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

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.