AC and MC cable color code

[jumper]

I bet it took more than just your inquiry to make any decision to remove that language.

I would assume so, I did mean to imply that my query was the sole cause.

I merely emailed a question, got a reply, and posted both.

 

[kwired]

I would assume so, I did mean to imply that my query was the sole cause.

I merely emailed a question, got a reply, and posted both.

Maybe you have a lot of clout and scared them into the decision:happyyes:

 

[ActionDave]

I would assume so, I did mean to imply that my query was the sole cause.

I merely emailed a question, got a reply, and posted both.

I'm with Kwired. You got some clout. Use it with care.

 

[jumper]

I'm with Kwired. You got some clout. Use it with care.

Maybe you have a lot of clout and scared them into the decision:happyyes:

Sure............... junior grade sparky forces major decision on a mega-corp.:roll:

There are plenty of heavy grade hitters on this forum-but I ain't one of them.:happysad:

 

[ActionDave]

For whatever reason you are now a "Made Man". No way out other than death or the whitness protection program.

 

[rbalex]

Email update from AFC:

Now I'm curious about what "[t]he instructions on the product identification tags are ..."

That may make it consistent with how I believe 110.3(B) is supposed to be interpreted; i.e., the manufacturer?s ?instructions? must be included and delivered with the product.

 

[brother]

Email update from AFC:

what are the product identification tags instructions? It would be funny if they said the same thing that was listed before.

 

[joebell]

The tag has in bold type "Warning: Do Not Re-Identify conductor Colors". I would assume this tag would apply to 110.3(B). I will try to post a photo of the tag.

 

[joebell]

This is the front of the tag taken off a reel of cable.

 

[rbalex]

The tag has in bold type "Warning: Do Not Re-Identify conductor Colors". I would assume this tag would apply to 110.3(B). I will try to post a photo of the tag.

I believe the tag would be a proper basis for application of 110.3(B) as long as full reels are the minimum quantity distributed.

 

[joebell]

I believe the tag would be a proper basis for application of 110.3(B) as long as full reels are the minimum quantity distributed.

Agreed,I believe the same tag is issued with reels and coils the only difference would be the footage marking.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I believe the tag would be a proper basis for application of 110.3(B) as long as full reels are the minimum quantity distributed.

And I believe that this is not a listing and labeling instruction. It is just an manufacturer's attempt to sell more product. I am sure that there was not any testing that showed a safety hazard if you re-identified the conductors.

This issue of 110.3(B) has gone way overboard. Where do we draw the line? Why does UL get to tell us what 110.3(B) means? They are not the AHJ and have not code interpretation authority.

110.3(B), is limited, in my opinion, to things that are an actual part of the listing and labeling. If the instruction is not in the White Book, it is not 110.3(B).

(B) Installation and Use. Listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.

The listing is the actual testing of the product and the labeling is the sticker or other identification on the product that indicates the product has been listed.

 

[joebell]

The back of the tag has the actual ul stamp.

 

[rbalex]

And I believe that this is not a listing and labeling instruction. It is just an manufacturer's attempt to sell more product. I am sure that there was not any testing that showed a safety hazard if you re-identified the conductors.

This issue of 110.3(B) has gone way overboard. Where do we draw the line? Why does UL get to tell us what 110.3(B) means? They are not the AHJ and have not code interpretation authority.

110.3(B), is limited, in my opinion, to things that are an actual part of the listing and labeling. If the instruction is not in the White Book, it is not 110.3(B).

The listing is the actual testing of the product and the labeling is the sticker or other identification on the product that indicates the product has been listed.

As I mentioned in Post 27:

1. From the UL White Book 2012 Category Code AALZ:

INSTRUCTIONS AND PRODUCT MARKINGS
These products are intended to be installed in accordance with the installation instructions provided with the product. It is critical that the cautionary statements and installation and operating instructions on the product and in accompanying literature be followed.[Underlines mine]

Category Code AALZ is cross referenced by virtually every other Category Code.

In other words, it is in the White Book.

However, you might make the case that it is only a warning, not an rigorous instruction. I see no inherent safety purpose – it may be a good idea, but has no intrinsic safety value; i.e., it isn't automatically dangerous. Of course, now days, the NEC is replete with "nanny" hand-holding.

 

[joebell]

And I believe that this is not a listing and labeling instruction. It is just an manufacturer's attempt to sell more product. I am sure that there was not any testing that showed a safety hazard if you re-identified the conductors.

This issue of 110.3(B) has gone way overboard. Where do we draw the line? Why does UL get to tell us what 110.3(B) means? They are not the AHJ and have not code interpretation authority.

110.3(B), is limited, in my opinion, to things that are an actual part of the listing and labeling. If the instruction is not in the White Book, it is not 110.3(B).

The listing is the actual testing of the product and the labeling is the sticker or other identification on the product that indicates the product has been listed.

Don would the actual listing be the information located in the border with the UL stamp?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Don would the actual listing be the information located in the border with the UL stamp?

Probably not. That is one of the problems with what is actually a "listing and labeling" instruction. The only instructions that I consider part of the listing and labeling are those that you find in the UL Guide Information (White Book).

 

[brother]

View attachment 8344

This is the front of the tag taken off a reel of cable.

Well, that puts it right back to square one. It is a code violation to re-identify the conductors of this type of cable because of the instructions with it. So the inspector would still be right, and that email response really doesn't do anything because the "warning" is still on the tags with the product. lol

 

[rbalex]

Well, that puts it right back to square one. It is a code violation to re-identify the conductors of this type of cable because of the instructions with it. So the inspector would still be right, and that email response really doesn't do anything because the "warning" is still on the tags with the product. lol

I would let AFC know that I wouldn't use their product because of the "warning". I see no economic benefit for using it. I see no significant safety enhancement either. I only see a hassle.

 

[brother]

I would let AFC know that I wouldn't use their product because of the "warning". I see no economic benefit for using it. I see no significant safety enhancement either. I only see a hassle.

What about the other companies that do the same thing? I did post a link to another company that had the same instructions. Do you know of any companies that do not have that instruction?

 

[rbalex]

What about the other companies that do the same thing? I did post a link to another company that had the same instructions. Do you know of any companies that do not have that instruction?

What's sauce for the goose...

Someone would need to convince me that there is a substantial safety basis for such a restriction before I accepted that there was an economic benefit over suitable products without the restriction.