Below are two proposals I submitted in '02 for the 2005 code cycle.
It was shot down; with your input, I'd like to strengthen it so that it can have a better chance this time around.
Note: Please check my web site at URL: "http://www.pihl.us/leif/nfpa/index.htm" and/or "http://www.pihl.us/leif/nfpa/Article310-11A6--NEW.htm" for the latest incarnation/revision.
########################################
Part 1 of 2: 310.11(A)(6)
########################################
1. Section/Paragraph: _310.11(A)(6) {including three exceptions and a FPN} .
2. Proposal recommends: (check one): X new text _ revised text _ deleted text
3. Proposal (include proposed new wording, or identification of wording to be deleted):
310.11 Marking
(A) Required Information. All conductors and cables shall? (remains unchanged)
(1) thru (5) (remain unchanged.)
(6) Color of the insulation, as a full word or as an abbreviation.
Tracer color(s) shall follow the primary color, separated by a slash ('/') or an equivalent separation.
Exception No. 1: A conductor's tracer's color label is not required if the primary color is green and the tracer color is yellow.
Exception No. 2: A conductor's tracer's color label is not required if the tracer color is only black or only white.
FPN: Below are some examples of possible color labels, including the full name, a possible abbreviation, and an example primary color with a tracer color.
BLACK, [BLK.], <BLK/ORG>,
WHITE, [WHT], <WHT/ORG>,
RED, [RED], <RED/ORG>,
BLUE, [BLU], <BLU/ORG>,
GREEN, [GRN], <GRN/ORG>,
YELLOW, [YEL], <YEL/ORG>,
ORANGE, [ORG], <ORG/PRP>,
BROWN, [BRN], <BRN/ORG>,
PURPLE, [PRP], <PRP/ORG>,
PINK, [PNK], <PNK/ORG>,
GRAY, [GRY], <GRY/ORG>,
TAN, [TAN], <TAN/ORG>.
4. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Proposal:
NOTE: See also 2nd proposed change re revised text to section 310.11(B)(1).
{i.e.: Add two words: "?The color and AWG?".}
This change is being recommended to cut down on the number of hazards that have been introduced in the field do to misidentification of the color imbedded into conductors' insulation.
It has been stated that as few as 8-10%, and as many as one-in-six men have some form of color blindness. (Because the condition is hereditary by way of the X-chromosome, only 0.4-1.0% of women have the condition.) Within these groups of people, total color blindness is very rare, partial color blindness is much more common. People with partial color blindness are in "all walks of life", including Electricians.
It does not take a color blindness condition in order to misidentify a conductor's insulation color. Numerous manufacturers have made colors that are not easy for even the most visually acute people to easily identify. Over time the colors in some conductor's insulation has been known to fade or discolor. Add into these situations problems with poor lighting, dust, and any other number of conditions, and one can see that color misidentification can cause serious safety problems. (Try identifying a green, gray and brown conductor, in a dusty, shady environment, when the manufacturer has not added sufficient pigment to the insulation.)
The ideal solution would be to dictate various ranges of color via existing RGB (red-green-blue), CMYK (Cyan-Magenta-Yellow-Black), frequency, or other identification methods. However, this is not an ideal world. Additional research would be needed in order to find out the exact colors that are less likely to be misidentified by the partially colorblind community. Further, manufacturers would object to additional manufacturing processes for cost and nuisance reasons.
There is a less expensive and arguably better alternative: Add to the already existing labeling requirements to include the color. This code change does not dictate what the exact color must be; the manufacturer gets to decide what color they choose to sell it as. With this code change they must label the conductor so that the end user has a better chance to know what the color is intended to be.
The reason for the slash ('/') or an equivalent separation is to allow for tracer colors, which can cause similar problems.
The reason for Exception No. 1 is to ease the financial burden upon manufacturers and businesses that specialize in adding tracer colors and/or re-spooling conductors onto spools with a smaller quantity that the OEM made. This exception does not significantly reduce safety, as it is relatively rare for colors other than yellow to be placed on a green conductor.
The reason for Exception No. 2 is similar to Exception No. 2 as described above. So long as there is only one tracer color, and that color is either white or black, the chances of misidentification are very minimal.
The reason for the Fine Print Note is to give manufacturers and users an example of what to expect the color labels could look like. These color choices are already in the market place. The selection of colors where derived from several manufacturers catalogs. An example of what users should look for should improve proper identification, and thus safety.
########################################
Part 2 of 2: 310.11(B)(1)
########################################
1. Section/Paragraph: _310.11(B)(1)_____
[/B]2. Proposal recommends (check one):[/B] _ new text X revised text _ deleted text
3. Proposal (include proposed new wording, or identification of wording to be deleted):
[part 1 of 2:] Article 310.11 (B) (1): add two words: "?Color and?"
(B) Method of Marking.
(1) Surface Marking.
The following conductors and cables shall be durably marked on the surface. The color and AWG size or circular mil area shall be repeated at intervals not exceeding 610 mm (24 in.). ...
[part 2 of 2:] Between Sections 310.11(B)(1) (8) ?Instrumentation tray cable? & 310.11(B)(2) ?Marker Tape?, insert:
Exception: The color of the conductor is not required to be marked on the surface of cables so long as it is marked at intervals not exceeding 610 mm (24 in.) on the conductor?s insulation jacket itself.
4. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Proposal:
NOTE: See also 1st proposed change re new text for section 310.11(A)(6).
{i.e.: Labeling for the color of the insulation.}
This change is needed in order to pair up the color label with the AWG size label.
Most of the reasons why this improves safety are discussed in the accompanying proposal for Section 310.11(A)(6).
The reason for the exception is to respond Code Making Panel 6?s objections to this proposal during the 2005 edition?s code making cycle.
########################################
What changes do you suggest in order to insure this Proposal's success this time around?
My current thinking is to leave 310.11(A)(6)'s FPN as is, delete the second sentence regarding tracer colors, and replace both the exceptions with one:
"Exception: Tracer colors are not required to be identified."
What are your reactions to either the original proposal or my proposed change?
It was shot down; with your input, I'd like to strengthen it so that it can have a better chance this time around.
Note: Please check my web site at URL: "http://www.pihl.us/leif/nfpa/index.htm" and/or "http://www.pihl.us/leif/nfpa/Article310-11A6--NEW.htm" for the latest incarnation/revision.
########################################
Part 1 of 2: 310.11(A)(6)
########################################
1. Section/Paragraph: _310.11(A)(6) {including three exceptions and a FPN} .
2. Proposal recommends: (check one): X new text _ revised text _ deleted text
3. Proposal (include proposed new wording, or identification of wording to be deleted):
310.11 Marking
(A) Required Information. All conductors and cables shall? (remains unchanged)
(1) thru (5) (remain unchanged.)
(6) Color of the insulation, as a full word or as an abbreviation.
Tracer color(s) shall follow the primary color, separated by a slash ('/') or an equivalent separation.
Exception No. 1: A conductor's tracer's color label is not required if the primary color is green and the tracer color is yellow.
Exception No. 2: A conductor's tracer's color label is not required if the tracer color is only black or only white.
FPN: Below are some examples of possible color labels, including the full name, a possible abbreviation, and an example primary color with a tracer color.
BLACK, [BLK.], <BLK/ORG>,
WHITE, [WHT], <WHT/ORG>,
RED, [RED], <RED/ORG>,
BLUE, [BLU], <BLU/ORG>,
GREEN, [GRN], <GRN/ORG>,
YELLOW, [YEL], <YEL/ORG>,
ORANGE, [ORG], <ORG/PRP>,
BROWN, [BRN], <BRN/ORG>,
PURPLE, [PRP], <PRP/ORG>,
PINK, [PNK], <PNK/ORG>,
GRAY, [GRY], <GRY/ORG>,
TAN, [TAN], <TAN/ORG>.
4. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Proposal:
NOTE: See also 2nd proposed change re revised text to section 310.11(B)(1).
{i.e.: Add two words: "?The color and AWG?".}
This change is being recommended to cut down on the number of hazards that have been introduced in the field do to misidentification of the color imbedded into conductors' insulation.
It has been stated that as few as 8-10%, and as many as one-in-six men have some form of color blindness. (Because the condition is hereditary by way of the X-chromosome, only 0.4-1.0% of women have the condition.) Within these groups of people, total color blindness is very rare, partial color blindness is much more common. People with partial color blindness are in "all walks of life", including Electricians.
It does not take a color blindness condition in order to misidentify a conductor's insulation color. Numerous manufacturers have made colors that are not easy for even the most visually acute people to easily identify. Over time the colors in some conductor's insulation has been known to fade or discolor. Add into these situations problems with poor lighting, dust, and any other number of conditions, and one can see that color misidentification can cause serious safety problems. (Try identifying a green, gray and brown conductor, in a dusty, shady environment, when the manufacturer has not added sufficient pigment to the insulation.)
The ideal solution would be to dictate various ranges of color via existing RGB (red-green-blue), CMYK (Cyan-Magenta-Yellow-Black), frequency, or other identification methods. However, this is not an ideal world. Additional research would be needed in order to find out the exact colors that are less likely to be misidentified by the partially colorblind community. Further, manufacturers would object to additional manufacturing processes for cost and nuisance reasons.
There is a less expensive and arguably better alternative: Add to the already existing labeling requirements to include the color. This code change does not dictate what the exact color must be; the manufacturer gets to decide what color they choose to sell it as. With this code change they must label the conductor so that the end user has a better chance to know what the color is intended to be.
The reason for the slash ('/') or an equivalent separation is to allow for tracer colors, which can cause similar problems.
The reason for Exception No. 1 is to ease the financial burden upon manufacturers and businesses that specialize in adding tracer colors and/or re-spooling conductors onto spools with a smaller quantity that the OEM made. This exception does not significantly reduce safety, as it is relatively rare for colors other than yellow to be placed on a green conductor.
The reason for Exception No. 2 is similar to Exception No. 2 as described above. So long as there is only one tracer color, and that color is either white or black, the chances of misidentification are very minimal.
The reason for the Fine Print Note is to give manufacturers and users an example of what to expect the color labels could look like. These color choices are already in the market place. The selection of colors where derived from several manufacturers catalogs. An example of what users should look for should improve proper identification, and thus safety.
########################################
Part 2 of 2: 310.11(B)(1)
########################################
1. Section/Paragraph: _310.11(B)(1)_____
[/B]2. Proposal recommends (check one):[/B] _ new text X revised text _ deleted text
3. Proposal (include proposed new wording, or identification of wording to be deleted):
[part 1 of 2:] Article 310.11 (B) (1): add two words: "?Color and?"
(B) Method of Marking.
(1) Surface Marking.
The following conductors and cables shall be durably marked on the surface. The color and AWG size or circular mil area shall be repeated at intervals not exceeding 610 mm (24 in.). ...
[part 2 of 2:] Between Sections 310.11(B)(1) (8) ?Instrumentation tray cable? & 310.11(B)(2) ?Marker Tape?, insert:
Exception: The color of the conductor is not required to be marked on the surface of cables so long as it is marked at intervals not exceeding 610 mm (24 in.) on the conductor?s insulation jacket itself.
4. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Proposal:
NOTE: See also 1st proposed change re new text for section 310.11(A)(6).
{i.e.: Labeling for the color of the insulation.}
This change is needed in order to pair up the color label with the AWG size label.
Most of the reasons why this improves safety are discussed in the accompanying proposal for Section 310.11(A)(6).
The reason for the exception is to respond Code Making Panel 6?s objections to this proposal during the 2005 edition?s code making cycle.
########################################
What changes do you suggest in order to insure this Proposal's success this time around?
My current thinking is to leave 310.11(A)(6)'s FPN as is, delete the second sentence regarding tracer colors, and replace both the exceptions with one:
"Exception: Tracer colors are not required to be identified."
What are your reactions to either the original proposal or my proposed change?
