Re: Type TC cable
Don and Charlie have given the correct "Code" answer. That being said, I think you should try for a 90.4 "special permission."
In the '96 NEC an exception to Section 340-5 was introduced. That exception became what is now 336.10(6). Originally there was a 50' limit. I was involved with several Proposals that extended the limit to 100' and finally an indefinite length.
Type TC is vastly superior to NM; the only reasons that it can't be used the same way is product protectionism - not safety. TC has far better fire retardant and products of combustion performance than NM.
What many folks don't know is that virtually every TC cable also meets the "crush and impact" capabilities of Type MC; NM couldn't begin to. The Type MC "crush and impact" test permits a certain "failure rate." Type TC will pass the test with an "acceptable" UL failure rate. Type MC usually won't fail at all. My most recent argument with CMP7 has been, if they feel the MC standard should be "no failures," they should request a change to the UL product standard. The folks who have opposed TC "open wiring" are the same that oppose making the test more rigorous. (The MC manufacturers). Most MC manufacturers make both but they don't want TC sales cutting into the MC market.
The only problem item is getting the TC "identified." There is no Code requirement that it be listed, labeled, or even "marked" for an open wiring application. I would ask the manufacturer to certify that the cable can pass the MC "crush and impact" test and supply the test data. FedOSHA would accept this. I don't know about local AHJs.
