A side note on the outlet covers. I was/am under the impression that most, if not all of these type covers had lost the UL blessing a few years back, something which lead to the TR receptacles.
What I heard as a reason was the slot covers were preventing the full engagement of the cord cap into the receptacles. I have not seen any documentation, this was a discussion item at an association meeting.
As best I know, the varions "old style" tamper / child resistant covers are still perfectly fine, and UL continues to list them- as ordinary covers. Let's not confuse the recall of one product with any form of 'lost listing' rumor.
The advent of the new 'tamper resistant' standards did not do anything to ban previous versions; it's just clear from the NEC text that such covers and inserts will not meet the NEC requirements for 'tamper resistant.'
So, where might one be able to "legally" use such covers and inserts? Simply put: in existing installations, or to fulfill requirements from some source other than the NEC.
An example that comes to mind is for meeting the county requirements for home-based child-care businesses.
Here's a little UL humor: UL is very generous in distributing all manner of "swag." That is, things like pens, notebooks, flashlights, etc., with the UL logo on them. Some years ago, they were distributing very nice inserts (plastic things to stick in receptacles so that kiddies couldn't poke a paperclip in) with the UL logo. Much to the chagrin of UL, it turned out that the inserts were NOT made of any material that UL had evaluated for such a purpose. Imagine: UL was actually distributing 'counterfeit' products itself! OOPS.
That UL statement is technically correct. It is also incomplete enough to be misleading, even dishonest. There are no, and never have been, UL-listed "tamper resistant" cover plates, as defined by the NEC, and marked with the "TR."
However, there are a variety of devices, cover plates, and inserts that were previously used - long before the NEC addressed the topic - to protect little kids from themselves. These items are still made, still listed - but not listed under that particular category. If you visit any 'box' store and examing the products, you will see that they do not have that "TR" marking.
Prior to the recent code change, there was no UL standard that addressed 'tamper resistance' for electrical devices or their covers. Keep in mind that any standard is no more than its' own particular requirements, and cannot address features beyond the scope of the standard.
The term TR is and was used to define straight blade receptacles, 120 volt, 15 & 20 amp. Prior to the mandate to require TR in resi, they were required in 517 and some child care facilities, either by design or some local 'code'. TR devices were 'spec grade' and pricey.
The types of covers within this thread may be better referred to as 'child resistant' or hopefully not offending anyone, 'idiot resistant'.
As I was trying to allude above, the covers & inserts are not electrician items, but ems a homeowner would buy & install.
The covers, as alluded to in the UL link had an issue with cord caps properly seating & possible fire situations as a worse case scenario.
HotLine, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree regarding the 'history' of TR devices.
Prior to the NEC requirement, so-called 'safety' devices were not marked "TR,' and there were no industry specs regarding just what such a thing was.
Child care regulators had their own ideas, and enforced their own rules. Often they wanted to see either the twist-type faces (which are made in both device and cover plate versions) or plastic caps inserted into every accessible receptacle. Yet, these gizmos were strictly marketing options- there was no standard or certification relied upon.
The same situation, oddly enough, applies to the various claims regarding 'commercial grade' and 'specification grade' devices; the words are legally meaningless, and completely unenforceable.
Let these examples remind us all of just how well the market can work- IF we let it!