making Panels it supervises) are governed by

the NFPA Regulations Covering the Development of NFPA Standards (Regs.). In addition

to those Regulations, the following Supplemental Operating Procedures (SOPs) have

been adopted and approved in accordance with 3.3.8 and 3.4.3(h) of the Regs. These















Negative 12


Page 77 of 115

Drake A. Drobnick The Technical Committee was lead to believe that Manual of Style recommendations

were mandatory and the standard needed to be revised accordingly. The Standard's

Council disagreed with this opinion in a letter addressed to the Technical Committee. In

light of this new information which makes them simply advisory, please change my

vote to NEGATIVE.


these mandatory references, manufacturers would be permitted to pick and choose a

testing standard or to self declare that their personal protective garments and

equipment are "safe".

James B. Hayes needs to stay as is



Page 78 of 115

Daleep C. Mohla At the second draft meeting, all mandatory references of the standards, which are

enforceable were removed and added as a part of Informational Notes in order to

comply with the NEC Style Manual requirements. 70E-2015, 90.5 (C) Cleary states that

explanatory material contained in the Informational Notes are not enforceable as

requirements of this standard Converting these standards from enforceable

requirements to explanatory material would severely affect the electrical safety of

users of NFPA 70E in a negative manner. NFPA 70E has had these mandatory references

in multiple previous editions with no evidence of a problem. The following excerpt from

September 6, 2016 letter from the NFPA Standards Council clearly allows continuing

the practice of including mandatory standards in NFPA 70E “The Council was unaware

of any directive, decision or implication by it to date that would reverse the long

standing practice of NFPA 70E utilizing mandatory references. (As you note in your

correspondence, the use of mandatory references in 70E has occurred in multiple

editions.) In the Standards Council’s view, the purpose of the NEC Style Manual (and



needs of a TC, a standard, or those utilizing the standard” The NFPA Directory clearly

permits mandatory references in 3.3.7.1. Many other NFPA Codes and Standards

contain mandatory references to other standards. The NEC Style Manual was originally

created for the NEC only. NFPA 70E is not adopted as the NEC is. It is respectfully

requested that the NEC Correlating Committee revise 4.2 of the NEC Style Manual to

restrict mandatory references in the NEC but not in other standards such as NFPA 70E.


Page 79 of 115

























Page 80 of 115

Thomas B. Dyson "Removing mandatory references to specific manufacturing, testing, use and care





















The right thing to do is to vote negative on this Second Revisions. Doing the right thing

clearly outweighs the otherwise rigid conformance to a self-declared rule of style. "


Page 81 of 115

Dennis K. Neitzel I am casting a negative vote because I believe that the mandatory references are vital

to the purposes of NFPA 70E. Without mandatory references for PPE, it leaves it open

for anyone to claim arc-rated clothing and PPE by whatever means they want, which

could lead to personnel not being properly protected. The Technical Committee (TC)

was lead to believe that mandatory references were not allowed by NFPA and that they

would be removed with or without the TC approval. The following clarification was

provided by the NFPA Standards Council: “At the August 2016 Standards Council

meeting, members were presented with the issues raised in your July 12th

correspondence to the Standards Council regarding mandatory references appearing in

NFPA 70E. The Council was unaware of any directive, decision or implication by it to

date that would reverse the long standing practice of NFPA 70E utilizing mandatory

references. In the Standards Council’s view, the purpose of the NEC Style Manual (and



needs of a TC, a standard, or those utilizing the standard.”

James G. Stallcup I do not agree to changing other protective equipment shall conform to the standards

listed in Table 130.7(G) to applicable state, federal, or local codes and standards.


Page 82 of 115

James K. Niemira Removing mandatory references to specific manufacturing, testing, use and care


of PPE failing to meet adequate performance standards. While specifying that

applicable state, federal, local codes and standards must be followed offers some

protections to US manufacturers and users (OSHA requirements must be met and US

users have historically relied on ASTM standards), manufacturers and users in other

countries and locations may not have appropriate laws and standards in place and may

be encouraged to accept the use of inadequate manufacturers' standards which may

not be as good as or better than the ASTM standards currently referenced. Reducing

worker safety was not intended by the technical committee or the technical correlating

committee; however, it is a consequence of these actions. Mandatory references to

other standards should not be removed from NFPA 70E Standard. Recent clarification

by the NFPA Standards Council pointed out that the Technical Committee chose to use

the NEC Style Manual in 2004, largely, in order to align the numbering conventions. The

NEC Style Manual calls for the use of informational notes rather than mandatory

references, while the NFPA Manual of Style allows mandatory references to other

standards. According to the Standards Council, the purpose of style manuals is to

support consistency in NFPA documents and is not intended to serve as an impediment

to the needs of the Technical Committee nor those utilizing the standard. In the current

case, the 70E technical committee’s vote to remove mandatory, manufacturing

specifications, testing specifications, and use and care requirements will have the

unintended consequence of reducing worker safety.

Michael J. Douglas We should reference appropriate ASTM standards as a minimum. This references

provide a baseline for evaluation of an equivalent standard when implementing NFPA

on a global platform.


Page 83 of 115

David A. Pace This Second Revision should be rejected and the 2015 language retained.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0




Page 84 of 115




Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 22




Page 85 of 115































Page 86 of 115





















Negative 2

Louis A. Barrios Mandatory reference to the listed ASTM standards should remain in NFPA 70E.


Abstain 1


Page 87 of 115















Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0



Page 88 of 115



Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 24



SR-49, Section No. 310.5(C), See SR-49


Page 89 of 115



Palmer L. Hickman Either the title of 310.5(D)(2) should change to include "Other" protective equipment

or "other equipment" should be removed from (2)(a). It is important to note that this

First Revision is necessary to be in compliance with 4.2, References to Other Standards,

of the NEC Style Manual which states that "References to other standards shall not be

in mandatory Code text" and that "References to other Standards shall be in the

Informational Notes." This First Revision makes NFPA 70E in compliance with the NEC

Style Manual. Leaving these references in the standard as mandatory has significant

negative impact on the potential for international adoption of NFPA 70E and prohibits

development of competing standards. [the following is edited to comply with the 4,000

character maximum permitted by NFPA] Furthermore, the Correlating Committee is

obligated to enforce the regulations and procedures that have been put in place by

NFPA Standards Council. For example: Excerpts from the Regulations Governing the

Development of NFPA Standards: 3.4.3 Responsibilities. The responsibilities of a

Correlating Committee are: (a) ... (b) ... (c) ... (d) ... (e) ... (f) Notifying a Technical

Committee of its failure to comply with these Regulations or the Manual of Style for

NFPA Technical Committee Documents (g) ... (h) Establishing Supplemental Operating

Procedures, if desired (see 3.3.8) (i) Performing such other or different duties as the

Standards Council may from time to time assign 3.3.8 Supplemental Operating

Procedures. A Technical Committee and/ or Correlating Committee may adopt

Supplemental Operating Procedures, provided that such procedures are consistent with

the Bylaws of the NFPA and with these Regulations. Such procedures and amendments

thereto shall be promptly transmitted to the Standards Council Secretary, who shall

submit them to the Standards Council for approval. Amendments to the Bylaws of the

NFPA or to these Regulations shall automatically supersede any such procedures that

may be in conflict therewith. Supplemental Operating Procedures, in part: Adopted by

the NEC Correlating Committee on April 27, 2012. Approved by the Standards Council

on August 9, 2012. Introduction (a) Preamble. The Operations of the National Electrical



Page 90 of 115



9, 2012. Introduction (a) Preamble. The Operations of the National Electrical Code

Project (i.e., the NEC Correlating Committee (CC) and the various Technical Committees

or Code-Making Panels it supervises) are governed by the NFPA Regulations Covering

the Development of NFPA Standards (Regs.). In addition to those Regulations, the

following Supplemental Operating Procedures (SOPs) have been adopted and approved

in accordance with 3.3.8 and 3.4.3(h) of the Regs. These Supplemental Operating

Procedures are intended to be consistent with and supplement the Bylaws of the

Association and the Regs. and should any conflict appear either now or as the Bylaws or

Regs. may be amended, the Bylaws and Regs. shall govern. (b) The NEC Project. The

organization and structure of The National Electrical Code Project, as well as the NFPA

Documents for which it is currently responsible, are approved by the NFPA Standards

Council and are set forth in Annex A to these SOPs, as it may be revised from time to

time…. 3.3 Responsibilities of the Correlating Committee. In addition to the

responsibilities and authority expressly set forth in Regs. 3.4, 4.3.6 and 4.4.7, the

Correlating Committee shall have the following responsibilities: 1. Scope Approval. ... 2.

Enforcement of the Style Manual. The Correlating Committee shall be responsible for

enforcement of the NEC Style Manual and the NFPA Manual of Style for other

documents under their responsibility. Within this responsibility the necessary action

may include:..., or revising the text to comply with the Style Manual (at either the ROP

or ROC stage.


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Page 91 of 115


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 24



Negative 0

Abstain 1
















Page 92 of 115



Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 24



Negative 0

Abstain 1














SR-63, Sections 310.6(A), 310.6(B), See SR-63


Page 93 of 115



Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 24


James K. Niemira It looks like the editor did not properly copy the Committee's intended corrections. Too

much text has been deleted and should be restored to the final.

Negative 0

Abstain 1

Terrance L. McKinch I do not know anything about Lasers


SR-50, Section No. 320.3(A)(1), See SR-50


Page 94 of 115




Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 23




Page 95 of 115































Page 96 of 115





















Negative 1


Abstain 1


Page 97 of 115















Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 23




Page 98 of 115































Page 99 of 115





















Negative 1


Abstain 1


Page 100 of 115















Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0



Page 101 of 115



Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0




Page 102 of 115




Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 23


SR-67, Annex A, See SR-67


Page 103 of 115































Page 104 of 115





















Negative 1


Abstain 1


Page 105 of 115















Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 23


SR-68, Annex B, See SR-68


Page 106 of 115































Page 107 of 115





















Negative 1


Abstain 1


Page 108 of 115















Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25


Negative 1


Abstain 0

SR-54, Section No. F.2, See SR-54


Page 109 of 115



Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 24


SR-55, Section No. H.4, See SR-55

SR-61, Section No. F.6, See SR-61


Page 110 of 115
































Page 111 of 115






















Negative 0

Abstain 0


Page 112 of 115


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-57, Section No. J.2, See SR-57

SR-56, Section No. I.1, See SR-56


Page 113 of 115




Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-60, Section No. O.2.1, See SR-60

SR-58, Sections K.2, K.3, See SR-58


Page 114 of 115




Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 24



James K. Niemira In list item (2), delete the words "the chances" after "increases the likelihood" so that

the text reads: Installing disconnects within sight of each motor or driven machine

increases the likelihood that the equipment will be put into an electrically safe work

condition before work has begun.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 1

Michael J. Jarvis


Affirmative 24



Negative 1

James B. Hayes Human performance Errors ? How do you Evaluate this ? Should not be in standard

Abstain 0

SR-69, Section No. Q.4.3.2, See SR-69

SR-59, Section No. O.2.4, See SR-59


Page 115 of 115

