I don't see how you can read 430.62(A) as supplying anything other than motor loads. The language is very specific as feeder is modified by "supplying a specific fixed motor load(s).
While Wayne referenced the title of the sections, that specific language also appears in the text of the two sections, so you are not using the title for anything other the the ease of finding the rule when you are looking at the code.
Just because a rule defines a requirement for a specific item (a motor), it does not exclude all other items (other loads).
Look, in context, comparing 430.62 with 430.63 makes it clear that 430.62 applies only when the "specifc fixed motor load(s)" are the only load(s). As 430.63 covers the other case. To argue otherwise based on wording minutiae is to be legalistically obstinate.
Wouldn't this logic then say all of the MV requirements should also apply to LV items?
Also, your interpretation gives a nonsensical result for a feeder that supplies both motors and non-motors.
The Supreme Court has long recognized that a section title cannot limit otherwise plain operative text. Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Balt. & Ohio R.R. Co., 331 U.S. 519, 528-29 (1947) is the often cited refrence. There are some interesting law review articles on the topic
What part of my logic question involved titles? Your point seems to be no adjectives may ever be used as modifiers to the article 100 definitions.
No not the way I read it, It does not address what I said in post #37 "specific" and "fixed" are adjectives that modifies for the noun "motor." not the feeder, the feeder is unmodified as defined in article 100.
yes thats the way it reads to me, 430.63 is the "floor" and 430.62(A) is the "ceiling" there is no conflict there, saying you could technically put a 100A OCPD on #14 wire simply by adding a 1/2W light bulb, I would argue is an "Absurd Result", Since the primary purpose of the NEC is the "practical safeguarding of persons and property" (NEC 90.1), any interpretation that results in a fire-starting condition I would say is a "legal absurdity."
Yes, in430.62(A) "specific" and "fixed" are adjectives for motor. But the entire set of words "specific and fixed motor load" is also an adjective phrase to the noun "feeder".
For example say you have a rule "A box of specific red apples shall be loaded to no more than 10lbs"
Is it a Feeder? | Has a Specific Motor? | Has a Fixed Motor? | Has "Other Load"? | 430.62(A) Applies? |
1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
You table is only valid using your assumption that adjectival phrases are meaningless.
You did not answer the question
Actually the extra items clarify the first item, that is the purpose of an adjectival phrase.
www.grammar.com
OK, let's think through an example of this interpretation. Say we have a feeder supplying 150A of non-continuous non-motor loads, and a 40A FLC motor load. A very realistic example. The motor branch circuit is protected downstream with a 100A inverse time breaker, allowing the motor to start fine, so neither of the exceptions to 430.52(C) apply.
An adjective phrase identifies the subject. If I say, "The man in the red hat is tall," and that man is also wearing a blue scarf, he is still the "man in the red hat." The scarf doesn't make the "red hat" description falseActually the extra items clarify the first item, that is the purpose of an adjectival phrase.
Adjectives - Phrases and Clauses
This Grammar.com article is about Adjectives - Phrases and Clauses — enjoy your reading!
Rather than debating linguistics, why don't you tell me how you understand the NEC tells you to size the conductors and OCPD for the feeder in my last example (post #56)? With reference to all applicable NEC sections, which will include at a minimum 430.24 and 430 Part V.
(a) 430.24 says the feeder conductors must have an ampacity of at least 200A.
and what is the maximum permitted size for that OCPD?
