nec2008article810-annexg

7/27/2019 nec2008article810-annexg

1/6270-937

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA NFPA 70

ARTICLE 810 RADIO AND TELEVISION EQUIPMENT_____________________________________________________________16-227 Log #1551 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept(810)

________________________________________________________________TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee understands that therevisions in 810.54, Exception were to be made to the existing Exceptiontext.

The Technical Correlating Committee directs the panel to correct theExceptions to 810.57 to make them into complete sentences. This actionwill 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 effectivelygrounded and effectively bonded from Articles 810 and revise text as shownfor 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 aconductor in accordance with 810.21 or is protected by an antenna dischargeunit.

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 anyof 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 with810.58 .

810.55 Except where protected with a continuous metallic shield that ispermanently and effectively grounded with a conductor in accordance with

810.58 , lead-in conductors for transmitting stations shall enter buildings byone 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 with810.58 .

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 equipmentgrounding conductor if the transmitter is powered by the premises wiringsystem or grounded with a conductor in accordance with 810.21 .Substantiation: 810.20(A) Exception: The definition of effectivelygrounded is ambiguous and very subjective without any defined values or

parameters for one to judge as either effective or ineffective. Revise to bemore specific and prescriptive for the users.

810.21(F)(3): The definition of effectively grounded is ambiguous and verysubjective without any defined values or parameters for one to judge as eithereffective or ineffective.

Here the reference to effectively grounded metal structure seemssuperfluous.

810.54 Exception: The definition of effectively grounded is ambiguous andvery subjective without any defined values or parameters for one to judge aseither 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 eithereffective or ineffective.

Revise to be more specific and prescriptive for the users. Reference to 810.58is proposed to replace appropriate here.

810.57 Exception No. 1: The definition of effectively grounded isambiguous and very subjective without any defined values or parameters forone 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 isambiguous and very subjective without any defined values or parameters forone to judge as either effective or ineffective.

Revise to be more specific and prescriptive for the users. Reference to 810.58is proposed to replace appropriate here.

810.71(B): The definition of effectively grounded is ambiguous and verysubjective without any defined values or parameters for one to judge as eithereffective or ineffective.

Revise to be more specific and prescriptive for the users by requiring theconnection to an equipment grounding conductor.

This is the result of the TCC Task Group on Grounding and Bonding inresolve 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 fromArticle 100 and other companion proposals throughout the NEC relative to thisTask Groups recommendations. The substantiation of this proposal is asfollows.

The term Effectively Grounded is used 29 times in the NEC. It appears asthough in the majority of the locations where it is used, the word groundedor 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 expandedin 250.4(A) and (B) in the 2002 NEC. The performance criteria of groundingand bonding are currently provided in Section 250.4 and include the conceptscontained in the vague definition of the term effectively grounded.

The definition Effectively Grounded is very subjective and without anydefined values or parameters for one to judge grounding as either effective orineffective. Effective is described in Section 250.4(A) and (B), but itrelates 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 nodefinitive parameters for Code users to make a determination on whatconstitutes effectively grounded. Systems are solidly grounded, groundedthrough a resistor or impedance, or ungrounded. Equipment (normallynoncurrent-carrying metal parts are grounded where connected to an equipmentgrounding conductor.

This proposal is to change the term Effectively Bonded to just Bonded ineach of the section where it is used. The term Effectively Bonded is currentlynot defined in the NEC.

The term effectively bonded is also used a few times in the NEC and isundefined. The same situation exists. There are no defined parameters for Codeusers to judges what the difference between Effectively Bonded andBonded really is. Where the term appears in the NEC, it is revised to justbonded and still has the same meaning in each rule.

Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Panel Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

_____________________________________________________________16-228 Log #373 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject(810(5))

_____________________________________________________________Submitter: David Shapiro, Safety First Electrical Contracting, Consulting, andSafety EducationRecommendation: Revise text as follows:

...They shall not be exposed to physical damage....Substantiation: Use of the word physical is superfluousthe intent isobvious given the context. (I leave it to the CMP whether you want to get morespecific naming some source of damage such as blows or abrasion.)

Submitting proposals removing the adjective physical may strike people asabout as useful as hunting gnats with a cannon. However, doing so seemsworthwhile 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 aquarter-page. Keeping it from growing too much fatter every cycle is a goalmany 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 poorlyon the Code process. When references were changed to physical damage, in1959, from mechanical injury (with no substantiation recorded), an excellentopportunity was overlooked to eliminate the possibility of someone raising aneyebrow and saying fatuously, Is anyone claiming electrical equipment needs

protection from non-physical injury? (Substitute the snide adjective of yourchoice.) Lets take care of that for good: for our purposes, damage meansphysical damage.Panel Meeting Action: RejectPanel Statement: The grounding conductor is potentially subject to multiplesources of damage: electrical, physical, and environmental. The wordphysical is necessary to specifically identify the type of damage that thesection is addressing.Number Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot 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 roomboundary shall be in accordance with

300.21. The accessible portion of abandoned network-powered communicationscables shall not be permitted to remain.Substantiation: This addition will harmonize this Articles text with thefollowing: 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: RejectPanel Statement: Network-powered communications cables dont exist.However, see Article 830 for network-powered broadband communicationscables.

The submitters intent was not clear. The submitter is encouraged to reviewthe proposal and resubmit for the ROC.Number Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15


2/6270-938

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA NFPA 70_____________________________________________________________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 electricallyconnected to lead-in conductors and mounted to nonconductive material, donot require grounding.Substantiation: In those instances where the lead-in conductors are notelectrically connected to the mast or metal supporting structures and the mast ismounted to a nonconductive surface such as brick, wood, or block, the mastand supports should be exempt from this sections grounding requirement. This

isolation inhibits surges from entering the location. This includes all accessiblemounting locations, including those locations which are not the highest pointon the structure.

Note: Supporting Material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Panel Meeting Action: RejectPanel Statement: The submitter apparently proposes to add an exception to810.15. A metallic structure such as an antenna support assembly or mast,when mounted to non-conductive surfaces such as masonry, roofing, wood, orvinyl, should be grounded to reduce the possibility of flash-over and risk of firein the event of a lightning strike.Number Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot 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 beinstalled so that they cannot swing closer than 600 mm (2 ft) to the conductorsof circuits of 250 volts or less between conductors, or 3.0 m (10 ft) to theconductors of circuits of over 250 volts between conductors, except that in thecase of circuits not over 150 volts between conductors, where all conductorsinvolved are supported so as to ensure permanent separation, the clearanceshall be permitted to be reduced but shall not be less than 100 mm (4 in.). Theclearance between lead-in conductors and any conductor forming a part of alightning 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 shallbe separated at least 300 mm (12 in.) from conductors of any light or powercircuits 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, seeNFPA 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-current-carrying metal parts of electric equipment installed on a building equippedwith a lightning protection system may require bonding or spacing from thelightning protection conductors in accordance with NFPA 780-2004, Standardfor 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 thanlighting rod system. 250.60 and 250.106 were revised in recent cycles toremove specific separation distances required between down leads of lighting

protection systems and other systems or metal parts which has more to dowith installations of those systems. This information should be covered by therequirements in NFPA 780. It appears that this same separation requirementis still left in this section and is no longer needed. The FPNs are identical tothose following 250.106 and provide the information and references users needrelative to what is required for separation and what Standard applies. Groundterminals 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 bebonded to the power system electrode with bonding jumper not smaller than 6AWG copper or equivalent.Panel Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15_____________________________________________________________16-232 Log #3354 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject(810.21(A))

_____________________________________________________________Submitter: Paul Dobrowsky, Holley, NYRecommendation: 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, copper-

clad steel, bronze, or similar corrosion-resistant material. Bare aluminumAluminum or copper-clad aluminum grounding conductors shall not be used

where in direct contact with masonry or the earth or where subject to corrosiveconditions. Where used outside, aluminum or copper-clad aluminum groundingconductors shall not be installed terminated within 450 mm (18 in.) of theearth.Substantiation: The language should be changed to be consistent with thatof 260.66(A). Aluminum conductors are commonly used outside such asfor service drops, service laterals. The issue is with bare conductors and thetermination of aluminum conductors.Panel Meeting Action: RejectPanel Statement: The proximity of the grounding conductor to the earth is therequirmment 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, SCRecommendation: Revise last sentence of (A): Where used outside,aluminum or copper-clad aluminum not in a rigid type raceway, andconnections to a grounding electrode, shall not be installed within 450 mm (18in.) of the earth.

(D) Insert as second sentence: The grounding conductor shall be permitted tobe protected by a rigid type conduit, electrical metallic tubing, or cable armor.Revise last sentence: Where the grounding conductor is run in a metal racewayconduit, electrical metallic tubing, or cable armor , both ends of the raceway orcable armor shall be bonded...(remainder unchanged)Substantiation: It is unclear whether the intent of this requirement was toapply to open conductors or conductors in a rigid raceway such as conduit or

tubing. Metal raceway includes flexible metal conduits, which may providechoke effects to high frequency l ightning induced currents.Panel Meeting Action: RejectPanel Statement: The submitter does not provide adequate technicalsubstantiation.

It is not necessary to provide an all-inclusive list of the types of metalraceways that may be encountered.Number Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15_____________________________________________________________16-234 Log #374 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject(810.21(D))

_____________________________________________________________Submitter: David Shapiro, Safety First Electrical Contracting, Consulting, andSafety EducationRecommendation: Revise text as follows:

...The grounding conductor shall be protected where exposed to physicaldamage....

Substantiation: Use of the word physical is superfluousthe intent isobvious given the context. (I leave it to the CMP whether you want to get morespecific naming some source of damage such as blows or abrasion.)

Submitting proposals removing the adjective physical may strike peopleas about as useful as hunting gnats with a cannon. However, doing so seemsworthwhile 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, maybea quarter-page. Keeping it from growing too much fatter every cycle is a goalmany of us can agree on.

Second, the unneeded use of physical not only is poor writinglook atWilliam Zinssers classic, On Writing Wellbut is silly, and reflects a bit poorlyon the Code process. When references were changed to physical damage, in1959, from mechanical injury (with no substantiation recorded), an excellentopportunity was overlooked to eliminate the possibility of someone raising aneyebrow and saying fatuously, Is anyone claiming electrical equipment needs

protection from non-physical injury? (Substitute the snide adjective of yourchoice.) Lets take care of that for good: for our purposes, damage meansphysical damage.

Panel Meeting Action: RejectPanel Statement: The grounding conductor is potentially subject to multiplesources of damage: electrical, physical, and environmental. The wordphysical is necessary to specifically identify the type of damage that thesection is addressing.Number Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

_____________________________________________________________16-235 Log #857 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept(810.21(D))

_____________________________________________________________Submitter: Michael J. Johnston, Plano, TXRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:

(D) Mechanical Protection. The grounding conductor shall be protectedwhere exposed to physical damage, or the size of the grounding conductorsshall be increased proportionately to compensate for the lack of protection .


3/6270-939

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA NFPA 70Where the grounding conductor is run in a metal raceway, both ends of theraceway shall be bonded to the grounding conductor or to the same terminal orelectrode to which the grounding conductor is connected.Substantiation: This requirement in its current form is vague andunenforceable. There are no specific parameters to establish a starting pointfor making a proportional adjustment in size from the minimum sizes providedin 810.21(H) to compensate for the lack of protection. In its current form, thistext is subjective and leads to inconsistencies in enforcement due to the lackof specific parameters. How much of a proportional increase is enough? Thissection should provide enforcement only with language that can be used torequire physical protection where it is judged that the grounding conductorwould be subjected to.Panel Meeting Action: Accept

Number Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

_____________________________________________________________16-236 Log #1891 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept(810.21(F))

_____________________________________________________________TCC Action: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee thatthis Proposal be reconsidered and correlated with the action on Proposal5-20. This action will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment.Submitter: Jeffrey Boksiner, Telcordia Technologies, Inc. / Rep. Alliance forTelecommunications Industry SolutionsRecommendation: Revise 810.21(F) Grounding Conductors ReceivingStations. (Electrode) as follows:(F) Electrode. The grounding conductor shall be connected as follows:(1) In Buildings or Structures with an Intersystem Grounding

Termination. If the building or structure served has an intersystem groundingtermination the grounding conductor shall be connected to the intersystem

grounding termination.(1)(2) In Buildings or Structures with Grounding Means. If the buildingor structure served has no intersystem grounding termination, the groundingconductor shall be connected to the nearest accessible location on thefollowing:....................................Retain existing list and text....................

(2)(3) In Buildings or Structures Without Intersystem GroundingTermination or Grounding Means. If the building or structure served hasno intersystem grounding termination or grounding means, as described in810.21(F)(1),

a) to any one of the individual electrodes described in 250.52; orb) (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 structureor to any of the individual electrodes described in 250.52.Substantiation: This is one of several correlated proposals (100 Definitions,

250.95, Chapter 8 Articles) to improve the requirements related to intersystembonding and grounding of communication systems. The intent is to create adedicated and well-defined location for terminating the grounding conductorsrequired in Chapter 8 Articles and accomplishing the intersystem bonding

between communication and power systems. The proposed termination wouldhave sufficient capacity to handle multiple communication systems (telecom,satellite, cable) on premises. The proposed revision makes the intersystem

bonding terminal the preferred destination for grounding conductor in Article810. See the figures I have provided.

Intersystem bonding accomplished by connection of a communicationgrounding conductor to the power system is an important safety measure to

prevent occurrences of voltages between communication system and powersystem. However, the existing requirements are not adequate. Bonding is

becoming difficult to implement due to changes in building constructionpractices such as increased prevalence of flush construction and use of PVCconduits. Frequently, in new construction, the grounding electrode, the racewayand the grounding electrode conductor are hidden behind walls and notaccessible for bonding connection.

Even in older construction with accessible equipment, the requirementfor installation of intersystem bonding connection is subject to varyinginterpretation because there is not a clearly defined dedicated bonding location.The connection to the power system is sometimes haphazard. Installers aresometimes confused over where the connection should be made especially ifmultiple Communication Systems are present on premises.

In addition this proposal modifies the arrangement of the text in 810.21 tolook similar to other Article in Chapter 8.

Note: Supporting Material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Panel Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

_____________________________________________________________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 thatthis Proposal be reconsidered and correlated with the action on Proposal16-236. This action will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment.

It was also the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that thisProposal 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 GroupRecommendation: Add these two sentences after the last sentence of

810.21(F):A device intended toprovide a termination point for the grounding conductor(inter-system bonding) shall be prohibited from use when the installation ofsuch 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 clampto enclosure covers have resulted in interruption of grounding continuity. Thisis a companion proposal to proposals to add this requirement to 800.100(B),820.100(B), and 830.100(B).Panel Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd the following after the last sentence of 810.21(F):A device intended to provide a termination point for the grounding conductorshall not interfere with the opening of an equipment enclosure. A bondingdevice shall be mounted on non-removable parts. A bonding device shall not bemounted 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 hasreworded the text for clarity. It is requested that the TCC forward to Panel 5 for

take similar action as applicable.Number Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15Comment on Affirmative:

BRUNSSEN, J.: The submitters text, as modified by the Panel, shouldbe placed following the existing text of 810.21(F)(e.) rather than at the endof 810.21(F). Section 810.21(F)(e.) specifically addresses connection to theservice equipment enclosure and that is the issue that the submitter intended toaddress.

ARTICLE 820 COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISONAND RADIO DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

_____________________________________________________________16-238 Log #755 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept(820 V. (title))

_____________________________________________________________Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc.

Recommendation: Change title:From V. Cables Within BuildingsTo V. Installation Methods Within Buildings

Substantiation: This proposal is editorial. (Task Group No. 820-01)The sections included under V. include more than cables and the

recommended change is more descriptive. This title is consistent with similarrecommendations for Articles 770, 800 and 830.

This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special EditorialTask 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: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 15

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15_____________________________________________________________16-239 Log #2695 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject(820.2)

_____________________________________________________________Submitter: Harold C. Ohde, IBEW #134Recommendation: Delete the following:

820.2 Air Duct. A conduit or passageway for conveying air to or fromheating, cooling, air conditioning, or ventilating equipment, but not includingthe plenum. [NFPA 97:1.2.6]Substantiation: This is an editorial proposal to remove the term air duct asthis term is not used in Article 800. The term air duct should not be definedin the article, as per the National Electrical Code Style Manual.


4/6270-940

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA NFPA 70Panel Meeting Action: RejectPanel Statement: The Panel is acting on this and other proposals relatedto wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPAStandards 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 NFPA90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on AirConditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to

plenum cables by processing the issues through the entire upcoming NFPA 90Arevision cycle, the Council directs the NEC Project to maintain the status quoin the NEC until the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning has, through the

processing of NFPA 90A, addressed the issues and released the next edition ofNFPA 90A.

This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of thesubstantiations submitted for the affected proposal.Number Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 2Explanation of Negative:

JENSEN, R.: We believe that the interpretation of whether being allowed toaddress this proposal in view of the NFPA Standard Council Long Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) was misunderstood.

We agree with deleting the term air duct as it was evidently an oversightthat it was not removed during the last code cycle. Air duct was introducedfor 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 thisterm, 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 airhandling ducts.

OHDE, H.: We do not believe that the NFPA Standards Council LongDecision 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 NetworkRecommendation: In the definition for Abandoned Coaxial Cable, after thewords and not identified for future use with a tag add the new text or in adatabase.Substantiation: In modern large systems, cables are often identified witha number at each end, and the function of the cable is listed in a databasereferencing that number. This database should be adequate to identify cablesfor future use.Panel Meeting Action: Reject

Panel Statement: The AHJ is unlikely to have access to the database for everybuilding under his/her jurisdiction. The majority of communications technicians(installation/repair) work at a multiplicity of locations. Database administrativeresponsibility is not identified in the proposal. Maintaining and referencing adatabase for every location is cumbersome, unwieldy, and impractical.Number Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot 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 acoaxial connector and not identified for future use with a tag which is of amaterial impervious to the deleterious effects of temperature and dampness.The tag shall be resistant to the effects of gnawing by rodents. The tag shallcontain 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 discontinuetheir operation. Understanding this problem, the removal of abandoned cables,is required by articles 640, 645, 725, 760, 770, 800, 820, and 830. Section820.3(A) requires the removal of abandoned communications cables. Taggingof cables intended for future use without a method of ensuring the intention offuture use invites tagging of cables to avoid the responsibility of their properremoval.

Panel Meeting Action: RejectPanel Statement: While the submitter makes the point that the taggingrequirements may be used to circumvent abandoned cable removal, the

proposed additional requirements are impractical, burdensome, and precludethe pre-wiring of buildings. For example, buildings are often pre-wired forCATV. While the current tenant may not require all the coaxial cable pre-wiring, future tenants may have additional needs and require the additionalwiring. Allowing only 90 days is insufficient to support pre-wiring. A tagthat is immune to temperature, dampness, and rodents needs to be of specialmaterial and would likely require special means to mark the tag. Adding a filenumber implies the existence of a database. No suggestion is provided as towho 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 InternationalRecommendation: 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 witha tag.Substantiation: The definitions of abandoned cable in every article should beidentical. 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 distributioncable that is not terminated at equipment and not identified for future use witha tag.

725.2: Abandoned Class 2, Class 3, and PLTC Cable. Installed Class 2, Class3, and PLTC cable that is not terminated at equipment and not identified forfuture use with a tag.

The additional wording in this definition causes confusion. Proposals arebeing made to make changes to the definitions in articles 770, 800, 820 and830, and to add a general definition into article 645 and into article 100.Panel Meeting Action: RejectPanel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-1.Number Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1Explanation of Negative:

OHDE, H.: This proposal should be accepted as submitted. The submittersubstantiates that the definitions of abandoned cables in Articles 640, 645,725, 760, 770, 800, 820, and 830 should be identical. This proposal deletesunnecessary language in the present definitions and provides consistentlanguage throughout the above articles mentioned. The panel statement doesnot explain the reason for rejecting this proposal other than to see panel actionon Proposal 16-1.

_____________________________________________________________16-243 Log #2664 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject(820.2.Air Duct)

_____________________________________________________________Submitter: Robert W. Jensen, dbi / Rep. BICSI, A TelecommunicationsAssociationRecommendation: Delete the following text:

820.2 Air Duct. A conduit or passageway for conveying air to or fromheating, cooling, air conditioning, or ventilating equipment, but not includingthe plenum. [NFPA 97:1.2.6]Substantiation: Air duct is not a term used in Article 800. This was anapparent miss in the 2005 editorial review under the Standards Councilmandate to remove content related to air duct cable.Panel Meeting Action: RejectPanel Statement: The panel is acting on this and other proposals relatedto wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPAStandards 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 NFPA90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on AirConditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to



This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of thesubstantiations submitted for the affected proposal.Number Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 2


5/6270-941

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA NFPA 70Explanation of Negative:




OHDE, H.: See my Explanation of Negative on Proposal 16-239.

_____________________________________________________________16-244 Log #781 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept(820.2.Cable, coaxial (New) )

_____________________________________________________________Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc.Recommendation: Add a definition as follows:

Cable, coaxial. A cylindrical assembly composed of a conductor centeredinside a metallic tube or shield, separated by a dielectric material, and usuallycovered by an insulating jacket.Substantiation: This proposal is editorial and technical. (Task Group No.820-27)

The term cable is used throughout the Article without being defined. ThisProposal corrects this omission and provides a definition parallel with 800.2.



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: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

_____________________________________________________________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:CATV Raceway. A raceway designed for enclosing and routing listed CATV

cables.FPN: See Article 100 for a definition of raceway.

Substantiation: Optical Fiber Raceway is defined in Article 770. CATV

raceway should be defined too.Panel Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd new definition to 820.2 as follows:

CATV Raceway. A raceway for enclosing and routing CATV cables.FPN: See Article 100 for a definition of raceway.

Panel Statement: Added new definition.Removed design, as specification does not belong in a definition.Removed listed, as specification does not belong in a definition per NEC

Manual of Style.The change meets the submitters intent.

Number Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12 Negative: 3Explanation of Negative:

HUGHES, R.: The Panel action should have been to reject. The definitionfor Optical Fibers Raceway was created specifically to define Innerduct.Innerduct is used only for Optical Fibers and nothing else. The definition ofraceway in Article 100 is adequate and there is nt reason to create a specificdefinition Communication Raceway.

JENSEN, R.: Propose to remove the FPN from the definition, therebyextending the committee action of Accept in Principle.CMP 16 accepted proposal 16-5 to harmonize 770.2, 800.2, 820.2, and 830.2

by including a normative reference to See Article 100. Adding a FPN toagain See Article 100 is redundant, especially since this FPN will be a fewlines down from the identical wording in normative text. Additionally, the2003NEC Style Manual specifically states to avoid redundant use of references.

OHDE, H.: This definition would require that any raceway that is usedfor enclosing and routing CATV cables be listed to the requirements shown820.182. This section states CATV raceways shall be listed in accordance with820.182(A) through 820.182(C). There are metal raceways, for example, thatare allowed to enclose communications cables but are not required to be listed

plenum raceways or riser raceways. These listings are typically for nonmetallicraceways.

In addition, Section 90.1(C) of the NEC states This Code is not intendedas a design specification or an instruction manual for the untrained persons .The addition of the FPN referencing Article 100 for the definition of racewayis not needed nor warranted. A trained installer will know the Code content andhow 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 CATVcoaxial cables.

Substantiation: This proposal is technical. (Task Group No. 820-03)Optical fiber raceway is defined in article 770. This proposal will add aparallel definition in article 820. A similar definition is needed here.




Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson.Panel Meeting Action: Accept in PrinciplePanel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-245.Number Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 2Explanation of Negative:

HUGHES, R.: The Panel action should have been to reject. The definition

for Optical Fibers Raceway was created specifically to define Innerduct.Innerduct is used only for Optical Fibers and nothing else. The definition ofraceway in Article 100 is adequate and there is no reason to create a specificdefinition Communication Raceway.

OHDE, H.: See my Explanation of Negative on Proposal 16-245._____________________________________________________________16-247 Log #24 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject(820.2.Concealed Space)

_____________________________________________________________Submitter: Stanley Kaufman, Cable Safe Inc.Recommendation: Revise as follows:

Concealed Space. That portion(s) of a building behind walls, over suspendedceilings, in pipe chases, attics, and in whose size might normally range from44.45 mm (1 3/4 in.) stud spaces to 2.44 m (8 ft) interstitial truss spaces andthat might contain combustible materials such as building structural members,thermal and/or electrical insulation, and ducting. [NFPA 96:3.3.42.1]Substantiation: The term concealed space is used in 820.154(A). This

definition is an extract from NFPA 96, Standard for Ventilation Control andFire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations. It is the only definition ofconcealed space in the NFPA Glossary.Panel Meeting Action: RejectPanel Statement: The definition may involve combustible material inenvironmental air spaces and, therefore, may fall under the Standards CouncilDecision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4).

The panel is acting on this and other proposals related to wire and cablein plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPA Standards CouncilDecision 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 NFPA90A into the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on AirConditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to


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 thesubstantiations submitted for the affected proposal.Number Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15Comment on Affirmative:

OHDE, H.: We agree with panel action and believe that the panel statementshould also reflect the latest NFPA 13 Technical Committee actions since thesubmitter is trying to define the term concealed spaces. We would like toadd that NFPA 13 just completed their balloting process for the 2006 NFPA13 Standard. The Technical Committee on Sprinkler Installation submitted acomment on Proposal 13-284.

This comment reworded proposed A.8.14.1.2.1 to read Minor quantitiesof combustible materials such as but not limited to: cabling, nonmetallic

plumbing piping, non-structural wood, etccan be present in concealed


6/6270-942

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA NFPA 70spaces constructed of limited or noncombustible materials but should not beviewed as requiring sprinklers (see 8.14.1.1) For example, it is not the intentof this section to require sprinklers, which would not otherwise be required,in the interstitial space of a typical office building solely due to the presenceof the usual amount of cabling within the space. The threshold value at whichsprinklers become necessary in the concealed space is not defined .

In the NFPA 13 committees substantiation, they wanted to clarify that thenormal amount of cabling would not require sprinklers due to the constructionof the space. They also expanded the list of combustibles to provide examplesof 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. Alliancefor Telecommunications Industry SolutionsRecommendation: Revise the definition of Exposed as follows:

Exposed (to Accidental Contact). An exposed cable is one that is Acircuit 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 usedin Article 820 to indicate possible contact with another circuit, as opposed tothe definitions of Exposed contained in Article 100, i.e., live parts or wiringmethods. The style used to differentiate the term is identical to that of Article100 for consistency. The word and is deleted and replaced by the word oras either of the conditions, failure of supports or failure of insulation, mayresult in accidental contact. Replacing of the phrase An exposed cable is onethat is with the phrase A circuit provides a consistent definition throughoutArticles 770, 800, 820 and 830. This is a companion proposal to 770.2, 800.2and 830.2.

Panel Meeting Action: Accept in PrinciplePanel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-249.Number Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot 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 circuitin such a position that, in case of failure of supports and or insulation, contactwith 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 possiblecontact with another circuit, as opposed to the definitions of Exposed

contained in Article 100, i.e., live parts or wiring methods. The style used todifferentiate the term is identical to that of Article 100 for consistency. The textwas also changed to clarify that it is the circuit that is exposed rather than justthe cable. The word and is deleted and replaced by the word or as eitherof the conditions, failure of supports or failure of insulation, may result inaccidental 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 ofexposed across 770; 800; 820 and 830.

This is one of a group of proposals prepared by the CMP 16 Special EditorialTask 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: 15Ballot 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 emergesfrom 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 anelectrode 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).

Substantiation: The addition of a fine print notes pointing installers to thedefinitions of intermediate metal conduit and rigid metal conduit will helpinstallers who are not Code experts. Use of the type designations will promoteconsistency 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: 1Explanation 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 instructionmanual for the untrained persons . The addition of the two FPNs referencingthe definitions of IMC raceway in 342.2 and RMC raceway in 344.4 is notneeded nor warranted. In the submitters substantiation he states these FinePrint Notes will help installers who are not Code experts. A trained installerwill 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 Conduitshould 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 cableemerges from an external wall, from a concrete floor slab, or from a rigidmetal conduit or an intermediate metal conduit grounded to an electrode inaccordance 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 withcoaxial cable. Adding the word coaxial adds clarity to the section for thecode user.




Roland Gubisch, Stan Kahn, Stan Kaufman and Steve Johnson.

Panel Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleChange 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 metalconduit (Type RMC) or an intermediate metal conduit (Type IMC) groundedconnected by a grounding conductor to an electrode in accordance with820.100(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 groundingconductor, provides for editorial consistency across Articles 770, 800, 820,and 830.Number Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1Explanation 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 FireSafety CouncilRecommendation: 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 includingthe 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 ElectricalCode.Panel Meeting Action: RejectPanel Statement: The panel is acting on this and other proposals relatedto wire and cable in plenum and other air handling spaces based on NFPAStandards Council Decision 05-24 (SC #05-7-4) dated 29 July 2005 that states,in pertinent part, as follows:


7/6270-943

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA NFPA 70So 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 AirConditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to



This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of thesubstantiations submitted for the affected proposal.Number Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 2Explanation of Negative:




OHDE, H.: See my Explanation of Negative on Proposal 16-239._____________________________________________________________16-253 Log #42 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept(820.2.Abandoned Coaxial Cable, FPN (New) )

_____________________________________________________________Submitter: Stanley Kaufman, Cable Safe Inc.Recommendation: Add a fine print note to the definition of Abandoned

Coaxial CableAbandoned Coaxial Cable. Installed coaxial cable that is not terminated atequipment other than a coaxial connector and not identified for future use witha tag.

FPN: See Article 100 for a definition of equipment.Substantiation: The addition of a fine print note alerting installers thatequipment is defined in Article 100 will help installers who are not Codeexperts.Panel Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 2Explanation of Negative:

JENSEN, R.: Propose to Reject.CMP 16 accepted proposal 16-5 to harmonize 700.2, 800.2, 820.2, and 830.2

by including a normative reference to See Article 100. Adding a FPN toagain See Article 100 is redundant, especially since this FPN will be a fewlines 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 NECstates This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instructionmanual for the untrained persons . In the submitters substantiation he statesthis FPN will help installers who are not Code experts. The addition of the FPNreferencing Article 100 for the definition of equipment is not needed norwarranted. A trained installer will know the Code content and how the Code

book is to be used._____________________________________________________________16-254 Log #758 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Part(820.3)

_____________________________________________________________Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc.Recommendation: Revise 820.3 Other Articles as follows:

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 coaxial cables shall be removed.(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).

(A) Hazardous (Classified) Locations. CATV equipment installed in alocation that is classified in accordance with 500.5 shall comply with theapplicable requirements of Chapter 5.(B) Equipment in Other Space Used for Environmental Air . Section

300.22(C)(2) shall apply.(C) Installation and Use . Section 110.3 shall apply.(D) Installations of Conductive and Nonconductive Optical Fiber Cables .

Article 770 shall apply.(E) Communications Circuits. Article 800 shall apply.(F) Network-Powered Broadband Communications Systems. Article 830

shall apply.(G) Alternate Wiring Methods. The wiring methods of Article 830 shall be

permitted to substitute for the wiring methods of Article 820.

FPN: Use of Article 830 wiring methods will facilitate the upgrading ofArticle 820 installations to network-powered broadband applicationsSubstantiation: This proposal is editorial and technical. (Task Group No. 820-04)

To correlate with other proposals from the Task Group, this proposal deletes820.3(A) and (B).

The substantiation for deletion of (A) is that the requirements are beingmoved 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 aSection on Equipment used in other spaces for environmental air. Thesesections are required in Article 820. In addition, this proposal makes 820 textcomparable to parallel articles in 800 and 830.

This is one of a group of Proposals prepared by the CMP-16 Special EditorialTask 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


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

location that is classified in accordance with 500.5 shall comply with theapplicable requirements of Chapter 5.(B) Ducts, Plenums, and Other Air-Handling Spaces. Section 300.22, whereinstalled in ducts, plenums, or other spaces used for environmental air, shall

apply.Exception: As permitted in 820.154(A).(C) Installation and Use. Section 110.3 shall apply.(D) Installations of Conductive and Nonconductive Optical Fiber Cables.

Article 770 shall apply.(E) Communications Circuits. Article 800 shall apply.(F) Network-Powered Broadband Communications Systems. Article 830 shall

apply.(G) Alternate Wiring Methods. The wiring methods of Article 830 shall be

permitted to substitute for the wiring methods of Article 820. FPN: Use ofArticle 830 wiring methods will facilitate the upgrading of Article 820installations to network-powered broadband applicationsPanel 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 CouncilDecision 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 90Ainto the NEC, and in order to give the Technical Committee on AirConditioning the opportunity to fully address all technical issues related to



This action does not constitute agreement or disagreement with any of thesubstantiations submitted for the affected proposal.Number Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15_____________________________________________________________16-255 Log #3103 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject(820.3)

_____________________________________________________________Submitter: Donald Hall, Corning Cable Systems

Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: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. 300.21 shall apply. The

accessible portion of a Abandoned network-powered broadband coxial cablesshall be removed.

Also, add the following FPN to 820.3(A):FPN: ANSI/NECA/BICSI 568-2001, Standard for Installing Commercial

Building Telecommunications Cabling, and other industry standards providerecommended cable installation practices which facilitate the eventual removalof cables as they become abandoned.Substantiation: Abandoned cable should be removed to reduce unnecessaryaccumulation of fuel load and promote electrical safety. It is not reasonable ornecessary to install cables in a manner that prevents their eventual removal.

The proposed FPN will provide useful information to architects, systemdesigners, and installers to help minimize the cost and inconvenience ofremoving abandoned cable.


8/6270-944

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA NFPA 70Panel Meeting Action: RejectPanel Statement: The proposal would require all abandoned cable to beremoved, irrespective of accessibility, presenting a compliance conundrum toinstallers. Without access, it is impossible to remove cables that are securelyfastened without damaging the building or adjacent cables. The submitterssubstantiation states: It is not reasonable or necessary to install cables in amanner that prevents their eventual removal. However, the panel previouslyimposed additional securing and supporting requirements by referencing 300.11in 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 removeonly the accessible portion is reasonable. The submitter further proposes to addan FPN following 820.3(A) that is already contained in 820.24. Note that thesubmitter has referenced network-powered broadband coaxial cables, which

are not covered by 820.Number Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15Comment on Affirmative:

OHDE, H.: We concur with submitters substantiation and believe a changeof wording will ensure that are abandoned cables are remove and preventconfusion in future. We suggest that the submitter resubmit hisrecommendation in the 2008 ROC stage in a more appropriate section with Part1 General so these requirements will apply throughout the entire Article. TheFPN that the submitter submitted is not required as this Standard is very basicand really does not provide enough information that is applicable to theremoval of abandoned cables.

_____________________________________________________________16-256 Log #1386 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject(820.3(A))

_____________________________________________________________TCC Action: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that

this Proposal be reconsidered and correlated with the action on Proposal16-257. This action will be considered by the Panel as a Public Comment.Submitter: Mike Holt, Mike Holt EnterprisesRecommendation: Delete text concerning abandoned cables

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 coaxial cables shall be removed.Substantiation: The NEC is an installation standard, not a maintenancestandard. 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 aretroactive document. To require abandoned cables to be removed is similar torequiring facilities to update their receptacles to the new GFCI provision everythree years. With that said, the only time this rule applies is when an installercreates 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 createdfrom the use of electricitythis rule seems to imply that a cable with a voltageapplied to it is safe, but a cable with no voltage applied to it is dangerous.

Panel Meeting Action: RejectPanel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-26.Number Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

_____________________________________________________________16-257 Log #2809 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Part(820.3(A))

_____________________________________________________________Submitter: Harold C. Ohde, IBEW #134Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:

820.3 Other Articles. No change.(A) Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Section 300.21 shall apply .

The accessible portion of abandoned coaxial cables shall be removed.Substantiation: The requirements for removal of abandoned coaxial cableswould be better suited in appropriate code section within Article 820. I havesubmitted another proposal that would move the abandoned coaxial cablesrequirements to 820.24 - Mechanical Execution of Work. The abandoned

coaxial cables requirements are out of place in 820.3 - Other Articles. Therequirements are not part of another Article as they are part of Article 820 andare lcoated within Article 820.

The deletion of the word Section is an editorial change to comply theNational Electrical Code Style Manual.

Similar proposals have been submitted for 640.3, 725.3, 760.3, 770.3, 800.3,and 830.3 to revise these sections as well.Panel Meeting Action: Accept in PartPanel Statement: The Panel accepts the part that deletes the second sentenceof 820.3(A) concerning abandoned cables. The Panel rejects the proposedrevisions to the first sentence.

The panel agrees that the requirement to remove abandoned cable doesnot belong in 820.3 and should be relocated. A direct reference to 300.21 isinappropriate, as it applies to electrical installations and not CATV (coaxialcable) installations. See panel action on Proposal 16-259 that relocates therequirement to remove abandoned cable to 820.25 (new) and restates thespread of fire requirements in CATV (coaxial cable) terms in 820.26 (new).


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 300.21will work well in the new proposed section 820.26 but not in 820.3(A) whereit has always been properly located. The panel accepted the same 300.21requirements whose concern is the spread of fire and products of combustion inhollow spaces, vertical shafts and ventilation and air- handling ducts caused byelectrical installations and located them in 820.26._____________________________________________________________16-258 Log #3010 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject

(820.3(A))_____________________________________________________________Submitter: Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH InternationalRecommendation: 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 witha 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 beremoved. Removal of abandoned cables shall not damage the building structureor finish and shall not compromise the performance of adjacent wiring systemsor components.Substantiation: This comment recommends a change in wording to ensurethat abandoned cables are removed and to prevent confusion in future. Therehave been multiple proposals that would permit some cables to remain in

inaccessible spaces. This is not conducive to safe electrical practice; this thekey 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 isobviously not the intent, a second sentence can be added stating that removalof abandoned cables shall not be performed if it would damage the buildingstructure or finish or in any way compromise the functional performance ofany other wiring systems or components. This would be accomplished by theoptional added sentence.

Consistent wording on removal of abandoned cables is being proposed forsections: 640.3, 725.3, 770.3, 770.154, 800.3, 800.154, 820.3, 820.154 and830.3.

For information, see the relevant definitions in the NEC.Accessible (as applied to equipment). Admitting close approach; not guardedby locked doors, elevation, or other effective means.

Accessible (as applied to wiring methods). Capable of being removed orexposed without damaging the building structure or finish or not permanentlyclosed in by the structure or finish of the building.

Accessible, Readily (Readily Accessible). Capable of being reached quicklyfor operation, renewal, or inspections without requiring those to whom readyaccess is requisite to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort to portableladders, and so forth.

Concealed. Rendered inaccessible by the structure or finish of the building.Wires in concealed raceways are considered concealed, even though they maybecome accessible by withdrawing them.

Isolated (as applied to location). Not readily accessible to persons unlessspecial means for access are used.Panel Meeting Action: RejectPanel Statement: See panel action on Proposal 16-28.Number Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15Comment on Affirmative:

OHDE, H.: We concur with submitters substantiation and believe achange of wording will ensure that are abandoned cables are remove and

prevent confusion in future. We suggest that the submitter resubmit hisrecommendation in the 2008 ROC stage in a more appropriate section with

Part 1 General so these requirements will apply throughout the entire Article._____________________________________________________________16-259 Log #759 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle(820.3(A), 820.25 (new) & 820.26 (new))

_____________________________________________________________TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Panelclarify the Panel Action on this Proposal regarding what is meant byreorder subsections of 820.3. This action will be considered by the Panelas a Public Comment.Submitter: S.D. Kahn, Tri-City Electric Co., Inc.Recommendation: Make the following changes:

820.3 (A) Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Section 300.21 shallapply. The accessible portion of abandoned coaxial cables shall be removed.820.25. Abandoned Cables. The accessible portion of abandoned coaxial

cables shall be removed.


9/6270-945

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA NFPA 70820.26 Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Installations of coaxial

cables and CATV raceways in hollow spaces, vertical shafts, and ventilationor air-handling ducts shall be made so that the possible spread of fire or

products of combustion will not be substantially increased. Openings aroundpenetrations of coaxial cables and CATV raceways through fire-resistantratedwalls, partitions, floors, or ceilings shall be firestopped using approvedmethods to maintain the fire resistance rating.FPN: Directories of electrical construction materials published by qualified

testing laboratories contain many listing installation restrictions necessary tomaintain the fire-resistive rating of assemblies where penetrations or openingsare made. Building codes also contain restrictions on membrane penetrationson opposite sides of a fire-resistancerated wall assembly. An example is the600-mm (24-in.) minimum horizontal separation that usually applies between

boxes installed on opposite sides of the wall. Assistance in complying with820.26 can be found in building codes, fire resistance directories, and productlistings.Substantiation: This proposal is editorial. (Task Group No. 820-05)

The title of Section 820.3 is Other Articles. The requirement for theremoval of abandoned cables is not in another article; it is in Article 820. It isout of place in section 820.3. This proposal will move it to a new section ofArticle 820. Rather than refer section 300.21 requirements for the preventionof the spread of fire, it is better to have the requirements in Article 820 whichshould 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.


OHDE, H.: This proposal should be deleted in its entirety. We agree that therequirements 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 areother proposed proposals with the same intent to locate the abandoned cablerequirements that seem better suited and make good enforceable code.

The substantiation provided to delete 820.3(A) which contains therequirements 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 thelanguage in 820.3(A) clearly states the requirements of 300.21 apply. 300.21has the identical FPN that is being proposed._____________________________________________________________16-260 Log #2776 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(820.3(A), 820.25 (new) & 820.26 (new))

_____________________________________________________________TCC Action: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee thatfurther consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting.This action will be considered by the panel as a public comment.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 shallapply. The accessible portion of abandoned coaxial cables shall be removed.820.25. Abandoned Cables. The accessible portion of abandoned coaxial

cables shall be removed.820.26 Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Installations of coaxial

cables and CATV raceways in hollow spaces, concealed spaces, vertical shaftsand air ducts shall be made so that the possible spread of fire or products ofcombustion will not be substantially increased. Openings around penetrationsof coaxial cables and CATV raceways through fire-resistantrated walls,

partitions, floors, or ceilings shall be firestopped using approved methods tomaintain the fire resistance rating.FPN No. 1: Directories of electrical construction materials published by

qualified testing laboratories contain many listing installation restrictionsnecessary to maintain the fire-resistive rating of assemblies where penetrationsor openings are made. Building codes also contain restrictions on membrane

penetrations on opposite sides of a fire-resistancerated wall assembly. Anexample is the 600-mm (24-in.) minimum horizontal separation that usuallyapplies between boxes installed on opposite sides of the wall. Assistance incomplying with 820.26 can be found in building codes, fire resistancedirectories, and product listings.

FPN No. 2: FPN: See 8.14.1 of NFPA 13-2002,Installation of SprinklerSystems , for requirements for sprinklers in concealed spaces containingexposed combustibles.

Substantiation: The title of Section 820.3 is Other Articles. Therequirement for the removal of abandoned cables is not in another article; it isin Article 820. It is out of place in section 820.3. This proposal will move it toa new section of Article 820. Rather than refer section to 300.21 requirementsfor the prevention of the spread of fire, it is better to have the requirements inArticle 820 which should be familiar to CATV installers. The text of proposedsection 820.26 is based on section 300.21 but modified to apply to CATVcables and raceways. For clarity, ventilation or air-handling ducts has beensimplified by replacing it with air ducts. Also, concealed spaces have beenadded to the list of areas requiring fire protection vigilance (hollow spaces,vertical shafts, and air ducts) to correlate with NFPA 13,Installation ofSprinkler Systems, which has requirements for protecting concealed spaces. AFPN is included to refer users to the NFPA 13 requirements.

Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in PartPanel Statement: The Panel accepts the submitters deletion of 820.3(C), theaddition of 820.25 (new), and the addition of 820.26 (new), but revises airducts to ventilation or air handling duct in keeping with the existing NECtext.

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 onProposals 16-13, 16-110, and 16-247 where the proposed definition wasdetermined to be unacceptable.Number Eligible to Vote: 15Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Negative: 1Explanation of Negative:

OHDE, H.: This proposal should be deleted in its entirety. We agree that therequirements 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 areother proposed proposals with the same intent to locate the abandoned cablerequirements that seem better suited and make good enforceable code.

The substantiation provided to delete 820.3(A) which contains therequirements of 300.21 is unclear. The submitter stated the proposed 820.26 isbased on the requirements of 300.21 but modified to apply to CATV cables andraceways. There was no substantiation submitted for this change. In additionthere 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 FPNthat is being proposed.

We believe that the panel statement should also reflect the latest NFPA 13Technical Committee actions. Included in the submitters substantiation was the2002 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 13Standard. The Technical Committee on Sprinkler Installation submitted acomment on Proposal 13-284.

This comment reworded proposed A.8.14.1.2.1 to read Minor quantities ofcombustible materials such as but not limited to: cabling, nonmetallic

plumbing piping, non-structural wood, etccan be present in concealed spacesconstructed of limited or noncombustible materials but should not be viewed asrequiring 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 theinterstitial space of a typical office building solely due to the presence of theusual amount of cabling within the space. The threshold value at whichsprinklers become necessary in the concealed space is not defined .

In the NFPA 13 committees substantiation, they wanted to clarify that thenormal amount of cabling would not require sprinklers due to the constructionof the space. They also expanded the list of combustibles to provide examplesof potential combustible loading.Comment on Affirmative:

BRUNSSEN, J.: The Panel Statements refers to deletion of 820.3(C); itshould state deletion of 820.3(A).

_____________________________________________________________16-261 Log #3314 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(820.3(A), 820.25 (new) & 820.26 (new))

_____________________________________________________________TCC Action: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee thatfurther consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting.

This action will be considered by the panel as a public comment.Submitter: William E. Koffel, Koffel Assoc., Inc. / Rep. Society of the PlasticsIndustryRecommendation: Make the following changes:

820.3 (A) Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Section 300.21 shallapply. The accessible portion of abandoned coaxial cables shall be removed.820.25. Abandoned Cables. The accessibleportion of abandoned coaxial

cables shall be removed.820.26 Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Installations of coaxial

cables and CATV raceways in hollow spaces, concealed spaces, vertical shaftsand air ducts shall be made so that the possible spread of fire or products ofcombustion will not be substantially increased. Openings around penetrationsof coaxial cables and CATV raceways through fire-resistantrated walls,

partitions, floors, or ceilings shall be firestopped using approved methods tomaintain the fire resistance rating.FPN No. 1: Directories of electrical construction materials published by

qualified testing laboratories contain many listing installation restrictionsnecessary to maintain the fire-resistive rating of assemblies where penetrations


10/6270-946

Report on Proposals A2007 Copyright, NFPA NFPA 70or openings are made. Building codes also contain restrictions on membrane

penetrations on opposite sides of a fire-resistancerated wall assembly. Anexample is the 600-mm (24-in.) minimum horizontal separation that usuallyapplies between boxes installed on opposite sides of the wall. Assistance incomplying with 820.26 can be found in building codes, fire resistancedirectories, 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 exposedcombustibles.Substantiation: The

nec2008article810-annexg

Documents