Section 210.70 requires lighting outlets wall switched for habitable rooms, etc. There is an exception for switched receptacles.
The definition of a lighting outlet is an outlet INTENDED for the installation of a lampholder etc.
On final inspection the contractor put blank covers on the lighting outlets and claimed that the owner would select fixtures (luminaires) at some future date.
Should the inspector accept or reject ?
We are curious in Indiana, because it is a real situation.
Should the word intended be removed from the definition (Article 100) of lighting outlet,therefore requiring a lampholder, luminaire, pendant etc. ?
Alan-- Inspector.

I would require at least a keyless; elsewise, the requirements are not met. Without a luminaire, there is no light.

Accept it. We as AHJ's can't save the world.

I mean honestly, what do you gain from having them put in a cheesy keyless?

Or a $5.99 Orange Box single bulb & fluted glass fixture from China.

The advantage of keyless over a blank is a functioning light. Why the NEC has the requirement, I don't know specifically if it is for protetion from fire from what some clever people might do to get light, or if it to minumize the hazards of fumbling through a dark room. But for whatever the reason for the code, there is exposure to the hazard until the lights get picked out, ordered, delivered, and installed, which could be a long time. Mix some small kids in and who knows. Are ther bigger things in life to worry about, sure, but I don't think it is unreasonable to require a keyless. As an installer, I wouldn't leave a house for final with just blanks.

Alan:

Leaving that outlet with a blank cover is an accident waiting to happen!

I have called for the installation of at least a lampholder before signing off a final during my career.


REJECT!

You answered your own question.

The NEC requires a lighting outlet, that is all.

If the room uses a switched outlet would you require them to install a floor lamp before you signed off?

It is the same concept.

To me the NEC is crystal clear here, a lighting outlet is not a luminaire.

For those that say reject, please provide the code reference you would cite?

Bob

110.3(A)(8) and the approved plans and specifications!

Switched lighting are required, especially in bathrooms and kitchens!

Common sense, too!

110.3(A)(8) does not allow an inspector to require items not required by the text of the NEC.


We have built many condos that simply show lighting outlets without Luminaires. The Luminaires will be chosen by whoever buys the condo which may be long after the occupancy permit is released for the building.


No, lighting is not required by the NEC, lighting outlets are required in these locations by the NEC


Well that may be true, but it is no way enforceable by an electrical inspector who works within the rules.

I would still like to hear why it is unsafe to leave a blanked up lighting outlet in a living room but it is perfectly safe to leave a switched outlet without a lamp in the same room.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Bob

I am with Bob on this. Perfectly clear to me as well. Joe you as a code guru who has been know to argue the literal wording of the code should certainly be able to see this. You yourself call the blanked up box an outlet. NEC requirement is met. Pass the job according to the code not personal opinion.

[This message has been edited by Electricmanscott (edited 07-30-2005).]

A final inspection includes completed and finished work, and that includes installing either a fixture or a "lampholder"!

I wonder what the other Moderators think, since there are 4 Moderators here in this area!

I would also worry about the following rule, especially the exception!



[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 07-30-2005).]

Joe, I have to disagree with you on this one. I appreciate what you are saying...I would prefer seeing a luminaire, but I as the AHJ and bound by the code in my enforcement, the same way the installer is bound by it in his installation. The installer can install nothing less than the code, and I cn require nothin more than the code.

Okay- Here's what we are going to do. Blank up the switched lighting outlet > call the inspection > meet me there with a ladder > I'll operate the switch > you remove the blank cover and put your wiggy on the wires and we will indeed determine that you satisfied the code by having a switched outlet. A few inspections like this and I think a keyless makes more sense.

I have also wired spaces with only provisions for future lighting.

As Iwire points out, if the dwelling unit uses only switched receptacles, there would be no functional lighting upon the final, so what is the difference.

To go one step further, I have had spec Townhouse plans show "lighting track only" above the fire place. So if we are splitting hairs, this would seem to definitely comply with the "outlet INTENDED for the installation of a lampholder" yet provide no light source.

As a matter of fact, the only construction furnished fixtures in these Town Houses were the Range hood, Kitchen, Laundry, and Bath rooms, all the other lighting was by the future owners.

The Living room, Bed rooms, Dining room, and Lanai, were Roughed in for Ceiling Fan/Light combos in case the future owners desired fans.


IMO, unless a local building code required functional lighting in all habitable rooms for a C.O., I don't think an electrical inspector could tag it based on the NEC.


Roger

I am suprised some of you don't see the difference between a recptacle that a six year old can plug a lamp into and a blank cover that a qualified person has to pull out the tools and ladder to get it working. I think George makes an even better point, how can you inspect that the switch on the wall that is required to operate the blank cover is properly hooked up?

And as far as what is the danger? I don't know, ask the same people who saw it fit to add this the NEC. My point is, that for whatever hazard is present to necesitate the requirement, that hazard is present until the light is hung.

Jps, there are many areas where a final is a prerequisite for power, in this case how are you going to prove the fixtures operate even if you were to install one.


The fact is, like it or not, the NEC doesn't require a fixture to be installed, only a provision for a means to have a switched fixture.

You could propose this for the 2008 and see where it goes

Roger

I can see a difference, what you can't show me is an NEC section that requires a luminaire.

Also there will be un-switched outlets in that room for the 6 year old to plug a lamp in until the qualified electrician comes to install the ceiling fixture.

If the CMP wanted a luminaire required it would have been a simple thing to change this....



to this.....


IMO, many people are assuming what the intent is of 210.70.

It is not an inspectors job or right to enforce intent.

An inspector is obligated to enforce the code as written.

JMO, Bob

Thanks for the input.
I welcome all viewpoints, while we try to reach a concensus on what to do.
I'm leaning toward changing the definition of lighting outlet to...An outlet HAVING a lampholder, luminaire etc. Rather than the word intended. Is that too restrictive ?
If rooms didn't need lights why require the lighting outlets ?
Alan--Inspector

Alan,


If rooms need lights why did they say outlets when a word already exists in article 100 that would work.

Luminaire



Lets look at another Article 100 definition.


"to which appliances are to be connected" sounds an awful lot like "intended for the direct connection of a lampholder, a luminaire (lighting fixture),"

With your interpretation of 210.70 it would follow you would also require at least two small appliances to be purchased and plugged into the SA circuits based on 210.52(B)

Anyway it is always good to see an inspector that is willing to ask for other opinions.

Good luck and stay safe.

Bob

I know some of you frown on the use of handbook commentary, but....


If reading past 210.70(A)1, through the rest of the artical, I think that it's clear that a "Light" be controled by the required switch.

Maybe it should be changed to this, from the wording in 210.70(A)2(B), "...at least one wall switch–controlled lighting outlet shall be installed to provide illumination..."

Often for inspection I will blank off some outlets for simular reasons, like being back ordered etc. But not if they are the only light in the room. And put up a porcilin, just for general lighting.

On another note, of the same code. Years ago, when Homeworks was relitively new. We had an Inspector require that means for a "line voltage" switch be installed in every room. On reasoning that if the system became obsolete, +/or non-operational. And that it didn't say "switching means", it said "wall switch". The boss at the time was a little weak willed, and didn't argue the point.

I'm with George. Permit holder representative to meet on job to prove switch is properly wired. Much easier to do with rececptacle. George would probably not ask for any help on these outlets.

Mark, I don't think people frown on it, it's just that by its own admission, it doesn't hold any weight as far as being code.

Dlhoule, after I was asked to meet an inspector one time for this, in the future I would simply run a three wire to a receptacle in close proximity or directly below the switch and split this receptacle. I would then leave the conductors to the light capped off and tagged in the switch box, install a blank cover over the "future" fixture rough in and be in total compliance with the NEC.

A red tag after this would be an abuse of power by an inspector simply not liking the installation wouldn't it?

Roger

Roger,


Just because that is the case in many areas doesn't mean it is wise or even sensible. I honestly find it hard to believe any village would require final inspection before they would allow hook-up. You would have to at least have another inspection afterward. Maybe they should rethink a few things. How can you inspect something to see if it is done properly without power?

I used to work for a guy that if we were running behind on the job and the inspector was on the way, we cut 3' sections of wire to represent what was going to be in there and ran around stuffing them in the pipes. There were times we would go to see why a room was dead, and as we looked found the sraps never got replaced.

But to follow the topic a little further, what if you walked into a final inspection and saw all lighting outlets blanked. No fixture in the kitchen, bath, hallways, stairways, storage area or outside. Would you still let it go? where is that line drawn? Would you really allow a final without a stairway light???

Let me guess what some might respond. "It's all okay except for the outside because the code reads 'and to provide illumination on the exterior side of outdoor entrances or exits with grade level access'(NEC '99 210-70(a)(2)) And obviously a blank can't provide illumination."

Jps,
If the NEC or some other applicable code doesn't mandate it, I would have to let it go. If I were an inspector I could not make up my own rules.

If you were given a traffic ticket for making a right turn on red, even though it is allowed, yet this one officer thinks its safer if you didn't, (it probably is in some situations) what would you do?

Would you pay it or fight it?

Adopted laws and codes are all that can be enforced.

Once again, you may want to make a proposal.

As a contractor wanting to make material sales, it would benefit me to have "Luminaires" required in all rooms and even a code that would force the owners to buy an extra (spare if you will) for each room from the EC.


Roger

Well that would be a logical argument.

This is absurd to me at this point.

The code making panel members know the difference between a lighting outlet and a Luminaire (Fixture) or lamp holder.

Are we to believe that these CMP members decided to require light fixtures but did not want the code to clear so instead made a collective decision to use a well known and clearly defined term that does not mean light fixtures?

Thats ludicrous.

Using the NECs own definitions 210.70 clearly does not require luminaires to be installed.

Okay Bob and the rest of you guys: I can become a real pain in the A** when I think your trying to play games so here's the plan:

Blank up the switched lighting outlet > call the inspection > meet me there with a ladder > I'll operate the switch > you remove the blank cover and put your wiggy on the wires and we will indeed determine that you satisfied the code by having a switched outlet. A few inspections like this and I think a keyless makes more sense.

If the lamp lights, its wired properly??

George, see my 1:36 PM post.

I would show up with out a ladder, simply open the switch box, and you would have no violation (in reality, there would have been nothing you would need to check in the first place) to tag me with when I left.


Roger



[This message has been edited by Roger (edited 07-30-2005).]

So can I..... oh wait..... you all know that already.

What code section says an inspector has to verify operation?

I know all areas are different but in this area inspectors do not check the operation of the circuits. Oh they may check a GFCI button or two but none of them check even .1% of my circuits.

Bob

I'm kind of surprised that this has become an issue.

I have seen many "final" inspections where the luminaires were not present- especially in tract homes. It is a given that lighting is a matter of great personal taste, and it's probably best to let the ocupant choose the fixture.
This has especially been the case where it is likely that the ocupant will want some sort of chandelier or ceiling fan.

I do have a habit of placing keyless fixtures, especially in windowless rooms, for the convenience of everyone. This practice has never elicited any reaction than surprised delight :-).

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.

Glad that you submitted the proposals Alan. I'd like to see that wording cleaned up (not that this is the only area that needs that). But, more importantly, as you stated, we should at least get some clarification from the panel about what they INTENDED the definition and code section to say. (Gee, there's that word again...I still think we have to go by the dictionary definition of intended)

Roger:

With all due respect to you, and all the other members, please hear me out....

210.70 et al.

What I'm trying to convey is that there must be a provision for illumination within the areas as defined in 210.70. You can call it a 'lighting location', a 'lighting outlet', a 'switched recept' or whatever that particular person wants to refer to the "LIGHT" as. A "blank cover" (inviso-plate) on a location that is the ONLY means of illumination in an area "FAILS".

Further......a "room" that has four (4) wall sconce locations on a SP sw.; a "ceiling" location on a SP sw, and a 1/2 switch controlled receptacle need NOT have all the "fixtures" installed, as long as there is ONE functioning switch controlled means to provide illumination.

John

The NEC is not a design manual. Article 210 sets branch circuit minimum requirements (allowances) but does not, well hardly ever, provide specifics. 210.70 is only about allowing for direct connected luminaires.

Illumination/luminaire requirements are part of the "building code" not the electrical code.

Taken to an extreme; if I install a combination wall switch with a separately wired pilot light which is illuminated when on, haven't I provided a direct connected luminaire for the room? How does this not meet the requirements of 210.70(A)(1) for a bathroom?

I believe any proposal made to change the wording will be rejected. As JBD said, now we are talking about design requirements.

Furthermore, bedrooms, living rooms, family rooms don't actually require a lighting outlet at all when a switched receptacle is installed. So how do you reconcile your desire to have luminaires installed when the NEC doesn't even require them in many rooms of a house?

I'm happy with the way the NEC is as written. Why fix something that isn't broken?

Peter

For substantiation of the proposal I point out; proper illumination allows persons to move about safely thus preventing accidents.
The wording is from the Handbook.
Most agree that the Code allows blank covered lighting outlets to be in compliance.
Many also agree that this is inadequate.

It is not, in my opinion a design consideration but one of safety. After all that is what the Book is supposed to be all about.
I love this site and the input. It gets lonely trying to figure this stuff out without input. Thanks.

Alan --Inspector
Added; edited
Note that the Mechanical Code requires the lighting outlet to illuminate the equipment.
The Building Code requires the lighting outlets to illuminate the stairways.



[This message has been edited by Alan Nadon (edited 08-25-2005).]

"Furthermore, bedrooms, living rooms, family rooms don't actually require a lighting outlet at all when a switched receptacle is installed."

More accurately, the switched receptacle IS the lighting outlet. Remember, except for rooms with applaince circuits, receptacles are (or were) considered lighting outlets.

The only room that "required" electricity for other than lighting loads for many years was the kitchen, later the laundry (sound famalair?) Other rooms had only lighting loads.

In the "beginning", electrified homes had a single 30-amp circuit (one hot, one neutral - both fused) for a single pendant light socket in each room, switched at the socket.

Remember those adapter devices that screwed into a socket, took a bulb on the other end, and had a pair of receptacles in the sides, and often their own pull-chain switch?

Those were one of the first electrical devices widely sold, which now allowed "new-fangled" appliances to be powered. Unfortunately, most appliances were high current heating loads.

Thus the NFPA was born, and begat the NEC.

Larry, receptacle outlets are not lighting outlets. A switched receptacle is not a lighting outlet, it's a receptacle outlet. There is a distinction that must be made.

I maintain that the NEC is fine in its present form.

Peter

Okay, I'll accept that. How about if we say that they're lighting circuits?

Actually is says ...
"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."

... so if you have a switched receptacle you don't need a lighting outlet.

That is how they deal with the blanked off ceiling box here. There is a "half hot" somewhere in the room. We still have some inspectors who say they can count the blank cover but I dissagree.

I think someone make the point clearly. The requirements for illumination comes from building codes not the electrical code.

Electricians, sorry but just because it ain't in the NEC doesn't mean you don't have to follow any and all adopted ordinances or codes of the municipality.

You're right the inspector will not be able to show you in the NEC a requirement for a light, but if they have the NEC adopted I'll bet they also have some building code adopted that requires illumination.

So you still have to install the light to pass inspection.

Steve, so right back at you. As an inspector, you would still need to recite a code that is being violated, what ever code that may be.

If not, we are back to where we were in this conversation, and that is, the wording in the NEC, as you admit, doesn't require it.


Roger

[This message has been edited by Roger (edited 08-26-2005).]

I have read through this thread, and it amazes me how some will take what they personally like to do and try to inject that process into the actual code wording.

"210.70 Lighting Outlets Required. Lighting outlets shall be installed where specified in 210.70(A), (B), and (C).
(A) Dwelling Units. In dwelling units, lighting outlets shall be installed in accordance with 210.70(A)(1), (2), and
(3).
(1) Habitable Rooms. At least one wall switch-controlled lighting outlet shall be installed in every habitable room and bathroom.
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.


In joining these forums and especially in my duties as an inspector, I try to read what is written and then enforce that - once in a while actually explaining to the contractor/electrician that it is the minimum and more could be done to protect him/herself from possible trouble in the future.

With that being said, this section does not require a luminaire, it requires a lighting outlet - which is distinctly defined. So this should not be a code issue.

What I see happening here is the personal preference as to how to finish the job for a final.

Contractors have at it and do what you like.

Inspectors, inspect for code - if the ceiling or wall sconce LIGHTING OUTLET is blanked - so be it.

I perform some of the most thorough inspections contractors have seen (most not too happy about it either ), yet I do not test all parts of the installation to see it all works.

As Ryan stated early on:

"Accept it. We as AHJ's can't save the world."

Alan asked if the inspector should accept or reject the installation in Indiana. I say not if some other code requires it.
If using the IRC or IBC, illumination is required if there is less than 8% glazed area per floor area exists. Stairway illumination is required with different switching reqs depending on the location of the stairs.

Saying the NEC doesn't require it -end of story-- is not an acceptable or responsible or complete answer.

I know this is an electrical contractors site, but all codes that relate to electrical work, not just the NEC, can and should be applied to the electrical contractor.

But yes, more than 8% glazed area does not require any type of artificial illumination per IRC or IBC(except egress paths with exceptions).

Alan should check his adopted building code and check for amendments. If the I-codes are adopted then make sure there is a light and ventilation schedule on the plans to verify whether artificial illumination is required.

We are not bound (or trying) to only discuss electrical code requirements from the NEC on this board, right?

I'm with Steve on this, reguardless of MY personal, feelings on the matter...
I hate whem my wife leaves the table lamps on, and I have to turn on my mandatory lighting outlet, so I can get back accross the room without trippng over the coffee table.

If all that is required is a wall switch to be final, are you (inspectors out there)then planning to go back for the light? Like mentioned, other codes do require illumination. For instance under CA's Title-24, I have to install "high-efficiancy lighting" in certain room, and the Electrical Inspector is responsable for making sure I do so. I cant blank them...

Likewise, if someone installed a reccessed can in a closet, would you allow them to leave it there, because it did not have a bulb and trim in it? Its a "lighting outlet", but incomplete without a proper bulb and trim suiting the area it is installed in. That would not be a completed for final job would it?

And I think that it is pretty clear that the NEC that they want you to turn something on as you enter the room if they will require a switched outlet, in leiu of a "lighting outlet".

Sounds like they expect light to eminate from those additional "junction boxes" in the wall or cieling. As it is not a "lighting outlet", unless it has a light in it.

Alan brought up the use of "intended" in the definition of lighting outlet. For those of us with the code on CD, search that word...

I guess if they didn't intend to have a light in the lighting outlet. They didn't want the code enforced, or to pay any attention to the definitions either.

Not trying to yank chains, but these debates are just all about minced words are the not?

So if it is intended for a light, shouldn't it have one?

Steve, as long as there is a code (any code) requiring it, it is required. This is not being argued and has been pointed out earlier in this thread.


It is if we are discussing just the NEC.

The point that the NEC doesn't require it is a fact.


We should discuss all applicable codes, but we should be acurate in what we are saying or enforcing.


Roger

I've got to agree with e57, the sticking point here is the word intended. And, as I said earlier, I personally think that the key is the whole phrase intended for the direct connection. IMO what they are trying to do is say that the lighting outlet has a luminaire, lampholder, etc. directly connected to it as opposed to cord and plug connected. You get the permission to use the switched outlet to cord and plug connect in other than kitchens and bathrooms in the exception to 210.70(A)(1). But, only in habitable rooms. No such exception exists for the other required lighting outlets such as those in hallways, stairways, exterior entrances, storage & equipment spaces, etc. In those spaces or areas the luminaire or lampholder must be directly connected to the lighting outlet. For obvious reasons, I might add.

All that having been said, we don't know for sure what the intentions of CMP 2 were on the lighting issue or, for that matter, CMP 1 in regards to that definition. Hopefully Alan's proposal will either bring about a change, or at least cause the CMP's to clarify what they had intended.

I think we can all agree with that.

Roger

I don't think the proposal has any chance of passing.

Where are the dead bodies? Do you have data showing acciednts caused by this?

CMP 1 should also be sent a proposal since they are responsible for the definitions.

I'm not really sure we need to show them dead bodies on this one. It's just that with the proposal, the CMP's will either reject them because they didn't have in mind that the fixtures have to be installed, accept it because they want fixtures installed, or by their commentary in the ROP, clarify what the language actually means. I see this as less of a disagreement on the actual issue and more of one of semantics. Read that definition and place the emphasis on different wording, and it can indeed take on more than one meaning. So, it's less about dead bodies than it is about "tell us what you meant to say here".

[This message has been edited by Mvannevel (edited 08-30-2005).]

[This message has been edited by Mvannevel (edited 08-30-2005).]

Let me apologize about my last post. I don't think it will pass, for the reason I stated above. I do, however, applaude the effort of trying to find out the true intent of the code section. I also have proposals written for the 2008 (different sections)with the intent of hearing what the panel members say. I hope I didn't come across as being detrimental to you guys.

No offense taken Ryan. It is rather unfortunate that we have to propose changes in order to determine just what the CMP's actually had in mind. But, that's somewhat the nature of this code. It's far from perfect because, by nature, most codes and laws are. And then once the CMP's have decided what an article should say, they turn it over to the lawyers who sometimes tweak the wording and in the end, it may not say what they intended at all. Words sometimes get taken out, sometimes left out, or different words may be substituted. It's what we've got, and we work with it the best we can.

Roger, I agree with what you said wholeheartedly, but replies to this board, after others have mentioned other applicable codes, in my opinion, tend towards using solely the NEC as the determining factor and not considering the other codes.

I also agree that the NEC does not need to be changed. The NEC tells us how to safely install electrical systems, not where the electrical systems are required in many cases.

The changes should be made to the building codes not the NEC if someone believes it is unsafe not to install artificial light in some portion of the building.

The reason for this is to eliminate discrepancies between the two codes. Since the I-codes have taken over, there will be less and less instances of conflicting information if the ICC and NFPA can cooperate, such as when the ICC decided not to write a completely new electrical code.

I don't like the fact that the ICC does anything but reference the NEC such as in the IRC because there is confusion for contractors on which code they have to follow and of course there are discrepancies between the two even though the ICC basically tried to copy and paste the NEC into the IRC.

Then an inspector has to determine which is the most stringent code(which is hard to determine in some cases) and apply it.

Prior to becoming an inspector, I had very little knowledge of building codes and never considered them in doing electrical work. I don't intend to demean anybody, but maybe there are others like me who think the same way I use to until I was exposed to many other codes and adoption processes by municipalities and such and was just hoping to share a little of the insight I have been fortunate to gain over the last 6+ years of being an inspector.

I really like the thought provoking threads, it helps keep the cobwebs from settling in.

Thanks all.