can't use EMT fittings on these?

[Ponchik]

True, but for solving problems in the field that kind of turns into treating the symptoms and not the problem.

Do you suggest we change 110.3 to be able to use these fittings together, or should we look at the listing requirements and see what changes may be needed to either the product itself or the listing requirements?

I would check the product and make changes to it if it needs it. Or if it is a bonding issue then put an exception such as "if an EGC is installed then EMT fittings can be used with conduit bodies". Or maybe provide the installer explanation as to why EMT fittings can't be used with conduit bodies, so we can make a educated judgment.

I don't know, sometimes these technicalities drives me nuts. At the time of bidding you don't know which way to bid the job. Use the correct product so one doesn't violate the UL listing which in turn drives the cost up or take a chance and bid and install to the way you have been doing for the last 20 years and hope the inspector is not extremely picky.

 

[kwired]

I would check the product and make changes to it if it needs it. Or if it is a bonding issue then put an exception such as "if an EGC is installed then EMT fittings can be used with conduit bodies". Or maybe provide the installer explanation as to why EMT fittings can't be used with conduit bodies, so we can make a educated judgment.

I don't know, sometimes these technicalities drives me nuts. At the time of bidding you don't know which way to bid the job. Use the correct product so one doesn't violate the UL listing which in turn drives the cost up or take a chance and bid and install to the way you have been doing for the last 20 years and hope the inspector is not extremely picky.

I don't know, these products may not be listed for use together for the simple fact they have never been tested to be used together and not so much that they will not work.

UL may have their testing standard for a product, but in a way to get a straight thread fitting listed to use in combination with a particular hub could be as simple as designing a new fitting or hub and creating a new listing standard for that particular product, or changing an existing design to meet two different standards. New standards have to be made when a product that has never been made before comes along - it is called progress, growth, expansion, and many other names.

 

[iwire]

I don't know, these products may not be listed for use together for the simple fact they have never been tested to be used together and not so much that they will not work.

I think you will find in most cases it simply comes down to the manafacturer not requesting the product to be tested for all the applications.

ULs boilerplate response is 'the product has not been evaluated for...'

 

[kwired]

I think you will find in most cases it simply comes down to the manafacturer not requesting the product to be tested for all the applications.

ULs boilerplate response is 'the product has not been evaluated for...'

That is along the lines of my thinking.

I would also say there is a lot of AHJ's allowing the improper use of these products, otherwise there would be more demand for something listed for the purpose.

 

[jim dungar]

ULs boilerplate response is 'the product has not been evaluated for...'

In which case there is no 'violation of a listing' and it is up to the AHJ to pass judgement on the installation.

 

[iwire]

In which case there is no 'violation of a listing' and it is up to the AHJ to pass judgement on the installation.

I disagree, if the item is listed as the items under discussion are and you use them outside that listing you have a direct 110.3(B) violtion.

 

[jim dungar]

I disagree, if the item is listed as the items under discussion are and you use them outside that listing you have a direct 110.3(B) violtion.

Doe the actual listing say "only for use with" or "not for use with". I don't remember seeing any wording like this in any manufacturer's literature.

You said that a probable response from UL would be along the lines of 'we don't know as it has not been tested', which is a far cry from 'after testing we have found it to be unsuitable'.

 

[kwired]

Doe the actual listing say "only for use with" or "not for use with". I don't remember seeing any wording like this in any manufacturer's literature.

You said that a probable response from UL would be along the lines of 'we don't know as it has not been tested', which is a far cry from 'after testing we have found it to be unsuitable'.

I agree with that and have a good example that has happened to me.

SBMP makes what they label as "Handy Straps". Generically they are plastic staples for NM cable. They are UL listed. They have different models that are listed for different sizes and quantities of cables to be secured by each particular model.

I have used these to secure MC cable to wood framing members for all of my professional career. Only recently have I had an inspector tell me they are not listed for that purpose. I tell him it does not matter because the securing and supporting method for MC cable is not required to be a listed product. I did not win that battle, but have not had another battle over the same thing since but would like to find some more support on my opinion of this. If the securing and supporting method is not required to be listed I don't see why using something that is listed for another purpose matters, it still gets the job done. If I buy staples that are not listed there should be no way he could reject those, based on listing. I don't even see how they could be rejected for NM cable either, as it also does not require the use of listed securing or supporting devices. So I really don't know what the listing is really all about other than to say this product has been tested for a particular use.