lighting outlet

[iwire]

How does the wall switch show, at final, that a luminaire will be installed some day, as opposed to a paddlefan that is incapable of ever having a light kit installed?

First it shows what the designer / installer intended that round hole in the ceiling for. It may also be on a plan that shows a lighting outlet.

Second IMO as far as the NEC a light does not have to be ever installed there, not today not next year or in this decade.

What has to be there is a lighting outlet interned for the support and supply and control of a ceiling mounted luminaire if the homeowner decided they want one there.

They might find they only want floor lamps etc.

Other codes may require a fixture but not the NEC IMO.

 

[iwire]

The signal is on. . .but has the direction of travel become evident?

Sorry Al you really lost me there.

I think the intended purpose of a blanked round box with control from a wall switch is glaringly self evident.

It should certainly be evident to an electrical inspector.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Sorry Al you really lost me there.

I think the intended purpose of a blanked round box with control from a wall switch is glaringly self evident.

It should certainly be evident to an electrical inspector.

Until a piece of utilization equipment or a receptacle is installed at the ceiling box, there remain four indeterminate directions for the ceiling box to go in:

1. Junction box only
2. Lighting outlet
3. Outlet
4. Receptacle outlet.

As with the car's right hand turn signal that remains on after a turn has occurred, it signals something, but it is not clear what the intent of the signal is.

 

[al hildenbrand]

314.25 Covers and Canopies

In completed installations, each box shall have a cover, faceplate, lampholder, or luminaire (fixture) canopy, except where the installation complies with 410.14(B).

And, actually, the blank cover is evidence that the installation is complete, so my intent is obvious by the physical assembly.

 

[iwire]

Until a piece of utilization equipment or a receptacle is installed at the ceiling box, there remain four indeterminate directions for the ceiling box to go in:

1. Junction box only
2. Lighting outlet
3. Outlet
4. Receptacle outlet.

Yes it could.

But only one is the logical conclusion in most locations.

(Blanked round box in the center of a fixture-less room with a wall switch that controls nothing)

However the intent could be verified by the inspector in a number of ways.

1) Ask the installer

2) Ask the designer

3) Consult a print if one exists.

4) Apply a small amount of commonsense.

Are any of those items asking to much of the inspector?

Why would that be different than if I install one ground rod?

If the inspector is curious they will have to ask if I complied with the 25 ohm requirement.

 

[iwire]

And, actually, the blank cover is evidence that the installation is complete, so my intent is obvious by the physical assembly.

I agree with Don and have said as much already.

How does a cover change the "intended use"? The box and its wires are still intended to support and supply a light fixture.
Don

The intent of box was determined the moment the designer decide they would provide a lighting outlet at that location.

 

[tallgirl]

(Blanked round box in the center of a fixture-less room with a wall switch that controls nothing)

There wasn't a "nothing" in the original post. There was a ceiling fan with no light kit.

Or have we moved beyond that point?

I recently failed a final inspection on a new home due to the fact that we installed a ceiling fan w/o a light kit in a bedroom, this fan is controlled by a switch. My thought is that we installed a lighting outlet ,as required, I can not find a code reference that requires a light fixture to be installed, any thoughts?

 

[roger]

This is like driving a car through a single lane, one-way tunnel that has a sweeping right hand turn in it.

As I come to the turn, I switch on my right hand turn signal, and leave it on after the turn.

What is reality. . .

1. The thought in my head about what I will do, and have done,
2. The blinking of my right hand turn signal, inside and outside the car, both before and after the turn,
3. Or that the car is now going a different direction than before I entered the tunnel?

In reality that just means you drive like an older person.

All these flat closed statements that the NEC doesn't require the luminaire is like saying the turn signal tells which way my car is travelling.

No, the ROP I posted (post #189) provides a little more substance from CMP-2 to these statements.

Here is another that is pertanent.

1-38 Log #573 NEC-P01​

​

Final Action: Reject
(100.Lighting Outlet)​

_____________________________________________________________​

Submitter:​

​

​

Alan H. Nadon, City of Elkhart, IN​

Recommendation:​

​

​

Revise as follows:
Lighting Outlet. An outlet having intended for the direct connection of a
lampholder, a luminaire (lighting fixture), or a pendant cord terminating in a
lampholder, that is directly connected .​

Substantiation:​

​

​

Intent cannot be determined during an inspection. A junction
box with a blank cover, even one containing switched conductors, does not
provide the illumination needed for persons to move about safely thus
preventing accidents.​

Panel Meeting Action: Reject​

70-22​

Report on Proposals A2007​

​

​

? Copyright, NFPA NFPA 70​

Panel Statement:​

​

​

The proposed definition would require a luminaire
wherever a lighting outlet is installed. Code rules dictate where lighting is
required. CMP-1 refers the submitter to the panel action and statement on
Proposal 1-39.​

Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results:​

​

​

Affirmative: 12
_________________________________________________________​

Now let's look at this excerpt, "Code rules dictate where lighting is

required." and then go back to post 189 again

​

Roger​

 

[david]

Don ,
Its not the presence of a blank cover that changes the intended use, It?s the presence of a blank cover in lue of a lighting fixture presented at a final as completed work. Once the work is finale the premises wire system is finished. I would except the light fixture with no bulbs in it , but I will not except a fixture with over sized bolbs and I will not except a ceiling box that the code says is intended to for direct connection of, can be presented at a final with a blank cover as intended to have anything connected to it. Your presenting the work as completed at the final, Nothing in the definition says that you can blank off the box it says intended for the direct connection of. When the building is final am giving a report to the building code official saying the Buildings electrical system is such that this building is safe to be occupied. I will not pretend that I check every screw shell to make sure the polarity is correctly wired but its going to be the same guys who argue the light fixture did not even have to be installed are going to want my insurance co, to pay when someone gets shocked off of the reversed polarity at the fixture .

 

[iwire]

In reality that just means you drive like an older person.

LMAO.

Now let's look at this excerpt, "Code rules dictate where lighting is

required." and then go back to post 189 again

Roger your post deserves repeating.​

2-251 Log #575 NEC-P02 Final Action: Reject
(210.70)
____________________________________________________________
Submitter: Alan H. Nadon, City of Elkhart, IN
Recommendation: Revise as follows:
210.70 Lighting Outlets Required. Lighting outlets, that provide illumination,
shall be installed where specified in 210.70(A), (B), (C).
Substantiation: As currently worded, only 210.70(A)(2)(b) requires a lighting
outlet to actually illuminate anything. The definition of a lighting outlet, in
Article 100 does not require anything more than a junction box with switched
conductors intended to be connected to a lampholder, light fixture, or pendent
light. A proposal has also been submitted to change or amend the definition of
lighting outlet. Proper illumination ensures safe movement for persons thus
preventing many accidents.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The objective of the NEC is to provide the requirement for the lighting outlet. The requirements specific to illumination are in the building code.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12​

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12

David, Al, how can you maintain your position given this statement from the CMP?

In a nut shell Alan H. Nadon wanted the wording changed to require a illumination.​

The CMP said no, illumination ain't our business.​

​

 

[david]

Bob,
Where I work there is a building dept., an electrical dept and a building code official. I am expected to look at all aspects of the buildings electrical to insure that the building is safe for occupancy. Prior to that I have been an electrical inspector since 1992 in area that had no building codes. The contractors who had any thing inspected, other then service changes where having their work certified to protect themselves, others the loaning institution would require an electrical final before the bank would release final payment to the contractor. In ether of these setting it would be utterly stupid for me to final a buildings electrical system without lighting fixture installed.
To answer your question I only no of one book that was inspired (God Breathed) and they are never going to get the language right where viewed by thousands it cannot be dissected until its a totally useless document. Every commentary I own and I own a lot will claim that the NEC is not a design Manuel, but does have code rules that dictate design in a structure. The panels members contribute to the IAEI magazine and over the years the same subjects are addressed and their view has changed on some of the subjects addressed.
The building is going to have lighting fixture in the rooms mentioned in the NEC the amount of illumination required in certain areas will be addressed by the building codes. All of witch if the building inspectors has to deal with or the building code official himself has to deal with they do not need an electrical inspector.
I am not only an electrical inspector I am also recently certified as a building inspector. Every inspector in this area will have to be a combo inspector in a few years if they are to survive this new trend. The idea that an inspector should specialize is fast disappearing. And it?s your argument here and ones like it that is putting this trend on the fast track.

 

[iwire]

I only no of one book that was inspired (God Breathed) and they are never going to get the language right where viewed by thousands it cannot be dissected until its a totally useless document. .

David the wording is correct, I am not dissecting the NEC I am applying what is written and what the intent is.

The CMP said (more or less) they do not intend to require fixtures at the lighting outlets required by 210.70(A)(1).

So can I get a straight yes or no answer?

Is it your opinion that NEC 210.70(A)(1) require a luminaire to be installed?

The submitter of the proposals (Alan N.) is an inspector that must have also felt like you that a fixture should be installed but realized the code language does not support that.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

David,

Don ,
Its not the presence of a blank cover that changes the intended use, It’s the presence of a blank cover in lue of a lighting fixture presented at a final as completed work. Once the work is finale the premises wire system is finished.

The NEC does not require that a light fixture be installed at the required lighting outlet...it only requires the outlet. Final or not, does not change the intent of the outlet. Now if you are enforcing a building code that requires the fixture to be installed that is different, but this thread is about the requirements in the NEC, not in a building code.
Don

 

[al hildenbrand]

The intent of box was determined the moment the designer decide they would provide a lighting outlet at that location.

And, like the right hand turn signal, at the moment of its operation, signals an intent. . .

Time passes. . .

The signal is still there. . .is the original intent?

Who can say? Well, everyone involved with the signal along the passage of time since the original intent. . .is there a written record of the intent?. . .not likely.

Is there a written record of the changes of intent for this one ceiling box in this one bedroom? Even less likely. . .

So, what's more reasonable for the AHJ, support the bigger picture when no other illumination is present, or. . . .interview everyone involved with the work to determine a timeline of intent to be able to ascertain the most current intent for the ceiling box?

 

[david]

The objective of the NEC is to provide the requirement for the lighting outlet. The requirements specific to illumination are in the building code.

Bob I do not understand why you are trumping this The requirements specific to illumination are in the building code. No one is arguing that the NEC is requiring a certain amount of illumination in an area. The argument is that the NEC is requiring the lighting outlet you are saying the outlet without a fixture meets that requirement I am saying it does not. No one is arguing the specific kind fixture or the specific amount of illumination. Nothing in what you posted in red supports your argument. The NEC is to provide the requirement for the lighting outlet.

 

[al hildenbrand]

And, as one more hall-of-mirrors thought occurs to me, before I run off to install luminaires on my j-boxes, . . .

Does the AHJ's own observing the deficiency of illumination and the subsequent intent to tell the installer to put up a luminaire create the intent thereby making the ceiling box a Lighting Outlet and thereby removing the need for the AHJ to communicate to the installer at all?

 

[iwire]

So, what's more reasonable for the AHJ, support the bigger picture when no other illumination is present, or. . . .interview everyone involved with the work to determine a timeline of intent to be able to ascertain the most current intent for the ceiling box?

The only choice the AHJ has is to enforce the NEC as written or make a written amendment that they feel is satisfactory.

The fact it could be difficult for an AHJ to determine the intent of the outlet is no more relevant than the fact it may be difficult for an EC to comply with all sections of the NEC.

 

[iwire]

The argument is that the NEC is requiring the lighting outlet you are saying the outlet without a fixture meets that requirement I am saying it does not.

Than you have not read the CMPs statements or the definitions and are mistaken in your interpretation.

Bob I do not understand why you are trumping this

Why?

Because this is an NEC forum and I feel that you are posting incorrect information.

The CMP statements Roger has posted without a doubt show you are misinterpreting the NEC requirements and intent.

You want to require a specific fixture that is shown on print or require illumination where the building code requires it fine.

But you can not require a fixture installed based on NEC 210.70(A)(1).

 

[david]

Don,
Outlet ? A point on a wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment

If there is no current being taken to supply utilization equipment it is not an outlet.

Just because the code calls out for a specific kind of outlet intended for the derect connection of does not change the fact it must be a point at which current is taken Not may be taken or someday may be taken Or could be blanked off for certain use. The definition does not say voltage present for future use it says current is taken present tense

 

[iwire]

If there is no current being taken to supply utilization equipment it is not an outlet.

So you fail every job that does not have current being taken from each receptacle outlet?

Dave take a breath, go back and really read the CMP comments.

Than try to see how your view can co-exist with those comments.