AC and MC cable color code

Status
Not open for further replies.
jumper said:
Email update from AFC:
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
joebell said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
rbalex said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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_resqcapt19 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don would the actual listing be the information located in the border with the UL stamp?
 
joebell said:
Don would the actual listing be the information located in the border with the UL stamp?
Click to expand...
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).
 
joebell said:
View attachment 8344

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

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
 
brother said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
rbalex said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
brother said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top