210.12(A)(3)

[Fred B]

What is an example of a listed supplemental arc protection circuit breaker as required in 210.12(A)(3)? I don't know as if I've ever seen one to be able to use one for this means of providing arc protection. Was looking at it as was recently suggested that I didn't need an AFCI breaker as long as I put an AF receptacle in within 70ft of of circuit origin. But appears they left out the fact of that supplemental arc protection circuit breaker.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I believe someone said that they are available but they were not on the market until recently. It is, afaik, a listed afci receptacle and breaker that work together somehow.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

It is an almost non-existent combination developed by the breaker manufacturer's to help limit the penetration of receptacle AFCI devices. Testing shows that under the conditions, given in that rule, a standard breaker in combination with an receptacle AFCI device provides the required protection.

This rule was to go away in the 2017 code, as there were no listed combinations of that type then. The rule was kept in the code by a vote on a motion at the NFPA annual meeting. When you look to the vote count, you find that substantially more people voted on that motion, than on any other NEC amending motion at that meeting. It appears that some interest group sent people to the meeting to vote on that motion. Shades of Indian Head V Allied tube, which resulted in a rule that says you have to be a NFPA member for at least 6 months before you can vote on things at the NFPA meeting. The voting on the issue that resulted in Indian Head V Allied Tube, kept article "Article 362 Electrical Nonmetallic Tubing: Type ENT" out of the code for a full code cycle.

 

[hbiss]

It is an almost non-existent combination developed by the breaker manufacturer's to help limit the penetration of receptacle AFCI devices.

Sooo, you are saying that the breaker manufacturers conspired to limit the competition from receptacle manufacturers by stacking the deck to keep a rule that is almost impossible to follow?

Gee, what a surprise...

-Hal

 

[augie47]

IM am shocked to hear that a Code Section or proposal might involve an ulterior motive..... shocked, I tell you

 

[tom baker]

In the 2005 cycle, AFCI mfgs wanted to expand the requirements, but there were no allowances for AFCI receptacles. They conspired, receptacle mfgs voted for expanded requirements and and the CB mfgs voted to allow AFCI receptacles

 

[Mdsparky]

This is supposedly available to comply 210.12(A) 4 (d) . But as far as I can tell nothing exists for A (3)
System combination arc fault circuit breaker (eaton.com)

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Sooo, you are saying that the breaker manufacturers conspired to limit the competition from receptacle manufacturers by stacking the deck to keep a rule that is almost impossible to follow?

Gee, what a surprise...

-Hal

This was done at the annual meeting via a NITMAM and the motion was approved by the NFPA members who attended and voted at the meeting. Note that is is something totally different from excessive influence by manufactures within the CMPs.

I can't say that the breaker manufacturers conspired as there is no evidence, but there were about 150 more votes on that motion than other motion votes that took place after that one. The vote on this issue was the first one. One or two that occurred right after the first one only had about 50 less votes, but then the participation started dropping quickly.

Many proposals over the years have been from manufacturers fighting with each other for market share. In the 80s there were lots of proposal from the conduit manufacturers to limit the use of non-metallic cable methods, and in return there were lots of proposals from the cable manufactures to require a wire type EGC in all raceways. Most of these never got to the point where there was a floor motion and floor vote.

The process to get a motion on the floor is more difficult than it was in the past. In the past, you could actually make a motion from the floor at the technical meeting. Now you have to submit a Notice of Intent To Make a Motion (NITMAM). You have to have submitted an opposing comment to the panel action taken on the issue to be able to get your motion certified. The Certified Amending Motions are voted on at the technical meeting. If the motion passes, that is not the end of it...it goes back to the CMP, and it needs to get a 2/3s majority to become a part of the code. If the panel does not get a 2/3s majority in agreement with the motion, the code language for that section reverts back to the previous edition language.