NFPA 70 — May 2001 ROC — Copyright 2001, NFPA€¦ · Technical Correlating Committee National Electrical Code The Technical Correlating Committee _____

NFPA 70 — May 2001 ROC — Copyright 2001, NFPA

1

(Log #211)19- 1 - (Entire Code): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee NationalElectrical CodeCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 19-1RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committeedirects that the term "luminaire" be accepted as shown by thepanel, but be followed by the existing term in parenthesis on allProposals except those amended by Panel Action Text. This actionis intended to provide consistency throughout the code. Inaddition, the Technical Correlating Committee directs the panel toclarify their action relative to the last line of the Panel Action. Thisaction will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment.SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the NationalElectrical Code Technical Correlating Committee in accordancewith 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing CommitteeProjects.PANEL ACTION: Accept. Revise 604-6(a)(2) Exception No. 1 to (1) and (2) in bothlocations as follows: Change "Fixture" to " Luminaire (fixture)".NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 8VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 8COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: MCCULLOUGH: The panel action to accept indicatesagreement with the Technical Correlating Committee directionregarding the term "luminaire" and the placement of the existingterm in parenthesis in all locations. The revision shown to 604-6(a)(2) should refer to 604-6(a)(2) Exception No. 1 to (1) and(2). This is to clarify the panel action as requested by theTechnical Correlating Committee. The language shown iscontained in the proposed draft and reflects the panel's intent of itsaction on Proposal 19-1.

___________________(Log #1229)

1- 1 - (Entire Code): RejectSUBMITTER: Dann Strube, Lanesville, INCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-1RECOMMENDATION: The proposal should have been acceptedin principle as follows: Leave the terms fixture, lighting fixture, etc. as they are and add(luminaire) after those terms.SUBSTANTIATION: The term luminaire is not in general use inthe United States; therefore, its use is not in keeping with efforts toinsure that the code is user friendly. At the August meeting of the Kentucky Chapter IAEI meeting, Iran a quick poll (show of hands) of the 150 to 200-personaudience. None said they spoke French. Very few said they knewthe term luminaire. None said they felt the contractors,electricians, builders or owners in their area would understand theterm. None said they like the change. Almost 100% said thechange was nonsense. This alone is an indication that some effortsto make the NEC look international are not productive and onlymake the code less friendly. The claim that "fixture" could be confused with a toilet isnonsense. Anyone foolish enough to make that assumption shouldnot be reading the "electrical code." The claim that failure to change the term is a problem for themanufacturers is also nonsense. If they want to market overseas,they can mark their products and cartons any way they want. Point 8 in the substantiation is also defective. This item cites aFPN and FPN definition in Article 410. In fact, the internationaldefinition found in this FPN does not match the definitionaccepted by CMP 1 at Proposal 1-165. The United States of America is the largest user of the NEC. Assuch the terms in use in our own country should be the terms offirst choice in the document. The code panels have dedicateduntold man-hours trying to improve the code. Do not destroy theirhard work in an effort to make the document appear as if it isintended for the world at large. If the NEC is to be international, itshould be marketed in English and French as the IEC documentsare now marketed.PANEL ACTION: Reject.PANEL STATEMENT: The concern of the commenter isaddressed by keeping the original term in parentheses afterluminaire.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #1230)2- 1 - (Entire Code): RejectSUBMITTER: Dann Strube, Lanesville, INCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 2-1RECOMMENDATION: The proposal should have been acceptedin principle as follows: Leave the terms fixture, lighting fixture, etc. as they are and add(luminaire) after those terms.SUBSTANTIATION: The term luminaire is not in general use inthe United States; therefore, its use is not in keeping with efforts toinsure that the code is user friendly. At the August meeting of the Kentucky Chapter IAEI meeting, Iran a quick poll (show of hands) of the 150 to 200-personaudience. None said they spoke French. Very few said they knewthe term luminaire. None said they felt the contractors,electricians, builders or owners in their area would understand theterm. None said they like the change. Almost 100% said thechange was nonsense. This alone is an indication that some effortsto make the NEC look international are not productive and onlymake the code less friendly. The claim that "fixture" could be confused with a toilet isnonsense. Anyone foolish enough to make that assumption shouldnot be reading the "electrical code." The claim that failure to change the term is a problem for themanufacturers is also nonsense. If they want to market overseas,they can mark their products and cartons any way they want. Point 8 in the substantiation is also defective. This item cites aFPN and FPN definition in Article 410. In fact, the internationaldefinition found in this FPN does not match the definitionaccepted by CMP 1 at Proposal 1-165. The United States of America is the largest user of the NEC. Assuch the terms in use in our own country should be the terms offirst choice in the document. The code panels have dedicateduntold man-hours trying to improve the code. Do not destroy theirhard work in an effort to make the document appear as if it isintended for the world at large. If the NEC is to be international, itshould be marketed in English and French as the IEC documentsare now marketed.PANEL ACTION: Reject.PANEL STATEMENT: The Technical Correlating Committee hasdirected that the term "luminaire" be accepted as shown by thepanel, but be followed by the existing term(s) in parenthesis. Thisaction is intended to provide consistency throughout the code.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 12VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12

___________________(Log #1231)

3- 1 - (Entire Code): RejectSUBMITTER: Dann Strube, Lanesville, INCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 3-1RECOMMENDATION: The proposal should have been acceptedin principle as follows: Leave the terms fixture, lighting fixture, etc. as they are and add(luminaire) after those terms.SUBSTANTIATION: The term luminaire is not in general use inthe United States; therefore, its use is not in keeping with efforts toinsure that the code is user friendly. At the August meeting of the Kentucky Chapter IAEI meeting, Iran a quick poll (show of hands) of the 150 to 200-personaudience. None said they spoke French. Very few said they knewthe term luminaire. None said they felt the contractors,electricians, builders or owners in their area would understand theterm. None said they like the change. Almost 100% said thechange was nonsense. This alone is an indication that some effortsto make the NEC look international are not productive and onlymake the code less friendly. The claim that "fixture" could be confused with a toilet isnonsense. Anyone foolish enough to make that assumption shouldnot be reading the "electrical code." The claim that failure to change the term is a problem for themanufacturers is also nonsense. If they want to market overseas,they can mark their products and cartons any way they want. Point 8 in the substantiation is also defective. This item cites aFPN and FPN definition in Article 410. In fact, the internationaldefinition found in this FPN does not match the definitionaccepted by CMP 1 at Proposal 1-165. The United States of America is the largest user of the NEC. Assuch the terms in use in our own country should be the terms offirst choice in the document. The code panels have dedicateduntold man-hours trying to improve the code. Do not destroy theirhard work in an effort to make the document appear as if it is


2

intended for the world at large. If the NEC is to be international, itshould be marketed in English and French as the IEC documentsare now marketed.PANEL ACTION: Reject.PANEL STATEMENT: The proposal was accepted in response toan action on definitions within Article 100 by Panel 1 and by theaction of a proposal by Code-Making Panel 18 to change the term"fixture" to "luminaire." The Technical Correlating Committee has directed that the term"luminaire" be accepted but be followed by the existing term inparenthesis. This action is intended to provide consistencythroughout the code.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 11VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 11

___________________(Log #1232)

4- 1 - (Entire Code): RejectSUBMITTER: Dann Strube, Lanesville, INCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 4-1RECOMMENDATION: The proposal should have been acceptedin principle as follows: Leave the terms fixture, lighting fixture, etc. as they are and add(luminaire) after those terms.SUBSTANTIATION: The term luminaire is not in general use inthe United States; therefore, its use is not in keeping with efforts toinsure that the code is user friendly. At the August meeting of the Kentucky Chapter IAEI meeting, Iran a quick poll (show of hands) of the 150 to 200-personaudience. None said they spoke French. Very few said they knewthe term luminaire. None said they felt the contractors,electricians, builders or owners in their area would understand theterm. None said they like the change. Almost 100% said thechange was nonsense. This alone is an indication that some effortsto make the NEC look international are not productive and onlymake the code less friendly. The claim that "fixture" could be confused with a toilet isnonsense. Anyone foolish enough to make that assumption shouldnot be reading the "electrical code." The claim that failure to change the term is a problem for themanufacturers is also nonsense. If they want to market overseas,they can mark their products and cartons any way they want. Point 8 in the substantiation is also defective. This item cites aFPN and FPN definition in Article 410. In fact, the internationaldefinition found in this FPN does not match the definitionaccepted by CMP 1 at Proposal 1-165. The United States of America is the largest user of the NEC. Assuch the terms in use in our own country should be the terms offirst choice in the document. The code panels have dedicateduntold man-hours trying to improve the code. Do not destroy theirhard work in an effort to make the document appear as if it isintended for the world at large. If the NEC is to be international, itshould be marketed in English and French as the IEC documentsare now marketed.PANEL ACTION: Reject.PANEL STATEMENT: The Technical Correling Committee hasdirected the term "luminaire" to be accepted and followed by theexisting term in parenthesis.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 11VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 11

___________________(Log #1233)

5- 1 - (Entire Code): RejectSUBMITTER: Dann Strube, Lanesville, INCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 5-1RECOMMENDATION: The proposal should have been acceptedin principle as follows: Leave the terms fixture, lighting fixture, etc. as they are and add(luminaire) after those terms.SUBSTANTIATION: The term luminaire is not in general use inthe United States; therefore, its use is not in keeping with efforts toinsure that the code is user friendly. At the August meeting of the Kentucky Chapter IAEI meeting, Iran a quick poll (show of hands) of the 150 to 200-personaudience. None said they spoke French. Very few said they knewthe term luminaire. None said they felt the contractors,electricians, builders or owners in their area would understand theterm. None said they like the change. Almost 100% said thechange was nonsense. This alone is an indication that some efforts

to make the NEC look international are not productive and onlymake the code less friendly. The claim that "fixture" could be confused with a toilet isnonsense. Anyone foolish enough to make that assumption shouldnot be reading the "electrical code." The claim that failure to change the term is a problem for themanufacturers is also nonsense. If they want to market overseas,they can mark their products and cartons any way they want. Point 8 in the substantiation is also defective. This item cites aFPN and FPN definition in Article 410. In fact, the internationaldefinition found in this FPN does not match the definitionaccepted by CMP 1 at Proposal 1-165. The United States of America is the largest user of the NEC. Assuch the terms in use in our own country should be the terms offirst choice in the document. The code panels have dedicateduntold man-hours trying to improve the code. Do not destroy theirhard work in an effort to make the document appear as if it isintended for the world at large. If the NEC is to be international, itshould be marketed in English and French as the IEC documentsare now marketed.PANEL ACTION: Reject.PANEL STATEMENT: The action of the Technical CorrelatingCommittee in requiring that the previous terms "fixture", "lightingfixture", etc. remain in parentheses , provides sufficientinformation so that no confusion will result. The term "luminaire"is the correct term for a complete lighting unit. Using the termluminaire in the NEC should correspond to its use in relatedproduct standards.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 16VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

___________________

(Log #1234)6- 1 - (Entire Code): RejectSUBMITTER: Dann Strube, Lanesville, INCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 6-1RECOMMENDATION: The proposal should have been acceptedin principle as follows: Leave the terms fixture, lighting fixture, etc. as they are and add(luminaire) after those terms.SUBSTANTIATION: The term luminaire is not in general use inthe United States; therefore, its use is not in keeping with efforts toinsure that the code is user friendly. At the August meeting of the Kentucky Chapter IAEI meeting, Iran a quick poll (show of hands) of the 150 to 200-personaudience. None said they spoke French. Very few said they knewthe term luminaire. None said they felt the contractors,electricians, builders or owners in their area would understand theterm. None said they like the change. Almost 100% said thechange was nonsense. This alone is an indication that some effortsto make the NEC look international are not productive and onlymake the code less friendly. The claim that "fixture" could be confused with a toilet isnonsense. Anyone foolish enough to make that assumption shouldnot be reading the "electrical code." The claim that failure to change the term is a problem for themanufacturers is also nonsense. If they want to market overseas,they can mark their products and cartons any way they want. Point 8 in the substantiation is also defective. This item cites aFPN and FPN definition in Article 410. In fact, the internationaldefinition found in this FPN does not match the definitionaccepted by CMP 1 at Proposal 1-165. The United States of America is the largest user of the NEC. Assuch the terms in use in our own country should be the terms offirst choice in the document. The code panels have dedicateduntold man-hours trying to improve the code. Do not destroy theirhard work in an effort to make the document appear as if it isintended for the world at large. If the NEC is to be international, itshould be marketed in English and French as the IEC documentsare now marketed.PANEL ACTION: Reject.PANEL STATEMENT: All of the CMPs have accepted the changeto "luminaire". By retaining the present term "lighting fixture(s)" inthe affected sections, the usability of the document has not beennegatively affected.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 11VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 10 NOT RETURNED: 1 Ferrell

___________________


3

(Log #1235)7- 1 - (Entire Code): RejectSUBMITTER: Dann Strube, Lanesville, INCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 7-1RECOMMENDATION: The proposal should have been acceptedin principle as follows: Leave the terms fixture, lighting fixture, etc. as they are and add(luminaire) after those terms.SUBSTANTIATION: The term luminaire is not in general use inthe United States; therefore, its use is not in keeping with efforts toinsure that the code is user friendly. At the August meeting of the Kentucky Chapter IAEI meeting, Iran a quick poll (show of hands) of the 150 to 200-personaudience. None said they spoke French. Very few said they knewthe term luminaire. None said they felt the contractors,electricians, builders or owners in their area would understand theterm. None said they like the change. Almost 100% said thechange was nonsense. This alone is an indication that some effortsto make the NEC look international are not productive and onlymake the code less friendly. The claim that "fixture" could be confused with a toilet isnonsense. Anyone foolish enough to make that assumption shouldnot be reading the "electrical code." The claim that failure to change the term is a problem for themanufacturers is also nonsense. If they want to market overseas,they can mark their products and cartons any way they want. Point 8 in the substantiation is also defective. This item cites aFPN and FPN definition in Article 410. In fact, the internationaldefinition found in this FPN does not match the definitionaccepted by CMP 1 at Proposal 1-165. The United States of America is the largest user of the NEC. Assuch the terms in use in our own country should be the terms offirst choice in the document. The code panels have dedicateduntold man-hours trying to improve the code. Do not destroy theirhard work in an effort to make the document appear as if it isintended for the world at large. If the NEC is to be international, itshould be marketed in English and French as the IEC documentsare now marketed.PANEL ACTION: Reject.PANEL STATEMENT: The code-making panels have all acceptedthe change to place luminaire first. By retaining the reference tolighting fixture(s) in the affected sections, the usability of thedocument has not been negatively impacted.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 15

___________________

(Log #1236)8- 1 - (Entire Code): RejectSUBMITTER: Dann Strube, Lanesville, INCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 8-1RECOMMENDATION: The proposal should have been acceptedin principle as follows: Leave the terms fixture, lighting fixture, etc. as they are and add(luminaire) after those terms.SUBSTANTIATION: The term luminaire is not in general use inthe United States; therefore, its use is not in keeping with efforts toinsure that the code is user friendly. At the August meeting of the Kentucky Chapter IAEI meeting, Iran a quick poll (show of hands) of the 150 to 200-personaudience. None said they spoke French. Very few said they knewthe term luminaire. None said they felt the contractors,electricians, builders or owners in their area would understand theterm. None said they like the change. Almost 100% said thechange was nonsense. This alone is an indication that some effortsto make the NEC look international are not productive and onlymake the code less friendly. The claim that "fixture" could be confused with a toilet isnonsense. Anyone foolish enough to make that assumption shouldnot be reading the "electrical code." The claim that failure to change the term is a problem for themanufacturers is also nonsense. If they want to market overseas,they can mark their products and cartons any way they want. Point 8 in the substantiation is also defective. This item cites aFPN and FPN definition in Article 410. In fact, the internationaldefinition found in this FPN does not match the definitionaccepted by CMP 1 at Proposal 1-165. The United States of America is the largest user of the NEC. Assuch the terms in use in our own country should be the terms offirst choice in the document. The code panels have dedicateduntold man-hours trying to improve the code. Do not destroy their

hard work in an effort to make the document appear as if it isintended for the world at large. If the NEC is to be international, itshould be marketed in English and French as the IEC documentsare now marketed.PANEL ACTION: Reject.PANEL STATEMENT: The term "Luminaire" is becoming acommonly used term in the United States as manufacturerscontinue to make a single product for many countries. The termssuch as "fixture" and other similar terminology will be retained inparentheses after the term "luminaire" wherever it is used.The definition of luminaire in Article 410 was revised per proposal18-1 to read the same as the definition added to Article 100.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 14VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 14

___________________

(Log #1237)9- 1 - (Entire Code): RejectSUBMITTER: Dann Strube, Lanesville, INCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 9-1RECOMMENDATION: The proposal should have been acceptedin principle as follows: Leave the terms fixture, lighting fixture, etc. as they are and add(luminaire) after those terms.SUBSTANTIATION: The term luminaire is not in general use inthe United States; therefore, its use is not in keeping with efforts toinsure that the code is user friendly. At the August meeting of the Kentucky Chapter IAEI meeting, Iran a quick poll (show of hands) of the 150 to 200-personaudience. None said they spoke French. Very few said they knewthe term luminaire. None said they felt the contractors,electricians, builders or owners in their area would understand theterm. None said they like the change. Almost 100% said thechange was nonsense. This alone is an indication that some effortsto make the NEC look international are not productive and onlymake the code less friendly. The claim that "fixture" could be confused with a toilet isnonsense. Anyone foolish enough to make that assumption shouldnot be reading the "electrical code." The claim that failure to change the term is a problem for themanufacturers is also nonsense. If they want to market overseas,they can mark their products and cartons any way they want. Point 8 in the substantiation is also defective. This item cites aFPN and FPN definition in Article 410. In fact, the internationaldefinition found in this FPN does not match the definitionaccepted by CMP 1 at Proposal 1-165. The United States of America is the largest user of the NEC. Assuch the terms in use in our own country should be the terms offirst choice in the document. The code panels have dedicateduntold man-hours trying to improve the code. Do not destroy theirhard work in an effort to make the document appear as if it isintended for the world at large. If the NEC is to be international, itshould be marketed in English and French as the IEC documentsare now marketed.PANEL ACTION: Reject.PANEL STATEMENT: Code-Making Panel 9 acknowledges thesubmitter's concerns, but also recognizes that broadening theapplied base of the NEC beyond North America is essential. Thepanel agrees with the Technical Correlating Committee's positionrelative to the inclusion of the former terms in parentheses after theword "Luminaire".NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 11VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 11

___________________

(Log #1238)10- 1 - (Entire Code): RejectSUBMITTER: Dann Strube, Lanesville, INCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 10-1RECOMMENDATION: The proposal should have been acceptedin principle as follows: Leave the terms fixture, lighting fixture, etc. as they are and add(luminaire) after those terms.SUBSTANTIATION: The term luminaire is not in general use inthe United States; therefore, its use is not in keeping with efforts toinsure that the code is user friendly. At the August meeting of the Kentucky Chapter IAEI meeting, Iran a quick poll (show of hands) of the 150 to 200-personaudience. None said they spoke French. Very few said they knewthe term luminaire. None said they felt the contractors,


4

electricians, builders or owners in their area would understand theterm. None said they like the change. Almost 100% said thechange was nonsense. This alone is an indication that some effortsto make the NEC look international are not productive and onlymake the code less friendly. The claim that "fixture" could be confused with a toilet isnonsense. Anyone foolish enough to make that assumption shouldnot be reading the "electrical code." The claim that failure to change the term is a problem for themanufacturers is also nonsense. If they want to market overseas,they can mark their products and cartons any way they want. Point 8 in the substantiation is also defective. This item cites aFPN and FPN definition in Article 410. In fact, the internationaldefinition found in this FPN does not match the definitionaccepted by CMP 1 at Proposal 1-165. The United States of America is the largest user of the NEC. Assuch the terms in use in our own country should be the terms offirst choice in the document. The code panels have dedicateduntold man-hours trying to improve the code. Do not destroy theirhard work in an effort to make the document appear as if it isintended for the world at large. If the NEC is to be international, itshould be marketed in English and French as the IEC documentsare now marketed.PANEL ACTION: Reject.PANEL STATEMENT: Code-Making Panel 10 acknowledges thesubmitter's concerns, but also recognizes that broadening theapplied base of the NEC beyond North America is essential. Theword luminaire is also used in the United States. The panel agrees with the Technical Correlating Committee'sposition relative to the inclusion of the former terms in parenthesesafter the word "Luminaire".NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 12VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12

___________________

(Log #1239)11- 1 - (Entire Code): RejectSUBMITTER: Dann Strube, Lanesville, INCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 11-1RECOMMENDATION: The proposal should have been acceptedin principle as follows: Leave the terms fixture, lighting fixture, etc. as they are and add(luminaire) after those terms.SUBSTANTIATION: The term luminaire is not in general use inthe United States; therefore, its use is not in keeping with efforts toinsure that the code is user friendly. At the August meeting of the Kentucky Chapter IAEI meeting, Iran a quick poll (show of hands) of the 150 to 200-personaudience. None said they spoke French. Very few said they knewthe term luminaire. None said they felt the contractors,electricians, builders or owners in their area would understand theterm. None said they like the change. Almost 100% said thechange was nonsense. This alone is an indication that some effortsto make the NEC look international are not productive and onlymake the code less friendly. The claim that "fixture" could be confused with a toilet isnonsense. Anyone foolish enough to make that assumption shouldnot be reading the "electrical code." The claim that failure to change the term is a problem for themanufacturers is also nonsense. If they want to market overseas,they can mark their products and cartons any way they want. Point 8 in the substantiation is also defective. This item cites aFPN and FPN definition in Article 410. In fact, the internationaldefinition found in this FPN does not match the definitionaccepted by CMP 1 at Proposal 1-165. The United States of America is the largest user of the NEC. Assuch the terms in use in our own country should be the terms offirst choice in the document. The code panels have dedicateduntold man-hours trying to improve the code. Do not destroy theirhard work in an effort to make the document appear as if it isintended for the world at large. If the NEC is to be international, itshould be marketed in English and French as the IEC documentsare now marketed.PANEL ACTION: Reject.PANEL STATEMENT: The Panel rejected proposal 11-1 becausethe fixtures in 670-2 are not lighting fixtures. The comment doesnot change this fact.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 15

___________________

(Log #1240)12- 1 - (Entire Code): RejectSUBMITTER: Dann Strube, Lanesville, INCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 12-1RECOMMENDATION: The proposal should have been acceptedin principle as follows: Leave the terms fixture, lighting fixture, etc. as they are and add(luminaire) after those terms.SUBSTANTIATION: The term luminaire is not in general use inthe United States; therefore, its use is not in keeping with efforts toinsure that the code is user friendly. At the August meeting of the Kentucky Chapter IAEI meeting, Iran a quick poll (show of hands) of the 150 to 200-personaudience. None said they spoke French. Very few said they knewthe term luminaire. None said they felt the contractors,electricians, builders or owners in their area would understand theterm. None said they like the change. Almost 100% said thechange was nonsense. This alone is an indication that some effortsto make the NEC look international are not productive and onlymake the code less friendly. The claim that "fixture" could be confused with a toilet isnonsense. Anyone foolish enough to make that assumption shouldnot be reading the "electrical code." The claim that failure to change the term is a problem for themanufacturers is also nonsense. If they want to market overseas,they can mark their products and cartons any way they want. Point 8 in the substantiation is also defective. This item cites aFPN and FPN definition in Article 410. In fact, the internationaldefinition found in this FPN does not match the definitionaccepted by CMP 1 at Proposal 1-165. The United States of America is the largest user of the NEC. Assuch the terms in use in our own country should be the terms offirst choice in the document. The code panels have dedicateduntold man-hours trying to improve the code. Do not destroy theirhard work in an effort to make the document appear as if it isintended for the world at large. If the NEC is to be international, itshould be marketed in English and French as the IEC documentsare now marketed.PANEL ACTION: Reject.PANEL STATEMENT: The submitter of the comment has offeredno new technical or definitive substantiation to support his requestfor the panel to revise the panel action taken on Proposal 12-1.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 11VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 9 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelley, Laney

___________________

(Log #1241)14- 1 - (Entire Code): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Dann Strube, Lanesville, INCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 14-1RECOMMENDATION: The proposal should have been acceptedin principle as follows: Leave the terms fixture, lighting fixture, etc. as they are and add(luminaire) after those terms.SUBSTANTIATION: The term luminaire is not in general use inthe United States; therefore, its use is not in keeping with efforts toinsure that the code is user friendly. At the August meeting of the Kentucky Chapter IAEI meeting, Iran a quick poll (show of hands) of the 150 to 200-personaudience. None said they spoke French. Very few said they knewthe term luminaire. None said they felt the contractors,electricians, builders or owners in their area would understand theterm. None said they like the change. Almost 100% said thechange was nonsense. This alone is an indication that some effortsto make the NEC look international are not productive and onlymake the code less friendly. The claim that "fixture" could be confused with a toilet isnonsense. Anyone foolish enough to make that assumption shouldnot be reading the "electrical code." The claim that failure to change the term is a problem for themanufacturers is also nonsense. If they want to market overseas,they can mark their products and cartons any way they want. Point 8 in the substantiation is also defective. This item cites aFPN and FPN definition in Article 410. In fact, the internationaldefinition found in this FPN does not match the definitionaccepted by CMP 1 at Proposal 1-165. The United States of America is the largest user of the NEC. Assuch the terms in use in our own country should be the terms offirst choice in the document. The code panels have dedicateduntold man-hours trying to improve the code. Do not destroy theirhard work in an effort to make the document appear as if it is


5

intended for the world at large. If the NEC is to be international, itshould be marketed in English and French as the IEC documentsare now marketed.PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Change "lighting fixture" to "luminaire (lighting fixture)". Do thisfor both singular and plural use of the term.PANEL STATEMENT: While the Panel action does not eliminatethe use of the term "luminaire", it does retain use of the prior termto retain continuity.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 14VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 14

___________________

(Log #1242)13- 1 - (Entire Code): RejectSUBMITTER: Dann Strube, Lanesville, INCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-1RECOMMENDATION: The proposal should have been acceptedin principle as follows: Leave the terms fixture, lighting fixture, etc. as they are and add(luminaire) after those terms.SUBSTANTIATION: The term luminaire is not in general use inthe United States; therefore, its use is not in keeping with efforts toinsure that the code is user friendly. At the August meeting of the Kentucky Chapter IAEI meeting, Iran a quick poll (show of hands) of the 150 to 200-personaudience. None said they spoke French. Very few said they knewthe term luminaire. None said they felt the contractors,electricians, builders or owners in their area would understand theterm. None said they like the change. Almost 100% said thechange was nonsense. This alone is an indication that some effortsto make the NEC look international are not productive and onlymake the code less friendly. The claim that "fixture" could be confused with a toilet isnonsense. Anyone foolish enough to make that assumption shouldnot be reading the "electrical code." The claim that failure to change the term is a problem for themanufacturers is also nonsense. If they want to market overseas,they can mark their products and cartons any way they want. Point 8 in the substantiation is also defective. This item cites aFPN and FPN definition in Article 410. In fact, the internationaldefinition found in this FPN does not match the definitionaccepted by CMP 1 at Proposal 1-165. The United States of America is the largest user of the NEC. Assuch the terms in use in our own country should be the terms offirst choice in the document. The code panels have dedicateduntold man-hours trying to improve the code. Do not destroy theirhard work in an effort to make the document appear as if it isintended for the world at large. If the NEC is to be international, itshould be marketed in English and French as the IEC documentsare now marketed.PANEL ACTION: Reject.PANEL STATEMENT: The word "luminaire" is not mentioned inthe materials covered by Code-Making Panel 13.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 11VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 10 NOT RETURNED: 1 Davis

___________________

(Log #1243)15- 1 - (Entire Code): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Dann Strube, Lanesville, INCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 15-1RECOMMENDATION: The proposal should have been acceptedin principle as follows: Leave the terms fixture, lighting fixture, etc. as they are and add(luminaire) after those terms.SUBSTANTIATION: The term luminaire is not in general use inthe United States; therefore, its use is not in keeping with efforts toinsure that the code is user friendly. At the August meeting of the Kentucky Chapter IAEI meeting, Iran a quick poll (show of hands) of the 150 to 200-personaudience. None said they spoke French. Very few said they knewthe term luminaire. None said they felt the contractors,electricians, builders or owners in their area would understand theterm. None said they like the change. Almost 100% said thechange was nonsense. This alone is an indication that some effortsto make the NEC look international are not productive and onlymake the code less friendly.

The claim that "fixture" could be confused with a toilet isnonsense. Anyone foolish enough to make that assumption shouldnot be reading the "electrical code." The claim that failure to change the term is a problem for themanufacturers is also nonsense. If they want to market overseas,they can mark their products and cartons any way they want. Point 8 in the substantiation is also defective. This item cites aFPN and FPN definition in Article 410. In fact, the internationaldefinition found in this FPN does not match the definitionaccepted by CMP 1 at Proposal 1-165. The United States of America is the largest user of the NEC. Assuch the terms in use in our own country should be the terms offirst choice in the document. The code panels have dedicateduntold man-hours trying to improve the code. Do not destroy theirhard work in an effort to make the document appear as if it isintended for the world at large. If the NEC is to be international, itshould be marketed in English and French as the IEC documentsare now marketed.PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Except for Sections 520-63 and 530-51, revise the text to use theword "luminaire(s)" first followed by the current code terms"fixture(s)", "lighting fixture(s)" in parenthesis. As an example,the term fixture would appear as "luminaire (fixture)". Retain the word "fixtures" in Sections 520-63 and 530-51 as usethe current text of the 1999 NEC.PANEL STATEMENT: The revised text complies with thesubmitter's intent to retain the old terms while starting with the newterms. The term luminaire is in general use throughout the UnitedStates by lighting professionals.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 18COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: KLEIN: 1. The term luminaire is in general use throughout theUnited States by all lighting certified (NCQLP) professionals. 2. Luminaire is precisely defined by The IlluminatingEngineering Society of North America as: "A complete lightingunit consisting of a lamp or lamps and ballast(s) (whenapplicable) together with the parts designed to distribute the light,to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to thepower supply." 3. The terms "fixture" and "lighting fixture" are not preciselydefined. 4. Just as lamps are no longer referred to as "light bulbs",luminaires will no longer be referred to as "fixtures" in technicaldocumentation.

___________________

(Log #1244)16- 1 - (Entire Code): RejectSUBMITTER: Dann Strube, Lanesville, INCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 16-1RECOMMENDATION: The proposal should have been acceptedin principle as follows: Leave the terms fixture, lighting fixture, etc. as they are and add(luminaire) after those terms.SUBSTANTIATION: The term luminaire is not in general use inthe United States; therefore, its use is not in keeping with efforts toinsure that the code is user friendly. At the August meeting of the Kentucky Chapter IAEI meeting, Iran a quick poll (show of hands) of the 150 to 200-personaudience. None said they spoke French. Very few said they knewthe term luminaire. None said they felt the contractors,electricians, builders or owners in their area would understand theterm. None said they like the change. Almost 100% said thechange was nonsense. This alone is an indication that some effortsto make the NEC look international are not productive and onlymake the code less friendly. The claim that "fixture" could be confused with a toilet isnonsense. Anyone foolish enough to make that assumption shouldnot be reading the "electrical code." The claim that failure to change the term is a problem for themanufacturers is also nonsense. If they want to market overseas,they can mark their products and cartons any way they want. Point 8 in the substantiation is also defective. This item cites aFPN and FPN definition in Article 410. In fact, the internationaldefinition found in this FPN does not match the definitionaccepted by CMP 1 at Proposal 1-165. The United States of America is the largest user of the NEC. Assuch the terms in use in our own country should be the terms offirst choice in the document. The code panels have dedicateduntold man-hours trying to improve the code. Do not destroy theirhard work in an effort to make the document appear as if it is


6

intended for the world at large. If the NEC is to be international, itshould be marketed in English and French as the IEC documentsare now marketed.PANEL ACTION: Reject.PANEL STATEMENT: The NEC should harmonize with nationaland international standards terminology, where possible, to avoid amultiplicity of terms for the same item.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 21VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 20 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: LANNI: I agree with the comment. This abrupt change willconfuse and confound the American code user and violates theprinciple of "user friendly codes" which we spent a whole codecycle trying to improve.

___________________

(Log #1245)17- 1 - (Entire Code): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Dann Strube, Lanesville, INCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 17-1RECOMMENDATION: The proposal should have been acceptedin principle as follows: Leave the terms fixture, lighting fixture, etc. as they are and add(luminaire) after those terms.SUBSTANTIATION: The term luminaire is not in general use inthe United States; therefore, its use is not in keeping with efforts toinsure that the code is user friendly. At the August meeting of the Kentucky Chapter IAEI meeting, Iran a quick poll (show of hands) of the 150 to 200-personaudience. None said they spoke French. Very few said they knewthe term luminaire. None said they felt the contractors,electricians, builders or owners in their area would understand theterm. None said they like the change. Almost 100% said thechange was nonsense. This alone is an indication that some effortsto make the NEC look international are not productive and onlymake the code less friendly. The claim that "fixture" could be confused with a toilet isnonsense. Anyone foolish enough to make that assumption shouldnot be reading the "electrical code." The claim that failure to change the term is a problem for themanufacturers is also nonsense. If they want to market overseas,they can mark their products and cartons any way they want. Point 8 in the substantiation is also defective. This item cites aFPN and FPN definition in Article 410. In fact, the internationaldefinition found in this FPN does not match the definitionaccepted by CMP 1 at Proposal 1-165. The United States of America is the largest user of the NEC. Assuch the terms in use in our own country should be the terms offirst choice in the document. The code panels have dedicateduntold man-hours trying to improve the code. Do not destroy theirhard work in an effort to make the document appear as if it isintended for the world at large. If the NEC is to be international, itshould be marketed in English and French as the IEC documentsare now marketed.PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Where the terms "fixture(s)" "lighting fixture(s)" appear, use theterm "luminaire(s)" first followed by the terms "(fixture(s))" or"(lighting fixture(s))".PANEL STATEMENT: The Technical Correlating Committee hasdirected that the term "luminaire" be accepted as shown by thepanel, but be followed by the existing term in parenthesis. Thisrevision meets intent of the submitter.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 15

___________________

(Log #1246)18- 1 - (Entire Code): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Dann Strube, Lanesville, INCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 18-1RECOMMENDATION: The proposal should have been acceptedin principle as follows: Leave the terms fixture, lighting fixture, etc. as they are and add(luminaire) after those terms.SUBSTANTIATION: The term luminaire is not in general use inthe United States; therefore, its use is not in keeping with efforts toinsure that the code is user friendly.

At the August meeting of the Kentucky Chapter IAEI meeting, Iran a quick poll (show of hands) of the 150 to 200-personaudience. None said they spoke French. Very few said they knewthe term luminaire. None said they felt the contractors,electricians, builders or owners in their area would understand theterm. None said they like the change. Almost 100% said thechange was nonsense. This alone is an indication that some effortsto make the NEC look international are not productive and onlymake the code less friendly. The claim that "fixture" could be confused with a toilet isnonsense. Anyone foolish enough to make that assumption shouldnot be reading the "electrical code." The claim that failure to change the term is a problem for themanufacturers is also nonsense. If they want to market overseas,they can mark their products and cartons any way they want. Point 8 in the substantiation is also defective. This item cites aFPN and FPN definition in Article 410. In fact, the internationaldefinition found in this FPN does not match the definitionaccepted by CMP 1 at Proposal 1-165. The United States of America is the largest user of the NEC. Assuch the terms in use in our own country should be the terms offirst choice in the document. The code panels have dedicateduntold man-hours trying to improve the code. Do not destroy theirhard work in an effort to make the document appear as if it isintended for the world at large. If the NEC is to be international, itshould be marketed in English and French as the IEC documentsare now marketed.PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.PANEL STATEMENT: The committee agrees with the submitter'sconcern of the need for dual terms during the transition period. Italso affirms the directive of the Technical Correlating Committee.See panel action on Comment 18-5.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 10VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 10

___________________

(Log #1247)19- 2 - (Entire Code): RejectSUBMITTER: Dann Strube, Lanesville, INCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 19-1RECOMMENDATION: The proposal should have been acceptedin principle as follows: Leave the terms fixture, lighting fixture, etc. as they are and add(luminaire) after those terms.SUBSTANTIATION: The term luminaire is not in general use inthe United States; therefore, its use is not in keeping with efforts toinsure that the code is user friendly. At the August meeting of the Kentucky Chapter IAEI meeting, Iran a quick poll (show of hands) of the 150 to 200-personaudience. None said they spoke French. Very few said they knewthe term luminaire. None said they felt the contractors,electricians, builders or owners in their area would understand theterm. None said they like the change. Almost 100% said thechange was nonsense. This alone is an indication that some effortsto make the NEC look international are not productive and onlymake the code less friendly. The claim that "fixture" could be confused with a toilet isnonsense. Anyone foolish enough to make that assumption shouldnot be reading the "electrical code." The claim that failure to change the term is a problem for themanufacturers is also nonsense. If they want to market overseas,they can mark their products and cartons any way they want. Point 8 in the substantiation is also defective. This item cites aFPN and FPN definition in Article 410. In fact, the internationaldefinition found in this FPN does not match the definitionaccepted by CMP 1 at Proposal 1-165. The United States of America is the largest user of the NEC. Assuch the terms in use in our own country should be the terms offirst choice in the document. The code panels have dedicateduntold man-hours trying to improve the code. Do not destroy theirhard work in an effort to make the document appear as if it isintended for the world at large. If the NEC is to be international, itshould be marketed in English and French as the IEC documentsare now marketed.PANEL ACTION: Reject.PANEL STATEMENT: Refer to action on Comment 19-1.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 8VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 8


7

COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: MCCULLOUGH: The panel statement should read: Refer toaction on Comment 19-1 which accepts the Technical CorrelatingCommittee directive regarding use of the term "luminaire."

___________________

(Log #1248)20- 1 - (Entire Code): RejectSUBMITTER: Dann Strube, Lanesville, INCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 20-1RECOMMENDATION: The proposal should have been acceptedin principle as follows: Leave the terms fixture, lighting fixture, etc. as they are and add(luminaire) after those terms.SUBSTANTIATION: The term luminaire is not in general use inthe United States; therefore, its use is not in keeping with efforts toinsure that the code is user friendly. At the August meeting of the Kentucky Chapter IAEI meeting, Iran a quick poll (show of hands) of the 150 to 200-personaudience. None said they spoke French. Very few said they knewthe term luminaire. None said they felt the contractors,electricians, builders or owners in their area would understand theterm. None said they like the change. Almost 100% said thechange was nonsense. This alone is an indication that some effortsto make the NEC look international are not productive and onlymake the code less friendly. The claim that "fixture" could be confused with a toilet isnonsense. Anyone foolish enough to make that assumption shouldnot be reading the "electrical code." The claim that failure to change the term is a problem for themanufacturers is also nonsense. If they want to market overseas,they can mark their products and cartons any way they want. Point 8 in the substantiation is also defective. This item cites aFPN and FPN definition in Article 410. In fact, the internationaldefinition found in this FPN does not match the definitionaccepted by CMP 1 at Proposal 1-165. The United States of America is the largest user of the NEC. Assuch the terms in use in our own country should be the terms offirst choice in the document. The code panels have dedicateduntold man-hours trying to improve the code. Do not destroy theirhard work in an effort to make the document appear as if it isintended for the world at large. If the NEC is to be international, itshould be marketed in English and French as the IEC documentsare now marketed.PANEL ACTION: Reject.PANEL STATEMENT: The panel action on proposal 20-1recognizes the submitter's concern that the term "luminaire" is notwidely used in the United States. The panel action recognizes andsupports the action taken by Panel 1 (Proposal 1-165) on page 58of the ROP adding the term "luminaire".NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 10VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 10

___________________

(Log #1)1- 2 - (80): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee NationalElectrical CodeCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-3RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committeedirects that this proposal be reviewed relative to the NFPAdefinition of the "Authority Having Jurisdiction" and determine ifit is appropriate for this Article. In the Scope, change "shall be" to"are" to comply with the NEC Style Manual. The TechnicalCorrelating Committee accepts the Scope as modified by this note.This action will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment.SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the NationalElectrical Code Technical Correlating Committee in accordancewith 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing CommitteeProjects.PANEL ACTION: Accept. 1.) Add "materials, " after the word "equipment". Add "a" beforethe word "procedure". 2.) Delete the FPN following definition of "Authority HavingJurisdiction" in Section 80.2. 3.) Change "shall be" to "are" in Section 80.1 Scope.PANEL STATEMENT: The panel has reviewed the proposeddefinition in accordance with the Technical Correlating Committeedirective and finds that the definition is in agreement with theNFPA definition as modified in the panel action.

The FPN was removed because it is not appropriate for a specificjurisdiction that may adopt Article 80. The panel accepts the Technical Correlating Committee directiveto change "shall be" to "are" in the scope.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________(Log #601)

1- 3 - (80): RejectSUBMITTER: John E. Propst , Equilon Enterprises, LLCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-3RECOMMENDATION: The purpose for this comment is to rejectthis proposal and the action of the panel in total.SUBSTANTIATION: The only significant justification provided bythe submitter for including this new section was "to provide astandardized set of administrative rules" to "allow for moreconsistent adoption, use, and enforcement of the NEC". However,because of the broad application of the NEC to almost all aspectsof electrical installations from single family residences up to majorindustrial facilities that include sophisticated computer controls,cogeneration, transmission, and distribution it is not practical toconsider the application of a single set of administrative rules to allapplications. While it is reasonable to consider the review ofconstruction plans for typical residential and small commercialapplications, it is highly unlikely that these rules could handle thedesign review of a multi-million or multi-billion dollar projectdesigned by major engineering firms oftentimes located in otherparts of the world without adding unnecessary cost burden andtime delays. There are many requirements throughout the NECthat allows specific exceptions to industrial applications. This isoften done with the recognition that the engineering andmaintenance requirements and practices in industrial facilities goesbeyond the normal practices of nonindustrial facilities. This samelogic would also suggest that the rules that apply to industrialfacilities must also deviate from those being applied to residential,commercial, and similar establishments. Within the scope of the proposed article, the investigation of fireswithin industrial facilities is often a very rigorous process involvingthe expertise of many forensic experts. It is not unusual for aninvestigation to proceed for a period of time until the root causecan be identified. The additional involvement of personneldefined by this rule would only add unnecessary burden and delaywithout clearly defining the benefits. As mentioned above, therequirements for design review for major industrial installations isbeyond the expected expertise of most electrical inspectors. Thedesignation of the "authority having jurisdiction" only addsconfusion to what is already a topic muddled by the differences indefinitions between documents such as OSHA 1910.399, the NECand the NEC Handbook. Within the article, there are many examples of confusinglanguage. For example, in 80.13(2) the article describesdisconnecting power to a premises from its source of electricsupply. While this may be a clearly defined point for a typicalresidence, it is not nearly as well defined for a facility receivingpower at 230 kV with onsite generation, which is much moretypical of industrial installations. Other areas of confusing language is where there are references toexisting laws (80.15 (H)(2), 80.17(A) as examples). If the desire isto achieve a standardized set of rules, then there should not beallowances for deviations set by other laws. The requirements listed in 80.27 for inspector qualification ismost likely very appropriate for personnel responsible for theinspection of typical residential and commercial installations.However, it has been our experience that most nationallyrecognized inspector certification programs do to address thespecific requirements needed for industrial applications that mightinclude high voltage applications, applications in classifiedlocations, complex and integrated control, alarm, and protectionschemes, and similar applications. Because of this, manyindustrial locations have found it necessary to provide their owncustom training programs for their crafts, inspection, andengineering personnel. For these reasons, proposed Article 80should not be included in the NEC.PANEL ACTION: Reject.PANEL STATEMENT: Article 80 provides a set of modeladministrative rules that can be beneficial to an inspectionjurisdiction in the adoption of electrical safety rules and theenforcement of those rules. The information included in Article80 is not part of the Code unless adopted and is a resource fromwhich to draw where needed. A jurisdiction sharing thecommentor's concerns may not elect to adopt Article 80.


8

NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #614)1- 4 - (80): RejectSUBMITTER: Steven C. Johnson, Time Warner CableCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-3RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal to add a new Article80.SUBSTANTIATION: Section 90-1(c) intention states: "This codeis not intended as a design specification nor an instruction manualfor untrained persons." Is not this proposed Article 80 a designspecification for a local statute dealing with electrical installations?This might be appropriate for an example statute to be madeavailable to authorities having jurisdiction but is beyond the scopeof the code.PANEL ACTION: Reject.PANEL STATEMENT: Article 80 is information only in the NECand needs to be specifically adopted by a jurisdiction for it to beapplicable. As such, it is not a part of the NEC and not subject tothe scope of the NEC.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #897)1- 5 - (80): RejectSUBMITTER: John Stricklin , Mtn. Home, IDCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-3RECOMMENDATION: No new Article 80. Do not accept thisproposal.SUBSTANTIATION: This article contains legal parameters thatdo not have anything to do with the design of electricalinstallations. A lot of jurisdictions have an existing law that states,they have to adopt the current addition of the National ElectricalCode. This leaves no room for Article 80 in the 2002 NationalElectrical Code because; Article 80 could conflict with theirexisting laws. With Article 80 in the 2002 National Electrical Code,could make some jurisdictions look at changing their laws and withpolitics the way they are today, could have the inspection programeliminated.PANEL ACTION: Reject.PANEL STATEMENT: Article 80 is not a part of the Code unlessso adopted by an appropriate jurisdiction. The authority adoptingthe Code will have to specifically adopt Article 80 before itbecomes law. Section 80-5 states "Article 80 shall not apply unlessspecifically adopted by the local jurisdiction adopting the NationalElectrical Code." The panel does not agree that approval ofArticle 80 could cause inspection programs to be eliminated. Ajurisdiction sharing the commentor's concerns may not elect toadopt Article 80.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #917)1- 6 - (80): RejectSUBMITTER: Joe Tedesco, NTT Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-3RECOMMENDATION: Move proposed new Article 80 into anannex.SUBSTANTIATION: Since this article is not considered as part ofthe code, it should be in an annex with the rest of the non-codeitems.PANEL ACTION: Reject.PANEL STATEMENT: Article 80 becomes an enforceable part ofthe Code if adopted by a local jurisdiction. This makes it differentfrom an annex and the panel believes its current location at thebeginning of the Code is appropriate.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: 1

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: TROGLIA: I believe that Article 80 should be relocated to theAnnex. For those jurisdictions not adopting Article 80, it will beconfusing and not user friendly to have such a bulk of nonrelevantmaterial in the front of the book. Such relocation should haveminimal impact on those jurisdictions adopting Article 80.

___________________

(Log #1621)1- 7 - (80): Accept in PartSUBMITTER: Gilbert L. Thompson, MEIA Codes and StandardsCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-3RECOMMENDATION: We would like to go on record assupporting this proposal. The NEC Task group on administrativerules did a great service to the electrical industry by developing thisproposal for consideration by localities that have not alreadypassed legislation to accomplish its purpose. However, we thinkone important aspect was overlooked in its formation. Where arethe qualifications or requirements for the installers who provideelectrical services?SUBSTANTIATION: In order to provide electrical services for thepublic, most jurisdictions require the work to be installed by a dulyinsured or bonded, actively certified, licensed person who isqualified for the class or type of work to be done. Also, some areasallow only the resident owner to apply for their own permit if theypass a test designed to show that they are familiar with the latestNEC code rules. We think the task force should consider thisomission and come up with language and a section that wouldqualify the installer of the installation in a similar manner thatqualified the inspector in section 80-27.PANEL ACTION: Accept in Part.PANEL STATEMENT: The panel accepts the commentor'sexpressed support of the proposal in the first two sentences only.However, the commentor has not provided specific text for theproposed additional requirements in accordance with Section 4-4.5(c) of the Regulations Covering Committee Projects.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #525)1- 8 - (80-13(g)): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Robert B. Alexander, Fluor DanielCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-3RECOMMENDATION: Revise last sentence to read: As used in this section, "emergency" means circumstances that theauthority having jurisdiction knows, or has reason to believe, existand that reasonably can constitute immediate danger to life or andproperty.SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial, the current wording requires bothlife and property to be in jeopardy. The proposed wording allowseither to be the basis for examination. At the Panel's discretionthey may also wish to add a reference to "bodily injury."PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise the last sentence of Section 80.13(7) of the 2001 NEC ROPdraft to read as follows: As used in this section, emergency means circumstances that theauthority having jurisdiction knows, or has reason to believe, existand that reasonably can constitute immediate danger to lifepersons or and property.PANEL STATEMENT: The panel believes this editorial revisionaccomplishes the submitter's intent.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #2251)1- 9 - (80-15(b)(4)): AcceptSUBMITTER: Guy R. Franks, SBCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-3RECOMMENDATION: Add a new item (h) as follows: (h) A representative of a telecommunications utility operating inthe jurisdiction. SUBSTANTIATION: With the telecommunications industryrepresented on the electrical board, this board will haverepresentation from all of the entities and users subject to the NEC.Adding telecommunications to the electrical board will result in anelectrical board that has a broader and balanced perspective.


9

PANEL ACTION: Accept.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #882)1- 10 - (80-19(d)): RejectSUBMITTER: Michael V. Glenn, Longview Fibre Co.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-3RECOMMENDATION: Revise 80-19(d) to read as follows: (d) Annual Permits. In lieu of an individual permit for eachinstallation or alteration, an annual permit shall, upon application,therefore, be issued to any person, firm or corporation regularlyemploying one or more employees for the installation, alteration,and maintenance of electric equipment in or on buildings orpremises owned or occupied by the applicant for the permit.Upon application, an electrical contractor as agent for the owneror tenant shall be issued an annual permit. It shall be permissible,upon application for an annual permit, for an electrical contractorto act as agent for the owner or tenant. The applicant shall keeprecords of all work done and such records shall be transmittedperiodically to the electrical inspector.SUBSTANTIATION: Our industrial facility employees,approximately 90 full time electricians that do maintenance type ofelectrical work. The State of Washington's Electrical InspectionDepartment presently utilizes annual permits of which we manageour own records and work with the Inspection Department for therequired inspections. We would not want nor would we use anelectrical contractor to act as our agent for our electricians andinspections. There are many industrial facilities throughout thecountry that have their own electricians and electrical staff whowould not allow a contractor to serve as their agent. The proposedchange would allow any person, firm, or corporation the option ofusing an electrical contractor as an agent or to serve as their ownagent. This change keeps the intent of an annual permit the sameand provides more flexibility for a wider variety of circumstances.PANEL ACTION: Reject.PANEL STATEMENT: The present language specifically permitsan annual permit to be issued to any "person, firm or corporation"satisfying certain conditions. While an electrical contractor ispermitted to act as an agent for an owner or tenant, nothingrequires that applicants for annual permits be electricalcontractors.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #526)1- 11 - (80-29): AcceptSUBMITTER: Robert B. Alexander, Fluor DanielCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-3RECOMMENDATION: Revise section to read: 80.29 Liability for Damages. Article 80 shall not be construed toaffect the responsibility or liability of any party owning, operating,designing, controlling, or installing any electric equipment fordamages to persons or property caused by a defect therein, norshall the ____ nor any of its employees be held as assuming anysuch liability by reason of the inspection, reinspection, or otherexamination authorized.SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial, the current wording actually letseveryone "off the hook." That is, compliance with Article 80 mustaffect "the responsibility or liability" of those delimited. SinceSection 80-1(4) includes "design" in the scope of the article,omitting it from "list" in 80-29 could be interpreted as absolving thedesigner from responsibility.PANEL ACTION: Accept. Editorially revise the comment to read as follows: 80.29 Liability for Damages. Article 80 shall not be construed toaffect the responsibility or liability of any party owning, designing,operating, controlling, or installing any electric equipment fordamages topersons or property caused by any defect therein, nor shall the_____ nor any of its employees be held as assuming any suchliability by reason of the inspection, reinspection, or otherexamination authorized.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

ARTICLE 90 — INTRODUCTION

(Log #343)1- 12 - (90-1(c)): AcceptSUBMITTER: William T. Fiske, I T S North AmericaCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-5RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.SUBSTANTIATION: Submitter's statement in substantiation,"...many rules are included in the Code that are design innature...," is true; however the presence of some design criteria inthe Code does not make it a design manual. The NEC merely setsminimum criteria, and as stated in 90-1(b), application of NECrules does not necessarily result in good electrical system design.In addition, submitter provided no substantiation for deletingreference to, "untrained persons".PANEL ACTION: Accept.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: COX: I disagree with the panel action to accept this comment. Ido agree with the submitter that the presence of some designcriteria in the code does not make it a design manual. Theoriginal language and the present language supports that and refersto the "Code" as the complete document. This provision has neverprohibited a safety rule that includes design criteria from beingadopted into the code. However, it is broadly interpreted that onecan use 90.1(C) to do just that. In the 2001 NEC ROP, 90.1(C) isused by Code Making Panels over 25 times as all or part of theirreason for rejecting a code proposal. The term "untrained persons" is used only once in the NEC and isundefined in the context of the code. Without a definition of"untrained" and a description of the area of expertise or skill oftraining implied, this provision is unenforceable as to applying asafety rule and will be interpreted as differently as there areopinions as to what an "untrained" person is. Section 90.1(C) hasno bearing on the application or enforcement of the code. Thecommon interpretation of this rule appears to be that the code isnot intended to be used by people who are untrained. Section90.1(C) in no way prohibits anyone from using the code, whetheror not they are trained. In view of the code, what does "untrained"mean? Is a trained persons required to be an electrical engineer,electrician, or electronic technician? The simple statement that thecode is not intended as an instruction manual for untrained persondoes not have any bearing on the application or enforcement of thecode. Those who are familiar with the code understand that aperson cannot simply study the code to become an engineer, anelectrician, or a technician. More fundamental training isnecessary before a person understands electrical theory andpractice. Section 90.1(C) has no role in the present NEC. Thewording in 90-1(A) and (B) address the type of material that canbe adopted as part of the code and it focuses on safety. Thiscomment should be rejected. See my explanation of negative voteon Comment 1-21.

___________________

(Log #448)1- 13 - (90-1(c)): RejectSUBMITTER: Joseph A. Tedesco, J A Tedesco Associates, IncCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-5RECOMMENDATION: Revise the proposal to "reject" and putback the following to replace section 90-1(c). "Intention: Thiscode is intended to be used by 'Qualified Persons'."SUBSTANTIATION: Deleting the section makes no sense, andreplacing the rule without any real concern for safety will not beappreciated by the electrical industry! Besides, the Code-MakingPanel's revised definition of a qualified person makes this anecessary change.PANEL ACTION: Reject.PANEL STATEMENT: The panel rejects the added new language.The existing text is clear, concise and correct. See panel action onComment 1-12.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: COX: I agree with the panel action to reject this comment butdisagree with the panel statement. The submitter introduces a newconcept that has not been considered by the panel or the public.To add a new restriction that would essentially limit the use of thecode to people who are qualified is a drastic change from what ispresently in the code. There is a significant difference between


10

"This code is not intended as a design specification nor aninstruction manual for untrained persons" and "This code isintended to be used by qualified persons." I disagree with the panel that the wording in 90.1(C) is clear,concise and correct. It is very clear that there are many differentinterpretations of this wording. That fact is evident in thecomments submitted regarding Proposal 1-5 and by Code MakingPanel actions shown in the 2001 NEC ROP and previous editions ofthe ROP and ROC. It is clear that people understand this wordingto mean different things. See my explanation of negative vote onComment 1-21.

___________________

(Log #473)1- 14 - (90-1(c)): AcceptSUBMITTER: William T. Fiske, Intertek Testing ServicesCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-5RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.SUBSTANTIATION: Submitter's statement in substantiation, "...many rules are included in the Code that are design in nature...," istrue; however the presence of some design criteria in the Codedoes not make it a design manual. The NEC merely sets minimumcriteria, and as stated in 90-1(b), application of NEC rules does notnecessarily result in good electrical system design. In addition,submitter provided no substantiation for deleting reference to,"untrained persons".PANEL ACTION: Accept.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: COX: I disagree with the panel action to accept this comment.This comment should be rejected. See my explanation of negativevote on Comments 1-12 and 1-21.

___________________

(Log #593)1- 15 - (90-1(c)): AcceptSUBMITTER: Arthur J. Carlson, Pocatello, IDCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-5RECOMMENDATION: (c) Intention. This code is not intendedas a design specification nor an instruction manual for untrainedpersons.SUBSTANTIATION: Proposal 1-5 should be rejected. To deleteSection 90-1(c) would open the door to make the NEC even morenon-user friendly. I am certain that in a few code cycles; the NECwould read like an engineers handbook.PANEL ACTION: Accept.PANEL STATEMENT: The panel concludes that the submitter'srecommendation is to reject Proposal 1-5.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: COX: I disagree with the panel action to accept this comment.The purpose of the code is stated in 90-1(a) as "... the practicalsafeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from theuse of electricity." Proposals to change the NEC should fall withinthose parameters. The existing rules do not restrict the level oftechnical difficulty NEC provisions may contain. As electrical andelectronic technology advances and become more complex, thecode will have to reflect those changes. There is nothing inexisting 90.1(C) that prohibits including complex engineering dataor procedures in the code as long as they are for "the practicalsafeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from theuse of electricity." This comment should be rejected. See myexplanation of negative vote on Comments 1-12 and 1-21.

___________________

(Log #609)1- 16 - (90-1(c)): AcceptSUBMITTER: Glenn W. Zieseniss , Crown Point, INCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-5RECOMMENDATION: This proposal should be "reject".SUBSTANTIATION: I agree with Mr. Minck's comment.PANEL ACTION: Accept.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13

VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: COX: I disagree with the panel action to accept this publiccomment. The submitter relies on information in a statementassociated with a negative vote on Proposal 1-5. That negativestatement includes a reference to this section as being "historic"and that it provides clarity involving those persons attempting to theuse the rules of the NEC. It further states: "The clarity providedfor users of the code in this section far outweigh any negativeramifications involving misdirected opposition to any specificproposal." In over 30 years of observing the code making process,the application of the design clause of 90.1(C) has been usedalmost exclusively to oppose the acceptance of a rule within thecode, even though it involved safety. One only has to check the2001 ROP and earlier ROPs and ROCs to verify this. The wordingoriginally adopted for the 1937 NEC did not support its use tooppose individual proposed changes in the code and neither doesthe present wording. The 1937 wording was: "This code is to beregarded neither as a design specification nor an instructionmanual for untrained persons." That wording cautions people thatthey should not think of the code as a design specification. It isinteresting to note that the reference is to the code as the completedocument and not to individual rules. As an emphasis on theacceptability of design as part of the NEC, the 1937 code added atitle to Chapter 2 that read: "Wiring Design and Protection." Sinceprovisions in Chapter 2 are predominately design, it can be readilypointed out that the authors of the design provision in the 1937code did not have any intent of applying the rule to parts of thecode or to proposed changes. The wording indicating that the code is not intended as a designspecification may have had some validity for the 1937 NEC andseveral issues following it. The 1937 code included a statement inthe same paragraph as the design specification provision that read:"The requirements of this code constitute a minimum standard."With the statement that the code is a "minimum standard", it mayhave been considered necessary to the code developers thatanother statement be included to clarify that even though the codewas a minimum standard, it should not be considered as a designspecification to prohibit designers from using anything other thanthe minimum set of rules. The last sentence of the paragraphsupports this position because it emphasizes that one may have todo more than the Code requires to have good service. Theparagraph in question in the 1937 code reads: "The requirementsof this code constitute a minimum standard. Compliancetherewith and proper maintenance will result in an installationreasonably free from hazard but not necessarily efficient orconvenient. This code is to be regarded neither as a designspecification nor an instruction manual for untrained persons.Good service and satisfactory results will often require larger sizesof wire, more branch circuits, and better types of equipment thanthe minimum which is here specified." The wording regarding"minimum standard" was deleted during the 1971 code revisioncycle. The negative statement also includes: "The present wordingprovides all Code Making Panels with a much needed and desiredreference in dealing with design proposals to the NEC." This is asignificant point in this issue. Section 90.1(C) is not a basis forrejecting a proposal. This section did not prohibit the adoption ofsafety rules with design specifications in the 1937 code and stilldoes not today, even with the revised wording. Regardless of howmany rules in the code includes design criteria, it is still a safetycode and not a design specification. In order for the NEC to beconsidered as a design specification, Section 90-1(A) and (B) willhave to be changed to identify the NEC for that purpose or othersteps taken that eliminated the present purpose of the "practicalsafeguarding of persons and property from the hazards arising fromthe use of electricity." Code proposals and public commentsshould be considered on their merits as to whether or not they areapplicable for the NEC. Section 90.1(C) has no role in thatconsideration. It applies only to the code as a whole and the intentof the total document. The negative statement references the intent of the code as aninstruction manual for untrained persons, and includes thewording: "All NEC Code Making Panels depend on this seconddeclaration in 90.1(C) to make clear that the many technical termsand technical requirements incorporated into the code's languageare not directed at persons not trained in the ability to understandsuch language and provisions." Section 90.1(C) does not prohibitan untrained person from using the Code nor does it identify thetype of training needed or the level of knowledge and experience tobe achieved before one is considered as "trained". Specificsections in the Code include rules covering "qualified" persons, but


11

90.1(C) does not affect how those sections are applied and thoserules have no bearing on the application of 90.1(C). Thiscomment should be rejected.

___________________

(Log #898)1- 17 - (90-1(c)): AcceptSUBMITTER: John Stricklin , Mtn. Home, IDCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-5RECOMMENDATION: Leave text as 1999 NEC. Do not acceptthis proposal.SUBSTANTIATION: The 1940 National Electrical Code states, aswell as an 1897 electrical code edition, "It is recommended thatarchitects when drawing plans make provisions for ample electricaletc.", an INTENT of having only persons trained in electricalknowledge, design electrical installations. Let's not leave it up tountrained persons, to draw and install electrical designs. Howwould you like to have a shoe clerk from the local department storedesign the electrical installation in your house?PANEL ACTION: Accept.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: COX: I disagree with the panel action on this comment. Thepresent wording in 90.1(C) does not prohibit an untrained personfrom either designing a system or using the code. While thesubmitter has a valid point in emphasizing that properly trainedpersons should design and install electrical systems, this sectiononly addresses the intent of the code as an instruction manual foruntrained persons. While several sections in the code include theterm "qualified persons". Those sections generally permit avariation of a general rule where the equipment is either accessibleto qualified persons or is serviced by them. It does not address thelevel of training and experience a designer, installer, or inspector isrequired to have nor does it define a "trained person". Thiscomment should be rejected.

___________________

(Log #1007)1- 18 - (90-1(c)): RejectSUBMITTER: Michael P. O'Quinn, MOGO Enterprises, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-5RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "This Code is not intended as a design specification nor aninstruction manual for untrained unqualified persons."SUBSTANTIATION: Even though 90-1(a) declares the intent ofthe Code as the "practical safeguarding of persons and property ..."maintaining the statement in 90-1(c) that the Code is "...notintended as a design specification..." clarifies that the direction ofthe Code is towards safety and not design. For example, past editions of the Code have dealt with the issueof harmonics by supplying FPN (fine print notes) warning theinstaller of possible dangers. This is because the Code is primarilyconcerned with safety. If the Code was a "design specification", anin-depth description of corrections would have been supplied. The Code is also not intended to be used by persons untrained inthe terminology or theory of electrical systems: the Code expects alevel of expertise for understanding. Because of initial acceptanceof ROP 1-178, a new definition of "qualified person", the changingof the term "untrained" to "unqualified" explains the intendedaudience of the Code. For example, an unqualified person has nounderstanding of Section 110-12, requiring "...a neat andworkmanlike..." installation. It is important to note that the Code is not designed nor intendedto be a textbook.PANEL ACTION: Reject.PANEL STATEMENT: It is not the intent of the panel to restrictthe use of this Code to qualified persons as defined in Article 100.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13

___________________

(Log #1548)1- 19 - (90-1(c)): AcceptSUBMITTER: Ravindra H. Ganatra, Alcan CableCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-5RECOMMENDATION: The panel should reject this proposal.SUBSTANTIATION: The Code is a legislated document. As such,it is necessary to identify "what is not intended to accomplish".Typically, in the Code the permissive possibilities are notenumerated in an exhaustive list while the prohibitive possibilitiesare clearly identified. For a perceived misuse of existing 90.1(c) bythe Panels, as suggested by the Submitter, it is not necessary toeliminate the rule that serves a purpose for the adoption andimplementation of the Code. Lack of this clarification couldprevent listings or approvals of products and installations that arein compliance with the Code and applicable product standards butmay not be enumerated in a specific permissive list in the Code.PANEL ACTION: Accept.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: COX: I disagree with the panel action to accept this comment.It is not necessary to identify what the code is not intended toaccomplish nor the reference to this provision serves a purpose forthe adoption and implementation of the code. There arenumerous things the code is not intended to either be or toaccomplish other than a design specification or an instructionmanual for untrained persons. It is not clear how the deletion of90.1(C) could prevent listings or approvals of products andinstallations. Section 90.1(C) has no bearing on how the code iseither interpreted or applied or how products are evaluated. Thiscomment should be rejected.

___________________

(Log #1622)1- 20 - (90-1(c)): Accept in PartSUBMITTER: Gilbert L. Thompson, MEIA Codes and StandardsCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-5RECOMMENDATION: We think this proposal should be rejected.We agreed with Mr. Dini and especially with the remarks of Mr.Minick in the negative voting. Change 90-1(c) to read like the 1937NEC which said "the code is to be regarded neither as a designspecification nor as an instruction manual for untrained persons".This wording would answer both the affirmative and negative panelvotes.SUBSTANTIATION: A change back to the old language would letproposals and installations methods be submitted for safety reasonsand then be judged on their own merit since the stated intentionwould be clear that the code is not a design specification manual.Also, we feel that everyone "in the trade" knows that the NEC is notan instruction manual for untrained persons. However, whenlawyers, judges, builders and other "outside" persons read sectionsof the code and suddenly become experts, it helps to refer them tothis section of the code especially since proposals 1-6 and 1-7 (90-1(d) (new) have been approved if accepted.PANEL ACTION: Accept in Part.PANEL STATEMENT: The panel accepts the recommendation toreject the proposal. The panel concludes the present wording ofthe 1999 NEC is clear, concise and correct and therefore rejects theproposed wording change.NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: COX: I disagree with the panel action to accept this comment inpart. The present wording is definitely not understood the same byusers of the code. The 1937 wording recommended by thesubmitter is more appropriate than the present wording. The 1937wording focuses only on how people are to regard the codewhereas the present language redirects it to what the code isintended to do or be. There is a significant difference betweenthose two versions. While the proposed change does have adifferent meaning, there is no assurance that the 1937 language willsolve the problem stated in the substantiation for Proposal 1-5.This comment should be rejected. See my Explanation of negativevote on Comments 1-16 and 1-21.

___________________


12

(Log #2002)1- 21 - (90-1(c)): AcceptSUBMITTER: Frederic P. Hartwell , Hartwell Electrical Services,Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-5RECOMMENDATION: The proposal should be rejected.SUBSTANTIATION: This section says, in elegant simplicity, thatthe Code "is not intended as a design specification nor aninstruction manual for untrained persons." This is one of thebedrock principles that provide the Code's public legitimacy.Usually we ask both proposal submitters and code making panelsto cite a safety problem before changing the Code. This proposalvirtually pr

Documents

NFPA 70 — May 2001 ROC — Copyright 2001, NFPA€¦ · Technical Correlating Committee National Electrical Code The Technical Correlating Committee _____