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

[kwired]

I think most of the replies have stated what the OP already seems to know, but disregard what he is trying to ask.

I think he is asking if there is a controversy in the wording between these to code sections.

410.24 Connection of Electric-Discharge Luminaire.

(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 as permitted in 410.62(B) or 410.62(C).

(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.

If the luminare is independently supported from the oulet box part A says you must use a raceway, cable or cord. The example of the luminare mounted over the box but not supported by the box makes it impractical to connect with raceway, cable or cord if you must cut an access hole in the back of the luminare to access the box.

I think we all understand the intent but the text here can be literally taken to mean you can't do this install.

 

[Dave58er]

Does it change the argument at all if you support the light using the ceiling (or studs or whatever.....) and the screws from the outlet box so that it is no longer "independent" and yet there would be little or no load on the box screws?

 

[NolaTigaBait]

I think 410.24(b) is pretty clear. It describes exactly what he is asking. I told Josh not to doubt the Badger. He did it and lost.

 

[kwired]

I think 410.24(b) is pretty clear. It describes exactly what he is asking. I told Josh not to doubt the Badger. He did it and lost.

410.24(A) is also pretty clear.

the only way to comply with both a and b as it is written is to cut the hole in the fixture to have access to the junction box and then fish a cable or raceway from one of the knockouts in the box to another knockout in the fixture.

there is no language that says if your install meets part B that you no longer have to meet the requirements of A.

I have never even had a thought about this until reading this post and seen that there is a conflict here. Like I said most of us know what the intent of the code probably is but the words are not there.

 

[Josh5879]

Welcome to the forum Josh.



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.



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

Hi, I wasn't able to follow the play by play, I just got a chance to check out what's going on right now.
NolaTigaBait just calm down your a little too enthusiastic. Kwired thanks for the support.
Chris your answer is pretty clever, Badger nothing personal but that is the kind of answer I like (btw it looks like there's more action here, no?)
If you don't mind me repeating what you said in different words: (B), when telling us to provide access to the box, tells us this also applies to outlet boxes, a lighting outlet is defined as "intended for direct connection of a lampholder or luminaire". So we'll assume that when the code says intended it is refering to a guy that knows what he's doing and wouldn't be intending to do somthing not allowed by the code.
So we have proved that the intent of the code in (A) was not to prohibit direct connection to an outlet box.
Again I really like your point. I think just one thing needs to be added and that is, the fact is we need to reconcile the text in (A) to what we have proved from (B). I think what we'll have to say is that when a fixture opens directly to an outlet box, the method that is "supplying" the outlet box is considered to be directly supplying the fixture as well. If anyone can bring a proof or question to this that would be interesting.
ALSO, after I wrote all of the above I noticed that the wording of (B) is not "lighting outlet" rather just plain "outlet". Now, plain outlet has it's own definition: "A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment." However you can still say what you said using this definition because what possibly could be connected to this "outlet" other than the fixture, it's covering it, after all.

 

[NolaTigaBait]

410.24(A) is also pretty clear.

the only way to comply with both a and b as it is written is to cut the hole in the fixture to have access to the junction box and then fish a cable or raceway from one of the knockouts in the box to another knockout in the fixture.

there is no language that says if your install meets part B that you no longer have to meet the requirements of A.

I have never even had a thought about this until reading this post and seen that there is a conflict here. Like I said most of us know what the intent of the code probably is but the words are not there.

Huh? That makes no sense. This whole thread is ridiculous. This is the simplest and most common installs out there.

 

[jimport]

I will wait for Bob to reveal the other thread. But until then I see (A) and (B) being two wiring methods for two different installation types, one using a box and the other using the internal wiring compartment of the fixture.

Perhaps (A) could have been worded " fixtures wired without a junction box" instead of "independent of".

IMO some are placing too much emphasis on the "independent" part instead of the installation type.

I also don't see the need to meet both (A) and (B) at the same time.

 

[NolaTigaBait]

Jim, I agree 100%. A is for one type of install and B is for another. No need to meet both requirements. Like I said, This guy is WAYYYYYYYYYYYY over-thinking this issue.

 

[kwired]

Jim, I agree 100%. A is for one type of install and B is for another. No need to meet both requirements. Like I said, This guy is WAYYYYYYYYYYYY over-thinking this issue.

that is my point - again I say most of know what the intent is but the wording is not that clear. If you want countless interpretations have a group of laywers tell you what it means.

many other areas of the code tell you if condition x exists you do not have to comply with condition y. this one does not, however is is possible to comply with both but in reality not necessary.

 

[iwire]

there is no language that says if your install meets part B that you no longer have to meet the requirements of A.

We do not need that language, the two sections are cover specific installations. If we have to meet 'A' we do not have to meet 'B' and if we have to meet 'B' we do not have to meet 'A'.

 

[iwire]

Chris your answer is pretty clever,

I think I mentioned that Chris is pretty sharp.

Badger nothing personal but that is the kind of answer I like

Nothing here should be taken personlly.

(btw it looks like there's more action here, no?)

I will go with 'different' action here. Both forums have some of the same people but each has it's own vibe.

If you don't mind me repeating what you said in different words: (B), when telling us to provide access to the box, tells us this also applies to outlet boxes, a lighting outlet is defined as "intended for direct connection of a lampholder or luminaire". So we'll assume that when the code says intended it is refering to a guy that knows what he's doing and wouldn't be intending to do somthing not allowed by the code.

I read that a couple of times .......... still not getting it.

 

[kwired]

We do not need that language, the two sections are cover specific installations. If we have to meet 'A' we do not have to meet 'B' and if we have to meet 'B' we do not have to meet 'A'.

how about this as a proposed change

410.24 Connection of Electric-Discharge Luminaire.

Connection of an electric - dischsarge luminaire shall comply with 410.24(A) or 410.24(B).

I am certain there are other sections that are written similar to this.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

We do not need that language, the two sections are cover specific installations. If we have to meet 'A' we do not have to meet 'B' and if we have to meet 'B' we do not have to meet 'A'.

Where does it say that? I agree that we all know what the intent of the rules are, but I also agree with Josh that the current code language does not reflect the intent. The common installation is a violation of the code as it is now written.

 

[Josh5879]

how about this as a proposed change

410.24 Connection of Electric-Discharge Luminaire.

Connection of an electric - dischsarge luminaire shall comply with 410.24(A) or 410.24(B).

I am certain there are other sections that are written similar to this.

But then if you comply with A, let's say by wiring it with conduit, you do not have to comply with B, so you can now go and cover a outlet box.
How about: "Electric-discharge luminaires not mounted to directly open into an outlet box shall be connected..."? It needs better wording but that's the idea.

Badger read Chris's original post also.
Chris I hope I understood you correctly.

 

[NolaTigaBait]

Where does it say that? I agree that we all know what the intent of the rules are, but I also agree with Josh that the current code language does not reflect the intent. The common installation is a violation of the code as it is now written.

I doubt you will find anyone that will fail you because of this install. Lets ask MikeHolt, maybe he can help:

 

[iwire]

Where does it say that?

Permissive code as we always say. I see nothing that says we must comply with both and as they apply to different types of installations why would we have to?

 

[iwire]

I doubt you will find anyone that will fail you because of this install. Lets ask MikeHolt, maybe he can help:

Don's pretty sharp, having him disagree with me feels like a punch in the gut. :grin:

 

[Josh5879]

Permissive code as we always say. I see nothing that says we must comply with both and as they apply to different types of installations why would we have to?

410.24(A) Independent of the Outlet Box. Electric-discharge lu-minaires supported independently of the outlet box shall be connected...


90.5 Mandatory Rules, Permissive Rules, and Explana-tory Material.

(A) Mandatory Rules. Mandatory rules of this Code are those that identify actions that are specifically required or prohibited and are characterized by the use of the terms shall or shall not.

(B) Permissive Rules. Permissive rules of this Code are those that identify actions that are allowed but not required, are normally used to describe options or alternative methods, and are characterized by the use of the terms shall be permitted or shall not be required.

 

[iwire]

Josh, I do know what shall means.

 

[Josh5879]

Josh, I do know what shall means.

I thought you did, but you did call 410.24(A) permissive. Okay I shall not bother you about things like that again.