Where are TR recepticles required?

[cschmid]

In dwelling units, yes

Another requirement that was implemented that has no cost improvement to a property they are 21.00 plus the in use weather resistant cover for 8.00 minimum and has no financial gain to the seller of a home..so the real loser financially is the seller. the only benefit is a coerce sense of comfort and safety. You can not legislate stupidity out of our society. So what is the gain by making codes that have no beneficial gain to the consumer. a in use weather resistant cover with a GFCI is safe so who gains in over regulation other then the manufacturer? No one and this is another reason our economy is in the state it is in.. it is not legal action that does not exist because of no GFCI TR receptacle installed. So when are we going to stand up for what is right after we have all gone bankrupt, because the economy can not afford over regulation..

 

[rcarroll]

Another requirement that was implemented that has no cost improvement to a property they are 21.00 plus the in use weather resistant cover for 8.00 minimum and has no financial gain to the seller of a home..so the real loser financially is the seller. the only benefit is a coerce sense of comfort and safety. You can not legislate stupidity out of our society. So what is the gain by making codes that have no beneficial gain to the consumer. a in use weather resistant cover with a GFCI is safe so who gains in over regulation other then the manufacturer? No one and this is another reason our economy is in the state it is in.. it is not legal action that does not exist because of no GFCI TR receptacle installed. So when are we going to stand up for what is right after we have all gone bankrupt, because the economy can not afford over regulation..

I trust that you are venting some frustration & not chastising me for the codes we have to abide by.

 

[electricmanscott]

Another requirement that was implemented that has no cost improvement to a property they are 21.00 plus the in use weather resistant cover for 8.00 minimum and has no financial gain to the seller of a home..so the real loser financially is the seller. the only benefit is a coerce sense of comfort and safety. You can not legislate stupidity out of our society. So what is the gain by making codes that have no beneficial gain to the consumer. a in use weather resistant cover with a GFCI is safe so who gains in over regulation other then the manufacturer? No one and this is another reason our economy is in the state it is in.. it is not legal action that does not exist because of no GFCI TR receptacle installed. So when are we going to stand up for what is right after we have all gone bankrupt, because the economy can not afford over regulation..

I doubt that the intent of code changes is to provide a financial benefit to the property owner. In fact I'm sure that has zero to do with it.

 

[satcom]

The codes and inforcement are not designed to increase the assets of your property, the insurance underwriters and the insurance industry want to assure a standard is in place to reduce risk, so many years ago, got together and designed codes and standards, that we know now as the building and safety codes, also inspections and permit fees are not designed to raise money of the city, the fees for permits and inspections, only offset some of the cost to operate an inspection office, even the cost of an improvement attached to a permit process, is a wash in a few years, old thinking was they would raise your taxes and you would pay a large improvement tax, that went out with cities re adjusting the bases every few years and leveling the tax to make it a wash, so any venting on the subject is just a stress factor no one needs.

 

[cschmid]

I trust that you are venting some frustration & not chastising me for the codes we have to abide by.

You are very correct because you and I are not the problems but we are caught in the middle.

 

[cschmid]

I doubt that the intent of code changes is to provide a financial benefit to the property owner. In fact I'm sure that has zero to do with it.

You are correct but we as a society place the emphasis on death so one death and oh my we must do something about it. Death is destiny and it is the easy way out living with a permanent disability from neglect is the real crime..

 

[cschmid]

The codes and inforcement are not designed to increase the assets of your property, the insurance underwriters and the insurance industry want to assure a standard is in place to reduce risk, so many years ago, got together and designed codes and standards, that we know now as the building and safety codes, also inspections and permit fees are not designed to raise money of the city, the fees for permits and inspections, only offset some of the cost to operate an inspection office, even the cost of an improvement attached to a permit process, is a wash in a few years, old thinking was they would raise your taxes and you would pay a large improvement tax, that went out with cities re adjusting the bases every few years and leveling the tax to make it a wash, so any venting on the subject is just a stress factor no one needs.

Oh my a wondeful area of discussion. The insurance company wants to reduce risk what a nice philosphy if it were just that simple and truth. The real motive is that paying a claim of any sort is cutting into the profits of the share holders. So they will push it as a safety matter and get a law inacted so they do not have that risk area. So now they now have a area that will save them from paying a potential claim and stablize the shareholders profit. Yet they will continue to raise the cost of insurance which inturn increases the shareholders profit. At the cost of the consumer over and over again. My point in all of this is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and as middle men we need to start standing for right and wrong. I know for a fact you can not engineer stupidity out; all you do is make a new sort of stupid. So we need to take alook at the system alittle and maybe slow it down because we are all going to suffer from it.

Added:
This might be a rant but I tell you the days of good profit are gone and unless we can get our local economies stablized we are going to watch further suffering. We as a nation can not compete in the industrial market as third world countries have proven to use. so unless we get our acts together and stand up for our selves we are going to experience more unemployment and bigger hardships.

The fees did not start off as a money maker they are now. In Mn a portion of the construction fees are now required to be given to the general fund. So they are making profit off of the fees make no false assumptions..

 

[iwire]

Lets get back on track, the thread is about where TRs are required not why.

If someone feels TRs should not be required they should take it up with the NFPA.

 

[cschmid]

Bob I appologize I am way of track..Thank You

The worst part is it is a good requirement but maybe a little overboard now..

 

[iwire]

No problem.

If anyone is interested here are the new TR requirements that we are likely to see for 2011. This is from the 2011 NEC draft and may differ from the published 2011.

406.12 Tamper-Resistant Receptacles for Dwelling Units. In all areas specified in 210.52, all nonlocking type 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper-resistant receptacles. [ROP 18-62, 18-68]

Exception No. 1: Receptacles located more than 1.7 m (51⁄2 ft) above the floor. [ROP 18-71]

Exception No. 2: Receptacles that are part of a luminaire or appliance. [ROP 18-71]

Exception No. 3: A single receptacle or a duplex receptacle for two appliances located within dedicated space for each appliance that in normal use is not easily moved from one place to another and that is cord-and-plug connected in accordance with 400.7(A)(6), (A)(7), or (A)(8). [ROP 18-71]

Exception No. 4: Nongrounding receptacles used for replacements as permitted in 406.4(D)(2)(a). [ROP 18-82]


406.13 Tamper-Resistant Receptacles in Guest Rooms and Guest Suites. All nonlocking type, 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper- resistant receptacles. [ROP 18-87]


406.14 Tamper-Resistant Receptacles Child Care Facilities. In all child care facilities, all nonlocking type, 125- volt, 15- and 20- ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper resistant receptacles. [ROP 18-90]

 

[al hildenbrand]

406.11 Tamper-Resistant Receptacles in Dwelling Units.

In all areas specified in 210.52, all 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper-resistant receptacles.

210.52 Dwelling Unit Receptacle Outlets.

. . . The receptacles required by this section shall be in addition to any receptacle that is:
(1) Part of a luminaire or appliance, or
(2) Controlled by a wall switch in accordance with 210.70(A)(1), Exception No. 1, or
(3) Located within cabinets or cupboards, or
(4) Located more than 1.7 m (51/2 ft) above the floor.

As I read this, all area above 5.5 feet above the floor is not included in the areas specified, the interior of cabinets or cupboards is not included in the areas specified, etc.

 

[al hildenbrand]

. . . here are the new TR requirements that we are likely to see for 2011. This is from the 2011 NEC draft and may differ from the published 2011.

Ahh.

That does go to clarifying the link to the first passage of 210.52, that is, 2008 NEC 210.52 (1), (2), (3) & (4).

Now, as Iwire notes, if the Draft doesn't get mutated between now and going to the printer.

 

[iwire]

As I read this, all area above 5.5 feet above the floor is not included in the areas specified, the interior of cabinets or cupboards is not included in the areas specified, etc.

IMO you are likely right about the wording but is not the intent. IMPO the intent was for it apply to all receptacles in the 'rooms' not just the specific area.

Notice the CMP felt the need to specifically exclude the receptacles about 5 1/2 off the floor.

 

[brother]

IMO you are likely right about the wording but is not the intent. IMPO the intent was for it apply to all receptacles in the 'rooms' not just the specific area.

Notice the CMP felt the need to specifically exclude the receptacles about 5 1/2 off the floor.

I think with them wanting to make exceptions now it's going to create an enforcement issue for the inspectors. I'm told they also want to exclude receptalces that are 'dedicated' for an appliance. I see people move stuff around all the time. One day its 'dedicated' next day it's not. I will say this again, Even though I did not agree and still don't agree with the t.r. requirement, I think they should just leave it alone for ease of enforcement now.

Either require them everywhere in the dwelling or do not require them at all.

 

[zappy]

America, the land of the free?

America, the land of the free?

Another requirement that was implemented that has no cost improvement to a property they are 21.00 plus the in use weather resistant cover for 8.00 minimum and has no financial gain to the seller of a home..so the real loser financially is the seller. the only benefit is a coerce sense of comfort and safety. You can not legislate stupidity out of our society. So what is the gain by making codes that have no beneficial gain to the consumer. a in use weather resistant cover with a GFCI is safe so who gains in over regulation other then the manufacturer? No one and this is another reason our economy is in the state it is in.. it is not legal action that does not exist because of no GFCI TR receptacle installed. So when are we going to stand up for what is right after we have all gone bankrupt, because the economy can not afford over regulation..

???????????????