On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:46:21 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/26/2015 7:20 AM, Meanie wrote:
...

I've opted to use conduit and help protect the romex.

Whether actually req'd or not, it just looks so much better...my
understanding was that "exposed" in unfinished space meant still thru
wall, not on the wall surface directly exposed. But, I don't have new
NEC at hand (2011+?) w/ the Art 334(?by recollection) and clear
definitions to refer to directly...

The current cycle is 2014 but there are plenty of places still on the
11 or even 08 or earlier.
The thing that is consistent is that "Exposed to physical damage" is
ambiguous and "extreme damage" is even more ambiguous in the code.
A lot is left to local interpretation and custom. That is particularly
true about Romex in utility spaces in a dwelling. Where I was in
Maryland, above 4' it could just be stapled to running boards. In
Florida they want some kind of raceway but Smurf will do in most
places. Other places want EMT. The wild cards are MC/AC cable and
Smurf. The perception is they are tougher than Romex but the NEC rules
are the same in reference to physical damage.