You are right. I guess everyone just looked at 210.21(B)(3) and
assumed that was it but that is only for >1 outlet.

NFPA is going to double down on that in the 23 NEC. The 1st draft has
them removing "conforming" from the text and adding "not less than" in
the text and changing the table heading to saying "connected to a
branch circuit supplying two or more receptacles or outlets" right
there, They are also removing "Not over" from the table before "15".

I guess that is the way they want it. I haven't looked at the 23 ROP
to see the reasoning yet. It sounds pretty strange to me considering
table 210.21(B)(2). It looks like they are encouraging breaking that
rule since 5-20 plug caps will be on equipment rated > 12a.
If the user sees a receptacle that matches that plug, he will plug it
in.

On Fri, 08 Oct 2021 18:27:33 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>You are right. I guess everyone just looked at 210.21(B)(3) and
>assumed that was it but that is only for >1 outlet.
>
>NFPA is going to double down on that in the 23 NEC. The 1st draft has
>them removing "conforming" from the text and adding "not less than" in
>the text and changing the table heading to saying "connected to a
>branch circuit supplying two or more receptacles or outlets" right
>there, They are also removing "Not over" from the table before "15".
>
>I guess that is the way they want it. I haven't looked at the 23 ROP
>to see the reasoning yet. It sounds pretty strange to me considering
>table 210.21(B)(2). It looks like they are encouraging breaking that
>rule since 5-20 plug caps will be on equipment rated > 12a.
>If the user sees a receptacle that matches that plug, he will plug it
>in.
>
The 23 draft
https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ViewerPage.jsp?id=70-2020.ditamap&pubStatus=FDR

On Fri, 08 Oct 2021 18:54:00 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Oct 2021 18:27:33 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>>You are right. I guess everyone just looked at 210.21(B)(3) and
>>assumed that was it but that is only for >1 outlet.
>>
>>NFPA is going to double down on that in the 23 NEC. The 1st draft has
>>them removing "conforming" from the text and adding "not less than" in
>>the text and changing the table heading to saying "connected to a
>>branch circuit supplying two or more receptacles or outlets" right
>>there, They are also removing "Not over" from the table before "15".
>>
>>I guess that is the way they want it. I haven't looked at the 23 ROP
>>to see the reasoning yet. It sounds pretty strange to me considering
>>table 210.21(B)(2). It looks like they are encouraging breaking that
>>rule since 5-20 plug caps will be on equipment rated > 12a.
>>If the user sees a receptacle that matches that plug, he will plug it
>>in.
>>
>The 23 draft
>https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ViewerPage.jsp?id=70-2020.ditamap&pubStatus=FDR

It did occur to me, this whole thing might me moot if it is a 110.3.
How are these listed?

On 10/9/2021 12:40 AM, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Oct 2021 18:54:00 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Oct 2021 18:27:33 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> You are right. I guess everyone just looked at 210.21(B)(3) and
>>> assumed that was it but that is only for >1 outlet.

You probably figured out the argument from the 210 code panel. If anyone
is still following, it is:
If a factory gets a 415V 3 ph 11A blivet bender and you want to plug
it in, you want a configuration that is different from what is in your
factory. You could use a 600V 30A configuration plug and receptacle.
480V 15A would be closer, but the higher ratings work and are safe even
though the current rating will be higher than the branch circuit rating.
It is allowed by 210.

It may violate 406.4-A below, but you could probably talk an inspector
into it. There are ways to get 415V (extension cord from UK?).

The obvious problem is when you allow a receptacle on a lower current
rated circuit where there are numerous devices that have the higher
rated plug - like a 20A 120V receptacle on a 15A circuit. A competent
panel could solve both problems.

>>>
>>> NFPA is going to double down on that in the 23 NEC. The 1st draft has
>>> them removing "conforming" from the text and adding "not less than" in
>>> the text and changing the table heading to saying "connected to a
>>> branch circuit supplying two or more receptacles or outlets" right
>>> there, They are also removing "Not over" from the table before "15".

Removing "not over" is maybe because of new 10A circuits?

>>>
>>> I guess that is the way they want it. I haven't looked at the 23 ROP
>>> to see the reasoning yet. It sounds pretty strange to me considering
>>> table 210.21(B)(2). It looks like they are encouraging breaking that
>>> rule since 5-20 plug caps will be on equipment rated > 12a.
>>> If the user sees a receptacle that matches that plug, he will plug it
>>> in.

Geez - we wuz going for a record number of posts on a simple question.
You RUINED it.

>>
>> The 23 draft
>> https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ViewerPage.jsp?id=70-2020.ditamap&pubStatus=FDR

Never used that before.

>
> It did occur to me, this whole thing might me moot if it is a 110.3.
> How are these listed?
>

I looked in the UL White book (2014, RTDV, RTRT) and didn't see anything.

But there is reference to 406.3-A (which is now 406.4-A) buried in a
recent post.
Installation of grounded receptacles
15/20A receptacles "shall be installed only on circuits of the voltage
class and current for which they are rated" except as provided in
210.21-B-2 and 3.

It does not allow a 20A grounded receptacle on a 15A circuit. For
tagging it should help that the 210 CMP does not specifically allow a 20A.

You can still put a 20A ungrounded receptacle as the only one on a 15A
circuit. Oddness remains, but is greatly limited