Bill,
I have never read the exception below 210-8(a)(2) as applying to both (1) and (2), but the example cited by John sure makes it look that way. I think that the reason it looks that way is that 210.8(b)(3) was added for the 2002 code and the exception just wasn't relocated. In the 99 code it is clear that the exception in 210-8(b) applies to 210-8(b)(2).
Don(resqcapt19)
