lighting outlet

[Jim W in Tampa]

Very well put. The outlet in the ceiling with the fan attached to it is not a lighting outlet anymore, until a light kit is installed on the fan.

Interesting that a blank is more legal than a fan with no light kit, but I have come to the conclusion after some more thought on it; that, despite how goofy that is, the wording supports this opinion.

I stand corrected.

I must agree that it does mean you you have changed your mind.But what if the owner said i INTEND to install a light kit but it is on back order.Now do i still have a light outlet ?

 

[roger]

I must agree that it does mean you you have changed your mind.But what if the owner said i INTEND to install a light kit but it is on back order.Now do i still have a light outlet ?

Jim, if the owner said I INTEND to have a GFCI installed in the bathroom, but the black one we want is on back order so we installed a non GFCI receptacle. Now, do we still have a GFCI outlet?

Roger

 

[celtic]

. .

But the property is still not going to get a certificate of occupancy until the required minimums are met. I or someone else is going to have to pull another permit and have another final inspection before the dwelling is complete.

So when you install switched outlets, you have to wait for the HO to purchase "just the right torchiere" for the CO ?

 

[al hildenbrand]

So when you install switched outlets, you have to wait for the HO to purchase "just the right torchiere" for the CO ?

Some jobs feel like that. . .but

2005 NEC 210.70(A)(1)
Exception No. 1: In other than kitchens and bathrooms, one or more receptacles controlled by a wall switch shall be permitted in lieu of lighting outlets.

If one half of a duplex receptacle switches on and off, I've met the minimum.

 

[pjg]

The outlet in the ceiling with the fan attached to it is not a lighting outlet anymore

I have to disagree with this statement. It is still a "lighting outlet", because it was installed with the intent of having a luminaire installed and still could be used as such , although it isn't being used in that capacity. I still have not seen anyone respond with a code refernce that requires a light fixture to be installed, after some further discussion today and some research I'm not totally convinced that it is required to install any luminaire/fixtures in a residence(except for 110.26D)
Please keep this in context ,I'm not saying I would do that nor do I think it should be done but the wording of the code seems to allow it.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I'm not totally convinced that it is required to install any luminaire/fixtures in a residence(except for 110.26D)

Interesting Code reference. . .as it parallels what I was going to say as I was reading the first part of your post.

110.26(D) is titled Illumination.

The building code, not the NEC, requires the illumination.

There's a lot that is required by the building code for a dwelling to be habitable, all we do is route the Premises Wiring (System) to the required bits that need electricity.

The NEC doesn't have to specify the illumination requirements.

 

[JohnE]

To me, there is still a lighting outlet present with the fan installed. Even though someone chooses to use the outlet for something else, the outlet still exists. It still is available for use as a lighting outlet. It's just presently being used for something different than it's intended purpose. To me it would be the same as if I go on an inspection and find a refrigerator plugged into a single receptacle which was supposed to be for laundry equipment. I certainly wouldn't make them add a receptacle even though they clearly do not intend to use the present receptacle for laundry use. Am I stretching this analogy?

 

[charlie b]

Consider the following viewpoint. I am not (necessarily) endorsing this viewpoint, but I offer it for your consideration.

Suppose someone (perhaps an Inspector) took the view that a ceiling box with a fan that also has a light does not meet the code requirement. The reasoning might be that the outlet box does not comprise a "lighting outlet," because the luminaire is not directly connected at that outlet. The thing that is directly connected is a motor, not a light. Also, the point at which the luminaire is connected is not an outlet, but rather is a motor. Since the luminaire is not connected to an "outlet," it is not connected to a "lighting outlet." Therefore, the requirement for a lighting outlet has not been met.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

Jim, if the owner said I INTEND to have a GFCI installed in the bathroom, but the black one we want is on back order so we installed a non GFCI receptacle. Now, do we still have a GFCI outlet?

Roger

Big differance Roger.The gfci is REQUIRED and the light fixture never was.They have a fan that will accept a light kit, so they DO have the REQUIRED OUTLET.Now i will agree that if the fan does not take a light kit then you have atleast misused box.

If you were buying a house that had this same one switch and only a fan would you demand it fixed or simply add a light kit or remove fan to install light fixture ?

The outlet is still there,its covered up by a fan.Often duplex outlets are covered up too by furniture that we could never move without 2 people, does this mean they aint there ?

 

[roger]

Big differance Roger.The gfci is REQUIRED and the light fixture never was.

Jim, where's the big difference you see? The "Lighting Outlet" is also required and in the inspectors opinion it is no longer there after this "Outlet" is used for something else.

If you were buying a house that had this same one switch and only a fan would you demand it fixed ?

Nope, but I'm not the inspector either.

The outlet is still there

Nope, not in the inspectors opinion, an "Outlet is still there, but it's not a "Lighting Outlet" it's a "Fan Outlet"

Often duplex outlets are covered up too by furniture that we could never move without 2 people, does this mean they aint there ?

Nope again, they are there with a Duplex Receptacle installed in them.

Jim, if the wording of "Direct Connection" was not in the definition, the inspector wouldn't have as strong of a case, but in that it is, he can back up his red tag.

Roger

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

"Jim, where's the big difference you see? The "Lighting Outlet" is also required and in the inspectors opinion it is no longer there after this "Outlet" is used for something else. "

There is still an OUTLET for the light fixture,it is under that cap at bottom of the fan.Instructions are clear as to what it is for (light kit).If that isnt a light outlet then just what is it?

Now if does not have this outlet for a light kit then he has a valid concern.

Tell me this,if i have a switched receptacle and on final i see both halves being used for TV ,DVD,etc ,should he fail it too ? It nolonger is available for a lamp.The owner made this very clear by using it for other uses and has NO INTENT of using it for a lamp.Look across room and you see night stand with lamp pluged into a non switched outlet,that proves to me where they intend to get light from.

Your turn.

 

[George Stolz]

Suppose someone (perhaps an Inspector) took the view that a ceiling box with a fan that also has a light does not meet the code requirement.

I would reject this idea based on common sense alone, to begin with.

As I started meandering around to gather support for my opinion, I came across the UL directory for ceiling fans and light kits. The way that it is worded, the UL does not seem to consider a ceiling fan with a light kit accessory installed to be a "luminaire."

Looking back on the definition...

Lighting Outlet. An outlet intended for the direct connection of a lampholder, a luminaire (lighting fixture), or a pendant cord terminating in a lampholder.

...we are provided three items to attach to an outlet to make it a "lighting outlet". Ceiling fan with light accessory kit is not in this list. Since according to the UL, a ceiling fan is not a luminaire, then I believe you are technically on to something with your outlandish idea.

IMO, there should be a proposal submitted for the 2011 to fix this, as any rational person would accept a ceiling fan with a light kit as meeting the intention of 210.70.

 

[George Stolz]

J

There is still an OUTLET for the light fixture,it is under that cap at bottom of the fan.Instructions are clear as to what it is for (light kit).If that isnt a light outlet then just what is it?

The wiring in the bottom of the fan is wiring integral to the fan. It is beyond the "premises wiring", so by default it cannot be an outlet. We have to consider the box in the ceiling (where the 14 or 12 branch circuit conductors are) the outlet. What is directly connected to this outlet?

Tell me this,if i have a switched receptacle and on final i see both halves being used for TV ,DVD,etc ,should he fail it too ? It nolonger is available for a lamp.

Read it again, Jim. It makes no bones about what the intention for the receptacle is. They avoided the "intentions" trap with the exception - they asked for a receptacle, period. We infer (rightfully so) that it's for a lamp. Of course it is. But they say nothing about it's intentions.

They do for a lighting outlet.

 

[ceknight]

Tell me this,if i have a switched receptacle and on final i see both halves being used for TV ,DVD,etc ,should he fail it too ?

IMO, no, he shouldn't fail it.

210.70 (A)(1) exception (1) does not specify that the switched receptacle be intended for cord-n-plug lighting. It merely allows the switched receptacle to be installed in lieu of a lighting outlet.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

I would reject this idea based on common sense alone, to begin with.

As I started meandering around to gather support for my opinion, I came across the UL directory for ceiling fans and light kits. The way that it is worded, the UL does not seem to consider a ceiling fan with a light kit accessory installed to be a "luminaire."

Looking back on the definition...

...we are provided three items to attach to an outlet to make it a "lighting outlet". Ceiling fan with light accessory kit is not in this list. Since according to the UL, a ceiling fan is not a luminaire, then I believe you are technically on to something with your outlandish idea.

IMO, there should be a proposal submitted for the 2011 to fix this, as any rational person would accept a ceiling fan with a light kit as meeting the intention of 210.70.

That light kit is a lamp holder.It will even say max.watt bulb is allowed.
If this isnt a qualified light fixture then there are lots of inspectors that should be busy monday morning writing red tags

 

[roger]

Jim, you don't seem to get the meaning of "Direct Connection", or more correctly the definition of Direct.

Say we see a News paper with an article such as; "Man Dies after Direct Blow to Head from Baseball Bat" we could reason he was hit in the head with no cushion, pillow, hat, or even a ceiling fan on his head.

If he had been wearing a Ceiling Fan his head the headline might read; "Man Dies after Indirect Blow to Head through Ceiling Fan from Baseball Bat"

If the fan is in the way of this guys head or the "Outlet" neither can be Directly accessed can they.

Jim, one definition of the word Direct being used as an adjective is;

Having no intervening persons, conditions, or agencies;

I can't change it and I don't think you can.

I think the inspector can stand his ground and will / would/ could not be overruled.

Roger

 

[Kessler4130]

Tell me this,if i have a switched receptacle and on final i see both halves being used for TV ,DVD,etc ,should he fail it too ?

Your turn.

Without looking at my code book, I don't believe it says anything about what they plug into the switched wall outlet, but the lighting outlet definition clearly states intention of a luminaire. If the EC installs a fan on a lighting outlet without a light kit then it is in my opinion a violation.

 

[George Stolz]

If this isnt a qualified light fixture then there are lots of inspectors that should be busy monday morning writing red tags

Should they?

Jim, we all know this book is cratered with little mistakes and inadvertent oddities. They know it too (although I'm sure the NFPA is less fond of mentioning it).

That's probably why they stuck 90.4 right up there in the beginning. Fortunately, most inspectors and AHJ's reading this thread probably would say, "Well, that's interesting/funny, but I'll be dipped if I'm enforcing it that way."

In my posts, I'm just saying, 'Yes, the NEC could be read that way very easily.' Does it make sense? No. But reading it using Charlie's Rule, it's the most correct answer I see.

You're confusing the real world with the code world.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

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?

thanks, pjg

In view of the last post by Roger i must now agree with him.Now even after you install this light kit you still fail.The fan even with light kit is not a light fixture.We have been violating and passing this for as many years as i been wiring.

We have a major problem on our hands now.As written we will need to either add some other lighting outlet (can,j box or outlet) or remove fan/light and blank this outlet off.Now that makes a lot of since doesnt it.Choices are blank or fan with light.Pick the best legal one,yep ,sorry mr homeowner i cant install that $300 hunter fan with light cause it will not leave you with a light outlet.Wonder why electricians drink.Does anyone really think this is what nec had in mind ?

 

[roger]

Does anyone really think this is what nec had in mind ?

Jim, I don't, and I don't think most inspectors do either.

Roger