Statement I: All conductors of the same circuit and, where used, the grounded conductor and all equipment grounding conductors and bonding conductors shall be contained within the same raceway, cable, or cord. Statement II: Equipment grounding conductors shall be permitted to be installed outside a raceway or cable assembly. Which of the following best describes mandatory Code language?

Statement I: All conductors of the same circuit and, where used, the grounded conductor and all equipment grounding conductors and bonding conductors shall be contained within the same raceway, cable, or cord. Statement II: Equipment grounding conductors shall be permitted to be installed outside a raceway or cable assembly. Which of the following best describes mandatory Code language?

• A. Only Statement I is an example of mandatory Code language.
• B. Both Statements I and II are examples of mandatory Code language.
• C. Neither Statements I nor II are examples of mandatory Code language.
• D. Only Statement II is an example of mandatory Code language.

Answer: (A)

The concept being tested is how to distinguish mandatory code language from permissive language. In NEC wording, “shall” denotes a requirement, while phrases like “shall be permitted” indicate an allowed, not required, arrangement. Statement I uses “shall be contained within the same raceway, cable, or cord” for all conductors of the same circuit plus grounding and bonding conductors. That is a clear mandatory instruction: every related conductor must stay together in the same enclosure. This grouping helps ensure a reliable fault path, maintains bonding and grounding continuity, and reduces the risk of improper connections or shared impedance that could affect overcurrent protection. Statement II says equipment grounding conductors “shall be permitted to be installed outside a raceway or cable assembly.” The wording here is permissive, meaning it’s allowed but not required. It does not impose a mandatory requirement to keep EGCs inside a raceway. Thus, only the first statement contains mandatory language, making it the best answer.

The concept being tested is how to distinguish mandatory code language from permissive language. In NEC wording, “shall” denotes a requirement, while phrases like “shall be permitted” indicate an allowed, not required, arrangement.

Statement I uses “shall be contained within the same raceway, cable, or cord” for all conductors of the same circuit plus grounding and bonding conductors. That is a clear mandatory instruction: every related conductor must stay together in the same enclosure. This grouping helps ensure a reliable fault path, maintains bonding and grounding continuity, and reduces the risk of improper connections or shared impedance that could affect overcurrent protection.

Statement II says equipment grounding conductors “shall be permitted to be installed outside a raceway or cable assembly.” The wording here is permissive, meaning it’s allowed but not required. It does not impose a mandatory requirement to keep EGCs inside a raceway.

Thus, only the first statement contains mandatory language, making it the best answer.