PI3980 - Absence of Voltage Test & Indication

Josh111

Senior Member
Location
USA
I am trying to find how to tell if this proposal died for good, or was moved somewhere else. Reason is I would like to comment on it. There was a push for absence of voltage indicators that was pushed for 2023. I can't find it at 110.25, but don't know how to tell if it got sent to another committee under a new name or not. They were trying to add it to article 408 as well. Did it die or get moved?

I personally think it's too early to put this in the NEC. These things seems great and could offer a lot in terms of improving worker safety. I've attended some webinars on them, never seen one in real life. However, they aren't a substitute for qualified people, they only indicate a given location is de-energized, which requires both proper install and a knowledge of what section they indicate may be safe. And they are new. I think they should be introduced by those employers who wish to use them and be given some time to be adopted before they become a requirement. I had some public comment I could post here for consideration but I am trying first to find if this proposal is still a thing. It appears that the person who submitted the public input for this is one of several companies that make these.
 
Last edited:

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
Nothing has "died for good" at this point in the process. You can make comments on "resolved" (rejected) PIs to bring them back in the comment stage. You just have to find the PI as you will have to reference the PI number in your comment. When you look at the "first draft report", there is a gray bar that will say "PIs (x)" The X is the number of PIs. Clicking on that link will take you to the PIs that for that section that were resolved.

The PI for 110.25 for absence of voltage was PI 3835. You pretty much have to insert the same text that was rejected of modified text conveying the same idea, comment on why it should be in the code and reference the original PI in your comment. You cannot submit a comment without a reference to a PI and/or an FR.
Public Input No. 3835-NFPA 70-2020 [ New Section after 110.25 ]
Absence of Voltage Test & Indication
A means shall be provided to verify the absence of voltage in accordance with an acceptable industry practice that does not expose personnel to shock or arc flash hazards or live parts at the test point for the disconnecting means for any voltage supplies or stored energy sources that present a shock or arc flash hazard up to and including 1000V in equipment such as switchboards, switchgear, panelboards, industrial control panels, motor control centers, and similar isolation equipment, that is located other than in dwelling units and is likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance.
Informational Note: NFPA 70E-2021 Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace provides guidance for safely verifying the absence of voltage including the use of devices like a permanently mounted absence of voltage tester. ...
...
Committee Statement
Resolution: This is a worker safety issue that is addressed by NFPA 70E, not an installation issue. The NEC doesn't preclude the use of a permanently mounted Absence of Voltage Tester (AVT) on any equipment. Further, it is not the only way to determine absence of voltage.
 

Josh111

Senior Member
Location
USA
I was wanting to post a comment in opposition to it so I’m not sure if that’s even necessary at this point if it died. I think those are a great idea. I don’t think they belong in the code as a requirement, at least not at this point. It looks like someone who works for a company that makes those has twice now tried to get those into the code.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
I was wanting to post a comment in opposition to it so I’m not sure if that’s even necessary at this point if it died. I think those are a great idea. I don’t think they belong in the code as a requirement, at least not at this point. It looks like someone who works for a company that makes those has twice now tried to get those into the code.
Not sure that there is any way to added a comment to ask the panel to continue to reject a PI that was rejected in the first revision.

In the old ROP/ROC process it was easy to do.

In the old process, you would often see comments asking that the panel accept the original proposal that was rejected in the ROP, along with comments that ask the panel to continue to reject. That is an important part of the process that has gone away with TerraView.
 

pv_n00b

Senior Member
Location
CA, USA
Not sure that there is any way to added a comment to ask the panel to continue to reject a PI that was rejected in the first revision.

In the old ROP/ROC process it was easy to do.

In the old process, you would often see comments asking that the panel accept the original proposal that was rejected in the ROP, along with comments that ask the panel to continue to reject. That is an important part of the process that has gone away with TerraView.
It's not as straightforward as the old system to put in a concurrence to a rejected PI, particularly one that was adding a new section. It's not a bad idea though since others might be commenting to bring it back. I guess you can enter it as a PC on 110.25 and in the discussion concur with the CMPs decision to reject the PI and put in the PI number in the reference.
 

Josh111

Senior Member
Location
USA
I think there was also a proposal by the same person to add this article 408 instead of 110 but I don’t know how to find that. When I go to the NFPA website what I find is a very long list of links to committee meeting minutes and then links to the draft report and links to comment on the draft report. I don’t see anywhere how to find all the public inputs.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
I think there was also a proposal by the same person to add this article 408 instead of 110 but I don’t know how to find that. When I go to the NFPA website what I find is a very long list of links to committee meeting minutes and then links to the draft report and links to comment on the draft report. I don’t see anywhere how to find all the public inputs.
You look at every section of the actual First Draft Report. Above each section that has a Public Input, there is a gray bar. On the left side of that bar it says "PIs (x)" with the X equaling the number of PIs submitted for that section. Clicking on that link takes you to those PIs. On that same bar, on the right side there are clickable links to First Revisions and Correlating Committee Notes.

You can also find what you are looking for under each of the Code Making Panels in the "Public Input with Responses Report". In some cases those are PDFs that are searchable and in other cases they are no searchable.
 

Josh111

Senior Member
Location
USA
I’m finding that the person that was trying to promote this went through and peppered almost every article of the NEC with a proposal. They even wanted to push that the required HVAC disconnect have one!
 
Top