Headboard sconces in hotel - NEC or not?

[iwire]

I dont consider it cheating an inspection anymore than waiting to install an entertainment system, computer desk, or a chrismas tree until the inspector is gone, it just sounds like the inspector is being a PITA....

If your waiting to install equipment specifically to avoid being shot down by the inspector ........... it is with out a doubt 'cheating'. Not a question in my mind about that.

 

[ultramegabob]

If your waiting to install equipment specifically to avoid being shot down by the inspector ........... it is with out a doubt 'cheating'. Not a question in my mind about that.

do you feel that you need to have every table lamp plugged in and waiting for approval? how about hair dryers, curling irons, blenders, mixers, microwaves, television sets, fish tanks, juice machines, radio alarm clocks, or glade air freshners???? I really dont see how a corded light on a headboard is any differnt than any of these other items.

 

[iwire]

do you feel that you need to have every table lamp plugged in and waiting for approval? how about hair dryers, curling irons, blenders, mixers, microwaves, television sets, fish tanks, juice machines, radio alarm clocks, or glade air freshners????

No, what I believe is simple.

If your waiting to install equipment specifically to avoid being shot down by the inspector ........... it is with out a doubt 'cheating'

 

[iwire]

Would the inspector have authority over such things as floor lamps, coffee pots, vacuum cleaners, and hair dryers? I think not, and I see these lamps as being essentially equivalent.

Possibly yes.

I suspect that this is the key point on which we will end up disagreeing.

Yes. :smile:

My view is that the lamps are utilization equipment, and that they need neither an electrician to plug them in nor an inspector to accept their having been plugged in properly.

They are also 'electrical equipment' as 90.2 mentions.

(BTW the NEC never requires an EC or EI)

Certainly that phrase does not appear in 90.2. But it does make an easy, and IMHO proper, dividing line between what is and what is not covered by the NEC.

Invoking the 'it does not say it but it makes sense to me rule'?

Inclusion of the word “installed” is vital, in my point of view. If I set a lamp on the floor and plug it in, I have not “installed” the lamp.

That is certainly one, albeit narrow view of installed. When I read the definitions from a number of sources I find much wider definitions.

Charlie, honestly I am not sure where the NEC stops and starts, I used to think I knew but the more I read the less sure I am. :-?

Certainly the CMPs feel it passes the outlet and onto portable equipment. (window ACs, vending machines, holiday lighting, portable pool pumps, etc) and it is the standard areas adopt. By adoption of the NEC as written it seems to me they are saying yes, the NEC passes the outlet.

 

[chris kennedy]

I am not sure where the NEC stops and starts

Hold your book with both hands with the binding in your left hand. Your looking at the front cover. This is where the NEC starts.

Now flip the book so that the binding is in your right hand. This is the back cover or where the NEC ends.

Hope this helps.

 

[iwire]

Hold your book with both hands with the binding in your left hand. Your looking at the front cover. This is where the NEC starts.

Now flip the book so that the binding is in your right hand. This is the back cover or where the NEC ends.

Hope this helps.

No not really.


My NEC book starts with the MA amendments. :grin:

 

[nakulak]

I finally have some time to look into this again.
Would the inspector have authority over such things as floor lamps, coffee pots, vacuum cleaners, and hair dryers? I think not, and I see these lamps as being essentially equivalent. I suspect that this is the key point on which we will end up disagreeing. My view is that the lamps are utilization equipment, and that they need neither an electrician to plug them in nor an inspector to accept their having been plugged in properly.

Certainly that phrase does not appear in 90.2. But it does make an easy, and IMHO proper, dividing line between what is and what is not covered by the NEC.

Inclusion of the word ?installed? is vital, in my point of view. If I set a lamp on the floor and plug it in, I have not ?installed? the lamp. If I put a bookcase against the wall, and if I then attach the little strap to the top of the bookcase and also to the wall (i.e., the strap that comes with the bookcase, and that is a safety precaution against the bookcase falling down during an earthquake), and if I set a clock radio on the shelf and hold it in place with double-stick tape, and if I plug the clock radio into a nearby outlet, then I will not have ?installed? the clock radio.

I think that this is an example of the problems that are faced in the noble attempt to write codebooks. Part of what makes our language interesting is the ambiguity, inexactitude, and multiple meanings of our words, and, unfortunately, this comes into play when code writers attempt to make exacting requirements. What appears to a code panel of 20 or so people to be clear as day and technically exact language ends up with tragically misconstrued interpretations.

This fact, combined with the effects on your pocketbook of any differences of opinion between you (your company) and the ahj, require that sometimes there are different approaches necessary when dealing with ahj and their interpretation of the code (when it varies wildy from yours). I have heard individuals with a very hard line approach as to how they would battle with inspectors over any difference in opinion, but I choose to be more moderate (depending on the cost) because there are always larger issues as well as better methods. So, for example, when faced with an ahj with a difference of opinion than mine, my line of thinking is something like:
1) is this simply a misinterpretation of the code ?
2) what is the intent of the code (if that is evident) ?
3) what is the industry standard (regardless of the code) ?
4) is the inspectors interpretation of the code a safer/better way ? (this only applies because personally I am interested in "best method", not code minimum)
5) how much is this ahj's interpretation going to cost me, and do I have the ammunition and desire to fight it (if the cost is more than I desire to take out of my pocket and for no good reason)
6) is this inspector a bookworm talking or a fire marshall (I defer to fire marshall's since they are the ones dragging charred bodies out of buildings) (again, this is just an example of my personal choice in dealing with ahj's)

anyhow, just thought that this was some food for thought (now I suppose I will be drawn an quartered lol)

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

We have a hotel project where we (the general contractor) are supplying all the furniture and decorations, including desks, table lamps, beds, etc. The architect has specified a cord-and-plug connected sconce (UL listed as a portable luminaire) that is to be attached to the headboard at each bed. The sconce plugs into a receptacle on the wall behind the headboard. The headboard is hung on the wall with French cleats -- no screws or other fasteners attach it to the structure, it is held in place by gravity only and can be picked up and carried away with no tools.

We believe this is not even in his jurisdiction. Since the headboard is not attached to the structure, the entire headboard/lamp assembly is not part of the premises wiring and is not subject to the NEC. Thoughts?

PORTABLE CABINET LUMINAIRES (QOVJ)​

USE AND INSTALLATION​

"This category covers surface and recess-mounted portable cabinet luminaires intended for installation into open or enclosed portable cabinets such as china hutches, bookcases, bars, consoles, bed headboards, and similar locations.

This category also covers low-voltage lighting systems intended for installation under a shelf, cabinet, or similar structural surface, in accordance with Article 411 of ANSI/NFPA 70, ??National Electrical Code?? (NEC),
where the power supply is of the attachment plug equipped, cord-connected type, or is a direct plug-in type.
This category also covers portable cabinet luminaire accessories, such as interconnecting cord sets and dimmer and switch assemblies intended for use with portable cabinet luminaires.
A surface-mounted portable cabinet luminaire is also suitable for installation under a shelf or kitchen cabinet when the line voltage power supply cord is not concealed.
These products are not intended for installation in recessed walls or ceilings, or in permanently installed cabinets where the wiring is concealed or passed through openings in the structure.
A recessed-mounted portable cabinet luminaire connected to a Class 2 power supply is suitable for installation in a kitchen cabinet or other built-in furnishing when the power supply and the line voltage power supply cord is not concealed.
Portable cabinet luminaires have been investigated for mounting in accordance with the clearances marked on the product. Portable cabinet luminaires not marked with clearances may be mounted as close to any surface
as permitted by the housing, an integral mounting flange, bracket, or spacer.
A restrictive marking is provided for portable cabinet luminaires intended
for use only in open top cabinets. Portable cabinet luminaires without the restrictive marking are investigated for a 13 mm (1/2 in.) minimum clearance from the top.
Presence of the Roman numerals in an individual Listing indicates products of that type are covered. The ??type?? numerals denote the following:
II ? Incandescent
III ? Fluorescent
IV ? Portable Cabinet Luminaire Accessories
VI ? Tungsten Halogen​

XII ? High Intensity Discharge"





Here is some further information from the UL White Book.

I really do not see any listings or NEC requirements being violated here. As long as the receptacle and attachment plug the lighting is being plugged into is not subject to physical damage, I do not see the issue.

The headboard is not permanently attached to the structure, it is set on clips. There will be no damage to the structure if one was to try to remove the headboard. [as per 210.60(B)]

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

We have a hotel project where we (the general contractor) are supplying all the furniture and decorations, including desks, table lamps, beds, etc. The architect has specified a cord-and-plug connected sconce (UL listed as a portable luminaire) that is to be attached to the headboard at each bed. The sconce plugs into a receptacle on the wall behind the headboard. The headboard is hung on the wall with French cleats -- no screws or other fasteners attach it to the structure, it is held in place by gravity only and can be picked up and carried away with no tools.

The electrical inspector says this is an unacceptable installation because it amounts to permanently installing a portable fixture. Also, the receptacle and cord behind the headboard are inaccessible.

We believe this is not even in his jurisdiction. Since the headboard is not attached to the structure, the entire headboard/lamp assembly is not part of the premises wiring and is not subject to the NEC. Thoughts?

What the inspector is seeing is a cord that will effectively be out of site for possably years.Should the cord get damaged it goes unnoticed till its too late.I will agree its a tough call because the head board is not attached by screws.You might win this battle but might prove to be costly in the end.

 

[acrwc10]

If your waiting to install equipment specifically to avoid being shot down by the inspector ........... it is with out a doubt 'cheating'. Not a question in my mind about that.

This is not that different then the inspector that was saying "if you have a hide-a-bed in the living room it is now a bedroom, and needs AFCI protection" The guy is wrong.....

 

[mivey]

Hold your book with both hands with the binding in your left hand. Your looking at the front cover. This is where the NEC starts.

Now flip the book so that the binding is in your right hand. This is the back cover or where the NEC ends.

Hope this helps.

I'm so confused.

 

[acrwc10]

I'm so confused.

turn the book right side up and open it, that may help with the confusion.:grin:

 

[mpoulton]

PORTABLE CABINET LUMINAIRES (QOVJ)​

Only one catch -- this is a QOWZ "Portable Luminaire", not a QOVJ "Portable Cabinet Luminaire".

 

[scwirenut]

I have yet to read what the inspector has quoted as a violation, whenever you get turned down for any reason, make them quote you a number, it may be the NEC, the IBC, whatever who cares. Only after he has given you a reference can you begin the process of interpretation, I will never let a inspector use the words "I want to see", or " Would like to have".. personal preference or opinion is of no concern, nail this guy down to hard numbers, then tell us what they are...........

 

[iwire]

This is not that different then the inspector that was saying "if you have a hide-a-bed in the living room it is now a bedroom, and needs AFCI protection" The guy is wrong.....

If the inspector is wrong then pursue that.

Hiding things from an inspector for whatever reason is IMO wrong.

 

[benaround]

If the inspector is wrong then pursue that.

Hiding things from an inspector for whatever reason is IMO wrong.

Unless he's a big overweight guy, then you may want to put the donuts

in the gang box.

 

[DanZ]

What next " I don't like the color, so I'm not going to pass it".

No, that happens in planning an zoning. :grin:

You might want to talk to the AHJ and find out what his concern is, definitely get a code reference to go along with it, and try to work out a mutual agreement.

What I'm picturing is a wall sconce mounted to a piece of thick plywood/laminate that has some type of foam or soft covering on top of that.

 

[C3PO]

If the inspector is wrong then pursue that.

Hiding things from an inspector for whatever reason is IMO wrong.

I agree 100%

 

[mivey]

turn the book right side up and open it, that may help with the confusion.:grin:

Right side up:-? Looks like I'm going to have to order to pop-up picture-book version.:grin:

 

[BarryO]

My view is that the lamps are utilization equipment, and that they need neither an electrician to plug them in nor an inspector to accept their having been plugged in properly.

But that in and of itself does not make their installation outside the scope of the NEC. In many/most jurisdictions, Chapter 8 neither requires an electrician nor an inspection, but it is within scope of the NEC.

If the scope of the NEC excluded utilization equipment, I think 90.2 would read "Installations of electric conductors and equipment (other than utilization equipment) within or on public and private buildings or other structures..." But it doesn't.

BTW, the receptacle in this case is accessible; lifting something off a french cleat does not damage the building finish or its structure.