ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues Proving Intent- Inspectors dilema

Bob- Sorry for the delay but I've thinking about what you said and I agree with you basic thought about verifying operation but there are some things that I need to verify, like polarity, GFCI protection, grounding and continuity. Maybe they don't do that in your area but we do here in Michigan. Just Friday I checked countertop receptacles in a kitchen only to find out that the electrician was stuck in the past and only had protection within 6' of the sink. Now if a furnace for example, is connected properly and it don't work that's not a code violation. Your obviously a very skilled and concerned electrician, I can tell from your comments on this forum. Not everyone is that way. There are job that go in that really justify my existance. Been an inspector for 20 years so I've been beat on by experts

No apology needed.

George, I try to preface my statements with 'in this area' etc. I know all inspection departments work differently.

I also do not mean to come across that "We do it right and all others should follow"

You must work in the way that is accepted practice in your area.

There would have to be substantial changes in the inspection Dept's. manpower here if the inspectors checked my circuits and checked for print compliance.

I will point out MA has a one year mandated warranty. The customers have a full year to find any problems and we have to fix them. If we do not fix the problems the customer can report us to the state and the state can fine, suspend or even revoke the companies license.

Anyway thanks for the compliment and it is obvious that you are an inspector that cares about the work also.

Bob

I Thank all of you for your input.
Reading the comments it appears that a slight majority favor having something other than a blank cover to be a lighting outlet.
The reasons; it's not finished; proving it works; and safety.
Having a blank cover only, elicited; it is the Code; let the owner pick a fixture and they are on back order.
Having spent a few years in a wholesale house I definately understand the back order argument.
The real arguments with teeth are the Code verses safety,(as mentioned in the Handbook).
Since the Code is supposed to promote safety by reducing hazards it seems like the Code needs to be adjusted.

Does anyone see a reason to object to a Code change requiring a lampholder, luminaire (light fixture)or pendant with a lampholder to be installed at a lighting outlet ?
If not, then we can all be on the same side.
Again, I thank you for your input.
Alan--Inspector.

The IRC requires a permit to install a light fixture but not to plug in a light. If the lighting outlet is covered and no switched receptacle is provided then the requirement of the code has not been achieved until a permit to install the light is pulled. Lighting is required if the room has less than 8% glazing based on floor area.

OK, I've been out in the Sun for a few days, and in the dark too......

Am I missing something?????

A room with >8% glazing requires NO LIGHT????

So, a 500 sf room, with 40.1 sf of windows??

What do you guys do at NIGHT??
Seems I asked this question on another thread, and didn't get a answer.

John

You'll have to pardon me for dredging up a 2 week-old topic. I read it this morning and have been thinking about it ever since.

Do we really think that the intent of 210.70 is to require us to install a box for a lighting outlet, conductors to it, and a switch but not install a luminaire, lampholder or pendant cord? If the intent was not to provide illumination, the requirements for location of the lighting outlets, and switches would be pointless. Why require the lighting outlet to be wall switched, if you don't require anything to be installed at the lighting outlet? I think what we're missing here is the fact that INTENDED is not the key word in the definition of lighting outlet. The key words in that definition are DIRECT CONNECTION. The luminaire, lampholder or pendant cord you install must be directly connected to that outlet, not cord and plug connected to it. The exception to 210.70(A)(1) gives you the option of a switching a receptacle in lieu of the lighting outlet, but if the lighting outlet is installed it is for direct connection. The dictionary definition of intend means that you have in mind, or design for a specific purpose. In this case, you have in mind the specific purpose of DIRECTLY CONNECTING a luminaire, lampholder or pendant cord with a lampholder. Not that you may or may not get around to putting a light in that area some day.

The reason the wording in 210.70 doesn't say luminaire is that it may not be a luminaire that you install. It may be a lampholder instead, or even a pendant cord with a lampholder.

That might be true if the definition of Branch Circuit, Appliance only referred to small appliance branch circuits. It's talking about any appliance. Note that it refers to outlet rather than receptacle outlet.

I don't disagree that the wording in 210.70 and the definition of Lighting Outlet could use some cleaning up. But, then again, that's not unique in the code either. But I've never left a required lighting outlet blanked off when I was a contractor, and I've never passed a job with one blanked off since I've been an inspector. I don't doubt that there are areas of the country where it's allowed, and I guess that's the option the AHJ has in those areas. When I inspected in Indiana (not far from Alan's area) we didn't allow it, and I don't know of any inspectors in this part of Michigan that allow it either. Sounds like a good question to ask at next month's inspectors meeting. I'll be curious to see how many see it each way.

Thanks for indulging me on this.




[This message has been edited by Mvannevel (edited 08-23-2005).]

OK, there's another thread here with the same subject, albeit the same arguments (opinions)

Resi:
Bedroom; two sp switches, one for the ceiling (wall) luminaire, one for 1/2 switched duplex receptacle. The ceiling (wall) location has a blank cover; the switched 1/2 duplex is OK; THAT IS ACCEPTABLE.

Now; resi bedroom; 1-sp switch; 1 ceiling (wall) luminaire location; OK IF a 'fixture' is installed; NOT Acceptable if a 'blank cover'.

Hallways, kitchens, exterior, bathrooms, laundry area, basements, etc must have a 'fixture' installed for a final.

Hopefully, this is an acceptable answer to this quandry.

John

John,

per the pure NEC wording, what article and section do you use to tag the "blank cover" installation?


Nope, not yet.

Roger

So, what you're saying is that code requires you (in 210.70(A)(2)(c)) to install 3-way (or possibly 4-way) switching to control a lighting outlet in a stairwell, but you aren't actually required to install anything other than a blank plate on that lighting outlet? Same goes for storage and equipment spaces in 210.70(A)(3)? Let's take it a step further. By this reasoning you could install all of the lighting outlets required by 210.70, blank them all off, and be perfectly legal?

Try this experiment at home:
1. Remove all the lamps from fixtures
connected to lighting outlets.
2. Wait until dark.
3. Enter each room in the house (especially
bathrooms with no windows and the base-
ment).
4. Attempt to either find the floor or
table lamp in that room or complete a
task specific to that room or area.
(See earlier reference to the bathroom.)

All kidding aside, I stand by what I said earlier about the definition of lighting outlet. In fact, to modify it a bit, the important part is actually the entire phrase intended for the direct connection. I believe it's worded this way to preclude the installation of cord-and-plug connected lights in those areas requiring a lighting outlet. The exception in 210.70(A)(1) gives relief from this in habitable rooms other than kitchens and baths, but lights in all other areas required in 210.70 must be directly connected to a lighting outlet. That wall switched receptacle remains a receptacle outlet rather than a lighting outlet.

That's still my take on it.

[This message has been edited by Mvannevel (edited 08-23-2005).]

I have submittd proposals to the Code to change the definition of lighting outlet to ... an outlet HAVING a lampholder, etc.
And to 210.70 lighting outlets that PROVIDE ILLUMINATION...
I look forward to their inclusion in the 2008 Code or at least a clear statement from the panel about INTENTED for ...
When you get your ROP make sure you send in your comments !
That should put the issue to rest.
Until then the exact wording of the Code allows blank covers and it is up to the AHJ to make that a less than desired decision. (see Georges solution)
Alan --Inspector.