Here is how I interpret 200.7(C)(1)
Here is how I interpret 200.7(C)(1)
Sure you can, the traveler feeds or is a supply to the other 3 way sw.
The purpose in the limitation of a re-identified white wire use in a switch loop to supply only is that, if the circuit is energized, it will be energized and detectable using a non-contact tickey or voltmeter. It can not be the conductor from the switch to the load because this purpose is violated. A "traveller" conductor may or may not be energized depending on the position of the feeding switch(es) (3 and 4 ways).
200.7(C) Use of Insulation of a White or Gray Color or with Three Continuous White or Gray Stripes. Circuits of 50 Volts or More.
(1) If part of a cable assembly that has the insulation permanently reidentified to indicate its use as an ungrounded conductor by marking tape, painting, or other effective means at its termination and at each location where the conductor is visible and accessible.
Identification shall encircle the insulation and shall be a color other than white, gray, or green.
If used for a single-pole, 3-way, or 4-way switch loops, the reidentified conductor with white or gray insulation or three continuous white or gray stripes
shall be used only for the supply to the switch, but not as a return conductor from the switch to the outlet.
Notes:
1) The last sentence states
shall be used only for the supply to the switch. Travellers are not allowed because a traveller is not
the supply to the next switch, is
a supply to the next switch.
2) 2-way switches do not have this limitation which would allow the use of 2 conductor cables with white reidentified on the load side of the switch to the outlet.
With a little care you can use 2 conductor cables for the feed/switch loop and 3 conductor cables between 3- and 4-way switches without violating 200.7(C)(1).
Further you can use a 3 conductor cable between the outlet point that also contains the feed -- providing the newly required neutral in switch box.
SO if you can do it with standard cables and meet the requirements of 200.7(C)(1) why would you do it another way?
The only reasons I can think of:
1) We didn't have the rule in the past
2) We don't care about the added safety of the new scheme.