• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Secured within 12" for MC cable NEC 330.30(B)

jar546

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,718
Location
Not where I really want to be
So, although this job is not ready for inspection, the potential issue here with this MC installation is that on the right side, the MC clamp is 16" away from the box/fitting.

Who out there would fail this installation for having 1 strap more than 12" away?

IMG_1094.jpg
 
@ ~ @

By not enforcing the adopted requirement of the NEC, and specifically
Article 330.30(B), ...then a precedent would then be set........What
about the next time, and THERE WILL BE a next time, ...when the distance
is a little bit farther, and the next time when the distance is still even
farther away ?.......How many of us have heard the statement "Well you
didn't make me do it on the last job, why are you making me do it now" ?

Anyone who is a regular visitor or member on this Forum sees the direct
results of what happens when the various adopted Codes & Standards
are not enforced [ i.e. - please refer to the various pictures and
applications that **ICE** has ].

IMO, ...as an Inspector the non-compliant condition must be enforced to
the Code [ read Article ] as adopted by the jurisdiction.

@ ~ @
 
north star said:
@ ~ @

By not enforcing the adopted requirement of the NEC, and specifically
Article 330.30(B), ...then a precedent would then be set........What
about the next time, and THERE WILL BE a next time, ...when the distance
is a little bit farther, and the next time when the distance is still even
farther away ?.......How many of us have heard the statement "Well you
didn't make me do it on the last job, why are you making me do it now" ?

Anyone who is a regular visitor or member on this Forum sees the direct
results of what happens when the various adopted Codes & Standards
are not enforced [ i.e. - please refer to the various pictures and
applications that **ICE** has ].

IMO, ...as an Inspector the non-compliant condition must be enforced to
the Code [ read Article ] as adopted by the jurisdiction.

@ ~ @
Click to expand...
The alternative to this would be taking the MC cable on the right, bringing it back to the left side just to secure it then looping it back causing undue stress on the connection point and wasting cable. The cable tie in the middle is acting as a support.

What if I told you this installation was under the 2017 NEC and that the cable ties were UL Type 21S? Would that change your opinion?
 
Will the ceiling be accessible?

330.30(D)(2)
 
Last edited:
My response to both OP post would be that one the tie secures them both. It appears to be about 6" out of the box. Therefore, the right side would be ok. On this install I would use a little "common sense" and not fail it. Seeing this I would look closely at the other devises, to make sure they are done correctly. It appears to be on 24" centers and some time the can does not line up with the desired center wanted from below.
Also keep in section 330.24 not to create stress on the bend. I believe the installer has meet the burden of the code.
 
330.30 Securing and Supporting.

(D) Unsupported Cables. Type MC cable shall be permitted to be unsupported where the cable:

(2) Is not more than 1.8 m (6 ft) in length from the last point of cable support to the point of connection to luminaires or other electrical equipment and the cable and point of connection are within an accessible ceiling. For the purpose of this section, Type MC cable fittings shall be permitted as a means of cable support.
 
My reaction was that with the cables being attached to one another, appears to immobilize them within the 12". JMHO
 
fatboy said:
My reaction was that with the cables being attached to one another, appears to immobilize them within the 12". JMHO
Click to expand...
Is it 12" as the pig flies or is it 12" of actual MC cable. Neither cable is 12" or less in actual cable and if it is as the pig flies then the cables could be infinitely long. So one cable is attached to another, however, the point is moot given the Code.
 
I don't see a problem with this install, help me understand what the code is trying to achieve.

If the light fixture was to drop during a fire or a shake, would it drop too far or would this install still provide the safety needed?

As far as 330.24 bending radius, it appears to be in compliance.

Would you measure the 12-inches of material or from the distance from the wood framing fastener to the light fixture box?
 
jar546 said:
What if I told you this installation was under the 2017 NEC and that the cable ties were UL Type 21S? Would that change your opinion?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the MC require the metallic type approved 21's ties?

Have to be a wrapper laying on the floor for verification, cuz I can't tell one tie from another.
 
Pcinspector1 said:
Wouldn't the MC require the metallic type approved 21's ties?

Have to be a wrapper laying on the floor for verification, cuz I can't tell one tie from another.
Click to expand...

Basically this is an accessible attic space and these are luminaires so I could put a 6' fixture whip on this unsecure and it meets the code. The 12" rule does not even apply for this application. I was trying to see what some of the opinions were out there to drum up some conversation.
 
Well I 'll be: Never gave it a though in regards to the 6' rule for a whip. I see hundreds of these installations every week with the 6' or less whip being used. A very good and tricky question!!!
 
jar546 said:
The alternative to this would be taking the MC cable on the right, bringing it back to the left side just to secure it then looping it back causing undue stress on the connection point and wasting cable. The cable tie in the middle is acting as a support.

What if I told you this installation was under the 2017 NEC and that the cable ties were UL Type 21S? Would that change your opinion?
Click to expand...

I don't think a wire tie from a MC cable to another MC cable can be used for supporting:

300.11 (C) Cables not used as a means of support. Cable wiring methods shall not be used as a means of support for other cables, raceways, or non electrical equipment.

But if this is a whip it's ok for the first 6'.but not elsewhere.
 
Rick: Very good point. Installers like using wire ties. So would that use of a tie even to create a nice entrance be a violation. On the surface I think it would be or could be! ????
 
Rick18071 said:
I don't think a wire tie from a MC cable to another MC cable can be used for supporting:

300.11 (C) Cables not used as a means of support. Cable wiring methods shall not be used as a means of support for other cables, raceways, or non electrical equipment.

But if this is a whip it's ok for the first 6'.but not elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Yes, "cable wiring methods" not "cable wiring"
 
It is difficult to say for sure but the way the trusses are bearing seems odd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top