National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 Phone: 617-770-3000 Fax: 617-770-0700 www.nfpa.org TO: FROM: Technical Committee on Electrical Equipment of Industrial Machinery (EEI-AAA) Mark Cloutier, Staff Liaison DATE: May 19, 2016 SUBJECT: NFPA 79 First Draft TC Ballot Final Results According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot. 28 Members Eligible to Vote 3 Members Not Returned (Mulherrin, Titus and ) 17 Members Voted Affirmative on All Revisions (with comment Boggs, Brungs, Couch, Dobrowsky, Gruendel, Hayes, Hickman, Hilbert, Kovacik and Neeser) 8 Members Voted Negative on one or more Revisions (Brungs, Dobrowsky, Gruendel, Hayes, Hickman, Kovacik, Neeser and Tamblingson) 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 4.3.10.1 of the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.
NFPA 79 FIRST DRAFT TECHNICAL COMMITTEE BALLOT RESULTS FR-1, Global Input, See FR-1 FR-16, Global Input, See FR-16 this is an improvment? No Comment Page 1 of 45
FR-2, Global Input, See FR-2 Affirmative 20 Affirmative with Comment 5 Mark R. Hilbert improves clarity I agree with using one term for the First Draft and choosing plainly visible over clearly visible as it is used in more than one location. However, from an inspection standpoint, only the term visible is necessary and plainly should be removed where used for the Second Draft. Having plainly before visible does not add clarity and is too subjective. When there is a visibility requirement within a section it must be judged based on the particular application. Using either plainly visible or clearly visible does not help with enforcing or interpreting a visibility requirement. It can only be judged on the specific application. If there are different interpretations of the visibility requirements within a section, then the section should be rewritten to more clearly identify the visibility requirement. Page 2 of 45
Barry Boggs William Brungs I agree with the intent of the committee to provide better clarity and common usage of a the descriptive term, "plainly visible", but this requirement would benefit by adding "legible" and/or "readable". Many marking are visible, but are they are of little value if they are not legible or readable. Suggest that the word "plainly" be deleted from the standard as it lends too easily to different interpretations of the standard. FR-3, Section No. 1.1.1, See FR-3 Affirmative 22 Affirmative with Comment 3 Mark R. Hilbert I agree with the Committee s action and that a task group is needed to establish any necessary comments to coordinate with the increase in the scope of the document from 600 to 1000 volts. This should include correlating Table 11.5 with Table 110.26(A) of the 2017 Edition of NFPA 70 (NEC). A task has been established to review the document and submit comments as necessary. Improvment Page 3 of 45
FR-4, Chapter 2, See FR-4 Affirmative with Comment 1 Negative 1 Keep at 600 volt. Page 4 of 45
FR-19, New Section after 3.3.5, See FR-19 Standardize FR-18, Section No. 3.3.5, See FR-18 better to align with NEC Page 5 of 45
FR-20, New Section after 3.3.8, See FR-20 Affirmative 21 Negative 2 Palmer L. Hickman Paul Dobrowsky better clarity The 79 Technical Committee should consider using definitions consistent with those in NFPA 70E. I am not opposed to changing the term to match what is in IEC 60204-1 but am opposed to including the parenthetical note next to the term in Chapter 3. The committee voted to remove IEC parenthetical notes for the 2015 edition of NFPA 79 due to confusion. Although this situation is slightly different providing the wording in Annex A is sufficient. Page 6 of 45
FR-6, Section No. 3.3.19.4, See FR-6 Clarity FR-57, New Section after 3.3.32, See FR-57 Clarity Page 7 of 45
FR-22, New Section after 3.3.42, See FR-22 Affirmative 21 Negative 2 Palmer L. Hickman Paul Dobrowsky better clarity The Technical Committee should consider using definitions consistent with those in NFPA 70E. I am not opposed to changing the term to match what is in IEC 60204-1 but am opposed to including the parenthetical note next to the term in Chapter 3. The committee voted to remove IEC parenthetical notes for the 2015 edition of NFPA 79 due to confusion. Although this situation is slightly different providing the wording in Annex A is sufficient. Page 8 of 45
FR-12, Section No. 3.3.64.2, See FR-12 Affirmative 21 Affirmative with Comment 4 Paul Dobrowsky John R. Kovacik Align with NEC Delete the term "socket" in 3.3.91 (now 3.3.96) and anywhere else it or plug/socket is used other than in Annex J. IEC parenthetical terms were agreed to be deleted in the 2015 revision of NFPA 79. I agree with Paul Dobrowsky's affirmative comment however, I find no connection between his comment and FR-12. FR-10, New Section after 3.3.106, See FR-10 Page 9 of 45
Affirmative 18 Affirmative with Comment 6 Palmer L. Hickman The Correlating Committee may want to review this and other definitions in 79. Mark R. Hilbert I am supporting the addition of this definition at the First Draft stage as I believe that comments from the public would be beneficial. However, I currently disagree the proposed definition will add clarity or usability to the document as it does not consider all situations that could occur. When there is a visibility requirement within a section it must be judged based on the particular application. Using either plainly visible or clearly visible does not help with enforcing or interpreting a visibility requirement. Whether something is visible can only be judged on the specific application. If there are different interpretations of the visibility requirements within a section, then the section should be rewritten to more clearly identify the visibility requirement. William Brungs Barry Boggs Negative 1 Paul Dobrowsky Clarity Suggest that the word "plainly" be deleted from the standard as it lends too easily to different interpretations of the standard. I agree with the intent of the committee to provide better clarity and common usage of a the descriptive term, "plainly visible", but this needs some additional clarification by adding "legible" and/or "readable" to the requirement. I agree with being consistent but am unsure if the term "plainly" is helpful or even if defining it is helpful. The term "In sight From" is defined as being "visible" from and not more than 50 ft from" without the word "plainly". That seems to be sufficient. The concept needs to use the same wording but modifying the definition of "In sight From" would make it different from the NEC without a reason. Consider deleting the word "plainly" where used with "visible" throughout the standard. Page 10 of 45
FR-13, Chapter 4 [Title Only], See FR-13 Better FR-17, New Section after 4.3.2.7, See FR-17 Page 11 of 45
Clarity FR-14, Section No. 4.4.2, See FR-14 Affirmative 20 Negative 3 William Brungs Paul Dobrowsky Good addition Text as written does not coincide with the committee statement, which states that the machine is not required to have noise suppression for surrounding equipment. The revision is not bad but does not go far enough. The committee statement is not consistent with the language in the section. All of the changes suggested in PI 155 should be accepted. An industrial machinery manufacturer cannot be expected to guess what other types of other equipment could be located near their industrial machine. Page 12 of 45
Jay Tamblingson The proposed text does not alter the requirement as indicated in the committee statement. The phrase "the equipment" is already understood to be that "of an industrial machine". FR-15, Section No. 4.8, See FR-15 Affirmative 20 Affirmative with Comment 3 William Brungs word smithing This should be further clarified as to the party responsible to ensure this is satisfied. Definition should be added to Chapter 3 for "Point of Supply". Clarification is needed to distinguish between main control panels, where the main building power is connected,and downstream control panels which are fed from the main control panel. Page 13 of 45
Negative 2 Daniel R. Neeser This requirement is misleading since the point of supply is not well defined. This change could be interpreted to require the marking of the available fault current at downstream subpanels. The current requirement in 16.4.3 requires: Where more than one incoming supply circuit is to be provided, the nameplate shall state the information in 16.4.1 for each circuit. This would require each supply circuit industrial control panel to be marked with the SCCR and the current text of 4.8 would require the industrial control panel to be rated for the maximum available fault current. In addition, fault current should be changed to short-circuit current which is the term being used in the 2017 NEC. John R. Kovacik I agree with Dan Neeser's comments. FR-25, Chapter 5 [Title Only], See FR-25 Affirmative 19 Affirmative with Comment 5 good for Clarity Page 14 of 45
Mark R. Hilbert I agree with the Committee s actions to revise the title and text of Chapter 5 to identify that Chapter 5 provides the requirements for the supply circuit disconnecting means and terminations of the machine. However, I believe that additional work must be done to really clarify what the supply circuit to a machine is. This will also assist with clarifying how to apply the interlocking requirements of 6.2.4. I do not agree that just removing the term incoming alone is going to provide the necessary clarification as there will still be questions on what a supply circuit is. I recommend comments for replacing incoming with machine where applicable so it would read machine supply circuit and then providing a definition of machine supply circuit. as follows: Machine Supply Circuit. The conductors between the premises wiring and the machine disconnecting means or terminals. Replacing the term incoming with machine and including a definition as recommended will add clarity regarding what the machine supply circuit is. John R. Kovacik I agree with Dan Neeser's comments. Daniel R. Neeser To correlate with change, revise 5.1 delete incoming and conductor. Revise 5.1.2 delete incoming in 2 places. Revise 5.1.4 delete incoming. Revise 5.1.5 delete incoming. Revise 5.1.6 delete incoming. Revise Negative 1 Jay Tamblingson The proposed change gives the reader the impression that Chapter 5 has been reduced to cover only supply circuit terminations and disconnecting means. The existing title should be maintained as it more accurately reflects the topics including incoming supply terminal terminations, supply circuit disconnecting means, means for removal of power to prevent unexpected startup, and devices for disconnecting electrical equipment. In addition, the existing title more closely aligns with that in IEC 60204-1 and maintains harmonization. Page 15 of 45
FR-24, Section No. 5.3, See FR-24 Affirmative 19 Affirmative with Comment 4 word Fixing Page 16 of 45
Mark R. Hilbert I agree with the Committee s actions to revise the text of Chapter 5 to clarify that Chapter 5 provides the requirements for the supply circuit to the machine, to correlate the exceptions for remote disconnecting means and to recognize new technology that uses covers instead of doors. It is just as important for a disconnecting means associated with a cover, as opposed to a door, to be provided with a means to be locked in the open position. However, I believe that additional work must be done in order to really clarify what the supply circuit to a machine is. I do not agree that just removing the term incoming alone is going to provide the necessary clarification as there will still be questions on what a supply circuit is. I recommend comments for replacing incoming with machine where applicable so it would read machine supply circuit and then providing a definition of machine supply circuit. as follows: Machine Supply Circuit. The conductors between the premises wiring and the machine disconnecting means or terminals. Replacing the term incoming with machine and including a definition as recommended will add clarity regarding what is the machine supply circuit. I do not agree with adding the exception to 5.3.1.4 which removes the interlocking of the supply circuit disconnecting means with the control enclosure if it takes a tool to the control enclosure. This longstanding requirement provides a greater degree of safety and only applies to the disconnecting means for the supply circuit. The above suggested definition will clarify that. The requirement to include a safety sign in accordance with 16.2 is problematic as there is no guidance as to which of the eight different requirements in the section are to be complied with. Additionally, there is no direction as to what the sign should indicate. John R. Kovacik Responding to Bill Brung's comment, the referenced sections of UL 508A can be revised to align with NFPA 79 if the proposed revisions are implemented. Negative 2 William Brungs Implementing this FR will be in conflict with UL 508A, Sections 66.1.2 & 66.1.3 Page 17 of 45
Jay Tamblingson This FR should not be accepted for the following reasons: 1. The term incoming supply circuit is used in NEC Article 670 and should be retained for consistency. Removing the term "incoming" reduces clarity as it is intended to reference a supply originating from outside the electrical equipment of the machine. 2. The new exception to 5.3.1.4 would permit on any size machine the substitution of the existing requirements for interlocking of the disconnect with the enclosure door by use of a door requiring tool access and a safety sign. No substantiation has been provided that shows how this change meets an equivalent control as the existing requirements" as expressed in the committee statement. The interlocking requirement should be maintained where practicable unless sufficient alternative measures are provided to ensure equivalent protection. FR-28, Chapter 6, See FR-28 Affirmative 21 Affirmative with Comment 3 OK simplified Page 18 of 45
Paul Dobrowsky Negative 1 Palmer L. Hickman The changes made are improvements but the concept in 6.2.1 needs improvement. Insulated conductors by themselves are not protection from electric shock, that is why they need to be in cable assemblies, enclosures, or raceways. The concepts of Basic Insulation" and "Reinforced Insulation" should be added and possibly defined. Double Insulated and reinforced insulated live parts can be suitable for electric shock protection but basic insulation is not. The conductors in cable assemblies and in flexible cords although insulated should not be depended on for protection from electric shock by themselves. The conductors along with the outer covering or jacket can be suitable for protection from electric shock. These possible definitions are offered for consideration but there are probably better definitions in product standards. Basic Insulation. Material that provides a degree of protection from electric shock and short circuits. Reinforced Insulation. Material that provides protection suitable for contact by persons. The Correlating Committee should review the use of basic and fault in this action and in the Article 100 definitions. In addition, all of 6.4 should be reviewed including, but not limited to, protection against shock. The Correlating Committee should also direct the NFPA 79 Technical Committee to reconsider its action related to what was added in 6.4.1.2 where "Class 2 circuits, as covered in...article 725 of NFPA 70(NEC), shall be permitted to be used to provide protection from electric shock and other hazards." This is in conflict with the definition of Class 2 circuit in 725.2 in the NEC, for example. Page 19 of 45
FR-65, Section No. 7.2.10.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections], See FR-65 Affirmative 19 Affirmative with Comment 5 Mark R. Hilbert John R. Kovacik Daniel R. Neeser Clarity This revision depends on the development of a new product standard. It may need to be removed for the Second Draft if the work is not complete as there will be no products for the applications. I agree with Dan Neeser's comments. Responding to Bill Brung's comment, the referenced sections of UL 508A can be revised to align with NFPA 79 if the proposed revisions are implemented. Add specific type and ahead of rating. Exception No. 2: Where the controller is an adjustable speed drive that is listed and marked Suitable for Output Conductor Protection, the maximum rating of the designated SCPD shall be determined by replacing the full-load current in Table 7.2.10.1 with the drive s rated input current. The SCPD shall not exceed the "specific type and" rating marked on the adjustable speed drive or in the manufacturer s instructions. Additionally Table 7.2.10.1 should be revised for time-delay fuses. There is no need to list RK1 and RK5 separately as the sizing guidelines are the same. Note 3 should be retained as many IEC Starters require RK1 fuses in lieu of RK5. Suggested change is below. Type of Application2 Fuse Class with Time Delay1 AC-2 AC-3 AC-4 R3 150 175 175 Page 20 of 45
Negative 1 William Brungs Implementing this FR will be in conflict with NFPA 70, Section 430.130 Implementing this FR will be in conflict with UL 508A, Section 31.1.3 Also, Exception 2 contains the word shall which dictates that the maximum rating of the designated SCPD MUST be determined by this method; the maximum rating of the designated SCPD shall be determined by replacing the full-load current in Table 7.2.10.1 with the drive s rated input current. Exercising this method for determining the maximum rating should be a choice of the person implementing the NFPA79 standard, and not stated as a requirement, which is dictated by the word shall. Implementers of the NFPA79 standard may elect NOT to use Exception 2, thereby using the initial guidelines of Section 7.2.10.1 FR-60, Section No. 7.2.10.4, See FR-60 Affirmative 19 Affirmative with Comment 5 Better reff. Page 21 of 45
Paul Dobrowsky Mark R. Hilbert John R. Kovacik Negative 1 William Brungs The following requirement was added to NEC 670.6 for 2017 based on FR 3357. It seems that NFPA 79 should be consistent. "Industrial machinery with safety interlock circuits shall have surge protection installed." This is the committee statement: The study, Data Assessment for Electrical Surge Protective Devices commissioned by the Fire Protection Research Foundation, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471, provides results of a 2013 and 2014 survey of facility managers concerning surge damage. It shows that 26% had damage to safety interlocking systems on machines due to surges. These safety interlocking systems are in place to protect workers from interactions with the machinery. Additionally all equipment needs to be installed and used according to the manufacturer's instructions if listed. Additionally add a new section to Chapter 1, possibly as 1.7, to read as follows: Listed or Labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling. This revision depends on the development of a new product standard. It may need to be removed for the Second Draft if the work is not complete as there will be no products for the applications. Paul Drobrowsky's comments do not appear to align with the substance of this revision. Responding to Bill Brung's comment, the referenced sections of UL 508A can be revised to align with NFPA 79 if the proposed revisions are implemented. Implementing this FR will be in conflict with NFPA 70, Section 430.130 Implementing this FR will be in conflict with UL 508A, Section 31.1.3 Also, Exception 2 contains the word shall which dictates that the maximum rating of the designated SCPD MUST be determined by this method; the maximum rating of the designated SCPD shall be determined by replacing the full-load current in Table 7.2.10.1 with the drive s rated input current. Exercising this method for determining the maximum rating should be a choice of the person implementing the NFPA79 standard, and not stated as a requirement, which is dictated by the word shall. Implementers of the NFPA79 standard may elect NOT to use Exception 2, thereby using the initial guidelines of Section 7.2.10.4 Page 22 of 45
FR-27, Chapter 8 [Title Only], See FR-27 aline with NEC FR-66, Section No. 8.1.2, See FR-66 Affirmative 21 Page 23 of 45
Affirmative with Comment 4 Paul Dobrowsky good clarification The wording in the requirement needs improvement and the committee statement does not use the correct terms. It might be better to use the existing concept and change the term "equipment grounding circuit" to equipment grounding conductor" 8.1.2 Connections. Grounded conductors shall not be connected to equipment grounding conductors except at either the source or first disconnecting means of a grounded separately derived system. Additionally the phrase "equipment grounding circuit" needs to be changed to "equipment grounding conductor" and/or bonding jumper in Chapter 18 and anywhere else it appears. William Brungs An adjustment to the wording should be implemented: Grounded conductors shall only be grounded at the location of the grounding conductor connection to the machine or first disconnnecting means. There should be no exceptions to this requirement. FR-29, Section No. 8.2, See FR-29 Page 24 of 45
Affirmative 21 Affirmative with Comment 3 William Brungs Negative 1 Jay Tamblingson alines with NEC. althoght maybe the old version was good enought There seems to be redundancy within this section. Wording in this section should go under full review prior to new edition. The proposed text in 8.2.1 appears to now be essentially redundant with 8.2.1.2.1 and does not add clarity. The term "incoming" in 8.2.1.3.1 is needed to differentiate that the terminal is related to a supply originating from outside the machine (see related ballot comments on FR-24). FR-59, Section No. 9.1.1.4, See FR-59 god for Safety Page 25 of 45
FR-47, New Section after 9.2.5.3.2, See FR-47 Affirmative 20 Affirmative with Comment 4 Paul Dobrowsky John R. Kovacik Negative 1 Jay Tamblingson No comment Suggest revising the sentence to read as follows: Stop functions shall be initiated by deenergization, not energization, of a device or as a command to a programmable logic controller (PLC), except for cycle stop commands (stop by energization), I agree with Paul Dobrowsky's suggested revision The new requirement is unclear as to the scope of stop commands it is intended to address and appears to limit the use of Safety PLC's for issuing of stop commands. Stopping by deenergization is presently mentioned in Annex H.2 as one component for minimizing the probability of control function failure. Page 26 of 45
FR-48, Section No. 10.1.6.2, See FR-48 Affirmative 22 Jim Couch clarity 10.1.6.2 Arrangement of Operator Interface Devices. All start pushbuttons shall be mounted above or (left) next to their associated stop pushbuttons. Change verbiage from left to next. Many designers incorporate the stop pushbutton to be closer to the operator during normal operation. This is considered to be a safer practice for the operator. This will also bring NFPA closer in line with IEC 60204-1 as 60204 does not define to the left or right. Negative 1 Additional discussion is needed to ensure the current safety technologies are not prohibited. FR-32, Section No. 11.2.1.1, See FR-32 Page 27 of 45
I am familur with this need FR-33, New Section after 11.2.1.9, See FR-33 better safety Page 28 of 45
FR-34, Section No. 11.2.2.1, See FR-34 Fine FR-35, Section No. 11.4.8, See FR-35 Affirmative 19 Affirmative with Comment 6 OK Page 29 of 45
Paul Dobrowsky Revise 11.4.8.1 to allow the print pocket to be located elsewhere even if it is practical. Why make someone open an enclosure, possibly exposing themselves to hazards, if they need the documentation. It shall be permissible to place a pocket suitable for the environment outside the door of the control enclosure or compartment in a well-identified location. Mark R. Hilbert John R. Kovacik Barry Boggs I am voting affirmative as I agree the revision adds clarity to the section. However, I disagree the existing text limits the use of a print pocket to just traditional prints. I agree with the comments of Dobrowsky and Hilbert. 11.4.8.1 is too restrictive by stating where this is not practicable. This portion of the requirement should be deleted and the requirement reworded to state, "It shall be permissible to place a pocket or other means of storage, suitable for the environment outside the door of the control enclosure or compartment in a well-identified location". With large machinery a storage pocket is not adequate to contain all the documentation so file cabinets or other storage means may be necessary and often located in centralized maintenance areas for better protection and control of the documents. FR-49, Section No. 12.5.2, See FR-49 Page 30 of 45
word smithing FR-55, New Section after 12.5.4, See FR-55 Affirmative 19 Negative 4 William Brungs good Conductors should be sized to the load of the motor or, when used with a variable frequency drive, sized to the maximum output of the drive. Page 31 of 45
Daniel R. Neeser John R. Kovacik Jay Tamblingson The new requirement would permit reduction of conductor sizes in across the line motor circuits without any corresponding requirements in motor overload settings and/or size of branch short-circuit and ground fault protection to maintain conductor protection. For servo drive systems, the requirements in 19.3.2 already address the concerns stated in the substantiation. I agree with the comments of Neeser and Tamblingson. I do not agree with Brung's comment that conductors should be sized to the maximum output of the drive when used with a variable speed drive. The proposed new requirement permits reduction in motor circuit conductor sizing without additional new conductor overload and branch short circuit and ground fault protection rules for general individual-motor branch circuits. For servo motor systems, the change is unnecessary as 19.3.2 already addresses the concerns expressed in the committee statement. FR-56, Section No. 12.8.3, See FR-56 Better word Page 32 of 45
FR-36, New Section after 13.1.2.3, See FR-36 Affirmative 21 Affirmative with Comment 4 Mark R. Hilbert Clarity I am voting affirmative as I agree the addition of this language however, this is already covered in 13.2.1.3 but as factory applied connectors that molded onto cables. Rather than adding another section a comment should be submitted to revise 13.2.1.3 as follows: Factory-applied connectors and their associated wiring devices shall be permitted. Such connectors shall not be considered as splices or joints. Revising 13.2.1.3 in this manner would address all types of factory-applied connectors, etc. without adding another section. John R. Kovacik I agree with Mark Hilbert's comments. Page 33 of 45
FR-37, Section No. 13.1.6.1, See FR-37 good correction FR-39, Section No. 13.2.2.1, See FR-39 Affirmative 19 Affirmative with Comment 3 Page 34 of 45
William Brungs Negative 3 Paul Dobrowsky John R. Kovacik OK I liked it the old way Exception 1 should be deleted. The Technical Committee is making a firm stand against using the green conductor for anything but Ground for reasons discussed during last session. Exception 1 immediately allows users of the standard to bypass the intent/stand of the Technical Committee. Removing Exception eliminates an important allowance. Replace Exception to read as follows: Exception No. 1. Circuits operating at less than 50 volts, that are not required to be grounded, shall be permitted to use conductors with green insulation or green with one or more yellow stripes for other than equipment grounding conductors. I agree with the comments of Dobrowsky and Tamblingson. Jay Tamblingson The current exception 1 should not be deleted as it is similar to Exception 1 of NEC 250.119 which permits the use of green for other than equipment grounding. It would however, be recommended to have clear requirements contained in Chapter 8 to define where equipment grounding is not required. One possible example would be an exception to 8.2.1 as follows: Exception: Equipment parts that are likely to become energized only by a conductor of a circuit operating at 50 volts or less shall not be required to be grounded. Page 35 of 45
FR-40, Section No. 13.3.1, See FR-40 Affirmative 22 Affirmative with Comment 3 Mark R. Hilbert alinement A task group has been created to review the Standard for the use of the term ducts and to develop comments to replace it with wiring channels or wireway as appropriate. FR-41, Section No. 13.3.4, See FR-41 Affirmative 22 Affirmative with Comment 3 Page 36 of 45
Mark R. Hilbert Fine A task group has been created to review the Standard for the use of the term ducts and to develop comments to replace it with wiring channels or wireway as appropriate. FR-42, Section No. 13.4.1, See FR-42 Clarity Page 37 of 45
FR-7, Section No. 13.5.5.1, See FR-7 Correct FR-45, Section No. 13.5.6, See FR-45 Page 38 of 45
Clarification FR-46, Section No. 15.1.1, See FR-46 Affirmative 20 Affirmative with Comment 3 Paul Dobrowsky John R. Kovacik Negative 2 better Safety Add the following to Chapter 15 or Chapter 11. Presently the standard does not provide any direction for sizing motor controllers. Motor controllers shall be provided in accordance with Article 430, Part VII, of NFPA 70. Paul Dobrowsky's comments do not appear to align with the intent of FR-46. I agree with the overall revision intent, but critical systems which cause a greater hazard when shut down, should be excluded from any GFCI requirement. Page 39 of 45
William Brungs Receptacles internal to the enclosure are only made accessible to authorized personnel if the enclosure has been opened. Provisions should be made within the standard where GFCI is not needed if the receptacle is marked as to acceptable connected equipment. FR-58, Section No. 16.2.4, See FR-58 better clarity Page 40 of 45
FR-54, Section No. 17.2, See FR-54 Affirmative 22 Barry Boggs I agree with the action of the committee to better address lockout or energy control, however this standard is limited to electrical issues and as currently worded the replacement language is too broad and outside the scope of this standard. The new text, "Means provided for the control of hazardous energies" should be reworded to read, "Means provided for the control of hazardous electrical energies". Negative 1 we need to keep the lock out reff. Page 41 of 45
FR-43, Section No. B.1, See FR-43 fine FR-44, Section No. D.1, See FR-44 Fine Page 42 of 45
FR-67, Section No. F.5.4, See FR-67 OK FR-61, New Section after J.3, See FR-61 Page 43 of 45
Clarity with CEMA FR-62, Section No. J.3, See FR-62 OK Some are coming? Page 44 of 45
FR-64, Chapter K, See FR-64 Affirmative 22 Affirmative with Comment 3 up date good Barry Boggs I agree with the action of the committee, however they failed to address that ANSI B11.0 was revised Aug.25,2015 and the title was changed thus it no longer correctly referenced. The standard should recognize that ANSI B11.0 is a 2015 document and now has the shortened title, "Safety of Machinery". Page 45 of 45