Slim Canless LED Junction boxes

[Little Bill]

I guess that some tiles are more robust than others so some may not sag. I'm wondering if using them that way is code complaint.

My inspector didn't have a problem with it.

 

[infinity]

I found these and I think that they will work.

Halo HL 6 in. Mounting Frame for Round and Square Canless Recessed Fixtures HL6RSMF - The Home Depot

The Halo HL6RSMF is a 6 in. recessed lighting, new construction, mounting frame that is perfect for install from below fixtures (i.e. canless lighting). Great for new construction projects in lieu of a can or housing. Canless lighting goes where LED can lights can't. Using this mounting frame...

www.homedepot.com

 

[tortuga]

Listing mistake? If it complies with applicable listing standard for that equipment there is no mistake,

Those fixtures were evaluated and listed by CSA in Canada,
under CSA file 3402-86
https://www.csagroup.org/testing-certification/product-listing/certificate/?cert=222826-3402-86
The file states that they are certified to the requirements of UL 1598, 3rd Ed;
The part of the standard they don't comply with is:

11.3.2 The wiring compartment (junction box) where the branch circuit connections to the luminaire are
made shall be integral to the luminaire or securely fastened to its enclosure or frame.

 

[Peter Furrow]

That is a listed product.. case closed with that home inspector Inspector!
Home inspectors perform a “limited visual inspection” of the property. They love implicating anything they can and will defer it to the trade in question. I’ve been a licensed electrical contractor for 12 years and two years ago out of boredom I had the brilliant idea to open a home inspection business. Wasn’t quite brilliant. Anyways, I attended a Home Inspection academy class. The program was two weeks long and I passed and received an HI license. The state of Florida will allow practically anybody to get that HI license. Its a joke. Lol..
What’s really bizarre is that realtors, buyers, & sellers can’t differentiate a Home inspector from an inspector that works for municipality (a real inspector) AHJ.
As an electrical contractor I deal with Home Inspector‘s & realtors all the time,.. that is the main source of my work. Whenever I review a home inspection report that has some bogus advisory on it I simply Respond with my invoice/letterhead and it supersedes anything an HI license put on his report.
The home inspector will except that,
the insurance company will except that, because your Electrical contracting license is backed by your general liability insurance . And frankly electrical contracting license is superior to an HI license. That is my take on the matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tortuga]

That is a listed product.. case closed with that home inspector Inspector!

So that leads me to ponder the road were heading down here;
In general if a conflict exists between a listed product and the NEC, who yields the lane? The listed product or the NEC?

 

[kwired]

So that leads me to ponder the road were heading down here;
In general if a conflict exists between a listed product and the NEC, who yields the lane? The listed product or the NEC?

Often either code or listing eventually changes so they are no longer conflicting. But at same time we have 110.3(B) telling us to follow listings.

 

[tortuga]

Often either code or listing eventually changes so they are no longer conflicting. But at same time we have 110.3(B) telling us to follow listings.

On this one I doubt Article 410 and 314 will ever change allow a junction box just to float in a ceiling.

Lots of questionable stuff is listed, Federal Pacific Breakers are listed.
and anyone can call themselves a 'product evaluation company'.
The thing is Annex 'A' is not even an enforceable part of the code, its up to each AHJ to decide what they consider listed.

I'd say 110.3 (A)(1)

(A) Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such
as the following shall be evaluated:
(1) Suitability for installation and use in conformity with the
provisions of this Code

Requires the product standards to follow and yield to the code for products to be considered approved by an AHJ.

 

[kwired]

On this one I doubt Article 410 and 314 will ever change allow a junction box just to float in a ceiling.

Lots of questionable stuff is listed, Federal Pacific Breakers are listed.
and anyone can call themselves a 'product evaluation company'.
The thing is Annex 'A' is not even an enforceable part of the code, its up to each AHJ to decide what they consider listed.

I'd say 110.3 (A)(1)
Requires the product standards to follow and yield to the code for products to be considered approved by an AHJ.

110.3(A)(1) does give the AHJ some discretion in what they will approve. Most will generally accept listings and instructions that come with those listings, and only turn to their own evaluation when there is no listing or other standards they can find to apply. And AHJ often is the City or State department and not an individual inspector, though there may be many individual inspectors that think they can make any decision they want to.

If each individual inspector could make such decisions at will, there would be no reason to have code book as every inspector would have his own rules. We still get a little bit of each one having their own rule as it is, and many just do what they are asked because they either don't want any trouble or figure it will get the inspection over faster so they can move on.

Inspectors are human and humans make mistakes. Just my opinion here but no inspector should make the rules on his own, he can enforce what is in the code plus any amendments his employer has placed into law. Anything questionable he has authority to make decisions on behalf of his employer (who is the AHJ) those decisions can be appealed and possibly changed. Many times an explanation of why he made a decision can result in agreement with installer. Sometimes inspector may not be familiar enough with the type of situation at hand and maybe needs to confer with his supervisor or other colleagues before making a decision. Those that don't know their stuff in a particular situation are not being professional if they make a decision on ignorance instead of at least talking to supervisor or doing some research before making such decision. But some like the position of power and figure they can do whatever they want.

 

[kwired]

110.3(A)(1) does give the AHJ some discretion in what they will approve. Most will generally accept listings and instructions that come with those listings, and only turn to their own evaluation when there is no listing or other standards they can find to apply. And AHJ often is the City or State department and not an individual inspector, though there may be many individual inspectors that think they can make any decision they want to.

If each individual inspector could make such decisions at will, there would be no reason to have code book as every inspector would have his own rules. We still get a little bit of each one having their own rule as it is, and many just do what they are asked because they either don't want any trouble or figure it will get the inspection over faster so they can move on.

Inspectors are human and humans make mistakes. Just my opinion here but no inspector should make the rules on his own, he can enforce what is in the code plus any amendments his employer has placed into law. Anything questionable he has authority to make decisions on behalf of his employer (who is the AHJ) those decisions can be appealed and possibly changed. Many times an explanation of why he made a decision can result in agreement with installer. Sometimes inspector may not be familiar enough with the type of situation at hand and maybe needs to confer with his supervisor or other colleagues before making a decision. Those that don't know their stuff in a particular situation are not being professional if they make a decision on ignorance instead of at least talking to supervisor or doing some research before making such decision. But some like the position of power and figure they can do whatever they want.

Edit time ran out was trying to add this:

To reject something that is listed if installed in accordance with listing is just wrong. If the listing is questionable to an inspector then they need to check into whether the listing is valid or if it is, need to confront the listing agency and/or manufacturer if they want something changed there.

Federal Pacific - the problem with them wasn't with the listing, but from my understanding at some point they made changes to the product and still passed it off as what was originally listed or something like that, which is just as bad as some the counterfeit stuff today that has a listing label on it but is not listed.

 

[LarryFine]

I have officially challenged inspectors' fails four times over the years, each time politely and respectfully, with full cooperation of each one, and "won" every time. They didn't seem to mind that their bosses agreed with my reasoning, like it let them off the hook.

The most recent one was where I used SE instead of SER as part of a 200-to-320/400 upgrade to feed a new sub-panel for a tankless water heater. The inspector was flummoxed by my assertion that no neutral was required because the water heater needed none.

 

[kwired]

I have officially challenged inspectors' fails four times over the years, each time politely and respectfully, with full cooperation of each one, and "won" every time. They didn't seem to mind that their bosses agreed with my reasoning, like it let them off the hook.

The most recent one was where I used SE instead of SER as part of a 200-to-320/400 upgrade to feed a new sub-panel for a tankless water heater. The inspector was flummoxed by my assertion that no neutral was required because the water heater needed none.

I've mostly had those that will look up something if I don't agree with them. They would have to look it up anyway if they were to write a correction notice as they would need to cite the code section that is in violation.

Have had occasional guy that likes to read between the lines and interpret the way he wants to though. Depending on what it is you might just comply with his desire to get past the issue and move on, still am letting him know what I think it says though in most cases.

Add one good example is was requested to mark a GEC with green tape one time. Told him NEC says nothing about identification of GEC's, but ended up putting tape on it anyway just to shut him up and move on.

 

[tortuga]

The NEC states the junction boxes need to be secured, a listing cant over rule that.

All good information however there is nothing in the NEC that dictates which listing standards must be used, it within the AHJs rights to choose which product certifications it accepts.


And in making that decision NEC 110.3(A)(1) offers the AHJ guidance.

To reject something that is listed if installed in accordance with listing is just wrong.

There are product standards out there for Europe, Asia and other places that are incompatible with the NEC, you just might not run into it.
The most memorable one was when we installed really cool listed labeled ovens from Germany that got delivered to a fancy bakery (25k freight bill), AHJ turned them down.
Did not approve of the listing, the correction memo referenced 110.3(A)(1).

It took me days and a (German translator) to bring the fancy bakery ovens up to *the* listed standard the AHJ accepted.

 

[kwired]

The NEC states the junction boxes need to be secured, a listing cant over rule that.

All good information however there is nothing in the NEC that dictates which listing standards must be used, it within the AHJs rights to choose which product certifications it accepts.


And in making that decision NEC 110.3(A)(1) offers the AHJ guidance.


There are product standards out there for Europe, Asia and other places that are incompatible with the NEC, you just might not run into it.
The most memorable one was when we installed really cool listed labeled ovens from Germany that got delivered to a fancy bakery (25k freight bill), AHJ turned them down.
Did not approve of the listing, the correction memo referenced 110.3(A)(1).

It took me days and a (German translator) to bring the fancy bakery ovens up to *the* listed standard the AHJ accepted.

Non US listing standards often don't fly with AHJ's.

Take a look at the lighting wall switch controls that more recently were a little bit of a battle between NEC and listings - NEC basically never allowed using EGC as a circuit conductor even if it was under a milliamp, yet they were listed that way and commonly accepted by inspectors.

 

[hillbilly1]

We did a mega mansion in Albany, Ga, 480 three phase service with transformers in a closet on each floor. We trimmed out all of the lights, passed inspection, then they had someone come back through, and changed them out to chandeliers from France that were not UL listed.

 

[tortuga]

Take a look at the lighting wall switch controls that more recently were a little bit of a battle between NEC and listings - NEC basically never allowed using EGC as a circuit conductor even if it was under a milliamp, yet they were listed that way and commonly accepted by inspectors.

That whole thing caused a real headache for me once. I inquired about it as it involved a large retrofit project.
The manufacturer said:
'While the 2011 edition of the National Electric Code requires a grounded circuit conductor at all
switch locations, it does not disallow the use of a lighting control device that instead uses the
equipment grounding conductor for standby current, as allowed in UL773A.'
The best I could come up with is 250.24(A)(5).
The code is clear as mud on that one.

In this case:

• The code clearly requires luminaire (and by definition its junction box) to be securely fastened.
• The code requires junction boxes to be securely fastened.
• The UL standard itself requires the luminaire junction box to be securely fastened.

We did a mega mansion in Albany, Ga, 480 three phase service with transformers in a closet on each floor. We trimmed out all of the lights, passed inspection, then they had someone come back through, and changed them out to chandeliers from France that were not UL listed.

Wow that would be interesting to see.
The lights were probably listed and labeled to another standard, you probably could have asked your AHJ and seen if they would accept that standard.
There is nothing in the NEC itself that prevents you from using IEC (Euro) or any other standards.

 

[hillbilly1]

That whole thing caused a real headache for me once. I inquired about it as it involved a large retrofit project.
The manufacturer said:
'While the 2011 edition of the National Electric Code requires a grounded circuit conductor at all
switch locations, it does not disallow the use of a lighting control device that instead uses the
equipment grounding conductor for standby current, as allowed in UL773A.'
The best I could come up with is 250.24(A)(5).
The code is clear as mud on that one.

In this case:

• The code clearly requires luminaire (and by definition its junction box) to be securely fastened.
• The code requires junction boxes to be securely fastened.
• The UL standard itself requires the luminaire junction box to be securely fastened.

Wow that would be interesting to see.
The lights were probably listed and labeled to another standard, you probably could have asked your AHJ and seen if they would accept that standard.
There is nothing in the NEC itself that prevents you from using IEC (Euro) or any other standards.

The AHJ wouldn’t, that’s why they did it after the final.

 

[kwired]

We did a mega mansion in Albany, Ga, 480 three phase service with transformers in a closet on each floor. We trimmed out all of the lights, passed inspection, then they had someone come back through, and changed them out to chandeliers from France that were not UL listed.

I can see it now, inspector is looking at this mansion with most everything top end, yet some rooms where you maybe see huge expensive chandelier they just put in a $2.00 keyless porcelain. When inspector asks about that, installer just says, their budget got cut close to the end of project

 

[bschlosser]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I wanted to chime in on the debate on if a listing or the NEC takes precedence. I am not an electrician, but am a design engineer that makes product to UL1598. The NEC (and any local code) absolutely wins over the product listing. If the installation instructions say you don't have to mount the juction box but the NEC or local code does, then you mount the box.

UL1598 also references many other standards for materials and components that are used to test and evaluate a product. Many times there are conflicts in requirements. The rule has always been the standard closest to the AHJ takes precedence. Its not great, but there have been cases where listed products do not comply with code. Most installation instructions have a general statement saying the product must be installed per the NEC and local codes by a qualified electrician.

 

[tortuga]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread,

Its not old yet, this topic made it to the agenda of our states electrical board meeting a few days ago, and CSA is looking into the 'typeo' in the installation instructions.

but I wanted to chime in on the debate on if a listing or the NEC takes precedence. I am not an electrician, but am a design engineer that makes product to UL1598. The NEC (and any local code) absolutely wins over the product listing. If the installation instructions say you don't have to mount the juction box but the NEC or local code does, then you mount the box.

UL1598 also references many other standards for materials and components that are used to test and evaluate a product. Many times there are conflicts in requirements. The rule has always been the standard closest to the AHJ takes precedence. Its not great, but there have been cases where listed products do not comply with code. Most installation instructions have a general statement saying the product must be installed per the NEC and local codes by a qualified electrician.

Thank you for seeing my bigger philosophical question of the NEC vs product standards.
This is why I love this forum, nice to here a perspective from a design engineer.

 

[Aledrell]

I have officially challenged inspectors' fails four times over the years, each time politely and respectfully, with full cooperation of each one, and "won" every time. They didn't seem to mind that their bosses agreed with my reasoning, like it let them off the hook.

The most recent one was where I used SE instead of SER as part of a 200-to-320/400 upgrade to feed a new sub-panel for a tankless water heater. The inspector was flummoxed by my assertion that no neutral was required because the water heater needed none.

lol and I thought I was cheap...You must be an old timer bc I’ve seen AC panels and utility panels installed missing a neutral conductor bc like you said they’d don’t need them granted most of these were installed in the 50’s and 60’s...
It’s all good until an EC comes along and tells the customer sure I can drop you a 120v outlet out of that Panel np...then opens it up and says wth...lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk