Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

ARTICLE 810 RADIO AND TELEVISION EQUIPMENT _____________________________________________________________ 16-227 Log #1551 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (810) ________________________________________________________________ TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee understands that the revisions in 810.54, Exception were to be made to the existing Exception text. The Technical Correlating Committee directs the panel to correct the Exceptions to 810.57 to make them into complete sentences. This action will be considered by the panel as a public comment. Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on National Electrical Code, Recommendation: Delete the term effectively from the terms effectively grounded and effectively bonded from Articles 810 and revise text as shown for the affected NEC sections. 810.20(A) Exception: Exception: Where the lead-in conductors are enclosed in a continuous metallic shield that either is permanently and effectively grounded with a conductor in accordance with 810.21 or is protected by an antenna discharge unit. 810.21(F)(3): (3) If the building or structure served has no grounding means, as described in 810.21(F)(1) or (F)(2), to an effectively grounded metal structure or to any of the individual electrodes described in 250.52 810.54 Exception: Exception No. 1: Where protected by a continuous metallic shield that is permanently and effectively grounded with a conductor in accordance with 810.58 . 810.55 Except where protected with a continuous metallic shield that is permanently and effectively grounded with a conductor in accordance with 810.58 , lead-in conductors for transmitting stations shall enter buildings by one of the following methods: 810.57 Exception No. 1: Exception No. 1: Where protected by a continuous metallic shield that is permanently and effectively grounded with a conductor in accordance with 810.58 . 810.57 Exception No. 2: Exception No. 2: Where the antenna is permanently and effectively grounded with a conductor in accordance with 810.58 . 810.71(B): (B) Grounding of Controls. All external metal handles and controls accessible to the operating personnel shall be effectively connected to an equipment grounding conductor if the transmitter is powered by the premises wiring system or grounded with a conductor in accordance with 810.21 . Substantiation: 810.20(A) Exception: The definition of effectively grounded is ambiguous and very subjective without any defined values or parameters for one to judge as either effective or ineffective. Revise to be more specific and prescriptive for the users. 810.21(F)(3): The definition of effectively grounded is ambiguous and very subjective without any defined values or parameters for one to judge as either effective or ineffective. Here the reference to effectively grounded metal structure seems superfluous. 810.54 Exception: The definition of effectively grounded is ambiguous and very subjective without any defined values or parameters for one to judge as either effective or ineffective. Reference to 810.58 is proposed to replace appropriate here. 810.55: The definition of effectively grounded is ambiguous and very subjective without any defined values or parameters for one to judge as either effective or ineffective. Revise to be more specific and prescriptive for the users. Reference to 810.58 is proposed to replace appropriate here. 810.57 Exception No. 1: The definition of effectively grounded is ambiguous and very subjective without any defined values or parameters for one to judge as either effective or ineffective. Reference to 810.58 is proposed to replace appropriate here. 810.57 Exception No. 2: The definition of effectively grounded is ambiguous and very subjective without any defined values or parameters for one to judge as either effective or ineffective. Revise to be more specific and prescriptive for the users. Reference to 810.58 is proposed to replace appropriate here. 810.71(B): The definition of effectively grounded is ambiguous and very subjective without any defined values or parameters for one to judge as either effective or ineffective. Revise to be more specific and prescriptive for the users by requiring the connection to an equipment grounding conductor. This is the result of the TCC Task Group on Grounding and Bonding in resolve of the 2005 NEC cycle actions related to Proposal 5-1 and Comment 51 as directed by the Technical Correlating Committee. This is a companion proposal to delete the term grounded, effectively and its definition from Article 100 and other companion proposals throughout the NEC relative to this Task Groups recommendations. The substantiation of this proposal is as follows.

NFPA 70
The term Effectively Grounded is used 29 times in the NEC. It appears as though in the majority of the locations where it is used, the word grounded or phrase connected to an equipment grounding conductor could be used. Other proposals are submitted to make those changes. The 1996 NEC in Section 250.51 used the term effective grounding path, and those concepts were incorporated in 250.2 (1999 NEC) and then expanded in 250.4(A) and (B) in the 2002 NEC. The performance criteria of grounding and bonding are currently provided in Section 250.4 and include the concepts contained in the vague definition of the term effectively grounded. The definition Effectively Grounded is very subjective and without any defined values or parameters for one to judge grounding as either effective or ineffective. Effective is described in Section 250.4(A) and (B), but it relates to the effective ground-fault current path as a performance criteria. Deleting the term in the NEC and the definition is logical because there are no definitive parameters for Code users to make a determination on what constitutes effectively grounded. Systems are solidly grounded, grounded through a resistor or impedance, or ungrounded. Equipment (normally noncurrent-carrying metal parts are grounded where connected to an equipment grounding conductor. This proposal is to change the term Effectively Bonded to just Bonded in each of the section where it is used. The term Effectively Bonded is currently not defined in the NEC. The term effectively bonded is also used a few times in the NEC and is undefined. The same situation exists. There are no defined parameters for Code users to judges what the difference between Effectively Bonded and Bonded really is. Where the term appears in the NEC, it is revised to just bonded and still has the same meaning in each rule. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-228 Log #373 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (810(5)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: David Shapiro, Safety First Electrical Contracting, Consulting, and Safety Education Recommendation: Revise text as follows: ...They shall not be exposed to physical damage.... Substantiation: Use of the word physical is superfluousthe intent is obvious given the context. (I leave it to the CMP whether you want to get more specific naming some source of damage such as blows or abrasion.) Submitting proposals removing the adjective physical may strike people as about as useful as hunting gnats with a cannon. However, doing so seems worthwhile for two reasons. First, if we eliminate every unnecessary instance, as I am attempting to do, we actually cut the NEC down by up to oh, maybe a quarter-page. Keeping it from growing too much fatter every cycle is a goal many of us can agree on. Second, the unneeded use of physical not only is poor writinglook at William Zinssers classic, On Writing Wellbut is silly, and reflects a bit poorly on the Code process. When references were changed to physical damage, in 1959, from mechanical injury (with no substantiation recorded), an excellent opportunity was overlooked to eliminate the possibility of someone raising an eyebrow and saying fatuously, Is anyone claiming electrical equipment needs protection from non-physical injury? (Substitute the snide adjective of your choice.) Lets take care of that for good: for our purposes, damage means physical damage. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The grounding conductor is potentially subject to multiple sources of damage: electrical, physical, and environmental. The word physical is necessary to specifically identify the type of damage that the section is addressing. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-229 Log #2830 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (810.3) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: John Kacpenski, Western Telecommunications Consutling (WTC) Recommendation: Add new text as follows: 810.3 Other Articles. Penetrations of the fire-resistant room boundary shall be in accordance with 300.21. The accessible portion of abandoned network-powered communications cables shall not be permitted to remain. Substantiation: This addition will harmonize this Articles text with the following: 725.3(B), 760.3(A), 770.3(A), 800.3(C), 820.3(A), and 830.3(A) Also, being proposed for Article 645.7. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: Network-powered communications cables dont exist. However, see Article 830 for network-powered broadband communications cables. The submitters intent was not clear. The submitter is encouraged to review the proposal and resubmit for the ROC. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

70-937

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

_____________________________________________________________ 16-230 Log #2315 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (810.15 Exception) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Dudley, Amerisat Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read: Exception: Masts and metal structures supporting antennas, not electrically connected to lead-in conductors and mounted to nonconductive material, do not require grounding. Substantiation: In those instances where the lead-in conductors are not electrically connected to the mast or metal supporting structures and the mast is mounted to a nonconductive surface such as brick, wood, or block, the mast and supports should be exempt from this sections grounding requirement. This isolation inhibits surges from entering the location. This includes all accessible mounting locations, including those locations which are not the highest point on the structure. Note: Supporting Material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The submitter apparently proposes to add an exception to 810.15. A metallic structure such as an antenna support assembly or mast, when mounted to non-conductive surfaces such as masonry, roofing, wood, or vinyl, should be grounded to reduce the possibility of flash-over and risk of fire in the event of a lightning strike. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-231 Log #852 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (810.18(A)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Michael J. Johnston, Plano, TX Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: (A) Outside of Buildings Lead-in conductors attached to buildings shall be installed so that they cannot swing closer than 600 mm (2 ft) to the conductors of circuits of 250 volts or less between conductors, or 3.0 m (10 ft) to the conductors of circuits of over 250 volts between conductors, except that in the case of circuits not over 150 volts between conductors, where all conductors involved are supported so as to ensure permanent separation, the clearance shall be permitted to be reduced but shall not be less than 100 mm (4 in.). The clearance between lead-in conductors and any conductor forming a part of a lightning protection rod system shall not be less than 1.8 m (6 ft) unless the bonding referred to in 250.60 is accomplished . Underground conductors shall be separated at least 300 mm (12 in.) from conductors of any light or power circuits or Class 1 circuits. Exception: Where the electric light or power conductors, Class 1 conductors, or lead-in conductors are installed in raceways or metal cable armor. FPN No.1: See 250.60 for use of air terminals. For further information, see NFPA 780-2004, Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems, which contains detailed information on grounding, bonding, and spacing from lightning protection systems. FPN No. 2: Metal raceways, enclosures, frames, and other non-currentcarrying metal parts of electric equipment installed on a building equipped with a lightning protection system may require bonding or spacing from the lightning protection conductors in accordance with NFPA 780-2004, Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems. Separation from lightning protection conductors is typically 1.8 m (6 ft) through air or 900 mm (3 ft) through dense materials such as concrete, brick, or wood. Substantiation: The term lightning protection system is more accurate than lighting rod system. 250.60 and 250.106 were revised in recent cycles to remove specific separation distances required between down leads of lighting protection systems and other systems or metal parts which has more to do with installations of those systems. This information should be covered by the requirements in NFPA 780. It appears that this same separation requirement is still left in this section and is no longer needed. The FPNs are identical to those following 250.106 and provide the information and references users need relative to what is required for separation and what Standard applies. Ground terminals of lightning protection systems are required to be bonded to the power system grounding electrodes as specified in 250.106. 810.21(J) requires the electrode for the radio and antenna equipment to be bonded to the power system electrode with bonding jumper not smaller than 6 AWG copper or equivalent. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-232 Log #3354 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (810.21(A)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Dobrowsky, Holley, NY Recommendation: Revise text to read: 810.21 Grounding Conductors Receiving Stations. Grounding conductors shall comply with 810.21(A) through 810.21(K). (A) Material. The grounding conductor shall be of copper, aluminum, copperclad steel, bronze, or similar corrosion-resistant material. Bare aluminum Aluminum or copper-clad aluminum grounding conductors shall not be used

NFPA 70
where in direct contact with masonry or the earth or where subject to corrosive conditions. Where used outside, aluminum or copper-clad aluminum grounding conductors shall not be installed terminated within 450 mm (18 in.) of the earth. Substantiation: The language should be changed to be consistent with that of 260.66(A). Aluminum conductors are commonly used outside such as for service drops, service laterals. The issue is with bare conductors and the termination of aluminum conductors. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The proximity of the grounding conductor to the earth is the requirmment of the section. Further, no additional technical justification was provided. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-233 Log #1254 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (810.21(A) and (D)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Daniel Leaf, Seneca, SC Recommendation: Revise last sentence of (A): Where used outside, aluminum or copper-clad aluminum not in a rigid type raceway, and connections to a grounding electrode, shall not be installed within 450 mm (18 in.) of the earth. (D) Insert as second sentence: The grounding conductor shall be permitted to be protected by a rigid type conduit, electrical metallic tubing, or cable armor. Revise last sentence: Where the grounding conductor is run in a metal raceway conduit, electrical metallic tubing, or cable armor , both ends of the raceway or cable armor shall be bonded...(remainder unchanged) Substantiation: It is unclear whether the intent of this requirement was to apply to open conductors or conductors in a rigid raceway such as conduit or tubing. Metal raceway includes flexible metal conduits, which may provide choke effects to high frequency lightning induced currents. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The submitter does not provide adequate technical substantiation. It is not necessary to provide an all-inclusive list of the types of metal raceways that may be encountered. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-234 Log #374 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (810.21(D)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: David Shapiro, Safety First Electrical Contracting, Consulting, and Safety Education Recommendation: Revise text as follows: ...The grounding conductor shall be protected where exposed to physical damage.... Substantiation: Use of the word physical is superfluousthe intent is obvious given the context. (I leave it to the CMP whether you want to get more specific naming some source of damage such as blows or abrasion.) Submitting proposals removing the adjective physical may strike people as about as useful as hunting gnats with a cannon. However, doing so seems worthwhile for two reasons. First, if we eliminate every unnecessary instance, as I am attempting to do, we actually cut the NEC down by up to oh, maybe a quarter-page. Keeping it from growing too much fatter every cycle is a goal many of us can agree on. Second, the unneeded use of physical not only is poor writinglook at William Zinssers classic, On Writing Wellbut is silly, and reflects a bit poorly on the Code process. When references were changed to physical damage, in 1959, from mechanical injury (with no substantiation recorded), an excellent opportunity was overlooked to eliminate the possibility of someone raising an eyebrow and saying fatuously, Is anyone claiming electrical equipment needs protection from non-physical injury? (Substitute the snide adjective of your choice.) Lets take care of that for good: for our purposes, damage means physical damage. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The grounding conductor is potentially subject to multiple sources of damage: electrical, physical, and environmental. The word physical is necessary to specifically identify the type of damage that the section is addressing. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-235 Log #857 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (810.21(D)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Michael J. Johnston, Plano, TX Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: (D) Mechanical Protection. The grounding conductor shall be protected where exposed to physical damage, or the size of the grounding conductors shall be increased proportionately to compensate for the lack of protection .

70-938

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

Where the grounding conductor is run in a metal raceway, both ends of the raceway shall be bonded to the grounding conductor or to the same terminal or electrode to which the grounding conductor is connected. Substantiation: This requirement in its current form is vague and unenforceable. There are no specific parameters to establish a starting point for making a proportional adjustment in size from the minimum sizes provided in 810.21(H) to compensate for the lack of protection. In its current form, this text is subjective and leads to inconsistencies in enforcement due to the lack of specific parameters. How much of a proportional increase is enough? This section should provide enforcement only with language that can be used to require physical protection where it is judged that the grounding conductor would be subjected to. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

NFPA 70

_____________________________________________________________ 16-237 Log #1992 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (810.21(F)) _____________________________________________________________ TCC Action: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that this Proposal be reconsidered and correlated with the action on Proposal 16-236. This action will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment. It was also the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that this Proposal be referred to Code-Making Panel 5 for information. Submitter: Neil F. LaBrake, Jr., Niagara Mohawk, a National Grid Company / Rep. Edison Electric Institute-Electric Light & Power Group Recommendation: Add these two sentences after the last sentence of 810.21(F): A device intended to provide a termination point for the grounding conductor (inter-system bonding) shall be prohibited from use when the installation of _____________________________________________________________ such device interferes with opening a service or metering equipment enclosure. 16-236 Log #1891 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept An inter-system bonding device shall not be installed on an enclosure cover. (810.21(F)) Substantiation: Poor grounding practices by installers of CATV, telephone, _____________________________________________________________ satellite and other communication systems using termination devices that clamp TCC Action: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that to enclosure covers have resulted in interruption of grounding continuity. This this Proposal be reconsidered and correlated with the action on Proposal is a companion proposal to proposals to add this requirement to 800.100(B), 5-20. This action will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment. 820.100(B), and 830.100(B). Submitter: Jeffrey Boksiner, Telcordia Technologies, Inc. / Rep. Alliance for Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Telecommunications Industry Solutions Add the following after the last sentence of 810.21(F): Recommendation: Revise 810.21(F) Grounding Conductors Receiving A device intended to provide a termination point for the grounding conductor Stations. (Electrode) as follows: shall not interfere with the opening of an equipment enclosure. A bonding (F) Electrode. The grounding conductor shall be connected as follows: device shall be mounted on non-removable parts. A bonding device shall not be (1) In Buildings or Structures with an Intersystem Grounding mounted on a door or cover even if the door or cover is non-removable. Termination. If the building or structure served has an intersystem grounding Panel Statement: The panel accepts the intent of the submitter and has termination the grounding conductor shall be connected to the intersystem reworded the text for clarity. It is requested that the TCC forward to Panel 5 for grounding termination. take similar action as applicable. ( 1) (2) In Buildings or Structures with Grounding Means. If the building Number Eligible to Vote: 15 or structure served has no intersystem grounding termination, the grounding Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 conductor shall be connected to the nearest accessible location on the Comment on Affirmative: BRUNSSEN, J.: The submitters text, as modified by the Panel, should following: .................. be placed following the existing text of 810.21(F)(e.) rather than at the end ..................Retain existing list and text. of 810.21(F). Section 810.21(F)(e.) specifically addresses connection to the ................... service equipment enclosure and that is the issue that the submitter intended to address. (2) (3) In Buildings or Structures Without Intersystem Grounding Termination or Grounding Means. If the building or structure served has ARTICLE 820 COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISON no intersystem grounding termination or grounding means, as described in AND RADIO DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS 810.21(F)(1), a) to any one of the individual electrodes described in 250.52; or _____________________________________________________________ b) (3) If the building or structure served has no grounding means, as 16-238 Log #755 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept described in 810.21(F)(1) or (F)(2), to an effectively grounded metal structure (820 V. (title)) or to any of the individual electrodes described in 250.52. _____________________________________________________________ Substantiation: This is one of several correlated proposals (100 Definitions, Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. 250.95, Chapter 8 Articles) to improve the requirements related to intersystem Recommendation: Change title: From V. Cables Within Buildings bonding and grounding of communication systems. The intent is to create a To V. Installation Methods Within Buildings dedicated and well-defined location for terminating the grounding conductors required in Chapter 8 Articles and accomplishing the intersystem bonding Substantiation: This proposal is editorial. (Task Group No. 820-01) The sections included under V. include more than cables and the between communication and power systems. The proposed termination would have sufficient capacity to handle multiple communication systems (telecom, recommended change is more descriptive. This title is consistent with similar satellite, cable) on premises. The proposed revision makes the intersystem recommendations for Articles 770, 800 and 830. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial bonding terminal the preferred destination for grounding conductor in Article 810. See the figures I have provided. Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: Intersystem bonding accomplished by connection of a communication 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar grounding conductor to the power system is an important safety measure to prevent occurrences of voltages between communication system and power requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, system. However, the existing requirements are not adequate. Bonding is 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. becoming difficult to implement due to changes in building construction The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, practices such as increased prevalence of flush construction and use of PVC conduits. Frequently, in new construction, the grounding electrode, the raceway Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. and the grounding electrode conductor are hidden behind walls and not Panel Meeting Action: Accept accessible for bonding connection. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Even in older construction with accessible equipment, the requirement Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 for installation of intersystem bonding connection is subject to varying interpretation because there is not a clearly defined dedicated bonding location. _____________________________________________________________ The connection to the power system is sometimes haphazard. Installers are 16-239 Log #2695 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject sometimes confused over where the connection should be made especially if (820.2) multiple Communication Systems are present on premises. _____________________________________________________________ In addition this proposal modifies the arrangement of the text in 810.21 to Submitter: Harold C. Ohde, IBEW #134 look similar to other Article in Chapter 8. Recommendation: Delete the following: Note: Supporting Material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. 820.2 Air Duct. A conduit or passageway for conveying air to or from Panel Meeting Action: Accept heating, cooling, air conditioning, or ventilating equipment, but not including Number Eligible to Vote: 15 the plenum. [NFPA 97:1.2.6] Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Substantiation: This is an editorial proposal to remove the term air duct as this term is not used in Article 800. The term air duct should not be defined in the article, as per the National Electrical Code Style Manual.

70-939

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The Panel is acting on this and other proposals related to wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, in pertinent part, as follows: So as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of NFPA 90A. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: JENSEN, R.: We believe that the interpretation of whether being allowed to address this proposal in view of the NFPA Standard Council Long Decision 0524 (SC #05-7-4) was misunderstood. We agree with deleting the term air duct as it was evidently an oversight that it was not removed during the last code cycle. Air duct was introduced for use with air duct cable which was not to be used in the 2005 code. Additionally, the term is not used within Article 800. To further not using this term, in proposal 16-29, the panel revised the proposal to not use air duct, but instead to harmonize code language by using the term ventilation or air handling ducts. OHDE, H.: We do not believe that the NFPA Standards Council Long Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) would prohibit this definition of Air Duct from being deleted. We do believe that expansion of or new definition of Air Duct would be in violation of NFPA Standards Council Long Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4). This proposal should have been accepted. This proposal was to remove the definition of Air Duct from 820.2 as this term is not used in Article 820. _____________________________________________________________ 16-240 Log #2364 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.2.Abandoned Coaxial Cable) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: John H. Schmidt, ABC Television Network Recommendation: In the definition for Abandoned Coaxial Cable, after the words and not identified for future use with a tag add the new text or in a database. Substantiation: In modern large systems, cables are often identified with a number at each end, and the function of the cable is listed in a database referencing that number. This database should be adequate to identify cables for future use. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The AHJ is unlikely to have access to the database for every building under his/her jurisdiction. The majority of communications technicians (installation/repair) work at a multiplicity of locations. Database administrative responsibility is not identified in the proposal. Maintaining and referencing a database for every location is cumbersome, unwieldy, and impractical. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-241 Log #2684 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.2. Abandoned Coaxial Cable) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Charles M. Trout, Maron Electric Co. Inc. Recommendation: Revise 820.2 Abandoned Coaxial Cable to read: Installed coaxial cable that is not terminated at equipment other than a coaxial connector and not identified for future use with a tag which is of a material impervious to the deleterious effects of temperature and dampness. The tag shall be resistant to the effects of gnawing by rodents. The tag shall contain the following information: (1) Date tag was installed. (2) Date of intended use of disconnected cable. (3) Drawing or file number containing information relating to intended future use of disconnected cable. The date of intended use of disconnected cable shall not exceed 90 days date of disconnection. Substantiation: Abandoned cables are a growing problem in the industry. These cables are left for others to deal with when present users discontinue their operation. Understanding this problem, the removal of abandoned cables, is required by articles 640, 645, 725, 760, 770, 800, 820, and 830. Section 820.3(A) requires the removal of abandoned communications cables. Tagging of cables intended for future use without a method of ensuring the intention of future use invites tagging of cables to avoid the responsibility of their proper removal.

NFPA 70
Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: While the submitter makes the point that the tagging requirements may be used to circumvent abandoned cable removal, the proposed additional requirements are impractical, burdensome, and preclude the pre-wiring of buildings. For example, buildings are often pre-wired for CATV. While the current tenant may not require all the coaxial cable prewiring, future tenants may have additional needs and require the additional wiring. Allowing only 90 days is insufficient to support pre-wiring. A tag that is immune to temperature, dampness, and rodents needs to be of special material and would likely require special means to mark the tag. Adding a file number implies the existence of a database. No suggestion is provided as to who would be responsible for populating and maintaining the database. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-242 Log #3013 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.2. Abandoned Coaxial Cable ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 820.2 Definitions. Abandoned Coaxial Cable. Installed coaxial cable that is not terminated at equipment other than a coaxial connector and not identified for future use with a tag. Substantiation: The definitions of abandoned cable in every article should be identical. The relevant articles are: 640, 645, 725, 760, 770, 800, 820 and 830. The definitions at articles 640 and 725 are already correct as follows: 640.2: Abandoned Audio Distribution Cable. Installed audio distribution cable that is not terminated at equipment and not identified for future use with a tag. 725.2: Abandoned Class 2, Class 3, and PLTC Cable. Installed Class 2, Class 3, and PLTC cable that is not terminated at equipment and not identified for future use with a tag. The additional wording in this definition causes confusion. Proposals are being made to make changes to the definitions in articles 770, 800, 820 and 830, and to add a general definition into article 645 and into article 100. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-1. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: OHDE, H.: This proposal should be accepted as submitted. The submitter substantiates that the definitions of abandoned cables in Articles 640, 645, 725, 760, 770, 800, 820, and 830 should be identical. This proposal deletes unnecessary language in the present definitions and provides consistent language throughout the above articles mentioned. The panel statement does not explain the reason for rejecting this proposal other than to see panel action on Proposal 16-1. _____________________________________________________________ 16-243 Log #2664 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.2. Air Duct ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert W. Jensen, dbi / Rep. BICSI, A Telecommunications Association Recommendation: Delete the following text: 820.2 Air Duct. A conduit or passageway for conveying air to or from heating, cooling, air conditioning, or ventilating equipment, but not including the plenum. [NFPA 97:1.2.6] Substantiation: Air duct is not a term used in Article 800. This was an apparent miss in the 2005 editorial review under the Standards Council mandate to remove content related to air duct cable. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, in pertinent part, as follows: So as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of NFPA 90A. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 2

70-940

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

Explanation of Negative: JENSEN, R.: We believe that the interpretation of whether being allowed to address this proposal in view of the NFPA Standard Council Long Decision 0524 (SC #05-7-4) was misunderstood. We agree with deleting the term air duct as it was evidently an oversight that it was not removed during the last code cycle. Air duct was introduced for use with air duct cable which was not to be used in the 2005 code. Additionally, the term is not used within Article 800. To further not using this term, in proposal 16-29, the panel revised the proposal to not use air duct, but instead to harmonize code language by using the term ventilation or air handling ducts. OHDE, H.: See my Explanation of Negative on Proposal 16-239.

NFPA 70

In addition, Section 90.1(C) of the NEC states This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for the untrained persons . The addition of the FPN referencing Article 100 for the definition of raceway is not needed nor warranted. A trained installer will know the Code content and how the Code book is to be used. _____________________________________________________________ 16-246 Log #757 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (820.2.CATV Raceway (New) ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Add the following definition: CATV Raceway. A raceway designed for enclosing and routing listed CATV coaxial cables. _____________________________________________________________ Substantiation: This proposal is technical. (Task Group No. 820-03) 16-244 Log #781 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept Optical fiber raceway is defined in article 770. This proposal will add a (820.2.Cable, coaxial (New) ) parallel definition in article 820. A similar definition is needed here. _____________________________________________________________ This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: Recommendation: Add a definition as follows: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; Cable, coaxial. A cylindrical assembly composed of a conductor centered 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar inside a metallic tube or shield, separated by a dielectric material, and usually requirements are stated the same way in each Article; covered by an insulating jacket. 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, Substantiation: This proposal is editorial and technical. (Task Group No. 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. 820-27) The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, The term cable is used throughout the Article without being defined. This Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Proposal corrects this omission and provides a definition parallel with 800.2. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-245. Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: Number Eligible to Vote: 15 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 2 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar Explanation of Negative: requirements are stated the same way in each Article; HUGHES, R.: The Panel action should have been to reject. The definition 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, for Optical Fibers Raceway was created specifically to define Innerduct. 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. Innerduct is used only for Optical Fibers and nothing else. The definition of The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, raceway in Article 100 is adequate and there is no reason to create a specific Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. definition Communication Raceway. Panel Meeting Action: Accept OHDE, H.: See my Explanation of Negative on Proposal 16-245. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-247 Log #24 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject _____________________________________________________________ (820.2. Concealed Space ) 16-245 Log #41 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle _____________________________________________________________ (820.2. CATV Raceway ) Submitter: Stanley Kaufman, Cable Safe Inc. _____________________________________________________________ Recommendation: Revise as follows: Submitter: Stanley Kaufman, Cable Safe Inc. Concealed Space. That portion(s) of a building behind walls, over suspended Recommendation: Revise as follows: ceilings, in pipe chases, attics, and in whose size might normally range from CATV Raceway. A raceway designed for enclosing and routing listed CATV 44.45 mm (1 3/4 in.) stud spaces to 2.44 m (8 ft) interstitial truss spaces and cables. that might contain combustible materials such as building structural members, FPN: See Article 100 for a definition of raceway. thermal and/or electrical insulation, and ducting. [NFPA 96:3.3.42.1] Substantiation: Optical Fiber Raceway is defined in Article 770. CATV Substantiation: The term concealed space is used in 820.154(A). This raceway should be defined too. definition is an extract from NFPA 96, Standard for Ventilation Control and Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations. It is the only definition of Add new definition to 820.2 as follows: concealed space in the NFPA Glossary. CATV Raceway. A raceway for enclosing and routing CATV cables. Panel Meeting Action: Reject FPN: See Article 100 for a definition of raceway. Panel Statement: The definition may involve combustible material in Panel Statement: Added new definition. environmental air spaces and, therefore, may fall under the Standards Council Removed design, as specification does not belong in a definition. Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4). Removed listed, as specification does not belong in a definition per NEC The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to wire and cable Manual of Style. in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA Standards Council The change meets the submitters intent. Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, in pertinent part, Number Eligible to Vote: 15 as follows: Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12 Negative: 3 So as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA Explanation of Negative: 90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air HUGHES, R.: The Panel action should have been to reject. The definition Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to for Optical Fibers Raceway was created specifically to define Innerduct. plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A Innerduct is used only for Optical Fibers and nothing else. The definition of revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo raceway in Article 100 is adequate and there is nt reason to create a specific in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the definition Communication Raceway. processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of JENSEN, R.: Propose to remove the FPN from the definition, thereby NFPA 90A. extending the committee action of Accept in Principle. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the CMP 16 accepted proposal 16-5 to harmonize 770.2, 800.2, 820.2, and 830.2 substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. by including a normative reference to See Article 100. Adding a FPN to Number Eligible to Vote: 15 again See Article 100 is redundant, especially since this FPN will be a few Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 lines down from the identical wording in normative text. Additionally, the Comment on Affirmative: 2003NEC Style Manual specifically states to avoid redundant use of references. OHDE, H.: We agree with panel action and believe that the panel statement OHDE, H.: This definition would require that any raceway that is used should also reflect the latest NFPA 13 Technical Committee actions since the for enclosing and routing CATV cables be listed to the requirements shown submitter is trying to define the term concealed spaces. We would like to 820.182. This section states CATV raceways shall be listed in accordance with add that NFPA 13 just completed their balloting process for the 2006 NFPA 820.182(A) through 820.182(C). There are metal raceways, for example, that 13 Standard. The Technical Committee on Sprinkler Installation submitted a are allowed to enclose communications cables but are not required to be listed comment on Proposal 13-284. plenum raceways or riser raceways. These listings are typically for nonmetallic This comment reworded proposed A.8.14.1.2.1 to read Minor quantities raceways. of combustible materials such as but not limited to: cabling, nonmetallic plumbing piping, non-structural wood, etccan be present in concealed

70-941

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

spaces constructed of limited or noncombustible materials but should not be viewed as requiring sprinklers (see 8.14.1.1) For example, it is not the intent of this section to require sprinklers, which would not otherwise be required, in the interstitial space of a typical office building solely due to the presence of the usual amount of cabling within the space. The threshold value at which sprinklers become necessary in the concealed space is not defined . In the NFPA 13 committees substantiation, they wanted to clarify that the normal amount of cabling would not require sprinklers due to the construction of the space. They also expanded the list of combustibles to provide examples of potential combustible loading. _____________________________________________________________ 16-248 Log #1858 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (820.2.Exposed (to Accidental Contact)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: James E. Brunssen, Telecordia Technologies Inc. / Rep. Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions Recommendation: Revise the definition of Exposed as follows: Exposed (to Accidental Contact) . An exposed cable is one that is A circuit in such a position that, in case of failure of supports and or insulation, contact with another circuit may result. Substantiation: The proposed revision clarifies the term Exposed as used in Article 820 to indicate possible contact with another circuit, as opposed to the definitions of Exposed contained in Article 100, i.e., live parts or wiring methods. The style used to differentiate the term is identical to that of Article 100 for consistency. The word and is deleted and replaced by the word or as either of the conditions, failure of supports or failure of insulation, may result in accidental contact. Replacing of the phrase An exposed cable is one that is with the phrase A circuit provides a consistent definition throughout Articles 770, 800, 820 and 830. This is a companion proposal to 770.2, 800.2 and 830.2. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-249. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-249 Log #1938 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.2.Exposed (to Accidental Contact)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stanley D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Revise the definition of Exposed as follows: Exposed ( to Accidental Contact ). An exposed cable is one that is A circuit in such a position that, in case of failure of supports and or insulation, contact with another circuit may result. FPN: See Article 100 for two other definitions of Exposed. Substantiation: This proposal is a clarification. (Task Group No. 820-03A) It clarifies the term Exposed as used in Article 820 to indicate possible contact with another circuit, as opposed to the definitions of Exposed contained in Article 100, i.e., live parts or wiring methods. The style used to differentiate the term is identical to that of Article 100 for consistency. The text was also changed to clarify that it is the circuit that is exposed rather than just the cable. The word and is deleted and replaced by the word or as either of the conditions, failure of supports or failure of insulation, may result in accidental contact. This is a companion proposal to those submitted for 770.2; 800.2; and 830.2 and provides consistency and correlation in the definition of exposed across 770; 800; 820 and 830. This is one of a group of proposals prepared by the CMP 16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each article; 3) make the articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-250 Log #39 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (820.2. Point of Entrance ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stanley Kaufman, Cable Safe Inc. Recommendation: Revise as follows: Point of Entrance. The point within a building at which the cable emerges from an external wall, from a concrete floor slab, or from a rigid metal conduit (Type RMC) or an intermediate metal conduit (Type IMC) grounded to an electrode in accordance with 820.100(B). FPN: See 342.2 for a definition of Intermediate Metal Conduit (Type IMC). FPN: See 344.2 for a definition of Rigid Metal Conduit (Type RMC).

NFPA 70
Substantiation: The addition of a fine print notes pointing installers to the definitions of intermediate metal conduit and rigid metal conduit will help installers who are not Code experts. Use of the type designations will promote consistency throughout the code. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle The panel accepts the submitters proposal with the following revisions: Number FPNs as follows: FPN No. 1: See 342.2 for a definition of Intermediate Metal Conduit (Type IMC). FPN No. 2: See 344.4 for a definition of Rigid Metal Conduit (Type RMC). Panel Statement: Multiple FPNs are required to be numbered. See panel action on Proposal 16-251. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: OHDE, H.: This proposal should be rejected. Section 90.1 (C ) of the NEC states This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for the untrained persons . The addition of the two FPNs referencing the definitions of IMC raceway in 342.2 and RMC raceway in 344.4 is not needed nor warranted. In the submitters substantiation he states these Fine Print Notes will help installers who are not Code experts. A trained installer will know the Code content and how the Code book is to be used. Comment on Affirmative: JENSEN, R.: The panel action regarding FPN No. 2 for Rigid Metal Conduit should refer to 344.2, not 344.4. _____________________________________________________________ 16-251 Log #756 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (820.2. Point of Entrance ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Add the term coaxial to the definition as shown: Point of Entrance. The point within a building at which the coaxial cable emerges from an external wall, from a concrete floor slab, or from a rigid metal conduit or an intermediate metal conduit grounded to an electrode in accordance with 820.100(B). Substantiation: This proposal is a clarification, (Task Group No. 820-02) It is one of a series of proposals to clarify that Article 820 deals with coaxial cable. Adding the word coaxial adds clarity to the section for the code user. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Change 820.2 Point of Entrance to read as follows: Point of Entrance. The point within a building at which the coaxial cable emerges from an external wall, from a concrete floor slab, or from a rigid metal conduit (Type RMC) or an intermediate metal conduit (Type IMC) grounded connected by a grounding conductor to an electrode in accordance with 820.100(B). FPN No 1: See 342.2 for a definition of Intermediate Metal Conduit (Type IMC). FPN No.2: See 344.4 for a definition of Rigid Metal Conduit (Type RMC). Panel Statement: The text inserted by the panel, connected by a grounding conductor, provides for editorial consistency across Articles 770, 800, 820, and 830. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: OHDE, H.: See my Explanation of Negative on Proposal 16-250. _____________________________________________________________ 16-252 Log #3662 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.2 Air Duct) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International / Rep. American Fire Safety Council Recommendation: Delete the following text: 820.2 Air Duct. A conduit or passageway for conveying air to or from heating, cooling, air conditioning, or ventilating equipment, but not including the plenum. Substantiation: The term air duct is not used in article 820 and should not be defined in the article, as per the manual of style of the National Electrical Code. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, in pertinent part, as follows:

70-942

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

So as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of NFPA 90A. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: JENSEN, R.: We believe that the interpretation of whether being allowed to address this proposal in view of the NFPA Standard Council Long Decision 0524 (SC #05-7-4) was misunderstood. We agree with deleting the term air duct as it was evidently an oversight that it was not removed during the last code cycle. Air duct was introduced for use with air duct cable which was not to be used in the 2005 code. Additionally, the term is not used within Article 800. To further not using this term, in proposal 16-29, the panel revised the proposal to not use air duct, but instead to harmonize code language by using the term ventilation or air handling ducts. OHDE, H.: See my Explanation of Negative on Proposal 16-239.

NFPA 70

FPN: Use of Article 830 wiring methods will facilitate the upgrading of Article 820 installations to network-powered broadband applications Substantiation: This proposal is editorial and technical. (Task Group No. 82004) To correlate with other proposals from the Task Group, this proposal deletes 820.3(A) and (B). The substantiation for deletion of (A) is that the requirements are being moved to other, more appropriate sections. The substantiation for deletion of (B) is to remove a conflict. This proposal creates a Section on hazardous locations for Article 820 and a Section on Equipment used in other spaces for environmental air. These sections are required in Article 820. In addition, this proposal makes 820 text comparable to parallel articles in 800 and 830. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Part Revise 820.3 to read as follows: 820.3 Other Articles. Circuits and equipment shall comply with 820.3(A) _____________________________________________________________ through 820.3(G). (A) Hazardous (Classified) Locations. CATV equipment installed in a 16-253 Log #42 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.2.Abandoned Coaxial Cable, FPN (New) ) location that is classified in accordance with 500.5 shall comply with the _____________________________________________________________ applicable requirements of Chapter 5. Submitter: Stanley Kaufman, Cable Safe Inc. (B) Ducts, Plenums, and Other Air-Handling Spaces. Section 300.22, where Recommendation: Add a fine print note to the definition of Abandoned installed in ducts, plenums, or other spaces used for environmental air, shall Coaxial Cable apply. Abandoned Coaxial Cable. Installed coaxial cable that is not terminated at Exception: As permitted in 820.154(A). equipment other than a coaxial connector and not identified for future use with (C) Installation and Use. Section 110.3 shall apply. (D) Installations of Conductive and Nonconductive Optical Fiber Cables. a tag. FPN: See Article 100 for a definition of equipment. Article 770 shall apply. (E) Communications Circuits. Article 800 shall apply. Substantiation: The addition of a fine print note alerting installers that (F) Network-Powered Broadband Communications Systems. Article 830 shall equipment is defined in Article 100 will help installers who are not Code experts. apply. (G) Alternate Wiring Methods. The wiring methods of Article 830 shall be Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 permitted to substitute for the wiring methods of Article 820. FPN: Use of Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 2 Article 830 wiring methods will facilitate the upgrading of Article 820 Explanation of Negative: installations to network-powered broadband applications JENSEN, R.: Propose to Reject. Panel Statement: The panel accepts the submitters deletion of subsection CMP 16 accepted proposal 16-5 to harmonize 700.2, 800.2, 820.2, and 830.2 (A). The panel rejects the submitters revision of subsection (B). by including a normative reference to See Article 100. Adding a FPN to The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to wire and cable in again See Article 100 is redundant, especially since this FPN will be a few lines down from the identical wording in normative text. Additionally, the 2003 plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA Standards Council NEC Style Manual specifically states to avoid redundant use of references. Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, in pertinent part, OHDE, H.: This proposal should be rejected. Section 90.1 (C ) of the NEC as follows: So as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A states This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for the untrained persons . In the submitters substantiation he states into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air this FPN will help installers who are not Code experts. The addition of the FPN Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to referencing Article 100 for the definition of equipment is not needed nor plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A warranted. A trained installer will know the Code content and how the Code revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo book is to be used. in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the _____________________________________________________________ processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of 16-254 Log #758 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Part NFPA 90A. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the (820.3) _____________________________________________________________ substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Recommendation: Revise 820.3 Other Articles as follows: Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 820.3 Other Articles. Circuits and equipment shall comply with 820.3(A) _____________________________________________________________ through 820.3(G). 16-255 Log #3103 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (A) Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Section 300.21 shall apply. (820.3) The accessible portion of abandoned coaxial cables shall be removed. _____________________________________________________________ (B) Ducts, Plenums, and Other Air-Handling Spaces. Section 300.22 , Submitter: Donald Hall, Corning Cable Systems where installed in ducts, plenums, or other spaces used for environmental air, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 820.3 Other Articles. shall apply. Circuits and equipment shall comply with 820.3(A) through 820.3(G). Exception: As permitted in 820.154(A). (A) Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. 300.21 shall apply. The (A) Hazardous (Classified) Locations. CATV equipment installed in a location that is classified in accordance with 500.5 shall comply with the accessible portion of a Abandoned network-powered broadband coxial cables applicable requirements of Chapter 5. shall be removed. Also, add the following FPN to 820.3(A): (B) Equipment in Other Space Used for Environmental Air . Section FPN: ANSI/NECA/BICSI 568-2001, Standard for Installing Commercial 300.22(C)(2) shall apply. (C) Installation and Use . Section 110.3 shall apply. Building Telecommunications Cabling, and other industry standards provide (D) Installations of Conductive and Nonconductive Optical Fiber Cables . recommended cable installation practices which facilitate the eventual removal Article 770 shall apply. of cables as they become abandoned. (E) Communications Circuits. Article 800 shall apply. Substantiation: Abandoned cable should be removed to reduce unnecessary (F) Network-Powered Broadband Communications Systems. Article 830 accumulation of fuel load and promote electrical safety. It is not reasonable or shall apply. necessary to install cables in a manner that prevents their eventual removal. The proposed FPN will provide useful information to architects, system (G) Alternate Wiring Methods. The wiring methods of Article 830 shall be permitted to substitute for the wiring methods of Article 820. designers, and installers to help minimize the cost and inconvenience of removing abandoned cable.

70-943

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The proposal would require all abandoned cable to be removed, irrespective of accessibility, presenting a compliance conundrum to installers. Without access, it is impossible to remove cables that are securely fastened without damaging the building or adjacent cables. The submitters substantiation states: It is not reasonable or necessary to install cables in a manner that prevents their eventual removal. However, the panel previously imposed additional securing and supporting requirements by referencing 300.11 in 820.24. Gaining access may sometimes require disassembly of part of the building. This is not the intent of the panel. The current requirement to remove only the accessible portion is reasonable. The submitter further proposes to add an FPN following 820.3(A) that is already contained in 820.24. Note that the submitter has referenced network-powered broadband coaxial cables, which are not covered by 820. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Comment on Affirmative: OHDE, H.: We concur with submitters substantiation and believe a change of wording will ensure that are abandoned cables are remove and prevent confusion in future. We suggest that the submitter resubmit his recommendation in the 2008 ROC stage in a more appropriate section with Part 1 General so these requirements will apply throughout the entire Article. The FPN that the submitter submitted is not required as this Standard is very basic and really does not provide enough information that is applicable to the removal of abandoned cables.

NFPA 70
Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: OHDE, H.: This proposal should have been accepted as originally submitted. The panel statement seems to be in conflict as it states the provisions of 300.21 will work well in the new proposed section 820.26 but not in 820.3(A) where it has always been properly located. The panel accepted the same 300.21 requirements whose concern is the spread of fire and products of combustion in hollow spaces, vertical shafts and ventilation and air- handling ducts caused by electrical installations and located them in 820.26.

_____________________________________________________________ 16-258 Log #3010 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.3(A)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 820.2 Definitions. Abandoned Coaxial Cable. Installed coaxial cable that is not terminated at equipment other than a coaxial connector and not identified for future use with a tag. 820.3 Other Articles. Circuits and equipment shall comply with 820.3(A) through 820.3(G). (A) Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Section 300.21 shall apply. The accessible portion of abandoned Abandoned coaxial cables shall be removed. Removal of abandoned cables shall not damage the building structure or finish and shall not compromise the performance of adjacent wiring systems _____________________________________________________________ or components. 16-256 Log #1386 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject Substantiation: This comment recommends a change in wording to ensure (820.3(A)) that abandoned cables are removed and to prevent confusion in future. There _____________________________________________________________ TCC Action: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that have been multiple proposals that would permit some cables to remain in inaccessible spaces. This is not conducive to safe electrical practice; this the this Proposal be reconsidered and correlated with the action on Proposal key change is the elimination of the words the accessible portion of. 16-257. This action will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment. If the intent of the code-making panel was to clarify that removal of cable Submitter: Mike Holt, Mike Holt Enterprises should not be done if such removal would damage the building, which is Recommendation: Delete text concerning abandoned cables obviously not the intent, a second sentence can be added stating that removal 820.3 Other Articles. of abandoned cables shall not be performed if it would damage the building Circuits and equipment shall comply with 820.3(A) through 820.3(G). structure or finish or in any way compromise the functional performance of (A) Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Section 300.21 shall apply. any other wiring systems or components. This would be accomplished by the The accessible portion of abandoned coaxial cables shall be removed. optional added sentence. Substantiation: The NEC is an installation standard, not a maintenance Consistent wording on removal of abandoned cables is being proposed for standard. Because of this, this rule should not be a part of the NEC. sections: 640.3, 725.3, 770.3, 770.154, 800.3, 800.154, 820.3, 820.154 and Furthermore, this provision does not accomplish its intent, as the code is not a retroactive document. To require abandoned cables to be removed is similar to 830.3. requiring facilities to update their receptacles to the new GFCI provision every For information, see the relevant definitions in the NEC. Accessible (as applied to equipment). Admitting close approach; not guarded three years. With that said, the only time this rule applies is when an installer by locked doors, elevation, or other effective means. creates an abandoned cable. Also, this provision does not fall within the Accessible (as applied to wiring methods). Capable of being removed or purpose of the NEC 90.1(A). The NEC is concerned with the hazards created from the use of electricitythis rule seems to imply that a cable with a voltage exposed without damaging the building structure or finish or not permanently closed in by the structure or finish of the building. applied to it is safe, but a cable with no voltage applied to it is dangerous. Accessible, Readily (Readily Accessible). Capable of being reached quickly Panel Meeting Action: Reject for operation, renewal, or inspections without requiring those to whom ready Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-26. access is requisite to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort to portable Number Eligible to Vote: 15 ladders, and so forth. Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Concealed. Rendered inaccessible by the structure or finish of the building. Wires in concealed raceways are considered concealed, even though they may _____________________________________________________________ become accessible by withdrawing them. 16-257 Log #2809 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Part Isolated (as applied to location). Not readily accessible to persons unless (820.3(A)) special means for access are used. _____________________________________________________________ Panel Meeting Action: Reject Submitter: Harold C. Ohde, IBEW #134 Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-28. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Number Eligible to Vote: 15 820.3 Other Articles. No change. Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 (A) Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Section 300.21 shall apply . Comment on Affirmative: The accessible portion of abandoned coaxial cables shall be removed. OHDE, H.: We concur with submitters substantiation and believe a Substantiation: The requirements for removal of abandoned coaxial cables change of wording will ensure that are abandoned cables are remove and would be better suited in appropriate code section within Article 820. I have prevent confusion in future. We suggest that the submitter resubmit his submitted another proposal that would move the abandoned coaxial cables recommendation in the 2008 ROC stage in a more appropriate section with requirements to 820.24 - Mechanical Execution of Work. The abandoned Part 1 General so these requirements will apply throughout the entire Article. coaxial cables requirements are out of place in 820.3 - Other Articles. The requirements are not part of another Article as they are part of Article 820 and _____________________________________________________________ are lcoated within Article 820. 16-259 Log #759 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle The deletion of the word Section is an editorial change to comply the (820.3(A), 820.25 (new) & 820.26 (new)) National Electrical Code Style Manual. Similar proposals have been submitted for 640.3, 725.3, 760.3, 770.3, 800.3, _____________________________________________________________ TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Panel and 830.3 to revise these sections as well. clarify the Panel Action on this Proposal regarding what is meant by Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Part reorder subsections of 820.3. This action will be considered by the Panel Panel Statement: The Panel accepts the part that deletes the second sentence as a Public Comment. of 820.3(A) concerning abandoned cables. The Panel rejects the proposed Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. revisions to the first sentence. Recommendation: Make the following changes: The panel agrees that the requirement to remove abandoned cable does 820.3 (A) Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Section 300.21 shall not belong in 820.3 and should be relocated. A direct reference to 300.21 is apply. The accessible portion of abandoned coaxial cables shall be removed. inappropriate, as it applies to electrical installations and not CATV (coaxial 820.25. Abandoned Cables. The accessible portion of abandoned coaxial cable) installations. See panel action on Proposal 16-259 that relocates the cables shall be removed. requirement to remove abandoned cable to 820.25 (new) and restates the spread of fire requirements in CATV (coaxial cable) terms in 820.26 (new).

70-944

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

820.26 Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Installations of coaxial cables and CATV raceways in hollow spaces, vertical shafts, and ventilation or air-handling ducts shall be made so that the possible spread of fire or products of combustion will not be substantially increased. Openings around penetrations of coaxial cables and CATV raceways through fire-resistantrated walls, partitions, floors, or ceilings shall be firestopped using approved methods to maintain the fire resistance rating. FPN: Directories of electrical construction materials published by qualified testing laboratories contain many listing installation restrictions necessary to maintain the fire-resistive rating of assemblies where penetrations or openings are made. Building codes also contain restrictions on membrane penetrations on opposite sides of a fire-resistancerated wall assembly. An example is the 600-mm (24-in.) minimum horizontal separation that usually applies between boxes installed on opposite sides of the wall. Assistance in complying with 820.26 can be found in building codes, fire resistance directories, and product listings. Substantiation: This proposal is editorial. (Task Group No. 820-05) The title of Section 820.3 is Other Articles. The requirement for the removal of abandoned cables is not in another article; it is in Article 820. It is out of place in section 820.3. This proposal will move it to a new section of Article 820. Rather than refer section 300.21 requirements for the prevention of the spread of fire, it is better to have the requirements in Article 820 which should be familiar to CATV installers. The text of proposed section 820.26 is based on section 300.21 but modified to apply to CATV cables and raceways. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle The panel accepts the submitters proposal. Reorder subsections of 820.3. Panel Statement: The panel accepts the submitters proposal. Editorial changes are made to reorder subsections of 820.3. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: OHDE, H.: This proposal should be deleted in its entirety. We agree that the requirements for the removal of abandoned cables are out of place in 820.3(A) and needs to be located in another section within Part 1 General. There are other proposed proposals with the same intent to locate the abandoned cable requirements that seem better suited and make good enforceable code. The substantiation provided to delete 820.3(A) which contains the requirements of 300.21 is unclear. The submitter stated the proposed 820.26 is based on the requirements of 300.21. There was no substantiation submitted for this change. In addition there is no need for the FPN to be mentioned as the language in 820.3(A) clearly states the requirements of 300.21 apply. 300.21 has the identical FPN that is being proposed.

NFPA 70

Substantiation: The title of Section 820.3 is Other Articles. The requirement for the removal of abandoned cables is not in another article; it is in Article 820. It is out of place in section 820.3. This proposal will move it to a new section of Article 820. Rather than refer section to 300.21 requirements for the prevention of the spread of fire, it is better to have the requirements in Article 820 which should be familiar to CATV installers. The text of proposed section 820.26 is based on section 300.21 but modified to apply to CATV cables and raceways. For clarity, ventilation or air-handling ducts has been simplified by replacing it with air ducts. Also, concealed spaces have been added to the list of areas requiring fire protection vigilance (hollow spaces, vertical shafts, and air ducts) to correlate with NFPA 13, Installation of Sprinkler Systems, which has requirements for protecting concealed spaces. A FPN is included to refer users to the NFPA 13 requirements. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part Panel Statement: The Panel accepts the submitters deletion of 820.3(C), the addition of 820.25 (new), and the addition of 820.26 (new), but revises air ducts to ventilation or air handling duct in keeping with the existing NEC text. See panel action on Proposal 16-259. The panel rejects the addition of FPN No. 2 because it introduces undefined terminology. Concealed spaces should be adequately defined. See action on Proposals 16-13, 16-110, and 16-247 where the proposed definition was determined to be unacceptable. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: OHDE, H.: This proposal should be deleted in its entirety. We agree that the requirements for the removal of abandoned cables are out of place in 820.3(A) and needs to be located in another section within Part 1 General. There are other proposed proposals with the same intent to locate the abandoned cable requirements that seem better suited and make good enforceable code. The substantiation provided to delete 820.3(A) which contains the requirements of 300.21 is unclear. The submitter stated the proposed 820.26 is based on the requirements of 300.21 but modified to apply to CATV cables and raceways. There was no substantiation submitted for this change. In addition there is no need for the FPN No.1 to be mentioned as the language in 820.3(A) clearly states the requirements of 300.21 apply. 300.21 has the identical FPN that is being proposed. We believe that the panel statement should also reflect the latest NFPA 13 Technical Committee actions. Included in the submitters substantiation was the 2002 Section 8.14 which since has been revised. We would like to add that NFPA 13 just completed their balloting process for the 2006 NFPA 13 Standard. The Technical Committee on Sprinkler Installation submitted a comment on Proposal 13-284. This comment reworded proposed A.8.14.1.2.1 to read Minor quantities of combustible materials such as but not limited to: cabling, nonmetallic plumbing piping, non-structural wood, etccan be present in concealed spaces constructed of limited or noncombustible materials but should not be viewed as requiring sprinklers (see 8.14.1.1) For example, it is not the intent of this section to require sprinklers, which would not otherwise be required, in the interstitial space of a typical office building solely due to the presence of the usual amount of cabling within the space. The threshold value at which sprinklers become necessary in the concealed space is not defined . In the NFPA 13 committees substantiation, they wanted to clarify that the _____________________________________________________________ 16-260 Log #2776 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part normal amount of cabling would not require sprinklers due to the construction (820.3(A), 820.25 (new) & 820.26 (new)) of the space. They also expanded the list of combustibles to provide examples _____________________________________________________________ of potential combustible loading. TCC Action: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that Comment on Affirmative: BRUNSSEN, J.: The Panel Statements refers to deletion of 820.3(C); it further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. This action will be considered by the panel as a public comment. should state deletion of 820.3(A). Submitter: Allen C. Weidman, The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. Recommendation: Make the following changes: _____________________________________________________________ 820.3 (A) Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Section 300.21 shall 16-261 Log #3314 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part apply. The accessible portion of abandoned coaxial cables shall be removed. (820.3(A), 820.25 (new) & 820.26 (new)) 820.25. Abandoned Cables. The accessible portion of abandoned coaxial _____________________________________________________________ cables shall be removed. TCC Action: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that 820.26 Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Installations of coaxial further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. cables and CATV raceways in hollow spaces, concealed spaces, vertical shafts This action will be considered by the panel as a public comment. and air ducts shall be made so that the possible spread of fire or products of Submitter: William E. Koffel, Koffel Assoc., Inc. / Rep. Society of the Plastics combustion will not be substantially increased. Openings around penetrations Industry of coaxial cables and CATV raceways through fire-resistantrated walls, Recommendation: Make the following changes: 820.3 (A) Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Section 300.21 shall partitions, floors, or ceilings shall be firestopped using approved methods to maintain the fire resistance rating. apply. The accessible portion of abandoned coaxial cables shall be removed. FPN No. 1: Directories of electrical construction materials published by 820.25. Abandoned Cables. The accessible portion of abandoned coaxial qualified testing laboratories contain many listing installation restrictions cables shall be removed. necessary to maintain the fire-resistive rating of assemblies where penetrations 820.26 Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Installations of coaxial or openings are made. Building codes also contain restrictions on membrane cables and CATV raceways in hollow spaces, concealed spaces, vertical shafts penetrations on opposite sides of a fire-resistancerated wall assembly. An and air ducts shall be made so that the possible spread of fire or products of example is the 600-mm (24-in.) minimum horizontal separation that usually combustion will not be substantially increased. Openings around penetrations applies between boxes installed on opposite sides of the wall. Assistance in of coaxial cables and CATV raceways through fire-resistantrated walls, complying with 820.26 can be found in building codes, fire resistance partitions, floors, or ceilings shall be firestopped using approved methods to directories, and product listings. maintain the fire resistance rating. FPN No. 2: FPN: See 8.14.1 of NFPA 13-2002, Installation of Sprinkler FPN No. 1: Directories of electrical construction materials published by Systems , for requirements for sprinklers in concealed spaces containing qualified testing laboratories contain many listing installation restrictions exposed combustibles. necessary to maintain the fire-resistive rating of assemblies where penetrations

70-945

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

or openings are made. Building codes also contain restrictions on membrane penetrations on opposite sides of a fire-resistancerated wall assembly. An example is the 600-mm (24-in.) minimum horizontal separation that usually applies between boxes installed on opposite sides of the wall. Assistance in complying with 820.26 can be found in building codes, fire resistance directories, and product listings. FPN No. 2: FPN: See 8.14.1 of NFPA 13, Installation of Sprinkler Systems , for requirements for sprinklers in concealed spaces containing exposed combustibles. Substantiation: The title of Section 820.3 is Other Articles. The requirement for the removal of abandoned cables is not in another article; it is in Article 820. It is out of place in Section 820.3. This proposal will move it to a new section of Article 820. Rather than refer section to 300.21 requirements for the prevention of the spread of fire, it is better to have the requirements in Article 820 which should be familiar to CATV installers. The text of proposed Section 820.26 is based on Section 300.21 but modified to apply to CATV cables and raceways. For clarity, ventilation or air-handling ducts has been simplified by replacing it with air ducts. Also, concealed spaces have been added to the list of areas requiring fire protection vigilance (hollow spaces, vertical shafts, and air ducts) to correlate with NFPA 13, Installation of Sprinkler Systems, which has requirements for protecting concealed spaces. A FPN is included to refer users to the NFPA 13 requirements. It should be noted that the section number may need to be revised once the 2006 Edition of NFPA 13 is published. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part The panel accepts the submitters deletion of 820.3(C), the addition of 820.25 (new) and the addition of 820.26 (new), but revises air ducts to ventilation or air handling duct in keeping with the existing NEC text. The panel accepts FPN No. 1 but rejects the addition of FPN No 2. Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-259. The panel rejects the addition of FPN No. 2 because it introduces undefined terminology. Concealed spaces should be adequately defined. See action on Proposals 16-13, 16-110, and 16-247 where the proposed definition was determined to be unacceptable. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: OHDE, H.: See my Explanation of Negative on Proposal 16-260. Comment on Affirmative: BRUNSSEN, J.: The Panel Statements refers to deletion of 820.3(C); it should state deletion of 820.3(A).

NFPA 70

_____________________________________________________________ 16-265 Log #760 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.3(B)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Make the following changes: (B) Ducts, Plenums, and Other Air-Handling Spaces. Section 300.22 , where installed in ducts, plenums, or other spaces used for environmental air, shall apply. Exception: As permitted in 820.154(A). Substantiation: This is an editorial and clarification proposal. (Task Group No. 820-06) Section 820.3(B) provides no additional guidance or requirements that are not already in 820.154(A). It conflicts with Article 820 because Article 820 requires listed coaxial cables whereas 300.22 permits various electrical power and control cables that are not permitted to be used for CATV circuits in Article 820. Section 800.3 does not have a similar requirement. Acceptance of this proposal will make Articles 770, 800, 820 and 830 consistent and in compliance with section 3.3.5 of the NEC Style Manual, shown below: 3.3.5 Parallel Construction. Parallel construction means stating similar requirements in similar ways for greater consistency. This helps makes the NEC clear for users. Lack of consistency often creates confusion, causing users to ask: Does this difference in wording represent a different requirement? Or is it simply two different ways of trying to say the same thing? There are several kinds of parallel construction: Organization and Numbering . If practicable, the subsections of similar articles should be numbered in the same order (see 2.4.1). Sections. Different sections, within the same article, that reflect similar or closely related subjects, should have similar structures. Lists. All items in a list should be parallel (that is, singular or plural, written in the same verb tense, using phrases or sentences but not a mix). This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Reject _____________________________________________________________ Panel Statement: The Panel is acting on this and other proposals related 16-262 Log #30 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject to wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA (820.3(B)) Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, _____________________________________________________________ in pertinent part, as follows: [S]o as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA Submitter: Stanley Kaufman, Cable Safe Inc. Recommendation: Delete as follows: 90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air (B) Ducts, Plenums, and Other Air-Handling Spaces. Section 300.22 , Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to where installed in ducts, plenums, or other spaces used for environmental air, plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A shall apply. revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo Exception: As permitted in 820.154(A). in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the Substantiation: Section 820.3(B) provides no additional guidance or processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of requirements that are not already in 820.154(A). Its redundant and perhaps NFPA 90A. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the confusing to send a CATV installer to section 300.22 to look for requirements that are already in Article 820. Section 800.3 does not have a similar substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. requirement. Elimination of 820.3(B) will improve the parallelism between the Number Eligible to Vote: 15 articles. Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Panel Meeting Action: Reject _____________________________________________________________ Panel Statement: The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to 16-266 Log #74 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA (820.15) Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, _____________________________________________________________ in pertinent part, as follows: Submitter: John Chamberlain, Broadband Telecommunications. LLC [S]o as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A Recommendation: Revise as follows: 820.15 Energy Limitations. Coaxial cable shall be permitted to deliver lowinto the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to energy power to equipment that is directly associated with the radio frequency plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A distribution system if the voltage is not over 60 volts and if the current supply revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo si from a transformer or other device that has energy limiting characteristics. in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the Coaxial drop cable under Article 820 shall not be permitted to deliver energy processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of for the purpose of powering devices. Refer to Article 830 Network-Powered NFPA 90A. Communications Systems. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the Substantiation: Ambiguity appears to exist in the 2005 NEC between substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. Sections 820.15 and Article 830. Section 820.15 states that coaxial cable under Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Section 820 shall be permitted to deliver low energy power that is directly Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 associated with the radio frequency distribution system. The voltage allowed in 820.15 is up to and including 60 volts if other conditions are met. Section 830.1 Scope, defines a network-powered broadband communications (Note: The sequence nos. 16-263 and 16-264 were not used) system as communications systems that provide any combination of voice, audio, video, data, and interactive services through a network interface device. Section 830.15 Power Limitations, for Article 830, defines low powered network powered systems as 0-100 volts.

70-946

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

Ambiguity exists for network-powered communications systems with delivery voltages less than 60 volts. There would be no ambiguity if: 1) Section 820.15 was stricken or, 2) Section 820.15 was reworded to allow up to 60 volts except in the case supply power is delivered to an NIU per Network-Powered Communications Systems Article 830 definition or, 3) Replace 820.15 with a statement allowing no supply voltages under Article 820 and to refer to Article 830 for coaxial drop systems when supply voltages are required. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: Article 820 allows the delivery of low-energy power in order to operate amplifiers and other devices necessary to distribute radio signals typically employed in community antenna television (CATV) systems (quote from Article 820 scope). These applications are not Article 830 applications and should remain allowable under Article 820. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 (Note: The sequence 16-267 was not used) _____________________________________________________________ 16-268 Log #761 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (820.15) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Make the following changes: 820.15 Energy Power Limitations. Coaxial cable shall be permitted to deliver low - energy power to equipment that is directly associated with the radio frequency distribution system if the voltage is not over 60 volts and if the current supply is supplied by from a transformer or other device that has energy power- limiting characteristics. Substantiation: This proposal is a clarification. (Task Group No. 820-07) The proposed wording is more descriptive and is consistent and is parallel to 830.15. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Make the following changes to 820.15: 820.15 Energy Power Limitations. Coaxial cable shall be permitted to deliver power to equipment that is directly associated with the radio frequency distribution system if the voltage is not over 60 volts and if the current supply is supplied by from a transformer or other device that has energy power- limiting characteristics. Power shall be blocked from premises devices on the network that are not intended to be powered via the coaxial cable. Panel Statement: The changes meet the submitters intent. The panel added additional requirements to complete the submitters intent. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

NFPA 70
_____________________________________________________________ 16-270 Log #763 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.24) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Add the word coaxial where shown: 820.24 Mechanical Execution of Work. Community antenna television and radio distribution systems shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner. Coaxial cables installed exposed on the surface of ceiling and sidewalls shall be supported by the building structure in such a manner that the cable will not be damaged by normal building use. Such cables shall be secured by straps, staples, hangers, or similar fittings designed and installed so as not to damage the cable. The installation shall also conform with 300.4(D) and 300.11. Substantiation: This proposal is a clarification, (Task Group No. 820-08) It is part of a series of proposals to clarify that Article 820 deals with coaxial cable. Adding the word coaxial adds clarity to the section for the code user. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

_____________________________________________________________ 16-271 Log #1387 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.24) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mike Holt, Mike Holt Enterprises Recommendation: Delete requirement to comply with 300.4(D) 800.24 Mechanical Execution of Work. Communications circuits and equipment shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner. Cables installed exposed on the surface of ceilings and sidewalls shall be supported by the building structure in such a manner that the cable will not be damaged by normal building use. Such cables shall be secured by straps, staples, hangers, or similar fittings designed and installed so as not to damage the cable. The installation shall also conform with 300.4(D) and 300.11. Substantiation: There is no reason to protect limited energy circuits from accidental contact with nails or screws. Limited energy circuits are considered to be inherently safe from a fire and electric shock perspective, hence the allowances of lesser wiring methods and allowances for open splicing with out boxes. The protection of these circuits is a design and/or performance issue, not a safety issue. The requirement found in the existing Code text does not fit into the purpose of the NEC, as addressed in 90.1(A). Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: Compliance with 300.4(D) has been a Code requirement for many years, resulting in an exemplary safety record. While the submitter points out that communications circuits are energy-limited circuits and considered to be inherently safe from a fire and electric shock perspective, it is _____________________________________________________________ inappropriate and poor workmanship to permit the potential energization of 16-269 Log #783 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept nails, screws, or other construction/decorative attachment devices at any level. (820.21) Number Eligible to Vote: 15 _____________________________________________________________ Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. _____________________________________________________________ Recommendation: Make the changes as shown: 16-272 Log #1388 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part 820.21 Access to Electrical Equipment Behind Panels Designed to Allow (820.24) Access. _____________________________________________________________ Access to electrical equipment shall not be denied by an accumulation of Submitter: Mike Holt, Mike Holt Enterprises wires and coaxial cables that prevents removal of panels, including suspended Recommendation: Delete requirement to comply with 300.4(D) ceiling panels. 820.24 Mechanical Execution of Work. Substantiation: This proposal is editorial. (Task Group No. 820-290 Community antenna television and radio distribution systems shall be installed It creates consistency among parallel articles and references the specific in a neat and workmanlike manner. Cables installed exposed on the surface of medium used in this article. Article 820 does not use wires so that term was ceiling and sidewalls shall be supported by the building structure in such a removed. manner that the cable will not be damaged by normal building use. Such cables This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial shall be secured by straps, staples, cable ties , hangers, or similar fittings Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: designed and installed so as not to damage the cable. The installation shall also 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; conform with 300.4(D) and 300.11. 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar FPN: Accepted industry practices are described in ANSI/NECA/BICSI 568 requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 2001, Standard for Installing Commercial Building Telecommunications 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, Cabling, and other ANSI-approved installation standards. 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. Substantiation: This is being proposed in an effort to create uniform language The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, with the chapter three cable wiring method support sections, specifically, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. 230.30(A), 330.30(A) and 334.30. Similar proposals are also being made to Panel Meeting Action: Accept 725.8, 640.6, 760.8, 770.24, 800.24 and 830.24 Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

70-947

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part Change 820.24 to read as follows: 820.24 Mechanical Execution of Work. Community antenna television and radio dist ribution systems shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner. Cables installed exposed on the surface of ceiling and sidewalls shall be supported by the building structure in such a manner that the cable will not be damaged by normal building use. Such cables shall be secured by listed hardware including straps, staples, cable ties , hangers, or similar fittings designed and installed so as not to damage the cable. The installation shall also conform with 300.4(D) and 300.11. FPN: Accepted industry practices are described in ANSI/NECA/BICSI 568 2001, Standard for Installing Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling, and other ANSI-approved installation standards. Panel Statement: The panel does not accept deletion of 300.4(D). Compliance with 300.4(D) has been a Code requirement for many years resulting in an exemplary safety record. While the submitter points out that communications circuits are energy-limited circuits and considered to be inherently safe from a fire and electric shock perspective, it is inappropriate and poor workmanship to permit the potential energization of nails, screws, or other construction/decorative attachment devices at any level. The panel basically accepts the submitters revision to 820.24 but modified for coordination. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 3 Abstain: 1 Explanation of Negative: BOYER, J.: NEMA does not believe that all such product used for the securement of communications circuits need be listed. Code Panel 8 has steadily rejected similar proposals relating to the support of conduit and cables. UL 1565 provides requirements for listed cable ties intended for primary support of flexible conduits and cables in accordance with the NEC. Such cable ties must have a minimum loop tensile strength rating of 23 kg (50 lbs) or greater. NEMA proposes that the panel reconsider its action and ACCEPT the proposal in principle and in part with the following action. Accept the proposed addition of cable ties in the third sentence, reject the requirement that all such hardware be listed, and add the following new fourth sentence. Cable ties that provide primary support for such cables shall have a minimum loop tensile strength of 23 kg (50 lbs. ) BRUNSSEN, J.: See my explanation of negative vote on Proposal 16-43. DORNA, G.: See my explanation of negative vote on Proposal 16-45. Explanation of Abstention: KAHN, S.: Though I agree with the proposal and the submitters intent to introduce consistency, the material is used in plenums and other air handling spaces and the proposal should be subjected to the direction given by the Standards Council relative to such proposals and rejected. The directive of the Standards Council, as interpreted, must be applied consistently. Comment on Affirmative: OHDE, H.: The panel statement does not reflect the recommendation submitted by the submitter.

NFPA 70
electrical power. Application of 300.11(C) is overly restrictive and will preclude lashing of CATV cables together to form a cable assembly. CATV cables secured in this manner have adequate support (see 300.11 (A)), are supported independently of the suspended ceiling grid, and are not likely to collapse in the event the suspended ceiling collapses. Such restriction imposes additional installation costs with no improvement in safety. JOHNSON, S.: I agree with the submitters points in his proposal. There is no safety issue that should preclude the long-standing practice of lashing an additional CATV drop cable to an existing bundle that is already installed and supported properly where it is owned by the same entity. These cables are lightweight, and carry much less voltage and current than power cables. No evidence has been shown that this practice has not been used safely and successfully in the past and should not continue to be allowed. I vote against the Panels action to reject. Comment on Affirmative: JENSEN, R.: The panel statement should read: The requirements of 300.11 are applicable to coaxial cables. This appears as though it was copied from another panel statement regarding optical fiber. STENE, S.: The panel statement should be revised to state The requirements of 300.11(C) are applicable to optical fiber cables community antenna television cables .

_____________________________________________________________ 16-274 Log #1881 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.24) _____________________________________________________________ TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee notes that neither the panel statement nor the revised statement shown in the affirmative vote are responsive to the submitters substantiation for the recommendation. The Technical Correlating Committee directs the panel to act on the merits of the recommendation. This action will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment. Submitter: James E. Brunssen, Telecordia Technologies Inc. / Rep. Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions Recommendation: In the final sentence, delete the reference to 300.11 as follows: The installation shall also conform with 300.4(D) and 300.11 . Substantiation: The requirement added by Panel 16 during the 2005 revision cycle is overly restrictive and inappropriate for CATV and radio distribution systems. The Fine Print Note associated with 820.24 presently directs the reader to the appropriate installation practices for CATV and radio distribution systems cabling. Section 300.11 is directed toward power cable assemblies that are heavier, larger and operate at greater voltage and current levels than CATV cables. A CATV cable used for premises wiring is typically one-quarter inch in diameter contains no electrical power. Deletion of the reference to 300.11 will yield consistency throughout the NEC as Panel 3 did not see fit to adopt this reference in Articles 760 and 725. Panel Meeting Action: Reject _____________________________________________________________ Panel Statement: The requirements of 300.11 are applicable to optical fiber 16-273 Log #1763 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject cables. (820.24) Number Eligible to Vote: 15 _____________________________________________________________ Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 2 TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee notes that neither the Explanation of Negative: BRUNSSEN, J.: This proposal should be accepted. The requirement added by panel statement nor the revised statement shown in the affirmative vote are responsive to the submitters substantiation for the recommendation. Panel 16 during the 2005 revision cycle is overly restrictive and inappropriate The Technical Correlating Committee directs the panel to act on the for CATV cables. The Fine Print Note associated with 820.24 directs the reader merits of the recommendation. This action will be considered by the Panel to the appropriate installation standards. The Panel has enhanced the Fine Print as a Public Comment. Note during this cycle by the addition of three new references covering the Submitter: Percy E. Pool, Verizon NS installation of CATV cables (see Proposal 16-277). These references are all that Recommendation: Add the following exception to 820.24: is necessary and sufficient for such cables without imposing the burdensome Exception: 300.11(C) shall not apply. requirements of 300.11. Section 300.11 is directed toward power cable Substantiation: 300.11(C) is clearly not applicable to CATV cabling. CATV assemblies that are heavier and larger than communications cables, operate at cables are typically lashed together to form a cable assembly. This frequently much greater power levels (CATV cables often contain no power), and present occurs during modifications or additions to an existing installation. CATV a greater risk of injury if not properly installed. JOHNSON, S.: I agree with the submitters points in his proposal. 300.11 cables are physically smaller, lighter and carry less voltage and current than power cables. It is overly restrictive to prohibit lashing of CATV cables deals with cables that are larger and heavier than CATV drop cables. together to form a cable assembly. CATV cables secured in this manner have Referencing 300.11 also creates an inconsistency with Sections 760 and 725, adequate support (see 300.11(A)), are supported independently of the which deal with similar sized cables and do not make this reference. I vote suspended ceiling grid, and are not likely to collapse in the event the suspended against the Panels action to reject. ceiling collapses. Such restriction imposes additional installation costs with no Comment on Affirmative: JENSEN, R.: The panel statement should read: improvement in safety. The requirements of 300.11 are applicable to coaxial cables. Panel Meeting Action: Reject This appears as though it was copied from another panel statement regarding Panel Statement: The requirements of 300.11(C) are applicable to optical fiber cables. optical fiber. STENE, S.: The panel statement should be revised to state The requirements Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 2 of 300.11 are applicable to optical fiber cables community antenna television Explanation of Negative: cables . BRUNSSEN, J.: This proposal should be accepted. If the Panel continues to support the addition of the requirements of 300.11 to 820.24, then at the very least, the requirements of 300.11(C) should be waived. Section 300.11(C) is clearly not applicable to CATV cables. Installation practice is to lash CATV cables together to form a cable assembly. This frequently occurs during modifications or additions to an existing installation. CATV cables are physically smaller and lighter than power cables and typically contain no

70-948

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

_____________________________________________________________ 16-275 Log #3055 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part (820.24) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Harold C. Ohde, IBEW #134 Recommendation: Revise 820.24 as follows: 820.24 Mechanical Execution of Work (A) Neat and Workmanlike Manner. Community television and radio distribution systems, equipment, cables and circuits shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner. (B) Installation of Coaxial Cables. Coaxial cables installed exposed on the surface of ceilings and sidewalls shall be supported by the building structure in such a manner that the coaxial cables will not be damaged by normal building use. Such cables shall be secured by listed straps, staples, hangers, or similar fittings designed and installed so as not to damage the cable. The installation shall also comply with 300.4(D) and 300.11. FPN: Accepted industry practices are described in ANSI/NECA/BICSI 5682001, Standard for Installing Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling, and other ANSI- approved installation standards. (C) Abandoned Coaxial Cables. Abandoned coaxial cables shall be removed. FPN: Accepted industry practices are described in ANSI/NECA/BICSI 5682001, Standard for installing Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling, and other ANSI-approved standards which provide cable installation that facilitates the removal of abandoned cables. Substantiation: This proposal revises this section into a practical working tool which will assist in making 820.24 a clear, usable and enforceable code. Each first level subdivision contains a code rule that requires action and the required action has been presented in clear, usable and enforceable manner. In the electrical industry, the electrician, contractor and AJH have been taught the importance and significance of the concept of mechanical execution of work. I am an electrical instructor who teaches this important concept to the people involved. This is one of the basis for 90.1(A) which serves as the purpose of this Code. The Codes purpose is to provide a safe installation from the hazards arising from the use of electricity. The revised text in 820.24(A) will require all community antenna television and radio distribution systems, equipment, cables and circuits to be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner. 820.24(B) is an editorial change with additional language to require the means of securing and supporting to be listed for the purpose. The addition of 820.24(C) would replace the requirements that were located in 820.3(A), 820.154(A), 820.154(B), and 820.154(D). It makes sense to have the requirements of both the installation of cable and the removal of cable in the same Code section. This would provide the proper guidance to everyone involved. The installer, contractor and the AHJ would gain from this revised section as the rules are centrally located in one Code section. If coaxial cables are installed properly then the removal of coaxial cables should be no problem if it is not needed anymore or abandoned. The proposed FPN will provide useful guidance and information to everyone involved regarding correct installation practices which would facilitate the removal of the cable as well. Similar proposals have been submitted for 640.6, 725.8, 760.8, 770.24, 800.24, and 830.24. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part The panel accepts the incorporation of the term listed. The panel accepts in principle the part of the proposal that recommends relocating requirements for abandoned cable. The panel does not accept the breaking up of 820.24 and the changes to the FPN. Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-272, and 16-259. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Negative: 4 Abstain: 1 Explanation of Negative: BRUNSSEN, J.: See my explanation of negative vote on Proposal 16-43. DORNA, G.: See my explanation of negative vote on Proposal 16-45. OHDE, H.: This proposal should have been accepted in part. The FPN located after 820.24(C) is not required as this Standard is very basic and really does not provide enough information that is applicable to the removal of abandoned cables. PREZIOSO, L.: The proposal adds a Fine Print Note (FPN) identifying an ANSI/NECA/BICSI Standard as the source for identifying accepted industry practices. While FPNs are not enforceable, referencing these standards in a FPN as a means for determining the acceptable industry standard is, at best, misleading. I fully support these standards, but on many projects these standards are not incorporated as requirements into the design or the construction of the system or the building. The owners and tenants often waive compliance with these standards as a means of reducing costs. In this situation, the installation of wires and cables cannot be completed in accordance with the standards, and it is therefore unfair to reference these standards as accepted industry practices. Accordingly, the proposal should be rejected and the FPN should not be added to the NEC.

NFPA 70
Explanation of Abstention: KAHN, S.: Though I agree with the proposal and the submitters intent to introduce consistency, the material is used in plenums and other air handling spaces and the proposal should be subjected to the direction given by the Standards Council relative to such proposals and rejected. The directive of the Standards Council, as interpreted, must be applied consistently. _____________________________________________________________ 16-276 Log #2276 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.24, FPN ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: H. Brooke Stauffer, National Electrical Contractors Assn. (NECA) Recommendation: Update the publication date of the referenced standard as follows: FPN: Accepted industry practices are described in ANSI/NECA/BICSI 5682006, Standard for Installing Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling, and other ANSI-approved installation standards. Substantiation: ANSI/NECA/BISCI 568-2001 is currently being revised, and the 2008 NEC should reference the latest edition. ANSI/NECA/BICSI 568-2006 will be completed prior to the Public Comment deadline. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The panel cannot act on ANSI/NECA/BICSI 568-2006 as it has not yet been issued. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: BOYER, J.: See NEMAs negative comment on Proposal 16-136. _____________________________________________________________ 16-277 Log #2337 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (820.24, FPN ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: James W. Romlein, MV Labs LLC / Rep. TIA Recommendation: Add an FPN to read: FPN: Accepted industry practices are described in: ANSI/TIA/EIA-568-B.1 2004 - Part 1 General Requirements Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling Standard, ANSI/TIA-569-B 2004 Commercial Building Standard for Telecommunications Pathways and Spaces, ANSI/TIA-570-B - Residential Telecommunications Infrastructure. (List Other Documents Here) and other ANSI-approved installation standards. Substantiation: TIA standards contain the source specifications that drive the performance-related industry practices. These TIA documents have a long history of demonstrated successful guidance to the installation, inspection, and network ownership communities. TIA wiring standards have been recognized by the Federal Communications Commission since before 2000 as the appropriate industry standards to be used for new and revised wiring, and are encouraged to be called out in building codes. (See, Third Report and Order in CC Docket No. 88-57 (FCC 99-405) (2000), released January 10, 2000, and 47 CFR section 68.213(c) of the FCC Rules.) Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Change FPN to read as follows: FPN: Accepted industry practices are described in ANSI/NECA/BICSI 5682001, Standard for Installing Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling; ANSI/TIA/EIA-568-B.1 2004 - Part 1, General Requirements Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling Standard; ANSI/TIA-569-B 2004, Commercial Building Standard for Telecommunications Pathways and Spaces; ANSI/TIA-570-B, Residential Telecommunications Infrastructure, and other ANSI-approved installation standards. Panel Statement: The panel combined the submitters FPN with the existing text. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: BOYER, J.: See NEMAs negative comment on Proposal 16-136. PREZIOSO, L.: The proposal adds a Fine Print Note (FPN) identifying an ANSI/NECA/BICSI Standard as the source for identifying accepted industry practices. While FPNs are not enforceable, referencing these standards in a FPN as a means for determining the acceptable industry standard is, at best, misleading. I fully support these standards, but on many projects these standards are not incorporated as requirements into the design or the construction of the system or the building. The owners and tenants often waive compliance with these standards as a means of reducing costs. In this situation, the installation of wires and cables cannot be completed in accordance with the standards, and it is therefore unfair to reference these standards as accepted industry practices. Accordingly, the proposal should be rejected and the FPN should not be added to the NEC.

70-949

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

_____________________________________________________________ 16-278 Log #3064 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.24, FPN ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ron Alley, ELECTRICO Recommendation: Delete the following text: FPN: Accepted industry practices are described in ANSI/NECA/BICSI 5682001, Standard for Installing Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling, and other ANSI approved installation standards. Substantiation: Numerous consensus standards from organizations such as Electronics Industry Association (EIA), Telecommunication Industry Association (TIA), Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL), NEMA, IEEE and IEC/ISO could be added as a Fine Print Note throughout the Code to assist the reader of the NEC as the existing FPN note does. There are just as many publications such as Telecommunications Cabling Installation, Network Cabling, Telecommunications Cable Splicing, Communications Cabling, Telecommunications Internetworking and too many others to mention, that could be listed in a FPN that would benefit the reader. Also, there are safety regulations, pertaining to telecommunication systems such as OSHA 1910 and OSHA 1926 that could be added as a Fine Print Note to assist readers to make their companies and workers safer. Adding a Fine Print Note for the purpose of informing the reader of all related standard and publications would be cumbersome. The NEC should list all prominent standards and publications in a FPN or it should list none. The particular standard mentioned in the FPN, (ANSI/NECA/BICSI 568-2001 (Installing Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling) contains only 46 pages. The Standard mentioned in the FPN is very basic. It lists only a small percentage of the terminations used in the industry. Also, only a limited number of communications cables are shown and their limitations are not discussed. The standard does not contain enough information to be used as stand alone document without the use of other standards and text books that are not mentioned in the FPN. In my opinion, the ANSI standard listed in the FPN should never be used instead of manufacturers instructions. Manufacturers instructions are sometimes required to be included as a condition of listing or labeling of telecommunications equipment and are sent with the listed or labeled products or can be requested from the manufacturer prior to installation. Manufacturers instructions are updated as needed to keep up with product improvements. The FPN in the 2005 Code most likely will not be as up-to-date as the manufacturers instructions. If the committee decides to keep the FPN, please consider modifying the FPN as follows: ANSI/NECA/BICSI 568-2001 Standard for Installing Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling is one source of many that can be used with manufacturer instructions. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The references provided in the FPN provide guidance for installation in a neat and workmanship like manner. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: OHDE, H.: This proposal should have been accepted. The submitter substantiates that there are numerous consensus standards from reputable organization that also could be added to assist the reader of the NEC as existing FPN do. The ANSI/NECA/BICSI 568-2001 Standard is also a very basic and non-informative document that does not provide much guidance to the installer. PREZIOSO, L.: The proposal removes a Fine Print Note (FPN) identifying an ANSI/NECA/BICSI Standard as the source for identifying accepted industry practices. While FPNs are not enforceable, referencing these standards in a FPN as a means for determining the acceptable industry standard is, at best, misleading. I fully support these standards, but on many projects these standards are not incorporated as requirements into the design or the construction of the system or the building. The owners and tenants often waive compliance with these standards as a means of reducing costs. In this situation, the installation of wires and cables cannot be completed in accordance with the standards, and it is therefore unfair to reference these standards as accepted industry practices. Accordingly the proposal should be accepted and the FPN should be removed. _____________________________________________________________ 16-279 Log #56 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (820.25 (New), 820.26 (New) & 820.3(A)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stanley Kaufman, Cable Safe Inc. Recommendation: Revise as follows: 820.25 Abandoned Cables. The accessible portion of abandoned coaxial cables shall be removed. FPN: See Article 100 for a definition of accessible. 820.26 Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Installations of coaxial cables and CATV raceways in hollow spaces, vertical shafts, and ventilation or air-handling ducts shall be made so that the possible spread of fire or products of combustion will not be substantially increased. Openings around penetrations of coaxial cables and CATV raceways through fire-resistant-rated walls, partitions, floors, or ceilings shall be firestopped using approved methods to maintain the fire resistance rating. FPN: See Article 100 for the definition of approved.

NFPA 70
820.3(A) Spread of Fire or Productions of Combustion. Section 300.21 shall apply. the accessible portion of abandoned coaxial cables shall be removed. Substantiation: The title of 820.3 is Other Articles. The requirement for the removal of abandoned cables is not in another article; it is in Article 820. It is out of place in 820.3. This proposal will move it to a new section of Article 820. Rather than refer to 300.21 requirements for the prevention of the spread of fire, it is better to have the requirements in Article 820 which should be familiar to CATV installers. The text of proposed 820.26 is based on 300.21, but modified to apply to coaxial cables and CATV raceways. The fine print notes pointing to definitions are intended to assist installers who are not code experts and may not be aware of Article 100. The fine print note in 300.21 was not copied because it does not provide sufficient guidance for a CATV cable installer. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-259. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: OHDE, H.: This proposal should be deleted in its entirety. We agree that the requirements for the removal of abandoned cables are out of place in 820.3(A) and needs to be located in another section within Part 1 General. There are other proposed proposals with the same intent to locate the abandoned cable requirements that seem better suited and make good enforceable code. The substantiation provided to delete 820.3(A) which contains the requirements of 300.21 is unclear. The submitter stated the proposed 820.26 is based on the requirements of 300.21 but modified to apply to coaxial cables and CATV raceways. There was no substantiation submitted for this change. In addition, Section 90.1 (C ) of the NEC states This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for the untrained persons . In the submitters substantiation he states these FPNs will help installers who are not Code experts. The addition of the FPN following 820.25 referencing Article 100 for the definition of accessible the FPN following 820.26 referencing Article 100 for the definition of approved is not needed nor warranted. A trained installer will know the Code content and how the Code book is to be used. _____________________________________________________________ 16-280 Log #2665 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part (820.30) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert W. Jensen, dbi / Rep. BICSI, A Telecommunications Association Recommendation: Consolidated from various areas to a new section: 800.30 Abandoned Cables. The accessible portion of abandoned coaxial cables shall be removed. Remove wording in 820.3(A) The accessible portion of abandoned coaxial cables shall be removed. Remove wording in 820.154(A), Abandoned cables shall not be permitted to remain. Remove wording in 820.154(B)(1), Abandoned cables shall not be permitted to remain. Substantiation: The title of Section 820.3 is Other Articles. The requirement for the removal of abandoned cables is not in another article; it is in Article 820. It is out of place in section 820.3. This proposal will move it to a new section of Article 820. The deletion of the requirements to remove abandoned cable in 820.154(A) and (B) corrects an error. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part The panel accepts the change pertaining to 820.3(A). The panel accepts in principle the recommendation to move the abandoned cable requirements. See panel action on Proposal 16-259. The panel rejects the submitters action on 820.154(A) and accepts the change to 820.154(B)(1). See panel action on Proposal 16-333. Panel Statement: See Proposals 16-259 and 16-333. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: OHDE, H.: We agree with the submitters intent to locate all abandoned cable requirements to a new section in Part 1- General within the Article. Part 1General applies to the entire article and therefore would reduce the confusion. We believe that not just the accessible portion of abandoned cables but all abandoned cables be removed to reduce the fuel load. _____________________________________________________________ 16-281 Log #764 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.44) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Add the term coaxial as shown: II. Coaxial Cables Outside and Entering Buildings 820.44 Overhead Coaxial Cables. (B) Lead-in Clearance. Lead-in or aerial-drop coaxial cables from a pole or other support, including the point of initial attachment to a building or structure, shall be kept away from electric light, power, Class 1, or nonpowerlimited fire alarm circuit conductors so as to avoid the possibility of accidental contact.

70-950

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

(C) On Masts. Aerial coaxial cables shall be permitted to be attached to an above-the-roof raceway mast that does not enclose or support conductors of electric light or power circuits. (D) Above Roofs. C oaxial c ables shall have a vertical clearance of not less than 2.5 m (8 ft) from all points of roofs above which they pass. (E) Between Buildings. C oaxial c ables extending between buildings and also the supports or attachment fixtures shall be acceptable for the purpose and shall have sufficient strength to withstand the loads to which they may be subjected. Exception: Where a coaxial cable does not have sufficient strength to be selfsupporting, it shall be attached to a supporting messenger cable that, together with the attachment fixtures or supports, shall be acceptable for the purpose and shall have sufficient strength to withstand the loads to which they may be subjected. (F) On Buildings. Where attached to buildings, coaxial cables shall be securely fastened in such a manner that they will be separated from other conductors in accordance with 820.44(F)(1), (F)(2), and (F)(3). Substantiation: This proposal is a clarification. (Task Group No. 820-09) It is part of a series of proposals to clarify that Article 820 deals with coaxial cable. Adding the word coaxial adds clarity to the section for the code user. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

NFPA 70
FPN No, 2: See 820.2 for the definition of point of entrance. FPN No. 3: See 820.2 for the definition of air duct. FPN No. 4: See Article 100 for the definition of plenum. FPN No. 5: See 300.22(C) for information on other space used for environmental air. 820.113, Exception No. 2: As permitted in 820.48. Listing and marking shall not be required where the length of the cable within the building, measured from its point of entrance, does not exceed 15 m (50 ft) and the cable enters the building from the outside and is terminated at a grounding block. Substantiation: This is an editorial and technical proposal. (Task Group No.820-11) It is a companion proposal to similar proposals made for articles 770 and 800. Part II of Article 820 covers Cables Outside and Entering Buildings. Part VI covers Cables Within Buildings. Exception No. 2 to 820.113 deals with cables entering buildings and logically belongs in Part II. The proposed new fine print notes 2, 3, 4 & 5 are provided to help the reader by pointing to the definitions of point of entrance, air duct and plenum and a description of other space used for environmental air. New fine print note 1 is provides useful information for simultaneously complying with the 50 foot rule and the requirement for grounding. It is similar to the fine print note No. 2 to Exception No.2 in 800.113. The technical portion is a requirement prohibiting outside plant cables from running in risers or in the air distribution system; thereby correcting an omission in the current code. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-284. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

_____________________________________________________________ 16-284 Log #27 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (820.48 (New) & 800.113, Exception No. 2) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stanley Kaufman, Cable Safe Inc. _____________________________________________________________ Recommendation: Revise as follows: 820.48. Unlisted Cables Entering Buildings. Unlisted outside plant 16-282 Log #765 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (820.47) coaxial cables shall be permitted in building spaces other than risers, air ducts, _____________________________________________________________ concealed spaces, plenums and other spaces used for environmental air, where Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. the length of the cable within the building, measured from its point of entrance, Recommendation: Add the sentence as shown: does not exceed 15 m (50 ft) and the cable enters the building from the outside 820.47. Underground Circuits Entering Building. Underground coaxial and is terminated at a grounding block. cables entering buildings shall comply with 820.47(A) and 820.47(B). FPN No. 1: This section limits the length of unlisted outside plant cable to 15 Change the title of (A) as follows: m (50 ft), while 820.93 requires that the outer conductive shield of the coaxial (A) Underground Systems. With Electric Light and Power Conductors. cable be grounded at the building premises as close to the point of cable Substantiation: This proposal is editorial. (Task Group No. 820-10) entrance or attachment as practicable. Therefore the outside plant coaxial cable It proposes wording parallel to that in Article 800 and properly describes the may not be permitted to extend 15 m (50 ft) into the building if it is practicable requirements of the Section and the title change also parallels that of Article to ground the outer conductive shield closer than 15 m (50 ft) to the entrance 800 and is more descriptive of the paragraph. point. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial FPN No, 2: See 820.2 for the definition of point of entrance. FPN No. 3: See 820.2 for the definition of air duct. Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; FPN No. 4: See Article 100 for the definition of plenum. 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar FPN No. 5: See 300.22(C) for information on other space used for requirements are stated the same way in each Article; environmental air. 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 820.113, Exception No. 2: As permitted in 820.48. Listing and marking shall 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. not be required where the length of the cable within the building, measured The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, from its point of entrance, does not exceed 15 m (50 ft) and the cable enters the Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. building from the outside and is terminated at a grounding block. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Substantiation: Part II of Article 820 covers Cables Outside and Entering Accept the submitters proposal with the following revisions: Buildings. Part VI covers Cables Within Buildings. Exception No. 2 to In the title of 820.47, make Building plural as in 2005 NEC text. 820.113 deals with cables entering buildings and logically belongs in Part II. In proposed new title of 820.47(A), delete the period following Systems. In addition to editorially changing the exception to positive language and Panel Statement: These changes reflect the 2005 NEC existing text and moving it to Part II, this proposal deals with the issue of the fire hazard of provide a correction to punctuation. unlisted outside plant cables in buildings. Unlisted outside plant entrance Number Eligible to Vote: 15 cables are sometimes run in risers, air ducts, concealed spaces and plenums. Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 When the 50-foot exemption for outside plant cable was adopted, it was assumed that the entrance cable would go into an equipment room. It was not _____________________________________________________________ envisioned that the unlisted cable, which is not fire resistant, would run up 16-283 Log #766 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle a riser, in an air duct, in concealed spaces, or a plenum. The proposed new (820.48 (New) & 800.113 Exception No. 2) fine print notes 2, 3, 4 & 5 are provided to help the reader by pointing to the _____________________________________________________________ definitions of point of entrance, air duct and plenum and a description Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. of other space used for environmental air. New fine print note 1 is provides Recommendation: Make the following changes: useful information for simultaneously complying with the 50 foot rule and 820.48. Unlisted Cables Entering Buildings. Unlisted outside plant the requirement for grounding. It is similar to the fine print note No. 2 to coaxial cables shall be permitted in building spaces other than risers, air ducts, Exception No.2 in 800.113. plenums and other spaces used for environmental air, where the length of Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle The panel accepts the submitters proposal with the following revisions: the cable within the building, measured from its point of entrance, does not 820.48 to read as follows: exceed 15 m (50 ft) and the cable enters the building from the outside and is 820.48. Unlisted Cables Entering Buildings. Unlisted outside plant terminated at a grounding block. FPN No. 1: This section limits the length of unlisted outside plant cable to 15 coaxial cables shall be permitted to be installed in locations as described in m (50 ft), while 820.93 requires that the outer conductive shield of the coaxial 820.154(D), where the length of the cable within the building, measured from cable be grounded at the building premises as close to the point of cable its point of entrance, does not exceed 15 m (50 ft) and the cable enters the entrance or attachment as practicable. Therefore the outside plant coaxial cable building from the outside and is terminated at a grounding block. may not be permitted to extend 15 m (50 ft) into the building if it is practicable Delete FPNs 3, 4, and 5. Change 820.113 Exception No. 2 to be Exception. to ground the outer conductive shield closer than 15 m (50 ft) to the entrance point.

70-951

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

Panel Statement: The panel made changes to the submitters text to correlate with the language in the remainder of the article. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-285 Log #600 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.93) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: John Chamberlain, Broadband Telecommunications. LLC Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 820.93 Grounding of Outer Conductive Shield of a Coaxial Cable. The outer conductive shield of the coaxial cable shall be grounded at the building premises as close to the point of cable entrance or attachment as practicable. Interruption of the shield with a listed device shall be allowed prior to the cable entrance as an additional measure to protect against surges entering buildings. Substantiation: The majority of premises in the US have delivered to them multiple utility services. Typically these services include Power, Telephone, and Cable TV. Power is delivered with three conductors; 1) Hot-power delivered from a generator, 2) Return-a low resistance return to the generator to complete the electrical circuit in an economic fashion, and 3) Ground-for safety in the case that the return path is compromised and for providing a common ground in the premises for safety. Although the NEC provides for safe distribution of power in the home, when there is an accidental code violation dangerous conditions can develop on the outer conductor of the coaxial cable that supplies typical broadband services such as Cable Television, data services, and FoIP telephony. In the case of a neutral crossing or a compromised ground in a premises, the power delivered by the power company attempts to complete the circuit to the power generators by the lowest resistance path. In some cases, this path can be the outer conductor of a coaxial cable that is bonded to ground at both ends of the coaxial cable (bonded at the premises and the pedestal or strand). In this case, the outer conductor of the coaxial cable acts as a bonding conductor to ground at the pedestal. Currents as high as 20 amps have been measured and cable has been know to melt and drop onto homes. I propose a change to NEC 820 to resolve this potential safety issue. I propose that an automatic resettable fuse be required in the outer conductor electrical path of the supply cable (drop cable) between the. The proposed solution would maintain a bond between the network ground and the premises ground at all times except in the case that more than an allowable current is detected on the outer conductor of the coaxial cable. At that point, the fuse would trip and the high current would not be on the cable of concern. An indicator of the condition should be required as part of the proposed solution, thereby alerting personnel to the safety issue present. In addition, when the fuse trips the outer conductor of the supply, or network, side would still be grounded to the network ground, and the outer conductor of the premises cable would still be grounded to the premises ground, the two would just not be bonded together for the duration of the existence of the problem. The resettable fuse would reconnect the two outer conductors automatically in the case that the issue resolved itself. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: Any device will introduce an undesirable impedance in the ground path. Shock issues are not addressed. When in a high impedance state, there could be a dangerous voltage differential between the premises shield and equipment grounds and the earth ground resulting in a significant risk of electric shock. Even in the low impedance state, it is possible to have enough of a differential with current flow high enough to pose a risk of shock yet not high enough to trip the device. Without equipotential bonding, ground potential rise issues can result in circuit damage. Articles 770 and 800 permit installation of an interruption device; this does not seem to be a suitable insulation device. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

NFPA 70
1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Part Revise 820.93 as follows: 820.93 Grounding of the Outer Conductive Shield of a Coaxial Cable Cables . The outer conductive shield of the coaxial cable cables shall be grounded at the building premises as close to the point of cable entrance or attachment as practicable. For purposes of this section, grounding located at mobile home ... Panel Statement: Entering Buildings is inappropriate as the cable may not actually enter the building. This is removed in two places. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-287 Log #1308 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.93) _____________________________________________________________ TCC Action: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that this Proposal be reconsidered and correlated with the action on Proposal 16-286. This action will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment. Submitter: Steven C. Johnson, Time Warner Cable / Rep. National Cable Telecommunications Association Recommendation: Revise as follows: 820.93 Grounding of Outer Conductive Shield of a Coaxial Cable. The outer conductive shield of the coaxial cable shall be grounded at the building premises as close to the point of cable entrance or attachment as practicable. For purposes of this section, grounding located at mobile home service equipment located in sight from, and not more within 9.0 (30 ft) of the exterior wall of the mobile home it serves, or at a mobile home disconnecting means grounded in accordance with 250.32 and located in sight from, and not more within 9.0 m (30 ft) of the exterior wall of the mobile home it serves, shall be considered to meet the requirements of this section. Substantiation: Improves clarity. The existing, double-negative wording is difficult to interpret. This editorial change makes the text easier to interpret and clarifies the requirements. For purposes of grounding or bonding CATV equipment, being able to see the power disconnection point is immaterial. Where as in sight from may be critical for disconnecting power in an emergency, maintaining a reasonable length grounding conductor is the key in a CATV application. This proposal does not affect service equipment placement requirements. It only clarifies where the CATV grounding will be done based on where the service equipment is already placed. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-288 Log #768 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.93, FPN (New) ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Add a Fine Print Note Number 1 (FPN No 1) to 820.93 as follows: FPN No. 1: See 820.2 for the definition of point of entrance . Renumber the existing FPN as FPN No. 2.

Substantiation: This is an editorial proposal. (Task Group No. ) The editorial addition of FPN No. 1 will provide consistency with 770.93, 800.93 and 830.93. This is a companion proposal to 770.93 and 830.93. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar _____________________________________________________________ 16-286 Log #767 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Part requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, (820.93) 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. _____________________________________________________________ The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Revise 820.93 as follows: Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. 820.93 Grounding of the Outer Conductive Shield of a Coaxial Cable Panel Meeting Action: Accept Cables Entering Buildings. The outer conductive shield of the coaxial cable Number Eligible to Vote: 15 cables entering buildings shall be grounded at the building premises as close Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 to the point of cable entrance or attachment as practicable. For purposes of this Explanation of Negative: OHDE, H.: This proposal should be rejected. Section 90.1 (C ) of the NEC section, grounding located at mobile home ... Substantiation: This proposal is editorial. (Task Group No. 820-12) states This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction It provides for consistency between 770.93, 800.93, 820.93 and 830.93. This manual for the untrained persons . In the submitters substantiation he states is a companion proposal to 770.93, 800.93 and 830.93. this FPN will help installers who are not Code experts. The addition of the FPN This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial referencing 820.2 for the definition of point of entrance is not needed nor Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: warranted. A trained installer will know the Code content and how the Code book is to be used.

70-952

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

_____________________________________________________________ 16-289 Log #73 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part (820.94 (New) ) _____________________________________________________________ TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Panel clarify the Panel Action on this Proposal. The first sentence in new (C) references compliance with (B)(1) and there is not a (B)(1). This action will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment. Submitter: John Chamberlain, Broadband Telecommunications. LLC Recommendation: New Article 820 Section for Primary Protection. 820.XX Primary Electrical Protection. (A) Application. Primary electrical protection shall be provided on all community antenna television and radio distribution systems that are neither grounded nor interrupted and are run partly or entirely in aerial cable not confined within a block. Also, primary protection shall be provided on all aerial or underground community antenna television and radio distribution systems that are neither grounded nor interrupted and are located within the block containing the building served so as to be exposed to lightning or accidental contact with electric light or power conductors operating at over 300 volts to ground. (1) Fuseless Primary Protectors. Fuseless type primary protectors shall be permitted where power fault currents on all protected conductors in the cable are safely limited to a value no greater than the current-carrying capacity of the primary protector and of the primary protector grounding conductor. (2) Fused Primary Protectors. Where the requirements listed in 820.XX(A)(1) are not met, fused type primary protectors shall be used. Fused-type primary protectors shall consist of an arrestor connected between each conductor to be protected and ground, a fuse in series with each conductor to be protected, and an appropriate mounting arrangement. Fused primary protector terminals shall be marked to indicate line, instrument, and ground, as applicable. (B) Location. The location of the primary protector, where required, shall comply with (B)(1) (1) A listed primary protector shall be applied on each community antenna and radio distribution cable external to the premises. The listed primary protector should be located as close as practicable to the entrance point of the cable on either side or integral to the ground block. (C) Hazardous (Classified) Locations. The primary protector or the equipment providing the primary protection function shall not be located in any hazardous (classified) location as defined in Article 500 or in the vicinity of easily ignitable material. Substantiation: A change in technology requires that Article 820 include a provision for Primary Protection. Due to the advent of VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) delivered by Community Antenna Television and Radio Distribution Systems as per Article 820, primary protection should be required in this article. Both Article 800 Communications Circuits, and Article 830 Network-Powered Communications Circuits have requirements for Primary Protection. Currently, Article 820 does not have this requirement. The wiring methods for all three articles (800, 820, and 830) are similar, the only differentiation that Article 820 currently seems to have is that voice or telephone services are not delivered. Given, this current differentiation, it is understandable that primary protection only be required for telephone delivery systems because the end user equipment (a telephone headset) places personnel in very close proximity to the equipment and a potential safety hazard exists for high voltage surges such as lightning strikes. Now that VoIP is being delivered by systems that fall under Article 820, Primary Protection should also be required in this Article. In addition, it is possible for third parties to deliver VoIP over Article 820 systems without the knowledge or approval of the carrier. Therefore, primary protection should be required on Article 820 systems whether the carrier is providing VoIP services or not. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part Add the following text to 820.93 as follows: (C) Location. The location of the primary protector, where required, shall comply with (B)(1). (1) A listed primary protector shall be applied on each community antenna and radio distribution cable external to the premises. The listed primary protector should be located as close as practicable to the entrance point of the cable on either side or integral to the ground block. (D) Hazardous (Classified) Locations. Where a primary protector or equipment providing the primary protection function is used, it shall not be located in any hazardous (classified) location as defined in 500.5 or in the vicinity of easily ignitible material. Exception: As permitted in 501.150, 502.150, and 503.150. Panel Statement: The panel did not accept the submitters subsection (A) because 820.93 requires grounding on all Article 820 installations. As this proposal is worded, a primary protector would never be required. Section 820.93(B) already allows the use of such a device. Adding the new text addresses the submitters concern of locating protectors. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

NFPA 70
_____________________________________________________________ 16-290 Log #159 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.94 (New) ) _____________________________________________________________ TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Panel clarify the Panel Action on this Proposal. The first sentence in new (C) references compliance with (B)(1) and there is not a (B)(1). This action will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment. Submitter: Jon Spencer, J-Tech Recommendation: Add the primary protection requirement (NEC 830.9) into Article 820. Substantiation: Additions to the 1999 NEC publication include Article 830, to govern MSOs (Multiple Service Operators) who provided multiple services using a Network-Powered Broadband Communications Systems. NEC 830 provided guidelines for many aspects of delivering bundled services. 830.90 Primary Electrical Protection required primary protection for all network powered drop cables to protect against lightning, power crossing and other high voltage situations. Section 830.90 is significant because of the increased risk of electrical shock to the end-user due to physical contact between the telephone headset and personal body. (Reference pages 3 & 4 of article from the Maine Today newspaper which I have provided). Clearly, 830.90 is a vital safety aspect when telephone services are provided, however, the article is limited to Network-Powered Broadband Communications Systems: NEC Article 830. Advances in VoIP technology allow MSOs and 3rd party vendors to offer residential and business telephone service that relies on home power and/or battery backup. By using home power and/or battery backup, the system falls under Article 820 and leaves the individual at an increased risk of electrical shock hazard due to the lack of primary protection requirement. As the cable industry and 3rd party vendors continue to launch new products, like VoIP, it becomes harder to determine which customers subscribe to telephone service over cable and those who do not. Based on the uncertainty and severity of lightning and factor in the future penetration rates of VoIP technology, it is critical primary protection is added to the 2008 version Article 820. (Radio Distribution Systems) Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The submitter did not provide text for the new section. The submitter indicated a possible problem but did not provide proposed text to solve said problem. Supporting material relayed accounts of lightning strike damage but did not identify the path taken by the lightning. The substantiation does not show that present grounding requirements are insufficient or that adding a protector would add safety over present requirements. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 (Note: The sequence 16-291 was not used) _____________________________________________________________ 16-292 Log #1311 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.100) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Steven C. Johnson, Time Warner Cable / Rep. National Cable Telecommunications Association Recommendation: Revise as follows: 820.100 Cable Grounding. Where required by 820.93, t T he shield of the coaxial cable shall be grounded as specified in 820.100(A) through 820.100(D). Substantiation: Prior to 2002, the NEC listed criteria where grounding was required, such as exposure to lightning, exposure to accidental contact with power conductors, etc. The 2002 code removed these qualifications and just specified that the shield be grounded. Since 820.93 requires grounding without exception, the phrase Where required by 820.93 is redundant. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-293 Log #3510 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.100) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Dobrowsky, Holley, NY Recommendation: Revise as Follows: 820.100 Cable Grounding. Where required by 820.93, the shield of the coaxial cable shall be grounded as specified in 820.100(A) through 820.100(D). (A) Grounding Electrode Conductor. (1) Insulation. The grounding electrode conductor shall be insulated and shall be listed as suitable for wet locations the purpose . (2) Material. The grounding electrode conductor shall be copper or other corrosion-resistant conductive material, stranded or solid. (3) Size. The grounding electrode conductor shall not be smaller than 14 AWG. It shall have a current-carrying capacity approximately equal to that of the outer conductor of the coaxial cable. The grounding electrode conductor shall not be required to exceed 6 AWG.

70-953

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

(4) Length. The grounding electrode conductor shall be as short as practicable. In one- and two-family dwellings, the grounding electrode conductor shall be as short as practicable, not to exceed 6.0 m (20 ft) in length. FPN: Similar grounding electrode conductor length limitations applied at apartment buildings and commercial buildings will help to reduce voltages that may be developed between the buildings power and communications systems during lightning events. Exception: In one- and two-family dwellings where it is not practicable to achieve an overall maximum grounding electrode conductor length of 6.0 m (20 ft), a separate ground grounding connection as specified in 250.52(A)(5), (A)(6), or (A)(7) shall be used, the grounding electrode conductor shall be grounded to the separate ground in accordance with 250.70, and the separate ground bonded to the power grounding electrode system in accordance with 820.100(D). (5) Run in Straight Line. The grounding electrode conductor shall be run to the grounding electrode in as straight a line as practicable. (6) Physical Protection. Where subject to physical damage, the grounding electrode conductor shall be adequately protected. Where the grounding e lectrode conductor is run in a metal raceway, both ends of the raceway shall be bonded to the grounding electrode conductor or the same terminal or electrode to which the grounding electrode conductor is connected. (B) Electrode. The grounding electrode conductor shall be connected in accordance with 820.100(B)(1) and (B)(2). (1) In Buildings or Structures with Grounding Means. To the nearest accessible location on the following: (1) The building or structure grounding electrode system as covered in 250.50 (2) The grounded interior metal water piping system, within 1.52 m (5 ft) from its point of entrance to the building, as covered in 250.52 (3) The power service accessible means external to enclosures as covered in 250.94 (4) The metallic power service raceway (5) The service equipment enclosure (6) The service, system, building or structure grounding electrode conductor or the grounding electrode conductor metal enclosure, or (7) The grounding electrode conductor or the grounding electrode of a building or structure disconnecting means that is grounded to an electrode as covered in 250.32 (2) In Buildings or Structures Without Grounding Means. If the building or structure served has no grounding means, as described in 820.100(B)(1): (1) To any one of the individual electrodes described in 250.52(A)(1), (A)(2), (A)(3), (A)(4); or, (2) If the building or structure served has no grounding means, as described in 820.100(B)(1) or (B)(2)(1), to an effectively grounded metal structure or to any one of the individual electrodes described in 250.52(A)(5), (A)(6), and (A)(7). (C) Electrode Connection. Connections to grounding electrodes shall comply with 250.70. (D) Bonding of Electrodes. A bonding jumper not smaller than 6 AWG copper or equivalent shall be connected between the community antenna television systems grounding electrode and the power grounding electrode system at the building or structure served where separate electrodes are used. Exception: At mobile homes as covered in 820.106. FPN No. 1: See 250.60 for use of air terminals (lightning rods). FPN No. 2: Bonding together of all separate electrodes limits potential differences between them and between their associated wiring systems. Substantiation: The concept of listed for the purpose needs to be explained. If being suitable for a wet location is not the intent, then please describe what is. The term grounding conductor should be replaced with grounding electrode conductor. A proposal was submitted to Article 100 to modify the existing definition of grounding electrode and to delete the term grounding conductor. to clarify this issue. The Term Grounding conductor is sometimes used to describe a connection to the earth and other times to describe any of the different types of conductors that use the term grounding. Separate grounding electrodes are already required to be bonded together by 250.50. Describing what listed for the purpose will improve usablity. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The term grounding electrode conductor specifically applies to the conductor that connects the grounding electrode(s) to the equipment grounding conductor or to the grounded conductor, or both at the electric service to the building. The conductor connecting the metallic members of the cable sheath and the primary protector grounding terminal to the building grounding means is not a grounding electrode conductor, but a grounding conductor as determined by the TCC Grounding & Bonding Task Group. The listing of a grounding electrode conductor does not include a special investigation for a wet location. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

NFPA 70
_____________________________________________________________ 16-294 Log #847 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.100(A)(1)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Michael J. Johnston, Plano, TX Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 820.100 Cable Grounding. Where required by 820.93, the shield of the coaxial cable shall be grounded as specified in 820.100(A) through 820.100(D). (A) Grounding Conductor (1) Insulation. The grounding conductor shall be insulated and shall be listed and marked as a grounding protector wire. as suitable for the purpose. Substantiation: Under the category KDER and the UL White Book, Protector Grounding wires are addressed. The guide card information indicates that this wire is required to be marked with the manufacturers name, size, and the words protector grounding wire. In step with the directives to address the term listed or listed as suitable for the purpose, this proposal is an effort to be more specific in the rule to require a conductor specifically listed and marked for this purpose. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: There is nothing special about the conductor used to ground the protector. The communications industry has used listed wire to ground the protector universally and safely for many years. There is no need to specifically mark this conductor as a grounding protector wire. Such marking may lead to confusion and misinterpretation. The submitter has demonstrated no safety issue with the present practice. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-295 Log #851 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.100(A)(1)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Michael J. Johnston, Plano, TX Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 820.100 Cable Grounding. Where required by 820.93, the shield of the coaxial cable shall be grounded as specified in 820.100(A) through 820.100(D). (A) Grounding Conductor (1) Insulation. The grounding conductor shall be insulated and shall be listed. as suitable for the purpose. Substantiation: Listed insulated conductors are currently being used for this purpose and there doesnt appear to be insulated conductors listed specifically for the purpose of accomplishing the grounding required by this section. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-296 Log #905 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.100(A)(3)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Daniel Leaf, Seneca, SC Recommendation: (A)(3) revise second sentence: It shall have a current-carrying capacity approximately equal to not less than that of the outer conductor of the coaxial cable (D) A copper bonding jumper not smaller than 6 AWG copper or equivalent... (remainder unchanged). Substantiation: Edit. Present wording indicates the grounding conductor is not permitted to have a current-carrying capacity greater than the outer conductor. In (D) copper appears intended, however, literal wording only requires a jumper that is not smaller than 6 AWG copper, for which 6 AWG aluminum suffices. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The present text is clear. The bonding jumper can be not smaller than 6 AWG copper or equivalent . An equivalent conductor is one with at least the same ampacity and corrosion-resistance capability and could be of different material and/or larger in size (AWG). The panel notes that the submitter did not see the necessity to revise equivalent in his proposals on similar requirements in 820.100(A)(3) and 830.100(D). Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-297 Log #376 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.100(A)(6)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: David Shapiro, Safety First Electrical Contracting, Consulting, and Safety Education Recommendation: Revise text as follows: Physical Protection. Where subject to physical damage, the grounding conductor shall be adequately protected....

70-954

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

Substantiation: Use of the word physical is superfluousthe intent is obvious given the context. (I leave it to the CMP whether you want to get more specific naming some source of damage such as blows or abrasion. I also leave it to you whether to update adequately to something like by a means acceptable to the AHJ.) Submitting proposals removing the adjective physical may strike people as about as useful as hunting gnats with a cannon. However, doing so seems worthwhile for two reasons. First, if we eliminate every unnecessary instance, as I am attempting to do, we actually cut the NEC down by up to oh, maybe a quarter-page. Keeping it from growing too much fatter every cycle is a goal many of us can agree on. Second, the unneeded use of physical not only is poor writinglook at William Zinssers classic, On Writing Wellbut is silly, and reflects a bit poorly on the Code process. When references were changed to physical damage, in 1959, from mechanical injury (with no substantiation recorded), an excellent opportunity was overlooked to eliminate the possibility of someone raising an eyebrow and saying fatuously, Is anyone claiming electrical equipment needs protection from non-physical injury? (Substitute the snide adjective of your choice.) Lets take care of that for good: for our purposes, damage means physical damage. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The grounding conductor is potentially subject to multiple sources of damage: electrical, physical, and environmental. The word physical is necessary to specifically identify the type of damage that the section is addressing. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

NFPA 70

(B)( 2 3)(1), to an effectively grounded metal structure or to any one of the individual electrodes described in 250.52(A)(5), (A)(6), and (A)(7). Substantiation: This is one of several correlated proposals (100 Definitions, 250.95, Chapter 8 Articles) to improve the requirements related to intersystem bonding and grounding of communication systems. The intent is to create a dedicated and well-defined location for terminating the grounding conductors required in Chapter 8 Articles and 770.93. These grounding conductors also provide between communication and power systems (intersystem bonding). The proposed termination would have sufficient capacity to handle multiple communication systems (telecom, satellite, CATV) on premises. The proposed revision makes the intersystem bonding terminal the preferred destination for grounding conductor in Article 820. See the figures I have provided. Intersystem bonding accomplished by connection of a communication grounding conductor to the power system is an important safety measure to prevent occurrences of voltages between communication system and power system. However, the existing requirements are not adequate. Bonding is becoming difficult to implement due to changes in building construction practices such as increased prevalence of flush construction and use of PVC conduits. Frequently, in new construction, the grounding electrode, the raceway and the grounding electrode conductor are hidden behind walls and not accessible for bonding connection. Even in older construction with accessible equipment, the requirement for installation of intersystem bonding connection is subject to varying interpretation because there is not a clearly defined dedicated bonding location. The connection to the power system is sometimes haphazard. Installers are sometimes confused over where the connection should be made especially if multiple Communication Systems are present on premises. Note: Supporting Material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. _____________________________________________________________ Panel Meeting Action: Accept 16-298 Log #850 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 (820.100(A)(6)) Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Michael J. Johnston, Plano, TX 16-300 Log #1993 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: (820.100(B)) (6) Physical Protection. The grounding conductor shall be protected where _____________________________________________________________ exposed to physical damage. Where subject to physical damage, the grounding TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Panel conductor shall be adequately protected. Where the grounding conductor is run clarify the Panel Action on this Proposal based on the placement of the in a metal raceway, both ends of the raceway shall be bonded to the grounding recommended text as indicated in the affirmative comment. This action conductor or the same terminal or electrode to which the grounding conductor will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment. is connected. Submitter: Neil F. LaBrake, Jr., Niagara Mohawk, a National Grid Company / Substantiation: Adequately is subjective in this requirement and can lead to Rep. Edison Electric Institute-Electric Light & Power Group inconsistencies. The word adequate is a word that is identified by the Style Recommendation: Add these two sentences after the last sentence of Manual as one to avoid in Code rules for that reason. 820.100(B): Panel Meeting Action: Accept A device intended to provide a termination point for the grounding conductor Number Eligible to Vote: 15 (inter-system bonding) shall be prohibited from use when the installation of Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 such device interferes with opening a service or metering equipment enclosure. An inter-system bonding device shall not be installed on an enclosure cover. _____________________________________________________________ Substantiation: Poor grounding practices by installers of CATV, telephone, 16-299 Log #1888 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept satellite and other communication systems using termination devices that clamp (820.100(B)) to enclosure covers have resulted in interruption of grounding continuity. This _____________________________________________________________ is a companion proposal to proposals to add this requirement to 800.100(B), TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Panel 810.21(F), and 830.100(B). clarify the Panel Action on this Proposal with respect to the use of the Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle word and in the sentence The grounding conductor shall be connected Add the following after the last sentence of 820.100(B): in accordance with 820.100(B)(1), (B)(2), and (B)(3). This action will be A device intended to provide a termination point for the grounding conductor considered by the Panel as a Public Comment. shall not interfere with the opening of an equipment enclosure. A bonding It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that this device shall be mounted on non-removable parts. A bonding device shall not be Proposal be reconsidered and correlated with the action on Proposal 5-20. mounted on a door or cover even if the door or cover is non-removable. Submitter: Jeffrey Boksiner, Telcordia Technologies, Inc. / Rep. Alliance for Panel Statement: The panel accepts the intent of the submitter and has Telecommunications Industry Solutions reworded the text for clarity. It is requested that the Technical Correlating Recommendation: Revise 820.100(B) Cable and Primary Protector Committee forward to Code-Making Panel 5 for similar action as applicable. Grounding (Electrode) as follows: Number Eligible to Vote: 15 (B) Electrode. The grounding conductor shall be connected in accordance Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 with 820.100(B)(1), and (B)(2) and (B)(3). Comment on Affirmative: BRUNSSEN, J.: The submitters text, as modified by the Panel, should be (1) In Buildings or Structures with an Intersystem Grounding Termination. If the building or structure served has an intersystem grounding placed following the existing text of 820.100(B)(5) rather than at the end of termination the grounding conductor shall be connected to the intersystem 820.100(B). Section 820.100(B)(5) specifically addresses connection to the grounding termination. service equipment enclosure and that is the issue that the submitter intended to (1) (2) In Buildings or Structures with Grounding Means. If the building address. or structure served has no intersystem grounding termination, the grounding conductor shall be connected to the nearest accessible location on the _____________________________________________________________ following: 16-301 Log #1552 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept .................. (820.100(B)(2)(2)) ..................Retain existing list and text. _____________________________________________________________ ................... Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on National Electrical Code, (2) (3) In Buildings or Structures Without Intersystem Grounding Recommendation: Delete the term effectively from the terms effectively Termination or Grounding Means. If the building or structure served has grounded and effectively bonded from Articles 820 and revise text as shown no intersystem grounding termination or grounding means, as described in for the affected NEC sections. 820.100(B)(2)(2): 820.100(B)( 1 2 ), the grounding conductor shall be connected to either of the (2) If the building or structure served has no grounding means, as described following:. (1) To any one of the individual electrodes described in 250.52(A)(1), (A)(2), in 820.100(B)(1) or (B)(2)(1), to an effectively grounded metal structure or to (A)(3), (A)(4); or, any one of the individual electrodes described in 250.52(A)(5), (A)(6), and (2) If the building or structure served has no intersystem grounding (A)(7). termination or grounding means, as described in 820.100(B)( 1 2 ) or

70-955

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

Substantiation: 820.100(B)(2)(2): Here the reference to effectively grounded metal structure seems superfluous. This is the result of the TCC Task Group on Grounding and Bonding in resolve of the 2005 NEC cycle actions related to Proposal 5-1 and Comment 5-1 as directed by the Technical Correlating Committee. This is a companion proposal to delete the term grounded, effectively and its definition from Article 100 and other companion proposals throughout the NEC relative to this Task Groups recommendations. The substantiation of this proposal is as follows. The term Effectively Grounded is used 29 times in the NEC. It appears as though in the majority of the locations where it is used, the word grounded or phrase connected to an equipment grounding conductor could be used. Other proposals are submitted to make those changes. The 1996 NEC in Section 250.51 used the term effective grounding path, and those concepts were incorporated in 250.2 (1999 NEC) and then expanded in 250.4(A) and (B) in the 2002 NEC. The performance criteria of grounding and bonding are currently provided in Section 250.4 and include the concepts contained in the vague definition of the term effectively grounded. The definition Effectively Grounded is very subjective and without any defined values or parameters for one to judge grounding as either effective or ineffective. Effective is described in Section 250.4(A) and (B), but it relates to the effective ground-fault current path as a performance criteria. Deleting the term in the NEC and the definition is logical because there are no definitive parameters for Code users to make a determination on what constitutes effectively grounded. Systems are solidly grounded, grounded through a resistor or impedance, or ungrounded. Equipment (normally noncurrent-carrying metal parts are grounded where connected to an equipment grounding conductor. This proposal is to change the term Effectively Bonded to just Bonded in each of the section where it is used. The term Effectively Bonded is currently not defined in the NEC. The term effectively bonded is also used a few times in the NEC and is undefined. The same situation exists. There are no defined parameters for Code users to judges what the difference between Effectively Bonded and Bonded really is. Where the term appears in the NEC, it is revised to just bonded and still has the same meaning in each rule. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-302 Log #2316 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.100(B)(1) Exception) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Dudley, Amerisat Inc. Recommendation: Add an Exception to read: Exception: In dwellings where it is not practicable to ground as specified in 820.100(B)(1) or (B)(2), such as in multiple story buildings and in buildings with exterior ownership restrictions, grounding may be accomplished by connection to grounded equipment as specified in 250.138(A). Substantiation: When the cable shield is connected to equipment which is grounded in accordance with 250.138(A), it is acceptable as a ground for the cable in those areas where other grounding is not readily available. Grounding conductors should always be as straight and short as possible, and this exception, in many installations, would allow shorter grounding conductor paths. Unplugging the device or disconnecting power to the outlet cuts power to the cable as well as to the equipment it is connected to. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The intent of the grounding requirements of 820.100(B) is to obtain the best ground connection possible at a specific location. The grounding connection options are therefore presented in a descending order of acceptability. One should always strive to achieve the best ground connection possible when installing the cable ground. Electrical safety is of paramount importance and practicability is never a consideration. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-303 Log #769 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.100(B)(1)7.) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Add the following: For purposes of this section, the mobile home service equipment or the mobile home disconnecting means, as described in 820.93, shall be considered accessible. Substantiation: This proposal is technical and editorial. (Task Group No. 820-14) It provides parallel consistency with 830.100(B) and 800.100(B). This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article;

NFPA 70
3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-304 Log #770 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.106) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Make the changes as shown: 820.106 Bonding and Grounding and Bonding at Mobile Homes Substantiation: This is an editorial proposal. (Task Group No. 820-15) It provides consistency in the title with Section 800.106 Note: A similar change is proposed to Section 830.106. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-305 Log #1313 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (820.106(A)) _____________________________________________________________ TCC Action: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that this Proposal be reconsidered and correlated with the action on Proposal 16-4 based on text in the affirmative comments. This action will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment. Submitter: Steven C. Johnson, Time Warner Cable / Rep. National Cable Telecommunications Association Recommendation: Revise as follows: 820.106 Bonding and Grounding at Mobile Homes. (A) Grounding. Grounding shall comply with (1) and (2). (1) Where there is no mobile home service equipment located in sight from, and not more within 9.0 m (30 ft) of the exterior wall of the mobile home it serves, the coaxial cable shield ground, or surge arrester ground, shall be in accordance with 820.100(B)(2). (2) Where or there is no mobile home disconnecting means grounded in accordance with 250.32 and located within sight from, and not more within 9.0 m (30 ft) of the exterior wall of the mobile home it serves, the coaxial cable shield ground, or surge arrester ground, shall be in accordance with 820.100(B)(2). Substantiation: Improves clarity. The existing, double-negative wording is difficult to interpret. This editorial change makes the text easier to interpret and clarifies the requirements. For purposes of grounding or bonding CATV equipment, being able to see the power disconnection point is immaterial. Whereas in sight from may be critical for disconnecting power in an emergency, maintaining a reasonable length grounding conductor is the key in a CATV application. This proposal does not affect service equipment placement requirements. It only clarifies where the CATV grounding will be done based on where the service equipment is already placed. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-4. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Comment on Affirmative: BRUNSSEN, J.: The Panel Action is Accept in Principle and the reader is referred to the Panel Action on Proposal 16-4. However, the Panel Meeting Action on Proposal 16-4 with regard to 820.106(A) is incorrect. See my affirmative comment on Proposal 16-4, 820.106(A). _____________________________________________________________ 16-306 Log #63 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.110) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stanley Kaufman, Cable Safe Inc. Recommendation: Revise as follows: 820.110 Raceways for Coaxial Cables. Where coaxial cables are installed in a raceway, the raceway shall be either of a type permitted in Chapter 3 and installed in accordance with Chapter 3 or listed plenum CATV raceway, listed riser CATV raceway, or listed general-purpose CATV raceway installed in accordance with 820.154, and a listed nonmetallic raceway complying with 820.182(A), (B), or (C), as

70-956

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

applicable, and installed in accordance with 362.24 through 362.56, where the requirements applicable to electrical nonmetallic tubing apply. Exception: Conduit fill restrictions shall not apply. Substantiation: This is a corollary proposal to one being submitted for Article770. Specifically mentioning each plenum, riser and general-purpose raceway, rather that using the term nonmetallic raceway is more userfriendly. The installation requirements are in 820.154 so the reference to 820.182(A) (which is listing requirements) was changed to 820.154 since this section deals with installation. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: OHDE, H.: This proposal should be modified. Change the last part of the first sentence of the new 820.110 as follows: and installed in accordance with 362.10, 362.12 and 362.24 through 362.56, where the requirements applicable to electrical nonmetallic tubing apply. The Chapter 3 raceways must be installed in accordance with all of the requirements of Chapter 3. These raceways (general-purpose, riser) should also have to be installed in accordance with 362.10 and 362.12 since they have the same or similar characteristics to ENT. _____________________________________________________________ 16-307 Log #771 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (Table 820.113) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Change the title as shown: Table 820.113 Coaxial Cable Markings Substantiation: This is an editorial proposal. (Task Group No. 820-16 ) It is part of a series of proposals to clarify that Article 820 deals with coaxial cable. Adding the word coaxial adds clarity to the section for the code user. Note that another proposal from the editorial task group moves this table to section 820.179 (Task Group No. ). This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-308 Log #2385 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.113) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Allen C. Weidman, The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. Recommendation: Add a sentence at the end of 820.113. The temperature rating shall be marked on the cable . Substantiation: It is important for the system designer, installer, local authority, and building owners to know the temperature rating of cables for proper application. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The Code presently permits the temperature rating to be marked on the cable. See UL 444. The AHJ does not have the authority to require the manufacturer to mark the temperature rating on the cable. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-309 Log #776 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.113 and 820.179) _____________________________________________________________ TCC Action: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that this Proposal be reconsidered and correlated with the action on Proposal 16-284. This action will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment. Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Revise 820.179 and 820.113 as shown and transfer Table 820.113 and Table FPNs to 820.179. 820.179 Coaxial Cables. Cables shall be listed in accordance with 820.179(A) through 820.179(D) and marked in accordance with Table 820.179. The cable voltage rating shall not be marked on the cable. FPN: Voltage markings on cables could be misinterpreted to suggest that the cables may be suitable for Class 1, electric light, and power applications. Exception: Voltage markings shall be permitted where the cable has multiple listings and voltage marking is required for one or more of the listings.

NFPA 70
820.113 Installation and Marking of Coaxial Cables. Listed coaxial cables shall be installed as wiring within buildings. Coaxial cables shall be marked in accordance with Table 820.113. The cable voltage rating shall not be marked on the cable. FPN: Voltage markings on cables could be misinterpreted to suggest that the cables may be suitable for Class 1, electric light, and power applications. Exception No. 1: Voltage markings shall be permitted where the cable has multiple listings and voltage marking is required for one or more of the listings. Exception No. 2: Listing and marking shall not be required where the length of the cable within the building, measured from its point of entrance, does not exceed 15 m (50 ft) and the cable enters the building from the outside and is terminated at a grounding block. Substantiation: The change is editorial. (Task Group No. 820-22) It moves the cable marking requirements from 820.113 to 820.179. Marking requirements belong with listing requirements. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-284. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-310 Log #1882 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (820.113 Exception No. 2) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: James E. Brunssen, Telecordia Technologies Inc. / Rep. Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions Recommendation: Revise 820.113, Exception No. 2 as follows: Exception No. 2: Unlisted coaxial cables shall be permitted within buildings in spaces other than risers, air ducts, plenums, and other spaces used for environmental air. Listing and marking shall not be required where the The length of the unlisted cable permitted within the building, measured from its point of entrance, does shall not exceed 15 m (50 ft) . and the The unlisted cable enters shall enter the building from the outside and is shall be terminated at a grounding block. Substantiation: The NEC presently permits up to 50 ft of unlisted coaxial cable to be run into a building, but places no restriction on installing the unlisted cables in air handling spaces where they could contribute to fire and smoke hazard. This proposal adds that restriction, further contributing to fire and smoke safety. This is a companion proposal and is intended to correlate with similar proposals for 770.113 Ex. No. 1 and 800.113 Ex. No. 2. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-284. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-311 Log #772 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.133) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Make changes as shown: 820.133 Installation of Coaxial Cables and Equipment. Beyond the point of grounding, as defined in 820.93, the coaxial cable installation shall comply with 820.133(A) through 820.133(C). Substantiation: This is an editorial proposal. (Task Group No. 820-17) It is one of a series of proposals to clarify that Article 820 deals with coaxial cable. Adding the word coaxial adds clarity to the section for the code user. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

70-957

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

_____________________________________________________________ 16-312 Log #773 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.133(A)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Renumber this section as shown: 820.133 Installation of Cables and Equipment. Beyond the point of grounding, as defined in 820.93, the cable installation shall comply with 820.133(A) through 820.133(C). (A) Separation from Other Conductors. (1) In Raceways and Boxes. ( a 1 ) Other Circuits. Coaxial cables shall be permitted in the same raceway or enclosure with jacketed cables of any of the following: (1) a . Class 2 and Class 3 remote-control, signaling, and power-limited circuits in compliance with Article 725 (2) b . Power-limited fire alarm systems in compliance with Article 760 (3) c . Nonconductive and conductive optical fiber cables in compliance with Article 770 (4) d . Communications circuits in compliance with Article 800 (5) e . Low-power network-powered broadband communications circuits in compliance with Article 830 ( b 2 ) Electric Light, Power, Class 1, NonPower-Limited Fire Alarm, and Medium Power Network-Powered Broadband Communications Circuits. Coaxial cable shall not be placed in any raceway, compartment, outlet box, junction box, or other enclosures with conductors of electric light, power, Class 1, nonpower-limited fire alarm, or medium power network-powered broadband communications circuits. Exception No. 1: Where all of the conductors of electric light, power, Class 1, nonpower-limited fire alarm, and medium power network-powered broadband communications circuits are separated from all of the coaxial cables by a permanent barrier or listed divider. Exception No. 2: Power circuit conductors in outlet boxes, junction boxes, or similar fittings or compartments where such conductors are introduced solely for power supply to the coaxial cable system distribution equipment. The power circuit conductors shall be routed within the enclosure to maintain a minimum 6-mm (0.25-in.) separation from coaxial cables. Substantiation: This proposal is editorial. (Task Group No. 820-18) The change in numbering will bring this section into conformance with the numbering guideline of the NEC Style Manual and make the numbering the same as articles 800 and 830. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-313 Log #2630 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.133(A) Exception (New) ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: David H. Kendall, Carlon Recommendation: Add a new exception to 820.133(A) to read as follows: Exception: Where all of the conductors of electric light, power, Class 1, nonpower-limited fire alarm, and medium power network-powered broadband communications circuits are separated from all of the coaxial cables by a permanent barrier or listed divider. Substantiation: This is a new exception for 820.133(A) that would allow a coaxial cable to share the same raceway, outlet box or enclosure as long as a barrier was in place. This language is similar to the language found in 800.133(A)(1)(c) Exception No. 1. Coaxial cable can become energized if it comes in contact with electrical conductors. This proposal defines the barrier as a permanent function of the enclosure or that it may be a removal or field installed listed divider. These barriers are used to divide the coaxial cable from the power circuits. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: Exception No.1 presently meets the submitters intent. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

NFPA 70
_____________________________________________________________ 16-314 Log #1287 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.133(A)(1)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Gerald Lee Dorna, Belden CDT. Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read: 800.133 (A) (1) (1) In Raceways , Cable Trays and Boxes. (1) Other Circuits. Coaxial cables shall be permitted in the same raceway , cable tray or enclosure with jacketed cables of any of the following: a. Class 2 and Class 3 remote-control, signaling, and power-limited circuits in compliance with Article 725 b. Power-limited fire alarm systems in compliance with Article 760 c. Nonconductive and conductive optical fiber cables in compliance with Article 770 d. Communications circuits in compliance with Article 800 e. Low-power network-powered broadband communications circuits in compliance with Article 830 Substantiation: Obviously, cables that can be safely installed in the same raceway or enclosure can also be safely installed in the same cable tray. Stating that these cables are allowed in the same cable tray will avoid having the user assume that they are not permitted to be installed together in the same cable tray. It clarifies the use in the Code. Article 770, in section 770.133(B), has text similar to that proposed here. This is one of five similar proposals that are being submitted for Articles 725, 760, 800, 820 and 830. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Comment on Affirmative: JONES, R.: The submitter is obviously in error with the assertion Obviously, cables that can be safely installed in the same raceway or enclosure can also be safely installed in the same cable tray. O NLY cABLES LISTED FOR INSTALLATION IN CABLE TRAYS CAN BE INSTALLED IN CABLE TRAYS. _____________________________________________________________ 16-315 Log #3432 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.133(A)(1)2. Exception No. 1) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Frederic P. Hartwell, Hartwell Electrical Services, Inc. Recommendation: Delete the phrase listed divider at the end; substitute the words a securely installed barrier identified for the use. Substantiation: This wording correlates with the changes made by CMP 9 to an equivalent rule in 404.8(B) in response to an equivalent proposal from the same submitter. The problem is that Article 314 does not require conventional steel outlet boxes to be listed, and therefore not all steel box dividers manufactured for this purpose are listed. In addition, none of these barriers (for outlet boxes) are permanently installed; but they certainly can be securely installed, and they certainly meet the provisions of the Article 100 definition of identified, in that they are recognizable as suitable for this purpose. This wording refers to the identical products and should therefore correlate with Article 314 requirements. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: This situation is not the same as 404.8(B). Section 404.8(B) deals with the grouping of snap switches with other snap switches and similar devices such as receptacles. The barriers described in 404.8(B) are used to separate these similar devices containing similar circuits. Section 800. 133(A)(1)c; Exception No. 1; 820.133(A)(1)2, Exception No. 1; and 830.133(A)(1)d, Exception No. 1 deal with the separation of communications, CATV and broadband circuits from electric light, power and Class 1 circuits. A permanent barrier as currently permitted is okay as it is a physical part of the metal box or listed plastic box and its suitability can be determined by the AHJ or is covered by the listing. There are concerns associated with a nonpermanent barrier or divider that cannot be easily dealt with at the point of installation. For example compatibility with the box (fit and secureness), compatibility with the installed hardware such as power receptacles materials, ease of installation, clarity of proper installation procedures, affect on wiring space inside the box, and the like, need to be investigated and listed. These articles do not only cover metal boxes. The proposal would allow nonlisted barriers in metal and listed non-metallic boxes, voiding the listing of a non-metallic box. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

70-958

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

_____________________________________________________________ 16-316 Log #2631 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.135 (New) ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: David H. Kendall, Carlon Recommendation: Add a new section to read as follows: 820.135 Communication Device and Equipment Mounting. Communication devices or equipment shall be mounted in listed boxes, brackets or assemblies designed for the purpose, and such boxes or assemblies shall be securely fastened in place. Boxes or brackets can be completely enclosed or backless. (A) Communication Devices and Equipment Mounted to Boxes or Brackets. Communication devices or equipment shall be mounted to a listed boxes or bracket and installed per 314.20. (B) Communication Devices and Equipment Mounted on Covers. Communication device and equipment mounted to and supported by a cover shall be held rigidly against the cover which is mounted to the box or bracket. Substantiation: This proposal adds a new section to Article 820 addressing the mounting of devices or equipment to listed boxes and brackets. Currently, depending on the quality of workmanship, coaxial devices or equipment have not been mounted to boxes or brackets that can support them. After several years device and/or covers that are mounted directly to the dry wall will become a hazard because they have become loose and exposed. Coaxial cable can become energized by coming in incidental contact with electrical conductors. 820.135 was only a suggestion for the location of this new section. (A) addresses devices mounted directly to boxes or devices where as (B) address devices mounted to covers. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The submitter has provided no data supporting an existing hazard. The submitter offers only an individual opinion that, depending on the quality of workmanship, equipment or devices mounted directly to drywall may, over time, loosen and become a hazard. The addition of listed boxes or assemblies will not, in itself, guarantee a hazard-free installation. The same quality of workmanship is necessary to help ensure a hazard-free equipment installation whether or not listed boxes are used. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Comment on Affirmative: OHDE, H.: I concur with submitters recommendation which addresses the mounting of equipment or devices to listed boxes and brackets. However the submitter has not provided CMP 16 member any technical substantiation or data supporting the existing hazard. The submitter should resubmit the proposal in the 2008 ROC and provide CMP 16 members with such data.

NFPA 70

Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-318 Log #782 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.154) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Make the changes as shown: 820.154 Applications of Listed CATV Cables and CATV Raceways. CATV cables shall comply with the requirements of 820.154(A) through 820.154(D) or where cable substitutions are made as shown in Table 820.154. (A) Plenums. C oaxial c ables installed in ducts, plenums, and other spaces used for environmental air shall be Type CATVP. Abandoned cables shall not be permitted to remain. Types CATVP, CATVR, CATV, and CATVX cables installed in compliance with 300.22 shall be permitted. Listed plenum CATV raceways shall be permitted to be installed in ducts and plenums as described in 300.22(B) and in other spaces used for environmental air as described in 300.22(C). Only Type CATVP cable shall be permitted to be installed in these raceways. FPN: See 8.14.1 of NFPA 13-2002, Installation of Sprinkler Systems, for requirements for sprinklers in concealed spaces containing exposed combustibles. (B) Riser. C oaxial c ables installed in risers shall comply with any of the requirements of 820.154(B)(1) through (B)(3). (1) C oaxial c ables in Vertical Runs. C oaxial c ables installed in vertical runs and penetrating more than one floor, or cables installed in vertical runs in a shaft, shall be Type CATVR. Floor penetrations requiring Type CATVR shall contain only cables suitable for riser or plenum use. Abandoned cables shall not be permitted to remain. Substantiation: This is an editorial proposal. (Task Group No.820-28) It is part of a series of proposals to clarify that Article 820 deals with coaxial cable. Adding the word coaxial adds clarity to the section for the code user. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept _____________________________________________________________ Number Eligible to Vote: 15 16-317 Log #774 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 (820.154) _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ 16-319 Log #1440 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. (820.154) Recommendation: Make the changes as shown: _____________________________________________________________ 820.154 Applications of Listed CATV Cables and CATV Raceways. Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. CATV cables shall comply with the requirements of 820.154(A) through Recommendation: Make the changes and addition as shown: 820.154 Applications of Listed CATV Cables and CATV Raceways. 820.154(D) or where cable substitutions are made as shown in Table 820.154. (A) Plenums. C oaxial c ables installed in ducts, plenums, and other spaces CATV cables shall comply with the requirements of 820.154(A) through used for environmental air shall be Type CATVP. Abandoned cables shall not 820.154( D E) or where cable substitutions are made as shown in Table be permitted to remain. Types CATVP, CATVR, CATV, and CATVX cables 820.154. ( C , D) Cable Trays. installed in compliance with 300.22 shall be permitted. Listed plenum CATV ( D , C) Other Wiring. raceways shall be permitted to be installed in ducts and plenums as described (E) Cable Substitutions. The uses and permitted substitutions for CATV in 300.22(B) and in other spaces used for environmental air as described in 300.22(C). Only Type CATVP cable shall be permitted to be installed in these coaxial cables listed in Table 820.154 shall be considered suitable for the raceways. purpose and shall be permitted. FPN: See 8.14.1 of NFPA 13-2002, Installation of Sprinkler Systems, for Substantiation: This proposal is editorial. (Task Group No. 820-19(A)) The text being proposed adds clarity and creates parallelism between 800, requirements for sprinklers in concealed spaces containing exposed combustibles. 820, and 830. (B) Riser. C oaxial c ables installed in risers shall comply with any of the This is one of a group of proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial requirements of 820.154(B)(1) through (B)(3). Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: (1) C oaxial c ables in Vertical Runs. C oaxial c ables installed in vertical 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; runs and penetrating more than one floor, or cables installed in vertical runs in 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar a shaft, shall be Type CATVR. Floor penetrations requiring Type CATVR shall requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonalby possible; and, contain only cables suitable for riser or plenum use. Abandoned cables shall 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. not be permitted to remain. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Substantiation: This is an editorial proposal. (Task Group No. 820-19) It is part of a series of proposals to clarify that Article 820 deals with Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. coaxial cable. Adding the word coaxial adds clarity to the section for the Panel Meeting Action: Accept code user. Panel Statement: See panel action on CP-1602. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson.

70-959

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

_____________________________________________________________ 16-320 Log #2533 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.154) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Sanford Egesdal, Egesdal Associates PLC Recommendation: Revise 820.154, as shown. CATV cables shall comply with the requirements of 820.154(A) through 820.154(D) or where cable substitutions are made as shown in Table 820.154. CATV very-low-smoke cable shall be permitted to be installed meet requirements for very-low-smoke producing characteristics, low potential heat release, and low flame spread characteristics. Substantiation: NFPA 13-2002 has requirements for installation of sprinklers where a concealed space has combustible loading. Type CATV50 cable has a heat release that is significantly lower than combustible plenum cable listed using NFPA 262-2002, Standard Method of Test for Flame Travel and Smoke of Wires and Cables for Use in Air-Handling Spaces . The 2003 International Mechanical Code (IMC), 602.2.1 requires a smoke developed index less than 25 and a smoke developed index less than 50 for materials in plenums. The Fine Print Note provides guidance to system designers, installers, and code officials. Over the past few decades, there has been a significant increase in the quantity of combustible cables installed in concealed spaces (hollow spaces and HVAC system spaces). NFPA 13-2002, Installation of Sprinkler Systems, requires installation of a sprinkler system in concealed spaces where combustible loading is present. Because other NFPA documents reference NFPA 13, it is important for correlation for the NEC to include a pointer to NFPA 13. The following requirements are from NFPA 13-2002: 8.14.1.5 Localized Protection of Exposed Combustible Construction or Exposed Combustibles. In concealed spaces having exposed combustible construction, or containing exposed combustibles, in localized areas, the combustibles shall be protected as follows: (1) If the exposed combustibles are in the vertical partitions or walls around all or a portion of the enclosure, a single row of sprinklers spaced not over 12 ft (3.7 m) apart nor more than 6 ft (1.8 m) from the inside of the partition shall be permitted to protect the surface. The first and last sprinklers in such a row shall not be over 5 ft (1.5 m) from the ends of the partitions. (2) If the exposed combustibles are in the horizontal plane, the area of the combustibles shall be permitted to be protected with sprinklers on a light hazard spacing. Additional sprinklers shall be installed no more than 6 ft (1.8 m) outside the outline of the area and not more than 12 ft (1.8 m) on center along the outline. When the outline returns to a wall or other obstruction, the last sprinkler shall not be more than 6 ft (1.8 m) from the wall or obstruction. 8.14.1.2.1 Noncombustible and limited combustible concealed spaces with no combustible loading having no access shall not require sprinkler protection. The space shall be considered a concealed space even with small openings such as those used as return air for a plenum. The definition of combustible, from NFPA 5000 is: 3.3.340.2 Combustible (Material). A material that, in the form in which it is used and under the conditions anticipated, will ignite and burn; a material that does not meet the definition of noncombustible or limited-combustible. During the 2005 NEC code cycle, the proposed Fine Print Note was added to 800.154(A). Because communications cables are permitted to substitute for Class 2 and Class 3 circuit cables, it is important to have parallel requirements in both NEC Sections. Additionally, the Fine Print Note applies to all concealed spaces. In July of 2004, an appeal to the NFPA Standards Council requested deletion of the Fine Print Note to 800.154(A), prior to publication of the 2005 NEC. The appeal was denied. There is a companion proposal for the listing and marking of Type CATV50. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The submitter did not provide adequate technical substantiation to support a need for a cable listed for concealed spaces. Concealed spaces should be adequately defined. See action on Proposals 1613, 16-110, and 16-247 where the proposed definition was determined to be unacceptable. The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, in pertinent part, as follows: [S]o as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of NFPA 90A. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Comment on Affirmative: OHDE, H.: We agree with panel action and believe that the panel statement should also reflect the latest NFPA 13 Technical Committee actions. Included

NFPA 70
in the submitters substantiation was the 2002 Section 8.14 which since has been revised. We would like to add that NFPA 13 just completed their balloting process for the 2006 NFPA 13 Standard. The Technical Committee on Sprinkler Installation submitted a comment on Proposal 13-284. This comment reworded proposed A.8.14.1.2.1 to read Minor quantities of combustible materials such as but not limited to: cabling, nonmetallic plumbing piping, non-structural wood, etccan be present in concealed spaces constructed of limited or noncombustible materials but should not be viewed as requiring sprinklers (see 8.14.1.1) For example, it is not the intent of this section to require sprinklers, which would not otherwise be required, in the interstitial space of a typical office building solely due to the presence of the usual amount of cabling within the space. The threshold value at which sprinklers become necessary in the concealed space is not defined . In the NFPA 13 committees substantiation, they wanted to clarify that the normal amount of cabling would not require sprinklers due to the construction of the space. They also expanded the list of combustibles to provide examples of potential combustible loading. _____________________________________________________________ 16-321 Log #2662 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.154) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert W. Jensen, dbi / Rep. BICSI, A Telecommunications Association Recommendation: Delete the following text: FPN: See 8.14.1 of NFPA 13 (2002), Installation of Sprinkler Systems, for requirements for sprinklers in concealed spaces containing exposed combustibles. Substantiation: This FPN is being misinterpret and used in aggressive marketing attempts to require the installation of limited combustible cable (one such example is found at http://www.dupont.com/cablingsolutions/ products/codes.html). The FPN has had a profound effect in which it is used in misleading the AHJ to require limited combustible cable, conduit, or a sprinkler system to be installed within the concealed space. As an example, an AHJ Massachusetts would not provide a certificate of occupancy until the communications cabling was either replaced with limited combustible cable, the CMP cable was placed in conduit, or a sprinkler system installed above the suspended ceiling.. Although the installer had met the requirements of the NEC, the FPN misled the AHJ causing project delays and the potential of inordinate cost to the project. A plea to the NFPA aided the communications installer in which clarification was given that the CMP cabling was indeed sufficient to meet code and that NFPA 13 allowed some quantities (which is not defined) of communications cabling within concealed spaces. The installation of the CMP cable was allowed. To further the removal of this FPN, the Report on Proposals A2006 from NFPA 13 (see attached), the NFPA committee specifically added an annex A.8.14.1.2.1 in 13-284 log #551 stating that, Some minor quantities of combustible materials, such as communication wiring, can be present in some concealed spaces but should not typically be viewed as requiring sprinklers (see 8.14.1.1). The threshold value at which sprinklers become necessary in the concealed space is not defined. For example, the usual amounts of data or telephone wiring found above a ceiling would not typically constitute a threat. If bundles of unsheathed computer wiring are installed above the ceiling or beneath the floor in a manner where fire propagation in all directions is likely, then the concealed space should be treated the same as a combustible space, thereby requiring appropriate sprinkler protection. In addition to the above, Panel 3 rejected the last minute introduction of this proposal that was made in the ROC stage. BICSI, which represents 24,000 installers, designers and manufacturers, feels that this last minute interjection of a FPN was not sufficiently vetted to industry and that the TCC should review this matter. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, in pertinent part, as follows: So as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of NFPA 90A. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: JENSEN, R.: We believe that the interpretation of whether being allowed to address this proposal in view of the NFPA Standard Council Long Decision 0524 (SC #05-7-4) was misunderstood.

70-960

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

The proposal to delete this FPN is not involved with NFPA 90A and should be deleted for the reasons given in the submitters substantiation. To further acceptance of removing this FPN, refer to several comments within the 2006 NFPA 13 ROC and in particular to 13-389a. OHDE, H.: We do not believe that the NFPA Standards Council Long Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) would prohibit this Fine Print Note from being deleted. We do believe that expansion of or new Fine Print Notes referencing NFPA 13 would be in violation of NFPA Standards Council Long Decision 0524 (SC #05-7-4). This proposal should have been accepted. This Fine Print Note referencing NFPA 13 offers no value to the user of NFPA 70 and in fact misleads the user and AHJ. _____________________________________________________________ 16-322 Log #2813 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Part (820.154) _____________________________________________________________ TCC Action: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. This action will be considered by the panel as a public comment. Submitter: Harold C. Ohde, IBEW #134 Recommendation: Delete the wording Abandoned cables shall not be permitted to remain. in the following areas: 820.154 Applications of Listed CATV Cables and CATV Raceways. No change. Revise text to read as follows: (A) Plenum. Cables installed in ducts, plenums, and other spaces used for environmental air shall be Type CATVP. Abandoned cables shall not be permitted to remain. Types CATVP, CATVR, CATV, and CATVX cables installed in compliance with 300.22 shall be permitted. Listed plenum CATV raceways shall be permitted to be installed in ducts and plenums as described in 300.22(B) and in other spaces used for environmental air as described in 300.22(C). Only Type CATVP cable shall be permitted to be installed in raceways. (B) Riser. Cables installed in risers shall comply with any of the requirements of 820.154(B)(1) through (B)(3). (1) Cables in Vertical Runs. Cables installed in vertical runs and penetrating more than one floor, or cables installed in vertical runs in a shaft, shall be Type CATVR. Floor penetrations requiring Type CATVR shall contain only cables suitable for riser or plenum use. Abandoned cables shall not be permitted to remain. Listed riser CATV raceways shall be permitted to be installed in vertical riser runs in a shaft from floor to floor. Only Type CATVR and CATVP cables shall be permitted to be installed in these raceways. (2) Metal Raceways or Fireproofed Shafts. No change. (3) One- and Two- Family Dwellings. No change. (C) Cable Trays. No change. (D) Other Wiring Within Buildings. Cables installed in building locations other than the locations covered in 820.154(A) and 820.154(B) shall be with any of the requirements in 820.154(D)(1) through (D)(5). Abandoned cables in hollow spaces shall not be permitted to remain. Substantiation: I have submitted a proposal that would move the abandoned coaxial cables requirements to a more appropriate and central section within Article 800. The abandoned coaxial cables requirements belong in 820.24 Mechanical Execution of Work. 820.24 is located within Part I, General which would apply to the entire Article 820. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Part The panel accepts the submitters deletion of subsections (B) and (D). The panel rejects the submitters revision of subsection (A). Panel Statement: The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, in pertinent part, as follows: So as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of NFPA 90A. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. See panel action on Proposals 16-333 and 16-336. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Comment on Affirmative: BRUNSSEN, J.: Under Panel Meeting Action:, revise the first sentence as follows: The panel accepts the submitters deletion of the sentence Abandoned cables shall not be permitted to remain. in subsection (B), and the deletion of the sentence Abandoned cables in hollow spaces shall not be permitted to remain. in subsection (D). It was the two sentences that were deleted, not entire subsections (B) and (D). DORNA, G.: The panel statement contains an error. The panel accepted the deletion in subsections (B) and (D), not of subsections (B) and (D). KAHN, S.: The panel statement requires correction as the panel accepted the submitters deletion in subsections (B) and (D), not the deletion of subsections (B) and (D).

NFPA 70
_____________________________________________________________ 16-323 Log #3009 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.154) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 820.2 Definitions. Abandoned Coaxial Cable. Installed coaxial cable that is not terminated at equipment other than a coaxial connector and not identified for future use with a tag. 820.154 Applications of Listed CATV Cables and CATV Raceways. CATV cables shall comply with the requirements of 820.154(A) through 820.154(D) or where cable substitutions are made as shown in Table 820.154. (A) Plenums. Cables installed in ducts, plenums, and other spaces used for environmental air shall be Type CATVP. The accessible portion of abandoned Abandoned coaxial cables shall be removed. Removal of abandoned cables shall not damage the building structure or finish and shall not compromise the performance of adjacent wiring systems or components. Types CATVP, CATVR, CATV, and CATVX cables installed in compliance with 300.22 shall be permitted. Listed plenum CATV raceways shall be permitted to be installed in ducts and plenums as described in 300.22(B) and in other spaces used for environmental air as described in 300.22(C). Only Type CATVP cable shall be permitted to be installed in these raceways. FPN: See 8.14.1 of NFPA 13-2002, Installation of Sprinkler Systems, for requirements for sprinklers in concealed spaces containing exposed combustibles. (B) Riser. Cables installed in risers shall comply with any of the requirements of 820.154(B)(1) through (B)(3). (1) Cables in Vertical Runs. Cables installed in vertical runs and penetrating more than one floor, or cables installed in vertical runs in a shaft, shall be Type CATVR. Floor penetrations requiring Type CATVR shall contain only cables suitable for riser or plenum use. The accessible portion of abandoned Abandoned coaxial cables shall be removed. Removal of abandoned cables shall not damage the building structure or finish and shall not compromise the performance of adjacent wiring systems or components. Listed riser CATV raceways shall be permitted to be installed in vertical riser runs in a shaft from floor to floor. Only Type CATVR and CATVP cables shall be permitted to be installed in these raceways. (D) Other Wiring Within Buildings. Cables installed in building locations other than the locations covered in 820.154(A) and 820.154(B) shall be with any of the requirements in 820.154(D)(1) through (D)(5). The accessible portion of abandoned Abandoned coaxial cables shall be removed from hollow spaces . Removal of abandoned cables shall not damage the building structure or finish. Substantiation: This comment recommends a change in wording to ensure that abandoned cables are removed and to prevent confusion in future. There have been multiple proposals that would permit some cables to remain in inaccessible spaces. This is not conducive to safe electrical practice; this the key change is the elimination of the words the accessible portion of. If the intent of the code-making panel was to clarify that removal of cable should not be done if such removal would damage the building, which is obviously not the intent, a second sentence can be added stating that removal of abandoned cables shall not be performed if it would damage the building structure or finish or in any way compromise the functional performance of any other wiring systems or components. This would be accomplished by the optional added sentence. Consistent wording on removal of abandoned cables is being proposed for sections: 640.3, 725.3, 770.3, 770.154, 800.3, 800.154, 820.3, 820.154 and 830.3. For information, see the relevant definitions in the NEC. Accessible (as applied to equipment). Admitting close approach; not guarded by locked doors, elevation, or other effective means. Accessible (as applied to wiring methods). Capable of being removed or exposed without damaging the building structure or finish or not permanently closed in by the structure or finish of the building. Accessible, Readily (Readily Accessible). Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort to portable ladders, and so forth. Concealed. Rendered inaccessible by the structure or finish of the building. Wires in concealed raceways are considered concealed, even though they may become accessible by withdrawing them. Isolated (as applied to location). Not readily accessible to persons unless special means for access are used. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-28. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Comment on Affirmative: OHDE, H.: We concur with submitters substantiation and believe a change of wording will ensure that are abandoned cables are remove and prevent confusion in future. We suggest that the submitter resubmit his recommendation in the 2008 ROC stage in a more appropriate section with Part 1 General so these requirements will apply throughout the entire Article.

70-961

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

_____________________________________________________________ 16-324 Log #2201 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.154, 820.179) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Frank Peri, Communications Design Corporation Recommendation: In 820.154 revise and re-letter theexisting section (A) to (B) and introduce a new (A) as shown below. Also establish a new cable substitution section (E) as shown below. Re-letter the remaining sections, (B) to (C), (C) to (D) etc. (A)Air Ducts. Coaxial cables installed in air ducts shall be Type CATVD and shall be associated with the air distribution system and shall be as short as practicable. Types CATVD, CATVP, CATVR, CATV, and CATVX cables installed in raceway that is installed in compliance with 300.22(B) shall also be permitted. (BA) Plenum. Cables installed in ducts, plenums, and other spaces used for environmental air shall be Type CATVD or CATVP. Abandoned cables shall not be permitted to remain. Types CATVD, CATVP, CATVR, CATV, and CATVX cables installed in compliance with 300.22 shall be permitted. Listed plenum CATV raceways shall be permitted to be installed in ducts and plenums as described in 300.22(B) and in other spaces used for environmental air as described in 300.22(C). Only Types CATVD and CATVP cables shall be permitted to be installed in these listed plenum CATV raceways. FPN: See 8.14.1 of NFPA 13-2002, Installation of Sprinkler Systems, for requirements for sprinklers in concealed spaces containing exposed combustibles. (E) Cable Substitutions. The uses and permitted substitutions for CATV coaxial cables listed in Table 820.154 shall be considered suitable for the purpose and shall be permitted. . Table 820.154 Coaxial Cable Uses and Permitted Substitutions Cable Type CATVP CATVR CATV Permitted Substitutions CATVD, CMD, CMP, BLP CATVD, CMD, CATVP, CMP, CMR, BMR, BLP, BLR CATVD, CMD, CATVP, CMP, CATVR, CMR, CMG, CM, BMR, BM, BLP, BLR, BL CATVD, CMD, CATVP, CMP, CATVR, CMR, CATV, CMG, CM, BMR, BM, BLP, BLR, BL, BLX

NFPA 70
In 820.179 revise and re-letter theexisting section (A) to (B) and introduce a new (A) as shown below. Re-letter the remaining sections, (B) to (C), (C) to (D) etc. (A)Type CATVD. Type CATVD CATV air duct cables shall be listed as suitable for use in air ducts and shall be rated for continuous use at 121oC. Type CATVD communications air duct cables shall also be listed as having a low potential heat value, low flame spread characteristics, and very low smoke-producing characteristics. FPN: One method of defining a low potential heat cable is establishing an acceptable value of potential heat when tested in accordance with NFPA 259, Standard Test Method for Potential Heat of Building Materials, to a maximum potential heat value not exceeding 8141 kJ/kg (3500 BTU/ lb). One method of defining low flame spread cable is establishing an acceptable value of flame spread when tested in accordance with NFPA 255, Standard Method of Test of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, to a maximum flame spread index of 25, with the cable unslit (intact) and slit. Similarly, one method of defining very low smoke-producing cable is establishing an acceptable value when tested in accordance with NFPA 255, Standard Method of Test of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, to maximum smoke developed index of 50, with the cable unslit (intact) and slit. These test methods and resultant values correlate with the requirements of NFPA 90A-2002, Standard for the Installation of Air-Conditioning and Ventilating Systems for materials installed in ducts and plenums. For additional testing information see Underwriters Laboratories Subject 2424, Outline of Investigation For Cable Marked Limited Combustible. (BA) Type CATVP. Type CATVP community antenna televison plenum cables shall be listed as being suitable for use in ducts, plenums, and other spaces used for environmental air and shall also be listed as having adequate fire-resistant and low smoke-producing characteristics. FPN: One method of defining a cable that is low smoke-producing cable and fire-resistant cable is that the cable exhibits a maximum peak optical density of 0.5 or less, an average optical density of 0.15 or less, and a maximum flame spread distance of 1.52 m (5 ft) or less when tested in accordance with NFPA 262-2002, Standard Method of Test for Flame Travel and Smoke of Wires and Cables for Use in Air-Handling Spaces. Substantiation: Summary This proposal is submitted to accomplish four things: 1.) Change the code to not allow the dangerous practice of using air ducts as a cable pathway. 2.) Code recognition that there may be instances where a small amount of in-duct cable is necessary for air handling equipment, dampers, security, temperature control, fire protection, etc. 3.) Establish minimum requirements for flame spread, smoke, and potential heat for in-duct ( CL2D, CL3D, FPLP, OFND, OFCD, CMD and CATVD) cables used in this special hazard space. 4.) Include air duct D cables as permissible substitute for plenum P cables for installation in ceiling cavity and raised floor plenums (other space used for environmental air). This proposal correlates with a TIA that I submitted for NFPA 90A-2002, Standard for the Installation of Air-Conditioning and Ventilating Systems. Similar proposals have been submitted for Articles 725, 760, 770, 800 and 820. The substantiation for the TIA is shown below: This TIA is being submitted in accordance with Section 5 of the 2005 NFPA REGULATIONS GOVERNING COMMITTEE PROJECTS. In particular, it addresses a hazard meeting the criteria of section 5-2(d), which states: (d) The proposed TIA intends to offer to the public a benefit that would lessen a recognized (known) hazard or ameliorate a continuing dangerous condition or situation. The purpose of this TIA is to address the dangerous practice of installing combustible communications/data cables in air ducts. NFPA 90A-2002 does not have explicit requirements for electrical wiring in air ducts. While there is a need for some limited amount of wiring in air ducts where the function of the wiring is associated with the function of the air handling system, use of air duct instead of an electrical raceway for routing wiring unassociated with the air handling system is a dangerous practice. It introduces unlimited quantities of combustible cable into an air handling system and thus unacceptability increases the potential for the spread of fire and smoke through the air distribution system. This TIA would greatly reduce the amount of wiring in air ducts by only permitting wiring and raceways associated with the air distribution system and also requiring that they be as short as practicable. It would require that the wiring and nonmetallic raceway in the ducts have the appropriate temperature rating for hot air ducts; NFPA 90A permits the supplied air to be at 121o C (250o F). The permitted wiring and nonmetallic raceway would be required to have initial flame spread and smoke requirements identical to those for supplementary materials in an air duct (flame spread index =25, smoke developed index =50). In addition to these initial requirements, there are slitting and ageing requirements to assure that the cables installed in air ducts meet the flame spread, smoke and potential heat requirements equivalent to those for limited combustible materials. Essentially they would be required to be listed to the UL 2424. Combustible plenum cable is unsuitable and dangerous for this application. Typically, combustible plenum cable has a temperature rating of 60 o C, which

CATVX

FPN No. 1: See Figure 820.154, Cable Substitution Hierarchy. FPN No. 2: The substitute cables in Table 820.154 are only coaxialtype cables.

70-962

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

is significantly less that the 121 o C air permitted in the air duct. Furthermore, according to Fire Protection Research Foundation tests, these cables can have smoke developed index (SDI) of up to 850. This SDI is an order of magnitude greater than permitted for supplementary materials installed in an air duct. It is essential that these requirements be adopted now in NFPA 90A. Section 820.154(A) in the 2005 NEC permits unlimited amounts of Type CATVP cable in air ducts. While there is a need for some limited amount of wiring in air ducts where the function of the wiring is associated with the function of the air handling system, use of an air duct instead of an electrical raceway for routing wiring unassociated with the air handling system is a dangerous practice. It introduces unlimited quantities of combustible cables into an air handling system and thus unacceptability increases the potential for the spread of fire and smoke through the air distribution system. This proposal would greatly reduce the amount of wiring in air ducts by only permitting wiring associated with the air duct and as short as practicable. It would require that the wiring in the ducts have the appropriate temperature rating for hot air ducts; NFPA 90A-2002, Standard for the Installation of AirConditioning and Ventilating Systems, permits the supplied air to be at 121o C (250o F). The permitted wiring would be required to have flame spread and smoke requirements identical to those in NFPA 90A-2002 section 4.3.3.1 for supplementary materials in an air duct (flame spread index =25, smoke developed index =50). Essentially they would be required to be listed to the UL 2424, Outline of Investigation For Cable Marked Limited Combustible (copy attached) . P type plenum cables are unsuitable and dangerous for this application. Typically, they have a temperature rating of 60o C, which is significantly less that the 121o C air permitted in the air duct. Furthermore, according to Fire Protection Research Foundation tests (copy attached), these cables can have smoke developed index (SDI) of up to 850. This SDI is an order of magnitude greater than permitted for supplementary materials installed in an air duct. D type air duct cables will meet the NFPA 90A listing requirements for use in ceiling cavity and raised floor plenums (other space used for environmental air) and therefore will be able to safely substitute for P type plenum cables. D type air duct cables have approximately 1/20 the smoke production of P type plenum cables. In order to be consistent with the applications of plenum cable, this proposal will also prohibit the installation of plenum communications raceways in air ducts. The cable substitution table and figure have been revised to permit air duct cables to substitute for plenum cables since air duct cables are superior cables. D type air duct cables also meet the requirements in NFPA 90A for use in ceiling cavity plenums and raised floor plenums (other space used for environmental air). Some of the applications that require the installation of cables in air ducts are fire alarm (Article 760), temperature sensing and control (Article 725), security (Articles 725 and 820) and communications (Article 800). Optical fiber cables (Article 770) could be used in place of copper conductor cables. Communications cables are permitted to substitute for Class 2 & 3, fire alarm and CATV cables. I am submitting similar proposals for each of these articles. Note: Supporting Material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, in pertinent part, as follows: So as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of NFPA 90A. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-325 Log #50 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (Figure 820.154) _____________________________________________________________ TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Panel clarify the placement of the additional text added by the proposal as follows: Type BM-Network-Powered Broadband Communications Medium Power cable should be placed in the figure directly below the similar text for CATV and CM. This action will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment. Submitter: Stanley Kaufman, Cable Safe Inc. Recommendation: Change dwellings to dwelling and add broadband cables to the figure as shown.
Plenum CMP CATVP

NFPA 70
BLP

Riser

CMR

CATVR

BMR BLP, BLR

General purpose

CMG CM

CATV

BMR, BM BLP, BLR, BL

Dwelling
A B

CMX

CATVX

BMR, BM BLP, BLR, BL, BLX

Coaxial cable A shall be permitted to be used in place of coaxial cable B.

Type CATV Community antenna television cables Type CM Communications cables

Substantiation: Table 820.154 permits broadband cables are permitted to substitute for CATV cables so broadband cables should be in Figure 820.154 also. Dwellings was changed to Dwelling for editorial consistency with the other labels; theyre all singular. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-326 Log #18 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.154(A)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stanley Kaufman, Cable Safe Inc. Recommendation: Revise as follows: (A) Plenums. Cables installed in ducts, plenums, and other spaces used for environmental air shall be Type CATVP. Abandoned cables shall not be permitted to remain . Types CATVP, CATVR, CATV, and CATVX cables installed in compliance with 300.22 shall be permitted. Listed plenum CATV raceways shall be permitted to be installed in ducts and plenums as described in 300.22(B) and in other spaces used for environmental air as described in 300.22(C). Only Type CATVP cable shall be permitted to be installed in these raceways. Substantiation: Section 820.3(A) requires that The accessible portion of abandoned coaxial cables shall be removed. The requirement in to remove all abandoned cables in 820.154(A) is an error from the 1999 NEC that the panel tried to correct in the last code cycle. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, in pertinent part, as follows: So as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of NFPA 90A. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-327 Log #775 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.154(A)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Delete the sentence as shown: (A) Plenums. Cables installed in ducts, plenums, and other spaces used for environmental air shall be Type CATVP. Abandoned cables shall not be permitted to remain. Types CATVP, CATVR, CATV, and CATVX cables installed in compliance with 300.22 shall be permitted. Listed plenum CATV raceways shall be permitted to be installed in ducts and plenums as described in 300.22(B) and in other spaces used for environmental air as described in 300.22(C). Only Type CATVP cable shall be permitted to be installed in these raceways.

70-963

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

Substantiation: This is an editorial proposal. (Task Group No. 820-20 ) Section 820.3(A) requires that The accessible portion of abandoned coaxial cables shall be removed. The requirement to remove all abandoned cables in 820.154(A) is an error from the 1999 NEC that the panel tried to correct in the last code cycle. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, in pertinent part, as follows: So as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of NFPA 90A. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

NFPA 70

_____________________________________________________________ 16-329 Log #3095 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.154(A)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald Hall, Corning Cable Systems Recommendation: This is a companion proposal to two similiar proposals addressing the same NFPA 13 reference in Articles 770 and 800. Delete FPN text as follows: FPN: See 8.14.1 of NFPA 13 (2002), Installation of Sprinkler Systems, for requirements for sprinklers in concealed spaces containing exposed combustibles. Substantiation: The reference to 8.14.1 of NFPA 13 is misleading and should be removed for the following reasons: (1) The reference is related to sprinkler protection of combustible concealed spaces and their stored content. The use of a concealed space as a pathway for cables and raceway in a manner permitted by the NEC does not constitute a storage condition. (2) The Technical Committee for NFPA 13 has never provided any useful guidance to indicate what quantity of cable/raceway or other circumstance might trigger requirement for communications cables to be protected by sprinklers. The Technical Committee for NFPA 13 proposed a new annex for addition to the next revision of NFPA 13 (shown below). The proposed annex is non binding, contains vague terminology, and does not add any new clarifying information, because it is identical to the existing language of the NFPA 13 Handbook. For normal circumstances in which cables and raceway are installed in accordance with the NEC and are listed by a Nationally Recognized Test Laboratory as suitable for use in ducts, plenums, and other spaces used for environmental air and as having adequate fire resistant and low smoke producing characteristics it is understood that these cables and raceways are safe and do not require additional protection from sprinklers. (3) The cited portion of NFPA 13 is broadly applicable to all concealed spaces, not just those which handle environmental air. The selective placement _____________________________________________________________ of this FPN within three sections of the NEC all pertaining to plenum spaces, 16-328 Log #819 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject creates a perceived encumbrance to the permitted use of plenum cables and (820.154(A)) plenum cables alone. This perceived encumbrance is being aggressively _____________________________________________________________ exploited through the marketing efforts of multiple commercial interests to Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. create a new market for their products. NFPA 13 ROP indicates the following proposed change: Recommendation: Delete the phrase as shown: A.8.14.1.2.1 Some minor quantities of combustible materials, such as (A) Plenums. Cables installed in ducts, plenums, and other spaces used for environmental air shall be Type CATVP. Abandoned cables shall not be communication wiring, can be present in some concealed spaces but should not permitted to remain. Types CATVP, CATVR, CATV, and CATVX cables typically be viewed as requiring sprinklers (see 8.14.1.1). The threshold value installed in compliance with 300.22 shall be permitted. Listed plenum CATV at which sprinklers become necessary in the concealed space is not defined. raceways shall be permitted to be installed in ducts and plenums as described For example, the usual amounts of data or telephone wiring found above a in 300.22(B) and in other spaces used for environmental air as described in ceiling would not typically constitute a threat. If bundles of unsheathed 300.22(C). Only Type CATVP cable shall be permitted to be installed in these computer wiring are installed above the ceiling or beneath the floor in a raceways. manner where fire propagation in all directions is likely, then the concealed Substantiation: This is a technical proposal. (Task Group No. 820-30) space should be treated the same as a combustible space, thereby requiring The applications of CATV plenum raceways should be consistent with the appropriate sprinkler protection. listing requirements (see below). Panel Meeting Action: Reject 820.182 CATV Raceways. Panel Statement: The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to CATV raceways shall be listed in accordance with 820.182(A) , through wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA 820.182(C) . Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, (A) Plenum CATV Raceways. Plenum CATV raceways shall be listed for in pertinent part, as follows: use in other spaces used for environmental air and shall also be listed as having So as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A adequate fire-resistant and low smoke-producing characteristics. into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the requirements are stated the same way in each Article; processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, NFPA 90A. 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Panel Meeting Action: Reject Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 2 Panel Statement: The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to Explanation of Negative: JENSEN, R.: We believe that the interpretation of whether being allowed to wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, address this proposal in view of the NFPA Standard Council Long Decision 05in pertinent part, as follows: 24 (SC #05-7-4) was misunderstood. So as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A The proposal to delete this FPN is not involved with NFPA 90A and should into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air be deleted for the reasons given in the submitters substantiation. To further Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to acceptance of removing this FPN, refer to several comments within the 2006 plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A NFPA 13 ROC and in particular to 13-389a. OHDE, H.: See my Explanation of Negative on Proposal 16-321. revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of NFPA 90A. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

70-964

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

_____________________________________________________________ 16-330 Log #3244 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.154(A)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Frank Peri, Communications Design Corporation Recommendation: Revise 820.154(A), as shown. (A) Plenums. Cables installed in ducts, plenums, and other spaces used for environmental air shall be Type CATVD or Type CATVP. Abandoned cables shall not be permitted to remain. Types CATVD, CATVP, CATVR, CATV, and CATVX cables installed in compliance with 300.22 shall be permitted. Listed plenum CATV raceways shall be permitted to be installed in ducts and plenums as described in 300.22(B) and in other spaces used for environmental air as described in 300.22(C). Only Type s CATVD or CATVP cable shall be permitted to be installed in these raceways. FPN: See 8.14.1 of NFPA 13-2002, Installation of Sprinkler Systems, for requirements for sprinklers in concealed spaces containing exposed combustibles. Substantiation: The purpose of this proposal is to correlate with NFPA 50002006. NFPA 5000-2006, recently issued by the NFPA Standards Council, incorporates extracted plenum requirements from NFPA 90A-2002. Consequently, the plenum requirements in NFPA 5000-2006 are identical to the ceiling cavity plenum requirements in NFPA 90A-2002. This proposal provides listing requirements for a cable with characteristics that complies with the NFPA 90A-2002, 4.3.10.2.6: requirements for limited combustible materials exposed to the airflow. This proposal provides a listing and marking for a cable that complies with the NFPA 90A-2002, 4.3.10.2.6.1: a requirement for a listed limited combustible cable with a maximum smoke developed index of 50. The proposed cable meets the NFPA Standards Councils directive to not identify cable as limited combustible, because it is not a building construction material. The cable name and listing requirements meets guidance from the NFPA Standards Council to identify cable characteristics in terms of flame spread index, smoke developed index, and potential heat release. As compared to a combustible plenum cable that is listed using NFPA 262, air duct cable is a much safer cable. Air duct cable provides users with an opportunity to significantly reduce the potential hazard from smoke during a fire emergency. Additionally, the much lower potential heat release of air duct cable provides much lower combustible loading than found in combustible plenum cable listed using NFPA 262. Air duct cables are available on the market today. Presently, there is air duct cable available to meet the plenum installation requirements in Articles 725, 760, 770, and 800. Unfortunately, the only marking available in the NEC is for a combustible plenum cable. The NEC decides what marking is permitted, and listing organizations correlate. That is, it would be inappropriate for a listing organization to mark cable with a Type XXX that is not published in the NEC. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, in pertinent part, as follows: So as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of NFPA 90A. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

NFPA 70
Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, in pertinent part, as follows: So as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of NFPA 90A. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: JENSEN, R.: We believe that the interpretation of whether being allowed to address this proposal in view of the NFPA Standard Council Long Decision 0524 (SC #05-7-4) was misunderstood. The proposal to delete this FPN is not involved with NFPA 90A and should be deleted for the reasons given in the submitters substantiation. To further acceptance of removing this FPN, refer to several comments within the 2006 NFPA 13 ROC and in particular to 13-389a. OHDE, H.: See my Explanation of Negative on Proposal 16-321.

_____________________________________________________________ 16-332 Log #3000 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.154(A), FPN ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International Recommendation: 820.154 Applications of Listed CATV Cables and CATV Raceways. CATV cables shall comply with the requirements of 820.154(A) through 820.154(D) or where cable substitutions are made as shown in Table 820.154. (A) Plenums. Cables installed in ducts, plenums, and other spaces used for environmental air shall be Type CATVP. Abandoned cables shall not be permitted to remain. Types CATVP, CATVR, CATV, and CATVX cables installed in compliance with 300.22 shall be permitted. Listed plenum CATV raceways shall be permitted to be installed in ducts and plenums as described in 300.22(B) and in other spaces used for environmental air as described in 300.22(C). Only Type CATVP cable shall be permitted to be installed in these raceways. FPN: See 8.14.1 of NFPA 13 (2002), Installation of Sprinkler Systems, for requirements for sprinklers in concealed spaces containing exposed combustibles. Substantiation: This is one of three references to NFPA 13 (it is repeated identically in articles 770, 800 and 820) included in the code that is a meaningless reference. Other references to NFPA 13, in Article 362, are properly included in mandatory sections of the code (section 362.10). Whenever a jurisdiction adopts NFPA 13 they need to adopt it for mandatory sections and not for an unenforceable FPN in one section, which is intended to mislead the user. In fact, there have been several documented examples already of misrepresentation in that authorities having jurisdiction have been told that this means that sprinklers are required in plenum areas unless limited combustible cable is installed. I have been personally involved in two cases to date, and have heard of many more cases where this is being stated. Section 8.14.1 of NFPA 13 (2002) reads as follows: 8.14.1 Concealed Spaces. 8.14.1.1 Concealed Spaces Requiring Sprinkler Protection. All concealed spaces enclosed wholly or partly by exposed combustible construction shall be protected by sprinklers except in concealed spaces where sprinklers are not _____________________________________________________________ required to be installed by 8.14.1.2.1 through 8.14.1.2.15. 16-331 Log #2819 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject 8.14.1.2* Concealed Spaces Not Requiring Sprinkler Protection. (820.154(A), FPN ) 8.14.1.2.1 Noncombustible and limited combustible concealed spaces with no _____________________________________________________________ combustible loading having no access shall not require sprinkler protection. Submitter: Ronald E. Hackett, Village of Buffalo Grove The space shall be considered a concealed space even with small openings Recommendation: Delete the FPN text that follows 800.154(A). such as those used as return air for a plenum. FPN: See 8.14.1 of NFPA 13 (2002). Installation of Sprinkler Systems 8.14.1.2.2 Noncombustible and limited combustible concealed spaces with for requirements for sprinklers in concealed spaces containing exposed limited access and not permitting occupancy or storage of combustibles shall combustibles. not require sprinkler protection. The space shall be considered a concealed Substantiation: As chief electrical inspector of Buffalo Grove, I do not space even with small openings such as those used as return air for a plenum. see any reason or any technical support as why this FPN referencing 8.14.1 8.14.1.2.3 Concealed spaces formed by studs or joists with less than 6 in. of NFPA 13 (2002), Installation of Sprinkler Systems, for requirements for (152 mm) between the inside or near edges of the studs or joists shall not sprinklers in concealed spaces containing exposed combustibles was added to require sprinkler protection. (See Figure 8.6.4.1.5.1.) the 2005 NEC. This FPN is very misleading and inappropriate as well. My own 8.14.1.2.4 Concealed spaces formed by bar joists with less than 6 in. (152 personal experience as the AHJ has found that this FPN being a negative effect mm) between the roof or floor deck and ceiling shall not require sprinkler on the National Electrical Code which is used as an installation documentation protection. to be in conflict with the NFPA 13. 8.14.1.2.5 Concealed spaces formed by ceilings attached directly to or within NFPA 13 Technical Committee added new Annex A8.14.1.2.1 in the 2006 6 in. (152 mm) of wood joist construction shall not require sprinkler protection. ROP #13-284, Log# 551 which should provide guidance to both the installer 8.14.1.2.6* Concealed spaces formed by ceilings attached to composite wood and AHJ for cabling in concealed spaces. joist construction either directly or onto metal channels not exceeding 1 in. in depth, provided the joist channels are firestopped into volumes each not exceeding 160 ft3 (4.53 m3) using materials equivalent to the web construction

70-965

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

and at least 3 in. of batt insulation is installed at the bottom of the joist channels when the ceiling is attached utilizing metal channels, shall not require sprinkler protection. 8.14.1.2.7 Concealed spaces entirely filled with noncombustible insulation shall not require sprinkler protection. 8.14.1.2.8 Concealed spaces within wood joist construction and composite wood joist construction having noncombustible insulation filling the space from the ceiling up to the bottom edge of the joist of the roof or floor deck, provided that in composite wood joist construction the joist channels are firestopped into volumes each not exceeding 160 ft3 (4.53 m3) to the full depth of the joist with material equivalent to the web construction, shall not require sprinkler protection. 8.14.1.2.9 Concealed spaces over isolated small rooms not exceeding 55 ft2 (4.6 m2) in area shall not require sprinkler protection. 8.14.1.2.10 Concealed spaces where rigid materials are used and the exposed surfaces have a flame spread rating of 25 or less and the materials have been demonstrated not to propagate fire in the form in which they are installed shall not require sprinkler protection. 8.14.1.2.11 Concealed spaces in which the exposed materials are constructed entirely of fire-retardant treated wood as defined by NFPA 703, Standard for Fire Retardant Impregnated Wood and Fire Retardant Coatings for Building Materials, shall not require sprinkler protection. 8.14.1.2.12 Noncombustible concealed spaces having exposed combustible insulation where the heat content of the facing and substrate of the insulation material does not exceed 1000 Btu/ft2 (11,356 kJ/m2) shall not require sprinkler protection. 8.14.1.2.13 Concealed spaces below insulation that is laid directly on top of or within the ceiling joists in an otherwise sprinklered attic shall not require sprinkler protection. 8.14.1.2.14 Vertical pipe chases under 10 ft2 (0.93 m2), where provided that in multifloor buildings the chases are fire stopped at each floor using materials equivalent to the floor construction, and where such pipe chases shall contain no sources of ignition, piping shall be noncombustible, and pipe penetrations at each floor shall be properly sealed and shall not require sprinkler protection. 8.14.1.2.15 Exterior columns under 10 ft2 in area formed by studs or wood joist, supporting exterior canopies that are fully protected with a sprinkler system, shall not require sprinkler protection. 8.14.1.3 Concealed Space Design Requirements. Sprinklers in concealed spaces having no access for storage or other use shall be installed in accordance with the requirements for light hazard occupancy. 8.14.1.4 Heat Producing Devices with Composite Wood Joist Construction. Where heat-producing devices such as furnaces or process equipment are located in the joist channels above a ceiling attached directly to the underside of composite wood joist construction that would not otherwise require sprinkler protection of the spaces, the joist channel containing the heat-producing devices shall be sprinklered by installing sprinklers in each joist channel, on each side, adjacent to the heat-producing device. 8.14.1.5 Localized Protection of Exposed Combustible Construction or Exposed Combustibles. In concealed spaces having exposed combustible construction, or containing exposed combustibles, in localized areas, the combustibles shall be protected as follows: (1) If the exposed combustibles are in the vertical partitions or walls around all or a portion of the enclosure, a single row of sprinklers spaced not over 12 ft (3.7 m) apart nor more than 6 ft (1.8 m) from the inside of the partition shall be permitted to protect the surface. The first and last sprinklers in such a row shall not be over 5 ft (1.5 m) from the ends of the partitions. (2) If the exposed combustibles are in the horizontal plane, the area of the combustibles shall be permitted to be protected with sprinklers on a light hazard spacing. Additional sprinklers shall be installed no more than 6 ft (1.8 m) outside the outline of the area and not more than 12 ft (3.7 m) on center along the outline. When the outline returns to a wall or other obstruction, the last sprinkler shall not be more than 6 ft (1.8 m) from the wall or obstruction. 8.14.1.6* Sprinklers used in horizontal combustible concealed spaces (with a slope not exceeding 2 in 12) having a combustible upper surface where the assembly or supporting members channel heat and where the depth of the space is less than 36 in. from deck to deck or with double wood joist construction with a maximum of 36 in. between the top of the bottom joist and the bottom of the upper joist shall be listed for such use. Moreover, the NFPA13 ROP indicates the following change: 8.14.1.1 Concealed Spaces Requiring Sprinkler Protection. All concealed spaces enclosed wholly or partly by exposed combustible construction shall be protected by sprinklers except in concealed spaces where sprinklers are not required to be installed by 8.14.1.2.1 through 8.14.1.2.15 and 8.14.6. 8.14.1.2.1* Concealed spaces of noncombustible and limited combustible construction with minimal combustible loading having no access shall not require sprinkler protection. The space shall be considered a concealed space even with small openings such as those used as return air for a plenum. (For additional information on combustible loading See 8.14.1.2.1) 8.14.1.2.2 Conceal d spaces of noncombustible and limited combustible construction with limited access and not permitting occupancy or storage of combustibles shall not require sprinkler protection. The space shall be considered a concealed space even with small openings such as those used as return air for a plenum.

NFPA 70
A.8.14.1.2.1 Some minor quantities of combustible materials, such as communication wiring, can be present in some concealed spaces but should not typically be viewed as requiring sprinklers (see 8.14.1.1). The threshold value at which sprinklers become necessary in the concealed space is not defined. For example, the usual amounts of data or telephone wiring found above a ceiling would not typically constitute a threat. If bundles of unsheathed computer wiring are installed above the ceiling or beneath the floor in a manner where fire propagation in all directions is likely, then the concealed space should be treated the same as a combustible space, thereby requiring appropriate sprinkler protection. This FPN is being misinterpreted by authorities having jurisdiction to indicate that these concealed spaces require sprinkler protection. Moreover, I have come across at least two cases (one in Massachusetts and one in California), where the authority having jurisdiction was informed by a vendor that the only cabling alternative to using sprinklers was the installation of limited combustible cable. In fact, in one case I have worked on, the concealed space was an 8 inch high underfloor space of totally non combustible construction, which had no ducts or other parts of an air distribution system, and yet the code official had been led to the belief that cables could only be used if the space was sprinklered or the cable was limited combustible cable. Examples of misinformation exist and some are attached for committee members use. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, in pertinent part, as follows: So as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of NFPA 90A. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: JENSEN, R.: We believe that the interpretation of whether being allowed to address this proposal in view of the NFPA Standard Council Long Decision 0524 (SC #05-7-4) was misunderstood. The proposal to delete this FPN is not involved with NFPA 90A and should be deleted for the reasons given in the submitters substantiation. To further acceptance of removing this FPN, refer to several comments within the 2006 NFPA 13 ROC and in particular to 13-389a. OHDE, H.: See my Explanation of Negative on Proposal 16-321. _____________________________________________________________ 16-333 Log #19 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.154(B)(1)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stanley Kaufman, Cable Safe Inc. Recommendation: Revise as follows: (1) Cables in Vertical Runs. Cables installed in vertical runs and penetrating more than one floor, or cables installed in vertical runs in a shaft, shall be Type CATVR. Floor penetrations requiring Type CATVR shall contain only cables suitable for riser or plenum use. Abandoned cables shall not be permitted to remain . Listed riser CATV raceways and listed plenum CATV raceways shall be permitted to be installed in vertical riser runs in a shaft from floor to floor. Only Type CATVR and CATVP cables shall be permitted to be installed in these raceways. Substantiation: Plenum raceways should be permitted to substitute for riser and general purpose raceways just as plenum cable is permitted to substitute for riser and general purpose cables. Section 820.3(A) requires that The accessible portion of abandoned coaxial cables shall be removed. The requirement in to remove all abandoned cables in 820.154(B) is an error from the 1999 NEC that the panel tried to correct in the last code cycle. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-334 Log #20 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.154(D)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stanley Kaufman, Cable Safe Inc. Recommendation: Revise as follows: (D) Other Wiring Within Buildings. Cables installed in building locations other than the locations covered in 820.154(A) and 820.154(B) shall be with any of the requirements in 820.154(D)(1) through (D)(5). Abandoned cables in hollow spaces shall not be permitted to remain .

70-966

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

Substantiation: Section 820.3(A) requires that The accessible portion of abandoned coaxial cables shall be removed. The requirement in to remove all abandoned cables in 820.154(D) is an error from the 1999 NEC that the panel tried to correct in the last code cycle. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-336. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-335 Log #1875 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.154(D)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: James E. Brunssen, Telecordia Technologies Inc. / Rep. Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions Recommendation: Delete the last sentence of 820.154(D) as follows: Abandoned cables in hollow spaces shall not be permitted to remain . Substantiation: The proposed deletion provides consistency with 770.154(C), 800.154(E) and 830.154(D). Removal of abandoned cable is now covered in 820.3(A). Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-336 Log #21 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (820.154(D)(1)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stanley Kaufman, Cable Safe Inc. Recommendation: Revise as follows: (1) General. Type CATV shall be permitted. Listed CATV general-purpose raceways , listed riser CATV raceways and listed plenum CATV raceways shall be permitted. Only Types CATV, CATVX, CATVR, or CATVP cables shall be permitted to be installed in general-purpose communications these CATV raceways. Substantiation: Plenum and riser raceways should be permitted to substitute for general purpose raceways just as plenum and riser cables are permitted to substitute for general purpose cables. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise as follows: (1) General. Type CATV shall be permitted. Listed CATV general-purpose raceways , listed riser CATV raceways and listed plenum CATV raceways shall be permitted. Only Types CATV, CATVX, CATVR, or CATVP cables shall be permitted to be installed in general-purpose communications these CATV raceways. Panel Statement: The change clarifies the submitters intent. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: OHDE, H.: This proposal should be rejected as this new code language could be confusing to code-users. The revised language allows all of the cables listed to be used in riser and plenum optical fiber raceways. As long as it is clear that these riser and plenum raceways are not being used in riser and plenum applications, the use of those cables in those raceways in not a problem. However, why would anyone want to use the more expensive raceways in other wiring within buildings locations? This language is also in conflict with 820.154(A) which states Only Type CATVP cables shall be permitted to be installed in these raceways and with 820.154 (B)(1) which requires either plenum or riser cables to be installed in riser communications raceways. _____________________________________________________________ 16-337 Log #2534 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.154(E) (New) ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Sanford Egesdal, Egesdal Associates PLC Recommendation: Add new 820.154(E). (E) CATV Cable Substitutions. The uses and permitted substitutions for CATV cables listed in Table 820.154 shall be considered suitable for the purpose and shall be permitted. CATV50 very-low-smoke cable shall be permitted to substitute for all CATV cables in Table 820.154 to meet requirements for verylow-smoke producing characteristics, low potential heat release, and low flame spread characteristics. FPN: See 8.14.1 of NFPA 13-2002, Installation of Sprinkler Systems , for requirements for sprinklers in concealed spaces containing exposed combustibles. Substantiation: This proposal correlates with the proposal to add Type CATV50 to 820.154. There is a companion proposal for the listing and marking of Type CATV50. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, in pertinent part, as follows: So as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to

NFPA 70
plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of NFPA 90A. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Comment on Affirmative: OHDE, H.: We agree with panel action and believe that the panel statement should also reflect the latest NFPA 13 Technical Committee actions. Included in the submitters substantiation was the 2002 Section 8.14 which since has been revised. We would like to add that NFPA 13 just completed their balloting process for the 2006 NFPA 13 Standard. The Technical Committee on Sprinkler Installation submitted a comment on Proposal 13-284. This comment reworded proposed A.8.14.1.2.1 to read Minor quantities of combustible materials such as but not limited to: cabling, nonmetallic plumbing piping, non-structural wood, etccan be present in concealed spaces constructed of limited or noncombustible materials but should not be viewed as requiring sprinklers (see 8.14.1.1) For example, it is not the intent of this section to require sprinklers, which would not otherwise be required, in the interstitial space of a typical office building solely due to the presence of the usual amount of cabling within the space. The threshold value at which sprinklers become necessary in the concealed space is not defined . In the NFPA 13 committees substantiation, they wanted to clarify that the normal amount of cabling would not require sprinklers due to the construction of the space. They also expanded the list of combustibles to provide examples of potential combustible loading. _____________________________________________________________ 16-338 Log #3246 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.154(E)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Frank Peri, Communications Design Corporation Recommendation: Add new 820.154(E), as shown. (E) CATV Cable Substitutions. The uses and permitted substitutions for CATV cables listed in Table 820.154 shall be considered suitable for the purpose and shall be permitted. Type CATVD air duct cable shall be permitted to substitute for all CATV cables in Table 820.154 and Figure 820.154. Substantiation: This proposal correlates the substitution table and figure with the listing and application requirements for air duct cable. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, in pertinent part, as follows: So as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of NFPA 90A. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-339 Log #777 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.179(A)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Make the changes as shown: (A) Type CATVP. Type CATVP community antenna television plenum coaxial cable s shall be listed as being suitable for use in ducts, plenums, and other spaces used for environmental air and shall also be listed as having adequate fire-resistant and low smoke-producing characteristics. FPN: One method of defining a cable that is low smoke-producing cable and fire-resistant cable is that the cable exhibits a maximum peak optical density of 0.5 or less, an average optical density of 0.15 or less, and a maximum flame spread distance of 1.52 m (5 ft) or less when tested in accordance with NFPA 262, Standard Method of Test for Flame Travel and Smoke of Wires and Cables for Use in Air Handling Spaces . Substantiation: This is an editorial proposal. (Task Group No. 820-23) Section 3.3.3 of the NEC Style Manual states references to electrical components and parts shall be plural rather than singular. Also the adjective coaxial was added for consistency and clarity. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article;

70-967

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-340 Log #778 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.179(B)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Make the changes as shown: (B) Type CATVR. Type CATVR community antenna television riser coaxial cable s shall be listed as being suitable for use in a vertical run in a shaft or from floor to floor and shall also be listed as having fire-resistant characteristics capable of preventing the carrying of fire from floor to floor. FPN: One method of defining fire-resistant characteristics capable of preventing the carrying of fire from floor to floor is that the cables pass the requirements of ANSI/UL 1666-2002, Standard Test for Flame Propagation Height of Electrical and Optical-Fiber Cable Installed Vertically in Shafts. Substantiation: This is an editorial proposal. (Task Group No. 820-24) Section 3.3.3 of the NEC Style Manual states references to electrical components and parts shall be plural rather than singular. Also the adjective coaxial was added for consistency and clarity. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-341 Log #779 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.179(C)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Make the changes as shown: (C) Type CATV. Type CATV community antenna television coaxial cable s shall be listed as being suitable for general-purpose CATV use, with the exception of risers and plenums, and shall also be listed as being resistant to the spread of fire. FPN: One method of defining resistant to the spread of fire is that the cables do not spread fire to the top of the tray in the vertical-tray flame test in ANSI/ UL 1581-1991, Reference Standard for Electrical Wires, Cables and Flexible Cords . Another method of defining resistant to the spread of fire is for the damage (char length) not to exceed 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in.) when performing the vertical flame test for cables in cable trays, as described in CSA C22.2 No. 0.3-M1985, Test Methods for Electrical Wires and Cables. Substantiation: This is an editorial proposal. (Task Group No. 820-25) Section 3.3.3 of the NEC Style Manual states references to electrical components and parts shall be plural rather than singular. Also the adjective coaxial was added for consistency and clarity. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-342 Log #1426 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.179(C), FPN ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas J. Guida, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: FPN: One method of defining resistant to the spread of fire is that the cables do not spread fire to the top of the tray in the UL Flame Exposure , Vertical Tray Flame Test in ANSI/UL 1581-2001, Standard for Electrical Wires, Cables, and Flexible Cords. UL 1685-2000 Standard for Safety for VerticalTray Fire-Propagation and Smoke-Release Test for Electrical and Optical-Fiber

NFPA 70
Cables. The smoke measurements in the test method are not applicable. Another method of defining resistant to the spread of fire is for the damage (char length) not to exceed 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in.) when performing the CSA Vertical Flame Test - Cables in Cable Trays, as described in CSA C22.2 No. 0.3-M- 1985 2001 , Test Methods for Electrical Wires and Cables. Substantiation: The revised wording is an update of the standard references and not a change in the test methods. UL 1581 now references UL 1685 for the text of the test method. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-343 Log #780 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (820.179(D)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Make the changes as shown: (D) Type CATVX. Type CATVX limited-use community antenna television coaxial cable s shall be listed as being suitable for use in dwellings and for use in raceway and shall also be listed as being resistant to flame spread. FPN: One method of determining that cable is resistant to flame spread is by testing the cable to the VW-1 (vertical-wire) flame test in ANSI/UL 1581-1991, Reference Standard for Electrical Wires, Cables and Flexible Cords . Substantiation: This is an editorial proposal. (Task Group No. 820-26) Section 3.3.3 of the NEC Style Manual states references to electrical components and parts shall be plural rather than singular. Also the adjective coaxial was added for consistency and clarity. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-344 Log #2535 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.179(E)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Sanford Egesdal, Egesdal Associates PLC Recommendation: Insert new 820.179(E). (E) Type CATV50. Type CATV50 cables shall be listed as suitable for installation in concealed spaces having restrictive requirements for smoke generation, combustible loading, and flame spread and shall be listed as having very-low-smoke producing characteristics, a low potential heat release value, and low flame spread characteristics. FPN No. 1: One method of defining a low flame spread and very low smokeproducing cable is that the cable exhibits a maximum flame spread index of 25 and maximum smoke developed index of 50 when tested in accordance with NFPA 255, Standard Method of Test of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials with the cable unslit (intact) and cut through to expose the cable core. One method of defining a low potential heat cable is that the cable exhibits a maximum potential heat value of exceeding 8141 kJ/kg (3500 BTU/ lb) when tested in accordance with NFPA 259, Standard Test Method for Potential Heat of Building Materials. FPN No. 2: See 8.14.1 of NFPA 13-2002, Installation of Sprinkler Systems , for requirements for sprinklers in concealed spaces containing exposed combustibles. FPN No. 3: Building codes adopted by code jurisdictions may contain restrictions on permissible flame spread index and smoke developed index. Substantiation: This proposal establishes a listing and marking for cable permitted as an electrical wiring option in concealed spaces where a smoke developed index no greater than 50 is required or large quantities of cable may cause combustible loading. The proposed cable has very-low-smoke-producing characteristics, a low potential heat release value, and low flame spread characteristics. Presently, a number of manufacturers have cables listed to the proposed requirements. The testing criteria are based on the requirements found in NFPA 13-2003 and the 2003 International Mechanical Code, as revised. NFPA 13, Section 8.14.1.2.1 follows: Noncombustible and limited combustible concealed spaces with no combustible loading having no access shall not require sprinkler protection. The space shall be considered a concealed space even with small openings such as those used as return air for a plenum. The proposed cable has a very low heat of combustion. While the term combustible loading is not defined, the fuel load can be calculated to determine the potential hazard from large quantities of cable. The 2003 International Mechanical Code, 602.2.1, requires materials in plenums to be noncombustible or have a flame spread index no greater 25 and a smoke index no greater than 50. At the recent ICC meeting in Detroit,

70-968

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

exception #5 to 602.2.1 was revised to include combustible material (electrical wiring) installed in noncombustible raceways or enclosures. The requirements in IMC 602.2.1.1 permits cables meeting NFPA 262 test requirements. Cables meeting NFPA 262 requirements, according to Fire Protection Research Foundation testing using NFPA 255, have a smoke developed index that varies between 450 and 850. The proposed cable meets the requirements of the base paragraph, 602.2.1. The following (change is underlined) shows the result of action on IMC public comment on M 77 (floor actions in Detroit, September 2005). 602.2.1 Materials exposed within plenums. Except as required by Sections 602.2.1.1 through 602.2.1.5, materials within plenums shall be noncombustible or shall have a flame spread index of not more than 25 and a smoke-developed index of not more than 50 when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84. Exceptions: 1. Rigid and flexible ducts and connectors shall conform to Section 603. 2. Duct coverings, linings, tape and connectors shall conform to Sections 603 and 604. 3. This section shall not apply to materials exposed within plenums in oneand two-family dwellings. 4. This section shall not apply to smoke detectors. 5. Combustible materials enclosed in noncombustible raceways or enclosures, approved gypsum board assemblies or enclosed in materials listed and labeled for such application. 602.2.1.1 Wiring. Combustible electrical or electronic wiring methods and materials, optical fiber cable, and optical fiber raceway exposed within a plenum shall have a peak optical density not greater than 0.50, an average optical density not greater than 0.15, and a flame spread not greater than 5 feet (1524 mm) when tested in accordance with NFPA 262. Only type OFNP (plenum rated nonconductive optical fiber cable) shall be installed in plenumrated optical fiber raceways. Wiring, cable, and raceways addressed in this section shall be listed and labeled as plenum rated and shall be installed in accordance with ICC Electrical Code . The Fire Protection Research Foundation report demonstrated that NFPA 255, Standard Method of Test of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials , provides a suitable test method for establishing the cable characteristics (flame spread index & smoke developed index) specified in the FPN. Establishing a listing and marking for a Type FPL50 cable provides a wiring option for complying with requirements of other standards and building codes. The NEC has previously established listings and markings for cable to correlate with other codes and standards. Additionally, the listing and marking may or may not have a specific application. Specific examples follow: 1. Type CMG cable was included in the 1993 NEC to correlate with the Canadian Electrical Code. The change was proposed by the Chair of NEC TCC, Harold Ware and Roy Hicks from Canada. Type CMG has a listing and marking in the NEC. Article 800 permits Type CM or Type CMG to be installed as a general purpose cable. Note: Type CMG does not have a unique application, and neither cable is considered a minimum requirement. 2. Types MP, MPR, and MPP cable was included in the 1990 NEC. The cables had a listing and marking. The multiple-purpose cables were permitted to substitute for similar cables in Articles 725, 760, & 800. Note: Types MP, MPR, and MPP cables do not have a unique application, just a listing and marking. 3. A change to the 1999 NEC permitted Types NPLF, NPLFR, NPLFP, FPL, FPLR, and FPLP to have a -CI suffix. The change included only listing and marking requirements. This change to the NEC correlated with NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code, requirements for a circuit integrity cable. Note: Cables with a -CI suffix did not have an application, until changes were made to the 2005 NEC. 4. A change to the 2005 NEC permitted Types CM, CMR and CMP to have a -CI suffix. As of today, no company has a listed circuit integrity using the permitted markings. Note: Types CM-CI, CMR-CI, and CMP-CI do not have an application, just a listing and marking. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The submitter did not provide adequate technical substantiation to support a need for a cable listed for concealed spaces. Concealed spaces should be adequately defined. See Action on Proposals 1613, 16-110 and 16-247 where the proposed definition was determined to be unacceptable. The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, in pertinent part, as follows: [S]o as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of NFPA 90A. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the substantiations submitted for the affected proposal.

NFPA 70
Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Comment on Affirmative: OHDE, H.: We agree with panel action and believe that the panel statement should also reflect the latest NFPA 13 Technical Committee actions. Included in the submitters substantiation was the 2002 Section 8.14 which since has been revised. We would like to add that NFPA 13 just completed their balloting process for the 2006 NFPA 13 Standard. The Technical Committee on Sprinkler Installation submitted a comment on Proposal 13-284. This comment reworded proposed A.8.14.1.2.1 to read Minor quantities of combustible materials such as but not limited to: cabling, nonmetallic plumbing piping, non-structural wood, etccan be present in concealed spaces constructed of limited or noncombustible materials but should not be viewed as requiring sprinklers (see 8.14.1.1) For example, it is not the intent of this section to require sprinklers, which would not otherwise be required, in the interstitial space of a typical office building solely due to the presence of the usual amount of cabling within the space. The threshold value at which sprinklers become necessary in the concealed space is not defined . In the NFPA 13 committees substantiation, they wanted to clarify that the normal amount of cabling would not require sprinklers due to the construction of the space. They also expanded the list of combustibles to provide examples of potential combustible loading. _____________________________________________________________ 16-345 Log #3230 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.179(E)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Frank Peri, Communications Design Corporation Recommendation: Add new 820.179(E), as shown. (K) Type CATVD. Type CATVD air duct cable shall be listed as being suitable for use in ducts, plenums, and other spaces used for environmental air and shall also be listed as having adequate fire-resistant, very low smoke-producing characteristics, and very low potential heat release. FPN No: One method of defining a low flame spread and very low smokeproducing cable is that the cable exhibits a maximum flame spread index of 25 and maximum smoke developed index of 50 when tested in accordance with NFPA 255, Standard Method of Test of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials with the cable unslit (intact) and cut through to expose the cable core. One method of defining a low potential heat cable is that the cable exhibits a maximum potential heat value of exceeding 8141 kJ/kg (3500 BTU/ lb) when tested in accordance with NFPA 259, Standard Test Method for Potential Heat of Building Materials. Substantiation: The purpose of this proposal is to correlate with NFPA 50002006. NFPA 5000-2006, recently issued by the NFPA Standards Council, incorporates extracted plenum requirements from NFPA 90A-2002. Consequently, the plenum requirements in NFPA 5000-2006 are identical to the ceiling cavity plenum requirements in NFPA 90A-2002. This proposal provides listing requirements for a cable with characteristics that complies with the NFPA 90A-2002, 4.3.10.2.6: requirements for limited combustible materials exposed to the airflow. This proposal provides a listing and marking for a cable that complies with the NFPA 90A-2002, 4.3.10.2.6.1: a requirement for a listed limited combustible cable with a maximum smoke developed index of 50. The proposed cable meets the NFPA Standards Councils directive to not identify cable as limited combustible, because it is not a building construction material. The cable name and listing requirements meets guidance from the NFPA Standards Council to identify cable characteristics in terms of flame spread index, smoke developed index, and potential heat release. As compared to a combustible plenum cable that is listed using NFPA 262, air duct cable is a much safer cable. Air duct cable provides users with an opportunity to significantly reduce the potential hazard from smoke during a fire emergency. Additionally, the much lower potential heat release of air duct cable provides much lower combustible loading than found in combustible plenum cable listed using NFPA 262. Air duct cables are available on the market today. Presently, there is air duct cable available to meet the plenum installation requirements of Articles 725, 760, 770, and 800. Unfortunately, the only marking available in the NEC is for a combustible plenum cable. The NEC decides what marking is permitted, and listing organizations correlate. That is, it would be inappropriate for a listing organization to mark cable with a Type XXX that is not published in the NEC. The following is an example of air duct cable information from the UL Web Site: OWKZ.GuideInfoLimited Combustible Cable Guide Information for Electrical Equipment for Use in Ordinary Locations GENERAL This category covers electrical and optical fiber cable that meets the limited combustible and smoke developed requirements for cable in ceiling cavity and raised floor plenums in accordance with NFPA 90A, Standard for the Installation of Air Conditioning and Ventilating Systems. This cable also meets the requirements for cable used in ducts, plenums and other spaces used for environmental air in accordance with Articles 725, 760, 770, 800, 820 and 830 of ANSI/NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.

70-969

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

This cable has a maximum Potential Heat value of 3500 Btu/lb when tested in accordance with NFPA 259, Standard Test Method for Potential Heat of Building Materials. This cable has a maximum smoke developed index of 50 and a maximum flame spread index of 25 when tested in accordance with UL 723 (NFPA 255), Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials before and after exposure to elevated temperature and humidity. The cable also meets the requirements for plenum cable in one or more of the following product categories: Power-limited Circuit Cable ( QPTZ ) - Types CL2P or CL3P Communications Cable ( DUZX ) - Type CMP Power-limited Fire Alarm Cable ( HNIR ) - Type FPLP Nonpower-limited Fire Alarm Cable ( HNHT ) - Type NPLFP Optical Fiber Cable ( QAYK ) - Types OFNP or OFCP Community Antenna Television Cable ( DVCS ) - Type CATVP Network-powered Broadband Communications Cable ( PWIP ) - Type BLP PRODUCT MARKINGS This cable is identified by the marking Limited Combustible FHC 25/50 on the surface of the jacket or on a marker tape under the jacket. This marking is immediately followed by one of the Type designations shown above. The cable also has the required markings including optional markings as indicated in the product categories referenced above. This cable may also be Verified for transmission performance if authorized in the product categories referenced above, and will bear the appropriate performance verification marking. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION For additional information, see Electrical Equipment for Use in Ordinary Locations ( AALZ ). REQUIREMENTS The basic requirements used to investigate products in this category are contained in Subject 2424, Outline of Investigation for Cable Marked Limited Combustible. UL MARK The UL symbol on the product and the Listing Mark of Underwriters Laboratories Inc. on the attached tag, the reel, or the smallest unit container in which the product is packaged is the only method provided by UL to identify products manufactured under its Listing and Follow-Up Service. The Listing Mark for these products includes the UL symbol (as illustrated in the Introduction of this Directory) together with the word LISTED, a control number, and the product name Limited Combustible Cable. Cable which is also Verified to the UL Data Transmission Performance Category Marking Program has the marking Verified to UL Performance Category Program, or the UL Verification Mark along with the words Performance Category Program together with the Listing Mark information on the tag, the reel, or the smallest unit container. Cable which is also Verified to another transmission performance specification has the marking Verified in Accordance with [Specification name and/or number] or the UL Verification Mark along with the applicable Specification name and/or number together with the Listing Mark information on the tag, the reel, or the smallest unit container. Last Updated on 2004-03-24 Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, in pertinent part, as follows: So as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of NFPA 90A. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-346 Log #3635 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (820.179(E) (New) ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Allen C. Weidman, The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. Recommendation: Add new text as follows: (E) Concealed Space Cables. Coaxial cables that meet the requirements for Type CATV that are also listed as having a low potential heat value, low flame spread characteristics, and low smoke producing characteristics shall be permitted to be listed and marked as concealed space cables Type CATV-CS. FPN: One method of defining a low flame spread and low smoke-producing cable is that the cable exhibits a maximum flame spread distance of 1.52 m (5 ft), a maximum peak optical density of 0.5 and a maximum average optical density of 0.15 when tested in accordance with NFPA 262-2002, Standard Method of Test for Flame Travel and Smoke of Wires and Cables for Use in Air-Handling Spaces with the cable unslit (intact) and cut through to expose the cable core. One method of defining a low potential heat cable is that the

NFPA 70
cable exhibits a maximum potential heat value of exceeding 8141 kJ/kg (3500 BTU/lb) when tested in accordance with NFPA 259, Standard Test Method for Potential Heat of Building Materials. Substantiation: The purpose of this proposal is to provide listing and marking for a cable that will be suitable for use in concealed spaces where there are large quantities of cables. Users would have the option of using these cables to avoid establishing a fuel load above the threshold where the quantity of cables would be considered a combustible loading. Also, these cables provide a flame spread index and a smoke developed index that correlate with the requirements for exposed materials within concealed spaces in buildings. Cables tested using NFPA 255 and 259 establish parameters commonly used in NFPA standards and building codes: smoke developed index, smoke developed index, and heat of combustion. This proposal uses the NFPA 262 test in place of NFPA 255. The Fire Protection Research Foundations International Limited Combustible Plenum Cable Fire Test Project (copy attached) has shown that both of these tests are suitable and provided data (page 18 of the report) for setting equivalent criteria in the two tests. A maximum average optical density of 0.17 in NFPA 262 is equivalent to a smoke developed index of 450 in NFPA 255. This proposal sets the maximum optical density requirement at 0.15 to allow for a margin of error and to correlate with the existing requirements for plenum cable. NFPA 13 has requirements for sprinklers in a concealed space that contains a combustible loading. Combustible loading is a function of the density (number) of cables and their potential heat release determined by NFPA 259. The following is excerpted from the Automatic Systems Sprinkler Handbook 2002 edition: In the handbook the commentary is printed in blue. Since the proposals are printed in black and white I have changed the handbook commentary to bold italics . I also underlined the text that refers to computer room raised floors. As indicated in 8.1.1(1), sprinklers are required throughout the premises. Under certain conditions, however, the omission of sprinklers in certain areas and spaces within a building is permitted. Section 8.14 identifies these spaces and conditions. 8.14.1 Concealed Spaces. 8.14.1.1 Concealed Spaces Requiring Sprinkler Protection. All concealed spaces enclosed wholly or partly by exposed combustible construction shall be protected by sprinklers except in concealed spaces where sprinklers are not required to be installed by 8.14.1.2.1 through 8.14.1.2.15. Concealed spaces requiring sprinkler protection are covered in 8.14.1.1. Concealed spaces, unless protected, can provide an unabated passage for firespread throughout a building. Paragraph 8.14.1 applies to those portions of a building that have construction or finish materials of a combustible nature, are used for the storage of combustible materials, and can contain combustibles associated with building system features such as computer wiring or large quantities of nonmetallic piping. Any of these scenarios could be found in a concealed space. It is important to recognize that concealed spaces are not exclusively limited to areas above ceilings but can also be found in walls and in spaces beneath the floor. For example, a raised floor in a computer room is a . concealed space. If none of the three prescribed conditions exists, the space is defined as a concealed, noncombustible space with respect to combustible objects and requires no additional sprinkler protection. Some minor quantities of combustible materials, such as communication wiring, can be present in some concealed spaces but should not typically be viewed as requiring sprinklers (see 8.14.1.1). The threshold value at which sprinklers become necessary in the concealed space is not defined. For example, the usual amounts of data or telephone wiring found above a ceiling would not typically constitute a threat. If bundles of unsheathed computer wiring are installed above the ceiling or beneath the floor in a manner where fire propagation in all directions is likely, then the concealed space should be treated the same as a combustible space, thereby requiring appropriate sprinkler protection. If some other protection measure is provided, such as a CO, system, then the concealed space is considered to be protected, and sprinklers are not required. Users of this article need to be aware of the requirements of NFPA 13 so they can provide the appropriate fire protection where these is a build-up of combustible cables that constitute a combustible loading, or preferably avoid the buildup of combustible cables that would result in a combustible loading. Use of concealed space cables would be an option in a strategy to avoid establishing a combustible loading. A flame spread index of 25 is a typical requirement for materials permitted in concealed spaces or exposed in buildings. A smoke developed index of 450 is a typical requirement for materials permitted in concealed spaces or exposed in buildings. The following requirements are from NFPA 5000-2003 identify heat of combustion, flame spread, and smoke as major concerns: Chapter 4 General 4.4.7 Limiting Fire Spread. 4.4.7.1 Interior Finishes. The interior surfaces of the building shall not contribute to an unacceptable rate and magnitude of fire spread and generation of heat and smoke. 4.4.7.2 Concealed Spaces. The construction of concealed spaces shall not contribute to an unacceptable rate of the spread of fire, hot gases, and smoke to areas of the building remote from the fire source and shall limit their spread beyond the immediate area of the origin of the fire.

70-970

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

4.4.7.3 Compartmentation. The building shall be compartmented, as appropriate, by walls and floors, including their associated openings with proper closures, to limit the spread of fire, hot gases, and smoke to an acceptable area beyond the immediate area of fire origin. Chapter 8 Fire-Resistive Materials and Construction 8.1 General. 8.1.1 The chapter addresses fire protection features intended to restrict or resist the spread of fire and smoke beyond the compartment of fire origin. 8.1.2 Where required by other chapters of this Code, every building shall be divided into compartments to limit the spread of fire and restrict or resist the movement of smoke. 8.1.2.1* Fire compartments shall be formed with fire barrier walls that comply with Section 8.4 or horizontal assemblies that comply with Section 8.6, or a combination of both. 8.1.2.2 Smoke compartments shall be formed with smoke barriers that comply with Section 8.11. 8.16 Insulating Materials. 8.16.7 Insulation and Covering on Pipe and Tubing. Insulation and covering on pipe and tubing shall have a flame spread index of not more than 25 and a smoke developed index of not more than 450. Chapter 10 Interior Finishes 10.3.2* Products required to be tested in accordance with NFPA 255 or ASTM E 84 shall be grouped in the classes described in 10.3.2(A) through 10.3.2(C) in accordance with their flame spread and smoke development, except as indicated in 10.3.3. (A) Class A Interior Wall and Ceiling Finish. Class A interior wall and ceiling finishes shall be those finishes with a flame spread of 025 and smoke development of 0450 and shall include any material classified at 25 or less on the flame spread test scale and 450 or less on the smoke test scale. Any element thereof, when so tested, shall not continue to propagate fire. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The submitter did not provide adequate technical substantiation to support a need for a concealed space listed cable. Concealed spaces should be adequately defined. See action on Proposals 1613, 16-110, and 16-247 where the proposed definition was determined to be unacceptable. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Comment on Affirmative: OHDE, H.: We agree with panel action and believe that the panel statement should reflect the latest NFPA 13 Technical Committee actions. Included in the submitters substantiation was the 2002 Section 8.14 which since has been revised. We would like to add that NFPA 13 just completed their balloting process for the 2006 NFPA 13 Standard. The Technical Committee on Sprinkler Installation submitted a comment on Proposal 13-284. This comment reworded proposed A.8.14.1.2.1 to read Minor quantities of combustible materials such as but not limited to: cabling, nonmetallic plumbing piping, non-structural wood, etccan be present in concealed spaces constructed of limited or noncombustible materials but should not be viewed as requiring sprinklers (see 8.14.1.1) For example, it is not the intent of this section to require sprinklers, which would not otherwise be required, in the interstitial space of a typical office building solely due to the presence of the usual amount of cabling within the space. The threshold value at which sprinklers become necessary in the concealed space is not defined . In the committees substantiation, they wanted to clarify that the normal amount of cabling would not require sprinklers due to the construction of the space. They also expanded the list of combustibles to provide examples of potential combustible loading.

NFPA 70
_____________________________________________________________ 16-348 Log #2676 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (830.2.Abandoned Network-Powered Broadband Communications Cable) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Charles M. Trout, Maron Electric Co. Inc. Recommendation: Revise 830.2 to read as follows: 830.2 Abandoned Network-Powered Broadband Communications Cable to read: Installed network-powered communications cable that is not terminated at equipment other than a connector and not identified for future use with a tag which is of a material impervious to the deleterious effects of temperature and dampness. The tag shall be resistant to the effects of gnawing by rodents. The tag shall contain the following information: (1) Date tag was installed. (2) Date of intended use of disconnected cable. (3) Drawing or file number containing information relating to intended future use of disconnected cable. The date of intended use of disconnected cable shall not exceed 90 days from date of disconnection. Substantiation: Abandoned cables are a growing problem in the industry. These cables are left for others to deal with when present users discontinue their operation. Understanding this problem, the removal of abandoned cables, is required by Articles 640, 645, 725, 760, 770, 800, 820 and 830. 830.3(A) requires the removal of abandoned network powered communications cables. Tagging of cables intended for future use without a method of ensuring the intention of future use invites tagging of cables to avoid the responsibility of their proper removal. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: While the submitter makes the point that the tagging requirements may be used to circumvent abandoned cable removal, the proposed additional requirements are impractical, burdensome, and preclude the pre-wiring of buildings. For example, buildings are often pre-wired for network-powered broadband. While the current tenant may not require the pre-wiring, future tenants may have additional needs and require the networkpowered broadband wiring. Allowing only 90 days is insufficient to support pre-wiring. A tag that is immune to temperature, dampness, and rodents needs to be of special material and would likely require special means to mark the tag. Adding a file number implies the existence of a database. No suggestion is provided as to who is responsible for populating and maintaining the database. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

_____________________________________________________________ 16-349 Log #3014 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (830.2. Abandoned Network-Powered Broadband Communications Cable ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 830.2 Definitions. Abandoned Network-Powered Broadband Communications Cable. Installed network-powered broadband communications cable that is not terminated at equipment other than a connector and not identified for future use with a tag. Substantiation: The definitions of abandoned cable in every article should be identical. The relevant articles are: 640, 645, 725, 760, 770, 800, 820 and 830. The definitions at articles 640 and 725 are already correct as follows: 640.2: Abandoned Audio Distribution Cable. Installed audio distribution cable that is not terminated at equipment and not identified for future use with a tag. 725.2: Abandoned Class 2, Class 3, and PLTC Cable. Installed Class 2, Class 3, and PLTC cable that is not terminated at equipment and not identified for ARTICLE 830 NETWORK-POWERED BROADBAND future use with a tag. The additional wording in this definition causes confusion. Proposals are COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS being made to make changes to the definitions in articles 770, 800, 820 and _____________________________________________________________ 830, and to add a general definition into article 645 and into article 100. 16-347 Log #2365 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject Panel Meeting Action: Reject (830.2.Abandoned Network Powered Broadband Communications Cable) Panel Statement: The AHJ is unlikely to have access to the database for _____________________________________________________________ every building under his/her jurisdiction. The majority of communications Submitter: John H. Schmidt, ABC Television Network technicians (installation/repair) work at a multiplicity of locations. Database Recommendation: In the definition for Abandoned Network Powered administrative responsibility is not identified in the proposal. Maintaining and Broadband Communications Cable, after the words and not identified for referencing a database for every location is cumbersome, unwieldy, and future use with a tag add the new text or in a database. impractical. Substantiation: In modern large systems, cables are often identified with Number Eligible to Vote: 15 a number at each end, and the function of the cable is listed in a database Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 referencing that number. This database should be adequate to identify cables Explanation of Negative: OHDE, H.: This proposal should be accepted as submitted. The submitter for future use. Panel Meeting Action: Reject substantiates that the definitions of abandoned cables in Articles 640, 645, 725, Panel Statement: The AHJ is unlikely to have access to the database for every 760, 770, 800, 820, and 830 should be identical. This proposal deletes building under his/her jurisdiction. The majority of communications technicians unnecessary language in the present definitions and provides consistent (installation/repair) work at a multiplicity of locations. Database administrative language throughout the above articles mentioned. The panel statement is responsibility is not identified in the proposal. Maintaining and referencing a incorrect. database for every location is cumbersome, unwieldy, and impractical. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

70-971

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

_____________________________________________________________ 16-350 Log #53 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (830.2.Air Duct) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stanley Kaufman, Cable Safe Inc. Recommendation: Add a definition to read as follows: Air Duct. A conduit or passageway for conveying air to or from heating, cooling, air conditioning, or ventilating equipment, but not including the plenum. [NFPA 97:1.2.6] Substantiation: The definition of air duct is in the definitions section of Articles 800 and 820. Add it to this article for editorial consistency. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, in pertinent part, as follows: So as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of NFPA 90A. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Comment on Affirmative: JENSEN, R.: We agree with rejecting this as it was evidently an oversight to be removed during the last code cycle. Air duct was introduced for use with air duct cable which was not to be used in the 2005 code. Additionally, the term is not used within Article 770 even though the substantiation says it is. To further not using this term, in proposal 16-29, the panel revised the proposal to not use air duct, but instead to harmonize code language by using the term ventilation or air handling ducts.

NFPA 70

_____________________________________________________________ 16-352 Log #2666 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (830.2.Block) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert W. Jensen, dbi / Rep. BICSI, A Telecommunications Association Recommendation: Delete the following text: Block. A square or portion of a city, town, or village enclosed by streets, including the alleys so enclosed but not any street. Substantiation: This is a companion proposal to BICSI 830.90. If this proposal is accepted, this definition will no longer be needed because the concept of block will be removed. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: This is a companion proposal to 16-383, which was rejected. See panel action on Proposal 16-383. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-353 Log #786 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (830.2.Exposed) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Revise the definition of Exposed as follows: Exposed ( to Accidental Contact ) with Electrical Light or Power Conductors . A circuit in such a position that, in case of failure of supports or insulation, contact with another circuit may result. FPN: See Article 100 for two other definitions of Exposed . Substantiation: This is a clarification. (Task Group No. 830-03) It clarifies the term Exposed as used in Article 800 to indicate possible contact with another circuit, as opposed to the definitions of Exposed contained in Article 100, i.e., live parts or wiring methods. The style used to differentiate the term is identical to that of Article 100 for consistency. The word and is deleted and replaced by the word or as either of the conditions, failure of supports or failure of insulation, may result in accidental contact. This is a companion proposal to 770.2, 800.2 and 820.2. The addition of the fine print note introduces to Articles 770, 800 and 820. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial _____________________________________________________________ 16-351 Log #3032 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; (830.2.Air Duct) 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International / Rep. American Fire requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, Safety Council 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. Recommendation: Delete the following text: 800.2 Air Duct. A conduit or passageway for conveying air to or from The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, heating, cooling, air conditioning, or ventilating equipment, but not including Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. the plenum. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Substantiation: The term air duct is not used in article 800 and should not Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-354. be defined in the article, as per the manual of style of the National Electrical Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Code. Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Panel Meeting Action: Reject _____________________________________________________________ Panel Statement: The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to 16-354 Log #1941 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA (830.2.Exposed (to Accidental Contact)) Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, _____________________________________________________________ in pertinent part, as follows: Submitter: Stanley D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. So as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A Recommendation: Revise the definition of Exposed as follows: Exposed ( to Accidental Contact ) with Electrical Light or Power Conductors into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to . A circuit in such a position that, in case of failure of supports or insulation, plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A contact with another circuit may result. FPN: See Article 100 for two other definitions of Exposed. revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the Substantiation: This is a clarification. (Task Group 830-03A) processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of It clarifies the term Exposed as used in Article 830 to indicate possible NFPA 90A. contact with another circuit, as opposed to the definitions of Exposed This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the contained in Article 100, i.e., live parts or wiring methods. The style used to substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. differentiate the term is identical to that of Article 100 for consistency. This is a Number Eligible to Vote: 15 companion proposal to 770.2, 800.2 and 820.2. The changes to the definition Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 and the addition of the fine print note provides consistency and correlation in Explanation of Negative: the definition of exposed across Articles 770, 800, 820 and 830. JENSEN, R.: We believe that the interpretation of whether being allowed to This is one of a group of proposals prepared by the CMP 16 Special Editorial address this proposal in view of the NFPA Standard Council Long Decision 05- Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 24 (SC #05-7-4) was misunderstood. We agree with deleting the term air duct as it was evidently an oversight 2) improve the parallelism between related articles such that similar that it was not removed during the last code cycle. Air duct was introduced for requirements are stated the same way in each article; 3) make the articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, use with air duct cable which was not to be used in the 2005 code. 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand sections. Additionally, the term is not used within Article 800. To further not using this The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, term, in proposal 16-29, the panel revised the proposal to not use air duct, but instead to harmonize code language by using the term ventilation or air Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. handling ducts. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Comment on Affirmative: Number Eligible to Vote: 15 OHDE, H.: This proposal should be rejected because there is no definition in Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 830.2 for Air Duct. The panel rejected the proposal based on the NFPA 90A Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC#05-7-4).

70-972

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

_____________________________________________________________ 16-355 Log #1876 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (830.2.Exposed to (Accidental Contact)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: James E. Brunssen, Telecordia Technologies Inc. / Rep. Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions Recommendation: Revise the definition of Exposed as follows: Exposed (to Accidental Contact) with Electrical Light or Power Conductors . A circuit in such a position that, in case of failure of supports or insulation, contact with another circuit may result. Substantiation: The proposed revision establishes a consistent definition throughout Articles 770, 800, 820 and 830. The present definition contains an inconsistency between the defined term, i.e., Exposed to Accidental Contact with Electrical Light or Power Conductors and the actual wording of the definition, i.e., contact with another circuit. The proposed revised definition reflects the intended meaning of the term and is consistent with the identical definition in Articles 770, 800 and 820. This is a companion proposal to 770.2, 800.2 and 820.2. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-354. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-356 Log #64 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (830.2. Exposed to Accidental Contact with Electrical Light or Power Conductors ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stanley Kaufman, Cable Safe Inc. Recommendation: Revise as follows: Exposed to Accidental Contact with Electrical Light or Power Conductors. A circuit in such a position that, in case of failure of supports or insulation, contact with another circuit may result. Substantiation: Electrical Light or Power Conductors has been changed to Electric Light or Power Conductors for editorial consistency with the usage in the Code. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-354. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-357 Log #37 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (830.2. Point of Entrance ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stanley Kaufman, Cable Safe Inc. Recommendation: Revise as follows: Point of Entrance. The point within a building at which the cable emerges from an external wall, from a concrete floor slab, or from a rigid metal conduit (Type RMC) or an intermediate metal conduit (Type IMC) grounded to an electrode in accordance with 830.100(B). FPN: See 342.2 for a definition of Intermediate Metal Conduit (Type IMC). FPN: See 344.2 for a definition of Rigid Metal Conduit (Type RMC). Substantiation: The addition of a fine print notes pointing installers to the definitions of intermediate metal conduit and rigid metal conduit will help installers who are not Code experts. Use of the type designations will promote consistency throughout the code. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Change 830.2 to read as follows: Point of Entrance. The point within a building at which the cable emerges from an external wall, from a concrete floor slab, or from a rigid metal conduit (Type RMC) or an intermediate metal conduit (Type IMC) grounded connected by a grounding conductor to an electrode in accordance with 830.100(B). FPN No. 1 : See 342.2 for a definition of Intermediate Metal Conduit (Type IMC). FPN No. 2 : See 344.2 for a definition of Rigid Metal Conduit (Type RMC). Panel Statement: The text inserted by the panel, connected by a grounding conductor, provides for editorial consistency across Articles 770, 800, 820, and 830. Multiple FPNs are required to be numbered. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: OHDE, H.: This proposal should be rejected. Section 90.1 (C ) of the NEC states This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for the untrained persons. The addition of the two FPNs referencing the definitions of IMC raceway in 342.2 and RMC raceway in 344.4 is not needed nor warranted. In the submitters substantiation he states these Fine Print Notes will help installers who are not Code experts. A trained installer will know the Code content and how the Code book is to be used. Comment on Affirmative: JENSEN, R.: The panel action regarding FPN No. 2 for Rigid Metal Conduit should refer to 344.2, not 344.4.

NFPA 70
_____________________________________________________________ 16-358 Log #785 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (830.2.Premises Wiring) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Remove the following text: Premises Wiring. The circuits located on the user side of the network interface unit. Substantiation: This proposal is technical. (Task Group No. 830-02) Premises wiring may, in fact, be on the input side of an NIU. This definition is confusing, misleading, and unnecessary. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-359 Log #38 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (830.2, FPN ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stanley Kaufman, Cable Safe Inc. Recommendation: Add a fine print note to the definition of Abandoned Network-Powered Broadband Communications Cable Abandoned Network-Powered Broadband Communications Cable. Installed network-powered broadband communications cable that is not terminated at equipment other than a connector and not identified for future use with a tag. FPN: See Article 100 for a definition of equipment. Substantiation: The addition of a fine print note alerting installers that equipment is defined in Article 100 will help installers who are not Code experts. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: JENSEN, R.: Propose to Reject. CMP 16 accepted proposal 16-5 to harmonize 770.2, 800.2, 820.2, and 8302 by including a normative reference to See Article 100. Adding a FPN to again See Article 100 is redundant, especially since this FPN will be a few lines down from the identical wording in normative text. Additionally, the 2003 NEC Style Manual specifically states to avoid redundant use of references. OHDE, H.: This proposal should be rejected. Section 90.1 (C ) of the NEC states This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for the untrained persons. In the submitters substantiation he states this FPN will help installers who are not Code experts. The addition of the FPN referencing Article 100 for the definition of equipment is not needed nor warranted. A trained installer will know the Code content and how the Code book is to be used. _____________________________________________________________ 16-360 Log #3102 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (830.3) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald Hall, Corning Cable Systems Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 830.3 Other Articles. Circuits and equipment shall comply with 830.3(A) through 830.3(E). (A) Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. 300.21 shall apply. The accessible portion of a Abandoned network-powered broadband communications cables shall be removed. Also, add the following FPN to 830.3(A): FPN: ANSI/NECA/BICSI 568-2001, Standard for Installing Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling, and other industry standards provide recommended cable installation practices which facilitate the eventual removal of cables as they become abandoned. Substantiation: Abandoned cable should be removed to reduce unnecessary accumulation of fuel load and promote electrical safety. It is not reasonable or necessary to install cables in a manner that prevents their eventual removal. The proposed FPN will provide useful information to architects, system designers, and installers to help minimize the cost and inconvenience of removing abandoned cable.

70-973

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The proposal would require all abandoned cable to be removed, irrespective of accessibility, presenting a compliance conundrum to installers. Without access, it is impossible to remove cables that are securely fastened without damaging the building or adjacent cables. The submitters substantiation states: It is not reasonable or necessary to install cables in a manner that prevents their eventual removal. However, the panel previously imposed additional securing and supporting requirements by referencing 300.11 in 830.24. Gaining access may sometimes require disassembly of part of the building. This is not the intent of the panel. The current requirement to remove only the accessible portion is reasonable. The submitter further proposes to add an FPN following 830.3(A) that is already contained in 830.24. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Comment on Affirmative: OHDE, H.: We concur with submitters substantiation and believe a change of wording will ensure that are abandoned cables are remove and prevent confusion in future. We suggest that the submitter resubmit his recommendation in the 2008 ROC stage in a more appropriate section with Part 1 General so these requirements will apply throughout the entire Article. The FPN that the submitter submitted is not required as this Standard is very basic and really does not provide enough information that is applicable to the removal of abandoned cables. _____________________________________________________________ 16-361 Log #787 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (830.3(A)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Make the following changes: 830.3(A) Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Section 300.21 shall apply. The accessible portion of abandoned network-powered broadband communications cables shall be removed. 830.25. Abandoned Cables. The accessible portion of abandoned networkpowered broadband cables shall be removed. 830.26 Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Installations of network-powered broadband cables in hollow spaces, vertical shafts, and ventilation or air-handling ducts shall be made so that the possible spread of fire or products of combustion will not be substantially increased. Openings around penetrations of network-powered broadband cables through fireresistantrated walls, partitions, floors, or ceilings shall be firestopped using approved methods to maintain the fire resistance rating. FPN: Directories of electrical construction materials published by qualified testing laboratories contain many listing installation restrictions necessary to maintain the fire-resistive rating of assemblies where penetrations or openings are made. Building codes also contain restrictions on membrane penetrations on opposite sides of a fire-resistancerated wall assembly. An example is the 600-mm (24-in.) minimum horizontal separation that usually applies between boxes installed on opposite sides of the wall. Assistance in complying with 830.26 can be found in building codes, fire resistance directories, and product listings. Substantiation: This proposal is editorial. (Task Group No. 830-04) The title of Section 830.3 is Other Articles. The requirement for the removal of abandoned cables is not in another article; it is in Article 830. It is out of place in section 830.3. This proposal will move it to a new section of Article 830. Rather than refer section 300.21 requirements for the prevention of the spread of fire, it is better to have the requirements in Article 830 which should be familiar to communications installers. The text of proposed section 830.26 is based on section 300.21 but modified to apply to network-powered broadband cables. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) mprove the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle The panel accepts the submitters proposal. In addition, the alpha reference (B) to 770.3 is deleted only so there are not two separate subsections. Panel Statement: The panel accepts the submitters proposal, where editorial changes are made to reorder subsections of 830.3. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: OHDE, H.: This proposal should be deleted in its entirety. We agree that the requirements for the removal of abandoned cables are out of place in 830.3(A) and needs to be located in another section within Part 1 General. There are other proposed proposals with the same intent to locate the abandoned cable requirements that seem better suited and make good enforceable code.

NFPA 70
The substantiation provided to delete 830.3(A) which contains the requirements of 300.21 is unclear. The submitter stated the proposed 830.26 is based on the requirements of 300.21. There was no substantiation submitted for this change. In addition there is no need for the FPN to be mentioned as the language in 830.3(A) clearly states the requirements of 300.21 apply. 300.21 has the identical FPN that is being proposed. _____________________________________________________________ 16-362 Log #1389 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (830.3(A)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mike Holt, Mike Holt Enterprises Recommendation: Delete text concerning abandoned cables 830.3 Other Articles. Circuits and equipment shall comply with 830.3(A) through 830.3(E). (A) Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Section 300.21 shall apply. The accessible portion of abandoned network-powered broadband communications cables shall be removed. Substantiation: The NEC is an installation standard, not a maintenance standard. Because of this, this rule should not be a part of the NEC. Furthermore, this provision does not accomplish its intent, as the code is not a retroactive document. To require abandoned cables to be removed is similar to requiring facilities to update their receptacles to the new GFCI provision every three years. With that said, the only time this rule applies is when an installer creates an abandoned cable. Also, this provision does not fall within the purpose of the NEC 90.1(A). The NEC is concerned with the hazards created from the use of electricitythis rule seems to imply that a cable with a voltage applied to it is safe, but a cable with no voltage applied to it is dangerous. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-26. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-363 Log #2810 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Part (830.3(A)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Harold C. Ohde, IBEW #134 Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 830.3 Other Articles. No change. (A) Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Section 300.21 shall apply . The accessible portion of abandoned network powered broadband communications cables shall be removed. Substantiation: The requirements for removal of abandoned network-powered broadband communications cables would be better suited in appropriate code section within Article 830. I have submitted another proposal that would move the abandoned network-powered broadband communications cables requirements to 830.24 - Mechanical Execution of Work. The abandoned network-powerered broadband communications cables requirements are out of place in 830.3 - Other Articles. The requirements are not part of another Article as they are part of Article 830 and are located within Article 830. The deletion of the word Section is an editorial change to comply the National Electrical Code Style Manual. Similar proposals have been submitted for 640.3, 725.3, 760.3, 770.3, 800.3 and 820.3 to revise these sections as well. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Part The panel accepts the part that deletes the second sentence of 830.3(A) concerning abandoned cables. The panel rejects the proposed revisions to the first sentence. Panel Statement: The panel agrees that the requirement to remove abandoned cable does not belong in 830.3 and should be relocated. A direct reference to 300.21 is inappropriate, as it applies to electrical installations and not networkpowered broadband communications installations. See panel action on Proposal 16-361 that relocates the requirement to remove abandoned cable to 830.25 (new) and restates the spread of fire requirements in network-powered broadband terms in 830.26 (new). Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: OHDE, H.: This proposal should have been accepted as originally submitted. The panel statement seems to be in conflict as it states the provisions of 300.21 will work well in the new proposed section 830.26 but not in 830.3(A) where it has always been properly located. The panel accepted the same 300.21 requirements whose concern is the spread of fire and products of combustion in hollow spaces, vertical shafts and ventilation and air- handling ducts caused by electrical installations and located them in 830.26.

70-974

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

_____________________________________________________________ 16-364 Log #3011 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (830.3(A)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 830.2 Definitions. Abandoned Network-Powered Broadband Communications Cable. Installed network-powered broadband communications cable that is not terminated at equipment other than a connector and not identified for future use with a tag. 830.3 Other Articles. Circuits and equipment shall comply with 830.3(A) through 830.3(E). (A) Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Section 300.21 shall apply. The accessible portion of abandoned Abandoned network-powered broadband communications cables shall be removed. Removal of abandoned cables shall not damage the building structure or finish and shall not compromise the performance of adjacent wiring systems or components. Substantiation: This comment recommends a change in wording to ensure that abandoned cables are removed and to prevent confusion in future. There have been multiple proposals that would permit some cables to remain in inaccessible spaces. This is not conducive to safe electrical practice; this the key change is the elimination of the words the accessible portion of. If the intent of the code-making panel was to clarify that removal of cable should not be done if such removal would damage the building, which is obviously not the intent, a second sentence can be added stating that removal of abandoned cables shall not be performed if it would damage the building structure or finish or in any way compromise the functional performance of any other wiring systems or components. This would be accomplished by the optional added sentence. Consistent wording on removal of abandoned cables is being proposed for sections: 640.3, 725.3, 770.3, 770.154, 800.3, 800.154, 820.3, 820.154 and 830.3. For information, see the relevant definitions in the NEC. Accessible (as applied to equipment). Admitting close approach; not guarded by locked doors, elevation, or other effective means. Accessible (as applied to wiring methods). Capable of being removed or exposed without damaging the building structure or finish or not permanently closed in by the structure or finish of the building. Accessible, Readily (Readily Accessible). Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort to portable ladders, and so forth. Concealed. Rendered inaccessible by the structure or finish of the building. Wires in concealed raceways are considered concealed, even though they may become accessible by withdrawing them. Isolated (as applied to location). Not readily accessible to persons unless special means for access are used. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-28. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Comment on Affirmative: OHDE, H.: We concur with submitters substantiation and believe a change of wording will ensure that are abandoned cables are remove and prevent confusion in future. We suggest that the submitter resubmit his recommendation in the 2008 ROC stage in a more appropriate section with Part 1 General so these requirements will apply throughout the entire Article.

NFPA 70

penetrations on opposite sides of a fire-resistancerated wall assembly. An example is the 600-mm (24-in.) minimum horizontal separation that usually applies between boxes installed on opposite sides of the wall. Assistance in complying with 830.26 can be found in building codes, fire resistance directories, and product listings. FPN No. 2: FPN: See 8.14.1 of NFPA 13, Installation of Sprinkler Systems , for requirements for sprinklers in concealed spaces containing exposed combustibles. Substantiation: The title of Section 830.3 is Other Articles. The requirement for the removal of abandoned cables is not in another article; it is in Article 830. It is out of place in section 830.3. This proposal will move it to a new section of Article 830. Rather than refer to Section 300.21 requirements for the prevention of the spread of fire, it is better to have the requirements in Article 830 which should be familiar to communications installers. The text of proposed section 830.26 is based on Section 300.21 but modified to apply to network-powered broadband cables. For clarity, ventilation or air-handling ducts has been simplified by replacing it with air ducts. Also, concealed spaces have been added to the list of areas requiring fire protection vigilance (hollow spaces, vertical shafts, and air ducts) to correlate with NFPA 13, Installation of Sprinkler Systems, which has requirements for protecting concealed spaces. A FPN is included to refer users to the NFPA 13 requirements. It should be noted that the section reference may need to be updated when the 2006 edition of NFPA 13. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part The panel accepts the submitters deletion of 830.3(C), the addition of 830.25 (new), and the addition of 830.26 (new), but revises air ducts to ventilation or air handling duct in keeping with the existing NEC text. The panel accepts FPN No. 1, but rejects the addition of FPN No.2. Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-361. The Panel rejects the addition of FPN No. 2 because it introduces undefined terminology. Concealed spaces should be adequately defined. See action on Proposals 16-13, 16-110, and 16-247 where the proposed definition was determined to be unacceptable. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: OHDE, H.: This proposal should be deleted in its entirety. We agree that the requirements for the removal of abandoned cables are out of place in 830.3(A) and needs to be located in another section within Part 1 General. There are other proposed proposals with the same intent to locate the abandoned cable requirements that seem better suited and make good enforceable code. The substantiation provided to delete 830.3(A) which contains the requirements of 300.21 is unclear. The submitter stated the proposed 830.26 is based on the requirements of 300.21 but modified to apply to network-powered broadband cables. There was no substantiation submitted for this change. In addition there is no need for the FPN No.1 to be mentioned as the language in 830.3(A) clearly states the requirements of 300.21 apply. 300.21 has the identical FPN that is being proposed. We believe that the panel statement should also reflect the latest NFPA 13 Technical Committee actions. Included in the submitters substantiation was the 2002 Section 8.14 which since has been revised. We would like to add that NFPA 13 just completed their balloting process for the 2006 NFPA 13 Standard. The Technical Committee on Sprinkler Installation submitted a comment on Proposal 13-284. This comment reworded proposed A.8.14.1.2.1 to read Minor quantities of combustible materials such as but not limited to: cabling, nonmetallic plumbing piping, non-structural wood, etccan be present in concealed spaces _____________________________________________________________ constructed of limited or noncombustible materials but should not be viewed as 16-365 Log #3315 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part requiring sprinklers (see 8.14.1.1) For example, it is not the intent of this (830.3(A), 830.25 (new) & 830.26 (new)) section to require sprinklers, which would not otherwise be required, in the _____________________________________________________________ interstitial space of a typical office building solely due to the presence of the TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Panel usual amount of cabling within the space. The threshold value at which clarify the Panel Action on this Proposal relative to the panel action text to sprinklers become necessary in the concealed space is not defined . accept the deletion of 830.3(A), not 830.3(C). This action will be considered In the NFPA 13 committees substantiation, they wanted to clarify that the by the Panel as a Public Comment. normal amount of cabling would not require sprinklers due to the construction Submitter: William E. Koffel, Koffel Assoc., Inc. / Rep. Society of the Plastics of the space. They also expanded the list of combustibles to provide examples Industry of potential combustible loading. Recommendation: Make the following changes: 830.3(A) Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Section 300.21 shall _____________________________________________________________ apply. The accessible portion of abandoned network-powered broadband 16-366 Log #788 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject communications cables shall be removed. (830.3(B)) 830.25. Abandoned Cables. The accessible portion of abandoned network_____________________________________________________________ powered broadband cables shall be removed. Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. 830.26 Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Installations of network- Recommendation: Delete the following: powered broadband cables in hollow spaces, concealed spaces, vertical shafts (B) Ducts, Plenums, and Other Air-Handling Spaces. Section 300.22 shall and air ducts shall be made so that the possible spread of fire or products of apply where installed in ducts, plenums, or other spaces used for environmental combustion will not be substantially increased. Openings around penetrations air. of network-powered broadband cables through fire-resistantrated walls, Exception: As permitted in 830.154(B) partitions, floors, or ceilings shall be firestopped using approved methods to Substantiation: This proposal is editorial and technical. (Task Group No. maintain the fire resistance rating. 830-05) Section 830.3(B) provides no additional guidance or requirements that are FPN No. 1: Directories of electrical construction materials published by qualified testing laboratories contain many listing installation restrictions not already in 830.154(A). It conflicts with Article 830 because Article 830 necessary to maintain the fire-resistive rating of assemblies where penetrations requires listed network-powered broadbad cables whereas 300.22 permits or openings are made. Building codes also contain restrictions on membrane various electrical power and control cables that are not permitted to be used

70-975

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

for network-powered broadband circuits in Article 830. Section 800.3 does not have a similar requirement. Acceptance of this proposal will make Articles 770, 800, 820 and 830 consistent and in compliance with section 3.3.5 of the NEC Style Manual, shown below: 3.3.5 Parallel Construction. Parallel construction means stating similar requirements in similar ways for greater consistency. This helps makes the NEC clear for users. Lack of consistency often creates confusion, causing users to ask: Does this difference in wording represent a different requirement? Or is it simply two different ways of trying to say the same thing? There are several kinds of parallel construction: Organization and Numbering . If practicable, the subsections of similar articles should be numbered in the same order (see 2.4.1). Sections. Different sections, within the same article, that reflect similar or closely related subjects, should have similar structures. Lists. All items in a list should be parallel (that is, singular or plural, written in the same verb tense, using phrases or sentences but not a mix). This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, in pertinent part, as follows: So as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of NFPA 90A. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-367 Log #789 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Part (830.3(E)) _____________________________________________________________ TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Panel clarify the Panel Action on this Proposal and give further consideration to the comments expressed in the voting. This action will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment. Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Make the changes as shown: (A) Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Section 300.21 shall apply. The accessible portion of abandoned network-powered broadband communications cables shall be removed. (B) Ducts, Plenums, and Other Air-Handling Spaces. Section 300.22 shall apply where installed in ducts, plenums, or other spaces used for environmental air. Exception: As permitted in 830.154(B). (B C ) Equipment in Other Space Used for Environmental Air. Section 300.22(C) shall apply. (C D ) Output Circuits. As appropriate for the services provided, the output circuits derived from the network interface unit shall comply with the requirements of the following: (1) Installations of communications circuits Article 800 (2) Installations of community antenna television and radio distribution circuits Article 820 Exception: 830.90(B)(3) shall apply where protection is provided in the output of the NIU. (3) Installations of optical fiber cables Article 770 (4) Installations of Class 2 and Class 3 circuits Article 725 (5) Installations of power-limited fire alarm circuits Article 760 ( A E ) Hazardous (Classified) Locations. Network-powered broadband communications circuits and equipment installed in a location that is classified in accordance with Article 500 .5 shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapter 5. Substantiation: This proposal is editorial. (Task Group No. 830-06) It re-letters 830.3(E) to (A) so the hazardous locations requirements will be in the same place in all CMP-16 Articles. The definitions of hazardous locations are in 500.5. This proposal correlates with other task group proposals that deleted (A) & (B), thereby requiring the re-lettering of this section. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to:

NFPA 70
1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Part Change 830.3(E) to read as follows: (A) Hazardous (Classified) Locations. Network-powered broadband communications circuits and equipment installed in a location that is classified in accordance with 500.5 shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapter 5. (B) Ducts, Plenums, and Other Air-Handling Spaces. Section 300.22 shall apply where installed in ducts, plenums, or other spaces used for environmental air. Exception: As permitted in 830.154(B). (C) Equipment in Other Space Used for Environmental Air. Section 300.22(C) shall apply. (D) Output Circuits. As appropriate for the services provided, the output circuits derived from the network interface unit shall comply with the requirements of the following: (1) Installations of communications circuits Article 800 (2) Installations of community antenna television and radio distribution circuits Article 820 Exception: 830.90(B)(3) shall apply where protection is provided in the output of the NIU. (3) Installations of optical fiber cables Article 770 (4) Installations of Class 2 and Class 3 circuits Article 725 (5) Installations of power-limited fire alarm circuits Article 760 Delete 830.3(E). Panel Statement: The panel accepts the submitters deletion of subsection (A). The panel rejects the submitters revision of subsection (B). The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA Standards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states, in pertinent part, as follows: So as not to inject the problems identified in the 2002 edition of NFPA 90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90A revision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quo in the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition of NFPA 90A. This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of the substantiations submitted for the affected proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: OHDE, H.: The submitter did not substantiate for the deletion of 830.3(A). The panel statement and action is also unclear as they deleted the previous 830.3(A) with no explanation. _____________________________________________________________ 16-368 Log #1878 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (830.15) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jeffrey Boksiner, Telcordia Technologies, Inc. Recommendation: Revise 830.15 Power Limitations as follows. Network-powered broadband communications systems shall be classified as having low or medium power sources as defined in Table 830.15 or as having a listed Remote Feeding Telecommunication Voltage (RFT-V) power source . FPN: One way to determine applicable requirements for listing of information technology equipment intended to supply and receive operating power via a telecommunication network using RFT-V circuits, is to refer to UL 60950-2103, Standard for Safety for Information Technology Equipment Safety Part 21: Remote Power Feeding . Substantiation: CSA/UL6950-21 (first edition, 2003), Standard for Safety for Information Technology Equipment Safety Part 21: Remote Power Feeding, is the ANSI standard that applies to communications systems intended to supply and receive power over the communications network. This is a first proposal of a set of several proposals intended to harmonize the requirements of UL6950-21 and the NEC Article 830. The RTF-V circuit specified in the CSA/UL document permits voltages up to 200V dc between each conductor and ground with monitoring and control devices that limit the current to ground to 10 mA. The RFT-V is power-limited to 100 W rated power (150 VAmax). Rationale and background for the provisions of CSA/UL 60950-21 can be found in the Annex A to the standard. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-369. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

70-976

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

_____________________________________________________________ 16-369 Log #2797 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (830.15) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Randolph J. Ivans, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. / Rep. Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) Subcommittee TR41.7; Environmental and safety Considerations Recommendation: Revise as follows: 830.15 Power Limitations. Network-powered broadband cmmunications systems shall be classified as having low or medium power sources as defined specified in Table 830.15 830.15(1) or 830.15(2). (1) Sources shall be classified as defined in Table 830.15. (2) DC power sources exceeding 150 volts to ground, but no more than 200 volts to ground, with the current to ground limited to 10 mA dc, that meet the current and power limitation for medium power sources in Table 830.15 shall be classified as medium power sources. FPN: One way to determine compliance with 830.15(2) is listed information technology equpment intended to supply power via a telecommunication network that complies with the requirements for RFT-V circuits as defined in UL 60950-21, Standard for Safety for Information Technology Equipment Safety - Part 21: Remote Power Feeding. Substantiation: CSA/UL 60950-21 (first edition, 2003), Standard for Safety for Information Technology Equipment - Safety - Part 21: Remote Power Feeding, is the ANSI standard that applies to communications systems intended to supply and receive power over the communications network. This proposal is intended to harmonize the requirements of UL 6950-21 and the NEC Article 830. An RFT circuit or Remote Feeding Telecommunication circuit is a secondary circuit intended to supply or receive d.c. power via a telecommunication network. An RFT-V circuit is an RFT circuit that is so designed and protected that under normal operating conditions and single fault conditions, the voltages are limited. The RFT-V circuit specified in the CSA/UL document permits voltages up to 200V dc between each conductor and ground with monitoring and control devices that limit the current to ground to 10 mA. The RFT-V is power-limited to 100 W rated power (150 V Amax). Rationale and background for the provisions of CSA/UL 60950-21 can be found in the Annex A to the standard. By adding these circuit characteristics to the medium power source, this proposal is also intended to allow the use of Type BMU, Type BM, or Type BMR cables for these circuits. These cables are presently allowed for medium power network-powered broadband communications circuits in 830.40(A). The RFT-V circuits have more stringent power limitations than the medium-power circuit. As insulation for the individual conductors of Type BMU, Type BM, and Type BMR Cables is required to be rated for 300 volts minimum for each conductor, so these cables are suitable for the RFT-V circuits. This proposal was prepared by the TR41.7, Environmental and Safety Considerations, subcommittee appointed by the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) TR41 Committee, User Premises Telecommunications Requirements and consisting of Randolph Ivans as chairman and subcommittee members. A list of participating companies and subcommittee members can be found in the document identified as TR41.7-Voting Attendance quorum V1.3xls located on the TIA TR4.17 public ftp site at: http://ftp.tiaonline.org/tr-41/tr41.7/ Public/ Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Comment on Affirmative: DORNA, G.: Listing requirements are in Part VI of this article. The information in the new FPN belongs in part VI. KAHN, S.: The panel action should have been accept in principle with the new FPN placed in Part VI of this article where all listing requirements are included. _____________________________________________________________ 16-370 Log #2800 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (830.15) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Randolph J. Ivans, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Recommendation: Revise as follows: 830.15 Power Limitations. Network-powered broadband communications systems shall be as specified in (1) or (2) below . (1) Classified as having low or medium power sources as defined in Table 830.15. (2) Listed information technology (communications) equipment remote feeding telecommunications circuit, RFT-V. FPN: One method of determining applicable requirements for listing of information technology (communications) equipment and remote feeding telecommunications circuits, RFT-V is to refer to UL 60950-1, Information Technology Equipment - Safety - Part 1: General Requirements and UL 6095021, Information Technology Equipment - Safety - Part 21: Remote Power Feeding. Typically such circuits are used to supply d.c. operating power via a telecommunication network. No change to Table 830.15.

NFPA 70
Substantiation: The voltage limitations in 830.15 do not include some common communication industry practices for powering broadband communications equipment not under the exclusive control of the communications utility. UL 60950-21, Standard for safety for Information Technology Equipment Safety - Part 21: Remote Power Feeding, is the ANSI standard that applies to communications systems intended to supply and receive power over the communications network. An RFT circuit or Remote Feeding Telecommunication circuit is a secondary circuit intended to supply or receive d.c. power via a telecommunication network. An RFT-V circuit is an RFT circuit that is so designed and so protected that under normal operating conditions and single fault conditions, the voltages are limited. An RFT-V circuit as described in UL 609590-21 is so designed and protected that under normal operating conditions the voltages are limited between each conductor and ground to 140V dc, or up to 200 V dc provided that a monitoring and control device is used that limits the current to earth to 10 mA. Power is limited to a maximum rating of 100VA under normal operation and 150VAmax under fault conditions, which are lower than the limits for medium power circuits. In addition, the output current is limited to a value that would not cause damage to the communications wiring system, typically 1.3 A or less. These limits reflect common industry practices for remote feed applications that are now being employed to power broadband equipment not under the exclusive control of the communications utility. This is a first proposal of a set of three proposals intended to harmonize the requirements of UL60950-21 and the NEC Article 830. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-369. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-371 Log #762 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (830.21) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Make the changes as shown: 830.21 Access to Electrical Equipment Behind Panels Designed to Allow Access. Access to electrical equipment shall not be denied by an accumulation of wires and network-powered broadband communications cables that prevents removal of panels, including suspended ceiling panels. Substantiation: This is an editorial proposal. (Task Group No. 830-07) It creates consistency among parallel articles and references the specific medium used in this article. Article 830 does not use wires so that term was removed. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-372 Log #1390 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (830.24) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mike Holt, Mike Holt Enterprises Recommendation: Add Cable Ties to the list of supporting methods 830.24 Mechanical Execution of Work. Network-powered broadband communications circuits and equipment shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner. Cables installed exposed on the surface of ceilings and sidewalls shall be supported by the building structure in such a manner that the cable will not be damaged by normal building use. Such cables shall be secured by straps, staples, cable ties , hangers, or similar fittings designed and installed so as not to damage the cable. The installation shall also conform with 300.4(D) and 300.11. FPN: Accepted industry practices are described in ANSI/NECA/BICSI 568 2001, Standard for Installing Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling, and other ANSI-approved installation standards. Substantiation: This is being proposed in an effort to create uniform language with the chapter three cable wiring method support sections, specifically, 230.30(A), 330.30(A) and 334.30. Similar proposals are also being made to 725.8, 640.6, 760.8, 770.24 and 800.24.

70-977

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Change 830.24 to read as follows: 830.24 Mechanical Execution of Work. Network-powered broadband communications circuits and equipment shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner. Cables installed exposed on the surface of ceilings and sidewalls shall be supported by the building structure in such a manner that the cable will not be damaged by normal building use. Such cables shall be secured by listed hardware including straps, staples, cable ties , hangers, or similar fittings designed and installed so as not to damage the cable. The installation shall also conform with 300.4(D) and 300.11. Panel Statement: The panel basically accepts the submitters revision to 830.24 but modified for coordination. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 3 Abstain: 1 Explanation of Negative: BOYER, J.: NEMA does not believe that all such product used for the securement of communications circuits need be listed. Code Panel 8 has steadily rejected similar proposals relating to the support of conduit and cables. UL 1565 provides requirements for listed cable ties intended for primary support of flexible conduits and cables in accordance with the NEC. Such cable ties must have a minimum loop tensile strength rating of 23 kg (50 lbs) or greater. NEMA proposes that the panel reconsider its action and ACCEPT the proposal in principle and in part with the following action. Accept the proposed addition of cable ties in the third sentence, reject the requirement that all such hardware be listed, and add the following new fourth sentence. Cable ties that provide primary support for such cables shall have a minimum loop tensile strength of 23 kg (50 lbs. ) BRUNSSEN, J.: See my explanation of negative vote on Proposal 16-43. DORNA, G.: See my explanation of negative vote on Proposal 16-45. Explanation of Abstention: KAHN, S.: Though I agree with the proposal and the submitters intent to introduce consistency, the material is used in plenums and other air handling spaces and the proposal should be subjected to the direction given by the Standards Council relative to such proposals and rejected. The directive of the Standards Council, as interpreted, must be applied consistently. _____________________________________________________________ 16-373 Log #1877 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (830.24) _____________________________________________________________ TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee notes that neither the panel statement nor the revised statement shown in the affirmative vote are responsive to the submitters substantiation for the recommendation. The Technical Correlating Committee directs the panel to act on the merits of the recommendation. This action will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment. Submitter: James E. Brunssen, Telecordia Technologies Inc. / Rep. Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions Recommendation: In the final sentence, delete the reference to 300.11 as follows: The installation shall also conform with 300.4(D) and 300.11 . Substantiation: The requirement added by Panel 16 during the 2005 revision cycle is overly restrictive and inappropriate for Network-Powered Broadband Communications Systems conductors. The Fine Print Note associated with 830.24 presently directs the reader to the appropriate installation practices for Network-Powered Broadband Communications Systems conductors. Section 300.11 is directed toward power cable assemblies that are heavier, larger and operate at greater electrical power levels than Network-Powered Broadband Communications Systems conductors. Deletion of the reference to 300.11 will yield consistency throughout the NEC as Panel 3 did not see fit to adopt this reference in Articles 760 and 725. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The requirements of 300.11 are applicable to optical fiber cables. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: BRUNSSEN, J.: This proposal should be accepted. The requirement added by Panel 16 during the 2005 revision cycle is overly restrictive and inappropriate for network-powered broadband communications cables. The Fine Print Note associated with 830.24 directs the reader to the appropriate installation standards. The Panel has enhanced the Fine Print Note during this cycle by the addition of three new references covering the installation of network-powered broadband communications cables (see Proposal 16-376). These references are all that is necessary and sufficient for such cables without imposing the burdensome requirements of 300.11. Section 300.11 is directed toward power cable assemblies that are heavier and larger than network-powered broadband communications cables, operate at much greater power levels and present a greater risk of injury if not properly installed. JOHNSON, S.: I agree with the submitters points in his proposal. 300.11 deals with cables that are larger and heavier than network-powered broadband communications cables. Referencing 300.11 also creates an inconsistency with Sections 760 and 725, which deal with similar sized cables and do not make this reference. I vote against the Panels action to reject.

NFPA 70
Comment on Affirmative: JENSEN, R.: The panel statement should read: The requirements of 300.11 are applicable to network-powered broadband communications cables. This appears as though it was copied from another panel statement regarding optical fiber. STENE, S.: The panel statement should be revised to state The requirements of 300.11 are applicable to optical fiber cables network-powered broadband cables . _____________________________________________________________ 16-374 Log #3056 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part (830.24) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Harold C. Ohde, IBEW #134 Recommendation: Revise 830.24 as follows: 830.24 Mechanical Execution of Work (A) Neat and Workmanlike Manner. Network-powered broadband communications equipment, circuits and cables shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner. (B) Installation of Network-Powered Broadband Communications Cables . Network-powered broadband communications cables installed exposed on the surface of ceilings and sidewalls shall be supported by the building structure in such a manner that the network-powered broadband communications cables will not be damaged by normal building use. Such cables shall be secured by listed straps, staples, hangers, or similar fittings designed and installed so as not to damage the cable. The installation shall also comply with 300.4(D) and 300.11. FPN: Accepted industry practices are described in ANSI/NECA/BICSI 5682001, Standard for Installing Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling, and other ANSI- approved installation standards. (C) Abandoned Network-Powered Broadband Communications Cables. Abandoned network-powered broadband communications cables shall be removed. FPN: Accepted industry practices are described in ANSI/NECA/BICSI 5682001, Standard for Installing Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling, and other ANSI- approved standards which provide cable installation that facilitates the removal of abandoned cables. Substantiation: This proposal revises this section into a practical working tool which will assist in making 830.24 a clear, usable and enforceable code. Each first level subdivision contains a code rule that requires action and the required action has been presented in clear, usable and enforceable manner. In the electrical industry, the electrician, contractor and AHJ have been taught the importance and significance of the concept of mechanical execution of work. I am an electrical instructor who teaches this important concept to the people involved. This is one of the basis for 90.1(A) which serves as the purpose of this Code. The Codes purpose is to provide a safe installation from hazards arising from the use of electricity. The revised text in 830.24(A) will require all network-powered broadband communications equipment cables and circuits to be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner. 830.24(B) is an editorial change with additional language to require the means of securing and supporting to be listed for the purpose. The addition of 830.24(C) would replace the requirements that are located in 830.3(A). It makes sense to have the requirements of both the installation of cable and the removal of cable in the same Code section. This would provide the proper guidance to everyone involved. The installer, contractor and the AHJ would gain from this revised section as the rules are centrally located in one Code section. If network-powered broadband communications cables are installed properly then the removal of network-powered broadband communications cables should be no problem if it is not needed anymore or abandoned. The proposed FPN will provide useful guidance and information to everyone involved regarding correct installation practices which would facilitate the removal of the cable as well. Similar proposals have been submitted for 640.6, 725.8, 760.8, 770.24, 800.24, and 820.24. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part The panel accepts the incorporation of the term listed. See panel action on Proposal 16-372. The panel accepts in principle the part of the proposal that recommends relocating requirements for abandoned cable. See panel action on Proposal 16361 for the correct text. The panel does not accept the breaking up of 830.24 and the changes to the FPN. Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-372. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Negative: 4 Abstain: 1 Explanation of Negative: BRUNSSEN, J.: See my explanation of negative vote on Proposal 16-43. DORNA, G.: See my explanation of negative vote on Proposal 16-45. OHDE, H.: This proposal should have been accepted in part. The FPN located after 830.24(C) is not required as this Standard is very basic and really does not provide enough information that is applicable to the removal of abandoned cables.

70-978

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

PREZIOSO, L.: The proposal adds a Fine Print Note (FPN) identifying an ANSI/NECA/BICSI Standard as the source for identifying accepted industry practices. While FPNs are not enforceable, referencing these standards in a FPN as a means for determining the acceptable industry standard is, at best, misleading. I fully support these standards, but on many projects these standards are not incorporated as requirements into the design or the construction of the system or the building. The owners and tenants often waive compliance with these standards as a means of reducing costs. In this situation, the installation of wires and cables cannot be completed in accordance with the standards, and it is therefore unfair to reference these standards as accepted industry practices. Accordingly, the proposal should be rejected and the FPN should not be added to the NEC. Explanation of Abstention: KAHN, S.: Though I agree with the proposal and the submitters intent to introduce consistency, the material is used in plenums and other air handling spaces and the proposal should be subjected to the direction given by the Standards Council relative to such proposals and rejected. The directive of the Standards Council, as interpreted, must be applied consistently. _____________________________________________________________ 16-375 Log #2277 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (830.24, FPN ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: H. Brooke Stauffer, National Electrical Contractors Assn. (NECA) Recommendation: Update the publication date of the referenced standard as follows: FPN: Accepted industry practices are described in ANSI/NECA/BICSI 5682006, Standard for Installing Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling, and other ANSI-approved installation standards. Substantiation: ANSI/NECA/BISCI 568-2001 is currently being revised, and the 2008 NEC should reference the latest edition. ANSI/NECA/BICSI 568-2006 will be completed prior to the Public Comment deadline. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The panel cannot act on ANSI/NECA/BICSI 568-2006, as it has not yet been issued. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-376 Log #2335 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (830.24, FPN ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: James W. Romlein, MV Labs LLC / Rep. TIA Recommendation: Add an FPN to read: FPN: Accepted industry practices are described in: ANSI/TIA/EIA-568-B.1 2004 - Part 1 General Requirements Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling Standard, ANSI/TIA-569-B 2004 Commercial Building Standard for Telecommunications Pathways and Spaces, ANSI/TIA-570-B - Residential Telecommunications Infrastructure. (List Other Documents Here) and other ANSI-approved installation standards. Substantiation: TIA standards contain the source specifications that drive the performance-related industry practices. These TIA documents have a long history of demonstrated successful guidance to the installation, inspection, and network ownership communities. TIA wiring standards have been recognized by the Federal Communications Commission since before 2000 as the appropriate industry standards to be used for new and revised wiring, and are encouraged to be called out in building codes. (See, Third Report and Order in CC Docket No. 88-57 (FCC 99-405) (2000), released January 10, 2000, and 47 CFR section 68.213(c) of the FCC Rules.) Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Change FPN to read as follows: FPN: Accepted industry practices are described in ANSI/NECA/BICSI 568 2001, Standard for Installing Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling; ANSI/TIA/EIA-568-B.1 2004 - Part 1 General Requirements Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling Standard; ANSI/TIA-569-B 2004 - Commercial Building Standard for Telecommunications Pathways and Spaces; ANSI/TIA-570-B - Residential Telecommunications Infrastructure, and other ANSI-approved installation standards. Panel Statement: The panel combined the submitters FPN with the existing text. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: PREZIOSO, L.: The proposal adds a Fine Print Note (FPN) identifying an ANSI/NECA/BICSI Standard as the source for identifying accepted industry practices. While FPNs are not enforceable, referencing these standards in a FPN as a means for determining the acceptable industry standard is, at best, misleading. I fully support these standards, but on many projects these standards are not incorporated as requirements into the design or the construction of the system or the building. The owners and tenants often waive compliance with these standards as a means of reducing costs. In this situation, the installation of wires and cables cannot be completed in accordance with the standards, and it is therefore unfair to reference these standards as accepted industry practices. Accordingly, the proposal should be rejected and the FPN should not be added to the NEC.

NFPA 70
_____________________________________________________________ 16-377 Log #1764 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (830.24 Exception) _____________________________________________________________ TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee notes that neither the panel statement nor the revised statement shown in the affirmative vote are responsive to the submitters substantiation for the recommendation. The Technical Correlating Committee directs the panel to act on the merits of the recommendation. This action will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment. Submitter: Percy E. Pool, Verizon NS Recommendation: Add the following exception to 830.24: Exception: 300.11(C) shall not apply. Substantiation: 300.11(C) is clearly not applicable to network-powered broadband communications cabling. Network-powered broadband communications cables are typically lashed together to form a cable assembly. This frequently occurs during modifications or additions to an existing installation. Network-powered broadband communications cables are physically smaller, lighter and carry less voltage and current than power cables. It is overly restrictive to prohibit lashing of network-powered broadband communications cables together to form a cable assembly. Network-powered broadband communications cables secured in this manner have adequate support (see 300.11(A)), are supported independently of the suspended ceiling grid, and are not likely to collapse in the event the suspended ceiling collapses. Such restriction imposes additional installation costs with no improvement in safety. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The requirements of 300.11(C) are applicable to optical fiber cables. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: BRUNSSEN, J.: This proposal should be accepted. If the Panel continues to support the addition of the requirements of 300.11 to 830.24, then at the very least, the requirements of 300.11(C) should be waived. Section 300.11(C) is clearly not applicable to network-powered broadband communications cables. Installation practice is to lash network-powered broadband communications cables together to form a cable assembly. This frequently occurs during modifications or additions to an existing installation. Network-powered broadband communications cables are physically smaller and lighter than power cables and contain limited power. Application of 300.11(C) is overly restrictive and will preclude lashing of network-powered broadband communications cables together to form a cable assembly. Network-powered broadband communications cables secured in this manner have adequate support (see 300.11 (A)), are supported independently of the suspended ceiling grid, and are not likely to collapse in the event the suspended ceiling collapses. Such restriction imposes additional installation costs with no improvement in safety. JOHNSON, S.: I agree with the submitters points in his proposal. There is no safety issue that should preclude the long-standing practice of lashing an additional network-powered broadband communications cable to an existing bundle that is already installed and supported properly where it is owned by the same entity. These cables are lightweight, and carry much less voltage and current than power cables. No evidence has been shown that this practice has not been used safely and successfully in the past and should not continue to be allowed. I vote against the Panels action to reject. Comment on Affirmative: JENSEN, R.: The panel statement should read: The requirements of 300.11 are applicable to network-powered broadband communications cables. This appears as though it was copied from another panel statement regarding optical fiber. STENE, S.: The panel statement should be revised to state The requirements of 300.11(C) are applicable to optical fiber cables network-powered broadband cables . _____________________________________________________________ 16-378 Log #57 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (830.25 (New), 830.26 (New) & 830.3(A)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stanley Kaufman, Cable Safe Inc. Recommendation: 830.25. Abandoned Cables. The accessible portion of abandoned network-powered broadband cables shall be removed. FPN: See Article 100 for a definition of accessible 830.26 Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Installations of networkpowered broadband cables in hollow spaces, vertical shafts, and ventilation or air-handling ducts shall be made so that the possible spread of fire or products of combustion will not be substantially increased. Openings around penetrations of network-powered broadband cables through fire-resistant-rated walls, partitions, floors, or ceilings shall be firestopped using approved methods to maintain the fire resistance rating. FPN: See Article 100 for the definition of approved. 830.3(A) Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Section 300.21 shall apply. The accessible portion of abandoned network-powered broadband communications cables shall be removed.

70-979

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

ubstantiation: The title of Section 830.3 is Other Articles. The S requirement for the removal of abandoned cables is not in another article; it is in Article 830. It is out of place in section 830.3. This proposal will move it to a new section of Article 830. Rather than refer section 300.21 requirements for the prevention of the spread of fire, it is better to have the requirements in Article 830 which should be familiar to communications installers. The text of proposed section 830.26 is based on section 300.21 but modified to apply to network-powered broadband cables. The fine print notes pointing to definitions are intended to assist installers who are not code experts and may not be aware of Article 100. The fine print note in 300.21 was not copied because does not provide sufficient guidance for a communications cable installer. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-361. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: OHDE, H.: This proposal should be deleted in its entirety. We agree that the requirements for the removal of abandoned cables are out of place in 820.3(A) and needs to be located in another section within Part 1 General. There are other proposed proposals with the same intent to locate the abandoned cable requirements that seem better suited and make good enforceable code. The substantiation provided to delete 820.3(A) which contains the requirements of 300.21 is unclear. The submitter stated the proposed 820.26 is based on the requirements of 300.21 but modified to apply to network-powered broadband cables. There was no substantiation submitted for this change. In addition, Section 90.1(C) of the NEC states This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for the untrained persons . In the submitters substantiation he states these FPNs will help installers who are not Code experts. The addition of the FPN following 820.25 referencing Article 100 for the definition of accessible the FPN following 820.26 referencing Article 100 for the definition of approved is not needed nor warranted. A trained installer will know the Code content and how the Code book is to be used. _____________________________________________________________ 16-379 Log #2667 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (830.30) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert W. Jensen, dbi / Rep. BICSI, A Telecommunications Association Recommendation: Move to a new section: 830.30 Abandoned Cables. The accessible portion of abandoned networkpowered broadband communications cables shall be removed. Remove wording in 830.3(A) The accessible portion of abandoned networkpowered broadband communications cables shall be removed. Substantiation: The title of Section 830.3 is Other Articles. The requirement for the removal of abandoned cables is not in another article; it is in Article 830. It is out of place in section 830.3. This proposal will move it to a new section of Article 830. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-361. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: OHDE, H.: We agree with the submitters intent to locate all abandoned cable requirements to a new section in Part 1- General within the Article. Part 1General applies to the entire article and therefore would reduce the confusion. We believe that not just the accessible portion of abandoned cables but all abandoned cables be removed to reduce the fuel load. _____________________________________________________________ 16-380 Log #2815 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (830.40) _____________________________________________________________ TCC Action: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. This action will be considered by the panel as a public comment. Submitter: Randolph J. Ivans, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Recommendation: Revise as follows: 830.40 Entrance Cables. Network-powered broadband communications cable located outside and entering buildings shall comply with 830.4(A) , and 830.40(B) and 830.40(C). Add new paragraph (C) after (B) as follows: (C) RFT-V Circuits. RFT-V network-powered broadband communications circuits located outside and entering buildings shall be installed using Type BMU, Type BM, or Type BMR network-powered broadband communications medium power cables. Substantiation: This is part of a set of three proposals intended to harmonize the requirements of UL60950-21 and the NEC Article 830. This proposal is a companion proposal to allow RFT-V circuits in 830.15. The voltage limitations in 830.15 do not include some common communication industry practices for powering broadband communications equipment not under the exclusive control of the communications utility. This proposal is intended to allow the use of Type BMU, Type BM, or Type BMR cables for RFT-V circuits as described in the proposal to allow RFT-V circuits in 830.15. These cables are presently allowed for medium power network-powered broadband communications circuits in 830.40(A). As

NFPA 70
insulation for the individual conductors of Type BMU, Type BM, and Type BMR Cables are required to be rated for 300 volts minimum, these cables are suitable for the RFT-V circuits. UL60950-21, Standard for Safety for Information Technology Equipment Safety - Part 21: Remote Power Feeding, is the ANSI standard that applies to communications systems intended to supply and receive power over the communications network. An RFT circuit or Remote Feeding Telecommunication circuit is a secondary circuit intended to supply or receive d.c. power via a telecommunication network. An RFT-V circuit is an RFT circuit that is so designed and protected that under normal operating conditions and single fault conditions, the voltages are limited. The RFT-V circuits have more stringent power limitations than the mediumpower circuit. An RFT-V circuit as described in UL60950-21 is so designed and protected that under normal operating conditions the voltages are limited between each conductor and ground to 140V dc, or up to 200V dc provided that a monitoring and control device is used that limits the current to earth to 10 mA. Power is limited to a maximum rating of 100VA under normal operation and 150VAmax under fault conditions, which are lower than the limits for medium power circuits. In addition, the output current is limited to a value that would not cause damage to the communications wiring system, typically 1.3 A or less. These limits reflect common industry practices for remote feed applications that are now being employed to power broadband equipment not under the exclusive control of the communications utility. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-369. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: BRUNSSEN, J.: The Panel Action should be Reject. The Panel accepted Proposal 16-369 that classifies RFT-V circuits as medium-power circuits. Therefore, it is not necessary to provide additional cable requirements for RFTV circuits; they are already medium-power circuits and use the same cable types as other medium-power network-powered broadband communications circuits. Therefore, NFPA staff should not add any additional text to 830.40 based on this proposal. _____________________________________________________________ 16-381 Log #1879 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (830.40(C) (New) ) _____________________________________________________________ TCC Action: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. This action will be considered by the panel as a public comment. Submitter: Jeffrey Boksiner, Telcordia Technologies, Inc. Recommendation: Add new (C) after the Exception in 830.40 Entrance Cables as follows. (C) RFT-V Circuits. RFT-V network-powered broadband communications circuits located outside and entering buildings shall be installed using Type BMU, Type BM, or Type BMR network-powered broadband communications medium power cables . Substantiation: CSA/UL6950-21 (first edition, 2003), Standard for Safety for Information Technology Equipment Safety Part 21: Remote Power Feeding, is the ANSI standard that applies to communications systems intended to supply and receive power over the communications network. This is part of a set of several proposals intended to harmonize the requirements of UL6950-21 and the NEC Article 830. The RTF-V circuit specified in the CSA/UL document permits voltages up to 200V dc between each conductor and ground with monitoring and control devices that limit the current to ground to 10 mA. The RFT-V is power-limited to 100 W rated power (150 VAmax). Rationale and background for the provisions of CSA/UL 60950-21 can be found in the Annex A to the standard. This proposal is intended to allow the use of Type BMU, Type BM, or Type BMR cables for RFT-V circuits. These cables are presently allowed for medium power network-powered broadband communications circuits in 830.40(A). The RFT-V circuits have more stringent power limitations than the medium-power circuit. As insulation for the individual conductors of Type BMU, Type BM, and Type BMR Cables is required to be rated for 300 volts minimum, these cables are suitable for the RFT-V circuits. This proposal is a companion proposal to allow RFT-V circuits in 830-15. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-369. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: BRUNSSEN, J.: The Panel Action should be Reject. The Panel accepted Proposal 16-369 that classifies RFT-V circuits as medium-power circuits. Therefore, it is not necessary to provide additional cable requirements for RFTV circuits; they are already medium-power circuits and use the same cable types as other medium-power network-powered broadband communications circuits. Therefore, NFPA staff should not add any additional text to 830.40 based on this proposal.

70-980

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

_____________________________________________________________ 16-382 Log #790 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (830.47) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Add the sentence as shown: 830.47. Underground Circuits Entering Building. Underground networkpowered broadband communications cables entering buildings shall comply with 830.47(A) through 830.47(D). Change the title of (A) as follows: (A) Underground Systems. With Electric Light and Power Conductors. Substantiation: This proposal is editorial and technical. (Task Group No. 83008) It proposes wording parallel to that in Article 800 and properly describes the requirements of the Section and the title change also parallels that of Article 800 and is more descriptive of the paragraph. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Accept the submitters proposal with the following revisions: In the title of 830.47, make Building plural as in 2005 NEC text. In proposed new title of 830.47(A), delete the period following Systems. Panel Statement: These changes reflect the 2005 NEC existing text and provide a correction to punctuation. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-383 Log #2668 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (830.90(A)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert W. Jensen, dbi / Rep. BICSI, A Telecommunications Association Recommendation: Add new text to read: (A) Application. Primary electrical protection shall be provided on all aerial network-powered broadband communications conductors. Primary electrical protection shall be provided on all underground network-powered broadband communications conductors that are neither grounded nor interrupted and are exposed to lightning or accidental contact with electric light or power conductors operating at over 300 volts to ground. Substantiation: This proposal simplifies and clarifies the requirement for protection of network powered broadband circuits. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The submitter proposes to add new text to read when in actuality it appears that he intends to replace the existing text of 830.90(A). The submitter has not simplified, but has eliminated requirements! The proposed revision would require primary protection to be applied at all installations, irrespective of exposure considerations, i.e., contained within a block. There continues to exist today many urban communities and neighborhoods where dwellings are served from underground communications plant that is contained within a block, circuits are unexposed to possible contact with power, and lightning exposure is minimal. Primary protection is unnecessary and will not result in improved safety. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-384 Log #791 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (830.90(C)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Make the change as shown: (C) Hazardous (Classified) Locations. The primary protector or equipment providing the primary protection function shall not be located in any hazardous (classified) location as defined in Article 500 500.5 or in the vicinity of easily ignitable material. Exception: As permitted in 501.150, 502.150 , and 503.150. Substantiation: This is an editorial proposal. (Task Group No. 830-09) The definitions of hazardous locations are in 500.5 This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections.

NFPA 70
The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-385 Log #906 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (830.90(C)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Daniel Leaf, Seneca, SC Recommendation: Change Article 500 to 500.5. Substantiation: Edit. To conform to Style Manual requirements. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-384. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-386 Log #793 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (830.93) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Revise the title of 830.93 as follows: 830.93 Grounding or Interruption of Metallic Members of NetworkPowered Broadband Communications Cables Entering Buildings . The shields of network-powered broadband communications cables . Substantiation: This is an editorial proposal. (Task Group No. ) It will provide consistency between 770.93, 800.93, 820.93 and 830.93. This is a companion proposal to 770.93, 800.93 and 820.93. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: Changing the title of the section is inappropriate, as the cable may not actually enter the building. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-387 Log #1309 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (830.93) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Steven C. Johnson, Time Warner Cable / Rep. National Cable Telecommunications Association Recommendation: Revise as follows: 830.93 Grounding of Outer Conductive Shield of a Coaxial Cable. For purposes of this section, grounding or interruption of network-powered broadband communications cable metallic members installed at mobile home service equipment located in sight from, and not more within 9.0 m (30 ft) from of the exterior wall of the mobile home it serves, or at a mobile home disconnecting means grounded in accordance with 250.32 and located in sight from, and not more within 9.0 m (30 ft) from of the exterior wall of the mobile home it serves shall be considered to meet the requirements of this section. Substantiation: Improves clarity. The existing, double-negative wording is difficult to interpret. This editorial change makes the text easier to interpret and clarifies the requirements. For purposes of grounding or bonding network-powered broadband communications cables, being able to see the power disconnection point is immaterial. Whereas in sight from may be critical for disconnecting power in an emergency, maintaining a reasonable length grounding conductor is the key in a network-powered broadband communications application. This proposal does not affect service equipment placement requirements. It only clarifies where the network-powered broadband communications grounding will be done based on where the service equipment is already placed. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle The panel accepts the submitters proposal with the following revisions: Change the title to read as follows: Grounding or Interruption of Metallic Members of Network-Powered Broadband Communications Cables. Panel Statement: The panel has corrected the title. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

70-981

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

_____________________________________________________________ 16-388 Log #792 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (830.93, FPN (New) ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Add a Fine Print Note Number 1 (FPN No 1) to 830.93 as follows: FPN No. 1: See 830.2 for the definition of point of entrance . Renumber the existing FPN as FPN No. 2. Substantiation: This proposal is editorial. (Task Group No. 830-10) Its addition will provide consistency between 770.93, 800.93, 820.93 and 830.93. This is a companion proposal to 770.93 and 820.93. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: OHDE, H.: This proposal should be rejected. Section 90.1(C) of the NEC states This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for the untrained persons . In the submitters substantiation he states this FPN will help installers who are not Code experts. The addition of the FPN referencing 830.2 for the definition of point of entrance is not needed nor warranted. A trained installer will know the Code content and how the Code book is to be used. _____________________________________________________________ 16-389 Log #3511 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (830.100) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Dobrowsky, Holley, NY Recommendation: Revise as Follows: 830.100 Cable, Network Interface Unit, and Primary Protector Grounding. Network interface units containing protectors, NIUs with metallic enclosures, primary protectors, and the metallic members of the network-powered broadband communications cable that are intended to be grounded shall be grounded as specified in 830.100(A) through 830.100(D). (A) Grounding Electrode Conductor. (1) Insulation. The grounding electrode conductor shall be insulated and shall be listed as suitable for wet locations the purpose . (2) Material. The grounding electrode conductor shall be copper or other corrosion-resistant conductive material, stranded or solid. (3) Size. The grounding electrode conductor shall not be smaller than 14 AWG and shall have a current-carrying capacity approximately equal to that of the grounded metallic member(s) and protected conductor(s) of the networkpowered broadband communications cable. The grounding electrode conductor shall not be required to exceed 6 AWG. (4) Length. The grounding electrode conductor shall be as short as practicable. In one-family and multifamily dwellings, the grounding electrode conductor shall be as short as permissible, not to exceed 6.0 m (20 ft) in length. FPN: Similar grounding electrode conductor length limitations applied at apartment buildings and commercial buildings will help to reduce voltages that may be developed between the buildings power and communications systems during lightning events. Exception: In one- and two-family dwellings where it is not practicable to achieve an overall maximum grounding electrode conductor length of 6.0 m (20 ft), a separate communications ground rod meeting the minimum dimensional criteria of 830.100(B)(2)(2) shall be driven, and the grounding electrode conductor shall be connected to the communications ground rod in accordance with 830.100(C). The communications ground rod shall be bonded to the power grounding electrode system in accordance with 830.100(D). (5) Run in Straight Line. The grounding electrode conductor shall be run to the grounding electrode in as straight a line as practicable. (6) Physical Protection. Where subject to physical damage, the grounding electrode conductor shall be adequately protected. Where the grounding electrode conductor is run in a metal raceway, both ends of the raceway shall be bonded to the grounding electrode conductor or the same terminal or electrode to which the grounding electrode conductor is connected. (B) Electrode. The grounding electrode conductor shall be connected as follows. (1) In Buildings or Structures with Grounding Means. To the nearest accessible location on the following: (1) The building or structure grounding electrode system as covered in 250.50 (2) The grounded interior metal water piping system, within 1.5 m (5 ft) from its point of entrance to the building, as covered in 250.52 (3) The power service accessible means external to enclosures as covered in 250.94

NFPA 70
(4) The metallic power service raceway (5) The service equipment enclosure (6) The service, system, building or structure grounding electrode conductor or the grounding electrode metal enclosure, or (7) The grounding electrode conductor or the grounding electrode of a building or structure disconnecting means that is grounded to an electrode as covered in 250.32 For purposes of this section, the mobile home service equipment or the mobile home disconnecting means, as described in 830.93, shall be considered accessible. (2) In Buildings or Structures Without Grounding Means. If the building or structure served has no grounding means, as described in (B)(1), the grounding conductor shall be connected to either of the following: (1) To any one of the individual electrodes described in 250.52(A)(1), (A)(2), (A)(3), or (A)(4) (2) If the building or structure served has no grounding means, as described in 830.100(B)(1) or (B)(2)(1), to an effectively grounded metal structure or to a ground rod or pipe not less than 1.5 m (5 ft) in length and 12.7 mm ( in.) in diameter, driven, where practicable, into permanently damp earth and separated from lightning conductors as covered in 800.53 and at least 1.8 m (6 ft) from electrodes of other systems. Steam or hot water pipes or lightning-rod conductors shall not be employed as electrodes for protectors, NIUs with integral protection, grounded metallic members, NIUs with metallic enclosures, and other equipment. (C) Electrode Connection. Connections to grounding electrodes shall comply with 250.70. (D) Bonding of Electrodes. A bonding jumper not smaller than 6 AWG copper or equivalent shall be connected between the network-powered broadband communications system grounding electrode and the power grounding electrode system at the building or structure served where separate electrodes are used. Exception: At mobile homes as covered in 830.106. FPN No. 1: See 250.60 for use of lightning rods. FPN No. 2: Bonding together of all separate electrodes limits potential differences between them and between their associated wiring systems. Substantiation: The concept of listed for the purpose needs to be explained. If being suitable for a wet location is not the intent, then please describe what is. The term grounding conductor should be replaced with grounding electrode conductor. A proposal was submitted to Article 100 to modify the existing definition of grounding electrode and to delete the term grounding conductor. to clarify this issue. The Term Grounding conductor is sometimes used to describe a connection to the earth and other times to describe any of the different types of conductors that use the term grounding. Separate grounding electrodes are already required to be bonded together by 250.50. Describing what listed for the purpose will improve usablity. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The term grounding electrode conductor specifically applies to the conductor that connects the grounding electrode(s) to the equipment grounding conductor or to the grounded conductor, or both, at the electric service to the building. The conductor connecting the metallic members of the cable sheath and the primary protector grounding terminal to the building grounding means is not a grounding electrode conductor, but a grounding conductor as determined by the TCC Grounding & Bonding Task Group. The listing of a grounding electrode conductor does not include a special investigation for a wet location. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-390 Log #849 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (830.100(A)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Michael J. Johnston, Plano, TX Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 830.100 Cable, Network Interface Unit, and Primary Protector Grounding. Network interface units containing protectors, NIUs with metallic enclosures, primary protectors, and the metallic members of the network-powered broadband communications cable that are intended to be grounded shall be grounded as specified in 830.100(A) through 830.100(D). (A) Grounding Conductor (1) Insulation. The grounding conductor shall be insulated and shall be listed. as suitable for the purpose. Substantiation: Listed insulated conductors are currently being used for this purpose and there doesnt appear to be insulated conductors listed specifically for the purpose of accomplishing the grounding required by this section. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

70-982

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

_____________________________________________________________ 16-391 Log #845 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (830.100(A)(1)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Michael J. Johnston, Plano, TX Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 830.100 Cable, Network Interface Unit, and Primary Protector Grounding. Network interface units containing protectors, NIUs with metallic enclosures, primary protectors, and the metallic members of the network-powered broadband communications cable that are intended to be grounded shall be grounded as specified in 830.100(A) through 830.100(D). (A) Grounding Conductor (1) Insulation. The grounding conductor shall be insulated and shall be listed and marked as a grounding protector wire. as suitable for the purpose. Substantiation: Under the category KDER and the UL White Book, Protector Grounding wires are addressed. The guide card information indicates that this wire is required to be marked with the manufacturers name, size, and the words protector grounding wire. In step with the directives to address the term listed or listed as suitable for the purpose, this proposal is an effort to be more specific in the rule to require a conductor specifically listed and marked for this purpose. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: There is nothing special about the conductor used to ground the protector. The communications industry has used listed wire to ground the protector universally and safely for many years. There is no need to specifically mark this conductor as a grounding protector wire. Such marking may lead to confusion and misinterpretation. The submitter has demonstrated no safety issue with the present practice. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-392 Log #377 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (830.100(A)(6)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: David Shapiro, Safety First Electrical Contracting, Consulting, and Safety Education Recommendation: Revise text as follows: Physical Protection. Where subject to physical damage, the grounding conductor shall be adequately protected.... Substantiation: Use of the word physical is superfluousthe intent is obvious given the context. (I leave it to the CMP whether you want to get more specific naming some source of damage such as blows or abrasion. I also leave it to you whether to update adequately to something like by a means acceptable to the AHJ.) Submitting proposals removing the adjective physical may strike people as about as useful as hunting gnats with a cannon. However, doing so seems worthwhile for two reasons. First, if we eliminate every unnecessary instance, as I am attempting to do, we actually cut the NEC down by up to oh, maybe a quarter-page. Keeping it from growing too much fatter every cycle is a goal many of us can agree on. Second, the unneeded use of physical not only is poor writinglook at William Zinssers classic, On Writing Wellbut is silly, and reflects a bit poorly on the Code process. When references were changed to physical damage, in 1959, from mechanical injury (with no substantiation recorded), an excellent opportunity was overlooked to eliminate the possibility of someone raising an eyebrow and saying fatuously, Is anyone claiming electrical equipment needs protection from non-physical injury? (Substitute the snide adjective of your choice.) Lets take care of that for good: for our purposes, damage means physical damage. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The grounding conductor is potentially subject to multiple sources of damage: electrical, physical, and environmental. The word physical is necessary to specifically identify the type of damage that the section is addressing. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

NFPA 70
Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-394 Log #794 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (830.100(B)) _____________________________________________________________ TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Panel clarify the Panel Action on this Proposal. The Panel Action text addresses the change in 830.110(B), rather than the correct section of 830.100(B). This action will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment. Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Make the following changes: (B) Electrode. The grounding conductor shall be connected in accordance with 830.100(B)(1) and (B)(2). Substantiation: This is an editorial proposal. (Task Group No. ) P rovides consistency with the Style Manual requirements and provide parallel structure with 820.100(B). This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Chan ge 830.110(B) to read as follows: (B) Electrode. The grounding conductor shall be connected in accordance with 830.100(B)(1) and (B)(2). Panel Statement: The panel revised the submitters text for clarity. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

_____________________________________________________________ 16-395 Log #1887 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (830.100(B)) _____________________________________________________________ TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Panel clarify the Panel Action on this Proposal with respect to the use of the word and in the sentence The grounding conductor shall be connected in accordance with 830.100(B)(1), (B)(2), and (B)(3). It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that this Proposal be reconsidered and correlated with the action on Proposal 5-20. This action will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment. Submitter: Jeffrey Boksiner, Telcordia Technologies, Inc. / Rep. Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions Recommendation: Revise 830.100(B) Cable and Primary Protector Grounding (Electrode) as follows: (B) Electrode. The grounding conductor shall be connected as follows in accordance with 830.100(B)(1), (B)(2) and (B)(3). (1) In Buildings or Structures with an Intersystem Grounding Termination. If the building or structure served has an intersystem grounding termination the grounding conductor shall be connected to the intersystem grounding termination. (1) (2) In Buildings or Structures with Grounding Means. If the building or structure served has no intersystem grounding termination, the grounding conductor shall be connected to the nearest accessible location on the following: .................. ..................Retain existing list and text. ................... (2) (3) In Buildings or Structures Without Intersystem Grounding Termination or Grounding Means. If the building or structure served has no intersystem grounding termination or grounding means , as described in 830.100(B)( 1 2 ), the grounding conductor shall be connected to either of the following:. _____________________________________________________________ . (1) To any one of the individual electrodes described in 250.52(A)(1), (A)(2), 16-393 Log #860 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (A)(3), or (A)(4) (2) If the building or structure served has no intersystem grounding (830.100(A)(6)) _____________________________________________________________ termination or grounding means, as described in 830.100(B)( 1 2 ) or (B)( 2 Submitter: Michael J. Johnston, Plano, TX 3 )(1), to an effectively grounded metal structure or to a ground rod or pipe Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: not less than 1.5 m (5 ft) in length and 12.7 mm ( in.) in diameter, driven, (6) Physical Protection. The grounding conductor shall be protected where where practicable, into permanently damp earth and separated from lightning exposed to physical damage. Where subject to physical damage, the grounding conductors as covered in 800.53 and at least 1.8 m (6 ft) from electrodes of conductor shall be adequately protected. Where the grounding conductor is run other systems. Steam or hot water pipes or lightning-rod conductors shall in a metal raceway, both ends of the raceway shall be bonded to the grounding not be employed as electrodes for protectors, NIUs with integral protection, conductor or the same terminal or electrode to which the grounding conductor grounded metallic members, NIUs with metallic enclosures, and other is connected. equipment. Substantiation: Adequately is subjective in this requirement and can lead to Substantiation: This is one of several correlated proposals (100 Definitions, inconsistencies. The word adequate is a word that is identified by the Style 250.95, Chapter 8 Articles) to improve the requirements related to intersystem Manual as one to avoid in Code rules for that reason. bonding and grounding of communication systems. The intent is to create a dedicated and well-defined location for terminating the grounding conductors

70-983

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

required in Chapter 8 Articles and 770.93. These grounding conductors also provide between communication and power systems (intersystem bonding). The proposed termination would have sufficient capacity to handle multiple communication systems (telecom, satellite, CATV) on premises. The proposed revision makes the intersystem bonding terminal the preferred destination for grounding conductor in Article 830. See the figures I have provided. Intersystem bonding accomplished by connection of a communication grounding conductor to the power system is an important safety measure to prevent occurrences of voltages between communication system and power system. However, the existing requirements are not adequate. Bonding is becoming difficult to implement due to changes in building construction practices such as increased prevalence of flush construction and use of PVC conduits. Frequently, in new construction, the grounding electrode, the raceway and the grounding electrode conductor are hidden behind walls and not accessible for bonding connection. Even in older construction with accessible equipment, the requirement for installation of intersystem bonding connection is subject to varying interpretation because there is not a clearly defined dedicated bonding location. The connection to the power system is sometimes haphazard. Installers are sometimes confused over where the connection should be made especially if multiple Communication Systems are present on premises. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-396 Log #1994 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (830.100(B)) _____________________________________________________________ TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Panel clarify the Panel Action on this Proposal based on the affirmative comment. This action will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment. Submitter: Neil F. LaBrake, Jr., Niagara Mohawk, a National Grid Company / Rep. Edison Electric Institute-Electric Light & Power Group Recommendation: Add these two sentences after the last sentence of 830.100(B): A device intended to provide a termination point for the grounding conductor (inter-system bonding) shall be prohibited from use when the installation of such device interferes with opening a service or metering equipment enclosure. An inter-system bonding device shall not be installed on an enclosure cover. Substantiation: Poor grounding practices by installers of CATV, telephone, satellite and other communication systems using termination devices that clamp to enclosure covers have resulted in interruption of grounding continuity. This is a companion proposal to proposals to add this requirement to 800.100(B), 810.21(F), and 820.100(B). Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add the following after the last sentence of 830.100(B): A device intended to provide a termination point for the grounding conductor shall not interfere with the opening of an equipment enclosure. A bonding device shall be mounted on non-removable parts. A bonding device shall not be mounted on a door or cover even if the door or cover is non-removable. Panel Statement: The panel accepts the intent of the submitter and has reworded the text for clarity. It is requested that the TCC forward to Panel 5 for take similar action as applicable. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Comment on Affirmative: BRUNSSEN, J.: The submitters text, as modified by the Panel, should be placed following the existing text of 830.100(B)(5) rather than at the end of 830.100(B). Section 830.100(B)(5) specifically addresses connection to the service equipment enclosure and that is the issue that the submitter intended to address. _____________________________________________________________ 16-397 Log #1553 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (830.100(B)(2)(2)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on National Electrical Code, Recommendation: Delete the term effectively from the terms effectively grounded and effectively bonded from Articles 830 and revise text as shown for the affected NEC sections. 830.100(B)(2)(2): (2) If the building or structure served has no grounding means, as described in 830.100(B)(1) or (B)(2)(1), to an effectively grounded metal structure o r to any one of the individual electrodes described in 250.52 (A)(6), and (A)(7) or to a ground rod or pipe not less than 1.5 m (5 ft) in length and 12.7 mm (1/2 in.) in diameter, driven, where practicable, into permanently damp earth and separated from lightning conductors as covered in 800.53 and at least 1.8 m (6 ft) from electrodes of other systems. Steam or hot water pipes or lightningrod conductors shall not be employed as electrodes for protectors, NIUs with integral protection, grounded metallic members, NIUs with metallic enclosures, and other equipment.

NFPA 70
Substantiation: 830.100(B)(2)(2): Here the reference to effectively grounded metal structure seems superfluous. The definition of effectively grounded is ambiguous and very subjective without any defined values or parameters for one to judge as either effective or ineffective. This is the result of the TCC Task Group on Grounding and Bonding in resolve of the 2005 NEC cycle actions related to Proposal 5-1 and Comment 5-1 as directed by the Technical Correlating Committee. This is a companion proposal to delete the term grounded, effectively and its definition from Article 100 and other companion proposals throughout the NEC relative to this Task Groups recommendations. The substantiation of this proposal is as follows. The term Effectively Grounded is used 29 times in the NEC. It appears as though in the majority of the locations where it is used, the word grounded or phrase connected to an equipment grounding conductor could be used. Other proposals are submitted to make those changes. The 1996 NEC in Section 250.51 used the term effective grounding path, and those concepts were incorporated in 250.2 (1999 NEC) and then expanded in 250.4(A) and (B) in the 2002 NEC. The performance criteria of grounding and bonding are currently provided in Section 250.4 and include the concepts contained in the vague definition of the term effectively grounded. The definition Effectively Grounded is very subjective and without any defined values or parameters for one to judge grounding as either effective or ineffective. Effective is described in Section 250.4(A) and (B), but it relates to the effective ground-fault current path as a performance criteria. Deleting the term in the NEC and the definition is logical because there are no definitive parameters for Code users to make a determination on what constitutes effectively grounded. Systems are solidly grounded, grounded through a resistor or impedance, or ungrounded. Equipment (normally noncurrent-carrying metal parts are grounded where connected to an equipment grounding conductor. This proposal is to change the term Effectively Bonded to just Bonded in each of the section where it is used. The term Effectively Bonded is currently not defined in the NEC. The term effectively bonded is also used a few times in the NEC and is undefined. The same situation exists. There are no defined parameters for Code users to judges what the difference between Effectively Bonded and Bonded really is. Where the term appears in the NEC, it is revised to just bonded and still has the same meaning in each rule. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-398 Log #1073 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (830.100(D)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Daniel Leaf, Seneca, SC Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A copper bonding jumper not smaller than 6 AWG copper or equivalent.... (remainder unchanged) Substantiation: Edit. The intent appears to require copper, however, the wording permits aluminum if not smaller than 6 AWG copper. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The present text is clear. The bonding jumper can be not smaller than 6 AWG copper or equivalent . An equivalent conductor is one with at least the same ampacity and corrosion-resistance capability and could be of different material and/or larger in size (AWG). The Panel notes that the submitter did not see the necessity to revise equivalent in his proposals on similar requirements in 820.100(A)(3) and 830.100(D). Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-399 Log #795 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (830.100(D), FPN 1) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Make the following change: FPN No. 1: See 250.60 for use of air terminals ( lightning rods ) . Substantiation: This is an editorial proposal. (Task Group No. 830-13) It makes this section consistent with articles 800 and 820. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson.Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

70-984

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

_____________________________________________________________ 16-400 Log #796 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (830.106) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: Change title as shown: 830.106 Bonding and Grounding and Bonding at Mobile Homes. Substantiation: This proposal is editorial. (Task Group No. 830-14) It provides uniformity with the similar title in Section 800.106. Note: A similar change is proposed to Section 820.106. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

NFPA 70
(A) Grounding. Grounding shall comply with 830.106(A)(1) and (A)(2). (1) Where there is no mobile home service equipment located in sight from, and not more than within 9.0 m (30 ft) from , the exterior wall of the mobile home it serves, the network-powered broadband communications cable, network interface unit, and primary protector ground shall be installed connected to a grounding conductor in accordance with 830.100(B)(2). (2) Where there is no mobile home disconnecting means grounded in accordance with 250.32 and located within sight from, and not more than 9.0 m (30 ft) from , the exterior wall of the mobile home it serves, the networkpowered broadband communications cable, network interface unit, and primary protector ground shall be installed connected to a grounding conductor in accordance with 830.100(B)(2).

_____________________________________________________________ 16-402 Log #58 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (830.110 (New) ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stanley Kaufman, Cable Safe Inc. Recommendation: Add a new section 830.110 in Part V. 830.110 Raceways For Low And Medium Power Network-Powered Broadband Communications Cables. Where low and medium power network-powered broadband communications cables are installed in a _____________________________________________________________ raceway, the raceway shall be of a type permitted in Chapter 3 and installed in 16-401 Log #1314 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle accordance with Chapter 3. Exception: Conduit fill restrictions shall not apply to low power network(830.106(A)) _____________________________________________________________ powered broadband communications cables. TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Panel Substantiation: This is a corollary proposal to proposals being submitted for clarify the Panel Action on this Proposal by determining whether an and Articles770, 800 and 820. Articles 800 and 820 have a section 110. Adding this should be used or an or should be used in the accepted text as follows: section provides parallelism between the articles. shall comply with 830.106(A)(1) and (A)(2) or shall comply with Panel Meeting Action: Accept 830.106(A)(1) or (A)(2). The Technical Correlating Committee also directs Number Eligible to Vote: 15 that consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. This Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 action will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment. Submitter: Steven C. Johnson, Time Warner Cable / Rep. National Cable _____________________________________________________________ Telecommunications Association 16-403 Log #797 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept Recommendation: Revise as follows: (830.133) (A) Grounding. Grounding shall comply with (1) and (2). _____________________________________________________________ (1) Where there is no mobile home service equipment located in sight from, Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. and not more within 9.0 m (30 ft) of the exterior wall of the mobile home Recommendation: Delete Section 830.133 (C ), renumber 830.133 (D) as it serves, the network-powered broadband communications cable network 830.133(C). interface unit, and primary protector ground shall be installed in accordance Substantiation: This is an editorial proposal. (Task Group No. 830-15) It places the text concerning cable substitutions in a similar section as with 830.100(B)(2). (2) Where or there is no mobile home disconnecting means grounded in articles 770, 800 and 820, promoting usability of the Code. Section 830.133 accordance with 250.32 and located within sight from, and not more within has been moved to 830.154 in another proposal. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial 9.0 m (30 ft) of the exterior wall of the mobile home it serves, the networkpowered broadband communications cable, network interface unit, and primary Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; protector ground shall be installed in accordance with 830.100(B)(2). 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar Substantiation: Improves clarity. The existing, double-negative wording is difficult to interpret. This editorial change makes the text easier to interpret and requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, clarifies the requirements. For purposes of grounding or bonding network-powered broadband 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, communications cables, being able to see the power disconnection point is immaterial. Whereas in sight from may be critical for disconnecting power in Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. an emergency, maintaining a reasonable length grounding conductor is the key Panel Meeting Action: Accept in a network-powered broadband communications application. This proposal Number Eligible to Vote: 15 does not affect service equipment placement requirements. It only clarifies Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 where the network-powered broadband communications grounding will be done based on where the service equipment is already placed. _____________________________________________________________ Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle 16-404 Log #985 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject Revise the submitters text as follows: (830, Part V) (A) Grounding. Grounding shall comply with 830.106(A)(1) and (A)(2). _____________________________________________________________ (1) Where there is no mobile home service equipment located in sight from, Submitter: Daniel Leaf, Seneca, SC and not more than within 9 m (30 ft) from, the exterior wall of the mobile Recommendation: Add: ...or Structures to the heading. home it serves, the network-powered broadband communications cable, network interface unit, and primary protector ground shall be installed Substantiation: Edit. Structures which may not be deemed buildings should connected to a grounding conductor in accordance with 830.100(B)(2). be included, as in (B)(1) and (B)(2) of this section. (2) Where there is no mobile home disconnecting means grounded in Panel Meeting Action: Reject accordance with 250.32 and located within sight from, and not more than 9 Panel Statement: The requirements of Section V. apply only to buildings. m (30 ft) from, the exterior wall of the mobile home it serves, the networkNumber Eligible to Vote: 15 powered broadband communications cable, network interface unit, and primary Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 protector ground shall be installed connected to a grounding conductor in accordance with 830.100(B)(2). _____________________________________________________________ Panel Statement: The changes made by the panel provide conformity 16-405 Log #784 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept to Section 4.2.1 of the NEC Style Manual in referencing sections of the (830 Part V) NEC, incorporate revisions made to similar section 820.106(A) by the TCC _____________________________________________________________ Grounding and Bonding Task Group (see panel action on Proposal 16-4, Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. 820.106(A)), and provide editorial consistency across Articles 800, 820, and Recommendation: Change title: 830. From V. Wiring Methods Within Buildings Number Eligible to Vote: 15 To V. Installation Methods Within Buildings Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Substantiation: This proposal is editorial. (Task Group No. 830-01) The sections included under V. include more than cables and the Comment on Affirmative: BRUNSSEN, J.: There are a number of typographical errors in the revised recommended change is more descriptive. This title is consistent with similar text as provided by the Panel. Revise the Panels revised text under Panel recommendations for Articles 770, 800 and 820. Meeting Action as follows:

70-985

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-406 Log #2632 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (830.133(A) Exception (New) ) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: David H. Kendall, Carlon Recommendation: Add a new exception to 830.133(A) to read as follows: Exception: Where all of the conductors of electric light, power, Class 1, nonpower-limited fire alarm, and medium power network-powered broadband communications circuits are separated from all of the Network-Powered Broadband Communication cables by a permanent barrier or listed divider. Substantiation: This is a new exception for 830.133(A) that would allow a Network-Powered Broadband Communication cable to share the same raceway, outlet box, or enclosure as long as a barrier was in place. This language is similar to the language found in 800.133(A)(1)(c) Exception No. 1. NetworkPowered Broadband Communication cable can become energized if it comes in contact with electrical conductors. This proposal defines the barrier as a permanent function of the enclosure or that it may be a removable field installed listed divider. These barriers are used to divide the coaxial cable from the power circuits. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: Exception No.1 presently meets the submitters intent. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

NFPA 70
enclosure to maintain a minimum 6-mm (0.25-in.) separation from networkpowered broadband communications cables. Substantiation: Obviously, cables that can be safely installed in the same raceway or enclosure can also be safely installed in the same cable tray. Stating that these cables are allowed in the same cable tray will avoid having the user assume that they are not permitted to be installed together in the same cable tray. It clarifies the use in the Code. Article 770, in section 770.133(B), has text similar to that proposed here. This is one of five similar proposals that are being submitted for Articles 725, 760, 800, 820 and 830. Conversely thinking, I therefore also added cable tray to 830.133(A)(1)(d). Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Comment on Affirmative: JONES, R.: The submitter is obviously in error with the assertion Obviously, cables that can be safely installed in the same raceway or enclosure can also be safely installed in the same cable tray. O NLY cABLES LISTED FOR INSTALLATION IN CABLE TRAYS CAN BE INSTALLED IN CABLE TRAYS.

_____________________________________________________________ 16-408 Log #3434 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (830.133(A)(1)d. Exception No. 1) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Frederic P. Hartwell, Hartwell Electrical Services, Inc. Recommendation: Delete the phrase listed divider at the end; substitute the words a securely installed barrier identified for the use. Substantiation: This wording correlates with the changes made by CMP 9 to an equivalent rule in 404.8(B) in response to an equivalent proposal from the same submitter. The problem is that Article 314 does not require conventional steel outlet boxes to be listed, and therefore not all steel box dividers manufactured for this purpose are listed. In addition, none of these barriers (for outlet boxes) are permanently installed; but they certainly can be securely installed, and they certainly meet the provisions of the Article 100 definition of identified, in that they are recognizable as suitable for this purpose. This wording refers to the identical products and should therefore correlate with Article 314 requirements. Panel Meeting Action: Reject _____________________________________________________________ Panel Statement: This situation is not the same as 404.8(B). Section 404.8(B) 16-407 Log #1286 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept deals with the grouping of snap switches with other snap switches and similar (830.133(A)(1)) devices such as receptacles. The barriers described in 404.8(B) are used to _____________________________________________________________ separate these similar devices containing similar circuits. Submitter: Gerald Lee Dorna, Belden CDT. Inc. 800. 133(A)(1)c. Exception No. 1;820. 133(A)(1)2. Exception No. 1; and Recommendation: Revise text to read: 830.133(A)(1)d. Exception No. 1 deal with the separation of communications, (1) In Raceways , Cable Trays and Enclosures. CATV and broadband circuits from electric light, power and Class 1 circuits. (a) Low and Medium Power Network-Powered Broadband Communications A permanent barrier as currently permitted is okay, as it is a physical part Circuit Cables. Low and medium power network-powered broadband of the metal box or listed plastic box and its suitability can be determined communications cables shall be permitted in the same raceway , cable tray or by the AHJ or is covered by the listing. There are concerns associated with a enclosure. non-permanent barrier or divider that cannot be easily dealt with at the point (b) Low-Power Network-Powered Broadband Communications Circuit of installation. For example, compatibility with the box (fit and secureness), Cables. Low-power network-powered broadband communications cables shall compatibility with the installed hardware such as power receptacle materials, be permitted in the same raceway , cable tray or enclosure with jacketed cables ease of installation, clarity of proper installation procedures, affect on wiring of any of the following circuits: space inside the box, and the like, need to be investigated and listed. (1) Class 2 and Class 3 remote-control, signaling, and power-limited circuits These articles do not only cover metal boxes. The proposal would allow nonin compliance with Article 725 listed barriers in metal and listed non-metallic boxes, voiding the listing of a (2) Power-limited fire alarm systems in compliance with Article 760 non-metallic box. (3) Communications circuits in compliance with Article 800 Number Eligible to Vote: 15 (4) Nonconductive and conductive optical fiber cables in compliance with Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Article 770 (5) Community antenna television and radio distribution systems in _____________________________________________________________ compliance with Article 820 16-409 Log #2633 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (c) Medium Power Network-Powered Broadband Communications Circuit (830.135 (New) ) Cables. Medium power network-powered broadband communications cables _____________________________________________________________ shall not be permitted in the same raceway , cable tray or enclosure with Submitter: David H. Kendall, Carlon conductors of any of the following circuits: Recommendation: Add a new section to read as follows: (1) Class 2 and Class 3 remote-control, signaling, and power-limited circuits 830.135 Network-Powered Broadband Communication Device and Equipment in compliance with Article 725 Mounting. Network-Powered Broadband Communication devices or equipment (2) Power-limited fire alarm systems in compliance with Article 760 shall be mounted in listed boxes, brackets or assemblies designed for the (3) Communications circuits in compliance with Article 800 purpose, and such boxes or assemblies shall be securely fastened in place. (4) Conductive optical fiber cables in compliance with Article 770 Boxes or brackets can be completely enclosed or backless. (5) Community antenna television and radio distribution systems in (A) Network-Powered Broadband Communication Devices and Equipment compliance with Article 820 Mounted to Boxes or Brackets. Communication devices or equipment shall be (d) Electric Light, Power, Class 1, NonPowered Broadband mounted to a listed boxes or bracket and installed per 314.20. Communications Circuit Cables. Network-powered broadband communications (B) Network-Powered Broadband Communication Devices and Equipment cable shall not be placed in any raceway, cable tray, compartment, outlet box, Mounted on Covers. Communication device and equipment mounted to and junction box, or similar fittings with conductors of electric light, power, Class supported by a cover shall be held rigidly against the cover which is mounted 1, or nonpower-limited fire alarm circuit cables. to the box or bracket. Exception No. 1:Where all of the conductors of electric light, power, Class Substantiation: This proposal adds a new section to Article 830 addressing 1, nonpower-limited fire alarm circuits are separated from all of the network- the mounting of devices or equipment to listed boxes and brackets. Currently, powered broadband communications cables by a permanent barrier or listed depending on the quality of workmanship, coaxial devices or equipment have divider. not been mounted to boxes or brackets that can support them. After several Exception No. 2:Power circuit conductors in outlet boxes, junction boxes, or years device and/or covers that are mounted directly to the dry wall will similar fittings or compartments where such conductors are introduced solely become a hazard because they have become loose and exposed. Coaxial cable for power supply to the network-powered broadband communications system can become energized by coming in incidental contact with electrical distribution equipment. The power circuit conductors shall be routed within the conductors.

70-986

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

830.135 was only a suggestion for the location of this new section. (A) addresses devices mounted directly to boxes or devices where as (B) address devices mounted to covers. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The submitter has provided no data supporting an existing hazard. The submitter offers only an individual opinion that, depending on the quality of workmanship, equipment or devices mounted directly to drywall may, over time, loosen and become a hazard. The addition of listed boxes or assemblies will not, in itself, guarantee a hazard-free installation. The same quality of workmanship is necessary to help ensure a hazard-free equipment installation whether or not listed boxes are used. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Comment on Affirmative: OHDE, H.: We concur with submitters recommendation which addresses the mounting of equipment or devices to listed boxes and brackets. However the submitter has not provided CMP 16 member any technical substantiation or data supporting the existing hazard. The submitter should resubmit the proposal in the 2008 ROC and provide CMP 16 members with such data.

NFPA 70

UL60950-21, Standard for Safety for Information Technology Equipment Safety - Part 21: Remote Power Feeding, is the ANSI standard that applies to communications systems intended to supply and receive power over the communications network. An RFT circuit or Remote Feeding Telecommunication circuit is a secondary circuit intended to supply or receive d.c. power via a telecommunication network. An RFT-V circuit is an RFT circuit that is so designed and protected that under normal operating conditions and single fault conditions, the voltages are limited. The RFT-V circuits have more stringent power limitations than the mediumpower circuit. An RFT-V circuit as described in UL60950-21 is so designed and protected that under normal operating conditions the voltages are limited between each conductor and ground to 140V dc, or up to 200V dc provided that a monitoring and control device is used that limits the current to earth to 10 mA. Power is limited to a maximum rating of 100VA under normal operation and 150VAmax under fault conditions, which are lower than the limits for medium power circuits. In addition, the output current is limited to a value that would not cause damage to the communications wiring system, typically 1.3 A or less. These limits reflect common industry practices for remote feed applications that are now being employed to power broadband _____________________________________________________________ equipment not under the exclusive control of the communications utility. 16-410 Log #1883 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle (830.151) Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-369. _____________________________________________________________ Number Eligible to Vote: 15 TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee understands that no Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 change in the NEC occurs as a result of the panel action on this proposal. Explanation of Negative: BRUNSSEN, J.: The Panel Action should be Reject. The Panel accepted Submitter: Jeffrey Boksiner, Telcordia Technologies, Inc. Recommendation: Modify 830.151 Medium Power Network-Powered Proposal 16-369 that classifies RFT-V circuits as medium-power circuits. Broadband Communications System Wiring Methods as follows. Therefore, it is not necessary to provide additional cable requirements for RFT 830.151 Medium Power Network-Powered Broadband Communications V circuits; they are already medium-power circuits and use the same cable System and RFT-V Network-Powered Broadband Communications types as other medium-power network-powered broadband communications System Wiring Methods . circuits. Therefore, NFPA staff should not add any additional text to 830.151 Medium power network-powered broadband communications systems shall based on this proposal. be installed within buildings using listed Type BM or Type BMR, network_____________________________________________________________ powered broadband communications medium power cables. RFT-V network16-411a Log #CP1602 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept powered broadband communications systems shall be installed within buildings (830.154) using listed Type BM or Type BMR, network-powered broadband _____________________________________________________________ communications medium power cables. Submitter: Code-Making Panel 16, No change in the remainder of this section. Recommendation: Revise 830.154 Substantiation: CSA/UL6950-21 (first edition, 2003), Standard for Safety for 830.154 Applications of Low-Power Network-Powered Broadband Information Technology Equipment Safety Part 21: Remote Power Feeding, Communications System Wiring Methods . Cables is the ANSI standard that applies to communications systems intended to Substantiation: This proposal is editorial. Acceptance of this proposal will supply and receive power over the communications network. This is part of a make the title of 830.154 consistent with the titles of 770.154, 800.154 and set of several proposals intended to harmonize the requirements of UL6950-21 820.154 and comply with the style manual requirement for parallel text. and the NEC Article 830. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-369. Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1 _____________________________________________________________ Explanation of Negative: 16-412 Log #798 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept BRUNSSEN, J.: The Panel Action should be Reject. The Panel accepted (830.154) Proposal 16-369 that classifies RFT-V circuits as medium-power circuits. _____________________________________________________________ Therefore, it is not necessary to provide additional cable requirements for RFT- TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Panel V circuits; they are already medium-power circuits and use the same cable clarify the Panel Action on this Proposal. The accepted action changes the types as other medium-power network-powered broadband communications title of old (B) Ducts, Plenums and Other Air Handling Spaces. to (A) circuits. Therefore, NFPA staff should not add any additional text to 830.151 Plenums. However, all three applications are still within the subsection. based on this proposal. This action will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment. _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. 16-411 Log #2814 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle Recommendation: Delete subsection (A), renumber remaining existing (830.151) sections (B), (C ) and (D) as (A), B) and (C ), relocate Section 830.133 (C ) to _____________________________________________________________ 830.154 (D) as follows: TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee understands that no 830.154 Low-Power Network-Powered Broadband Communications change in the NEC occurs as a result of the panel action on this proposal. System Wiring Methods. Submitter: Randolph J. Ivans, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Low-power network-powered broadband communications systems shall comRecommendation: Revise as follows: ply with any of the requirements of 830.154(A) through 830.154(D). 830.151 Medium Power and RFT-V Network-Powered Broadband Communications System Wiring Methods. Medium power and RFT-V (A) In Buildings. Low-power network-powered broadband communications network-powered broadband communications systems shall be installed within systems shall be installed within buildings using listed Type BLX, Type BL, buildings using listed Type BM or Type BMR, network-powered broadband Type BLR, or Type BLP network-powered broadband communications lowcommunications medium power cables. power cables. No change in the remainder of this section. (B) (A) Ducts, Plenums, and Other Air-Handling Spaces. Cables installed Substantiation: This is part of a set of three proposals intended to harmonize in ducts, plenums, and other spaces used for environmental air shall be Type the requirements of UL60950-21 and the NEC Article 830. This proposal is a companion proposal to allow RFT-V circuits in 830.15. The voltage limitations BLP. Type BLX cable installed in compliance with 300.22 shall be permitted. in 830.15 do not include some common communication industry practices for (C) (B) Riser. Cables installed in risers shall comply with any of the requirepowering broadband communications equipment not under the exclusive ments in 830.154(C)(1), (C)(2), or (C)(3). control of the communications utility. (1) Cables in Vertical Runs. Cables installed in vertical runs and penetrating This proposal is intended to allow the use of Type BMU, Type BM, or Type more than one floor, or cables installed in vertical runs in a shaft, shall be Type BMR cables for RFT-V circuits as described in the proposal to allow RFT-V BLP, BLR, or BMR. Floor penetrations requiring Type BMR or BLR shall concircuits in 830.15. These cables are presently allowed for medium power tain only cables suitable for riser or plenum use. network-powered broadband communications circuits in 830.40(A). As (2) Metal Raceways or Fireproof Shafts. Type BLX cables shall be permitinsulation for the individual conductors of Type BMU, Type BM, and Type ted to be encased in a metal raceway or located in a fireproof shaft having BMR Cables are required to be rated for 300 volts minimum, these cables are suitable for the RFT-V circuits. firestops at each floor.

70-987

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

(3) One- and Two-Family Dwellings. Type BLX or BL cables less than 10 mm (0.375 in.) in diameter shall be permitted in one- and two-family dwellings. (D) (C) Other Wiring Within Buildings. Cables installed in locations other than those covered in 830.154(A), (B), and (C) shall comply with the requirements of 830.154(D)(C)(1) through (D) (C)(5). (1) General. Type BLP, BL, or BM shall be permitted. (2) In Raceways. Type BLX shall be permitted to be installed in a raceway. (3) Type BLU Cable. Type BLU cable entering the building from outside shall be permitted to be run in rigid metal conduit or intermediate metal conduit. Such conduits shall be grounded to an electrode in accordance with 830.100(B) (4) One- and Two-Family Dwellings. Type BLX or BL cables less than 10 mm (0.375 in.) in diameter shall be permitted to be installed in one- and twofamily dwellings. (5) Type BLX Cable. Type BLX cable entering the building from outside and terminated at a grounding block or a primary protection location shall be permitted to be installed, provided that the length of cable within the building does not exceed 15 m (50 ft). FPN: This provision limits the length of Type BLX cable to 15 m (50 ft), while 830.90(B) requires that the primary protector, or NIU with integral protection, be located as close as practicable to the point at which the cable enters the building. Therefore, in installations requiring a primary protector, or NIU with integral protection, Type BLX cable may not be permitted to extend 15 m (50 ft) into the building if it is practicable to place the primary protector closer than 15 m (50 ft) to the entrance point. (D) Cable Substitutions. The substitutions for network-powered broadband cables listed in Table 830.154 shall be permitted. All cables in Table 830.154, other than network-powered broadband cables, shall be coaxial cables Table 830.154 Cable Substitution Cable Type BM BLP BLR BL BLX Permitted Cable Substitutions BMR CMP, CL3P CMP, CL3P, CMR, CL3R, BLP, BMR CMP, CMR, CM, CMG, CL3P, CL3R, CL3, BMR, BM, BLP, BLR CMP, CMR, CM, CMG, CMX, CL3P, CL3R, CL3, CL3X, BMR, BM, BLP, BRP, BL

NFPA 70
1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-414 Log #378 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject (830.157) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: David Shapiro, Safety First Electrical Contracting, Consulting, and Safety Education Recommendation: Revise text as follows: Protection Against Physical Damage. Section 300.4 shall apply. Substantiation: Use of the word physical is superfluousthe intent is obvious given the context. (I leave it to the CMP whether you want to get more specific naming some source of damage such as blows or abrasion.) Submitting proposals removing the adjective physical may strike people as about as useful as hunting gnats with a cannon. However, doing so seems worthwhile for two reasons. First, if we eliminate every unnecessary instance, as I am attempting to do, we actually cut the NEC down by up to oh, maybe a quarter-page. Keeping it from growing too much fatter every cycle is a goal many of us can agree on. Second, the unneeded use of physical not only is poor writinglook at William Zinssers classic, On Writing Wellbut is silly, and reflects a bit poorly on the Code process. When references were changed to physical damage, in 1959, from mechanical injury (with no substantiation recorded), an excellent opportunity was overlooked to eliminate the possibility of someone raising an eyebrow and saying fatuously, Is anyone claiming electrical equipment needs protection from non-physical injury? (Substitute the snide adjective of your choice.) Lets take care of that for good: for our purposes, damage means physical damage. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The grounding conductor is potentially subject to multiple sources of damage: electrical, physical, and environmental. The word physical is necessary to specifically identify the type of damage that the section is addressing. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

_____________________________________________________________ 16-415 Log #800 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (830.179) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. Substantiation: This is an editorial proposal. (Task Group No. 830-19) Recommendation: Change the titles as shown: Existing Section 830.154(A) may be editorially deleted as it adds no 830.179 Network-Powered Broadband Communications Equipment and new information to Article 830 that is not covered elsewhere in the article. Cables. Renumbering the remaining subsections aligns Section 830.154 with similar Network-powered broadband communications equipment and cables shall be requirements in 770.154, 800.154 and 820.154. Adding 830.154 (D) places listed as suitable for the purpose. the information regarding cable substitutions in its rightful place in the Exception No. 1: This listing requirement shall not apply to community Article. This is a companion proposal to similar proposals concerning Sections antenna television and radio distribution system coaxial cables that were 800.154, 820.154 and 830.154, and to the proposal to relocate Section installed prior to January 1, 2000, in accordance with Article 820 and are 830.133(C) to Section 830.154(D). used for low-power network-powered broadband communications circuits. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Exception No. 2: Substitute cables for network-powered broadband Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: communications cables shall be permitted as shown in Table 830.133. 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; ( A) Listing and Marking. Listing and marking of network-powered 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar broadband communications cables shall comply with 830.179(A)(1) or (A)(2). requirements are stated the same way in each Article; (1) Type s BMU, Type BM, and Type BMR Cables. Network-powered 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, broadband communications medium power underground cable, Type BMU; 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. network-powered broadband communications medium power cable, Type The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, BM; and network-powered broadband communications medium power riser Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. cable, Type BMR, shall be factory-assembled cables consisting of a jacketed Panel Meeting Action: Accept coaxial cable, a jacketed combination of coaxial cable and multiple individual Number Eligible to Vote: 15 conductors, or a jacketed combination of an optical fiber cable and multiple Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 individual conductors. The insulation for the individual conductors shall be rated for 300 volts minimum. Cables intended for outdoor use shall be listed as _____________________________________________________________ suitable for the application. Cables shall be marked in accordance with 310.11. 16-413 Log #799 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept Type BMU cables shall be jacketed and listed as being suitable for outdoor (830.154(D)) underground use. Type BM cables shall be listed as being suitable for general_____________________________________________________________ purpose use, with the exception of risers and plenums, and shall also be listed Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc. as being resistant to the spread of fire. Type BMR cables shall be listed as Recommendation: Make the changes as shown: being suitable for use in a vertical run in a shaft or from floor to floor and shall (C D ) Other Wiring Within Buildings also be listed as having fire-resistant characteristics capable of preventing the Substantiation: This is an editorial proposal. (Task Group No. 830-17) carrying of fire from floor to floor. It creates consistency among parallel articles. Section (D) has been re-lettered FPN No. 1: One method of defining resistant to spread of fire is that the to (C) by another task group proposal. cables do not spread fire to the top of the tray in the vertical tray flame test This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial in ANSI/UL 1581-1991, Reference Standard for Electrical Wires, Cables and Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: Flexible Cords . Another method of defining resistant to the spread of fire is for the damage (char length) not to exceed 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in.) when performing

70-988

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

the CSA vertical flame test for cables in cable trays, as described in CSA C22.2 No. 0.3-M-1985, Test Methods for Electrical Wires and Cables. FPN No. 2: One method of defining fire-resistant characteristics capable of preventing the carrying of fire from floor to floor is that the cables pass the requirements of ANSI/UL 1666-2002, Standard Test for Flame Propagation Height of Electrical and Optical-Fiber Cable Installed Vertically in Shafts. (2) Type s BLU, Type BLX, Type BL, BLR and Type BLP Cables. Network-powered broadband communications low-power underground cable, Type BLU; limited use network-powered broadband communications low-power cable, Type BLX; network-powered broadband communications low-power cable, Type BL; network-powered broadband communications low-power riser cable, Type BLR; and network-powered broadband communications low-power plenum cable, Type BLP, shall be factoryassembled cables consisting of a jacketed coaxial cable, a jacketed combination of coaxial cable and multiple individual conductors, or a jacketed combination of an optical fiber cable and multiple individual conductors. The insulation for the individual conductors shall be rated for 300 volts minimum. Cables intended for outdoor use shall be listed as suitable for the application. Cables shall be marked in accordance with 310.11. Type BLU cables shall be jacketed and listed as being suitable for outdoor underground use. Type BLX limited-use cables shall be listed as being suitable for use outside, for use in dwellings, and for use in raceways and shall also be listed as being resistant to flame spread. Type BL cables shall be listed as being suitable for generalpurpose use, with the exception of risers and plenums, and shall also be listed as being resistant to the spread of fire. Type BLR cables shall be listed as being suitable for use in a vertical run in a shaft or from floor to floor and shall also be listed as having fire-resistant characteristics capable of preventing the carrying of fire from floor to floor. Type BLP cables shall be listed as being suitable for use in ducts, plenums, and other spaces used for environmental air and shall also be listed as having adequate fire-resistant and low smokeproducing characteristics. FPN No. 1: One method of determining that cable is resistant to flame spread is by testing the cable to VW-1 (vertical-wire) flame test in ANSI/UL 15811991, Reference Standard for Electrical Wires, Cables and Flexible Cords . FPN No. 2: One method of defining resistant to spread of fire is that the cables do not spread fire to the top of the tray in the vertical tray flame test in ANSI/UL 1584-1991, Reference Standard for Electrical Wires, Cables and Flexible Cords . FPN No. 3: One method of defining fire-resistant characteristics capable of preventing the carrying of fire from floor to floor is that the cables pass the requirements of ANSI/UL 1666-1997, Standard Test for Flame Propagation Height of Electrical and Optical-Fiber Cable Installed Vertically in Shafts. FPN No. 4: One method of defining a cable that is low smoke-producing cable and fire-resistant cable is that the cable exhibits a maximum peak optical density of 0.5 or less, an average optical density of 0.15 or less, and a maximum flame spread distance of 1.52 m (5 ft) or less when tested in accordance with NFPA 262 -1999, Standard Method of Test for Flame Travel and Smoke of Wires and Cables for Use in Air Handling Spaces . Substantiation: This is an editorial proposal. (Task Group No. 830-18) It will make the titles of this section consistent with Article 770. The text also references network-powered broadband communications lowpower riser cable, Type BLR. Type BLR should therefore be included in the title too. This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special Editorial Task Group. The goals of the task group were to: 1) place requirements in the appropriate sections; 2) improve the parallelism between related Articles such that similar requirements are stated the same way in each Article; 3) make the Articles as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible; and, 4) improve the language in the difficult to understand Sections. The Task Group members are Donna Ballast, Jim Brunssen, Sandy Egesdal, Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-416 Log #1425 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept (830.179(A)(1), FPN 1) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas J. Guida, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: FPN No. 1: One method of defining resistant to the spread of fire is that the cables do not spread fire to the top of the tray in the UL Flame Exposure , Vertical Tray Flame Test in ANSI/UL 1581-2001, Standard for Electrical Wires, Cables, and Flexible Cords. UL 1685-2000 Standard for Safety for Vertical-Tray Fire-Propagation and Smoke-Release Test for Electrical and Optical-Fiber Cables. The smoke measurements in the test method are not applicable. Another method of defining resistant to the spread of fire is for the damage (char length) not to exceed 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in.) when performing the CSA Vertical Flame Test - Cables in Cable Trays, as described in CSA C22.2 No. 0.3-M- 1985 2001 , Test Methods for Electrical Wires and Cables.

NFPA 70
Substantiation: The revised wording is an update of the standard references and not a change in the test methods. UL 1581 now references UL 1685 for the text of the test method. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-416a Log #16 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (830.179(A)(2)) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stanley Kaufman, Cable Safe Inc. Recommendation: Revise as follows: (2) Type BLU, Type BLX, Type BL, BLR and Type BLP Cables. Substantiation: Type BLR wa s added to this section but not to the title. This proposal fixes the oversight. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Panel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-415. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 _____________________________________________________________ 16-417 Log #1424 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (830.179(A)(2), FPN 2) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas J. Guida, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: FPN No. 2: One method of defining resistant to the spread of fire is that the cables do not spread fire to the top of the tray in the UL Flame Exposure , Vertical Tray Flame Test in ANSI/UL 1581-2001, Standard for Electrical Wires, Cables, and Flexible Cords. UL 1685-2000 Standard for Safety for Vertical-Tray Fire-Propagation and Smoke-Release Test for Electrical and Optical-Fiber Cables. The smoke measurements in the test method are not applicable. Another method of defining resistant to the spread of fire is for the damage (char length) not to exceed 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in.) when performing the CSA Vertical Flame Test - Cables in Cable Trays, as described in CSA C22.2 No. 0.3-M-2001, Test Methods for Electrical Wires and Cables . The CSA test is ae to coincie with FPN No.1 in 830.179(A)(1). Substantiation: The revised wording is an update of the standard references and not a change in the test methods. UL 1581 now references UL 1685 for the text of the test method. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle FPN No. 2 to read as follows: FPN No. 2: One method of defining resistant to the spread of fire is that the cables do not spread fire to the top of the tray in the UL Flame Exposure, Vertical Tray Flame Test in UL 1685-2000 Standard for Safety for VerticalTray Fire-Propagation and Smoke-Release Test for Electrical and OpticalFiber Cables. The smoke measurements in the test method are not applicable. Another method of defining resistant to the spread of fire is for the damage (char length) not to exceed 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in.) when performing the CSA Vertical Flame Test - Cables in Cable Trays, as described in CSA C22.2 No. 0.3-M-2001, Test Methods for Electrical Wires and Cables. Panel Statement: The panel edited the submitters text for clarity and to correct a reference error. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 (Note: Sequence nos. 16-418 and 16-419 were not used) CHAPTER 9 TABLES ____________________________________________________________ 8-199 Log #1473 NEC-P08 Final Action: Reject (Chapter 9, Table 1) _____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ryan Jackson, West Valley City, UT Recommendation: Rename the term fixture wires to luminaire wires in Note 1 to Table 1. Substantiation: With the changing of the term fixture to luminaire it only makes sense that the term fixture wires be changed to luminaire wires. For the purposes of correlation, this proposal is also being submitted to the following Articles/Sections/Tables/Annexes: 200.6; 210.19; 210.20; 210.24; 240.4; 240.5; 300.17; 310.1; 314.16; Article 402; 517.74; 660.9; Table 1; Table 5; Annex C. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The guide information in the UL White Book doesnt limit the use of fixture wire to luminaires. The product is listed, which means it can be used in the field. It is not limited to OEM internal luminaire wiring. Fixture wires are suitable for use for other than luminaires. Number Eligible to Vote: 12 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12

70-989

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

____________________________________________________________ 8-200 Log #1840 NEC-P08 Final Action: Accept (Chapter 9 Table 1) ____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Rochon, Mark J. Rochon Master Electrician Recommendation: Revise as follows: A multiconductor cable or flexible cords of two or more conductors shall be treated as a single conductor for calculating percentage conduit fill area. Substantiation: This change would allow Table 1 to be used of Chapter 9 Tables. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Apply the proposed action to (9) in Notes to the Tables for Chapter 9 Table 1. Panel Statement: The panel recognizes the submitters proposal is actually for (9) in Notes to the Tables for Chapter 9 Table 1. Number Eligible to Vote: 12 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: DABE, J.: The submitter has not supplied any technical substantiation supporting this proposal. Also Note (2) Table 1 applies only to complete conduit or tubing systems. 400.8(1) states that flexible cord is not to be used as a substitute for permanent wiring methods. ____________________________________________________________ 8-201 Log #436 NEC-P08 Final Action: Reject (Chapter 9, Tables 1 & 4) ____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ben Stuckey, Piper Electric Co., Inc. Recommendation: In Chapter 9, Tables 1 and 4 of the 2005 NEC the following revision is recommended: Where 2 conductors are listed, the percentage of conduit fill should be in proportion to 1 conductor and over 2 conductors, not less. Therefore, the percentage of conduit fill for 2 conductors would be revised to 46 percent of conduit fill. Substantiation: Why would more than 2 conductors be permitted to occupy more conduit space than only 2 conductors? Shouldnt this be a lesser percentage in order to dissipate heat more effectively? The percentage of conduit fill should be in proportion to the amount of conductors in the conduit. Therefore, the percentage of conduit fill for 2 conductors would be revised to 46% which would relate directly to the percentage of conduit fill for 1 conductor and over 2 conductors. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: Heat dissipation is only one concern when installing conductors. In a raceway, ease of installation and removal of conductors, and jamming, are also required to be taken into account. Number Eligible to Vote: 12 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12

NFPA 70
Substantiation: Use of the word physical is superfluousthe intent is obvious given the context. (I leave it to the CMP whether you want to get more specific naming some source of damage such as blows or abrasion.) Submitting proposals removing the adjective physical may strike people as about as useful as hunting gnats with a cannon. However, doing so seems worthwhile for two reasons. First, if we eliminate every unnecessary instance, as I am attempting to do, we actually cut the NEC down by up to oh, maybe a quarter-page. Keeping it from growing too much fatter every cycle is a goal many of us can agree on. Second, the unneeded use of physical not only is poor writinglook at William Zinssers classic, On Writing Wellbut is silly, and reflects a bit poorly on the Code process. When references were changed to physical damage, in 1959, from mechanical injury (with no substantiation recorded), an excellent opportunity was overlooked to eliminate the possibility of someone raising an eyebrow and saying fatuously, Is anyone claiming electrical equipment needs protection from non-physical injury? (Substitute the snide adjective of your choice.) Lets take care of that for good: for our purposes, damage means physical damage. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: See panel action and statement on Proposal 8-4 (Log 336). Number Eligible to Vote: 12 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12 ____________________________________________________________ 8-204 Log #500 NEC-P08 Final Action: Reject (Chapter 9, Table 2) ____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald Shaner, Greenlee Textron Inc. Recommendation: Change the radius of bends for one shot and full shoe benders for 2 inch trade size conduit from 9 1/2 inches to 9 inches. Substantiation: Steel conduit springs back to a radius slightly larger than the radius of the bending shoe. Measuring the conduit is very difficult, so most inspectors use the published radius of the shoe to judge compliance with the code. Greenlee has placed on the market more than 10,000 electric conduit benders with a 2 in. rigid shoe bend radius of 9 inches without any problems. Please refer to the Greenlee catalog pages that I have provided. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The table value of 9 1/2 inches is correct. For field bends after any springback or not, the centerline of the raceway shall not be less than indicated in Table 2 Chapter 9. Additionally, there is no technical substantiation for the proposed change. Number Eligible to Vote: 12 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12 ____________________________________________________________ 8-204a Log #1937 NEC-P08 Final Action: Accept (Chapter 9, Table 4) ____________________________________________________________ Submitter: William Wagner, Certification Solutions Recommendation: Revise Table headings as follows: Article 352 Rigid PVC Conduit ( PVC ) ( RNC ), Schedule 80 Articles 352 and 353 Rigid PVC Conduit ( PVC )( RNC ), Schedule 40, and HDPE Conduit ( HDPE ) Article 352 Type A, Rigid PVC Conduit ( PVC ) ( RNC ) Article 352 Type EB, PVC Conduit ( PVC )( RNC ) Substantiation: This is a companion proposal for the new definition of Rigid Nonmetallic Conduit in Article 100 and the revised Article 352 for Type PVC Conduit. It clarifies that rigid polyvinyl chloride conduit is designated as Type PVC, rather than the broader Type RNC which includes PVC, HDPE and RTRC. It additionally indicates that high density polyethylene conduit is designated as Type HDPE. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Panel Statement: The committee disagreed with the submitters substantiation that HDPE is RNC, as is shown in the rejection of Proposal 8-2. Number Eligible to Vote: 12 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12

____________________________________________________________ 8-202 Log #2550a NEC-P08 Final Action: Reject (Chapter 9, Tables 1 through 4) ____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Richard F. Van Wert, Middle Department Inspection Agency / Rep. Benjamin Franklin Chapter IAEI Recommendation: A square plate which is 2 ft 2 = 2 ft x 2 ft = 4 sq ft A square plate which is 2 sq ft = 1.41 ft x 1.41 ft = 2 sq ft This is a big difference between the two. Substantiation: The NEC had to change the way 250 KCM used to be referred to as 250 MCM because of a history of using wrong terminology. It is now time to correct a long standing confusing way of referring to square feet and feet squared. They are two different values. The NEC is trying to say square feet in sections like 250.52(A)(6) and have it written as feet squared. Table 220.12 has the term square feet written correctly. I find this confusion most often with my foreign students who are learning reading, writing, and math as adults and recent immigrants to the USA. They are the ones who point out the discrepancy. Every Table in Chapter 9 has the same misuse of the terms. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The submitter has not identified where the changes are to take place. Additionally, the panel suggests the specific changes be detailed and ____________________________________________________________ substantiated. 6-94 Log #2550 NEC-P06 Final Action: Reject Number Eligible to Vote: 12 (Chapter 9, Tables 5 through 9) Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12 ____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Richard F. Van Wert, Middle Department Inspection Agency / Rep. ____________________________________________________________ Benjamin Franklin Chapter IAEI 8-203 Log #379 NEC-P08 Final Action: Reject Recommendation: A square plate which is 2 ft 2 = 2 ft x 2 ft = 4 sq ft A square plate which is 2 sq ft = 1.41 ft x 1.41 ft = 2 sq ft (Chapter 9, Table 1, Note 2) This is a big difference between the two. ____________________________________________________________ Submitter: David Shapiro, Safety First Electrical Contracting, Consulting, and Substantiation: The NEC had to change the way 250 KCM used to be Safety Education referred to as 250 MCM because of a history of using wrong terminology. It Recommendation: Table 1 applies only to complete conduit or tubing systems is now time to correct a long standing confusing way of referring to square and is not intended to apply to sections of conduit or tubing used to protect feet and feet squared. They are two different values. The NEC is trying to exposed wiring from physical damage. say square feet in sections like 250.52(A)(6) and have it written as feet

70-990

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

squared. Table 220.12 has the term square feet written correctly. I find this confusion most often with my foreign students who are learning reading, writing, and math as adults and recent immigrants to the USA. They are the ones who point out the discrepancy. Every Table in Chapter 9 has the same misuse of the terms. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The ft. designates area and is the correct designation in accordance with the NEC Style Manual (page 31), and changes to the Manual of Style should be submitted to the TCC. The submitter has not complied with the requirements of 4-3.3(c) of the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects that proposals must provide the specific wording to be added, revised (and how revised), or deleted. Number Eligible to Vote: 11 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 ____________________________________________________________ 6-95 Log #131 NEC-P06 Final Action: Reject (Chapter 9 Table 5) ____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark Good, Good Electric Corp. Recommendation: Delete discrepency. Type RHH*, RHWI, THHN, THWN, THW, THW-2, TFN, TFFN, THWN, THWN-2, RF, XFF THHW, THW, AF RHH*, RHW* 10 XF, XFF RHW-2* Substantiation: The above discrepency is obvious because the #10 wire THW in the column to the left has different diameter and area. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The panel is not sure what the submitter is requesting, unless the submitter is referring to the 2002 Code, in which case the issue was corrected in the 2005 Code (Proposal 6-106). Number Eligible to Vote: 11 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 ____________________________________________________________ 6-96 Log #563 NEC-P06 Final Action: Reject (Chapter 9, Table 5) ____________________________________________________________ Submitter: R. K. Varma, State of PA, DCED Recommendation: Add a Table for Cable as shown below: Substantiation: Currently, there exists no data for cables in terms of their overall areas. Bare conductor areas do not answer conduit fills requirements correctly. Forty percent fill, 60 percent fill is mostly not correct and even NEC/ NFPA feels these calculations do not truly represent intent of NEC. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The addition of the proposed table is not needed. The panel assumes that the submitter is referencing multiconductor cables, which are dealt with in Table 1, Notes 5 and 9. This table is not under the purview of Panel 6. In addition, Types TWW, THWW, TWW-2 do not exist. Number Eligible to Vote: 11 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11

NFPA 70
____________________________________________________________ 6-97 Log #1742 NEC-P06 Final Action: Reject (Chapter 9, Table 5A (New) FPN) ____________________________________________________________ Submitter: David Sroka, Turner Falls, MA Recommendation: Table 5A - Add new FPN text as follows: FPN: Most aluminum building wire in types THW, THHW, THWN/THHN, and XHHW conductors is compact stranded. Table 5A provides appropriate dimensions for these types of wire. Substantiation: This is currently a comment in the NEC Handbook. It would be more useful as a FPN below the table. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The proposed fine print note is already included in the title of the table. Number Eligible to Vote: 11 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 ____________________________________________________________ 6-98 Log #1741 NEC-P06 Final Action: Accept in Principle (Chapter 9, Table 5B (New)) ____________________________________________________________ Submitter: David Sroka, Turner Falls, MA Recommendation: Table 5B Compact Copper Building Wire Nominal Dimensions* and Areas - please copy Bare Conductor columns only from Table 5A - *Dimensions Are From Industry Sources. Substantiation: This information is currently not included, to show that bare compact stranded dimensions are the same for copper and aluminum. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add the words Copper and to the title of the existing Table 5A before Aluminum. Panel Statement: The panel resolved the submitters issue without adding another table. Number Eligible to Vote: 11 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 ____________________________________________________________ 6-99 Log #1838 NEC-P06 Final Action: Reject (Chapter 9, Table 8) ____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Rochon, Mark J. Rochon Master Electrician Recommendation: Add text as follows: 6 AWG 1 Stranding 4 AWG 1 Stranding Substantiation: 6 AWG and 4 AWG is available in solid and used every day. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The panel agrees with the concept and requests the submitter provide the technical substantiation and the dimensions. Number Eligible to Vote: 11 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11

[Proposal 6-96 (Log #563)] Type TW TWW THWW TWW-2 Size AWG of kcml 14 2 Cdtr with Ground or ---------------Approx. mm Dia. in. Approx. mm2 Area in.2

70-991

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

____________________________________________________________ 6-100 Log #1474 NEC-P06 Final Action: Reject (Chapter 9, Table 5) ____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ryan Jackson, West Valley City, UT Recommendation: Rename the term fixture wires to luminaire wires in Table 5. Substantiation: With the changing of the term fixture to luminaire it only makes sense that the term fixture wires be changed to luminaire wires. For the purposes of correlation, this proposal is also being submitted to the following Articles/Sections/Tables/Annexes: 200.6; 210.19; 210.20; 210.24; 240.4; 240.5; 300.17; 310.1; 314.16; Article 402; 517.74; 660.9; Table 1; Table 5; Annex C. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The use of fixture wire is not limited to luminaires or lighting fixtures; they are also used within equipment. The action on this proposal should also be forwarded for information to CMP 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 15. Number Eligible to Vote: 11 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: CLINE, S.: If fixture was the word which gave rise to fixture wires in the past, then it seems that the term should now be luminaire wires. It is possible that a different word more inclusive of current applications for these conductors could be better than luminaire, but luminaire is the defined word the Code now uses in place of fixture. A new word could be done as a Comment should someone have one to suggest. I believe in struggling for uniformity and simplicity in the Code as much as is practically possible. KENT, G.: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Proposal 6-5. ____________________________________________________________ 6-101 Log #1661 NEC-P06 Final Action: Reject (Chapter 9, Table 9) ____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Nelson, Leo A. Daly Recommendation: The reactance values for wire sizes 6, 8 and 10 appear to be out of order in both the PVC and Steel conduit columns. I believe the values for 10 AWG should be for 6 AWG, the values for 6 AWG should be for 8 AWG and the values for 8 AWG should be for 10 AWG. Substantiation: Larger wire sizes have lower reactance values. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: This table is correct as written, and the panel recommends that the submitter provide calculations to support his proposal. Reactances are based on the spacing between conductors. Number Eligible to Vote: 11 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 ____________________________________________________________ 6-102 Log #2249 NEC-P06 Final Action: Reject (Chapter 9, Table 9) ____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Noel Williams, Herriman, UT Recommendation: Delete Table 9 from Chapter 9 and relocate it to a new annex or add to Annex B. Substantiation: This table is not referenced anywhere in the NEC and as such has no application in NEC requirements. The table is useful, however, so it should be retained, but not in the main areas of the code. Since the table contains no requirement and is not referenced as a requirement, it is equivalent to a Fine Print Note. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The information contained in Table 9 is used to perform various mathematical calculations required throughout the Code. Number Eligible to Vote: 11 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 ____________________________________________________________ 3-273a Log #3073 NEC-P03 Final Action: Reject (Chapter 9 Table 11 (A)) ____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Michael Bandel, Juno Lighting Group Recommendation: Add (see Note 5) indication to the Not Inherently Limited Power Source (Overcurrent protection required), Class 3 columns in the Over 100 through 150 location; also, add new Note 5 text. Please refer to Table 11(A) and Note 5 (table shown on following page) Substantiation: Problem: Table 11(A) is insufficient in describing the limitations associated with a Class 3 AC power source in the Over 100 through 150 Source voltage range; it currently designates Power limitation VAmax as N.A., leaving little doubt that through the other table parameters and Note 1 that the only practical limitation here that would be calcuable is 150VA. This 150VA seems insufficient given the 250VA allowable power limitations of the other source voltage ranges for the Not Inherently Limited Power Source. The proposal will set up a 250VA max Power limitation to substitute for the N.A., as well as the other power and current parameters subject to a new Note 5. The substantiation for this is as follows: Substantiation for Proposal: The boundary between the Over 30 through 100 and Over 100 through 150 ranges is not seamless. It implies that at 101 V max your discontinuously changes from a clear 250VA to the implied 150VA associated with N.A. This transition discontinuity is not present in any of the other ranges except if you consider Note 3, and although Note 3

NFPA 70
allows for a higher power limitation, it restricts the transition point to 15V as opposed to the 20V limit of the tabular range. The power limitation itself implies that under the conditions of Note 1, any Article 725 wiring can indeed be circulating 250VA under, after 1 minute and regardless of load and overcurrent protection bypassed, if used. This is because a short circuit fault could occur anywhere in a Class 3 wiring system; however, most ostensibly its anticipated that it would occur at the Class 3 loads. If 250VA can circulate in a Class 3 wiring system, there should logically be no issues with allowing this amount in the nameplate rating with stipulations. Note 6 anticipates the stipulations required in order to keep within the framework originally envisioned by Table 11(A), yet creates an aenue to the only real way to guarantee compliance with the suggested changes. It states that for the ranges of voltage, current and power suggested, the only sensible way to process the power is with a linear or switchmode type electronic power supply. As such, said power supply must include multiple safety circuits to be called safe from the fire initiation. Input fusing is a typical norm in electronic power equpment. It limits the power that can be absorbed from the Class 1 input and transferred externaly via the output. Active thermal shutdown similarly limits power transfer from input to output by sensing temperature at a strategic hot spot so that ouput can be terminated upon excessive power processing. Lastly, output overload shutdown protection monitors and shuts off the output for abnormal loading situations. The Not Inherently Limited Power Source (Overcurrent Protetion Required) section of Table 11(A) requires some overcurrent protection device. If an electronic power supply has an overload shutdown characteristic, it offers another basic safety mechanism to rely upon. Combining this with the aforementioned protections of fusing and thermal sensing offers additional levels of protection, any of which could compensate for the other. Additionally, other protections can be envisoned that could each be tested separately at UL to answer questions of their unique contributions to safety from a fire initiation standpoint on a power supply design. The practical effects of Note 5 will also allow curents greater than the 1.0 specified under the Table 11(A) in effect now. The new range calculable is from 1.67 to 2.5 amperes, (250/V max ). This is more restrictive than the current Table 11(A) in the Over 30 through 100 source voltage range where the Current limitations vary from 33.4 to 10 amperes, (1000/V max ), and the Maximum overcurrent protection range is from 1.0 to 3.34 amperes, (100/V max ). Again, the Note 5 restriction of the source to be an electronic power supply allows for much more precision in limiting power from a source, as well as qualifying as safe from fire initiation. In conclusion, the main point to consider is the Power limitations VA max (volt-amperes) (see Note 1) levels for a Not Inherently limited Power Source. Under what must be considered a fault condition 250VA can circulate indefiitely through an Article 725, Class 3 wiring system. It could be asked if the nameplate can be changed on the source voltage range requested, why cant it be changed in the other ranges? The answer is simple. It can be. However, at the lower voltages of those ranges the I 2 x R calculated power losses become greater and less likely to be of practical use. Its really only the higher voltages that allow lower current and a reasonable wiring methodolgy to be employed. The real question is if these changes will maintain safety from a fire initiaiton standpoint. The answer here is yes, if kept within the confines of Note 5, and can obtain a UL listing. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The recommendation is assuming a power limitation in the last column of Table 11(A) of the maximum voltage of the source as 150 volts. With a 1-ampere current limitation, the power limitation would be 150 VA. The Table has this shown as N.A. and the submitter is assuming that Note 3 permits a higher power limitation but this only applies where the voltage is 15 volts or less and not as indicated in the over 100 though 150 volt column. The VA max in Note 1 indicates that the peak VA during a short circuit with the overcurrent protective device bypassed would be a peak of not more than 250 VA but this certainly does not provide permission to have this 250 VA peak during normal operation since a Class 3 system is not designed to operate in a short circuit situation for long periods of time. The 250 VA is a peak value since the power source nameplate cannot be greater than 100 VA. Class 3 systems can operate at a level that could be considered to be a shock hazard but not a fire initiation hazard when insulated at the proper voltage levels for conductors and equipment. Notes 5 and 6 do not seem to be provided with the proposal, however, the substantiation seems to indicate a linear switch-mode electronic power supply with an active thermal shutdown that would limit power transfer from input to output. It also alludes to an output overload shutdown protection monitor. The Table values in 11(A) and (B) have been long standing values that were originally tested and formulated in the late 1950s but have been used for many years to provide limitations for Class 2 and 3 circuits. As voltage is increased, the current level must be decreased to ensure the I 2 t will not exceed the energy limitation for fire initiation. This cannot just be a bolted fault condition since increasing the energy level by increasing the allowable VA will also result in a higher arcing fault level. Any proposed changes must be proven with substantial technical data to establish the proper protection for these circuits. A power supply that does not conform to the Table values must have a Fact Finding study that will address the principle issues of both fire initiation limitation and shock protection that exists in the present tables. This has not been provided in this proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 13 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13

70-992

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

[Proposal 3-273a (Log #3073)]

70-993

Table 11(A) Class 2 and Class 3 Current Power Source Limitations Inherently Limited Power Source Not Inherently Limited Power Source (Overcurrent Protection Not Required) (Overcurrent Protection Required) Power Source Class 2 Class 3 Class 2 Class 3 Source voltage 0 through Over 20 and Over 30 and Over 30 and 0 through 20* Over 20 and Over 30 and Over 100 and Vmax (volts 20* through 30* through 150 through 100 through 30* through 100 through 150 (see Note 1) (see note 5) Power Limitations VAmax (volt-amperes) 250 (see Note 250 250 N.A (see Note 1) 3) Current limitations 8.0 8.0 0.005 150/Vmax 1000/Vmax 1000/Vmax 1000/Vmax 1 Imax (volts) (see Note 1) Maximum overcurrent 5.0 100/Vmax 100/Vmax 1 protection (amperes) Power source VA (volt5.0 X Vmax 100 0.005 X Vmax 100 5.0 X Vmax 100 100 100 maximum amperes) nameplate rating Current 5.0 100/Vmax 0.005 100/Vmax 5.0 100/Vmax 100/Vmax 100/Vmax (amperes) New Note 5 for Table 11(A): 5. For the Class 3 Over 100 and through 150V range, if the power source is an electronic linear or switchmode type power supply with input fusing, active thermal shutdown, and output overload shutdown protection, power limitations and power source maximum nameplate rating can be increased to equal the power limitations VAmax limit of 250VA. The current limitations, maximum overcurrent protection, and maximum nameplate rating for current can be calculated as 250/Vmax.

NFPA 70

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

____________________________________________________________ 3-273b Log #2859 NEC-P03 Final Action: Reject (Chapter 9, Tables 11(A) and 11(B), Footontes) ____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ole Nilssen, Innovention Center Recommendation: Table 11(A) and 11(B), Note 1 revised: I max Maximum output current under any non-capacitive load, including short circuit, and with overcurrent protection bypassed if used. Where a transformer limits the out current Imax limits apply after 1 minute of operation. Where a current-limiting impedance, listed for the purpose or as part of a listed product, is used in combination with a non-power-limited device - such as a transformer or a stored energy device, e.g., storage battery, to limit the output current - I max limits apply after 5 seconds. VA max Maximum volt-ampere output after 1 minute of operation regardless of load and overcurrent protection bypassed if used. Overcurrent protection need not be bypassed if investigation for listing evaluated the suitability of the overcurrent protection in the event of abnormal operation. Add to cell in tables Power source maximum nameplate rating (See Note 5): Note 5. The method of marking is customary for simple transformers. Alternatively, the equipment output shall be marked, class 2 or class 3 as appropriate. Substantiation: Present electrical parameter limits for Class 2 and 3 were originally written around a step-down, two winding, isolating transformer operated from a 60 Hz. source of supply. Electrical parameter limits for Class 2 were originally developed and included in the 1933 edition of the NEC, while limits for Class 3 were added with the 1975 edition. The limits do not consider new technology such as electronic circuits operating at higher frequencies or having active circuitry that can limit circuit energy in the advent of abnormal operation or interference with the Class 2 or 3 circuits. In the notes to Table 11, I max definition, last sentence describes a case where a non-power-limited device is used in combination. The mention of a transformer or battery should be noted as an example, not limited to just those two. Also, that same sentence describes when current limiting impedance (within the Class 2 or 3 circuit) can be relied upon, i.e., when listed with that purpose. This was not repeated in the VA max definition, but for consistency, should have been. The method of marking as power source maximum nameplate rating, although acceptable for transformers should not be limited to that alone for electronic equipment. Using the input rating in determining the acceptability of a Class 2 or 3 rating does not acknowledge that there could be electrical equipment with several functions, only one of which happens to be that it is the source of a Class 2 or 3 circuit. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: There was no technical substantiation to make the change in Note 5 of Tables 11(A) and (B). The reason a transformer is used in Note 1 was to provide information due to transformer core saturation on transformer startup. Once the transformer core saturation occurs, the transformer current stabilizes within the first minute of operation. This table applies to all different types of Class 2 and 3 power sources that can vary as widely as batteries and transformers to electronic power supplies. The information provided in the Table applies to all of these power sources. Maintaining the maximum ampere levels, peak power, and maximum voltages are critical in ensuring that shock and fire hazards do not occur. Any proposed changes must be proven with substantial technical data to establish the proper protection for these circuits. A power supply that does not conform to the Table values must have a Fact Finding study that will address the principle issues of both fire initiation limitation and shock protection that exists in the present tables. This has not been provided in this proposal. As voltage is increased, the current level must be decreased to ensure the I 2 t will not exceed the energy limitation for fire initiation. This cannot just be a bolted fault condition since increasing the energy level by increasing the allowable VA will also result in a higher arcing fault level. Number Eligible to Vote: 13 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 ____________________________________________________________ 3-274 Log #2550b NEC-P03 Final Action: Reject (Chapter 9, Tables 11(A) & (B) & Tables 12(A) & (B)) ____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Richard F. Van Wert, Middle Department Inspection Agency / Rep. Benjamin Franklin Chapter IAEI Recommendation: A square plate which is 2 ft 2 = 2 ft x 2 ft = 4 sq ft A square plate which is 2 sq ft = 1.41 ft x 1.41 ft = 2 sq ft This is a big difference between the two. Substantiation: The NEC had to change the way 250 KCM used to be referred to as 250 MCM because of a history of using wrong terminology. It is now time to correct a long standing confusing way of referring to square feet and feet squared. They are two different values. The NEC is trying to say square feet in sections like 250.52(A)(6) and have it written as feet squared. Table 220.12 has the term square feet written correctly. I find this confusion most often with my foreign students who are learning reading, writing, and math as adults and recent immigrants to the USA. They are the ones who point out the discrepancy. Every Table in Chapter 9 has the same misuse of the terms.

NFPA 70
Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: Neither Tables 11(A) and 11(B) or Tables 12(A) and 12(B) have square foot measurements, so this proposal does not apply to these tables. Number Eligible to Vote: 13 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 ____________________________________________________________ 3-275 Log #3047 NEC-P03 Final Action: Reject (Chapter 9 Tables 11(A) and 11(B)) ____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Dale Fiene, International Product Development, Inc. Recommendation: Add the following: (see Note 5) in the boxes of Tables 11(A) and 11(B) containing the words Power source maximum nameplate rating Add a note 5 to Notes for Tables 11(A) and 11(B) as follows: 5. Multiple loads shall be permitted to be connected to a single listed Power Source. No single load shall draw more than the power and current shown in Tables 11(A) or 11(B). The Nameplate rating shall reflect the total power and current drawn by the maximum number of loads that the Power Source is listed to supply. Only loads listed for connection to the Power Source may be connected. Substantiation: The wording of the current standard is limiting with respect to newer technologies that can provide much more capability and provide higher levels of safety in much smaller packages than the typical step-down transformers that the limits were originally written around. Active current limiting can provide much safer control in packages that can provide higher levels of power without compromising safety. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: A maximum power source nameplate rating was established in Tables 11(A) and 11(B) to ensure that a transformer or a power supply internal failure will not permit more than the rated output of the power source. The maximum current for a small voltage application (0 through 30 volts) is 8 amps. Imax is located in the Notes below the table and is the maximum output current under any non-capacitive load, including short circuits, with any overcurrent protection bypassed, if installed in the circuit. If a transformer is used, the current limitation must not exceed that value after one minute of operation. This permits stabilizing of the current during start-up of the transformer and any internal transformer saturation of the core. The notes at the bottom of the Tables have additional current limitations. There was no technical substantiation provided to make changes to these levels or to accept a new note relaxing these long-established rules. Number Eligible to Vote: 13 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 ____________________________________________________________ 1-167 Log #3468 NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject (Chapter 9, Table 13) ____________________________________________________________ Submitter: Richard F. Van Wert, Middle Department Inspection Agency / Rep. Benjamin Franklin Chapter IAEI Recommendation: Revise table to read: Chapter 9 Table 13 3 m 10 ft 7.5 m 25 ft 15 m 50 ft 30 m 100 ft etc. etc. Substantiation: Soon enough the metric system of measurement will be the only measurement system used. A complete and comprehensive conversion chart is needed now. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The Code uses two measurement systems, SI and inchpound. Since dual dimensions are used throughout the text and in other tables, there is no need to add a conversion table in Chapter 9. Number Eligible to Vote: 12 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12 ANNEX A ________________________________________ 1-168 Log #2450 NEC-P01 Final Action: Accept in Principle (Annex A) ________________________________________ Submitter: Eliana Beattie, ISA Recommendation: Annex A Change ISA S12.23.01 to ANSI/ISA-60079-18 (12.23.01)-2005. Change ISA 12.0.01 to ANSI/ISA-60079-0 (12.00.01)-2005. Change ISA S12.16.01 to ANSI/ISA-60079-7 (12.16.01)-2002. Change ISA S12.22.01 to ANSI/ISA-60079-1 (12.22.01)-2005. Change ISA S12.25.01 to ANSI/ISA-60079-5 (12.25.01)-1998. Change ISA S12.26.01 to ANSI/ISA-60079-6 (12.26.01)-1998. Change ISA S12.12 to ANSI/ISA-12.12.01-2000.

70-994

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

Substantiation: Change format to match actual ISA standards numbering. Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Panel Statement: The panel accepts the change of ISA S12.12 to ISA12.12.01-2000. The panel concludes that the action on 1-169 addresses the submitters intent on the other documents. Number Eligible to Vote: 12 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12 ________________________________________ 1-169 Log #2794 NEC-P01 Final Action: Accept (Annex A) ________________________________________ Submitter: Sonya M. Bird, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Recommendation: This proposal is made to: (1) Update the following standard titles and designations: (a) Conduit, Tubing, and Cable Fittings, UL 514B - Update title and re-position in the Annex based on the new tittle. (b) Electric Sign Components, UL 879 - Update title and re-position in the Annex based on the new title. (c) Electrical Intermediate Metal Conduit - Steel, UL 1242 - Update title and re-position in the Annex based on the new title. (d) Electrical Rigid Metal Conduit - Steel, UL 6 - Update title and re-position in the Annex based ont he new title. (e) Gas-Tube-Sign Cable, UL 814 - Update title. (f) Optical Fiber and Communication Cable Raceway, UL 2024 - Update title. (g) Schedule 40 and 80 Rigid PVC Conduit and fittings, UL 651 - Update title. (2) Remove the generic reference to the UL 60079 series of standards addressing Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres, and replace it with reference to the 8 specific parts of the standards. Each of these parts is co-published with ISA, and the references are to both the UL and the ISA designations. (3) Replace the reference to UL 486A (wire connectors and soldering lugs for use with copper conductors) and UL 486B (wire connectors for use with aluminum conductors), and replace them with a combined reference to the single UL standard addressing all wire connectors, UL 486A (wire connectors and soldering lugs for use with copper conductors) and the single UL standard addressing all wire connectors, UL 486A-486B, wire Connectors. (4) Replace the former reference to UL 62, previously addressing both flexible cord and fixture wire, with references to the 2 unique standards, UL 62, Flexible Cords, and UL 66, Fixture Wire. (5) Add reference to UL 60947-1, Low-Voltage Switchgear and Controlgear, Part 1: General Requirements, and the existing UL 508, Industrial Control Equipment Standard. These two IEC-based UL standards incorporate the international requirements with relevant national differences based on UL 508. (6) Add reference to UL 60950-21, Safety of Information Technology Equipment, Part 21: Remote Power Feeding, for specific requirements associated with the general requirements already referenced in UL 60950-1. (7) Add reference to the following UL standards in order to reflect the product listing requirements of the NEC, and to reflect those standards that are suitable for evaluating products and identifying these for a particular purpose within the NEC (listing for these product safety standards is one mechanism for meeting the requirement that a product be identified for a particular purpose): (a) UL 514D, Cover Plates for Flush-Mounted Wiring Devices (b) UL 1459, Telephone Equipment (c) UL 1573, Stage and Studio Lighting (d) UL 1642, Lithium Batteries (e) UL 1666, Flame Propagation Height of Electrical and Optical-Fiber Cables Installed Vertically in Shafts (f) UL 1989, Standby Batteries (g) UL 1993, Self-Ballasted Lamps and Lamp Adapters (h) UL 2075, Gas and Vapor Detectors and Sensors (i) UL 2108, Low Voltage Luminaires (j) UL 2196, Fire Resistive Cables (k) UL 2239, Hardware for the Support of Conduit, Tubing and Cable. (8) Add reference to UL 1640, Portable Power Distribution Units, to correlate with a proposed addition of a FPN and corresponding reference to UL 1640. Substantiation: Annex A, Product Safety Standards, is proposed to be updated in order for the annex to reflect the most recent product standard designations and names for those UL standards that are currently referenced. Additionally, changes to the Annex are needed in order to reflect the product listing requirements of the NEC, and to reflect those standards that are suitable for evaluating products and identifying them for a particular purpose within the NEC. Listing to these specific product safety standards is one mechanism for meeting the requirement that a product be identified for a particular purpose. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 12 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12

NFPA 70
________________________________________ 1-170 Log #3605 NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject (Annex A) ________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Alexander, Laguna Hills, CA Recommendation: Add the following after the first paragraph: Inclusion in this list should not imply that the referenced products are always required to be listed nor that generic references to certain classes of equipment apply to all equipment of that class. Substantiation: For example, as of the date and time of this Proposal (November 4, 2005/ 2:45pm EST) General Purpose Electric Motors are not listed. Note the reference to Electric Motors is somewhat misleading. The UL Standard for General Purpose Electric Motors is UL1004B, rather than UL1004. As of this moment no products are listed under that Standard nor does the NEC require it. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The first sentence of the annex states: Annex A is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document, but is included for informational purposes only. Requirements for equipment listing, where applicable, appear within the individual articles for different types of equipment. In addition, should not imply is not acceptable Code language as defined in Section 3.1 of the NEC Style Manual. Number Eligible to Vote: 12 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12 ________________________________________ 1-171 Log #3653 NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject ( Annex A through G) ________________________________________ Submitter: Kevin McCall, Local Union #98 IBEW Recommendation: This Annex provides particular informational requirements of this NFPA document and may be used for informational purposes and may be specially adopted by the local jurisdiction adopting the National Electrical Code. Substantiation: The Annexes provide information and Article section references which are considered requirements of the NFPA document. There should be clarity expressed why required article sections are considered informational purposes. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: CMP-1 concludes that Annexes A and G are clear in their intended purpose and that they comply with the NEC Style Manual, Section 3.3.4, for word clarity. The submitters proposed language adds no clarity and is in violation of Section 3.1.1 of the Manual by use of the word may. The submitter has not provided the specific locations for the recommended changes or proposed text as required by 4.3.3(b) and (c) of the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. The concerns of the submitter appear to be addressed in the first paragraphs of Annex A. Annexes B through F are not under the jurisdiction of CMP-1. Number Eligible to Vote: 12 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12 ANNEX C ________________________________________ 8-205 Log #1475 NEC-P08 Final Action: Reject (Annex C) ________________________________________ Submitter: Ryan Jackson, West Valley City, UT Recommendation: Rename the term fixture wires to luminaire wires in Annex C. Substantiation: With the changing of the term fixture to luminaire it only makes sense that the term fixture wires be changed to luminaire wires. For the purposes of correlation, this proposal is also being submitted to the following Articles/Sections/Tables/Annexes: 200.6; 210.19; 210.20; 210.24; 240.4; 240.5; 300.17; 310.1; 314.16; Article 402; 517.74; 660.9; Table 1; Table 5; Annex C. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: See panel action and statement on Proposal 8-199. Number Eligible to Vote: 12 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12 ________________________________________ 8-206 Log #827 NEC-P08 Final Action: Reject (Table C.8) ________________________________________ Submitter: Dale Smuck, Martin Riley Architects/Engineers Recommendation: Table 8 - Type THHN/THWN/THWN-2 35 (1 1/4) number of conductors should read 3 not 4 . Substantiation: Using Table 5 for size 1 THHN/THWN/THWN-2 and Table 4 Article 344 RMC - over 2 wire 40 percent 4 number 1s exceed the conduit fill for 35 mm (1 1/4) conduit size. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: When using the Notes to Tables in Chapter 9, Note 7 of Table 1 applies. When calculated, the result is 3.9, which is rounded to 4. Number Eligible to Vote: 12

70-995

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12 ________________________________________ 2-361 Log #154 NEC-P02 Final Action: Accept (Annex D) ________________________________________ TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee understands that the Panel Action was to revise the text in Example D4(a) in Annex D, and that similar revisions should be made following 20 ranges in the same Example, for consistency. Submitter: Joseph Penachio, Joe Penachio Electrician Recommendation: Revise as follows: Range Load: 10 ranges ( not over ( less than 12 kVA) (see Col. C, 25,000 VA Table 220.55) Substantiation: Less than 12 kVA indicates that a 12 kVA range is not in column C. Column C states ranges Not over 12 kW rating indicating that a 12 kVA range is included in Column C. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 12 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12 ________________________________________ 2-362 Log #135 NEC-P02 Final Action: Reject (Annex D) ________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Hamann, Lake Forest, IL Recommendation: Calculate the actual connected lighting load. (8500 VA) Determine the appropriate minimum lighting load from Table 220.3(A). (3VA x 3000 square foot building = 9000 VA). Select the larger value and multiply by 1.25 for the continuous general lighting load. (9000 VA x 1.25 = 11250 VA) Substantiation: If the connected lighting load was 8999 VA, then the minimum lighting load from Table 220.3(A) would be used. (9000 VA) If the connected lighting load was 9001 VA then 125% of the actual connected lighting load would be used. (9001 x 1.25 = 11251 VA) The problem is that the 1.25 factor is only used when the actual connected lighting load is used. The example above illustrates that, when 2 VA is added, the lighting load increased by 2251 VA. (11251 - 9000 = 2251) Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The proposal does not comply with 4.3.3(c) of the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects in that it does not specifically indicate what text is to be deleted and what text is to be added. Number Eligible to Vote: 12 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12 ________________________________________ 3-275a Log #CP303 NEC-P03 Final Action: Accept (Annex A) ________________________________________ Submitter: Code-Making Panel 3, Recommendation: Add the following to Annex A: Circuit Integrity (CI) cable------ Subject 1724, Outline of Investigation for Fire Tests for Electrical Circuit Protective Systems Circuit Integrity (CI) cable ----- UL 2196, Tests of Fire Resistive Cables Substantiation: Adding UL 2196 and Subject 1724, Outline of Investigation, to the annex will provide the user of the Code with two different documents with which to determine product safety for circuit integrity cable. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 13 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 ________________________________________ 2-363 Log #3169 NEC-P02 Final Action: Accept (Annex D, Example D3) ________________________________________ Submitter: Wally Harris, Atlantic Inland Inspections Recommendation: Add text reference as indicated by underlined type to Continuous Loads section of calculation as follows; Show Window Lighting Load 30 ft at 200 VA per ft [ see 220.14(G)] Substantiation: This proposal will be yet another change that would make it easier for Code users to arrive at the proper reference for calculation requirements. Panel Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 12 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12

NFPA 70
________________________________________ 11-114 Log #3655 NEC-P11 Final Action: Reject (Annex D Example D 8) ________________________________________ Submitter: Kevin McCall, Local Union #98 IBEW Recommendation: Conductor Ampacity Determine the minimum required conductor ampacity for three induction type motors on a 480 VCH, 3 phase feeder. The full-load current value used to determine the minimum required conductor ampacity is obtained from (Table 430.250) for the squirrel-cage motor and the primary of the wound-rotor motors For the 25 horsepower motor, 34A (As of Table 430.250) For the 30 horsepower motor 40A (as of Table 430.252) 40A x 1.25 = 50A (As of 430.24 and Table 430.250) Total Several Motor Load Ampacity = 124 amperes. Substantiation: To provide clarity and adequate example with proper reference to Articles, Sections and Tables of NFPA 70. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The panel is uncertain as to the intent of the proposal, and the submitters direction for change is not clear and has incorrect references. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 ________________________________________ 11-115 Log #3654 NEC-P11 Final Action: Reject (Annex D, Example D8) ________________________________________ Submitter: Kevin McCall, Local Union #98 IBEW Recommendation: Conductor Ampacity The full-load current value vied to determine the minimum required conductor is obtained from 430.750 [see 430.6(A)] for the squirrel-cage motor and the secondary of the wound motors. To obtain the minimum required conductor ampacity, the full-load current is multiplied by 1.75 [see 430.22 and 430.23] For the 25 horsepower motor, 34A x 1.25 = 42.5A (As of Table 430.250 and 430.22) For the 30 horsepower motor 65A x 1.25 = 81.25A (As of 430.23) [Add: secondary of the (words not readable) maker [Delete: 40A x 1.25 = 50A] Substantiation: To provide clarity and adequate example with proper reference to Articles, Sections and Tables of NFPA 70. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: The panel is uncertain as to the intent of the proposal, and the submitters direction for change is not clear and has incorrect references. Number Eligible to Vote: 15 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 ANNEX G ________________________________________ 1-172 Log #535 NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject (Annex G 80.13(15)) ________________________________________ Submitter: William Torres, Ludvik Electric Recommendation: Revise text to read: 80.13(15) The authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to waive specific requirements in this code or permit alternative methods where is assured that equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining effective safety. Technical documentation shall be submitted to the authority having jurisdiction to demonstrate equivalency and that the system, method, or device is approved for the intended purpose. Substantiation: This section of the National Electrical Code 2002 edition seems to be contradicting to the standards of code. As electricians, we are required to perform our duties under the requirements of the National electrical Code. When these requirements are altered according to different interpretations of code by different authorities, it is inconsistent. The authority having jurisdiction being Federal, State or local should all be under the same requirements with no exceptions for alterations. Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: It is not the purpose of the NEC to suppress emerging technology. See Section 90.4, in which the authority having jurisdiction has the authority to waive specific requirements or permit alternative methods. A number of states and municipalities have adopted laws which waive specific requirements, permit alternative methods, or impose additional requirements. Annex G is for informational purposes and is not a part of the requirements of the NEC unless specifically adopted by the local jurisdiction adopting the NEC.

70-996

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA

Number Eligible to Vote: 12 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12

NFPA 70

(f) The compatibility of the overload protective devices and the size of the protected conductor. (g) The type of branch circuit wiring (BX, conduit, Romex, knob and tube, ________________________________________ wire mold, other). 1-173 Log #1659 NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject (h) If there is ground fault protection provided. (Annex G 80.90(D)) (i) If the system is grounded. ________________________________________ (3) The Inspector is not required to: Submitter: Joe Tedesco, Boston, MA (a) Collect engineering data on the compatibility of the disconnects and indiRecommendation: Existing Electrical Systems: vidual circuit breakers with the panel and or determine the short circuit inter (1) The Home Inspector shall observe: rupting current capacity. (Engineering services). (a) The exterior of the exposed service entrance conductors. (b) Determine and or report on the adequacy of the in place systems to pro (b) Readily accessible Service equipment, grounding equipment, main over vide sufficient power to the dwelling, or reflect on the sufficiency of the eleccurrent device, main and distribution panels. tric distribution system in the dwelling (Engineering services). (c) Amperage and voltage ratings of the service. (c) Insert any tool, probe, or testing device inside the panels. (d) The exterior of the readily accessible exposed branch circuit conductors, (d) Test or operate any over current device except Ground Fault Circuit their over current devices, and the compatibility of their ampacities and voltInterrupters. ages. (e) Dismantle any electrical device or control other than to remove the covers (e) The operation of a representative number of permanently installed lightof the main and sub-distribution panels, if readily accessible and not painted in ing fixtures, switches and receptacles located inside the house, garage, and on place. its exterior walls. (f) Observe and or report on: (f) The polarity and grounding of all three-prong receptacles within six feet The quality of the conductor insulation. (Electrical Services). of interior plumbing fixtures and all readily accessible nondedicated receptacles Test for Electro-Magnetic fields. (Electrical Services). in the garage and on the exterior of inspected structures. Low voltage systems, door bells. (g) The operation of Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters. Smoke detectors (Sellers responsibility). (2) The Inspector shall report on the following: Telephone, security alarms, cable TV, intercoms, or other ancillary wiring (a) The size and the voltage of the main service disconnect (30, 60, 100, 125, that is not a part of the primary electrical distribution system. 150 and or 200 amp, other service, 120, 120/240, 120/208-volt system). Substantiation: This information should be available for the public to review (b) Service entry conductor materials (copper and or aluminum, if aluminum and to make the Home Inspection Community follow rules that will lead to are the tips coated with a corrosion inhibitor and is the over load device rated electrical safety. for the use of aluminum wire). Panel Meeting Action: Reject (c) Service type as being overhead or underground. Panel Statement: The Electrical Inspection Code for Existing Dwellings, (d) The number of branch circuits in the panels. NFPA 73 is available to the home inspection community. The suggested subject (e) The type of branch circuit conductor materials (copper and or aluminum, matter is not within the stated purpose of Annex G, Article 80. The proposal if aluminum are the tips coated with a corrosion inhibitor and is the over load does not contain substantiation as required by 4.3.3(d) of the Regulations device rated for the use of aluminum wire). Governing Committee Projects. Number Eligible to Vote: 12 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12

70-997

FORM FOR COMMENTS FOR 2008 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE

INSTRUCTIONS PLEASE READ CAREFULLY Type or print legibly in black ink. Use a separate copy for each comment. Limit each comment to a SINGLE section. All comments must be received by NFPA by 5 p.m., EDST, Friday, October 20, 2006, to be considered for the 2008 National Electrical Code. Comments received after 5:00 p.m., EDST, Friday, October 20, 2006 will be returned to the submitter. If supplementary material (photographs, diagrams, reports, etc.) is included, you may be required to submit sufficient copies for all members and alternates of the technical committee. Please indicate in which format you wish to receive your ROP/ROC electronic LOG # Date Rec'd: Office Use Only

paper

download

(Note: In choosing the download option you intend to view the ROP/ROC from our website; no copy will be sent to you.)

Date________________Name________________________________________________Tel. No. Company _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Street Address_________________________________City________________________State______Zip _________________

Please indicate organization represented (if any)_______________________________________________________________ 1. Section/Paragraph 2. 3. Comment on Proposal No. (from ROP): ________________ Comment recommends: (check one) new text revised text deleted text

4. Comment (include proposed new or revised wording, or identification of wording to be deleted): (Note: Proposed text should be in legislative format; i.e., use underscore to denote wording to be inserted (inserted wording) and strike-through to denote wording to be deleted (deleted wording). _________________________________________________________________

5. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Comment: (Note: State the problem that will be resolved by your recommendation; give the specific reason for your comment including copies of tests, research papers, fire experience, etc. If more than 200 words, it may be abstracted for publication.) _____________________________________________________________________

6. Copyright Assignment (a)

I am the author of the text or other material (such as illustrations, graphs) proposed in this comment.

(b) Some or all of the text or other material proposed in this comment was not authored by me. Its source is as follows: (please identify which material and provide complete information on its source)______________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ I hereby grant and assign to the NFPA all and full rights in copyright in this comment and understand that I acquire no rights in any publication of NFPA in which this comment in this or another similar or analogous form is used. Except to the extent that I do not have authority to make an assignment in materials that I have identified in (b) above, I hereby warrant that I am the author of this comment and that I have full power and authority to enter into this assignment. Signature (Required) _____________________________________ PLEASE USE SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH COMMENT NFPA Fax: (617) 770-3500 Mail to: Secretary, Standards Council, National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471