210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

[physis]

210.52(B)(1) Exception No. 1

[Delete text]

210.52(B)(1) Exception No. 1: In addition to the required receptacles specified by 210.52, switched receptacles supplied from a general-purpose branch circuit as defined in 210.70(A)(1), Exception No. 1, shall be permitted.

[Add text]

210.52(B)(2)(a) A wall switch controlled receptacle used in lieu of a lighting outlet required by 210.70(A) shall not be supplied by the two or more small-appliance branch circuits specified in 210.52(B)(1).

[Substantiation]

(1) 210.52(B)(1) Exception No. 1 is unnecessary. It doesn't effect the application of either 210.52 or 210.70.

(2) The exception and the context of it's use can be difficult to interpret correctly. The phrase "permitted in lieu of lighting outlets" in 210.70(A)(1) Exception No. 1 causes the switched receptacle to be seen as a receptacle outlet allowed by 210.52.

(3) It is clearer to disallow the receptacle's connection to the small appliance circuits under 210.52(B)(2).

_______________________________________________________________________________

Again, I don't have 2005.

I want to be sure that this can't be construed as prohibiting switching a 210.52 receptacle for another purpose.

Any thoughts on whether I've pulled it off?

I'm still a little concerned that if there are two outlets that meet the definitions of 210.70, they might both be seen as "required" by 210.70 and cause a problem with inspectors thinking you can't switch an SA receptacle.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

I'm still a little concerned that if there are two outlets that meet the definitions of 210.70, they might both be seen as "required" by 210.70 and cause a problem with inspectors thinking you can't switch an SA receptacle.

210.52(B)(2)(a) A receptacle installed according to 210.70(A)(1), exception 1, shall not be supplied by the two or more small-appliance branch circuits specified in 210.52(B)(1).

Does that seem more direct, or the same?

 

[physis]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

Well, I think it would be the same except that by using "according to" rather than "required by" makes it even more volnerable. You can have an outlet that is in accord with 210.70 that's not required by 210.70.

 

[physis]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

The concern could be removed by adding an allowance for a switched SA receptacle.

Does it seem necessary?

It wouldn't take but one sentance.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

A primary means of lighting as required in 210.70 shall not be supplied by the SA circuits.

Your secondary stuff would be ok. Hmm?

Edit: We're shooting for rugged, not verbose, right?

[ April 05, 2005, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[physis]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

I like to keep it short if possible so that you still remember the reason you stared reading when you're finished.

Well, I think the original works. Do you? I only want to reword it if it seems it can be misinterpreted.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

Your original wording is solid, as far as I can see.

[ April 05, 2005, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[physis]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

Ya know what George. Charlie must think this is at least slightly amusing because he's been doing this for however long it's been. It's got to be funny to watch us fumble around with some of these things not having the background to be able to place the saber exactly where it should be.

Of course one of Charlie's greatest attributes is his lack of (at least any detectable) self importance.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

Yeah, I'm sure he's good-heartedly amused.

 

[physis]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

And I'm really starting to miss Charlie. We don't see him that much lately.

 

[charlie]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

It depends on the day(s), I have spent quite a bit of time here today. Some days are really busy and I don't have the time to even make a quick visit. I really appreciate the kind words, I have been involved in the process since the 93 code and on the same panel.

 

[physis]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

Well, we still miss you Charlie.

 

[Guest]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

At least for the moment, I'm planning to submit the proposal as it is in the original post.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

[Let me start by saying I wish you the best of luck as I can see that you have put a lot of work into it.

I must say that the way you have your proposal worded is exactly what the code already says.

Your Substantiation does not support your proposal as I see it.
1- This one is correct. Exception 1 to .52 (B) (1) could be deleted and it would have no effect on either .52 or .70 as it stands now
2- When we delete exception 1 from .51 we take away the very text that allows a receptacle to be switched in place of the light so now an overhead fixture must be installed
3- Again you are correct in the text as it stands, It is clearer to disallow the receptacle's connection to the small appliance circuits under 210.52(B)(2). This is outlined in .52 (B) (2) no other outlets
Add text]


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210.52(B)(2)(a) A wall switch controlled receptacle used in lieu of a lighting outlet required by 210.70(A) shall not be supplied by the two or more small-appliance branch circuits specified in 210.52(B)(1).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Substantiation]

(1) 210.52(B)(1) Exception No. 1 is unnecessary. It doesn't effect the application of either 210.52 or 210.70.

(2) The exception and the context of it's use can be difficult to interpret correctly. The phrase "permitted in lieu of lighting outlets" in 210.70(A)(1) Exception No. 1 causes the switched receptacle to be seen as a receptacle outlet allowed by 210.52.

(3) It is clearer to disallow the receptacle's connection to the small appliance circuits under 210.52(B)(2).
When we start deleting exception from the code it might be important to research what effect it will have on the article. Should exception 1 to get deleted then no receptacle could be switched in a dinning room.

click here For some kind words from our good friend Charlie Eldridge. Read on down until you have read the post by rbalex

As Charlie has pointed out, only by the exception in .52 is the receptacle as outlined in .70 allowed and then as long as it is on a general purpose circuit.

[ April 11, 2005, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]

 

[Guest]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

1- This one is correct. Exception 1 to .52 (B) (1) could be deleted and it would have no effect on either .52 or .70 as it stands now
2- When we delete exception 1 from .51 we take away the very text that allows a receptacle to be switched in place of the light so now an overhead fixture must be installed

I'm not clear what you are saying JW.

Do you have a suggestion?

I'm very interested in considering doing it differently.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

Sam
You say this:
Again, I don't have 2005.
I want to be sure that this can't be construed as prohibiting switching a 210.52 receptacle for another purpose.

Your proposal says this:
210.52(B)(2)(a) A wall switch controlled receptacle used in lieu of a lighting outlet required by 210.70(A) shall not be supplied by the two or more small-appliance branch circuits specified in 210.52(B)(1).

I am confused as to what you are trying to achieve with this proposal. Are you trying to stop the use of the small appliance receptacles or trying to allow it to be used for lighting?

As far as the proposal
210.52 (B) (2) already prohibits the use of a small appliance receptacle for any other purpose with two exceptions
This section of article 210.52 already fulfills the criteria of your proposal.

As far as your statement here:
I'm still a little concerned that if there are two outlets that meet the definitions of 210.70, they might both be seen as "required" by 210.70 and cause a problem with inspectors thinking you can't switch an SA receptacle.

210.70 is required for a lighting outlet as it is written now in 210.70 Required Lighting Outlets

To allow a small appliance receptacle to be switched in lieu of the lighting outlet we would have to be able to reverse the process and switch the light from the small appliance circuit. This is what ?in lieu of? means, one or the other.

Maybe if you were to add a third small appliance circuit and allow the light to be on it then. This might require a separate proposal to allow this in 210.70 Required Lighting Outlets.

 

[Guest]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

I am confused as to what you are trying to achieve with this proposal. Are you trying to stop the use of the small appliance receptacles or trying to allow it to be used for lighting?

I am trying to have article 210 clarify whether or not a 210.70(A)(1) Ex.1 switched receptacle can be allowed on an SA circuit.

The 471 post thread is evidence of a lack of clarity.

My choise is to ask that it be specificly disallowed. Only because I believe that to be their intention.

As far as the proposal
210.52 (B) (2) already prohibits the use of a small appliance receptacle for any other purpose with two exceptions
This section of article 210.52 already fulfills the criteria of your proposal.

I believe that it's possible to interpret it differently than you do. I'll refer you to the 471 post thread again. Hence the proposal to clarify the code.

As far as your statement here:
I'm still a little concerned that if there are two outlets that meet the definitions of 210.70, they might both be seen as "required" by 210.70 and cause a problem with inspectors thinking you can't switch an SA receptacle.

210.70 is required for a lighting outlet as it is written now in 210.70 Required Lighting Outlets

I'm not sure what your concern is here. My concern is that the proposal doesn't inadvertantly change the abilty to switch a 210.52 SA receptacle.

Jw, it seems to me that you insist there is no potential to interpret 210.52 and 210.70()A)(1)Ex.1 other than how it is intended by the CMP. In which case this proposal would have no point. Is that right?

 

[jwelectric]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

No Sir my dear friend, never would I ever tell any person not to pursue their goals.
I am only giving my advice to you how I would word it in order to get it through. I back up my thoughts with what is written in the code using each article, section and exception in that order.
I see no harm to your proposal and would like to see it succeed. We are allowed to wire a single bath room from one 1500va circuit. I think that should be pointed out in the substantiation.

The Manual of Style is what the Code Making Panel will use as they write the code. Your proposal should follow the same suit. Your proposal is asking for two actions. One is to allow the lighting outlet on a small appliance and the other is to be exempt from 210.70.

According to the Style Manual an exception can only apply to the numbered section it follows. The exception allowed in 210.52 (B) simply states that after I install the small appliance receptacles I can add another receptacle to replace the required lighting outlet but it must be on a general purpose circuit. This exception is attached to .52 (B) (1)

210.70 is the article that requires lighting outlets .70 (A) dwelling units and .70 (A) (1) the rooms that this required lighting outlet has to be installed. The exception to this section is to allow me to change this required lighting to a switched receptacle. This exception is not for any other switched device in the dwelling unit only for this lighting outlet. .52 gave me the requirements to follow is I add this receptacle in a dinning room

This is why I made the statement:
Maybe if you were to add a third small appliance circuit and allow the light to be on it then. This might require a separate proposal to allow this in 210.70 Required Lighting Outlets.

Maybe an exception
When supplied by a single 20 amp circuit the lighting outlet for a dinning room shall be permitted or a switched receptacle in lieu of the lighting outlet.

I don?t want to see your proposal to fail and offer to you my thoughts and suggestions with the best of intentions if I wanted to see it fail I would have said nothing.

 

[Guest]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

Can I ask you a favor JW?

You're writing a lot of stuff. And you're not really addressing it toward the proposal.

Can you quote a segment of the proposal, describe what you think could be better and offer some text to replace it?

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

Originally posted by jwelectric:
The Manual of Style is what the Code Making Panel will use as they write the code. Your proposal should follow the same suit.

That's the heart of what he's doing here, JW. The style manual states:

3.1.4 Exceptions. If used, exceptions shall convey alternatives or differences to a basic code rule. It shall be the responsibility of the Code-Making Panel to determine whether the principle can be expressed most effectively as a separate positive code rule or as an exception to a rule.

Sam has a valid reason for putting this into a positive code rule, as opposed to an exception to the rule.