# Entrance light switching code



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

You won't find it in the NEC.

May be a local code.


----------



## EBFD6 (Aug 17, 2008)

bharbwyr said:


> Can anyone point me to a code reference that says there must be a switch by *every* door with grade level access that controls an *inside* light. I'm searching in the vicinity of 210.70 and can only find the *outside* light rule. I always thought it was code, but is it actually just one of those common sense things?


Nope, it doesn't exist.

210.70 gives you all of the lighting outlet and switch requirements. It states that in certain areas you need "at least 1 wall switch controlled lighting outlet" but does not say where that switch must be located. That is a matter of design, not code. You could mount the switches for every light in the house in the attic if you wanted to. It wouldn't be a very good design and the customer might not be happy, but the inspector couldn't say anything about it.

The only switch locations that are required are for interior stairways with more than 6 risers (top, bottom, and any landing with an entrance,210.70(A)(2)(c)), and storage or equipment rooms require the switch to be located at the "usual point of entry to the space" (210.70(A)(3))


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

bharbwyr said:


> Can anyone point me to a code reference that says there must be a switch by *every* door with grade level access that controls an *inside* light. I'm searching in the vicinity of 210.70 and can only find the *outside* light rule. I always thought it was code, but is it actually just one of those common sense things?


 

You won't find it in the code and I'm glad. That would be a silly requirement. I just roughed in a house last month that had one big room in the basement. There were four doors leading to the outside for this one room. I did not, and will not put a switch by each door unless someone specifies it and pays for it.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

I agree with what the others have said, no NEC requirement for a switch by each door to a room.

To go even farther you don't need to have a switch in the room at all you could have a bank of switches at a central location (Might not be practical but NEC compliant)

Switch placement is a design issue.

Chris


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

raider1 said:


> .......To go even farther you don't need to have a switch in the room at all you could have a bank of switches at a central location (Might not be practical but NEC compliant).........


Technically, a single switch on each level would pass inspection.:thumbsup:

Of course, you would probably never wire another house for that person.:no:


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

480sparky said:


> Technically, a single switch on each level would pass inspection.:thumbsup:
> 
> Of course, you would probably never wire another house for that person.:no:


Yes, you are correct.

Chris


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

I've always thought that there should be a switch about 6" above the floor on a front porch.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

wildleg said:


> I've always thought that there should be a switch about 6" above the floor on a front porch.


I think there should always be a white toggle switch in a 2-gang Wiremold box in your garage to control your neighbor's door operator.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 6, 2009)

You need to have a receptacle within 6' of the entry to the room but you don't need to have a switch to control the light of the same room anywhere in the room. Makes too much sense to me.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

A lot of California's Title 24 stuff has made it into the National Energy Conservation Code. This code includes many extra switching rules that add to the basic life-safety requirements of the NEC.


----------



## mattsilkwood (Sep 21, 2008)

480sparky said:


> I think there should always be a white toggle switch in a 2-gang Wiremold box in your garage to control your neighbor's door operator.


 I love that commercial.:laughing:


----------



## G0049 (Nov 13, 2009)

wildleg said:


> I've always thought that there should be a switch about 6" above the floor on a front porch.


To operate the light in your wife's bedroom, so she knows to come down and pick you up off the porch floor?


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Technically, a single switch on each level would pass inspection.:thumbsup:


Where is the requirement that the switches for the second floor bedrooms must be on the second floor?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> Where is the requirement that the switches for the second floor bedrooms must be on the second floor?


Where did I say that?


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Where did I say that?


Where did I say you did?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> Where did I say you did?


 
Then why are you asking? Still smoking a fatty?


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Still smoking a fatty?


Still like corn?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> Still like corn?


Yes.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Yes.


Well there ya go. :thumbsup:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> Well there ya go. :thumbsup:


 
Enjoy it, then.







It certainly explains a lot.


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

bharbwyr said:


> Can anyone point me to a code reference that says there must be a switch by *every* door with grade level access that controls an *inside* light. I'm searching in the vicinity of 210.70 and can only find the *outside* light rule. I always thought it was code, but is it actually just one of those common sense things?



210.70(A)(1) -- 210.70 (A)(2)(a)etc. ? But no mention of the door until,
210.70(3)(C). ..."Shall be at the usual point of entry...."


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

leland said:


> 210.70(A)(1) -- 210.70 (A)(2)(a)etc. ? But no mention of the door until,
> *210.70(3)(C). ..."Shall be at the usual point of entry*...."


Do you mean 210.70(C)? If so, then (C) deals strictly with attic and underfloor spaces, and only those with certain equipment in them. And the word door is not used, just 'usual point of entry'. That could mean an attic access in the ceiling, drop-down stairs, or an access panel in the floor.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Enjoy it, then.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To each their own. :thumbsup:


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

EXCUSE THE TYPO! You saw it.
Christ you guys get anal!:no:


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

leland said:


> Christ you guys get anal!:no:



HEY! we ain't in Provincetown here. :laughing:  :laughing:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> HEY! we ain't in Provincetown here. :laughing:  :laughing:


 
Have him smoke a fatty.


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

:no::laughing:


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

Shocking! Bob and Ken going at it! Who would have thought?


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

Peter D said:


> Shocking! Bob and Ken going at it! Who would have thought?


 I was thinking the same thing.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Peter D said:


> Shocking! Bob and Ken going at it! Who would have thought?


Shocking! another pointless post by Peter! Who would have thought? 




Pete, when was the last time you actually tried to be helpful here?

Even Ken and I manage a few helpful posts.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Smoke a fatty and relax, Bob! :thumbup:


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Smoke a fatty and relax, Bob! :thumbup:


Everyday. :thumbsup:


----------



## minibdr (Nov 11, 2009)

That explains it. Loser


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

minibdr said:


> That explains it. Loser

















Like I care what you think. :laughing:


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


> Shocking! another pointless post by Peter! Who would have thought?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That was nice.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Peter D said:


> That was nice.


:sleep1:


----------

