I submitted a proposal for a formatting change to the 2005 NEC dealing with how Exceptions are listed to the code sections. It was returned because it "deals with formatting and issues that are an NFPA staff function and responsibility". The letter did say that they would give it due consideration though.
I think that the proposal addresses something that can easily cause confusion and would like to hear comments on it as it will never make it to public viewing via the ROPs. If I get some positive feedback on this I will forward it to the NFPA.
Do they have a suggestion box?
Indent Exceptions under 210.8(A)(2) and elsewhere in the NEC where the Exceptions pertain only to the List item directly above it.
I believe that there could easily be some confusion here (and some other locations in the NEC) as to what (specifically) Exceptions are meant to apply to. According to 2.6.1 in the 2001 NEC Style Manual Exceptions shall immediately follow the main rule to which they apply. In this example (and others) the item before the Exception is a 'List Item' and by definition only an item necessary to complete a rule. (not the Rule itself) see 184.108.40.206 and Example following 220.127.116.11 in 2001 NEC Style Manual. Indenting Exceptions below specific list items that they apply to will ensure that it is not confused with other situations where Exceptions may apply to several List items above it, as in the Exceptions following 210.6(D)(2)FPN. I believe that this modification will help to clarify the document as a whole and be more consistant with basic principles of Composition and Outline structure.
As some might recall this topic was brought up last year in this Thread
. I had written to the NFPA asking for some information on this:Question to NFPA;
I was wondering if you could please help with something that has recently come up.
It basically has to do with how Exceptions are interpreted in the NEC (both 1999 and 2002) as far as which rule (or part of a rule) they apply to.
xxx-xx(x)Occupancy Type; Here is some Rule that shall be followed in the Locations specified below.
Exception No. 1.........
Exception No. 2..........
Are the exceptions meant to apply to both locations (1) and (2) or only the one (2) that it follows?
The NEC Style Manual seems to say the Exceptions are to the Rule above it (and the List items are only part of the Rule)
My apologies for the delay in responding: (a) it got lost in the Holiday and year-end craziness, and (b) I had to research the answer.
The answer is: the exception(s) are to the item directly above only, whether that is a rule or a sub-part of a rule. In your example, both exceptions are to (2) only. In reviewing the 2002 Code for errata, we found another interesting one: it looked like your example, except there was a subhead (3). The exception was printed under (3), but belonged under (2). However, we feared that moving it there might make people think it applied to both (1) and (2) but not (3). So we added a few words, as in "Exception No. 1 to item (2) only..."
Product Manager, Electrical
The exception was printed under (3), but belonged under (2). However, we feared that moving it there might make people think it applied to both (1) and (2) but not (3). So we added a few words, as in "Exception No. 1 to item (2) only..."
I'm guessing that is referring to 210.8(B)(3). I believe that this portion of the NFPA response shows that there is a need for clarity in this regard and indenting would be a simple solution.
What are your thoughts?