The terms Shall Be, Shall, shall be permitted.

[reyamkram]

In article 200.6 of the 2014-NEC, it reads Shell be Identified, and in article 250.119 It reads shell not be used or underground or ground circuit conductors,

is that a mandatory rule or a permissive rule?? do you need the term to read (SHELL BE PERMITTED) to be a permissive rule, and if it reads (SHELL BE) will that be a mandatory rule.

I did look in article 90.5 (a & b) about mandatory and permissive. But I am still have a misunderstanding, and information will help.

Thank you.

 

[jumper]

In article 200.6 of the 2014-NEC, it reads Shell be Identified, and in article 250.119 It reads shell not be used or underground or ground circuit conductors,

is that a mandatory rule or a permissive rule?? do you need the term to read (SHELL BE PERMITTED) to be a permissive rule, and if it reads (SHELL BE) will that be a mandatory rule.

I did look in article 90.5 (a & b) about mandatory and permissive. But I am still have a misunderstanding, and information will help.

Thank you.

Shall be is mandatory, totally inclusive.

Shall be permitted is definitive to one situation.

The identification of conductors over #4 and larger pertains to all sizes and colors, inclusive.

#6 and smaller have definitive conditions, mandated to to size and wiring method.

 

[jumper]

Do you have a question pertaining to either the identification of the neutral/grounded conductor or the EGC/grounding conductor under a certain condition?

 

[GoldDigger]

In article 200.6 of the 2014-NEC, it reads Shell be Identified, and in article 250.119 It reads shell not be used or underground or ground circuit conductors,

is that a mandatory rule or a permissive rule?? do you need the term to read (SHELL BE PERMITTED) to be a permissive rule, and if it reads (SHELL BE) will that be a mandatory rule.

I did look in article 90.5 (a & b) about mandatory and permissive. But I am still have a misunderstanding, and information will help.

Thank you.

You can look at it this way:

"Shall be" --> You MUST follow this rule. What ever it requires or it specifies MUST be done. There are no alternatives. You could call this a mandatory rule.

"May be" --> This is an option, but there can be other options. This is a permissive rule.

"Shall be permitted" carries the same basic meaning as "May be". It is a permissive rule. It does not say that no other things are permitted, just that the specific things mentioned are for sure allowed.

 

[romex jockey]

Do you have a question pertaining to either the identification of the neutral/grounded conductor or the EGC/grounding conductor under a certain condition?

I do.....consider this>

200.7(C) Circuits of 50 Volts or More. The use of insulation that is
white or gray or that has three continuous white or gray stripes
for other than a grounded conductor for circuits of 50 volts or
more shall be permitted only as in (1) and (2).

(1) If part of a cable assembly that has the insulation perma‐
nently reidentified to indicate its use as an ungrounded
conductor by marking tape, painting, or other effective
means at its termination and at each location where the
conductor is visible and accessible. Identification shall
encircle the insulation and shall be a color other than
white, gray, or green. If used for single-pole, 3-way or
4-way switch loops, the reidentified conductor with white
or gray insulation or three continuous white or gray
stripes shall be used only for the supply to the switch, but
not as a return conductor from the switch to the outlet.

The HB goes on about motors, water heaters, electric heat , along with exhibit 200.1,2 ,4 &5

So, if this 'permitted' passage apply situationally within a mandatory rule (smaller than #6) , why is it not referenced in art 408,430,422,424 ?

~RJ~

 

[GoldDigger]

I do.....consider this>



The HB goes on about motors, water heaters, electric heat , along with exhibit 200.1,2 ,4 &5

So, if this 'permitted' passage apply situationally within a mandatory rule (smaller than #6) , why is it not referenced in art 408,430,422,424 ?

~RJ~

The qualifying word "only" changes a permissive statement, "shall be permitted" to a restrictive statement "shall be permitted only..."
Probably not the most clear way of wording the requirement, but one that is a common structural part of the English language.

 

[romex jockey]

"
Probably not the most clear way of wording the requirement, but one that is a common structural part of the English language.

I guess i need to go back to school then... ~RJ~

 

[480sparky]

Per the NEC Style Manual:

3.1 Mandatory Rules, Permissive Rules, and Explanatory Information.
3.1.1 Mandatory Rules. Shall, shall not, and shall not be indicate mandatory NEC rules. Terms such as is to be, shall be not, and must, whose meanings are less clear, shall not be used. The terms may or can shall not be used.
3.1.2 Permissive Rules. Shall be permitted and it shall be permissible indicate allowed optional or alternate methods. (Note that these are still mandatory language and constitute rules.)

 

[Craigv]

Per the NEC Style Manual:3.1 Mandatory Rules, Permissive Rules, and Explanatory Information.3.1.1 Mandatory Rules. Shall, shall not, and shall not be indicate mandatory NEC rules. Terms such as is to be, shall be not, and must, whose meanings are less clear, shall not be used. The terms may or can shall not be used. 3.1.2 Permissive Rules. Shall be permitted and it shall be permissible indicate allowed optional or alternate methods. (Note that these are still mandatory language and constitute rules.)

:thumbsup:

 

[jaggedben]

Per the NEC Style Manual:

3.1 Mandatory Rules, Permissive Rules, and Explanatory Information.
3.1.1 Mandatory Rules. Shall, shall not, and shall not be indicate mandatory NEC rules. Terms such as is to be, shall be not, and must, whose meanings are less clear, shall not be used. The terms may or can shall not be used.
3.1.2 Permissive Rules. Shall be permitted and it shall be permissible indicate allowed optional or alternate methods. (Note that these are still mandatory language and constitute rules.)

Unfortunately, the section under discussion (200.7) contains a construction - "shall be permitted only" - which as Golddigger pointed out is in fact under plain meaning a mandatory rule.

Arguably 200.7 should be re-written to conform better to the style manual to avoid this sort of confusion:
Maybe this:

200.7(C) Circuits of 50 Volts or More. Insulation that is
white or gray or that has three continuous white or gray stripes
shall not be used for other than a grounded conductor for circuits of 50 volts or
more, except as in (1) and (2).

 

[Craigv]

Unfortunately, the section under discussion (200.7) contains a construction - "shall be permitted only" - which as Golddigger pointed out is in fact under plain meaning a mandatory rule.

Arguably 200.7 should be re-written to conform better to the style manual to avoid this sort of confusion:
Maybe this:

It seems arguable that 200.7(C) is a permissive rule. The description provides an optional or alternate means of utilizing white or gray insulation. Your proposed "shall not be used for other than", when followed by exceptions, could be more confusing. We could more easily write, "shall be used only for grounded conductors...except as permitted in (1) and (2).

Or maybe not. They're all less than ideal, imho.

 

[480sparky]

It's permissible to use the white wire in a cable for something other than a neutral (grounded) conductor because you can't really just pull the white out and install another color (like blue or purple). Such as when you run NM to a 240v water heater or AC compressor.

 

[jaggedben]

It seems arguable that 200.7(C) is a permissive rule. The description provides an optional or alternate means of utilizing white or gray insulation. Your proposed "shall not be used for other than", when followed by exceptions, could be more confusing. We could more easily write, "shall be used only for grounded conductors...except as permitted in (1) and (2).

Or maybe not. They're all less than ideal, imho.

I agree, that's better.

I do not think it's a permissive rule. Getting rid of 'shall be permitted' in this context would be all around less confusing given the style manual guidelines.

 

[Craigv]

I agree, that's better.

I do not think it's a permissive rule. Getting rid of 'shall be permitted' in this context would be all around less confusing given the style manual guidelines.

The reason I think it's arguably a permissive rule is that white and gray insulations are supposed to indicate grounded conductors, BUT under some conditions it is permissible to use them as ungrounded conductors. There's language describing an "allowed optional or alternate method" which per the style method would be a permissible use.

The existing language of 200.7(C) has several alternating negations and conditions, ("shall not be...other than....except as in...") making the rule somewhat confusing to decipher, imho.

But I get that mandatory rules can have exceptions. Perhaps the wording should have absolute mandatory language, and then have following exceptions. *That* would better follow the style guide, no?

 

[jaggedben]

But I get that mandatory rules can have exceptions. Perhaps the wording should have absolute mandatory language, and then have following exceptions. *That* would better follow the style guide, no?

I could get behind that, too. I recall reading that the NFPA wanted to move away from doing things that way, but I don't remember why. And in this case I think the exception format would make sense.