Proper way to wire a fluorecent fixture mounted over an outlet box

[Josh5879]

Hi everyone first time posting here, I already asked this question somewhere else without success so I hope you guys can help me.
What is the proper way to wire a tubular fluorecent fixture that is mounted directly over an outlet box? I am talking about a fixture that is big enough that it can't be supported just from the outlet box, rather it is secured to the ceiling using other means , for example with anchors.
Can you just wire it directly to the conductors in the outlet box? Now I know that that is exactly the way everybody does it, the books I have show it that way, and someone showed me a Mike Holt book with a picture also showing it that way. However I don't think that meets code. Here is*410.24:

"(A) Independent of the Outlet Box. Electric-discharge luminaires supported independently of the outlet box shall be connected to the branch circuit through metal raceway, nonmetallic raceway, Type MC cable, Type AC cable, Type MI cable, nonmetallic sheathed cable, or by flexible cord . . ."

So we have a rule here requiring any fluorecent fixture that is "supported independently of the outlet box" be connected to the circuit using only certain methods. In the above situation the fixture is certainly supported independently of the box, the box wouldn't even be able to support the fixture, the fixture is way too heavy. Therefore this rule IS applicable in our situation, the rule now requiring us to connect this fixture using only one of the specified methods, individual conductors brought in from an adjacent not being one of them.

I hope no one tries to argue that part (B) of that section does allow direct wiring from the box, a carefull reading will make it clear that is only requiring access to the box not allowing you to wire the fixture from that box.
(here it is 410.24(B) Access to Boxes. Electric-discharge luminaires surface mounted over concealed outlet, pull, or junction boxes and designed not to be supported solely by the outlet box shall be provided with suitable openings in the back of the luminaire to provide access to the wiring in the box.)
*

 

[iwire]

Good morning Josh, I will stay out of this until you get some other replies.

 

[augie47]

I can't wait for Bob's reply.... I'm sure I will be educated.
I honestly never carefully read the sections you referenced as the standard practice here has been what you "hoped no one would argue"
SOP here, mostly for aesthetics, has been as you described with the fixture mounted over the box and the wiring simply dropped into the fixture.
This practice has been supported by the fact that the manufacturers of some fixtures have them stamped with a knockout or a 4" octagon box

 

[walton]

Install a chase nipple or plastic gromet into the KO of the fuxture and you've have met the requirements of 410.24. (metal or nonmetal raceway)

 

[480sparky]

I can't wait for Bob's reply.... I'm sure I will be educated..........

I think Bob has already replied. You just need to know where to look.

 

[raider1]

Welcome to the forum Josh.

I hope no one tries to argue that part (B) of that section does allow direct wiring from the box, a carefull reading will make it clear that is only requiring access to the box not allowing you to wire the fixture from that box.

I will have to disagree with you that 410.24(B) does not allow you to connect an electric discharge luminaire to a lighting outlet.

The box that the luminaire is surface mounted over is a lighting outlet by the NEC definition.

Lighting Outlet. An outlet intended for the direct connection of a lampholder or luminaire.

So using this information we are now direct connecting a large surface mounted luminaire over a lighting outlet and direct connecting the branch circuit wiring.

410.24(B) states that when we surface mount a luminaire over a lighting outlet that there must be suitable opening in the back of the luminaire to access the wiring in the lighting outlet.

Chris

 

[augie47]

well stated, Chris

 

[iwire]

Install a chase nipple or plastic gromet into the KO of the fuxture and you've have met the requirements of 410.24. (metal or nonmetal raceway)

No that would not allow access to the box.

 

[paul]

Even using 410.24, the fluorescent fixture is listed to be used as a raceway. So, therefore, you're covered if you punch is large enough hole in the back of the fixture to access the junction box.

 

[jimport]

Install a chase nipple or plastic gromet into the KO of the fuxture and you've have met the requirements of 410.24. (metal or nonmetal raceway)

This is the compliant way to mount the fixture over the box

PS, I know where to look

 

[iwire]

I can't wait for Bob's reply.

It is nothing special, it was just that Josh and I were taking about this on another forum and I suggested he come here for some more opinions.

I did not want to influence any responses.

 

[Smart $]

No that would not allow access to the box.

Even using 410.24, the fluorescent fixture is listed to be used as a raceway. So, therefore, you're covered if you punch is large enough hole in the back of the fixture to access the junction box.

This is the compliant way to mount the fixture over the box

PS, I know where to look

...but the requirement uses the word "access". Exactly how do we make the jump from access (not NEC defined) to accessible or readily accessible (both NEC defined) without an opinionated interpretation???

 

[iwire]

...but the requirement uses the word "access". Exactly how do we make the jump from access to accessible and/or readily accessible without an opinionated interpretation???

In this case it does not have to be "accessible" or readily "accessible", you only need to be able to access the box.:grin:

 

[Smart $]

In this case it does not have to be "accessible" or readily "accessible", you only need to be able to access the box.:grin:

...And per the defintion of accessible, the less stringent of the two defined terms, detachment of the fixture qualifies as outlet access

 

[iwire]

...And per the defintion of accessible, the less stringent of the two defined terms, detachment of the fixture qualifies as access, right?

We can not use the defined terms as they where not used in the code section.

But honestly I don't care, if you feel like picking the fly poop out of pepper you can do so without me because IMPO we all know (except Josh ) what the section means.

 

[raider1]

...And per the defintion of accessible, the less stringent of the two defined terms, detachment of the fixture qualifies as outlet access

But here is where 410.24(B) comes into play. When a luminaire is not supported by the box and is attached to the building surface you are permitted to leave the lighting outlet covered by the luminaire provided that suitable opening are provided in the back of the luminaire to allow access to the lighting outlet without having to take the luminaire down.

Chris

 

[Smart $]

But here is where 410.24(B) comes into play. When a luminaire is not supported by the box and is attached to the building surface you are permitted to leave the lighting outlet covered by the luminaire provided that suitable opening are provided in the back of the luminaire to allow access to the lighting outlet without having to take the luminaire down.

Chris

That is an interpretation.

Accessible (as applied to wiring methods). Capable of
being removed or exposed without damaging the building
structure or finish or not permanently closed in by the structure
or finish of the building.

Is it not the general consensus that electrical equipment, fixtures, and such, are not considered part of the building structure or finish? Even if considered part of the building, a mounted fixture would not be permanently close in the outlet.

Then one must question what is actually meant (since not a defined terminology) by "suitable opening". Just large enough to pass the wires through with minimal likelihood of physical damage is debatable as a suitable opening.

 

[Smart $]

We can not use the defined terms as they where not used in the code section.

But honestly I don't care, if you feel like picking the fly poop out of pepper you can do so without me because IMPO we all know (except Josh ) what the section means.

I'm just pointing out the requirement of (B) is debatable as worded. I have no need for pepper at this time

 

[benaround]

I can believe that !!

 

[jaylectricity]

Last time we talked about this we talked about the factory KO that is about 21/2" in diameter.

There was a code reference...now where's my book? :grin: