Not trying to argue this point

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

david

Senior Member
Location
Pennsylvania
-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


I had the opportunity to run this by the other men working in my department. Two of which are master code officials. The other is an electrical inspector with over twenty years experience all of which are certified electrical inspectors. They believe you cannot read into the panel?s action what is not there.
They ask that you consider the recommendation as stated. There is no distinction in this recommendation between required lighting outlets and optional lighting outlets. They fill changing the definition that a lamp holder that is directly connected will limit the installer?s choice on non required lighting outlets. The example they give is a lighting outlet in a closet is installed and does not meet the required separation from the storage area, they believe since this is not a required lighting outlet as code rules dictate the owner should be left with the option of blanking off this non required lighting outlet. Changing the definition of lighting outlet to require a lamp holder or fixture connected would remove the option of not installing non-required lighting fixtures if you roughed in a box that could be defined as a lighting outlet by present definition.
Secondly they believe to much is being read into the panel statement They would ask since this is a NEC panel, would not the code rules that the panel is referring in their statement be the NEC, if not , wouldn?t they have been more clear as to what codes they where referring to. They would highlight the fact that CMP did not say building code rules dictate where lighting is required. They went on further to say, after rechecking the language in the residential building code, the language that would require lighting outlets in these area?s is in the electrical section of the residential building code, and the NEC is the referenced standard to that section of the residential building code. (the point being that there is no stronger language in the international residential building code, except for stairways, and a couple of other area's, the inspectors in my department believe the language in the NEC is such that would require illumination ( required lighting outlets ) )
They also believe that 210.70 ( C ) is requiring as a min standard a lighting fixture with a self contained switch and the second sentence goes on to say that a wall controlled lighting outlet ( fixture), that would be more then meeting the min. code, would be an acceptable way of meeting the lighting requirements this area. Someone in our group ask how could a pull chain fixture both meet the requirement that an outlet be at the equipment and the control being at the point of entry. We then discussed that the size of the room would be a consideration if you ever been in an old timers basement pull strings where commonly extended to a point of control.
I am not going to argue this point any more it?s just something for you guys to consider. We have not been able to conclude as of yet that lighting fixture are not required in the areas that the code requires lighting outlets.

Edited this sentence was left out
(the point being that there is no stronger language in the international residential building code, except for stairways, and a couple of other area's, the inspectors in my department believe the language in the NEC is such that would require illumination ( required lighting outlets ) )
 
Last edited:
I would like to add one other point that was made in our discussion. Under the general rules of lighting outlets The international residential code basically says that installed lighting outlets will ether be covered with a fixture or blanked off. And we were wondering if someone might be interpreting that section to be saying that required lighting outlets are being given an option of being blanked off in the residential building code. We would like to point out that this is a general statement in the building codes and is not addressing required lighting outlets per say. Our understanding would be this section is just saying in general you can not leave wires uncovered in a lighting outlet. Once again, not addressing the required lighting outlets just lighting outlets as a whole.

I think this is approprate to address here becauce the NEC is the reffrence standered to the electrical section in the building code
 
My building department would like me to add to this post that they are not saying CMP-2 is wrong they want me to make it clear that they are paying particular attention to the statement CMP-2 made in this ROP

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.

?Wherever a lighting outlet is installed? is what my building department believes is key in this statement. They believe as I do this would be to inclusive and would include Non-required lighting outlets as well as required lighting outlets.

We were wondering if instead of changing the definition of lighting outlet the proposal would have requested a new definition for Required lighting outlets perhaps he would have got a more favorable response from CMP- 2

My building department would also like to know if you guys have a statement from CMP that would clearly state that illumination is not being required by the NEC when the NEC asked for required lighting outlets.
 
David,
It really doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else thinks the intent of the code section is. All the matters is the words in the actual code document and the words only require a lighting outlet, they do not require the lighting fixture. If the CMP had intended to require the fixture they would have used the word fixture in place of the word outlet.
Don
 
210.70
(3) Storage or Equipment Spaces. For attics, underfloor spaces, utility rooms, and basements, at least one lighting outlet containing a switch or controlled by a wall switch shall be installed where these spaces are used for storage or contain equipment requiring servicing. At least one point of control shall be at the usual point of entry to these spaces. The lighting outlet shall be provided at or near the equipment requiring servicing.

McGraw Hills National Electrical Code Handbook 25th adition
Page 180
? Part ( C ) of 210.70 requires that either a lighting outlet containing a switch ?such as the familiar pull-chain porcelain lampholder ?or the wall ?switched controlled lighting outlet must be provided in attics or underfloor spaces housing heating.?

Don
Don I am going to repost this here only because I do not pretend to have anyones respect here and you told me one other time you had a lot o respect for Joseph and Brian McPartland.

Can we agree thet 210.70 ( C) " a lighting outlet contain a switch" is a fixture that the Code is requiring as a min to meet the lighting requirements in the first sentence in 210.70 ( C )
 
david said:
210.70
Can we agree thet 210.70 ( C) " a lighting outlet contain a switch" is a fixture that the Code is requiring as a min to meet the lighting requirements in the first sentence in 210.70 ( C )
Click to expand...

My two cents. No, I do not agree on the phrase "Code is requiring", but I do agree that the Code is "allowing" it.
 
“shall be installed” I know you would agree that this is the same thing as saying required.

Yet because of the two choices you are presented with I could see why you are saying this is not required but permitted. But I think you would agree you are required to install a lighting outlet.

In other words you are required to install a lighting fixture with a self contained switch or you are required to install a lighting outlet controlled by a wall switch

And would you not agree you are required to install one or the other of the two examples of lighting outlets given in this section.

What I fill is being said here is you are required to install the basic lighting fixture that has a self contained switch as a min in meeting the required lighting in this type of area non-habitual space But you can still meet the lighting requirement here by stepping it up to the more convenient wall control lighting system that is expectable every where else required lighting outlets are required.

What I do notice is switch controlled rec. outlets are not excepted here. And lighting fixture containing a switch are not and expectable alternative in the other sections of 210.70. if the self contained switch is the sole means for controlling the light fixture.

At one time I would have consider the switching of these required lighting outlets as the main thrust of 210.70 I would have never dreamed we could have a disagreement over weather the NEC requires lights in 210.70 I am being told by my building dept. that the is no other significant wording in the International residential code that would trump the NEC language in this subject. So if it’s not in the NEC I am being told there is nothing to require lighting.

90.1 Purpose.
(A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity.

Since I am the electrical code official in our department I am being ask to justify a requirement that does not address any hazard. It was put to me like this, is it being said that the NEC is requiring us to use natural resources, requiring owners or contractors to spend money on a requirement that serves no purpose.
 
Last edited:
David I have no idea why you think you are not a respected member.

I respect your dedication and how you try to follow up till you find the answer.

Here we just see things differently.

In this particular case it is my opinion that you and your coworkers have been assuming a fixture is required for such a long time that you all have closed your minds to the reality of the actual requirement.

To say we are reading to much into the panels statement does not make much sense to me.

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.
Click to expand...

There is no 'room' to read much into such a short statement, it says what it says.

You take that statement combined with the proposal that caused that statement.

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.
Click to expand...

And the only reasonable conclusion is that the NEC does not, nor intends to require fixtures installed at lighting outlets covered by 210.70(A)(2)(b).

I also agree with Jim D's assessment of 210.70(C)
 
Last edited:
David,
The code language needs some work. An outlet is not a fixture and never will be. If they mean light fixtute they need to say that and not say lighting outlet. There are lots of places where the code does not say what it means. Even the CMPs get caught up in the problem between the real world use of words and the NEC use of the same works. The most notable example that I can think of offhand is the word "fitting". Four or five code cycles ago the code said that your had to have 360? or less of bend between "fittings". Now everyone knew what the rule meant, but it didn't say what it meant. A coupling is a "fitting" per the NEC and therefore under the old code wording an inspector could not require any pull points unless there were more than 360? of bend between couplings. I see this wording in the same light. If the CMP means "fixture" then they should accept a change proposal, but until that time all that is required is an "outlet". If I was red tagged for that, I am just stuborn enough to take it to court.
Don
 
?In this particular case it is my opinion that you and your coworkers have been assuming a fixture is required for such a long time that you all have closed your minds to the reality of the actual requirement. ?

No we just disagree on what is being required

That would be one of the assumptions that I would point to too make the statement I have no respect here or at least not from the senior members.

The individuals that I work with think I make sure that every thing we doe has a code bases for it.
One of the master code officials that I work with Has worked himself into that position in just two short years that is a lot of testing to undertake in such a realitive short time.
The other Master code official who is also the Building code official insist as I do that we do not enforce our opinion it must be code based.
I am the electrical code official I have a lot of influence in our department as to how this will be handled.

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.

We are actually reading this as two separate sentences

We tend to believe that CMP-2 is saying that the NEC code rules dictate where lighting is required.
 
Why are we trying so hard to fix something that is not broke.Give the occupent the right to decide.They might want lamps (me) please dont shove fixtures where not wanted or needed.The code is fine as written.So its not what you want,why ? As is works just fine for most.Your only adding cost to something that is not a problem.The cheap way out is switch the first receptacle even thow it wont likely have a lamp.Your costing money and fixing nothing,WAKE UP TO LIFE.
 
david We tend to believe that CMP-2 is saying that the NEC code rules dictate where lighting is required.[/quote said:
So you choose to ignore this one?

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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
David, CMP-1's statement simply sends you to CMP-2 whose "CODE RULES" do not require a fixture, just a "Lighting Outlet", nothing more.

It is clear that you and those you are conversing with in your office will continue to do as you you want and will refuse to read the words per their meaning.

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
Click to expand...

David, I know this will not sound nice but, you simply don't want to admit that you have been wrong, what is sad is that it seems as though you will continue to be wrong.

Why not just lobby to formally make it a requirement through your building code, but do it through proper code making procedures?

Roger
 
Last edited:
David,
I have wired dozens of condos where the only "luminaires" were in the closets, garage, kitchen, laundry room and bathrooms. All other rooms had split duplex receptacles controlled by switches. Would these installations be failed by your department?
 
The requirements specific to illumination are in the building code.

Are they talking about ft. candle, are they talking about placement of fixtures

First of all it?s not my decision on how this section will be interpreted in my office; I do how ever have influence on this decision. My building department would be more comfortable knowing what building code or building code section they were referring too.
As I stated we have not found any language in the International residential building code that would add anything specific to illumination in that code. The NEC is the referenced standard to the section that deals with required lighting outlets so the language in the residential building code though reworded some what, should be in line with the NEC. So if the requirements specific to illumination as addressed in 210.70 are not in the NEC where? What section of what building code are they referring to? If you are talking commercial this may have other implications the building department is asking is if these are not the requirements for illumination where are they?
 
david said:
of cource not
Click to expand...

OK

So why is leaving one room without illumination safe and in another room it is not safe?

You seem to feel the NEC requires a fixture for safety but at the same time you agree a room with a switched receptacle outlet can go with out a fixture.

The up shot of this would be if I, as the electrician, decide to provide a ceiling lighting outlet that now I have required all future home owners to place a fixture there.
 
Because the NEC felt that the illumination from a lamp attached to the building wiring system through a rec outlet would be just as effective as a ceiling outlet in rooms that our culture commonly use end tables in.. If this was an international code with international influences at the time this was brought into the electrical code who knows how effective this Idea would be in other cultures In our culture they felt that lamps would be an effective means to eliminate stumbling around in a dark room. I would imagine The required wall switch for the lamp was to prevent one from stumbling around and tripping over some toy or teenager that fell asleep in the middle of the living room floor. I would also imagine at the time the wall switch was introduced into the code this was a novice idea for lamp control.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top