"EF" LFMC

Status
Not open for further replies.
augie47

augie47

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee
Occupation
State Electrical Inspector (Retired)
Are many of you using or seeing Type EF LFMC ?
We have suddenly had an increase in it's usage in this area despite it's not having a UL listing. (Then "problem" I understand is a lack of a "bond" wire)
 
From I noticed i have been using non UL lfmc all the time. That may be a reason inspektros require green conductor inside. inspectors also don't like the connections of the connector itself.
 
We can get FMC and LFMC in listed and unlisted versions from our suppliers.

IMO the NEC requires us to use listed LFMC and FMC.
 
The code has required the use of the listed type starting with 1996 code, but, around here, unless you specify you want the listed type when you buy it at the supply house, you will get the unlisted type.

I asked a manufacturer's rep at a trade show why they still made the unlisted version and he told me two things. One, our customers want it and two, it is not a code violation to sell it...only a violation to install it.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I asked a manufacturer's rep at a trade show why they still made the unlisted version and he told me two things. One, our customers want it and two, it is not a code violation to sell it...only a violation to install it.
Click to expand...

Which makes him a typical salesman on both counts.

JAP>
 
jap said:
Which makes him a typical salesman on both counts.

JAP>
Click to expand...
Yep! and then guess who gets to be the bad guy that finds it on a job with about 200 sections having been installed
 
I have been contemplating this issue for a while and finally found some useful info. Per Southwire's website, type EF (extra flexible) is manufactured and sold for use in commercial and industrial applications where listing is not required. Industrial machinery with moving parts, from a rigidly mounted conduit to a motor, etc. So maybe when it isnt being used in a wet environment it doesnt need to be listed as such.
 
augie47 said:
Are many of you using or seeing Type EF LFMC ?
We have suddenly had an increase in it's usage in this area despite it's not having a UL listing. (Then "problem" I understand is a lack of a "bond" wire)
Click to expand...

I don't see any requirement for a bond wire in article 350, about the closest I can see is in 350.60 when it is installed for flexibility while in use which requires a EGC installed in it, further down it does say to install bonding jumpers but this is not the same as a bonding wire as you find in MC cable, as a matter of fact I have never seen a bonding strip in any FMC as when we exceed the ampacities listed in 250.118(6) or (7) for LFMC or FMC (3/8-1/2" 20 amps or 3/4-13/4" 60 amps) we are required to install an EGC.

But then again I have never seen the UL listing requirements for LMFC for its construction also so the above might be moot, seems strange that FMC is not required to have a bonding strip but LMFC does?

350.6 does require LFMC to be listed so if your finding it with no listing then it is a violation, LMFC is also required to be marked on the conduit (350.120) unlike FMC which does not have this requirement and is allowed to be marked on the tag attached to the roll of FMC.
 
hurk27 said:
350.6 does require LFMC to be listed so if your finding it with no listing then it is a violation
Click to expand...

Southwire Titan EF, a particular brand, has in its product descriprion "delivers wiring protection where listed products are not required." I have read the UL listing for LFMC and it does not indicate when a listed product is not req'd (as indicated in the item description). I believe the next step in this endeavor is to determine what set of standards allows a particular type of LFMC to be unlisted and acceptable for particular applications.
 
arcsnsparks98 said:
Southwire Titan EF, a particular brand, has in its product descriprion "delivers wiring protection where listed products are not required." I have read the UL listing for LFMC and it does not indicate when a listed product is not req'd (as indicated in the item description). I believe the next step in this endeavor is to determine what set of standards allows a particular type of LFMC to be unlisted and acceptable for particular applications.
Click to expand...
Perhaps a piece of OEM equipmnet or some installation where you want the water resistance and crush strength but your cable does not require a Chapt 3 method or grounding such as an Art 725 Class 2 or 3 application.
 
If a non listed product sells - the supply house is going to continue to sell it. Where it is used is up to the purchaser.

If inspectors are rejecting it, installers will stop buying it unless they have a place they can use it. If enough people stop buying it the supply house may stop carrying it.

I'm pretty certain I have used type "EF" myself and did not realize it wasn't listed.
 
augie47 said:
Perhaps a piece of OEM equipmnet or some installation where you want the water resistance and crush strength but your cable does not require a Chapt 3 method or grounding such as an Art 725 Class 2 or 3 application.
Click to expand...
If the non-listed LFMC is part of the equipment, then it is not subject the the rules found in the NEC and could be used.

As far as an Article 725 installation, I don't see anything in there that modifies 350.6, and it would be my opinion that if you used LFMC for an Article 725 installation, it is required to be of the listed type. This opinion is based on 90.3.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
If the non-listed LFMC is part of the equipment, then it is not subject the the rules found in the NEC and could be used.

As far as an Article 725 installation, I don't see anything in there that modifies 350.6, and it would be my opinion that if you used LFMC for an Article 725 installation, it is required to be of the listed type. This opinion is based on 90.3.
Click to expand...

Don, I'm cedrtainly not adament in my opinion, but 725.46 requires Chapt 3 wiring methods for Class 1 circuits with the associated Articles, but 725.130 does not require Chapt 3 wiring methods for Class 2 or 3, so IMHO, 350.6 would not apply.
It would seem if I wanted to use EF for a Class 3 circuit it would be Code permissible.
As always "approval" is an AHJ call.
 
augie47 said:
Don, I'm cedrtainly not adament in my opinion, but 725.46 requires Chapt 3 wiring methods for Class 1 circuits with the associated Articles, but 725.130 does not require Chapt 3 wiring methods for Class 2 or 3, so IMHO, 350.6 would not apply.
It would seem if I wanted to use EF for a Class 3 circuit it would be Code permissible.
As always "approval" is an AHJ call.
Click to expand...
You have a point, but it is my opinion that if you use it, even where it is not required, 350.6 applies.

Just like when you install an EGC of the wire type in a raceway that itself is qualified as an EGC, the EGC of the wire type must still comply with all of the rules even though the code does not require you to install it.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
You have a point, but it is my opinion that if you use it, even where it is not required, 350.6 applies.

Just like when you install an EGC of the wire type in a raceway that itself is qualified as an EGC, the EGC of the wire type must still comply with all of the rules even though the code does not require you to install it.
Click to expand...
What do you say if someone wants to run class 2 or 3 wiring in any other pipe or tube that is not a NEC recognized raceway?
 
kwired said:
What do you say if someone wants to run class 2 or 3 wiring in any other pipe or tube that is not a NEC recognized raceway?
Click to expand...

If the pipe or tube is installed as a complete raceway system and not as a sleeve, the installation gets a red tag.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
If the pipe or tube is installed as a complete raceway system and not as a sleeve, the installation gets a red tag.
Click to expand...
I can buy into that as a general rule, but still leave room for an occasional unique situation where one needs to carefully evaluate everything and proceed from there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top