National Fire Protection Association
1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471
Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org
MEMORANDUM
TO:
NEC® Code-Making Panel 18
FROM:
Kimberly Shea, Administrator, Technical Projects
DATE:
January 18, 2016
SUBJECT:
NFPA 70 Second Draft TC Ballot Circulation (A2016)
The January 15, 2016 date for receipt of the NEC Second Draft Ballots has passed.
The preliminary ballot results are shown on the attached report.
12 Principal Members
10 Members Eligible to Vote on All
2 Members Vote Limited – (see attached report)
0 Ballots Not Returned
In accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards,
attached are reasons for negative votes for review so you may change your ballot if you wish.
Abstentions and affirmative comments are also included. Ballots received from alternate members
are not included unless the ballot from the principal member was not received.
If you wish to change your vote, the change must be received at NFPA on or before Friday,
January 22, 2016. Members who have not returned a ballot may do so now. Changes must be
submitted through the NFPA Vote.net Ballot site.
The return of ballots is required by the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA
Standards.
NEC-P18 SD Ballot Circulation_1_18_16
SR-5128, Definition: Receptacle., See SR-5128
Eligible to Vote: 10
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Votes Comments
Affirmative
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Abstain
10
0
0
0
SR-5103, Section No. 393.6, See SR-5103
Eligible to Vote: 10
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Votes Comments
Affirmative
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Hakim Hasan
9
0
1
Abstain
0
SR-5111, Section No. 406.3(E), See SR-5111
All OSHA NRTLs require that, as do all Certification Organizations that are accredited by
the Standards Council of Canada (SCC). It is the prerogative of those accreditation bodies
to tell listing organizations how to operate their certification schemes. It would be
improper for NFPA to encroach on OSHA’s and SCC’s prerogatives. Because all listed
equipment leaves the manufacturer’s facility with the authorized mark on it, the added
language is wholly unnecessary
Eligible to Vote: 10
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Votes Comments
Affirmative
7+B1
0
1
Affirmative with Comment
Randall K. Wright
Adding the word controlled is needed and clear. Not all of us understand the symbols.
Negative
Frederick L. Carpenter
2
NEMA does not support this proposed revision. The marking symbol was in the previous
Code with no issues of confusion as to what the switched symbol means. Receptacle
outlets are very limited in space for marking and adding descriptive words is often not
possible. An international symbol was chosen to represent a “switched or controlled”
device. Symbols are commonly used on receptacle outlets to denote suitability for other
applications such as Hospital grade (Green dot), Isolated ground (Orange triangle) and
Weather Resistant (WR). The symbol chosen was approved in the last code cycle as it
most closely inferred the intended function. It is already in use across a wide number of
installed receptacle outlets without any issues. Introducing a different marking will add
confusion and present legibility issues on small receptacle faces with compound curves.
Examples of more expensive receptacles with flat faces were presented to the panel,
not the traditional curved face receptacles that are usually more economical. Requiring
the word “controlled” on the receptacle outlet and not alternatively on the faceplate
will limit installation options. Installers will be required to carry two types of receptacle;
one with the word “controlled” and others without the word “controlled” instead of the
previously allowed faceplate with the symbol. The proposed change also fails to
consider the additional requirements of indicating which receptacle is controlled. On the
flat surface receptacle this can be accomplished, however on the traditional receptacle
there is not enough room nor flat surface to place the marking. Eliminating the
previously accepted faceplate option will cause confusion and add cost where neither is
needed
Charles S. Kurten
This symbol was added to the 2014 NEC code (406.3E) for the purpose of supporting
energy management and building automation. To date, there have been no issues or
confusion as to what this internationally recognized symbol means. The intent of using
an internationally recognized symbol was not to rely on any particular language (i.e.
English) as a means of conveying its function. By adding the word “Controlled” in
addition to the symbol, provides no further clarity or understanding to the user. The
suggested proposal lacks any clear and concise evidence of any potential safety hazard.
In today’s market there are a variety of symbols marked on the face of a receptacle
including: 1. An “orange” colored triangle denoting isolated ground; 2. A “green” dot
denoting hospital grade 3. The letters “TR” denoting tamper- resistant 4. The letters
“WR” denoting weather resistant. So why are we treating this identifier differently? How
can one conclude that adding the word “Controlled” provides further clarity? I agree and
would expect that a Code Panel member or someone familiar with the NEC understands
what these markings mean. This is no different than “TR” in a dwelling unit or a “green”
colored dot in a hospital patient care area installation. I would also expect a qualified
installer and AHJ to be knowledgeable of the NEC. I would not expect a medical field
professional such as a doctor or nurse in a hospital setting to understand what the
“green” dot marked on the receptacle means or the store cashier at the big box store
who has a cash resister plugged-into a receptacle outlet that has a “orange” colored
triangle market on it or even a new home owner that has receptacles that are marked
“TR”. In all cases, the user does not know or possibly has no interest in knowing. In all of
these installations including the receptacle with the controlled receptacle marking
symbol, there is no safety issue. I believe that education would play a larger role than
adding the word “Controlled” as we continue to further expand energy conservation
initiatives. Removing the option to mark the receptacle cover plate will limit installation
options and potentially increase installation costs without any increased benefit.
Abstain
0
SR-5104, Section No. 406.4(D)(2), See SR-5104
Eligible to Vote: 10
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Affirmative
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Abstain
Votes Comments
10
0
0
0
SR-5105, Section No. 406.4(D)(4), See SR-5105
Eligible to Vote: 10
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Votes Comments
Affirmative
10+B
32
0
0
0
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Abstain
SR-5106, Section No. 406.5, See SR-5106
Eligible to Vote: 10
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Affirmative
Votes Comments
10
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Abstain
0
0
0
SR-5101, Section No. 406.9(A), See SR-5101
Eligible to Vote: 10
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Affirmative
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Abstain
Votes Comments
10
0
0
0
SR-5102, Section No. 406.9(B)(1), See SR-5102
Eligible to Vote: 10+A58
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Affirmative
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Abstain
Votes Comments
10
0
0
0
SR-5107, Section No. 406.12, See SR-5107
Eligible to Vote: 10
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Affirmative
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Abstain
Votes Comments
10
0
0
0
SR-5112, Section No. 410.6, See SR-5112
Eligible to Vote: 12+A94
Not Returned : 11
Vote Selection
Affirmative
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Abstain
Votes Comments
11
0
0
0
SR-5108, Section No. 410.56(D), See SR-5108
Eligible to Vote: 11
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Affirmative
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Abstain
Votes Comments
11
0
0
0
SR-5109, Section No. 410.62(C)(1), See SR-5109
Eligible to Vote: 11
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Affirmative
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Abstain
Votes Comments
11
0
0
0
SR-5110, Section No. 410.136(B), See SR-5110
Eligible to Vote: 11
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Affirmative
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Abstain
Votes Comments
11
0
0
0
SR-5113, Sections 411.4(A), 411.4(B), See SR-5113
Eligible to Vote: 11
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Affirmative
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Hakim Hasan
Abstain
SR-5119, Section No. 600.1, See SR-5119
Eligible to Vote: 11
Not Returned : 0
Votes Comments
10
0
1
All OSHA NRTLs require that, as do all Certification Organizations that are accredited by
the Standards Council of Canada (SCC). It is the prerogative of those accreditation bodies
to tell listing organizations how to operate their certification schemes. It would be
improper for NFPA to encroach on OSHA’s and SCC’s prerogatives. Because all listed
equipment leaves the manufacturer’s facility with the authorized mark on it, the added
language is wholly unnecessary
0
Vote Selection
Votes Comments
Affirmative
11+B
133
0
0
0
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Abstain
SR-5114, Section No. 600.3, See SR-5114
Eligible to Vote: 11
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Affirmative
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Hakim Hasan
Abstain
Votes Comments
10
0
1
All OSHA NRTLs require that, as do all Certification Organizations that are accredited by
the Standards Council of Canada (SCC). It is the prerogative of those accreditation bodies
to tell listing organizations how to operate their certification schemes. It would be
improper for NFPA to encroach on OSHA’s and SCC’s prerogatives. Because all listed
equipment leaves the manufacturer’s facility with the authorized mark on it, the added
language is wholly unnecessary
0
SR-5120, Section No. 600.4(B), See SR-5120
Eligible to Vote: 11+A184
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Affirmative
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Abstain
Votes Comments
11
0
0
0
SR-5126, Section No. 600.6 [Excluding any Sub-Sections], See SR-5126
Eligible to Vote: 11
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Affirmative
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Abstain
Votes Comments
11
0
0
0
SR-5127, Section No. 600.6(A)(1), See SR-5127
Eligible to Vote: 11
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Affirmative
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Votes Comments
11
0
0
Abstain
0
SR-5125, Section No. 600.12(C), See SR-5125
Eligible to Vote: 11+A219
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Affirmative
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Abstain
Votes Comments
11
0
0
0
SR-5115, Section No. 600.22(A), See SR-5115
Eligible to Vote: 11
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Votes Comments
Affirmative
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Hakim Hasan
10
0
1
All OSHA NRTLs require that, as do all Certification Organizations that are accredited by
the Standards Council of Canada (SCC). It is the prerogative of those accreditation bodies
to tell listing organizations how to operate their certification schemes. It would be
improper for NFPA to encroach on OSHA’s and SCC’s prerogatives. Because all listed
equipment leaves the manufacturer’s facility with the authorized mark on it, the added
language is wholly unnecessary
Abstain
0
SR-5116, Section No. 600.23(A), See SR-5116
Eligible to Vote: 11
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Affirmative
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Votes Comments
10
0
1
Hakim Hasan
All OSHA NRTLs require that, as do all Certification Organizations that are accredited by
the Standards Council of Canada (SCC). It is the prerogative of those accreditation bodies
to tell listing organizations how to operate their certification schemes. It would be
improper for NFPA to encroach on OSHA’s and SCC’s prerogatives. Because all listed
equipment leaves the manufacturer’s facility with the authorized mark on it, the added
language is wholly unnecessary
Abstain
0
SR-5117, Section No. 600.24(A), See SR-5117
Eligible to Vote: 11
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Votes Comments
Affirmative
10+B
24610
1
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Hakim Hasan
Abstain
All OSHA NRTLs require that, as do all Certification Organizations that are accredited by
the Standards Council of Canada (SCC). It is the prerogative of those accreditation bodies
to tell listing organizations how to operate their certification schemes. It would be
improper for NFPA to encroach on OSHA’s and SCC’s prerogatives. Because all listed
equipment leaves the manufacturer’s facility with the authorized mark on it, the added
language is wholly unnecessary
0
SR-5124, Section No. 600.33(A) [Excluding any Sub-Sections], See SR-5124
Eligible to Vote: 11
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Votes Comments
Affirmative
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Abstain
11
0
0
0
SR-5123, Section No. 600.33(B), See SR-5123
Eligible to Vote: 11
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Affirmative
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Abstain
Votes Comments
11
0
0
0
SR-5122, Section No. 600.34 [Excluding any Sub-Sections], See SR-5122
Eligible to Vote: 11
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Affirmative
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Votes Comments
11
0
0
Abstain
0
SR-5121, Section No. 600.34(D), See SR-5121
Eligible to Vote: 12
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Votes Comments
Affirmative
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Abstain
11
0
0
0
SR-5118, Section No. 600.42(H), See SR-5118
Eligible to Vote: 11
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection
Affirmative
Affirmative with Comment
Negative
Hakim Hasan
Abstain
Votes Comments
10
0
1
All OSHA NRTLs require that, as do all Certification Organizations that are accredited by
the Standards Council of Canada (SCC). It is the prerogative of those accreditation bodies
to tell listing organizations how to operate their certification schemes. It would be
improper for NFPA to encroach on OSHA’s and SCC’s prerogatives. Because all listed
equipment leaves the manufacturer’s facility with the authorized mark on it, the added
language is wholly unnecessary
0