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

[Guest]

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

I believe that CMP 2 has attempted to address this but was unsuccessful to some degree.

My hope is to make that attempt more successful and to also make their intent clear.

 

[Guest]

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

Using an exception to some other section as an exception in an "unrelated section" where It has no additional impact on any rule I see as sloppy. Sorry, I do.

From 2003 NEC Style Manual

3.1.4 Exceptions. Exceptions to NEC rules shall be used sparingly. If used, exceptions shall convey alternatives or differences to a basic rule. It is the responsibility of the Code-Making Panel to determine whether the principal can be expressed most effectivelyas a seperate positive code rule or as an exception to a rule. Annex A contains commentary on exceptions.

3.1.4.1 Language. Exceptions shall be permitted to use the terms shall, shall not, or shall be permitted depending on whether they specify a manditory requirement that is (1) different from the rule, or (2) diametrically opposed to the rule, or (3) whether they permit, but do not require, a variance from the main rule. Exceptions shall not be written in incomplete sentances.

Without trying to become too submersed in the style manual, I believe that 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 is not doing anything particularly useful with regard to satisfying the purpose of an exception.

 

[George Stolz]

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

Originally posted by 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).

(Getting this onto this page for further review.)

I would throw the Style Manual reference in your substantiation for good measure.

 

[Guest]

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

I would throw the Style Manual reference in your substantiation for good measure.

I'm not sure what I think of that idea. Tell them they've been bad?

 

[jwelectric]

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

Originally posted by physis2:
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?

Sam and George

Here is a little information that might help.
In the ?90 and ?93 the exception in question to 210.52 (B) was exception 3 then in ?96 it was moved to exception one and .52 (C) was added with the wording ?no other outlets? being move from (B) It remained at .52 (B) exception 1 through ?99, ?02 and remains in ?05

For the past five code cycles the wording has been unchanged. The only activity in 210.52 (B) in the ?05 ROP was 2-208 Log #1387 NEC-P02 - (210-52(B)(1) and (C)) -- to drop dinning room from (B) (1) and (C) ,Final Action: Reject and 2-209 Log #828 NEC-P02 -- (210-52(B)(1) Exception No. 2) -- to install a single receptacle for refrigerator --
Final Action: Reject

I don?t see the exception to 210.52 (B) (1) being deleted nor the wording being changed as it has stood for more than five code cycles unless you can find some good Substantiation for the change.

I think you would be better advised to propose an allowance for the lighting outlet to be installed on a 20 amp individual circuit that feeds the dinning room only.

 

[Guest]

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

So you're not interested in any of those things that you put in quote marks JW?

 

[jwelectric]

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

Every word that I have posted has been to aid you in your proposal.

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

I researched the articles in question going back five code cycles and looked at the Report on Proposals for the 2005 code which I posted above.

My statement in my last post was to say that 210.52 exception and 210.70 exception has been unchanged in over 15 years so I feel that you will need some pretty strong Substantiation to have either changed.

In my opinion you would be better advised to propose an allowance for the lighting outlet to be installed on a 20 amp individual circuit that feeds the dinning room only.

Now the lighting outlet is addresses as well as the small appliance circuit and if not accepted a full explanation of the article and exception will be given. Maybe I will slide a proposal in myself as outlined above.


[ April 14, 2005, 05:34 AM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]

 

[George Stolz]

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

Originally posted by jwelectric:
In my opinion you would be better advised to propose an allowance for the lighting outlet to be installed on a 20 amp individual circuit that feeds the dinning room only.

What about a nook? What about a breakfast room? What about a similar room? (The text would get pretty verbose, don't you think?)

...if not accepted a full explanation of the article and exception will be given.

We have evidence of the intent. The intent does nothing for the code. What we need is clearer code.

[ April 14, 2005, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[George Stolz]

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

Originally posted by physis2:

I would throw the Style Manual reference in your substantiation for good measure.

I'm not sure what I think of that idea. Tell them they've been bad?

 

[George Stolz]

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

Originally posted by jwelectric:
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?

Proposal:
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).

JW, your initial post at the top of this page indicates that you find the text Sam is proposing is unclear. Where is the confusing part?

Sam, I do see one thing: The reference needs to be 210.70(A)(1), exception 1. Leaving out the specifics will lead to "I'm not feeding a lighting outlet with the SA, it's a receptacle."

 

[Guest]

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

Actually George, I don't want to cause a switched SA recepteacle to be prohibitted. By pointing to 210.70(A)(1) EX. 1 the china cabinet in the other thread might be disallowed. I want to isolate the "required" outlet.

I'm pretty sure I see what you're saying, if I'm missing your point just throw a rock at me.

JW,

What you've posted from the ROP's shows nothing addressing this concern.

As far as an individual dining room circuit? I'm not interested in modifying the code, just clarifying it.

And, if the language I propose is adopted then the exception I'm asking be deleted will be really, really unnecessary. Right now it's only really unnecessary.

 

[Guest]

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

It might be useful to include a few well worded posts from the other thread. But I'll want to use some from you guys too, just kidding.

 

[physis]

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

Physis2 is going to be obliterated so direct any PM's to the original!

 

[physis]

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

210.70(A)(1) Exception No. 1: In other than kitchens and bathrooms, one or more receptacles controlled by a wall switch shall be permitted in lieu of lighting outlets.

Ya don't gotta have any uther lite switch afta ya switch thu receptacle cince this ain't ah kitchin or bathroom. I have to quit doing that or I will break the spell checker.

--------------------
Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis, Utility Power Guy

Here's one I found that I could use as evidence of our confusion. This one was at the very begining.

 

[jwelectric]

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

Sam and George
What I see that you are trying to do is rewrite the exception to 210.52 to state that the lighting outlet can not be installed on the small appliance circuit or write a section to state the same.

What I am trying to get you to see is the exception already states that. Article 210.52 (A) through (H) explains the requirements for receptacle outlets only. This article has nothing at all to do with lighting outlets.

The exception in 210.52 (B) (1) allows the addition of more receptacles that are being installed in lieu of the lighting outlet required by 210.70 as long as they are installed on a general purpose circuit as outlined in 210.70 (A) (1) exception 1.

Should every receptacle that is installed on a small appliance circuit be switched they would still be small appliance receptacles and have no bearing to 210.70 this is why the referral to general purpose circuit in the exception to .52 (B) (1). This is also reinforced by 210.52 (B) (2) no other outlets

If I ran the two small appliance receptacle circuits and switched every one of them in the dinning, breakfast nook and pantry all I would have would be switched small appliance receptacles. 210.70 would still require a lighting outlet to be installed. The exception located in 210.70 (A) (1) allows the lighting outlet to be replaced with a switched receptacle. It does not allow any other receptacle that is switched to take its place.

The way you are looking at this is that if there was a switched small appliance receptacle installed that it would fulfill the requirements in 210.70 (A) (1) but it can?t because it is a small appliance receptacle and not a receptacle that was installed in lieu of the lighting outlet.
Now if you think that I am wrong using the two articles in question, please show me where.

 

[George Stolz]

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

Originally posted by jwelectric:
Now if you think that I am wrong using the two articles in question, please show me where.

JW, this is not the place. This is Sam's proposal thread, and I have a good feeling he has no desire to rehash the DR Recep thread here.

You can see something clearly that twelve other people do not. Do you still think it's clear? Do you not think Sam's proposal knocks it up a few rungs on the clarity ladder?

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).

How about adding one sentence that speaks volumes for the china hutch, but still disallows the primary lighting:

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). Small appliance receptacles switched for other than primary lighting purposes shall be permitted.

It may be a little redundant, but it makes it damn clear, I think.

[ April 14, 2005, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[physis]

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

Well, it's not "my" thread. It belongs to anybody who wants to participate.

I'm being about as clear and specific as I know how to and my only interest in exploring this is to be even clearer and more specific if that can be done.

 

[jwelectric]

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

George
I am not trying to rehash anything I am injecting the code as it is written. I have said many times that I hope that he succeeds with his proposal.

Is not the idea to post the proposal here and discuss it before we send it off? I have posted a proposal here myself and either it sounds good as it is or no one is interested cause not many replies. I wish I had as much debate on mine as there is here.

I am offering my insight in hopes that WE can make a proposal that will make it through.
The article states that the lighting outlet shall not be installed on the small appliance circuit.

I think you would be better advised to approach this from a different direction such as;
proposal:
(1) Receptacle Outlets Served. In the kitchen, pantry, breakfast room, dining room, or similar area of a dwelling unit, the two or more 20-ampere small-appliance branch circuits required by 210.11(C)(1) shall serve all wall and floor receptacle outlets covered by 210.52(A), all countertop outlets covered by 210.52(C), and receptacle outlets for refrigeration equipment. Switches shall be permitted for small appliance receptacles.

edited to add
Sub and problem
The way exception is written one could interpret it to mean that any switch controlled receptacle is required to be on a general purpose circuit.


Bold text is to be added. If you prefer I will stay out of it.


[ April 14, 2005, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]

 

[physis]

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

I wont complain about any particular post. I have at least some propensity for contributing nonsense and other things that might not be useful. Or just griping.

My only preference is that we move in a generally forward direction.

The thread still doesn't belong to me and I claim no such burden. I'm only going to submit the proposal.

 

[physis]

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

To not leave George out in the cold, your helpfulness factor's been just a bit low.