All references are based on the 2014 edition of the NEC.
First, I would like to thank the readers for all of the lively and passionate comments and emails I received in regard to my “Myth Busting for Bathrooms” article that appeared in the April issue of EC&M. Hopefully, this topic will generate as much discussion at that article did.
The intent behind the addition of new Sec. 600.6(A)(1) in the 2014 NEC seems like a good idea. A review of the proposal submittal in the Report on Proposal indicates this rule was intended to provide a means at the sign to disconnect wires before they even enter the sign. The literal wording, on the other hand, can be problematic to decipher.
The literal wording seems contradictory to the requirements set forth in Sec. 600.6(A)(2), which allows a sign disconnect to be located out of the line of sight of a sign so long as the disconnect is lockable in accordance with Sec. 110.25. How is this rule usable anymore if Sec. 600.6(A)(1) requires a disconnect to be located at the point of entry for the wires feeding the sign? Perhaps the Exception in 600.6(A)(1) can help alleviate this problem.
The Exception states that a disconnect is not required for circuits passing through the sign as long as the wires are installed in a listed Chapter 3 raceway within the sign. The intent of this exception is to provide a barrier between the energized wires passing through the sign and any workers that may open the sign for servicing. I believe the intent of the exception is supposed to be applied not only to circuits passing through the sign, which don’t even supply power to the sign, but also to supply conductors passing through the sign cabinet that feed power to the supply side of the sign’s disconnect, which could be mounted on the other end of the sign from where the wires enter it. This seems like a good idea, but again the wording may be problematic. The literal wording would allow circuits to be installed in a raceway passing through the sign without any disconnect at all. No disconnect? Does this also apply to the circuit feeding the sign? I tend to doubt it.
Of course, whenever you are in doubt about your interpretation of the Code rules, it is always best to check with your AHJ. After all, interpretation of Code rules is their job, according to Sec. 90.4.
