• 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

tamper-resistant receptacles

Mr. Inspector

Mr. Inspector

SAWHORSE
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
4,117
Location
Poconos/eastern PA
I noticed that tamper-resistant receptacles are not required everywhere. E4002.14 requires tamper-resistant receptacles in areas specified in Section E3901.1

So if they are not required everywhere I am trying to figure out where they are not required.

E3901.1 General. Outlets for receptacles.....shall be provided in accordance with E3901.2 to E3901.11

So these receptacles are specified so they must be tamper-resistant, but any extra receptacles (extra wall, counter, outside, etc.) that are not required do not need to be tamper-resistant?

Also section E3901.1 specifies receptacles that are

1. Part of a luminaire or appliance

2. Located within cabinets or cupboards

3. controlled by a wall switch in accordance with section E3903.2 exception 1; or

4. Located over 5.5 feet above floor

So since 1 to 4 is specified they need to be tamper-resistant?
 
There are no "extra" receptacles, if they are installed in any of those locations specified in E3901, how many doesn't matter, they must be tamper-resistant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A receptacle is not required for wall space in a bathroom besides the sink one. If they put one in there is no requirement for it to be tamper-resistant since it is not specifed in section E3901.1, right? If the code wanted all receptacles tamper resistant it would have said so.
 
If you want to split hairs, fine. Obviously the requirement is for safety, and the intent is that general use receptacle outlets are protected. Little Johnny will have no idea that the one "extra" receptacle in the bathroom isn't tamper-resistant, when he jams the bobby pin in it. The code pretty much nails down all the locations, but sure, you can find some that aren't specified. Using your logic, any receptacle outlet installed in excess of code minimums doesn't have to be be tamper-resistant? Really? I'd call it, let you argue it with my BOA.
 
Rick18071 said:
A receptacle is not required for wall space in a bathroom besides the sink one. If they put one in there is no requirement for it to be tamper-resistant since it is not specifed in section E3901.1, right? If the code wanted all receptacles tamper resistant it would have said so.
Click to expand...
E4002.13 states is AREAS specified in Section E3901.1, 125-volt, 15 and 20 amp receptacles shall be listed tamper-resistant.

That section is not talking about the required receptacles but the areas specified in E3901.1.

So E3901.1 requires receptacle outlets to be installed in accordance with Sections E3901.2 though E3901.11.

E3901.6 discusses the requirement for receptacles in Bathrooms, so bathrooms are an AREA that is specified in E3901.1.

Chris
 
The Code being a minimum requirement does not exempt any additional receptacles added as to not meet the intent of the code.As for the bathroom it reads"At least one" so as to say there could be more added that would have to meet E3901.6.
 
Rick18071 said:
A receptacle is not required for wall space in a bathroom besides the sink one. If they put one in there is no requirement for it to be tamper-resistant since it is not specifed in section E3901.1, right? If the code wanted all receptacles tamper resistant it would have said so.
Click to expand...
You are incorrect Sir. All receptacles OTHER THAN THOSE that are 1-4 listed. It is poorly worded. If they qualify under 1-4 then they do not have to be tamper resistant. Again, there is different wording in the NEC that was lost in translation.
 
I just wanted to know which ones don't have to be tamper-restantant since it does not say allreceptacles. I hope they change the wording in the next code to make sense.
 
Rick18071 said:
I just wanted to know which ones don't have to be tamper-restantant since it does not say allreceptacles. I hope they change the wording in the next code to make sense.
Click to expand...
Here is the wording in the 2011 NEC with the new exceptions.

406.12 Tamper-Resistant Receptacles in 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.

Exception: Receptacles in the following locations shall

not be required to be tamper-resistant:

(1) Receptacles located more than 1.7 m (51⁄2 ft) above the

floor.

(2) Receptacles that are part of a luminaire or appliance.

(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).

(4) Nongrounding receptacles used for replacements as

permitted in 406.4(D)(2)(a).
Click to expand...
Chris
 
Although the intent is to be exactly the same, this is another issue with poorly RE-worded text in the IRC. Since I know the NEC pretty well, it helps me to understand some of the poorly worded sections of the IRC.

Why not just eliminate the electrical section of the IRC?
 
jar546 said:
Although the intent is to be exactly the same, this is another issue with poorly RE-worded text in the IRC. Since I know the NEC pretty well, it helps me to understand some of the poorly worded sections of the IRC.Why not just eliminate the electrical section of the IRC?
Click to expand...
I agree as well. My experience has always been with the NEC. As an electrician I was taught the NEC and have always used the NEC.

There are sections of the IRC that are not in the NEC.

For example IRC Section E3404.3 while trying to mirror 110.3(B) inadvertently requires all electrical material, components, devices, fixtures and equipment to be listed. There is no NEC requirement that all electrical equipment be listed. For example the NEC does not require securing and supporting means for most wiring methods to be listed.

I can use an unlisted staple to secure NM cable. The NEC only requires the supporting means to be approved not listed.

I am all for removing the electrical portions of the IRC.

Chris
 
Why not just eliminate the electrical section of the IRC?
Click to expand...
One reason is that The Cow is in the publishing business and it would cut in to their revenue stream.The IRC has to ' appear ' to be a comprehensive code book. Why bother with actual wording & applications, ...a derivative will sell just as well!

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In our area, DFW metroplex, we have a regional committee that goes over all of the codes and recommends amendments. One of the amendments is to delete the entire section on electrical in the IRC and refer to the NEC.
 
Rick18071 said:
Here in PA to be a certified residental inspector you don't need to know the NEC only the IRC.
Click to expand...
Which has been my complaint for years. Now the single family residence installs a Standby Generator or PV system. Now how does that Residential Electrical Certification help you? Maybe they install a residential elevator? Need to know NEC 430 for that. Now what? In my opinion, electrical should be out of the NEC for residential or commercial.
 
jar546 said:
Which has been my complaint for years. Now the single family residence installs a Standby Generator or PV system. Now how does that Residential Electrical Certification help you? Maybe they install a residential elevator? Need to know NEC 430 for that. Now what? In my opinion, electrical should be out of the NEC for residential or commercial.
Click to expand...
Agreed, the IRC electrical section does not include anything in regards to communications systems either.

The IRC electrical section is so watered down that there are a huge chuck of homes that fall outside what that section contains.

For example I had a home the other day that had an electric drinking fountain installed, if I am on the IRC does the drinking fountain require GFCI protection? The 2008 NEC requires it to be but that requirement is not in the IRC.

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top