Not trying to argue this point

Status
Not open for further replies.
?In my opinion you have closed your mind to new ways of thinking.?

And here in lies the problem with your opinion I am not looking to hold to old ways of thinking and I certainly am not looking for new ways of thinking I pulled my 1984 copy of the code off the shelf the code language is pretty much the same, same definitions,

What I am looking for is the correct way of thinking new or old does not mater,

Please stop thinking people who come here and disagree are some how caught in some past time period when things where different. That is an impossible scenario since we are all using what would be consider the most modern technology of our day to bring us together here. And no my TV is not black and white. Though I do not have cable in fact there is not cable available on the rd. I live on

I contractor told me he was working on a house with a young man the other day and after two days working their the young man just had to ask Hey whets up with that flack pole on top of this house, you see the top of the antenna was broken and all that was left was the pole. This young man never saw an antenna on a house. And could not figure why one would want a flag pole in such an inconvenient location.
 
Quote:
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

Roger
 
David.

It has nothing to do with your age or if you have a color TV.

You have been enforcing this section of code for a period of time, maybe a year, maybe ten years maybe 70 years I really don't know or care.

Regardless of how long or short the time has been you refuse to admit you have been reading more into the requirement than is there. I know many people at this forum have assumed a light fixture was required.

Look at Rogers post above, How can you possibly dispute what the CMPs meaning was in that statement?
 
Look at what the IRC has to say about the candle light in a room.

E3803.3 Additional locations. At least one wall switch-controlled lighting outlet shall be installed in hallways, stairways, attached garages, and detached garages with electric power.
At least one wall-switch-controlled lighting outlet shall be installed to provide illumination on the exterior side of each outdoor egress door having grade level access. A vehicle door in a garage shall not be considered as an outdoor egress door.
Where lighting outlets are installed in interior stairways, there shall be a wall switch at each floor level to control the lighting outlet where the stairway has six or more risers.

SECTION R303
LIGHT, VENTILATION AND HEATING
R303.1 Habitable rooms. All habitable rooms shall be provided with aggregate glazing area of not less than 8 percent of the floor area of such rooms. Natural ventilation shall be through windows, doors, louvers or other approved openings to the outdoor air. Such openings shall be provided with ready access or shall otherwise be readily controllable by the building occupants. The minimum open able area to the outdoors shall be 4 percent of the floor area being ventilated.
Exceptions:
1. The glazed areas need not be open able where the opening is not required by Section R310 and an approved mechanical ventilation system is provided capable of producing 0.35 air change per hour in the room or awhole-housemechanical ventilation system is installed capable of supplying outdoor ventilation air of 15 cubic feet per minute (cfm) (7.08 L/s) per occupant computed on the basis of two occupants for the first bedroom and one occupant for each additional bedroom.
2. The glazed areas need not be provided in rooms where Exception 1 above is satisfied and artificial light is provided capable of producing an average illumination of 6 footcandles (6.46 lux) over the area of the room at a height of 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor level.

 
International Residential Code National Electrical Code


SECTION E3803 LIGHTING OUTLETS
E3803.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . Section 210.70(A)
E3803.2 Habitable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 210.70(A)(1)
E3803.3 Additional Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 210.70(A)(2)
E3803.4 Storage or equipment . . . . . . . . . . . Section 210.70(A)(3)

(2) Additional Locations. Additional lighting outlets shall be installed in accordance with (a), (b), and (c).
(a) At least one wall switch-controlled lighting outlet shall be installed in hallways, stairways, attached garages, and detached garages with electric power.
(b) For dwelling units, attached garages, and detached garages with electric power, at least one wall switch?controlled lighting outlet shall be installed to provide illumination on the exterior side of outdoor entrances or exits with grade level access. A vehicle door in a garage shall not be considered as an outdoor entrance or exit.
(c) Where one or more lighting outlet(s) are installed for interior stairways, there shall be a wall switch at each floor level, and landing level that includes an entry way, to control the lighting outlet(s) where the stairway between floor levels has six risers or more.
Exception to (a), (b), and (c): In hallways, stairways, and at outdoor entrances, remote, central, or automatic control of lighting shall be permitted.

The to provide illumination is in both The NEC and the IRC going back to what my building department said if the language is not in the NEC its not their. It will be argured that having the intented purpose to provide illumination is not he same thing as stating illumination shall be provide by the required lighting outlets.
 
David, have you ever seen the following?

Quote:
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...

Roger
 
roger said:
David, have you ever seen the following?
Click to expand...

Maybe you should use a different color besides RED? Perhaps he's color blind?

A better question might be "David, do you know that there's a difference between the NEC and the Building Code?"
 
604.3 Electrical system hazards. Where it is found that the
electrical system in a structure constitutes a hazard to the occupants
or the structure by reason of inadequate service, improper
fusing, insufficient receptacle and lighting outlets, improper
wiring or installation, deterioration or damage, or for similar
reasons, the code official shall require the defects



Insufficient receptacle and lighting outlets

Even the property maintenance code uses the terminology insufficient lighting outlets. I guess the cities who adopted the property maintenance codes will only be able to require lighting fixtures in the public domain.

The landlords can simply remove damaged fixtures and blank off the required lighting outlets.

605.3 Lighting fixtures. Every public hall, interior stairway,
toilet room, kitchen, bathroom, laundry room, boiler room and
furnace room shall contain at least one electric lighting fixture.

I guess only the public areas will be required to actually have lighting fixtures

I think the implications to this was even more far reaching then I had supposed.
 
I don't think anyone disputes that codes and standards other than the NEC can require illumination.

The issue in this thread and the last has been that NEC 210.70(A) does not require illumination.

The landlords can simply remove damaged fixtures and blank off the required lighting outlets.
Click to expand...

Yes they could if the NEC was the only applicable code.

However it likely that other codes could require illumination.

FWIW apartments in my area are normally only equipped with a lighting fixture in the kitchen and bathrooms all other rooms would get a switched receptacle.

When I did condos in the 80s we would normally install a ceiling lighting outlet over what would be the dinning table, we would blank it off for the final. At some point when the condo was sold the new owners might or might not want a fixture there.
 
This is not meant to be an insult...... But David if you ever retire from where you are and move to Florida move to pasco county.There are inspectors here that go under the same pretense as you and you`d fit right in.I`m right because I said so.You have been shown that a lighting outlet or switched receptacle, except in certain areas is all that is required.But you fight it tooth and nail.

Our inspectors here say this...... Even though there is nothing in the NEC that says that there has to be an actual fixture installed ,there has to be some type of illumination be it a switched receptacle or some type of a fixture installed.They are under the same building inspectors dept. head inspector.He says that all inspectors in all depts. will work with the other dept. rules and requirements.The building dept rules say there has to be some type of illumination means in all rooms be it a fixture or a switched receptacle.So unless your area has this stipulation your argument is invalid and you`ve been requiring something that is WRONG........

It gets confusing working here there are several jurisdictions and some have their own rulings.What is permissable in one area isn`t allowed in another.In one area it is OK to use a breaker in sight of an air handler as a disc. but in another the HVAC code says the disc. has to be within 6 ft. of the unit.So we have to install a pull out in this area.One area counts kitchen countertop spacing from the front of a recessed countertop and wrapping the wall while others start from the back corner for the spacing.

This thread is like looking for a corner in a round room.....ROUND AND ROUND AND ROUND..........
 
?Yes they could if the NEC was the only applicable code.
However it likely that other codes could require illumination.?

International Residential Code
ELECTRICAL DEFINITIONS

LIGHTING OUTLET. An outlet intended for the direct con-nection of a lampholder, a luminaire (lighting fixture) or apendant cord terminating in a lampholder.

OUTLET. A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment.

UTILIZATION EQUIPMENT. Equipment that utilizes electric energy for electronic, electromechanical, chemical, heating, lighting or similar purposes.

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
This Electrical Part (Chapters 33 through 42) is produced and copyrighted by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and is based on the 2002 National Electrical Code_ (NEC_) (NFPA 70-2002), copyright 2002 National Fire Protection Association, all rights reserved. Use of the Electrical Part is pursuant to license with the NFPA.

International Existing Buildings Code
Definitions:
201.3 Terms defined in other codes. Where terms are not defined in this code and are defined in the other International Codes, such terms shall have the meanings ascribed to
them as in those codes.

International Property Maintenance Code
201.3 Terms defined in other codes. Where terms are not defined in this code and are defined in the International Building Code, International Fire Code, International Zoning Code, International
Plumbing Code, International Mechanical Code, International Existing Building Code or the ICC Electrical Code, such terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them as in those codes.

ICC Electrical Code
1203.1.2 Electrical system hazards. Where it is found that the electrical system in a structure constitutes a hazard to the occupants or the structure by reason of inadequate
service, improper fusing, insufficient receptacle and lighting outlets, improper wiring or installation, deterioration or damage, or for similar reasons, the code official shall require the defects to be corrected to eliminate the hazard.

?insufficient receptacle and lighting outlets?


Not here and not in any state that adopted The ICC Building Codes
 
David
Bless your little heart, I need for you to address something for me to help me better understand what you are trying to say.

Where are you finding in any of the codes that a lighting fixture is required to be installed? I have a copy of all the ?I? codes as well as a copy of the old Red Book and all the NEC editions.

Do you understand the difference between a lighting outlet and a Luminaire?

ICC Electrical Code
1203.1.2 Electrical system hazards. Where it is found that the electrical system in a structure constitutes a hazard to the occupants or the structure by reason of inadequate service, improper fusing, insufficient receptacle and lighting outlets, improper wiring or installation, deterioration or damage, or for similar reasons, the code official shall require the defects to be corrected to eliminate the hazard.

The International codes do not require a fixture to be installed only an outlet.
 
David nothing in that previous post of yours requires "LIGHTING FIXTURES" only "LIGHTING OUTLETS".

The definition you provided is the same as the NEC.
 
I do not feel they are doing there job incorrectly. Someone at the top of the chain of code officials in that Dept is left with the task of deciding who is right when a discussion rises such as this one. If the discussion is not easily resolved I am sure he reviews many sources to try and have a better understanding of what the code language is saying. I am sure is not an unintelligent man, who does not no the difference between a commentary and the code document he is reviewing. Though knowing the difference in the two he most likely turns to other resources such as the NFPA handbook for comments such as this one

Section 210.70 points out that adequate lighting and proper control and location of switching are as essential to the safety of occupants of dwelling units, hotels, motels, and so on, as are proper wiring requirements. Proper illumination ensures safe movement for persons of all ages, thus preventing many accidents.

So he ponders the statement adequate lighting is essential to the safety of the occupants of a dwelling as are proper wiring requirements

So he ponders hard if I get all the wiring correctly installed and still do not get adequate lighting correct the safety of the occupants of the dwelling are at risk so if I get the wiring wrong the building could be at risk and if unoccupied we loose the building and its contents. But if we get the lighting wrong that is a hazard and effects the directly the safety of the occupants not the building. Those who wrote this section and had the opportunity to make comments on this section found adequate lighting essential.

No I doubt the man at the top of the chain is on a power kick, he is most likely weighted with his responsibility to get it right. Until your in his shoes do not knock him to hard.
 
Last edited:
David the handbook opinion is no better or worse than Don's or Mike's opinions.

The only thing an inspector can enforce are the words in the code section.

Right now the words in NEC 210.70(A)(1) do not require illumination or Luminaires.

If you feel this strongly that they should I suggest you start writing a change proposal,
 
Bob
Their will not be any change proposal made in this state that CMP will have the opportunity to review. What will happen is the ICC will review these sections through their review process and this will give them one more excuse to pull away from the language in the NEC which currently defines if fixtures were intended that actually address the hazard of adequate lighting. And one day this process will lead the ICC to pulling away from the NFPA altogether.

I for one like the NEC and hope that never happens
 
Did this man at the top and his reading all these commentaries happen to read what the requirements of the International Residential Building Code section R303.1 Exception 2?
All the illumination that is required in a dwelling unit is 6 foot-candles over the area of the room at a height of 30 inches above the floor level.

How is ?HE? coming up with the requirement of a fixture being installed?

What section of any code is ?HE? citing as being in violation?

What formula is ?HE? using to assure that there is at least 6 foot-candles of light being spread over the floor at a height of 30 inches when a fixture is installed?

I think that you may have hit on a good point and one that ?NEEDS? to be addressed in the next code cycle so if you could help me to gather the required information, together we can make a proposal to have this issue addressed.

We will also need to decide the type, style and kind of fixture for the code panel to require. I think that the placement of the fixture is at best questionable. A switched receptacle could have nothing more than a night light plugged into it to fulfill the requirement of today?s codes of 6 candle power.

We also need to address the ability of the homeowner changing the size of bulbs. A case in point is my grandson. The overhead light in his room calls for a maximum of four 60 watt bulbs. He has changed out one of the bulbs to a 7.5 watt and removed the rest of the bulbs. This 7.5 watt bulb does not give the required 6 foot-candle of light at the floor. Sucks, his mom thinks this is a good thing as no one can see the junk that is all over the floor.

We may need to also address the occasional blown bulb. Should a fixture have only one lampholder and a bulb burn out then there would be no light from that fixture. Maybe we should include in our proposal that all lighting fixtures be required to accept multiple bulbs and in the case of a fixture that uses a transformer such as a florescent fixture a back up ballast would be required.

I could go on and on about the things that would need to be addressed but I think that I have been silly enough with out saying another word, how about you?
 
David, have you ever seen the following CMP-2 statement?

Quote:
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...
so now that you have, do you think a luminaire is required?

Yes or No answer please.

I changed it to blue because Tallgirl may have a point. ;)

Roger
 
The discussions on this thread are more evidence that those with POWER can arbitrarily "interpret" the code and are immune from any requirement to apply logic or plain English language in the interpretation thereof.

The only way they can be reversed is if there is some appeal to a person of higher authority who will apply the plain English language and compel them to adere to the plain intent and language of the code.

Arbitrary "authorities" are rarely reversed because the economic cost of appeal to competent higher authority is greater than the cost of complying with the arbitrary and incorrect "interpretation". It usually will not be appealed until those appealing such "decisions" are awarded compensatory and punitive damages for such arbitrary and inappropriate "decisions".
 
david said:
Their will not be any change proposal made in this state that CMP will have the opportunity to review.
Click to expand...
Why not, does your state use the NEC? If not why all this debate?

david said:
What will happen is the ICC will review these sections through their review process and this will give them one more excuse to pull away from the language in the NEC which currently defines if fixtures were intended that actually address the hazard of adequate lighting. And one day this process will lead the ICC to pulling away from the NFPA altogether.
Click to expand...
What ever came of the law suit between NFPA and the ICC? Didn’t the ICC pull away?

david said:
I for one like the NEC and hope that never happens
Click to expand...
Then please listen what it says and stop all this lobbying for a requirement for a fixture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top