--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still looking for a confirmation on the wording being "perfected". Believing that words have very definitive words in a legal sense, want clarification in the eyes of a formal interpetation - anyone here from code panel # 9 (covers 314) ? Yes, I'm aware of the disclaimer on the inside of the NEC cover. Anyone from the code panels, how much research is put forth to grammatical structure, spelling and "readability"? I know on this particular issue, it won't probably matter, however, if a legal decision were to be decided on verbage of the NEC, it should pass muster in a court of law. Anyone have anything definitive on this?
The following is from the UL Guide information for Metallic Outlet Boxes (QCIT).
Quote:
EXTENSION RINGS Extension rings are suitable for extending properly secured flush- or surface-mounted boxes. One or more extensions may be used. An extension ring is intended to increase the box depth, volume, or both.
Barring a 300.14 issue, this is a permitted installation in both the NEC and UL documents.
I believe the OP's question is answered by the exception to 314.22, which easily confuses the "causal reader" of the NEC.
Still looking for a confirmation on the wording being "perfected". Believing that words have very definitive words in a legal sense, want clarification in the eyes of a formal interpetation - anyone here from code panel # 9 (covers 314) ? Yes, I'm aware of the disclaimer on the inside of the NEC cover. Anyone from the code panels, how much research is put forth to grammatical structure, spelling and "readability"? I know on this particular issue, it won't probably matter, however, if a legal decision were to be decided on verbage of the NEC, it should pass muster in a court of law. Anyone have anything definitive on this?