210.52(B)(3) delete some text

[George Stolz]

Note to self: Do not submit this proposal.

(What brought this on) (http://www.mikeholt.com/codeforum/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=005579;p=4#000 051)

View non-bolded as struck through.

1.) NEC Section/Paragraph: 210.52(B)(3)
2.) Proposal Recommends: [deleted text]
3.) Proposal: NEC-2005 210.52(B)(3) Kitchen Receptacle Requirements. Receptacles installed in a kitchen to serve the countertop surfaces shall be supplied by not fewer than two small appliance branch circuits, either or both of which shall also be permitted to supply receptacle outlets in the same kitchen and in other rooms specified in 210.52(B)(1). Additional small-appliance branch circuits shall be permitted to supply receptacle outlets in the kitchen and other rooms specified in 210.52(B)(1). No small appliance branch circuits shall serve more than one kitchen.4.) Substantiation: The references to "two or more" SA's is redundant, already mentioned in 210.11(C)(1), and 210.52(B)(1). The "same kitchen" text could be more forcefully added to 210.52(B)(1), or dropped entirely.

[ May 22, 2005, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

[George Stolz]

1.) NEC Section/Paragraph: 210.52(B)(3)
2.) Proposal Recommends: [revised text]
3.) Proposal: NEC-2005 210.52(B)(3) Kitchen Receptacle Requirements. Branch circuits supplying receptacles installed in a kitchen to serve the countertop surfaces shall be permitted to supply receptacle outlets in other rooms specified in 210.52(B)(1). No small appliance branch circuits shall serve more than one kitchen.4.) Substantiation: The references to "two or more" SA's is redundant, already mentioned in 210.11(C)(1), and 210.52(B)(1).

Fixed "receptacles feeding receptacles".

[physis]

You bet!

[physis]

Ok George, I like it. I didn't notice that it changes anything, other than making it clearer.

I'd be curious to see CMP 2's response.

[ January 25, 2005, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: physis ]

[George Stolz]

I realize that this code is fundamentally important for requiring two circuits on the countertop, which I unwittingly totally eliminated. :(

If my proposal for (B)(1) were to be accepted, then I think this code would be solid as it stands. Therefore, I am not going to submit this proposal.