I went to the local box store and bought a UL=-listed light for my front porch. Just a simple, basic fixture.

In preparation, I replaced the old-fashioned 'poke the cable through a hole and splice inside the fixture' arrangement with a proper box. Part of my reason for doing this was because the clapboard siding meant that there would be a substantial gap behind parts of the fixture.

Much to my surprise, I was not able to figure out a way to mount the fixture in an NEC-compliant manner. There was simply no way to keep the wires within the box.

I made a mock-up for this picture, to illustrate the problem:



The wires exit the fixture as sent from the factory. The fixture is mounted using factory KO's. Wires cannot be run within the fixture, due to bulb placement.

Looks like you are missing a mounting box for it. Hopefully they sell one. The store probably got a good deal on them

I had that same problem with line voltage thermostats that weren't CSA approved. I refused to install them, so the customer sent 160 of them away and they came back with CSA stickers. All they do is try to burn one and do an insulation test on each of them. As for your problem, can you gang 3 sectional boxes and mount them sideways?

Right now, my covered porch (so it's a 'damp,' rather than 'wet' location) is getting by with a keyless mounted on the wall.

There's no 'accessory' plate referred to in the instructions, and the fixture is made with an assortment of mounting holes, so it's clearly intended to be mounted on nearly every sort of 'standard' box. There's even provision for using one of those center posts, so common with light fixtures. My issue is that there's no way to both use the mounting holes and have the wires in the box.

Solution? Well, you can be sure UL will hear about this; someone really dropped the ball. It's either that, or someone is using the UL name without permission.

If my wall were perfectly flat, I might be happy to mount the box directly, and use the 3/8" space behind it as my 'wiring compartment.' My wall is a common clapboard, though. Mounting the light flush to the wall would result in a 3/4" gap where the clapboards met, opening my wall to the weather and making a fine wasp nest.

The previous light had a small round base that would have fit on one clapboard.

As a side note ... The wall has, behind the fixture, studs places so that the greatest distance between them is only 3". In order to mount this box it was necessary for me to notch the stud. The Multi-master is definitely the tool for that job.

Reno:
Would one of those 'adaptors' that are made to go on siding work?

The thing that makes a fixture fit flush & plumb on various types of siding?

Maybe Arlington?

What is the manufacturer and model number?

I have never used, have not even seen, the thing you describe. Might it work? I don't know.

I do know that this fixture is plainly made to fit on a standard box - and it also plainly has the wires going somewhere besides the box. Hence, there's no way this can be installed with the connections IN the box, as the NEC requires.

I suppose you can 'field engineer' anything; maybe I'll slip a milk jug over my keyless and call it 'raintight.'

UL's evaluations test the things 'as installed.' Or, they're supposed to.

OK, entering "Rant mode"

Apart from the specific challenges posed by this fixture ... look to the title of this thread. How often have we heard inspectors tell us "if there's no UL sticker I won't pass it?' Or, they defer any judgement as to whether something is code-compliant to simply looking for the UL tag?

IMO, the presence of the UL tag is nothing more than a convenience, and in no way is it a substitute for the AHJ making their own evaluation. The inspector far too often lets himself remain happily ignorant, passing the buck to UL. UL is NOT the AHJ, and it is (IMO) negligent for the inspector to do that.

My proof? Well, here's one product that slipped through.

The opposite is also true. I've seen an increasing prevalence of the attitude "if it's not made in a factory it can't possibly be allowed." This attitude has begun entering the code in more recent cycles ... here are some instances where a 'field assembly' has been debated:

- Shop-made extension cords, including those with simple cord caps;

- Simply replacing the plug on a cord with a different type (ie: twist-lock);

- Any sort of multi-outlet assembly;

- Simply using a threaded coupling to combine fittings for a transition between wiring methods; and,

- "Traditional" methods for hanging ceiling fans.

Some of these matters have made it into code language. Others are the target with an extroadinary application of the 'listing and labling' clause.

Folks sometimes insist on a listed product, where there is no such code requirement (Romex staples are an example)

Others seem to think that just because something is factory-made there is now a rule that says you can't do it yourself. (Twist-lock to straight adaptors).

The "UL Question Corner" more often has UL stepping beyond it's place and offering "official" opinions on matters beyond their jurisdiction. No one has ever elected UL, or given them any governing authority. They are not subject to the same checks, balances, or limitations as government.

Yet, there are hordes of folks out there who would accept the light fixture I posted simply because it has the UL sticker. Gee, the proplem can't possibly be with the fixture?
Had I mounted a keyless on a Bell box, and run an exposed tail of Romex to it, someone would cry: "that's not a listed luminaire as the NEC requires." Maybe not- but you'll never convince me that this listed fixture, with the individual wires either flying through the air or pinched between the box and the fixture, is 'safer.'

Reno,
How about one of these?

http://www.aifittings.com/catalog/siding-mounting-blocks/siding-box-kits-for-larger-fixtures/

Electure:
Thanks for the link.

That is one of them, the rest are probably within the Arlington Cat.

I see a lot of different config.; vinyl siding, stone, clapboard, etc., but being 'without tools' I don't know the sources.

Here's another one; second row is for lap siding.
Edit to add this link: http://www.specialliteproducts.com/lighting/accessories/lightblocks.aspx

Reno:
Looking at your mock-up & the fixture IMHO the widget I have above would probably require some creative engineering to make an acceptable install.

I looked at your fixture, and I would have to say, I agree with your opinion that 'something ain't right'. Just for my own mind, was/is there any instructions to install it?

Also, I see what appears to be a 'tab' on the bottom of the fixture, which may indicate some type of 'back box'? But, with KOs for mounting to a box, as you have said, don't make any sense.

Wonder if it's a 'good' UL label?

It came with instructions; there's no indication of any missing parts.

The tab at the bottom is what secures the bulb cover (not installed) in place.

The UL label on the fixture is one of the hologram 'counterfeit resistant' ones.

I am sure UL will respond when I file a 'field report.'

Anyone wishing to see this fixture, visit Lowes and ask for this: http://www.lowes.com/pd_208807-1390-GU8013-WH-I_0__?productId=3195231&Ntt=porch+light&Ns=p_product_price|0

Interesting. Big Blue Box, Country of origin...China?
People known for counterfeit/knock-offs.....? Hmmm

From what I can tell on the internet this is a Utilitech brand fixture which is one of Lowe's house brands.

It would be interesting to see how one of their in store experts says it should be installed. There are no Lowe's in my part of Canada so I can't ask one.

Ask the in-store 'expert?' Now THAT might be interesting!

Of course, that would open a whole new topic: Professional liability vs. "At Will" employment. I can imagine the following chain of events:

Customer: How doI install?

Store "Pro:" You can't. There's no safe way to install our product.

Company mamagement: How dare you tell people our products are nsafe. So what about the code! We don't need your kind around here!

Unemployment Insurance: Claim denied. Employer says you failed to follow instructions, so termination was for cause.

Next job interview: We don't hire folks who were fired for cause.

I could add an interesting personal 'big box' horror to this, but that may be better for another time.

You mean like my story when the 'expert' at the big box store told me to glue my PVC gutters together at each coupling so they don't leak??

There's actually one around here that has signage at the end of the aisle directing you to the "FLOURESCENT LIGHTING".

I don't know if I wanna shake my head, laugh or cry.

Is it possible that the back is inserted backwards? I have a very similar fixture an the back is reversible. (just tried it)you mount the back with the flanges around the edge sticking out and mount the light to it. The label (safety and UL) face outward. Robert

West:

That may make some sense, IF there is a KO to pass the wires thru to the box, and if the piece with the labels does come out.

What say you Reno?

An interesting idea, but look at this front view:



The way it is constructed, I don't think it's possible to assemble it backwards. Even if you did, the wires would run right next to the bulb- a place both too warm, and visible through the lens.

Does it come with a grommet for the center hole?

Did we ever figure out what brand and model this was. A question to the manufacturer might answer all of our questions.
I agree with Reno, something ain't right here. It is almost like it is missing a back part.

There's no grommet for the center hole; that's the sort of hole used with post-type mounting hardware. (You know, the short bit of threaded nipple with a little cap).

Routing the wires to that center hole would place them in direct contact with the bulb.

My first pic shows the wires exiting a hole that has the edge rolled over, as if to protect the wires.

Brand is "Utilitech," which I gather it Lowes' "house" brand.

I doubt that it's missing parts. It's probably a poor design. As manufacturers have to compete with lower and lower quality, lower price takes priority over quality and even usability. The big stores don't care if you can't use the product, they got you to buy one, anyway.

I am starting to see Reno's point. Didn't U/L install this thing to test it.

I did poke around a little and I found the light but there were no installation instructions that I could find

utilitech GU8013-WH-I ?

And the big box stores figure that most of the people buying their stuff are DYI and don't know if it meets code or not.

They DYI's figure if they big guys are selling it, the product has to be legal.

The wires are allowed to be in the canopy, aren't they?



This fixture, like Reno's, is meant to be mounted on a flat surface. Both have ample canopies that are meant to be on said flat surfaces with no irregularities like stepped siding. Not directly to an outlet box.

This Home Cheapo Hampton Bay fixture is UL listed in both Canada & the US.

I've hung thousands of these. The wiring of the luminaire is not a code issue. As long as its listed and the splices themselves along with the building wire can be contained within the box, the luminaire wiring can lay in the canopy of the fixture.
That said, I wish manufacturers wouldn't do this crap. NEMA needs to tighten up.

Sure, wires and connections can be within the canopy, but ...

Fixtures like the one posted by Electure have but two mounting holes, and those holes do not line up quite perfectly with any box. Instead, there is a separate bracket that is used to attach the fixture to the box. The bracket not only allows you to line the fixture up just right, it provides an entry for the wires into the box.

My fixture not only has a multitude of holes, seemingly placed to accommodate any box .... there is no bracket. Attach the box directly to the fixture, and there is no path for the wires to take.

That's what has me scratching my head.

Maybe it's intended for a handy-man. They don't use boxes, anyway.

Reno,

The mounting holes in the fixture I posted line up perfectly with the holes in a 3/0 box.

The more I look at the original picture I wonder if the manufacture expects to have a gap between the box and fixture because of stucco, brick, etc that could be used to allow the wire to enter the box.

I know that the light fixture boxes on my house (built in 1950) are not flush with the finished stucco by maybe 3/16 of an inch. That would allow me to use this fixture and run the wire into the box without pinching the wire depending on how long the mounting screws are.

As an inspector I still have a problem with this because nothing says it won't be installed on a combustible wall, like T1-11 or clapboard. There is also no abrasion resistance guaranteed with conductors going over the edge of a box.

Both of these luminaires are very troubling to me.

I fired off a note to an engineer at U/L. Let's see what he says

I'm sort of wondering what the difference is between the design of this wall mount light fixture and any typical ceiling mount light fixture as far as obtaining a UL listing would be?
Aren't the wires from the bulb sockets on most standard round ceiling fixture laid in the void between the ceiling [which could be made from combustible material like wood] and the fixture canopy and then enter through the opening of the box as opposed to through a KO or connector?
With the fixture in question, as long as the splices themselves are contained within the box and you caulk or otherwise seal around the base of the fixture to provide a weatherproof seal, don't you now have a fixture suitable for a damp location?
Generally even the instructions for listed wet location boxes state that appropriate sealing must be provided by the installer to obtain the damp or wet location rating. I guess it's up to the installer to determine the type or method of seal to be used.

I wonder how this would comply with 314.25(B)

KJay, at the risk of beating a dead horse ....

Most fixtures have a little bracket that bridges the gap between the back of the fixture and the attachment to the box. This, IMO, allows for both solid support and a reliable ground even when the box is somewhat recessed.

I'm comfortable with that arrangement.

I'm not comfortable with any arrangement where the rear pan of the fixture is deformed as you tighten down the mounting screws, in effect acting like a lock washer over the gap.

That's what you have if my fixture is installed on a flat wall; you have a 3/8" (or is it 1/2") gap between the back of the fixture and the wall. You'd have the fixture secured in place only by the tension of that back pan; the screws will never be 'tight.'

The alternative is to have the pan tight to the box - which raises the question of how the wires will enter the box.

In a canopy fixture, the canopy is always spaced away from the box, held by the spring tension of the canopy. That is why they come with long screws.

Greg, I'm wondering if technically it wouldn't have to comply. My only guess would be that 314.25 refers specifically to covers and canopies, so don't know if the back plate of a wall mount fixture would actually be considered a canopy or cover in itself. I don't think I've ever even seen a listed wall mount fixture for any type of location with the factory installed non-combustible insulation like you see on ceiling mount fixtures that have an actual canopy per say.

Reno, obviously I don't have the answer, but without seeing the installation instructions, I think maybe the presence of the recessed lip around the perimeter of the fixture indicates that the manufacturer intended the fixture be installed with the space available for the wiring. Although, I'm thinking a similar comparison might be when we tighten down the screws of a ceiling fixture where there is normally a gap between the actual strap and the canopy, if the screws are tightened excessively, the canopy could also possible bow or distort and damage the wiring in that scenario as well.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the design, but it just seems pretty standard arrangement as far as wall mount fixtures go.

The irony is that the fixture that started this thread would never be questioned by an inspector, no matter what horrors lay behind the backplate.

My 'temporary' room lights, though, would cause a massive attack of the vapors among the HI crowd, as they're not 'listed luminaire assemblies.' Likewise, the same folks who object to shop-made extension cords ("the boxes were never evaluated for this use") would get all upset. Yet, I'd rather have one of my 'unlisted horrors' on my porch, than use the listed product that I started the thread with:



Yea, I'm missing the cage, too

And, no, the CFL doesn't count towards 'energy code' compliance

The only problem I could possibly see with your light is if the other end was hard wired. (Cords as building wiring). If it is C&P you might get an argument that the assembly was not listed for C&P but not from me. BTW extra credit for a real cord connector and not a romex connector.

Actually for a similar use (attic lights) I am using jelly jars. At first mine were C&P too but when I was up there doing some other wiring I went ahead and ran Romex. That does give you some protection from damage to the bulb and from burning yourself but the CFL conversion mitigated that.
I doubt a jelly jar is much more than the lamp holder you have.

BTW a Home Inspector had no problem with this closet light

You mean that the home inspector had no problem deciding that he needed to add it to his report... Yes?

It was not on the report at all, nor was this.

Where was the light fixture manufactured? That might say something.

Reno:
You mentioned...."The irony is that the fixture that started this thread would never be questioned by an inspector, no matter what horrors lay behind the backplate."

If said fixture was flush against the structure surface, NO, I would not be aware of any issue, as we (I) don't remove fixtures upon inspections.

When a luminaire looks 'odd' then I may ask that it be taken off/down for inspection. Your page 1 fixture would not get my attention, unless it was not 'flush'.

As to your shop made energy efficient luminaire, I would not have an issue with it, as long as there was plug connected. I will venture a guess that the cost between the page 1 item, and the 'shop made' is either close, or the shop made cost more. BTW..."nice".

That would still bring up the combustible surface issue in a clapboard, vinyl or T1-11 wall.

Greg:
"That would still bring up the combustible surface issue in a clapboard, vinyl or T1-11 wall."

Clarify, please.

314.25(B)



I read that to say wires run under the canopy would require that the wall be noncombustible or you need a metal shield.