@@chrisdoutre101 Yep, vountertop and work surface are both defined.

@@chrisdoutre101 Glad to help, Chris. Cheers

Mine is available at www.iectraining.com. You just need to shop as a "guest" since you are not a school.

Hi Mike. The rule only applies outdoors. The requirement is not triggered by replacing the panelboard.

@@RyanJacksonElectrical is there an exception somewhere in the code for gfi protection when replacing service panel? The way i interpret the code it seems it could go either way and up to inspector.

@@mikewhitlock1849 Changing a panel DOES NOT trigger any requirements for GFCI protection. There is no exception becuase none is needed.

Not quite. Take a look at 422.10(A).

@@coreyfranco7060 Nope. Oitdoor switches are on every house built in the last 50 years in the western US. The firefighters use them. Why would they start smashing stuff when they can just turn it off?

I was electrician in RI and recently moved to NV. I was referring to firefighters there because this is a new requirement for them... They will smash in a door without even attempting to open a knoxbox so I'm assuming this will be no different...

Yeah, it's a screw up. They fixed it for the 2026.

@RyanJacksonElectrical if I go take my test should I add the footage for garage. By the way thank you for replying to my comment. I appreciate what you are doing so much.

@@raymundodiaz4514 It is not too likely that your question will deal with this specific issue...but it could. If it does, you need to appeal the question. Explain in your question why the question may have confliting answers. I am the subject matter expert for the exams in several states, and appeals get sent straight to me. If I read a person't appeal and they showed a a contradiction like this one, I would "give" them the question. I also recommend working the question both ways to see if there is only one "right" answer as well. Choose that one as your answer, and challenge the question via appeal.

There are no rules for that.

Take a look at the exceptions to 110.26(A)(3).

@b-rad7381 I agree, it is out of control.

No. Section 440.8 tells us to treat the system as one piece of equipment, meaning one disconnect is all that is required.

​@@RyanJacksonElectrical, thanks for your response. I do not know why some AHJs call article 422.31 for the indoor air handlers, furnace, etc. (any indoor unit separated from the compressor). Some engineers refer to article 440.3 and evaluate whether the compressor is hermetic sealed or not.

@jefersonsanchezjerez7000 You have to remember that the overcurrent device you discuss is not protecting against overcurrent...it is protecting against ground faults and short circuits. A fault shall result in thousands of amperes, opening the device in a timely (safe) manner. The "normal" current of the motor is only used for protection against overloads. For a non-motor application, protecting against all three types of overcurrent can easily be done with one breaker or fuse. For a motor it is very hard to protect against overloads while allowing the motor to start up with a single device.

@@RyanJacksonElectrical First of all, thank you very much for taking the time to respond. I agree with what you said, the device is protecting against short circuits or ground faults, where the overcurrents are in the kA range. The settings established in the standard allow for differentiation between current during startup and faults due to short circuits or ground faults. However, personally, I still believe that these maximum settings are quite high. One last question: you mentioned that it is complex to provide protection against overload and short circuit with a single device, but for example, motor circuit breakers (such as the Schneider GV3P80) are designed for magnetic tripping between 14 to 16 times the motor's rated current (FLC). This would provide good discrimination during startup, which is typically between 6 to 8 times the motor's nominal current (FLC) in a direct start. Of course, there will be special cases where this would not be sufficient, but in most cases, it should be applicable, right?

@@jefersonsanchezjerez7000 In most cases, the values in the NEC table work fine. But the NEC also recognizes that they will not always work, so the NEC gives the allowances in 430.52(C)(1)(b). Note that 430.52(B) always applies, so if the numbers in 430.52(C)(1)(b) don't work you would have to use a different protection method.

@Calico5string1962 You're right, words matter. Mispronouncing that word is just one of my eccentricities. 😉

@RyanJacksonElectrical 🤣🤣👍👍👌

No problem, feel free to disagree. But they are changing the language in the 2026 for this very reason. And everyone I spoken with on Code-Making Panel 2 agrees, by the way.

@ not trying to be one of those guys. I was just looking for conversation on the matter. But if my interpretation is not the case that it does need to be stated more clearly so it's a good thing it will be updated for clarification.

@SkylerManac No worries here! 👍

@Rdmanelect We add when there are two or more loads, some continuous, others not.

Yep. See the pinned comment. It was caught too late by someone like yourself that had keener eyes than I do. Well caught!