M E M O R A N D U M - National Fire Protection · PDF fileM E M O R A N D U M TO: ... 2008 RP...
41
National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org M E M O R A N D U M TO: NFPA Technical Committee on Confined Space Safe Work Practices FROM: Colleen Kelly, Administrator – Technical Projects DATE: July 6, 2015 SUBJECT: NFPA 350 SD TC Ballot Circulation (F2015) The July 5, 2015 date for receipt of the NFPA 350 Second Draft ballot has passed. The preliminary Second Draft ballot results are shown on the attached report. 27 Members Eligible to Vote 8 Ballots Not Returned (Argudin, Donsbach Jr., Jones, McGinley II, McLaughlin, Vigdor, Weems, Zimlich Jr.) In accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards, attached are reasons for negative votes for review so you may change your ballot if you wish. Abstentions and affirmative comments are also included. Ballots received from alternate members are not included unless the ballot from the principal member was not received. If you wish to change your vote, the change must be received at NFPA on or before Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 11:59 PM Eastern. Members who have not returned a ballot may do so now. Such changes should be submitted through the NFPA Vote.net Ballot Site. The return of ballots is required by the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.
Transcript of M E M O R A N D U M - National Fire Protection · PDF fileM E M O R A N D U M TO: ... 2008 RP...
National Fire Protection Association
1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471
Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: NFPA Technical Committee on Confined Space Safe Work Practices
FROM: Colleen Kelly, Administrator – Technical Projects
DATE: July 6, 2015
SUBJECT: NFPA 350 SD TC Ballot Circulation (F2015)
The July 5, 2015 date for receipt of the NFPA 350 Second Draft ballot has passed.
The preliminary Second Draft ballot results are shown on the attached report.
27 Members Eligible to Vote
8 Ballots Not Returned (Argudin, Donsbach Jr., Jones, McGinley II, McLaughlin,
Vigdor, Weems, Zimlich Jr.)
In accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards,
attached are reasons for negative votes for review so you may change your ballot if you wish.
Abstentions and affirmative comments are also included. Ballots received from alternate members
are not included unless the ballot from the principal member was not received.
If you wish to change your vote, the change must be received at NFPA on or before Thursday,
July 9, 2015 at 11:59 PM Eastern. Members who have not returned a ballot may do so now.
Such changes should be submitted through the NFPA Vote.net Ballot Site.
The return of ballots is required by the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA
Standards.
Firstname Lastnam
e
QuestionTitle Response Comments
Affirmative with Comment PC 194 and 195 should be marked "accept" instead of "reject" as S R-121 does exactly as proposed in these comments.Richard S. Kraus SR-121, Section No. 15.3.1, See
SR-121
Richard S. Kraus SR-11, Section No. 2.3.3, See
SR-11
Affirmative with Comment Update the API Standards referenced in NFPA 350 as follows: Std 653 Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction, Fifth Edition, 2014
RP 2003 Protection Against Ignitions Arising out of Static, Lightning, and Stray Currents, Seventh Edition, 2008 RP 2009 Safe Welding and Cutting
Practices in Refineries, Gasoline Plants, and Petrochemicals Plants, Seventh Edition, 2002 (Reaffirmed 2007) Std 2015 Requirements for Safe
Entry and Cleaning of Petroleum Storage Tanks, Seventh Edition, 2014 RP 2016 Guidelines and Procedures for Entering and Cleaning Petroleum
Storage Tanks, First Edition, 2001 (Reaffirmed 2006) RP 2027 Ignition Hazards Involved in Abrasive Blasting of Atmospheric Storage Tanks in
Hydrocarbon Service, First Edition, 2002 (Reaffirmed 2012) RP 2201 Safe Hot Tapping Practices in the Petroleum & Petrochemical Industries,
Fifth Edition, 2003 (Reaffirmed 2010) RP 2202 Dismantling and Disposing of Steel from Aboveground Leaded Gasoline Storage Tanks, First
Edition, 1991 RP 2207 Preparing Tank Bottoms for Hot Work, Sixth Edition, 2007 (Reaffirmed 2012) Std 2217A Guidelines for Safe Work in Inert
Confined Spaces in the Petroleum and Petrochemical Industries, Fourth Edition, 2009 RP 2219 Safe Operation of Vacuum Trucks in Petroleum
Service, Third Edition, 2005 (Reaffirmed 2012)
Should paragraph 15.1, on the 8th line down, the word 'contractor' should be 'Entrant Employer."
Alfred W. Keiss SR-151, Section No. 12.2.3, See
SR-151
Negative Wording is mirror of 12.2.2 - This should read: Written Program Access. "Employers should provide all employees, and/or their authorized
representatives, an and contractors performing confined space operations, a copy of, or access to, the facilities written confined space entry
program."
Affirmative with Comment Para 14.1.1. The term 'employer' should be changed to "Entrant Employer" for consistency with the rest of the document.
James L. Tyler SR-119, Section No. 15.1, See
SR-119
Affirmative with Comment
James L. Tyler SR-130, Section No. 14.1, See
SR-130
James L. Tyler SR-159, Section No. 12.16, See
SR-159
Affirmative with Comment The content is acceptable, however the sentence structure (punctuation, capitalization and character spacing needs adjustment.
I am still of the opinion as is this commenter that not using the term permit space is not consistant with industry practice and adds confusion to
our document. I think not using the terms add more confusion than defining them and using them.
Jim E. Norris SR-57, Section No. 5.1.2, See
SR-57
Negative I am still of the opinion as is this commenter that not using the term permit space is not consistant with industry practice and adds confusion to
our document. This chart implies that all confined spaces are created equal which is certainly not the case.
Negative I am still of the opinion as is this commenter that not using the term permit space is not consistant with industry practice and adds confusion to
our document
Jim E. Norris SR-56, Section No. 5.1
[Excluding any Sub-Sections],
See SR-56
Negative
Jim E. Norris SR-5, Section No. 4.3, See SR-5
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-170, Global Comment, See
SR-170
Timothy R. Fisher SR-165, Global Comment, See
SR-165
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-164, Global Comment, See
SR-164
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-163, Global Comment, See
SR-163
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-11, Section No. 2.3.3, See
SR-11
Timothy R. Fisher SR-55, Section No. 2.3.2, See
SR-55
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-12, Section No. 2.3.1, See
SR-12
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-1, Section No. 1.1, See SR-1 Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-16, Section No. 3.3.8, See
SR-16
Timothy R. Fisher SR-15, Section No. 3.3.5, See
SR-15
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-14, Section No. 3.3.3, See
SR-14
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-4, Section No. 2.4, See SR-4 Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-29, Section No. 3.3.13, See
SR-29
Timothy R. Fisher SR-28, Section No. 3.3.11, See
SR-28
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-54, New Section after
3.3.10, See SR-54
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-17, Section No. 3.3.9, See
SR-17
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-32, New Section after
3.3.22, See SR-32
Timothy R. Fisher SR-31, Section No. 3.3.21, See
SR-31
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-30, Section No. 3.3.19, See
SR-30
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-8, Section No. 3.3.15, See
SR-8
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-34, Section No. 3.3.32, See
SR-34
Timothy R. Fisher SR-169, New Section after
3.3.29.3, See SR-169
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-33, Section No. 3.3.28, See
SR-33
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-52, New Section after
3.3.27, See SR-52
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-38, Section No. 3.3.37, See
SR-38
Timothy R. Fisher SR-37, Section No. 3.3.36, See
SR-37
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-36, New Section after
3.3.35, See SR-36
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-35, Section No. 3.3.34, See
SR-35
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-41, Section No. 3.3.70, See
SR-41
Timothy R. Fisher SR-6, Section No. 3.3.45, See
SR-6
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-3, Section No. 3.3.41, See
SR-3
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-39, Section No. 3.3.39, See
SR-39
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-57, Section No. 5.1.2, See
SR-57
Timothy R. Fisher SR-56, Section No. 5.1
[Excluding any Sub-Sections],
See SR-56
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-5, Section No. 4.3, See SR-5 Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-42, Section No. 3.3.73, See
SR-42
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-61, Section No. 6.2.1, See
SR-61
Timothy R. Fisher SR-60, Section No. 5.8, See SR-
60
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-59, Section No. 5.7.1, See
SR-59
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-58, Section No. 5.6, See SR-
58
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-65, Section No. 6.3.4.2.2,
See SR-65
Timothy R. Fisher SR-64, Section No. 6.3.4.1.2,
See SR-64
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-63, Section No. 6.3.2, See
SR-63
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-62, Section No. 6.2.2, See
SR-62
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-69, Section No. 6.3.5.4, See
SR-69
Timothy R. Fisher SR-68, Section No. 6.3.5.3, See
SR-68
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-67, Section No. 6.3.5.2.1,
See SR-67
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-66, Section No. 6.3.4.3.2,
See SR-66
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-73, Section No. 6.4.2, See
SR-73
Timothy R. Fisher SR-72, Section No. 6.4.1, See
SR-72
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-71, Section No. 6.3.5.7, See
SR-71
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-70, Section No. 6.3.5.5, See
SR-70
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-77, Section No. 6.5.6, See
SR-77
Timothy R. Fisher SR-76, Section No. 6.5.3, See
SR-76
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-75, Section No. 6.5.2, See
SR-75
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-74, Section No. 6.5
[Excluding any Sub-Sections],
See SR-74
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-81, Sections 7.3.1, 7.3.2,
See SR-81
Timothy R. Fisher SR-80, Section No. 7.3
[Excluding any Sub-Sections],
See SR-80
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-79, Section No. 7.1, See SR-
79
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-78, Section No. 6.6.1
[Excluding any Sub-Sections],
See SR-78
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-84, Section No. 7.3.14
[Excluding any Sub-Sections],
See SR-84
Timothy R. Fisher SR-93, Section No. 7.3.13, See
SR-93
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-83, Sections 7.3.10, 7.3.11,
See SR-83
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-82, Section No. 7.3.9, See
SR-82
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-88, Section No. 7.4.7.6.1,
See SR-88
Timothy R. Fisher SR-87, Section No. 7.4.5, See
SR-87
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-86, Section No. 7.4.3, See
SR-86
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-85, Section No. 7.4.2, See
SR-85
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-91, Section No. 7.15.1, See
SR-91
Timothy R. Fisher SR-94, Section No. 7.14, See SR-
94
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-90, Section No. 7.8.1.1, See
SR-90
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-89, Section No. 7.7.2.1, See
SR-89
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-98, Section No. 8.4, See SR-
98
Timothy R. Fisher SR-96, Section No. 8.3
[Excluding any Sub-Sections],
See SR-96
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-95, Section No. 8.1, See SR-
95
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-92, Section No. 7.17, See SR-
92
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-102, Section No. 8.5.6, See
SR-102
Timothy R. Fisher SR-101, Section No. 8.5.5, See
SR-101
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-100, Section No. 8.5.2, See
SR-100
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-99, Section No. 8.5
[Excluding any Sub-Sections],
See SR-99
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-53, Section No. 8.8.1
[Excluding any Sub-Sections],
See SR-53
Timothy R. Fisher SR-105, Section No. 8.7
[Excluding any Sub-Sections],
See SR-105
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-104, Section No. 8.6, See SR-
104
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-103, Section No. 8.5.9, See
SR-103
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-108, Section No. 8.10.1, See
SR-108
Timothy R. Fisher SR-107, Section No. 8.10
[Excluding any Sub-Sections],
See SR-107
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-106, Section No. 8.9
[Excluding any Sub-Sections],
See SR-106
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-51, Section No. 8.8.2, See
SR-51
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-112, Section No. 8.11.5, See
SR-112
Timothy R. Fisher SR-111, Section No. 8.11.4
[Excluding any Sub-Sections],
See SR-111
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-110, Section No. 8.10.2.3,
See SR-110
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-109, Section No. 8.10.2.1,
See SR-109
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-116, Section No. 8.14.3.1,
See SR-116
Timothy R. Fisher SR-115, Section No. 8.14.1, See
SR-115
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-114, Section No. 8.13, See
SR-114
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-113, Section No. 8.12, See
SR-113
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-143, Section No. 9.3.2, See
SR-143
Timothy R. Fisher SR-142, Section No. 9.3.1.2,
See SR-142
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-141, Section No. 9.2, See SR-
141
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-140, Section No. 9.1, See SR-
140
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-147, Section No. 9.5, See SR-
147
Timothy R. Fisher SR-146, Section No. 9.4, See SR-
146
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-145, Section No. 9.3.4, See
SR-145
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-144, Section No. 9.3.3, See
SR-144
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-9, Section No. 10.1.3.4, See
SR-9
Timothy R. Fisher SR-139, Section No. 10.1.3.1,
See SR-139
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-133, Section No. 10.1.2.4,
See SR-133
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-18, Section No. 10.1.1, See
SR-18
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-136, Section No. 10.5, See
SR-136
Timothy R. Fisher SR-166, Section No. 10.4, See
SR-166
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-135, Section No. 10.3, See
SR-135
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-138, Section No. 10.2, See
SR-138
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-150, Section No. 12.1.1, See
SR-150
Timothy R. Fisher SR-131, Chapter 11, See SR-
131
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-167, Section No. 10.6.2, See
SR-167
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-137, Section No. 10.6
[Excluding any Sub-Sections],
See SR-137
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-153, Section No. 12.5, See
SR-153
Timothy R. Fisher SR-152, Section No. 12.4, See
SR-152
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-151, Section No. 12.2.3, See
SR-151
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-149, Section No. 12.2
[Excluding any Sub-Sections],
See SR-149
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-157, Section No. 12.9, See
SR-157
Timothy R. Fisher SR-156, Section No. 12.8
[Excluding any Sub-Sections],
See SR-156
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-154, Section No. 12.7.1, See
SR-154
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-155, Section No. 12.6, See
SR-155
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-20, Section No. 13.1.1, See
SR-20
Timothy R. Fisher SR-162, Section No. 13.1
[Excluding any Sub-Sections],
See SR-162
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-159, Section No. 12.16, See
SR-159
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-158, Section No. 12.11, See
SR-158
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-25, Section No. 13.2.3, See
SR-25
Timothy R. Fisher SR-24, Section No. 13.2.2, See
SR-24
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-23, Section No. 13.2.1, See
SR-23
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-97, Section No. 13.2
[Excluding any Sub-Sections],
See SR-97
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-129, Section No. 14.2, See
SR-129
Timothy R. Fisher SR-130, Section No. 14.1, See
SR-130
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-27, Section No. 13.2.8, See
SR-27
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-26, Section No. 13.2.6, See
SR-26
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-120, Section No. 15.3
[Excluding any Sub-Sections],
See SR-120
Timothy R. Fisher SR-119, Section No. 15.1, See
SR-119
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-19, Section No. 14.4, See SR-
19
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-128, Section No. 14.3, See
SR-128
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-124, Section No. 15.4.2, See
SR-124
Timothy R. Fisher SR-125, Section No. 15.4.1, See
SR-125
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-123, Section No. 15.3.3, See
SR-123
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-121, Section No. 15.3.1, See
SR-121
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-40, Section No. A.3.3.39,
See SR-40
Timothy R. Fisher SR-118, Section No. 16.4, See
SR-118
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-127, Section No. 15.5, See
SR-127
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-126, Section No. 15.4.3, See
SR-126
Abstain
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-171, Chapter B, See SR-171
Timothy R. Fisher SR-50, Section No. A.10.9.1,
See SR-50
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-172, Section No. A.8.14,
See SR-172
Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-43, Section No. A.3.3.70,
See SR-43
Abstain
I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-13, Chapter E, See SR-13 Abstain I have read or scanned all 347 pages until my vision went blurry. It seems that the NFPA is still firmly committed to charting their own course
with definitions based on what suits them and their existing NFPA standards. There is still much conflict with current voluntary consensus
standards such as ANSI/ASSE Z1171. There apparently is not much regard to the cognizant regulatory/legal standards nor the pre-existence of
proven, credible consensus standards like Z117 and some CSA and API products. I disagree that that this is a better means to provide for the
safety of those involved in confined space entry work, I suppose. I still don’t see it, though. While I am still not sure of the need for guideline, my
thinking is that it will not be widely referenced or applied due to the conflicts with already existing standards. Overall, where the standard isn’t
redundant, it is confusing and conflicting with existing standards – both statutory and consensus in nature. I don’t see any added value that
would motivate an organization to want to buy or use it. In regards to this specific section, the vote is an abstention because it is not consistent
with the already existing ANSI/ASSE Z117.1 Standard. The Z117.1 Standard has historically been based upon the idea that a risk assessment
(Section #3) is required and then appropriate steps are taking utilizing the hierarchy of controls. The NFPA document is not a supplement to
Z117.1, but would rather seem to be a complete contradiction.
Timothy R. Fisher SR-168, Chapter C, See SR-168 Abstain
