• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Does a light fixture replacement trigger AFCI?

Talked with a building official today about an apartment property manager who wants to simply replace existing incandescent light fixtures with high efficacy fixtures in the bedrooms and hallways of about 50 units.
(typical fixtures, with typical ceiling junction box.)

The building official says that every outlet that is changed must be upgraded to Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters, and he says that since the light fixture's junction box meets NEC definition of "outlet", therefore the light circuit needs protection, and since the only place to do that on our lighting-only circuit is back at the load center, we need an AFCI circuit breaker. But the load center is too old to support that kind of breaker, so now we have to replace the load centers and submit engineered electrical plans for approval.

I asked, "so do you mean to say that if someone goes to Home depot to put in a new light fixture in their old house, they need to effectively replace the entire panelboard?"
"Yes."


Question: where in the NEC does it say, or infer, that replacing a light fixture triggers AFIC for the lighting circuit?
I can understand it for NEW construction per NEC 210.12(A)
I can understand it for EXISTING "wiring modifications" per NEC 210(B)
I can understand it for replacement of EXISTING "receptacle outlets" (not J-boxes) per NEC 406.4(D)4
But I don't see anything about replacing a light, when you are not touching the wiring (other than the connect the light in the existing J-box).

***
  • NEC 100 definition of outlet: A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment.
  • NEC 100 definition of "receptacle": A contact device installed at the outlet for connection of an attachment plug.
  • NEC 100 definition of "receptacle outlet": An outlet where one or more receptacles are installed.
If we all got together in one massive group and told the inspectors to pay for it, This foolishness would stop
 
AFCIs are here to stay, unless the swamp is drained better than it will ever be. Several years ago the Consumer Product Safety Commission got some manufacturers to develop AFCIs, and then pressured NFPA to phase them in. May as well just do as Big Brother says.
 
Thanks Roger, as you can see from here inspectors want as many codes as they can get, as long as the ICC allows only government members to vote I don't see any hope
How about voting and lobbying elected officials to amend or change the code at the state and local level as many have done?

Virginia Administrative provisions. "Any provisions of Chapters 2 - 35 of the IBC or any provisions of the codes and standards referenced in the IBC that address the same subject matter and impose differing requirements are deleted and replaced by the provisions of Chapter 1.

103.5 Reconstruction, alteration or repair in Group R-5 (1 & 2-Family Dwelling) occupancies. The following criteria is applicable to reconstruction, alteration or repair of Group R-5 buildings or structures:
1. Any reconstruction, alteration or repair shall not adversely affect the performance of the building or structure, or cause the building or structure to become unsafe or lower existing levels of health and safety.

115. Change Section E3902.12 to read:
E3902.12 Arc-fault protection of bedroom outlets.
All branch circuits that supply 120-volt, single phase, 15-ampere and 20-ampere outlets installed in bedrooms shall be protected by a combination type arc-fault circuit interrupter installed to provide protection of the branch circuit.

IEBC 301.1. "alterations complying with the laws in existence at the time the building or the affected portion of the building was built shall be considered in compliance with the provisions of this code unless the building is undergoing more than a limited structural alteration as defined in Section 907.4.3."
 
How about voting and lobbying elected officials to amend or change the code at the state and local level as many have done?

Francis:

Lobbying is a very expensive process only undertaken by vested interests, and frankly all builders want is the ablility to build at whatever cost because people are so desperate for housing they will pay anything to get it, this is the reason for the slew of bills in the legislature now, but they are mostly directed at zoning.

But you do give me an idea, Roger knows more about codes and the process than all the rest of us put together, he does go to all (I think) code hearings and does try to influence them, the fact that Michigan has done something about arc/fault indicates to me that Roger may have had something to do with that, what about it Roger, if you could get it through Michigan what about the rest of us?
 
Nobody addresses my concern that the codes have become political...
It is not anyone's duty to justify codes to you.

As for the public not wanting all these codes. They do.

The ICC makes a book. You elect someone who likes that book so much they turn it into a law.

You don't like it? Elect someone who won't do that.

You would think that if no one wanted these codes, a politician could run and win on this premise at all levels of government.
 
It is not anyone's duty to justify codes to you.

As for the public not wanting all these codes. They do.

The ICC makes a book. You elect someone who likes that book so much they turn it into a law.

You don't like it? Elect someone who won't do that.

You would think that if no one wanted these codes, a politician could run and win on this premise at all levels of government.
We keep trying to do that, in 1978 we passed Prop 13 to limit property taxes and in the process limit all fees to the cost of providing services, cities routinely ignore this, when sued they pay the damages and resume doing the same things, in 2003 our Building Standards voted to adopt the NFRC 5000 in place of the I Codes in an effort to mandate residential sprinklers among other things, we recalled the governor (Davis) and elected a new governor among charges of bribery, the Building Standards Board tendered their resignations which were accepted by the new governor who then appointed an entirely new board which imediately rescinded the prior board's vote and adopted the ICC Codes, but then the ICC codes adopted the residential sprinkler mandate anyway among charges of bribery. In 2016 we elected a new President who promised to drastically reduce all regulations, you can see how that is working out, I don't think I can see any building/zoning codes that have been reduced. Money in politics overwhelms everything else, the only solution is to vote with your feet, several friends have done just that, I guess when enough of the high income taxpayers leave the state the state will wake up broke some day and then reduce regulation, I've told of one friend who did that and built a new home in Nevada for about a million dollars less than here, building permit fees were about 1/50th of what they would have been here, and inspection fees were almost non-existant as his architect was able to employ private inspection and the state didn't require any private inspection as per Chapter 17. Currently there are several bills in the legislature to force cities to allow housing to be built, we'll have to see what gets passed.

This was in the paper yesterday:

Mercury News said:
The Regional Housing Need Allocation, known by its acronym RHNA, reveals how little influence the state has over local housing decisions and how difficult it might be to regain power.

“It’s highly politicized and arbitrary,” said State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, an advocate for reforming state housing laws. The housing guidelines have underestimated the booming economy and growing population, he said. “It’s important that we get RHNA right.”¹

Today this:

Save Mount Diablo said:
Antioch has grown incredibly fast these past 15 years or so. In a city that now has more than 110,000 people, about 43% of residents have moved there since 2005.
The Area at Risk
The Sand Creek Focus Area stretches across 4 sq. mi. (just under 2,800 acres) of the southern part of the city and is the largest continuous stretch of undeveloped land that remains. It has beautiful hills, an important creek and serves as rare plant and animal habitat.

The Threat
Right now there are thousands of houses proposed or already approved on about 1,000 acres of Sand Creek Focus Area.
Antioch has grown incredibly fast these past 15 years or so. In a city that now has more than 110,000 people, about 43% of residents have moved there since 2005.
The Area at Risk
The Sand Creek Focus Area stretches across 4 sq. mi. (just under 2,800 acres) of the southern part of the city and is the largest continuous stretch of undeveloped land that remains. It has beautiful hills, an important creek and serves as rare plant and animal habitat.²




¹ https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03...housing-law-almost-everyone-wants-to-fix/amp/

² http://www.savemountdiablo.org/advocacy/issue/defending-antioch-sand-creek-focus-area/
 
TBCF friends, my original concern in this post is not the code. I am happy to comply with code. My concern is that:
(a) the chief electrical plan checker is interpreting the NEC incorrectly, and I'm looking here for an unofficial 3rd party opinion (to make sure I'm not crazy);
(b) this same plan checker, when asked to cite a code reference to support his position, says he doesn't need to explain it and that it is the rest of us who are simply ignorant;
(c) because of his position, his staff is deeming our plans incomplete and will not even allow us to submit for plan check to get a fair review of the plans per code.
(d) when I call him about it, he complains that he doesn't have plans to review, so I'm wasting his time.
Classic Catch-22.
 
You might be at a point where you make a demand of the code section he is enforcing in writing. In the letter you will want to highlight all the times you have requested this information and your requests have been refused. This letter can form the basis for further legal action, should you choose to pursue it against the official, so it should be brief and strictly factual. Provide him a deadline of when you expect his response. Next step after this would be to do as ICE said and go up the ladder.

As much as I would recommend against damaging the relationship between the official and registered professional or contractor, in this case the official is clearly oblivious to his legal responsibilities as a government official tasked with enforcement. I would not be surprised to hear that he is enforcing his own version code instead of the one adopted by the democratically elected officials.

Regardless of whether the requirement exists or not, the official has a responsibility to provide the section that requires it when requested.
 
You might be at a point where you make a demand of the code section he is enforcing in writing. In the letter you will want to highlight all the times you have requested this information and your requests have been refused. This letter can form the basis for further legal action, should you choose to pursue it against the official, so it should be brief and strictly factual. Provide him a deadline of when you expect his response. Next step after this would be to do as ICE said and go up the ladder.

As much as I would recommend against damaging the relationship between the official and registered professional or contractor, in this case the official is clearly oblivious to his legal responsibilities as a government official tasked with enforcement. I would not be surprised to hear that he is enforcing his own version code instead of the one adopted by the democratically elected officials.

Regardless of whether the requirement exists or not, the official has a responsibility to provide the section that requires it when requested.
As applicable where adopted:
[A] 105.3.1 Action on application. The building official shall examine or cause to be examined applications for permits and amendments thereto within a reasonable time after filing. If the application or the construction documents do not conform to the requirements of pertinent laws, the building official shall reject such application in writing, stating the reasons therefor. If the building official is satisfied that the proposed work conforms to the requirements of this code and laws and ordinances applicable thereto, the building official shall issue a permit therefor as soon as practicable.
 
Right or wrong, The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions.
You can appeal that.
 
"The ICC makes a book. You elect someone who likes that book so much they turn it into a law."

What other choice do they have? There used to be 3 books, so a municipality could switch if one became to onerous, but now there is a monopoly.

A few states allow municipalities to amend the code. Several other amend the code at the state level. Here in Virginia we're still using 2012 because we haven't been able to reach agreement on amendments to the 2015 code!

Few legislators are elected because of their position on the ICC. Most of them don't even know what the ICC says, and just vote to adopt it because the ICC is supposed to be the expert.
 
From the Mike Holt Forum:
Per the NEC definition of device a light fixture is not a device.
The box the fixture is mounted to is a "lighting outlet" per article 100 definition. As such 210.12 applies to it.
But again you are not changing the outlet or the branch circuit. You should not be required to install a AFCI.
 
Update: now the plan checker is insisting that we provide dimmer switches in order to meet California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, but for existing buildings those standards say they apply to :
- building additions per 150.2(a) - - but we are not adding on to the buildings
- building alterations in conjunction with a change in building occupancy - - we are not doing that either.

I'm getting tired of proving what we're NOT doing, instead of just listing what we ARE doing.
 
California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
The altered component and any newly installed equipment serving the alteration shall meet the applicable requirements of Sections 110.0 through 110.9 and all applicable requirements of Section 150.0(a) through (m), Section 150.0(o) through (q);

Is He seeing it as Altered? component? Is lighting a component?
ALTERED COMPONENT


ALTERED COMPONENT is a component that has undergone an alteration (changing out the fixtures) and is subject to all applicable Standards requirements.
 
Yikes:

This jerk needs to be taught a lesson, take all the information and give it to your attorney asking him to write a letter, a letter from an attorney will usually get passed on to the City Attorney's office and they usually don't want to run up their fees.
 
California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
The altered component and any newly installed equipment serving the alteration shall meet the applicable requirements of Sections 110.0 through 110.9 and all applicable requirements of Section 150.0(a) through (m), Section 150.0(o) through (q);

Is He seeing it as Altered? component? Is lighting a component?
ALTERED COMPONENT


ALTERED COMPONENT is a component that has undergone an alteration (changing out the fixtures) and is subject to all applicable Standards requirements.

Mark, in order to qualify as an “altered component” it has to: (1) be altered, (2) be subject to all applicable standard requirements.
So if it is not subject to applicable req’s it is not an “altered component”. It must be something else, like a “replacement”.
Is that how to read it?
 
Mark, in order to qualify as an “altered component” it has to: (1) be altered, (2) be subject to all applicable standard requirements.
So if it is not subject to applicable req’s it is not an “altered component”. It must be something else, like a “replacement”.
Is that how to read it?
Yikes, if he won't even give you code sections he is not being reasonable, there is no way you can deal with someone who is unreasonable, the threat of litigation is the only way to handle people like this.
 
Mark, in order to qualify as an “altered component” it has to: (1) be altered, (2) be subject to all applicable standard requirements.
So if it is not subject to applicable req’s it is not an “altered component”. It must be something else, like a “replacement”. Is that how to read it?

§110.9 B 2016 Building Efficiency Regulations
Entire Luminaire Alteration includes: (a) removing and reinstalling a total of 10 percent or more of the existing luminaires; or (b) replacing or adding entire luminaires; or (c) adding, removing, or replacing walls or ceilings along with any redesign of the lighting system.
 
Nice thing about your net image MH, it allows things to "slip" through on occasion, (it depends) subject to "certain" circumstances.
 
Codes work together. They are complimentery to each other Not seperate.
Who determines whether they can work together or whether they are contradictory? Also when there is a conflict who determines which codes supersede others? At law we have levels of appeals where some courts supersede others and can set precedents that lower courts have to observe as precedents, in some cases they are mandatory precedents, in other cases they are just persuasive precedents:

Lectric Law said:
Legal principle, created by a court decision, which provides an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later. Generally, decisions of higher courts (within a particular system of courts) are mandatory precedent on lower courts within that system--that is, the principle announced by a higher court must be followed in later cases. For example, the California Supreme Court decision that unmarried people who live together may enter into cohabitation agreements (Marvin v. Marvin), is binding on all appellate courts and trial courts in California (which are lower courts in relation to the California Supreme Court). Similarly, decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court (the highest court in the country) are generally binding on all other courts in the U.S.

Decisions of lower courts are not binding on higher courts, although from time to time a higher court will adopt the reasoning and conclusion of a lower court. Decisions by courts of the same level (usually appellate courts) are considered persuasive authority. That is, they should always be carefully considered by the later court but need not be followed.

As a practical matter, courts can usually find precedent for any direction they want to go in deciding a particular case. Accordingly, precedent is used as often to justify a particular outcome in a case as it is to guide the decision.The body of judicial decisions in which were formulated the points of law arising in any case. A previously decided case that is considered binding in the court where it was issued and in all lower courts in the same jurisdiction.A court decision in an earlier case with facts and law similar to a dispute currently before a court. Precedent will ordinarily govern the decision of a later similar case, unless a party can show that it was wrongly decided or that it differed in some significant way.

The decision of courts of justice when exactly in point with a case before the court are generally held to have a binding authority, as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady because the law in that case has been solemnly declared and determined.¹

We need some kind of appelate system in the codes, unfortunately builders don't have the luxury of time in appealing rogue inspectors' arbitrary decisions. What we have in the way of appelate boards are jokes, cities and counties usually set up an appelate panel drawn from city council members or boards of supervisors, people with no knowledge of laws or codes. As an example just look at this thread, inspectors nationwide interpreting the need for AFGIs differently, even an entire state dismissing them as unnecessary in all instances.


¹ https://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p069.htm
 
Last edited:
Top