Tamper Resistant in Hotel, Motel

Status
Not open for further replies.
I understand the references, but I still thinlk there may be more than one opinion. I may be wrong, but to me, if the guest room has cooking facilities then all of 210.52 applies {per210.60(A)}. If are no permanent cooking facilites then only 210.52(A) and (D) are applicable.
406.11 references "dwelling units", which again includes cooking facilities.
To me, no cooking facilities no tamper-proof, cooking facilities then tamper proof.
 
The O.P. used the term dwelling unit,... I assume the hotel/motel has some rooms that are and some that are not dwelling units and that he knows the definition..
 
augie47 said:
I understand the references, but I still thinlk there may be more than one opinion. I may be wrong, but to me, if the guest room has cooking facilities then all of 210.52 applies {per210.60(A)}. If are no permanent cooking facilites then only 210.52(A) and (D) are applicable.
406.11 references "dwelling units", which again includes cooking facilities.
To me, no cooking facilities no tamper-proof, cooking facilities then tamper proof.
Click to expand...
FWIW I agree
 
210.60(A) only points to the requirements in 210.52. 406.11 is not referenced in either 210.52 or 210.60.

Tamper resistant not required.

edit to add: It would, IMHO, be a good idea to install them, but I disagree that they are required.
 
John, I respectfuly disagree.
To me, a motel/dorm "room" with "permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking and sanitation" is, as defined, a dwelling unit and 410.60 says "dwelling unit receptacles".
Of course, just an opinion.
 
augie47 said:
John, I respectfuly disagree.
To me, a motel/dorm "room" with "permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking and sanitation" is, as defined, a dwelling unit and 410.60 says "dwelling unit receptacles".
Of course, just an opinion.
Click to expand...


Again, 210.60 references 210.52 only. It does not require the application of all the rules pertaining to dwelling units. "Guest rooms or guest suites provided with permanent provisions for cooking shall have receptacle outlets installed in accordance with all the provisions of 210.52"

210.52 does not reference 406.11

Again, I believe it to be a good design choice. Perhaps it should be required.... but it isn't. ;)
 
IMO opinion,.. once the space meets the definition of a dwelling that is what it is and 406.11 applies .

John,.. the requirement for AFCI is also for dwellings ,.. is it your opinion that it does not apply to these types of dwellings???
 
M. D. said:
IMO opinion,.. once the space meets the definition of a dwelling that is what it is and 406.11 applies .

John,.. the requirement for AFCI is also for dwellings ,.. is it your opinion that it does not apply to these types of dwellings???
Click to expand...

I think 210.18 would invoke 210.12. "....shall have branch circuits installed to meet the rules of dwelling units"
 
After checking the definitions in article 100 of "dwelling unit", "guest room", and "Guest suite" I rather think I am incorrect.

When a guest room or guest suite has permanent provisions for cooking, it then meets the definition of a dwelling unit. In which case, all the requirements of a dwelling unit would then apply.

However, if this is the case, then why are there references elsewhere in the code?
 
M. D. said:
I don't understand this question??

My point in bringing up 210.12 was the trigger ..... dwelling
Click to expand...

OK, I do agree. The addition of permanent cooking provisions, changes the definition from guest room to dwelling unit. If this is the case, 210.18, for instance, is a meaningless and unnecessary article.
That guest room turned into a dwelling unit by the addition of the cooking provisions. Why would there be any need to discuss the requirements for "guest rooms/suites with permanent provisions for cooking"? There would be no such creature, it is now a dwelling unit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top