2005 NEC Formatting Proposal - ECN Electrical Forums

ECN Forum

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?

Quote

Recommendation:
Indent Exceptions under 210.8(A)(2) and elsewhere in the NEC where the Exceptions pertain only to the List item directly above it.
Substantiation:
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 2.1.5.1 and Example following 2.1.5.3 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;

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

Quote

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?

Bill

Bill,
what do U mean by 'indenting' ?

Sparky,

I mean something like the following, which I think leaves no doubt that it applies only to Location 2

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 .........

vs.
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 .........

It seems that (generally) no one can/will answer if it applies to only one or both without knowing the specific article being questioned. Why is that? I think it's because it is not consistant in it's present form. Sometimes an Exception in this location can apply to more than one item above it.

A blanket statement that the exception immediately follows the item that it belongs to is just not true. Look at the Exceptions following 210.6(D)(2)FPN. The Exception is many paragraphs (almost a full page away) below some of the things that it applies to, many people may not even see that if they are thinking that an Exception (if there was one) would immediately follow.

To be easily understood information should be presented in a simple and consistant format that even a first-time reader can understand. Make believe that this is your first time opening the NEC and you happen to turn to 210.6. Now, in this situation (210.6) there is an Exception where only some of the items above it are listed. If this was the only Exception you ever saw what do you think it would mean if some of the individual items above were not listed? Would you think it might apply to all of them? I might. Then go look at the following;

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 ........

Does, it or can it apply to both?

Bill

[This message has been edited by Bill Addiss (edited 11-11-2002).]

Bill,
you pose a logical debate here, yet it may be the proverbial 'tip o'the iceberg'
in the paperwork dept.
i.e.~
it would have to be universally applicable throughout the NEC