As previously metioned in other posts,I am renovating a bathroom. I
am installing a hi-hat in the tub/shower area and I would like this
to be GFI protected, even though I've heard conflicting advice on
whether I need it or not.
My question is can I tap off the GFI outlet by the sink to do this?
This outlet is on its own, and it will only feed this 1 light.
By the way, the hi-hat is a HALO H7ICT, and it says its approved for
wet locations,so I don't really know if I need a GFI, but I figure
just to be safe I want to do it.
*I am afraid that I will have to disagree with the other guys. Article
210.11(C)(3) Exception states: Where the 20 ampere circuit supplies a single
bathroom, outlets for other equipment within the same bathroom shall be
permitted to be supplied in accordance with 210.23(A)(1) and (A)(2).
Article 210.23(A) Exception states: The small appliance branch circuits,
laundry circuits, and bathroom branch circuits required in a dwelling unit
by 210.11(C)(1), (C)(2) and (C)(3) shall supply only the receptacle outlets
specified in that section.
Based on that I would have to say that you cannot have the receptacle GFI
protect the ceiling light. I would not put the shower light on a GFI
because I think you will have more nuisance tripping than safety issues.
How easy will it be for someone standing in the tub to touch the 8' ceiling?
Just install a non-metallic shower trim.
Well ain't that interesting? It is a direct conflict between the 2 code
I would argue that 210.11-C-3-exception, which is specifically about
bathroom circuits, and explicitly allows "other equipment" for a single
I would argue that 210.23-A-exception is an unintended conflict.
It is up to the dreaded AHJ.
My reservation would be putting all the lights and all the outlets in
the bathroom on one GFCI, makes it hard to plug in a spare light when
you have to replace a ceiling light. I have that situation, and it is
a pain when the GFCI trips, for whatever reason.
Damn John, I think you've uncovered one of those Nec anomalies. It does
seem strange to give permission to do something, then take it away. It
also seems like it would be more direct to just state, up front, that
the circuit can only be used for receptacle outlets.
It is convoluted logic but the way it is written 210.11(C)(3)
exception is an exception to 210.23(A) exception.
That is one reason why they are trying to eliminate exceptions and
write everything in positive language. Unfortunately they always end
up with exceptions to that rule.
It would appear the answer to that is the code is contradictory.
If it were me, I'd do it because there is no safety issue, it's
perfectly safe. In fact, it's safer than not having a GFCI on
the shower light, which is allowed if it has a non-metalic trim.
So, I'd do it on the theory that the inspector isn't gonna
care. In fact, the inspectors I've dealt with around here
would almost certainly not even notice which specific
circuit it's on when they do the inspection.
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 05:48:56 -0400, "John Grabowski"
You better hear that from your l.ocal AHJ because most think
210.11(C)(3) exception applies. I have heard it in dozens of code
classes and virtually everywhere it was discussed online.
As long as it only serves one bathroom the 20a circuits can serve all
the loads in that bathroom. This idea that 210.11(C)(3) exception is
not also an exception to 210.23(A) exception has only come up here in
The language in 210.11(C)(3) exception is very specific
"Exception: Where the 20-ampere circuit supplies a single bathroom,
outlets for other equipment within the same bathroom shall be
permitted to be supplied in accordance with 210.23(A)(1) and (A)(2)."
*It seems to be common knowledge around here as well. They should clarify
receptacle outlets and lighting outlets. Looking at the definition of
"Equipment", it does specify luminares. One of these exceptions has to go!
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:10:14 -0400, "John Grabowski"
I haven't looked at the ROP but I bet NFPA will say 210.23(A) ex
references 210.11 A requirements so that 210.11 exception alters the
language in 210.23(A)ex.
I suppose I could look it up but this has been unaltered in several
cycles. If I get a minute I will take a peek.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.