ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues "Forbidden" Fittings?

Perhaps they should add "insulated" to the description of the conductors that need to be marked

It is implied that if the cable has marking on the jacket or a marker tape in the bundle, that is what describes the conductors. They did add the "D" section that allows individual conductor marking in lieu of cable jacket marking in 2011 when this moved from 310.11 to 310.120

Maybe this is how Reno's fitting became legal./

Gentlemen:
Has anyone had a violation for using a 'from-to' on any type of cable to a raceway?

I know quite a few 'nit pickers', and to the best of my knowledge, they have not touched this issue. The 'field created from-to' was a red tag item for a while, but that issue subsided with the listed items being available.

(That subject was beaten unmercifully on this and other trade forums, and was a 'topic' at CEU seminars)

Tesla referenced 'rolling on' for the conductor ID. Fact is that a mfg plant here uses a form of laser printing, and has for quite a few years. That facility runs 16Ga to 750KCMil building wire (no cable) with 90%+ being THHN/THWN, THHN/THWN-2. It is an interesting plant to take a .05cent tour.

Yesterday, I pulled the conductors from HCF MC, and it sure looks and feels like THHN/THWN.

I also had a sample piece of MC with the #10AL bond wire that was a 'fad' item; the neutral conductor was marked with..... (fill in Fri AM)

I, for one would not have any issue with the trade practice of using a 'from-to' cable to raceway.

I'm still having a hard time finding anything that specifically states conductors installed raceways must be marked.
IMO, if the issue really is just that the conductors are not marked after the outer cable jacket is removed, then I think we would have to apply the requirement of 310.120 unilaterally instead of possibly cherry picking where we want it to apply. I see that 300.14 gives the minimum length for cables and conductors at outlets, junctions and switch points for splicing and terminating, but still doesn't seem to alleviate the supposed issue of conductor marking once the outer jacket is removed. If this is the case, then how could we splice or terminate MC or NM cables after the outer jacket is removed, whether it's just 6-inches or 6-feet.
300.10 states what types of conductor insulation can be used, but doesn't actually have any requirement to mark these conductors with their insulation type.
NEC 300.15 [F] actually seems to allow the type of MC fitting above to be used.
Arlington also has a similar #8600 fitting that has been in use for several years around here for transitioning NM cables to 1/2" EMT for and is allowed without issue as long as the fitting is accessible after installation.

At least manufacturers are willing to disclose what type of conductor insulation is used for MC, SE and UF cables, but with NM we are still only left to assume that it complies with 310.10.

I think that even sillier for an inspector is that marking tape in the bundle for MC cable. Isn't that one of the first things you snip off when you are dressing the end to go in the box? I get there the next day and there is nothing to see. I just have to believe my eyes for wire gauge and that AFC or whomever is following the standards in that cable. That was really an issue when *some* MC cable was listed "wet" and some wasn't, even with the bare aluminum armor.
I remember the first time I questioned it and the guy brought me the box. Either that was the cable he was using or he just carried around the box

Perhaps we should leave the conductor id in cable to something that has long been missing within the "Code".......

Good old 'Common Sense'!!!

I think we all would be concerned when the 'imported' cable starts to be available here.

The bottom line is this might be more of a NEMA thing than NEC or U/L. I didn't look to see who"s idea it was in the ROP but they put a line in 310.120 that allows the printing to be on the conductor in a cable. That may mean they have a new wire machine that prints the info on the conductors cheaper than any other way.

I'm a bit disappointed that others have not come forward with additional fittings to discuss. I'm sure there are others out there!

The illuminated closet rod would be a good choice- except that I personally made the proposal that got it into the NEC.

"Classified" circuit breakers are also another classic instance of a direct conflict with "listing and labeling." UL's contradictory statements regarding just which markings, exactly, constitute the part of the labeling to which the NEC applies are rather amusing. I can only say that my internal UL sources assure me that UL is really, really sorry they tried to be nice at one time and tried to throw Square D a bone.

U/L was throwing Cuttler Hammer a bone when they "classified" Challenger breakers for Square D panels.
We used to have a CH rep and a U/L rep in our IAEI chapter and they was good friends with Jim Pauley from SqD who used to do seminars all the time. We were guaranteed to hear the whole classified breaker story every time Jim was in town.

Personally I never saw it as being a big deal. If U/L evaluated the breaker in that panel, I believe them, no matter what SqD says.

I always saw the U/L label as being about like Conagra telling me Hebrew National hot dogs should be served on Peppridge Farm bread with Guldens mustard.

Sorry, Greg, but your source is misinformed.

The first party to submit breakers for testing in someone else's panel was a Taiwan firm. The first UL knew of the submission was when a crate arrived, packed with breakers and the panels in which to test them. The submission surprised UL, who had never imagined someone would do such a thing. Someone saw the Square D panels and asked Square D what was going on.

When Square D heard of the submission, the lobbying began. UL decided to 'throw a bone' by inventing the 'classified' term, just to sooth Square D's anger at the thought of use of the term 'listed'.

Little did UL realize the extent to which the wormtongues at Square D would assert all manner of mystical distinctions between 'listed' and 'classified' products. Such distinctions are patently dishonest. Given the chance to do it all over, I'm sure UL would have simply "listed" the breakers.

When you box them in on this point, Square D's fallback is the sticker that says 'use only Square D parts.' This, they insist, is part of the listing and labeling. To support this, there's no shortage of (erroneous) UL statements saying that everything that comes on or with a product is part of the listing and labeling.

That is simply not true. UL may require certain statements on the product, or supplied with the product, but UL does not control EVERY such statement. For example, in "owners' manuals," about the only statement relevant to UL is the one that says "use in accordance with the NEC."

I don't want to get this thread too far off track; I just want to be clear as to why I don't include replacement breakers in the 'forbidden parts' category.

I think we are saying the same thing. I agree saying "classified" was a cop out but article 110.3(A)(7) opens the door.