110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment.
(A) Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such as the following shall be evaluated:
8) Other factors that contribute to the practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come in contact with the equipment
I admit to being quarrelsome on this issue of the limits of inspectors authority. I have to ask do you really think that the power to judge EQUIPMENT for suitability for its intended use gives the inspector the latitude to require the installation of additional outlets. Why does the code enumerate so many required outlets if the intent is to have the inspector require whatever he/she thinks is needed. I am coming to believe that all inspectors need a course in administrative law. Such training would help inspectors to come to understand that the CMP has already written the requirements into the document and the law does not give inspectors the power to use the police authority of the state to impose their personal versions of best practice. The entire section you have referred to is intended to allow the inspector to judge the suitability of the equipment and materials that are used in constructing the installation as required by the codes existing language. If the code does not require a lighting outlet then you cannot force it's installation. What I believe paragraph eight is intended to cover is the installation of items like a porcelain keyless fixture in an area with a low overhead. Paragraph eight would allow the inspector to find the fixture unsuitable for that use do to the exposure to pedestrian traffic so you could turn down the installation as installed. You could not the specify the fixture they must use. They could relocate the fixture, substitute an impact resistant luminaire, or install suitable guarding of the porcelain socket.
"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous for general use" Thomas Alva Edison