National Fire Protection Association. 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA Phone: Fax:

Transcription

1 National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA Phone: Fax: M E M O R A N D U M TO: Members of the NEC-Code Making Panel 3 FROM: Jean O Connor DATE: March 9, 2012 SUBJECT: NFPA 70 ROP Final Ballot Results (A2013 Cycle) The March 8, 2012 date for circulation changes and final receipt of letter ballots has passed. In accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects, the attached report contains the number of members eligible to vote, the names of principals whose ballots were not returned, and the reasons for negative, affirmative and abstaining comments. Attachment: Final Ballot Results Report

2 1 3-1 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 0 Entire Document (Log # 1170b ) 3-2 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 0 Entire Document (Log # 921b ) 3-3 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: Burial Cover (New), 300.5, , , and (Log # 1342 ) 3-4 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: Fire Alarm Circuit (New) and (Log # 2773 ) 3-5 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: Plenum, Informational Note (New) (Log # 3040 ) 3-6 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: Power-Limited Fire Alarm Circuit (PLFA) (New) and (Log # 2775 ) 3-7 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: Type ITC Instrumentation Tray Cable (New) and (Log # 2772 ) 3-8 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 0 300, Title (Log # 159 ) 3-9 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 160 ) Stene, S. The actual text with new words underlined should read as follows: This article covers the general requirements for wiring methods and materials for all wiring installations unless modified by other articles in Chapter Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 13 : 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 962 ) Burlison, S. It is recognized that increasing voltage from 600 volts to 1000 volts may be applicable to specific installations. However, adequate technical substantiation has not been provided to support the change in this Article Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 231 )

3 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 13 : 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 963 ) Burlison, S. It is recognized that increasing voltage from 600 volts to 1000 volts may be applicable to specific installations. However, adequate technical substantiation has not been provided to support the change in this Article Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 13 : 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B)300.5(l), and (A) (Log # 3293b ) Mills, T. The Panel should have accepted the proposal and deferred implementation to Panel 5. The IEEE has reviewed all the statements on this subject by various panels. The following represents the IEEE position on the issue of equipment grounding conductor or equipment bonding conductor. Similar proposals have been presented in the past and have been rejected. Reasons given often relate to cost, significant changes in documentation required, or the fact that knowledgeable people understand the use of this conductor. There is no justification for retaining an incorrect and potentially hazardous electrical installation just because this definition has been used in the NEC for many years. Costs associated with documentation changes should never be an argument where safety is concerned. Further, not all electrical practitioners are knowledgeable in the main intent of this conductor. The intent of the proposed change is to provide a descriptive name to a construction element that has resulted in much misunderstanding with possible hazardous operating conditions in electrical installations. The use of the term grounding implies that grounding is its principal function. Although grounding may be desirable, providing an effective fault current path (i.e. bonding) is and should be the emphasis. There are many who assert that a connection to a water pipe meets the needs of equipment grounding, however, this connection does not perform the necessary effective fault current path back to the source. There are two conductors described in the Code performing the same function but named differently. The bonding jumper is a short conductor that insures the electrical integrity of enclosure to raceway. The longer conductor, intended to provide a low impedance path to the source, is presently named a grounding conductor instead of its real function as a bonding conductor. Technically, the definition in Article 100 may be adequate for Panel members and those that teach. Practically, the definition is confusing if the terminology does not fit the function performed. The equipment bonding conductor, as it should be called, provides its primary function whether or not it is grounded. For a grounded system, it is grounded because the system is grounded. For an ungrounded system, it is grounded to limit the voltage due to a lightning strike or contact with a higher voltage system. Changing the name will assist in educating users of the Code as to why they are installing a conductor that needs to be continuous all of the way back to the source Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (C)(2)(d) (Log # 414 ) 3-15 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (C)(2)(d) (Log # 666 ) 3-15a Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (C)(2)(d) (Log # CP300 ) 3-16 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 578 )

4 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: , 300.7, , , , (Log # 1806 ) 3-18 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: , and (A)(2) (Log # 2035 ) 3-19 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: , 300.7, , , , and (Log # 2458 ) 3-20 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 2494 ) 3-21 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A), 300.5, 300.7, , , and (Log # 2358 ) 3-22 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A)300.5, 300.7, , , and (Log # 2380 ) 3-23 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A)(1) (Log # 2376 ) 3-24 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A)(1) (Log # 3335 ) 3-25 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A)(1) Exception No. 1 (Log # 238 ) 3-26 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A)(2) Exception No. 1 (Log # 239 ) 3-27 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B), and (Log # 1676 ) 3-28 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B) and (Log # 1849 )

5 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (D) (Log # 2308 ) 3-30 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (D) (Log # 3334 ) 3-31 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (D) (Log # 3336 ) 3-32 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (D) Exception No. 3 (Log # 2307 ) 3-33 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (E) (Log # 2515 ) 3-34 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (G) (Log # 579 ) 3-35 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (I) (New) (Log # 806 ) 3-36 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 13 : 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 964 ) Burlison, S. It is recognized that increasing voltage from 600 volts to 1000 volts may be applicable to specific installations. However, adequate technical substantiation has not been provided to support the change in this Article Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 0 Table (Log # 1957 ) Stene, S. Add a comma after the word "depth" and after the word "protected" in the first sentence Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 0 Table (Log # 2070 ) 3-39 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 0 Table (Log # 2733 )

6 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B) (Log # 337 ) 3-41 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B) Exception (New) (Log # 240 ) 3-42 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (C) (Log # 1721 ) 3-43 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (D) (Log # 3078 ) 3-44 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 12 : 2 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (D)(3) (Log # 2571 ) Casparro, P. This proposal should have been accepted. Feeder and branch circuit protection, although protected by overcurrent protection, causes a safety problem for the electrical worker. The available fault current at various facilities has been changing all the time with utilities upgrading transformers, new equipment being added to buildings such as computers, electronic ballasts and other office equipment. The utilities aren't necessarily notifying the customers of such changers. If the overcurrent protection isn't changed to match the change in the available fault current present at these facilities, we are putting workers in grave danger. The facilitation of the overcurrent device will be compromised if the change isn't made. Damage to any of the cables or conductors could be deadly to the worker. Whistler, W. Adding feeders and branch circuits to this section would provide a warning for the property owner who is digging on the load of the service. The overcurrent protection (OCP) will not always operate. The OCP will not operate if only one conductor is damaged, however, if a human should contact the damaged conductor they could be electrocuted without operation of the OCP Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (D)(3) (Log # 3079 ) 3-46 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (I) (Log # 2572 ) 3-47 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (I) Exception No. 1 (Log # 179 )

7 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (J) (Log # 89 ) 3-49 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A) (Log # 2573 ) 3-50 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A) (Log # 2708 ) 3-51 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A), Informational Note (New) (Log # 1510 ) Easter, L. NEMA agrees with the Panel action but the revised wording should have included elbows and nipples so that the text would read: "Field-cut threads are those threads that are cut in conduit, elbows, or nipples anywhere other than at the factory where the product is listed. " This proposal was submitted to address proposals submitted during the 2011 cycle that concerned corrosion protection of threads on elbows and nipples. The text the Panel accepted only addresses conduit and not the products of primary concern. Stene, S. Delete the last sentence in the Panel Statement since it already appears as the first sentence Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B) (Log # 241 ) 3-53 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (E) (New) (Log # 2535 ) Stene, S. Delete the word "requirement" from the Panel Statement since it is redundant Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 603 ) 3-55 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 1708 ) 3-56 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: Exception (Log # 43 ) 3-57 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A)(1) (Log # 391 )

8 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B) (Log # 2270 ) 3-59 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 1289 ) Stene, S. The submitter did not provide any technical substantiation provided to warrant removing this section from the NEC Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 1295 ) 3-61 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 1372 ) 3-62 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 1384 ) 3-63 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 145 ) 3-64 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: , Informational Note 1 (Log # 2170 ) 3-65 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B)(1) (Log # 348 ) 3-66 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (C) (Log # 2302 ) 3-67 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: Exception No. 2 (Log # 518 ) 3-68 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: Exception No. 2 (Log # 3252 )

9 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 1371 ) 3-70 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 3413 ) 3-71 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (E) (Log # 88 ) 3-72 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: , , and (A)(1) (Log # 1896 ) 3-73 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 2758 ) 3-74 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: , (B), and (C) (Log # 2787 ) 3-75 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: , , and (C)(1) (Log # 2812 ) 3-76 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: , Informational Note (Log # 2759 ) Stene, S. In addition to the statement provided, NUCC already has cables or conductors installed by the manufacturer, auxiliary gutters are not raceways, and the additional references provided in the proposal are unnecessary Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: , Informational Note (Log # 2822 ) 3-78 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: , Informational Note (Log # 2848 ) 3-79 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (C) (New) (Log # 2677 ) Stene, S. The third sentence in the Panel Statement should be changed to read as follows: Requiring the wiring methods mounted on the roof to not be removable during roof replacement would be infeasible in many cases.

10 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 0 Table (A) (Log # 2306 ) 3-81 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B) (Log # 1306 ) Clary, S. The panel's rejection of the proposed requirements without an overall nonmetallic covering for some products is based on present listing requirements for Type MI cable. This approach to code development seems to leave the door open for some products to be listed with an overall nonmetallic covering at some time in the future. The NEC should set the base requirement, causing testing laboratories to establishing test standards based on code requirements Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B) (Log # 2148 ) 3-83 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B)(1) and (B)(2) (Log # 2662 ) 3-84 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (C)(1) (Log # 1307 ) 3-85 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (C)(1) (Log # 2351 ) 3-86 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (C)(1) (Log # 2942 ) 3-87 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (C)(3) (Log # 1512 ) 3-88 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (New) (Log # 586 ) 3-89 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 13 : 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 0 300, Part II (Log # 1029 )

11 10 Burlison, S. It is recognized that increasing voltage from 600 volts to 1000 volts may be applicable to specific installations. However, adequate technical substantiation has not been provided to support the change in this Article Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 1742 ) 3-91 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 2274 ) 3-92 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (New) (Log # 580 ) 3-93 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (I) (New) (Log # 3220 ) 3-94 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (New) (Log # 3080 ) 3-95 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 0 Table (Log # 424 ) 3-96 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A)(3) (Log # 3164 ) 3-97 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (D)(4) (Log # 44 ) 3-98 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (F) (Log # 1702 ) 3-99 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (G) (New) (Log # 1051 ) Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (C) (Log # 500 )

12 Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (D)(2) (Log # 333 ) Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (D)(2) (Log # 1511 ) Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (E) Exception (New) (Log # 2769 ) Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (I) (Log # 281 ) Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 11 : 3 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (J) (Log # 3365 ) Casparro, P. This proposal should have been accepted in principle. The panel statement conflicts with the existing requirement. There is no practical reason to permit temporary branch circuits or feeders in cable assemblies or flexible cords on the floor or ground. Extension cords are permitted to be on the floor or ground because they are GFCI protected. The proposed revision should be accepted in principle as follows: (J) Support of Branch Circuits and Feeders. Cable assemblies and flexible cords and cables shall be supported in place at intervals that ensure that they will be protected from physical damage. Support shall be in the form of staples, cable ties, straps, or similar type fittings installed so as not to cause damage. Cable assemblies and flexible cords and cables shall not be laid in the floor or the ground. Clary, S. The addition of an added requirement, Cable assemblies and flexible cords shall not be permitted to be laid on the floor or the ground, to 590.4(J) makes sense. Various trades can inadvertently damage cables and cords that lay on the ground. Electrical safety is important: A job site is often a wet location. A damaged cable or cord is a potential shock hazard.

13 12 Whistler, W. This proposal should be re-evaluated and perhaps changed to be accep in principle. In most cases unlike the extension cord on the job site the feeders and branch circuits that are being referenced are not protected by a ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) for personnel protection. Therefore they should not be afforded the same provisions for installation. The practice of allowing feeders and branch circuits in cable assemblies or flexible cords appears to be in conflict with current interpretation of OSHA regulations which are resulting in fines for employers. The proposed revision to 590.4(J) should be accepted in principle as follows: (J) Support of Branch Circuits and Feeders. Cable assemblies and flexible cords and cables shall be supported in place at intervals that ensure that they will be protected from physical damage. Support shall be in the form of staples, cable ties, straps, or similar type fittings installed so as not to cause damage. Cable assemblies and flexible cords and cables shall not be laid in the floor or the ground. Vegetation shall not be used for support of overhead spans of branch circuits or feeders. Exception: (No change). Burlison, S. The instances cited are all covered by the initial text in 590.4(J) and also 590.4(H) where it states that the flexible cords and cables are to be protected from physical damage. As for wet locations, 590 does not give permission for non-wet location wiring methods to be used "temporarily" in wet locations when they are elsewhere prohibited from use in wet locations. (I said that awkwardly but you get the idea.) The original Panel statement is correct; the existing text does not permit cables to be used in any manner that is not permitted in their respective Articles. (See 590.2(A). and (B).) Kahn, S. While I agree with the panel action, the recommended text to too broad. The submitter has identified a problem that should be considered and incorporated into this section. While extra hard use cords do provide a reasonable degree of protection from anticipated physical damage, cables such as NM cable and SE cable assemblies installed for branch circuits and feeders should be properly supported to reduce the damage and resulting unsafe conditions. The proposal should be adjusted to address and not prohibt normal use of extension cords for temporary installations. NECA recommends that a comment be submitted for the ROC meeting modifying the proposal to reflect the specific problem cited in the panel statement Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A) (Log # 3343 ) Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A), Informational Note (New) (Log # 2121 ) 3-107a Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 13 : 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A)(1) (Log # 3522 )

14 13 Easter, L. NEMA is voting negative. The proposal should have been accepted. When Paragraph 590.6(A) in NFPA was revised for NFPA to separate the outlets between those not part of as well as those part of permanent wiring, the allowance for portable listed GFCI devices for both types of outlets was revised to only permit them only for permanent wired outlets. The allowance was deleted from outlets not part of permanent wiring, thereby permitting only GFCI receptacles or circuit breaker type GFCIs. Since only portable listed GFCI devices are required to have open neutral detection and power removal in such an occurrence, the safety protection provided by the 2008 version was potentially diminished in the 2011 version. The proposal returns the permitting of portable listed GFCI devices to outlets not part of permanent wirings as it was in NFPA , 509.6(A). The added wording is identical to that of the permanent wired outlet section 590.6(A)(2) of NFPA and as it was in NFPA (A). Since outlets not part of permanent wiring are more likely to have an open neutral condition than permanently wired outlets, it is NEMA's position that allowance of usage of portable listed GFCI devices should also be allowed for outlets not part of permanent wiring as it was in NFPA in order to restore the safety level that was provided by NFPA (a). OSHA responses to field questions concerning this topic have recommended use of portable listed GFCI devices to provide this open neutral protection. The re-wording does not prohibit the use of GFCI receptacles, it only adds the allowance of listed portable GFCI devices, as was allowed in the NFPA edition. Such an interpretation of the proposal could also be applied to Paragraph (A)(2) permanent wired outlets of NFPA If Paragraph 590.6(A)(1) of NFPA is revised to require only listed Class A GFCI devices providing open-neutral protection, either circuit breaker, receptacle or portable GFCI NRTL listed devices may be used and the NEMA concern will be resolved. Stene, S. Change the fourth sentence by deleting the word "as" to read as follows: These cord sets should not take the place of the other GFCI protection at the source, since that leaves the extension cord or cable unprotected Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 998 ) Burlison, S. It is recognized that increasing voltage from 600 volts to 1000 volts may be applicable to specific installations. However, adequate technical substantiation has not been provided to support the change in this Article Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (New) (Log # 106 ) Stene, S. Combine the last two sentences in the Panel Statement to read as follows: Therefore, a shock hazard would not be present and this new section is unnecessary Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 68 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 69 )

15 Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 70 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 71 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 72 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 73 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 0 725, Part I (Log # 1697 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: and (Log # 3355 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 14 : 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: Cable Routing Assembly, , , , , (Log # 1625 ) Easter, L. NEMA is voting negative on the proposal because it includes requirements for a plenum rated cable routing assembly where there is no corresponding application for the product. While it is permitted as a substitute for the riser and lower rated Cable Routing assemblies, its use in plenums is not permitted by the NEC or by NFPA 90A that has jurisdiction over wiring in air handling plenum spaces. An Informational Note after the requirements for Riser cable routing assemblies would be appropriate in place of the proposed requirement. The Informational note would indicate that Cable routing assemblies that exhibit 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 the plenum test in UL 2024 Signaling, Optical Fiber and Communications Raceways and Cable Routing Assemblies are considered suitable wherever cable routing assemblies that pass the requirements of the test for flame propagation (riser) in UL 2024 Signaling, Optical Fiber and Communications Raceways and Cable Routing Assemblies are required Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: Class 2 Circuit (Log # 1278 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: Class 3 Circuit (Log # 1279 )

16 Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: Non-Safety Control Equipment (New) (Log # 756 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: Safety Control Equipment (New) (Log # 755 ) 3-122a Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (K) and (L) (Log # CP301 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (G) (Log # 2817 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (New) (Log # 3485 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 2943 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 3140 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B) and (H) (Log # 1829 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B) and (H) (Log # 2054 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B) and (H) (Log # 2421 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B) and (H) (Log # 2447 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (New) (Log # 3332 )

17 16 Stene, S. Surge protection devices are permitted to be installed, based on the requirements in Article 285, on most electrical systems but are not required to be installed. Whether to install a surge protection device is a design issue based on power surges and lightning in the area where the alarm is installed. Surges could be generated within the building where the alarm is installed. There are certainly areas around the country where lightning and power surges are more common than in other areas but not all burglar alarm systems should be required to have a surge protection device Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B) (Log # 1014 ) Burlison, S. It is recognized that increasing voltage from 600 volts to 1000 volts may be applicable to specific installations. However, adequate technical substantiation has not been provided to support the change in this Article Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 2524 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: , Informational Note (New) (Log # 2523 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B) (Log # 2522 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B)(4)(2) (Log # 1015 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 1386 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B) (Log # 1016 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B) (Log # 1706 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 1017 ) Burlison, S. It is recognized that increasing voltage from 600 volts to 1000 volts may be applicable to specific installations. However, adequate technical substantiation has not been provided to support the change in this Article.

18 Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: , , 727.6, , and , Informational Note (Log # 2638a ) Stene, S. Based on how the NEC has included references to other organizations standards throughout the Code, it is not appropriate to include the edition and revision date Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A)(5) (Log # 3021 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 757 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A), Informational Note 2 (New) (Log # 2678 ) Stene, S. The existing Informational Note in (A) applies only to (A), Exception No. 2 and not to the main requirements in (A). Adding an additional informational note will only cause confusion in the industry. Inspectors and electricians know that Class 2 circuit conductors cannot be installed with power conductors and this restriction is adequately covered in The substantiation is incorrect that a Class 2 circuit should be able to be installed with power conductors using Class 1 conductors and then revert back to a Class 2 wiring method after leaving the power wiring installation. Section (A) permits Class 1 wiring methods and materials to be used for Class 2 and Class 3 circuits but the circuits must still comply with all of the requirements for a Class 2 or a Class 3 circuit. Section does not permit insulation of the conductors to be the only method of separation from power circuits since failure of the insulation from the power circuits could cause a failure of the insulation for the Class 2 or Class 3 circuits. This insulation failure could result in shock and fire hazards that are the main reasons for limiting the Class 2 and Class 3 circuits to the levels provided in Tables 11(A) and 11(B) in Chapter a Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: and (New) (Log # 3513 ) Stene, S. There has been no technical substantiation provided in the proposals for and that a Table only method of installation requirement would be better than the present text version. The second paragraph of the substantiation states that there are significant differences between Class 2, Class 3, PLTC circuits and communications circuits. Unlike communications circuits, there are so many different applications where Class 2 and Class 3 circuits are used for control, signaling, and similar circuits with these circuits having to interact with these other Articles in the NEC that a table only approach would not provide the necessary information for these applications. For example, where a Class 2 system is used for low voltage lighting based on Article 411, the wiring methods of Part III of Article 725 must be used and the installation requirements of as well as the power limitations of these circuits must be followed. Riser and plenum requirements of will apply but may require signaling raceways and the use of plenum or riser conductors inside these raceways.

19 Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: and (New) (Log # 1056 ) Stene, S. See my affirmative comment on Proposal 3-144a Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: and (New) (Log # 2551 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (D)(1) (Log # 2679 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (H) (Log # 2870 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (I)(1) (Log # 1749 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (I)(1) (Log # 1906 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (I)(1) (Log # 2878 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 1057 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 2552 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (New) (Log # 2259 ) 3-154a Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 14 : 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 3514 )

20 19 Stene, S. The following comments apply to the version of Table in the attachment in the dated February 13 from Kimberly Shea. The term `Not Permitted' in the row `In plenum cable routing assemblies' for use in Other Spaces used for Environmental Air as described in (C) was not discussed during the ROP meeting. NFPA 90A does not describe this plenum cable routing assembly, however, there is nothing to prevent a plenum routing assembly from being used in a riser or in another location within a building. Since the product was Listed as a plenum cable routing assembly, it should not be prevented from being installed in suitable locations. This item should be referred to the Technical Correlating Committee (TCC) for review Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 2311 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 14 : 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A), (B), and (C) (Log # 1058 ) Easter, L. The text in accepted by the panel permits plenum rated cable routing assemblies to be installed in other spaces used for environmental air as described in (C). Cable Routing assemblies are not permitted by the NEC or by NFPA 90A that has jurisdiction over wiring in air handling plenum spaces. Additionally, the proposed revisions include requirements for a plenum rated cable routing assembly where there is no corresponding application for the product. While it is permitted as a substitute for the riser and lower rated Cable Routing assemblies, its use in plenums is not permitted. See NEMA's comment on Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A) (Log # 2326 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 14 : 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A), (B), and (C) (Log # 2553 ) Easter, L. See NEMA's negative on Proposal Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 13 : 2 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B)(1) (Log # 1281 ) Clary, S. The submitter provides no (zero) fire loss data to justify increasing cable cost. That is, the submitter fails to supply documented evidence of a problem resulting from the present requirement. The existing requirement permits general purpose cable to penetrate one floor, but not two floors. Referring to the riser cable test as substantiation is confusing. The permission for general purpose cable (Types CL2 & CL3) to penetrate one floor, but not two floors, first appeared in the 1990 edition of the NEC. The requirement has been in the NEC for over 20 years, with no substantiated reason to change. The text developed by the panel, is similar to the 1987 NEC and earlier editions. Lastly, the UL 1666 vertical fire test permits a limited amount of upward flame spread. However, a real fire would impinge on the cable at ceiling level. If the fire is sufficient to cause a riser or general purpose cable to burn, the flame may travel to the floor above. There was a comment during the Panel 3 discussion indicating that fire-stopping may or may not be effective. Hopefully, the NEC TCC will carefully review the panel action on this proposal.

21 20 Stene, S. See my Explanation of Vote on Proposal Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 13 : 2 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B)(1) (Log # 2548 ) Clary, S. The submitter provides no (zero) fire loss data to justify increasing cable cost. That is, the submitter fails to supply documented evidence of a problem resulting from the present requirement. The existing requirement permits general purpose cable to penetrate one floor, but not two floors. Referring to the riser cable test as substantiation is confusing. The permission for general purpose cable (Types CL2 & CL3) to penetrate one floor, but not two floors, first appeared in the 1990 edition of the NEC. The requirement has been in the NEC for over 20 years, with no substantiated reason to change. The text developed by the panel, is similar to the 1987 NEC and earlier editions. Lastly, the UL 1666 vertical fire test permits a limited amount of upward flame spread. However, a real fire would impinge on the cable at ceiling level. If the fire is sufficient to cause a riser or general purpose cable to burn, the flame may travel to the floor above. There was a comment during the Panel 3 discussion indicating that fire-stopping may or may not be effective. Hopefully, the NEC TCC will carefully review the panel action on this proposal. Stene, S. The existing text in (B)(1) and (B)(1) does not agree with the existing text in (D). The proposed new text acted on by Panel 3 for Proposal and is different than the text in (D), and both are different than the text in UL 1666 standard for testing of riser cable. Proposals and should be referred to the Technical Correlating Committee (TCC) for review and possible action Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (D)(4) (Log # 596 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (D)(4) (Log # 2585 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (J) (New) (Log # 1570 ) Walsh, R. The proposal is appropriately relocated to section Other Articles in order to clarify the requirements for the cables to be listed for installation in a wet location and the Proposal was reworded to include listing for Corrosive and Damp locations installations a Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # CP303 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A), (D), and (C), Informational Note (Log # 1308 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (F) (Log # 2031 )

22 Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (G) (Log # 2671 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 2586 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 791 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 796 ) Eligible To Vote:14 Affirmative: 14 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (New) (Log # 2109 ) Stene, S. The text in 728.5(A) should not be underlined. The text after the header 'Pulling Lubricants' in 728.5(F) shall not be bold. The text in the second sentence of 728.5(H) shall be reworded to indicate "Splices shall be provided with manufacturers installation instructions' Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: Cable Routing Assembly, , , , , (Log # 1626 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: Fire Alarm Circuit (Log # 1178 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 590 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (New) (Log # 2714 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B) (Log # 2285 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 2944 )

23 22 Stene, S. The action on this proposal should have been the same action as on Proposal of an accept in principle since both proposals deal with the same issue. Either both should be reject or both should be an accept in principle. The Panel Statements are almost identical Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 3141 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A) and (B) (Log # 2108 ) 3-178a Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # CP302 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (New) (Log # 3333 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 97 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A) (Log # 1018 ) Burlison, S. It is recognized that increasing voltage from 600 volts to 1000 volts may be applicable to specific installations. However, adequate technical substantiation has not been provided to support the change in this Article Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B) (Log # 1019 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B) (Log # 2345 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A), (B), and (Log # 2388 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A), (B)(3), and (F) (Log # 2422 )

24 Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A)(2) and (3), (B)(2) and (3), and (F) (Log # 2055 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A)(3), (B)(3), and (F) (Log # 1830 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A)(3), (B)(3), and (F) (Log # 2448 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A)(3) and (F) (Log # 2871 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B)(1) (Log # 2312 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B)(2) (Log # 2313 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 13 : 2 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B)(3) (Log # 1282 ) Clary, S. The submitter provides no (zero) fire loss data to justify increasing cable cost. That is, the submitter fails to supply documented evidence of a problem resulting from the present requirement. The existing requirement permits general purpose cable to penetrate one floor, but not two floors. Referring to the riser cable test as substantiation is confusing. The permission for general purpose cable (Types CL2 & CL3) to penetrate one floor, but not two floors, first appeared in the 1990 edition of the NEC. The requirement has been in the NEC for over 20 years, with no substantiated reason to change. The text developed by the panel, is similar to the 1987 NEC and earlier editions. Lastly, the UL 1666 vertical fire test permits a limited amount of upward flame spread. However, a real fire would impinge on the cable at ceiling level. If the fire is sufficient to cause a riser or general purpose cable to burn, the flame may travel to the floor above. There was a comment during the Panel 3 discussion indicating that fire-stopping may or may not be effective. Hopefully, the NEC TCC will carefully review the panel action on this proposal. Stene, S. See my Explanation of Vote on Proposal Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 13 : 2 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B)(3) (Log # 2550 )

25 24 Clary, S. The submitter provides no (zero) fire loss data to justify increasing cable cost. That is, the submitter fails to supply documented evidence of a problem resulting from the present requirement. The existing requirement permits general purpose cable to penetrate one floor, but not two floors. Referring to the riser cable test as substantiation is confusing. The permission for general purpose cable (Types CL2 & CL3) to penetrate one floor, but not two floors, first appeared in the 1990 edition of the NEC. The requirement has been in the NEC for over 20 years, with no substantiated reason to change. The text developed by the panel, is similar to the 1987 NEC and earlier editions. Lastly, the UL 1666 vertical fire test permits a limited amount of upward flame spread. However, a real fire would impinge on the cable at ceiling level. If the fire is sufficient to cause a riser or general purpose cable to burn, the flame may travel to the floor above. There was a comment during the Panel 3 discussion indicating that fire-stopping may or may not be effective. Hopefully, the NEC TCC will carefully review the panel action on this proposal. Stene, S. See my Explanation of Vote on Proposal Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 14 : 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B) Exception (New) (Log # 1571 ) Walsh, R. I disagree with the panel's vote to reject the permissive proposal and stating that the Proposal didn't provide technical substantiation. The insurance industry hasn't tabulated any Fire/Security systems failing due to AFCI protection. However, I agree with the recommendation for the Technical Correlating Committee to forward the proposal to the NFPA 72 Technical Committee Task Group on inter-coordination for comment Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: and (New) (Log # 1059 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 14 : 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: and (New) (Log # 2554 ) Stene, S. See my Explanation of Vote on Proposal Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: and , Informational Note (New) (Log # 2686 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (G)(1) (Log # 1857 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (G)(1) (Log # 2879 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 1060 ) Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 15 : 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 2555 )

26 Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 13 : 2 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (Log # 2687 ) Easter, L. See NEMA's negative on Proposal Stene, S. There is a typo in the Panel Action text where the text states "Replace table a with Table " It should have been "Replace table a with Table " The table modified during the ROP meeting was not a version of Table (a), but was the version distributed at the meeting. The following comments apply to the version of Table provided with the ballot package, not the table in the attachment in the dated February 13 from Kimberly Shea. The term `Not Permitted' in the row `In plenum cable routing assemblies' for use in Other Spaces used for Environmental Air as described in (C) was not discussed during the ROP meeting. NFPA 90A does not describe this plenum cable routing assembly, however, there is nothing to prevent a plenum routing assembly from being used in a riser or in another location within a building. Since the product was Listed as a plenum cable routing assembly, it should not be prevented from being installed in suitable locations. This item should be routed to the Technical Correlating Committee (TCC) for review Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 14 : 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A) and (B) (Log # 1055 ) Easter, L. See NEMA's negative on Proposal Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 14 : 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (A) and (B) (Log # 2556 ) Easter, L. See NEMA's negative on Proposal Eligible To Vote:15 Affirmative: 13 : 2 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (B)(1) (Log # 1283 ) Clary, S. The submitter provides no (zero) fire loss data to justify increasing cable cost. That is, the submitter fails to supply documented evidence of a problem resulting from the present requirement. The existing requirement permits general purpose cable to penetrate one floor, but not two floors. Referring to the riser cable test as substantiation is confusing. The permission for general purpose cable (Types CL2 & CL3) to penetrate one floor, but not two floors, first appeared in the 1990 edition of the NEC. The requirement has been in the NEC for over 20 years, with no substantiated reason to change. The text developed by the panel, is similar to the 1987 NEC and earlier editions. Lastly, the UL 1666 vertical fire test permits a limited amount of upward flame spread. However, a real fire would impinge on the cable at ceiling level. If the fire is sufficient to cause a riser or general purpose cable to burn, the flame may travel to the floor above. There was a comment during the Panel 3 discussion indicating that fire-stopping may or may not be effective. Hopefully, the NEC TCC will carefully review the panel action on this proposal. Stene, S. See my Explanation of Vote on Proposal