Arguably these days any test that wants the respondent to assume that all terminals are unmarked for temperature rating needs to so state explicitly at the start of the test. Expecting the respondent to assume that makes for an unrealistic test.
Another relic of the past that we just cannot get rid of. Maybe someday all of the old fossils on the CMP's will be gone and AI will rewrite the NEC in a language that is easy to understand. And while it's at it maybe it can get rid of the massive amount of senseless nonsense.
All of the test prep people teach that you always assume 60°C for 100 amps or less, unless specified otherwise.
I don't recall seeing any Public Inputs to change this, so nothing for the CMP members to act on.
Yes, such a standard is now at deviation from reality, and tests should be updated to explicitly state that for the test taker.
The test creators have no interest in creating an updated test that would result in more people passing the first time, as they get paid each time the person takes the test.
My take is much of 110.14(C) was word smithed in the late 90's by a few choice edits so that much of it really does not apply like it used to, its just at present mainly guidance for those who need to size a terminal block or motor leads AKA termination provisions.
My $.02 - 110.14(C) is written to address electrical manufacturers more than the electricians in the field.
To be clear, I wasn't talking ill of his method but wanted the original poster to expect that from Mike.
Do you mean for some reason the service main breaker / fuses are less than 100A? If so you can't use 310.12 as well as some other calculations. In Mikes book they show the main breaker being the service rating, that refers to 230.79
I think the OP is asking about a service with main breaker less than 100A
