NEC Style - ECN Electrical Forums

Are there guidelines on how to interpret the format of the NEC as it applies to Exceptions?

In 210-8(a)(Dwelling Units) it talks about requiring GFCI protection "in the locations specified below" .. Then lists;
(1) Bathrooms
(2) Garages .......
Exception #1
Exception #2

Now, maybe I'm spacing out here, but when I look at it in the Codebook it is not obvious to me whether the Exceptions apply to only (2) Garages or to both (1) and (2) that come before it. It seems to me that if the exceptions were only supposed to apply to (2) that they should be indented underneath it.

When I look at 210-6 (a), (b), (c) seem to have no exceptions ... but then, look at the end below 210-6(d)(2) there are Exceptions that apply to (b) and (c) above.

Any thoughts?

Bill

I sent you the 2001 NFPA Style Manual. See Section 2.6 Exceptions.

2.6.1 Placement and Order. Exceptions shall
immediately follow the main rule to which they apply.

Exceptions containing the mandatory terms shall or shall not are to be listed first in the sequence.

Permissive exceptions containing shall be permitted are to follow any mandatory exceptions and be listed in their order of
importance as determined by the Code-Making Panel.

2.6.2 Numbering. Where there are two or more
consecutive exceptions, each shall be numbered.

Joe,

Thanks as always.
It doesn't seem to elaborate too much on my specific question, but please check me on my interpretation; (in my example)

(Rule)In 210-8(a)(Dwelling Units) it talks about requiring GFCI protection "in the locations specified below" .. Then lists;
(List Item)(1) Bathrooms
(List Item)(2) Garages .......
(Applies to main Rule)Exception #1
(Applies to main Rule)Exception #2

This would mean that in this specific instance (as per exception #1) a single outlet may be permitted in a Bathroom without GFCI protection under the specified conditions?

Bill

Bill:

Both exceptions apply only to: "(2) Garages, and also accessory buildings that have a floor located at or below grade level not intended as habitable rooms and limited to storage areas, work areas, and areas of similar use."

I would not interpret the rule to allow the single receptacle in a bathroom.

Joe,

Maybe I'm thinking of the similarity to an outline where items indented below something would be related to the item directly above it. I would find that more clear.

From the way I read the style manual It looks as if the Rule is;
In 210-8(a)(Dwelling Units) it talks about requiring GFCI protection "in the locations specified below" ..
And (1) and (2) are just items in a list. I could see the Exceptions applying to both Items in the List and hypothesize that it was written this was to not have to repeat it after each List Item in an effort to shorten the Document itself.

This is how 210-6 appears to me. The Exceptions to (b) (c) and (d) appear at the end of 210-6 (after d) instead of immediately following (b) and (c) and then again at (d). I can see this as being an easy way to shorten the NEC itself as the Exceptions at the end apply to the main rule (210-6 - Voltage Limitations) in all list items below it (with the specific exclusion of (a) by omission in this case)

Bill

Take a look at 210-8 (B) 2002 NEC and see if snow melting receptacles can be installed in just kitchens or does the exception include rooftops?

johngeorge,

An Excellant example!!
That's probably for defrosting the fridge! [Linked Image]

I'm glad to hear that I'm not getting senile yet.
(although some may differ)

Also, we've talked about allowing non-gfci protected receptacles (to avoid nuisance tripping) for sump pumps located in crawl spaces, ('99 NEC 210-8(4)) but the exception that would allow it is under (5)Unfinished Basements.

Maybe We should make a collective proposal for a change? Any thoughts?

Bill

[This message has been edited by Bill Addiss (edited 12-16-2001).]

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)

Don,

I may be wrong, but after looking at the Style Manual it looks like The Exception(s) apply to the main rule immediately before it and includes any items (locations in this case) listed in between except where noted.

What do you make of the other examples I cited (all from '99 NEC)

Bill

Take a look at 250-114 The main rule and the exception immediately after - then items 1 and 2 further discribing the main rule - then two additional exceptions (are they talking about only equipment that operates over 150 volts to ground? I think so!) (3) is a subsection to residential occupancies a through e - no exceptions here but in subsection (4) watch out, the exception comes after "g" but is written for the entire subsection (4).
The rule of thumb used to be that the exception included all written material within a subsection or a main code numbered article whichever came first.
I believe you are right, Bill, a further investigation is needed and you are the person to do it.

Bill,
Up until the '95 draft copy of the 96 NEC, it was very clear that the exception only applied to 210-8(a)(2). The Exception started out with the words, "Exception #1 to (a)(2)". I don't know if these words appear in the 96 NEC as I don't have a copy here at home. The words do not appear in the '99 code and I can't find any proposals in either the 95 or 98 ROPs and ROCs that reflect the deleting of these words. Does any one know how the deletion came about?
Don(resqcapt19)

No, but knowing such may lend to future clarification.......

Don,

In looking at 210-8(a) in the 1990 NEC I see what you mean. At that time this section was in a different format also. 210-(a)(1) and (2) are each what I would consider as rules as per the style manual. The format of this same section the 1999 NEC is that of a rule followed by a list.

I'd like to repeat that my questioning goes beyond the examples presented here, but if you look at (1990 NEC) 210-8(a)(4) there is an Exemption from GFCI protection for certain receptacles in Crawlspaces - it appears immediately after the rule stating that GFCI protection is required in crawlspaces. So clearly there are exceptions for crawlspaces. Now go to the same section in the 1999 NEC the exception is under (5) but I believe that it is still meant to apply to (4) (crawlspaces)

I don't really mean to debate specifics, as I think there is a much larger issue here if we can't be sure which exemptions apply to which rules. I think that there will always be a problem with interpretations of wording, but this is something which shouldn't be in dispute.

Bill

Bill,
I think that this is a lack of coordination when the sections are changed and new parts added or other parts deleted. In the cases we are looking at the application of the exceptions is very clear in the old codes and becomes ambiguous in the new code after changes not directly related to the exception were made. I agree that it is a very real problem for the use and enforcement of the NEC. These things should be caught by the CMP or if it gets by them, then by the correlating committee. Looks like a good place to start with proposals for the 2005 code.
Don(resqcapt19)

Bill, these exceptions apply to the "main rule" which I believe are the key words here.

2001 NFPA Style Manual. See Section 2.6 Exceptions. (from Joe's input)
2.6.1 Placement and Order. Exceptions shall
immediately follow the MAIN RULE to which they apply.

If the exception does not apply, you cannot use it to change the main rule. These exceptions are for those isolated cases not within the main rule which is the entire rule.

So I believe bathrooms can have dedicated outlets - if not change the wording of the code to clarify this exception, and the numerous others within the code.

johngeorge,

This are excerpts from the 2001 NEC Style Manual.

Quote

2.1.3 Articles. Articles are chapter subdivisions that cover a specific subject such as grounding, overcurrent protection, lighting fixtures, and so on. Each article shall have a title. Articles are divided into sections and sometimes into parts.

2.1.4 Parts. If an article is sufficiently large, it shall be permitted to be subdivided into parts that correspond to logical groupings of information. Parts shall have titles and shall be designated by Roman numerals. (See example.) Parts typically consist of a number of sections; see 2.4.2.1 for section numbering in articles that are subdivided into parts.

Example:
I Installation
II Construction Specifications
III Grounding

2.1.5 Subdividing Sections. Sections shall be permitted to be subdivided for clarity, with each subdivision representing either a rule or a part of a rule. Up to three levels of subdivisions shall be permitted, and any level shall be permitted to contain a list.

2.1.5.1 List Formats. Lists are a method of structuring the items necessary to complete a rule. Lists in any subdivision level shall be numbered, and listed items shall be single words, phrases, or sentences. Items in a list shall not contain titles.

(Example)

Example:
Chapter ---- Chapter 2 Wiring and Protection
Article ---- Article 250 ---- Grounding
Part ---- II Conductors
Section ---- 250.121 Identification and Size of Equipment Grounding Conductors.Unless otherwise required in this Code, equipment grounding conductors shall be permitted to be bare, covered, or insulated.
Level 1 ---- (A) Identification of Conductors. An insulated or covered conductor larger than No. 6 copper or aluminum shall be permitted to be identified, at the time of installation, by one of the following means:
List item ---- (1) Stripping the insulation or covering from the entire exposed length.
List item ---- (2) Coloring the exposed insulation or covering green.
List item ---- (3) Marking the exposed insulation or covering with green tape or green adhesive labels.

*****************

2.6 Exceptions.
2.6.1 Placement and Order. Exceptions shall immediately follow the main rule to which they apply.

Exceptions containing the mandatory terms shall or shall not are to be listed first in the sequence.

Permissive exceptions containing shall be permitted are to follow any mandatory exceptions and be listed in their order of importance as determined by the Code-Making Panel.

2.6.2 Numbering. Where there are two or more consecutive exceptions, each shall be numbered.

That's my take on how it reads too. The Exception in our Example ('99 NEC 210-8(a))is to the Rule (above it) of Required GFCI protection and includes the locations in the list between them. - That would also mean that the exception concerning snow-melting equipment ('02 NEC 210-8(b)would apply to both the Kitchen and Rooftop areas. [Linked Image]

Anybody have an older NEC Style Manual?

Bill

[This message has been edited by Bill Addiss (edited 12-17-2001).]

John, Bill,
I agree that when you apply the style manual rules to 210-8, that a dedicated outlet would be permitted by the wording in a bathroom.
I do not believe that is the intent of the code as I can find no proposal to extend the exception that at one time only applied to garages to the bathroom. In the 96 draft in the 95 ROP the 2 exceptions clearly only applied to garages. There are no comments in the 95 ROC that made this change. How did the wording of the exception get changed. Changes in the style manual should not be permitted to effect changes in the technical rules.
Don(resqcapt19)

Who started this!!

It is now clear; I think, from your last post, Bill, that LEVELS (A) (B) (C) etc are used as a rule under article numbers that are under section numbers etc. etc.

The LISTS ( the numbered parts of the rule) are used to complete the rule and clarify the LEVEL.

So if an exception comes immediately afer a LIST (1) (2) or (3) the exception would have to be part of the rule not the LIST item.

There are places in the code where an exception comes between LIST (nunmered) parts of a rule. An exception after LIST (1) and before (2) would indicate the exception only applies to this LIST (1)item; however, if the exception comes at the end of LIST item (5) we may have a clarification problem as is this case.
A clarification should be made within the exception (which has been done in parts of the code) as to the restriction for use of this particular exception, in regards to other parts of the rule if they do not or do apply.
To summarize: Exceptions are to the RULE not to the LIST which is only part of the rule - unless indicated.

Don,

The language already referenced seems the same in the 1999 Style Manual.

More;

Quote

1.1 Purpose. The National Electrical Code (NEC) Style Manual is prepared under the guidance of the NEC Technical Correlating Committee and is used to advise members of the Code-Making Panels on the required editorial style and arrangement of the NEC. It is intended to be used as a practical working tool to assist in making the NEC as clear, usable, and unambiguous as possible.

1.2 Scope. This Manual provides editorial and administrative requirements for writing the National Electrical Code® (NFPA 70). Except as otherwise specified in this manual, the NEC® shall comply with the NFPA Manual of Style.

Specifics aside, at the moment the examples We have seem to point more towards 'our' Style Manual interpretation being correct than not. And it does seem to be the rule to go by.

I am not debating or challenging the correctness or interpretation of anything specific, I am just trying to make the case that something is wrong somewhere and it needs clarification. There should be no questions like this.

Bill

[This message has been edited by Bill Addiss (edited 12-17-2001).]

Quote

I am not debating or challenging the correctness or interpretation of anything specific, I am just trying to make the case that something is wrong somewhere and it needs clarification. There should be no questions like this.

Understood.
But I am confused as to where a viable ROP would apply, is this something best addressed in the 'NEC style' manual? Or in the NEC ?

Sparky,

Good Question.
At this point We don't know for sure which (or any) is wrong. To pick an 'obvious' example, in 210.8(B) (2002 NEC) The Exception for Snow-melting equipment is after Kitchens, not Rooftops. It could be an error/oversight, or it could be that We are supposed to be reading a little differently than We have become accustomed to.

Same argument applies to the Crawlspace Exception in 210.8(a) It is not after Crawlspaces anymore. The Exception was clearly permitted in the past, was it changed?, a misprint/omission error?, or is this a new style? No answers yet.

I think if We can get a definitive answer as to the proper interpretation of the NEC Format as it applies to exceptions everything will be much clearer as to what, if anything, is wrong.

Anyone know how We can find out?

Bill

Bill:

The best way is to call NFPA 617-770-3000, and ask for the Electrical Department.

There are 6 staff liaisons there who answer questions related to the NEC.

Here is a link for the NFPA proposal form that should be used to send one or more proposals into NFPA for action in the next code cycle. The NEC proposal form and instructions can be found at the back of the 2002 NEC.
NFPA PROPOSAL FORM
http://www.nfpa.org/PDF/DocProp.pdf?src=nfpa

Should an interpertaion be pursued first?

Joe,

Thanks, I called but was unable to actually talk to someone about it, but I did get an Email address of someone that should be able to help. I'll keep you posted.

Bill

So what if the exceptions seem inapplicable to a bathroom ..it doesn't hurt. Its possible that someone might include laundry spaces in a bathroom adjacent to the garage..so the exceptions could very well apply. As for snow melting equipment outlets in the kitchen..THAT would be a stretch of imagination, but the exception wouldn't hurt.
The code book I have has lots of mistakes..correlating committee didn't do a very thorough job. Maybe someone else already mentioned it, but 210.8 has redundant, unnecessary, misplaced wording right after 210.8(a)(2)Exc.2

Elzappr,

I'm not sure what your mean about some of the things you mentioned, but the point I was trying to make is more about wanting to know how to read the code. I almost said 'Interpret', but that would not be correct. Words or phrases can be interpreted differently sometimes, but we must first know how something should be read.

I just brought this question up as a topic of conversation, but seemed to end up with more questions than answers. I'm not sure how to interpret why there was so few participants with opinions on this either.

Bill

I hear you Bill, I know I commented a little on some miscellaneous items that were brought up by others, so let me just answer your question.
I'm interpreting, based on the style manual info supplied by others in this thread, that exceptions apply to the preceeding main rule..as reformulated per each listed item. My contention is that the code is screwed up in 210.8 because they left a sentence in the wrong place, even 'tho they repeated it later, in the proper place. Given that they messed that part up, it would be no surprise that other items might be misplaced.
The enumerated items listed under the main rule each reformulate the rule..more economical than creating a whole bunch of rules using almost the exact same language along with each listed item. That is why the exceptions follow various listed items. If the exceptions don't make sense, then perhaps there is a scenario that you just haven't run into yet..like inaccessible receptacles in bathrooms, or appliances in bathrooms..OR, maybe they just screwed up! This is what they apparently did in 210.8(B). They should have put the exception right after item (2). I've never heard of electric snow melting equipment outlets in a kitchen before, but I'm willing to learn if such a scenario ever exists..maybe in Afganistan!? [Linked Image]

Trying to follow all of this and not get out of balance. I read the main rule as GFCI in seven (7) areas.
Area 2 Garages has two (2) exceptions.
Area 3 Outdoors has one exception.
Area 5 Unfinished basements has two (2) exceptions.
Since the exceptions are placed where they are placed,then they have to be read as applying to the area under which they are placed. The "Receptacles that are not readily accessible" exception appears under three different areas. If it were meant for all seven (7) areas, then the wording would have to be different. Exception No. 2 to area 5 Unfinished basements does not apply to Area 4 Crawl spaces and does not apply to kitches per the Commentary. Exception no. 2 to area 2 Garages applies to that area only, not to bathrooms or Wet bar sinks of area 7.
That's the way I read it.

Sounds right, Warren 1.

It seems that trying to interpret the "How to read the NEC" is just as confusing as reading the NEC itself. They need to come out with the NEC for Dummies series so that we contractors and the inspectors are not at odds with the interpretation of the code.

I have recently gotten a response from NFPA on this;

Question to NFPA;

Quote

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.
....
Example;

xxx-xx(x)Occupancy Type; Here is some Rule that shall be followed in the Locations specified below.

(1)Location 1
(2)Location 2

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)

Answer:

Quote

Bill:

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..."

Chuck Durang
Product Manager, Electrical
NFPA

Does anyone know when the Errata comes out?

I'm interested to see if any of our examples were modified or clarified.

Bill

Bill:

I expect to see the 2002 NEC errata sometime in the next two weeks, and it will be available on the NFPA Web Page.

I believe that the answer I gave above was correct, and was supported by the reply you received.

Joe,

Yes, I believe that your (and Don's) response to the original example is supported by the NFPA response.

I was thinking of the other examples that came up later on such as the placement or wording of the exception following 210.8(B)(3)

and 210.8(A)(4)crawlspaces seems to have lost it's exception somewhere along the way.

Bill

Bill, Thank you very much for your follow-up on this question. I also want to state that I'm impressed with the form and clarity of your query to NFPA. Well Done!

From the 2002 Errata;

Quote

4. Page 70-53 210.8(B) Exception: After “Exception”, insert “to (2)”.

This provides some clarification to snow-melting equipment being related to rooftops rather than kitchens [Linked Image]

It is curious that it wasn't moved. The meaning of this section is clear now but the format doesn't seem consistant.

Bill

The code book is a classic example of folks looking at the detailed data too much for too long.

In my first contract situation there was a huge error found only after the contract was signed and we had to finish developing the billing module in the software and it came to light that the agreement was priced incorrectly. "We" had agreed to price equipment at a much lower'drop ship' price for installed equipment which included a 1-year warranty rather than having it priced in a 2-tier structure with a reasonable mark up for installed/warranteed equipment. The two distinctions showed up in all the verbage throughout the contract except in the pricing. [Linked Image]

The Director was livid as this was discovered months after work had begun. In his rage he said that uninformed, uninvolved people could've detected the discrepancy better than the 'red team review' had simply because they would've questioned the 'hanging' nature of the 2nd tier mentioned so frequently throughout. To make a long story longer, [Linked Image]

I have no idea what it cost the company (a BIG company that no longer exists) but I can say it probably cost someone their job!

Perhaps the NEC folks could hire the proofing out to catch some of the 'readability' issues.