* Amend Sec. 300-18 and 331-3 to permit the use of prewired ENT. This appeal was made by Carlon.

* Delete Sec. 518-4 Ex. 3, which allows ENT and rigid nonmetallic conduit in some places of assembly, including restaurants, conference and meeting rooms of hotels or motels, dining facilities, and church chapels. This permission is restricted to the traditional locations for ENT in high-rise construction (concealed in walls with a 15-min finish rating or above suspended ceilings with a similar rating). There were two separate appeals (from Allied Tube and Conduit and from Alflex Cable) that were combined because they both requested the same outcome.

* Delete Art. 505 and related provisions from Art. 500 and Art. 501, which cover the zone classification concept for hazardous (classified) locations. This appeal was made by William Wusinich of the IBEW.

* Amend Sec. 250-45, 305-6, 501-11, and 517-11 to require, in effect, a complete redesign of grounding connections within cord- and plug-connected equipment by using a second, redundant equipment grounding conductor within the cord. This appeal was made by Mr. Martucci, the proposal submitter.

* Amend Sec. 600-7 to restore the original panel action granting permission for flexible metal conduit to be used as an equipment grounding return path in total lengths up to 100 ft for high-voltage wiring in neon signs. In addition, the appeal seeks an exception to the grounding requirement for some small metal sign parts such as tubing supports on skeleton tubing.

Note that Sec. 600-32(j) limits the length of a metal raceway enclosing "high-voltage cable" to 20 ft. There is no intent to change this requirement, because it refers to cable that runs "in a metal raceway from a transformer/power supply to other parts of the sign." That is, the first run of flexible metal conduit to the sign (which has the highest voltage to ground) is held to 20 ft, but subsequent runs from point to point within a sign could add up to 100 ft in the total grounding return path, if the appeal succeeds.

* Amend Sec. 600-32(a) to restore a requirement accepted by CMP 18 (and removed by the Standards Council) that would require listed sleeving to enclose conductors running to a sign from an electronic power supply, if metal conduit were used as the wiring method. There has been an intense technical debate over whether this language would increase the capacitance per unit distance, thereby increasing the capacitive leakage current and distorting the electric field, and possibly increasing corona discharge.

The panel's view was that this analysis was only valid where the conductor was somehow suspended in the middle of the raceway. In the real world, where the conductor lies against the wall of the raceway, the panel felt that corona would be decreased by its sleeving requirement, which effectively increases insulation thickness. Both controversies in Art. 600 were part of a single appeal made by Randall Wright, the National Electric Sign Association representative on CMP 18.

Decisions made

As this page goes to press, three of those appeals (on two subject areas) have beer determined:

* The appeal on Sec. 300-18 and Sec. 331-3, to permit pre-wired ENT, has been rejected. The appeal was based on both an alleged miscount of the KnicKrehm ballot on the original proposal, as well as on the technical merits of allowing a pre-wired product. After carefully analyzing the actual ballot, which had not been filled out correctly, the subcommittee concluded that there was sufficient basis from the structure of his other comments for NFPA staff to conclude that he actually intended negative vote. In addition, his vote had been reported as negative, and he had declined to change it during the recirculation period.

The Standards Council had rejected the Carlon position on different grounds. The Council noted that there was overlapping jurisdiction between CMP 3 and CMP 8 for this issue, and CMP 8 had rejected it. The Council felt that CMP 8 had primary jurisdiction, and therefore no detailed analysis of the CMP 3 ballot was required. The subcommittee rejected this view as being "on this record, unclear." It directed the Council to work with the Correlating Committee to clarify which code making panel has principal jurisdiction over this issue.

The subcommittee decision did not mention the fact that a supporting public comment failed to receive a favorable two-thirds majority (it was one vote short) during the comment period. By longstanding policy, when a supporting comment fails to support a proposal by a two-thirds vote, the Correlating Committee will declare the original proposal rejected because it no longer enjoys the required majority of support. Apparently resolving the position of KnicKrehm's ballot was sufficient. The subcommittee noted the technical arguments had been fully addressed during the normal code process, and the required degree of consensus had not been achieved.

* The two appeals to delete Sec. 518-4 Ex. 3 were rejected. This exception had been rejected by CMP 15 at every stage of the process, but received a favorable vote on the floor of the Annual Meeting. The Council had reversed the panel action, observing that these wiring methods have been allowed in "many other occupancies with an appreciable fire risk." The subcommittee agreed with the Council that the panel had failed to provide suitable technical substantiation to reject the new exception.