I have a question regarding 2008 NEC 314.27[A], Outlet Boxes, which states...
"Boxes used at luminaire and lampholder outlets in ceilings shall be designed for the purpose and shall be required to support a luminaire weighing a minimum of 50 lbs."

Does this mean that the familiar round old-work boxes that are supported by the drywall ceiling with clamps are allowed to be used only for supporting lightweight, non-lighting related items, such as, smoke detectors, etc…?

I have heard this before, but am wondering if this is actually enforced in old-work situations?

Thanks

You understand correctly.

A look at the UL White book will reveal that 'new construction' boxes are rated for 50 lbs, while the 'old work' boxes are rated only at 6 lbs.

With such a difference in design criteria, I suspect enforcement is what you call it whan any but the lightest fixtures fall out.

Good news, 314.27(A) doesn't prohibit ceiling fans!

Sure ... but elsewhere we are told to use only ;fan rated' boxes for fans. I have something of a problem with this, as the traditional steel box screwed to a solid lumber brace you've installed has no such official rating.

Well, that's what proposals are for ....

I'm just thinking back over the years about the dozens and dozens of fixtures that I have added and installed using these old-work boxes. I can’t remember ever installing a fixture that weighed more than a couple of pounds on these, let alone 6-pounds, but I guess I could see someone else who didn’t know any better, coming in behind me and installing some 18-pound drywall-breaking behemoth at a later date.

I don't think anyone with even limited trade knowledge or common sense would attempt to install a heavy fixture on one of these boxes, but apparently the NEC is concerned that the homeowner, handyman, maintenance person or other unqualified individual will do just that. Probably similar as to the reason why we now need to have handle ties on all multi-wire branch circuits... to protect the unqualified individuals who have no business doing what they are doing anyway.

Much of the code is about handyman-proofing electrical installations

As long as they sell books and materials aimed at the homeowner, unqualified installers will be a reality.
Even the penny pinching national builder my wife worked for spec'ed fan boxes for all ceiling outlets, even some that would not have room for the blades of a fan like a water closet.

NEC exactly that, NATIONAL. Check the forums,Some places all you need to do is pronounce the word electricity, And suddenly, Your an EC.

That's why I like Massachusetts (one of the VERY few reasons):
527 CMR 12.00- Rule #8.
That is, You need a license,certificate of insurance or a signed waiver from the customer acknowledging they know you don't have insurance.To pull a permit.

Also MGL Chapter 141: Pretty much seals the deal.

Along with the usual Government business forms and taxes etc.

However, some Inspectors will allow Homeowner permits,for 'public relation' reasons (BOOO !!)

My Goof: law reads: (in short) MGL chapter 143 sec.3L.
"...No person shall install for 'Hire' any electrical wiring or fixtures subject to this section with out first given notice to...."

So i guess Joe can Burn his own house down. (Boooo)

It would seem to be unAmerican if a land owner didn't have the right to maintain his own property in the cradle of liberty. It would make you want to go down to Concord and shoot some redcoats

Leland,


Here in NJ as an AHJ I have to let homeowners(HO)sign for their own electrical work. PLUS the state says that I really can't ask the homeowner if he did/did not do the work. On the electrical permit the HO has to sign the work that he is doing the work himself or a close relative is doing the work and he is supervising the work. How many times after the work is done, the HO complains that his "Friend" who did the work, didn't finish it or won't come back to fix a problem when we fail (red tag) the job for a violation. I try to "Tell" the HO that they are suppose to be doing the work, and we try to explain that an insurance company might not cover a claim if there is a problem. All we can do is try.

Harold:
You're opening a can of worms.
HO of a single family, owner occupied dwelling can do plumb & elec. It's their responsibility. However the CO or appropriate subcode can request 'information' relative to the proposed work; per UCC 5:23-2.15(a)5. And, if anyone (AHJ) wants to push the envelope to the legal limits; the HO that signs the tech card and more importantly the folder certification section (C3/C4) false statement clause; that is a criminal action.

I will add that HO inspections are a pita. False claims, 'he/she' said it was OK; out & out lies; 'I paid him good money'; etc.

IMHO, worse that HO permitted work....is 'As-Built' situations...basement finishes, etc. But that's another topic

I have done a lot of "owner builder" work around my house and the county was good with me ... but I didn't try to trick them on anything and I did have my ducks in a row when they got here.
I do think they encourage owner builder permits and they are more helpful than they legally need to be, simply because it is safer to spend a little extra time with the HO than to have them work without any inspection at all.
In the end it is still supposed to be about safety, not revenue. I would understand if they imposed an extra fee on owner builder if they were willing to spend some extra time.
It might be a way to save an extra inspector job or two.

If I was disappointed about anything it was the minimal amount of stuff they actually looked at.

Greg:
FWIW, the issues I have are not the HO who actually does his own electrical install...it's the HO who has no clue of what is involved, and has 'someone' do the work.

When a permit app comes in for a 200 amp service upgrade, and it has a senior citizen ID (senior permit fees are waived), I have to wonder IF and HOW a 90 year old woman is going to do the work! A 'relative' can assist by law here....but? I'll leave out the details of some 'relatives'.

As to producing revenue, the Code Enforcement Div is 'self sufficient' from permit fees (and fines), and surplus revenue goes into the Twp General Fund. The politics of 'fundraisers' is a topic for another day.

Yes, some HO's can and do nice compliant work. We (AHJ's) are very limited here by Law, what we can and cannot advise them on. Like the NEC, we are not designers.

John,

I have know Greg for many years, and I know that he does know what he is talking about and what he is doing. I also don't mind when a HO tries to do the work and the are sincere about doing it. I don't even mind helping them out by trying to point them in the right direction. Here are a couple of reasons I don't like when a HO says they are doing their own work.

An HVAC contractor walks in the building and wants a permit to change out the furnace and air compressor (AC). We tell him he needs an EC to do the changeout. He argues, walks out, next day comes back with the HO stating that they are doing the work. RIGHT!!! I believe him.

How about 1 of your old customers signs the permit stating that she is doing the work herself, yet the woman is old and has a hunchback and can't stand up straight?

Or a lic. (By the state of NJ) as a fire inspector wants to change the HVAC system and he too is told to get an EC. He walks out with permit and is never seen again.


Just a few of the times you just want to shake your head.

John, I think the biggest help for owner/builders would probably be at the intake and plan review stage.
That is the time when the BO could figure out if the HO was actually going to be doing the work and what code issues they are going to be dealing with. That could be an extra charge deal. If you want to submit your plans like a regular EC, be prepared to keep coming back until you get it right but for some extra money they would actually give you some advice and coaching through the process.
I did all the permitting for my addition and the hardest part was actually the process. The electrical part was no problem (I knew what that was all about) but I got into septic and engineering issues that I really needed some coaching on. Fortunately they were kind and helped me eventually but it took 7 trips to get my permit.
I knew I was asking for more than I was paying for.
I would have happily paid them a couple hundred extra if they would have helped me through the process.

I do understand there are people who cheat on owner builder but in Florida the only real requirement is that you hire real contractors or you pay taxes and insurance for casual labor. It is a gray area when it comes to relatives and friends. "Pay" seems to be the tipping point. That is really as much an insurance issue as anything. "Call your HO insurance agent" kind of thing.
If you hire subs in HVAC, Electrical or Plumbing you need to list them on your permit but you are still the responsible person in the end because you are acting as GC.
The only thing I contracted was the masonry, from excavation to tie beam and I had a roof framer but neither of them have to be listed, only licensed/insured and they were.

I don't think anyone denies the right of the homeowner to do his own work on his own home. Start varying from that, though, and other arguments arise.

I don't think those are the issues we're concerned avout in this discussion, though. I think we're referring to the fraud that occurs when the homeowner pulls a permit to help sn unlicensed contractor ply the trade. Fraud and misrepresentation has never been considered a 'right.'

That's what it all boils down to: circumventing an attempt to use the permit process to enforce licensing laws. It has nothing to do with 'safety' or 'quality;' it's about having a license.

Now, why would the homeowner be so inclined to trust a stranger (who asks his help un breaking the rules), and so reluctant to trust his 'employee' at city hall?

At a certain point the question becomes "get a permit and have gypsies do the work" or "no permit at all".

As an aside, there is some grumbling here about a proposed law that will require an inspection of all foreclosed homes, looking for unpermitted additions and alterations.
When you add that to the code liens for mowing etc, it will make a lot of homes that were marginal anyway, teardowns.

Guys:
I hope nothing that I have said was misconstrued as any type of bad reflection on Greg. Yes, Harold...I know that you and Greg go way back as friends in the trade.

My soapbox stand is against the "trunk slammers", gypsies, 'handymen', etc., that perform work for $$$ that they legally cannot do. We (Lic. EC's) spent $$$, & time to get our licences, and we spend $$$ and time to do CEU's, and we spend $$$ & time running our businesses.

And to clarify the NJUCC a little more....HO can perform OR supervise Building & Fire Protection and WILL perform Electrical & Plumbing; all contractors on the project are required to be registered with NJ Div of Taxation.

I never took anything negative away from this.
We are OK.
I agree that there is a lot of abuse of owner builder permits. I also understand EC wish people would call them for everything.
In spite of this, Home Depot is packed with people who should have someone looking over what they install.
I just would like to see them more comfortable getting a permit when the HO is doing the work. Inspectors are not the enemy.
Maybe building departments should have a "kinder gentler" subsidiary that sells expanded services to homeowners.
This is not totally a foreign concept to me. When I was inspecting for the state, most of my jobs were not performed by licensed contractors. In fact that was rare.
It was usually the "maintenance department" in places like DOT, in the prison system the wiremen were inmates and in the park system it was either rangers or volunteers.
I spent a lot of time explaining things.

Greg:
Unfortunate for the HO's here, but we are very limited what we can 'say' to them regarding how to do what they are attempting.

Today, an AG pool job by a HO was a total disaster...the HO had all the 'right info' for the permit app....but apparently had no hands-on knowledge. Oh well!