Another bad new code

S

Strathead

Senior Member
Location
Ocala, Florida, USA
Occupation
Electrician/Estimator/Project Manager/Superintendent
N 410.118 Access to Other Boxes. Luminaires recessed in ceilings, floors, or walls shall not be used to access outlet, pull, or junction boxes or conduit bodies, unless the box or conduit body is an integral part of the listed luminaire.

I am taking off a bunch of flush mounted flat panel troffers with a drywall flange kit. What am I supposed to do to feed them, put an access panel beside each one? This is just stupid and irritating. In fact, I have used the hole as an access to climb up in a ceiling. I plan on ignoring this and hoping my inspector has a brain. BTW, before someone says otherwise, many of the new flat panels don't have access to the wiring compartment from below.
 
Yes more unneeded code language. When I started in the 80's in an old building the ceilings were plaster or sheetrock. All of the 2x4 fixtures were hard piped (no cables allowed) above the ceiling with a JB next to the opening and a fixture whip to the fixture. Not sure how you can do this today.

I wonder what the substantiation for this change was considering fixtures were wired that way for 100 years. Seems like a solution searching for a problem.
 
IMHO this code makes sense with respect to 'outlet, pull, or junction boxes or conduit bodies' not related to the luminaire itself. In other words you shouldn't be using luminaires as access panels for other systems.

Hopefully this gets interpreted to include the components used to feed the luminaire itself as 'integral'. Would it be sufficient to describe such components in the 'manufacturer's instructions' to make the components 'integral'?
 
winnie said:
IMHO this code makes sense with respect to 'outlet, pull, or junction boxes or conduit bodies' not related to the luminaire itself. In other words you shouldn't be using luminaires as access panels for other systems.

Hopefully this gets interpreted to include the components used to feed the luminaire itself as 'integral'. Would it be sufficient to describe such components in the 'manufacturer's instructions' to make the components 'integral'?
Click to expand...
I even respectfully disagree with this too. It is like the need in our society today to warn people that coffee is hot, or don't take the medicine if you are allergic to it. If this code is needed, then what about one that defines when a box is accessible through an access hole, or exactly how many inches clear is needed in front of a j box to be accessible. Just another solution in search of a problem.
 
winnie said:
IMHO this code makes sense with respect to 'outlet, pull, or junction boxes or conduit bodies' not related to the luminaire itself. In other words you shouldn't be using luminaires as access panels for other systems.

Hopefully this gets interpreted to include the components used to feed the luminaire itself as 'integral'. Would it be sufficient to describe such components in the 'manufacturer's instructions' to make the components 'integral'?
Click to expand...
That is the way I see it. Shouldn't need to remove a luminaire to gain access to a Jbox. And this codifies it.
Seen it used as an excuse to bury a Jbox not related to the light via the 4" hole for the canless light, claiming it is "accessable" through the 4" hole. Been in such and I can't get 2 hands in that hole to work on the "hidden" jbox. This eliminates that excuse.
This does not preclude the use of the small canless that have a separate driver enclosure as this is an "integral part" of the light.
 
Fred B said:
Seen it used as an excuse to bury a Jbox not related to the light via the 4" hole for the canless light, claiming it is "accessable" through the 4" hole. Been in such and I can't get 2 hands in that hole to work on the "hidden" jbox.
Click to expand...
What if the hole were 8"? If the box cannot be worked on due to the hole being too small then it is already inaccessible so this code change wouldn't be needed.
 
infinity said:
What if the hole were 8"? If the box cannot be worked on due to the hole being too small then it is already inaccessible so this code change wouldn't be needed.
Click to expand...
I still see it no different than a jbox hidden behind a wall or ceiling, in that has no visual evidence of it even being there. Access panel on the other hand, there is evidence of something hidden behind that location that might need servicing. Drop ceiling there is a presumption that there maybe something there but it has access.
 
If you walk through a mall in New Jersey and look up at the recessed light above your head, there’s a good chance that there is a junction box accessible only by taking that can down. And there’s also a good chance that one of the companies I worked for years ago put that box there :ROFLMAO:
 
infinity said:
What if the hole were 8"? If the box cannot be worked on due to the hole being too small then it is already inaccessible so this code change wouldn't be needed.
Click to expand...
100%! If you don't like the box being hidden, as Fred is saying, then put a P-touch label in the location "J-box above", especially when we are talking about a 2x4 fixture. I have seen many J boxes, where you could only get a stubby screwdriver, or one hand in. If we are going to make that the criteria, then there are some much more major code changes required. Oops. I better watch out the CMP may be listening. Luckily I am almost retired.
 
Strathead said:
100%! If you don't like the box being hidden, as Fred is saying, then put a P-touch label in the location "J-box above", especially when we are talking about a 2x4 fixture. I have seen many J boxes, where you could only get a stubby screwdriver, or one hand in. If we are going to make that the criteria, then there are some much more major code changes required. Oops. I better watch out the CMP may be listening. Luckily I am almost retired.
Click to expand...
Obviously this was added to the code by someone who has little knowledge of how things are done in particular installations. For example around here there are many old homes. In these old houses there is 1940's type AC with rubber insulated conductors feeding the light fixture and the insulation is brittle, broken off, or completely gone. Modern light fixtures require 90° C conductors so we would cut a box in right next the existing ceiling outlet, strip back the cable and route the old cable to the new box. From there a short piece of NM cable to the existing box and you're good to go with 90° C conductors. The new box gets a blank cover and is then covered with a large fixture medallion. Looks seamless, like you were never there and the customer is happy.

Then there's the aforementioned installation done all in conduit above non accessible ceilings.
 
Last edited:
These people need something else to do to satisfy the need to change the world instead of coming up with garbage code changes like this. I hear there is a new trend where young men are learning how to make a campfire. Maybe the NFPA could sponsor a retreat and let the CMP members teach safe campfire skills to young apprentices. Win Win
 
infinity said:
He's talking about the hole that the fixture is mounted in. You drop the fixture and use the hole to gain access to the area above the ceiling.
Click to expand...
I get it, if the hole is in a 'access panel' and not a 'ceiling' then 410.118 would not apply.
 
tortuga said:
I get it, if the hole is in a 'access panel' and not a 'ceiling' then 410.118 would not apply.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is an idea. Most inspectors I have dealt with over the years aren't unreasonable. I think you could get them to agree that you made an access hole and then filled it with an electrified cover. Good work around.
 
ActionDave said:
These people need something else to do to satisfy the need to change the world instead of coming up with garbage code changes like this. I hear there is a new trend where young men are learning how to make a campfire. Maybe the NFPA could sponsor a retreat and let the CMP members teach safe campfire skills to young apprentices. Win Win
Click to expand...
We used to get an old tire, and pour about a quart of gasoline inside it. and then pile whatever wood we could find on top of it in a big pile. Then throw a match at it, or something you lit with a lighter. If you did it directly with a lighter you usually got singed and smelled like burnt hair all night.

See I could teach a class in redneck safety. Stuff like how to safely shoot a BBQ grill tank and how to fill trash bags with oxygen and acetylene in a stoichiometric ratio without having it blow up in your hand like that time my buddy Dave had that happen

I'll bet those guys never had fun like this
 
electrofelon said:
Why does that matter? might help for troubleshooting and figuring stuff out but the code should not care about that. IMO there shouldnt even be a code against covering over J boxes at all.
Click to expand...
Correct the whole purpose is for life safety.
They’re just paid off and just trying to justify their jobs. They’re just bloated bureaucrats at this point.
Whole system just messed up-
Viva Revolution
 
I mean think about. I know we so used to thinking about a buried J-box as being this huge hack thing, and ive been there too in the past: you stop work tell everyone you found a buried j-box, take a picture and post it on the forum, talk about it for 10 minutes and how hack it is and hopefully the person that did it will die a horrible death, talk about how a bunch of people narrowly avoided a horrible fiery death. Okay sure I'm exaggerating a little bit. But why is this a code violation? That's probably the safest part of the wire run inside a box with that extra clearance and extra layer of protection. Why is an accessible box less of a fire or safety hazard? And again, troubleshooting or figuring out a circuit after the fact should not be of any concern to the code. Yeah a lot of people make horrible splices, but not me so why should I change for other people that suck at their job? Rant over!
 
electrofelon said:
Yeah a lot of people make horrible splices, but not me so why should I change for other people that suck at their job?
Click to expand...
Yup that's the problem. If all splices were good to last 100 years there wouldn't be any issue. Unfortunately many of the hacks who bury boxes also suck at splicing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top