Article 300.15 (F)
Fitting. A fitting identified for the use shall be permitted in lieu of a box or conduit body where conductors are not spliced or terminated within the fitting. The fitting shall remain accessable after installation.

I had a discussion today about this. EC wanted to transition from an EMT stub-up out of the floor within a partition to a short piece of greenfield so he can go into a box KO.

I know that such transitions to AC or romex have to be accessable, he doesn't think that applies to greenfield. I say it does but I'm not 100%. What do you think?

-Hal

Hmmm. interesting.

I had never realised the "accessability" requirement. I wonder how many times I've violated that one!

I would not insist upon the connection being accessible IF the conductors are actually fished through... none of this "piece and pull" nonsense.

Well, the arguement is being made that the transition is simply a coupling, EMT to greenfield. Wire will be pulled in later. He says no problem which got me looking.

I have been guilty of this myself when absolutely necessary but the wording of 300.15(F) makes me wonder. I would normally do what's necessary to get the EMT directly to the box which in this case wouldn't be a problem but it's not me this time.

-Hal

Isn't an EMT connector a fitting?? or a coupling??

Both EMT and FMC are allowed to be run concealed. I can't believe that the fittings (couplings and connectors) would have to be accessible, even if there is a transition from one raceway type to another.

After reading the commentery in the Handbook, I think 300.15(F) only applies to cable/raceway transitions.

Both EMT and FMC are allowed to be run concealed. I can't believe that the fittings (couplings and connectors) would have to be accessible, even if there is a transition from one raceway type to another... I think 300.15(F) only applies to cable/raceway transitions.

Devels advocate says what's the difference? AC, MC and romex can be run concealed also as can EMT. Why would the transition have to be accessable in one case and not the other?

-Hal

[This message has been edited by hbiss (edited 07-25-2006).]

I think the "fitting" they are talking about is something like the 90s that you take apart. It isn't really a conduit body but you can't pull in a wire without "access".
I agree any adapter or coupling that allows a clean pull is not what they are talking about.

Hal:
I have to agree with Gfretwell, IF you have to 'open' the connector/cplg item, OK, it has to be accessable; if it is designed for 'pull through' it can be concealed.

Good question though.

John

300.15(F) is attached to, A coupling between EMT and FMC is not a "conductor splice point, outlet point, switch point, junction point, termination point, or pull point." So 300.15(F) doesn't apply.




[This message has been edited by SolarPowered (edited 07-25-2006).]

I want to be able to agree with those who say that an adapter designed for straight pull through can be concealed, but I'm still trying to square that position with the code language. Isn't the coupling we're talking about a junction point, the junction between two wiring methods?

[This message has been edited by eprice (edited 07-26-2006).]

I can't find "junction" or "junction point" in Article 100, so it doesn't mean anything. Or perhaps, it means whatever you want it to.

This could get into an interesting epistemological debate--"If a word falls in the woods, and there's no dictionary there to hear it, does it make any meaning?"

Since junction point is not defined in article 100, I think we need to look at the common meaning of those words. I looked in two dictionaries in the office and came up with:

It sounds like the coupling we're talking about meets this difinition of a "junction point". But (and this is where it gets interesting) so do all of the couplings in a run of EMT for example!

I guess I can't really see any reason to treat a straight through coupling between EMT and some other raceway differently than the couplings in a run of EMT and I'm not ready to start requiring those to remain accessible

I'll have to agree that the only time it makes sense to apply 300.15(F) would be at a cable/raceway transition. Looks like maybe a code change proposal is in order.

I have always believed that if you fish wires through the changeover fitting it need not be accessible. If the changeover goes from cable to raceway however it should be accessible like any other pull point on a raceway system.
--
Tom Horne

OK this one is giving me bad dreams... As I too do this all the time.... NM to EMT, and FMC to EMT, and it sounds as though I'm just learning something new... Or am I?


That sounds OK, fitting and connectors need to be designed and listed for the wiring method. Next sentance... No splice or pull point, no box or conduit body required....unless otherwise permitted in 300.15(A) through (M). Most are points where a box or condulet are not required, except "C" which allows all of my NM to EMT/RMC points and it makes no mention of it being accessible. Then, all the rest of the letters. (with as we know from elementary school includes "F") But "F" has a contradiction to this... Theres no mention of transition between conduit or tubing systems....



A "fitting" could mean a lot of things.... NM-EMT coupling (Which I often use) Or a FMC-EMT coupling (Which I also use) But would also include regular EMT couplings. Really if you bite hard on this definition below one could include straps too....


So, I just learning something new?
Would either the NM-EMT connection, or the FMC-EMT connection be required to be accessible?

There was a UL statement within the last year or so that said none of the listed cable or raceway connectors are suitable for use with conduit couplings. They are only intended to be installed as a cable or flexible raceway termination at an enclosure.
Don

Wow!
I read all this last night; now I'm reading it again.
I believe that Tom Horne hit the nail on the head:

"I have always believed that if you fish wires through the changeover fitting it need not be accessible. If the changeover goes from cable to raceway however it should be accessible like any other pull point on a raceway system. "

The point at which you are changing wiring methods is required to be accessible.

NM, MC, AC,... are Listed Cable assemblies; different wiring method from Listed conductors in Listed conduit. (If I strip the sheath off new NM I have unmarked conductors: all I know is they're 90°. I have to strip 30+ yr. old NM apart to find markings, usually TW)

Changing conduit types but not conductors is not changing wiring methods.

Quote: "Changing conduit types but not conductors is not changing wiring methods."

Not so!
The wiring method is the type of protection we provide to our conductors, be it pipe, gutter, tray, cable, cablebus or even open wiring on insulators or in a trench.
That said, sleeving NM in a conduit is not changing the wiring method. It is providing additional protection for a cable type wiring method. But, changing a run of PVC to rigid galvanized conduit where it emerges from the dirt is changing the wiring method.

Section 300.15(F) deals with a specialized type of fitting permitted to be used in lieu of a box, so long as this special type of fitting remains accessible. This does NOT mean that ALL fittings must remain accessible, only this one type of fitting.

e57 gave us the answer (although he took a lot of words to say it)
Section 300.15(F) is merely saying that the adapter fitting we use to change from NM or AC cable to EMT needs to remain accessible.


But what about the adapter fitting we use to change from PVC to rigid galvanized (terminal adapter)? or the FMC to EMT? or even the home-brew connector-coupling-connector pairing? The code does not make any distinction between these. Clearly, the NEC needs to be more specific in this area.

What e57 missed is the phrase "identified for the use" which excludes all fittings except these adapter types.

At the point where the flex to emt transition is installed, there is not a(n):
conductor splice point
outlet point
switch point
junction point
termination point
pull point

therefore (A) through (M) do not apply

UL's statement about couplings not suitable for use with connectors is another hidden little technicality. While 110.3(B) is in play here, I think an AHJ could accept the use as suitable.
You can get them wrench tight into the coupling.
I would like to know if they were evaluated and found not suitable or just not evaluated.

If I recall it was even worse than that, the connectors are only to be used with locknuts.

Meaning you could not enter a threaded hub with a fitting.

Want to run UF into a bell box?

UL says no, the connectors are not listed for the purpose.

I will continue to ignore this foolishness.

You guys made me do my homework on this one.
Let me start by saying I would approve the installation as described.
Now the reasons why.
Section 300.15 was completely re-written for the 1999 Code "for clarity".
300.15(F) used to be 300.15 (b) in the 1996 Code and was definately refering to a transition of raceway to cable. That is why the Handbook makes that point.
If you have an older Code book you can look it up. 300.15 used to have many exceptions.

If you have the references you can check the 1998 NEC ROP item 3-106 (Log # 704)

I believe that this does need a proposal to clarify that 300.15(F) applies only to cable fittings.

You made me work to earn a beer on this one.
(Don't throw away those old ROPs & ROCs they sometimes wxplain what the CMP was trying to do when they changed the Code.
Alan--

Now that computers are taking over the code book, I think it would be good if you could buy a CD/DVD with footnotes that reference the ROP/ROC language that resulted in the code we use. It would be hard to do, going backward but trivial going forward.

Get a copy of the "preprint" or draft of the code. All of the changes have the proposal number listed so you can read the ROP info. The draft is free and you can download it from the NFPA or call 800-344-3555 and request that they send you a hard copy. Here is an example from the 2008 preprint:
Don

SandSnow, UL simply stated that:

" EMT connectors had straight threads, locknuts, and were evaluated attached through holes.

All hubs had tapered threads, and were evalusted using tapered fittings."

Not an exact quote... but close enough (I believe).

In other words, UL was saying "We don't know- because we don't test things that way."

In a similar discussion, one person averred that 'if a listed connector existed in a catalog, he would reject the use of any field assembly to do the same job.' I don't believe that the code supports that position.

Why? Because existance in a catalog does not always mean the item is readily available. Heck, I can't even get #2 white wire from the "worlds largest distributor-" unless I want to order 3000 ft, and wait indefinitely for a special production run!
(Yet I've run into 'inspectors' who said code did not allow the use of tape for marking, as it was not sufficiently permanent!)

My personal view... with the exception of 'running thread,' (which code specifically prohibits using with couplings), I hold that any connector with pipe threads is allowed to be used with any threaded opening. So 'field engineer' to your heats' content!