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.
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?
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.
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)
An Excellant example!! That's probably for defrosting the fridge! 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?
[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)
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)
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.