# Code Reference



## kbsparky (Sep 20, 2007)

I would have guessed C (36") 

Looking it up now ...

Edit to add: Now that I've looked it up, I find that 358.30(A) requires that EMT shall be securely fastened within 3 feet of each outlet box, ... cabinet .... or other termination ...

I figure that 2 enclosures located 3 feet apart would satisfy this requirement, thus no further strap would be required.

I do not find any reference to the 18 inch answer that was given, either ...


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

358.30c


----------



## CFine (May 20, 2008)

360max said:


> 358.30c



There is no 358.30.c in my code book (2011), i have up to B. then it goes directly 358.42


----------



## Celtic (Nov 19, 2007)

_CFine fatfingered the year.

:laughing:


_


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

CFine said:


> There is no 358.30.c in my code book (2011), i have up to B. then it goes directly 358.42


358.30C in my 2008 code book is *"Unsupported Raceways"*, and the answer to your question is 18"


----------



## Celtic (Nov 19, 2007)

...anyone wanna chime in the exceptions?

[2011] 358.30(A) Exception1:
Exception No. 1: Fastening of unbroken lengths shall be
permitted to be increased to a distance of 1.5 m (5 ft) where
structural members do not readily permit fastening within
900 mm (3 ft).


----------



## CFine (May 20, 2008)

Thank you, It looks like the article 358.30.C was deleted from the 2011 Code book, i checked 2008 and found the article.


----------



## Celtic (Nov 19, 2007)

CFine said:


> Had this Question on a test I took a few days ago





360max said:


> 358.30C in my 2008 code book ...



..knowing what code cycle the test was on would have helped a bit :thumbsup:


----------



## CFine (May 20, 2008)

Celtic said:


> ...anyone wanna chime in the exceptions?
> 
> [2011] 358.30(A) Exception1:
> Exception No. 1: Fastening of unbroken lengths shall be
> ...



While i looked at this to, i didn't think this rule would be followed in the case of the question. but i did look at this exception as well; but felt it did not fit well for what the question was asking.


----------



## CFine (May 20, 2008)

we're told our code questions where based on 2011. 

Thanks for the help guys.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

CFine said:


> Had this Question on a test I took a few days ago got it wrong as i was reading the question as it was talking about a conduit nipple. The question is:
> 
> EMT shall be permitted to be unsupported between enclosures when the raceways contain no Couplings, over sized knockouts are not encountered, and the raceway does not exceed_______ in length.
> 
> ...


2011 NEC....

_*358.30 Securing and Supporting.*_ EMT shall be installed
as a complete system in accordance with 300.18 and shall
be securely fastened in place and supported in accordance
with 358.30(A) and (B).
*(A) Securely Fastened.* EMT shall be securely fastened in
place at least every 3 m (10 ft). In addition, each EMT run
between termination points shall be securely fastened
within 900 mm (3 ft) of each outlet box, junction box, device
box, cabinet, conduit body, or other tubing termination.
*Exception No. 1*: Fastening of unbroken lengths shall be
permitted to be increased to a distance of 1.5 m (5 ft) where
structural members do not readily permit fastening within
900 mm (3 ft).
_*Exception No. 2:*_ For concealed work in finished buildings
or prefinished wall panels where such securing is impracticable,
unbroken lengths (without coupling) of EMT shall
be permitted to be fished.
_*(B) Supports.*_ Horizontal runs of EMT supported by openings
through framing members at intervals not greater than
3 m (10 ft) and securely fastened within 900 mm (3 ft) of
termination points shall be permitted. 
.
NFPA 70
National Electrical Code®
2011 Edition
IMPORTANT NOTE: This NFPA document is made
available for use subject to important notices and legal
disclaimers. These notices and disclaimers appear in all
publications containing this document and may be found
under the heading “Important Notices and Disclaimers
Concerning NFPA Documents.” They can also be obtained
on request from NFPA or viewed at
www.nfpa.org/disclaimers.
This 2011 edition includes the following usability features
as aids to the user. Changes other than editorial are
highlighted with gray shading within sections and with vertical
ruling for large blocks of changed or new text and for
new tables and changed or new figures. Where one or more
complete paragraphs have been deleted, the deletion is indicated
by a *bullet* (•) between the paragraphs that remain.
The index now has dictionary-style headers with helpful
identifiers at the top of every index page.

If you look in the 2008 NEC you will see 358.30 (C) That was new In 2008 and has been removed or moved in 2011 NEC.


So if your test was on the 2008 code then 18" would be correct.

If your test is on the 2011 then unless it is elsewhere in the 2011 NEC then that question should not have been asked.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

CFine said:


> we're told our code questions where based on 2011.
> 
> Thanks for the help guys.


Seems like a trick question..:no:


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

HARRY304E said:


> Seems like a trick question..:no:


not really, IMO


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

wait.. so in 2011 code you would have to secure an 18" nipple between 2 boxes?


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

TOOL_5150 said:


> wait.. so in 2011 code you would have to secure an 18" nipple between 2 boxes?


re read comments 1-14


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

I think the 2008 thru in a new code 358.30(C) and the 2011 realized that (C) was ridiculous when (B) allowed up to 3 feet from a box. Why would they put the stipulation of 18" between boxes? They got rid of it.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

CFine said:


> Had this Question on a test I took a few days ago got it wrong as i was reading the question as it was talking about a conduit nipple. The question is:
> 
> EMT shall be permitted to be unsupported between enclosures when the raceways contain no Couplings, over sized knockouts are not encountered, and the raceway does not exceed_______ in length.
> 
> ...


CFine, are you taking your J man test. Are you taking the state or a local one.
Good luck


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

TOOL_5150 said:


> wait.. so in 2011 code you would have to secure an 18" nipple between 2 boxes?


Maybe yes because 358.30 (C) was removed from the 2011 NEC even though that was new in 2008..:blink::laughing:


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> Maybe yes because 358.30 (C) was removed from the 2011 NEC even though that was new in 2008..:blink::laughing:


 Since it was removed I think you can be 36" without a strap between boxes. That's how I read it.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Since it was removed I think you can be 36" without a strap between boxes. That's how I read it.


Same here,But it seems the OP question was so he would find 358.30(C) and that question was on a 2011 test.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Since it was removed I think you can be 36" without a strap between boxes. That's how I read it.


And I read it as you can't even install 1" between boxes without a support. There is no provision in the code that lets you count the conduit termination as a support. The conduit must have a support withing 3' of the conduit termination and there is no exception in the code. 
The rule in the 2008 code was proposed to address this issue and the proposal would have permitted 36" between boxes with no support other than the conduit terminations. The code making panel changed the 36" in the proposal to 18" when they accepted it.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

TOOL_5150 said:


> wait.. so in 2011 code you would have to secure an 18" nipple between 2 boxes?


Yes.


----------



## jmsmith (Sep 10, 2011)

CFine said:


> There is no 358.30.c in my code book (2011), i have up to B. then it goes directly 358.42


Under 358.30.b, there is a bullet, which indicates that there may be one or more paragraphs deleted from the Code. IMHO, I would think that an item that has been deleted is no longer enforced..... Is that correct? If that is is the case and the test was based on the 2011 NEC, I would have gone with the 36 inches.
- Jim


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> And I read it as you can't even install 1" between boxes without a support. There is no provision in the code that lets you count the conduit termination as a support. The conduit must have a support withing 3' of the conduit termination and there is no exception in the code.
> The rule in the 2008 code was proposed to address this issue and the proposal would have permitted 36" between boxes with no support other than the conduit terminations. The code making panel changed the 36" in the proposal to 18" when they accepted it.


I agree that is how it reads but I do not believe that is the intent. I have never seen a nipple between boxes with any straps and some are not even possible to support. I use 2" pvc coupling with two slip fittings for the meter and panel. Never support it and I have never seen anyone do it.


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

If you have to support a 1" piece of emt between boxes, the people on the CMP are retards.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> I agree that is how it reads but I do not believe that is the intent. I have never seen a nipple between boxes with any straps and some are not even possible to support. I use 2" pvc coupling with two slip fittings for the meter and panel. Never support it and I have never seen anyone do it.


 Given the actions of the CMP, I believe that it is the intent. They had ample opportunity to make it clear what the intent is and they did not do that. I agree that the code required support is almost never installed. 
The original proposal by Ryan Jackson that said you could have a 36" nipple without support was very clear and should have been accepted by the CMP.


----------



## Adam12 (May 28, 2008)

Taken from Mike Holts "Changes to the NEC 2011"


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Adam12 said:


> Taken from Mike Holts "Changes to the NEC 2011"
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 18413


I would be willing to bet that the person that actually wrote what you posted was in fact the same person that put in the code proposal referenced in that text and Don had mentioned.


----------

