Has anyone added a statement to AF warning labels that a minimum PPE level of Category 2, or 3, is required, eventhough IE is less than 4, or 8, cal/cm2? How did you state it?

Huh? Please rephrase that, I am not sure what you are asking. You dont mix HRC's and Ei's from your study and even if you did your examples dont match up.

You can require anything you want for PPE as long as it meets the minimum requirements based on the results of your analysis. Does that help?

Zog,
You are correct. "You can require anything you want for PPE as long as it meets the minimum requirements based on the results of your analysis."

My concern is, labels now require calculated IE values. How do you state, on the label, that even though the IE values imply HRCs of 0 or 1, management requires you to wear PPE rated 8 cal/cm2 or higher while working on this device?

I was looking for examples of how it could be stated in very few words.

Just say that the incident energy is less than or equal to 8 cal/cm². It doesn't matter what the actual value is if it is less than 8 cal/cm² and management wants to use PPE rated for 8 cal/cm².

There are two things you want on the label to define IE.

1. IE=X cal/cm2
2. Working Distance.

If you look at IE definiton in 70E you will see IE is always at a specific working distance. This is important so the worker understands the study's assumptions.

Most label softwares include LOTS of extra info that can be useful but confusing or extraneous.

Warning Arc Flash and Shock Hazard (in Orange some choose Red)
Incident Energy = X cal/cm2
Working Distance = X inches (ft., cm, m etc).

Couldn't agree more with this, I have seen many labels without the assumed working distance and in my eyes the Ei value has little meaning without it. When I see a 480V substation with an Ei of 39.6 cal/cm2 and no assumed working distance, my first thought is someone fudged the working distance to get the Ei < 40cal/cm2.